ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,947
- Likes
- 23,599
YesSo the cousin shared needles with a drooling plumber?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
YesSo the cousin shared needles with a drooling plumber?
Look, this chick actually had the power to make arrests. She attended police academy classes in Tewksbury (NERPI). Certified special police officer. Got the credentials. Actually made bona-fide arrests and testified as arrestingly Officer for shoplifting arrests. What problem do you do not understand? So...her appointment as a Special Police Officer is fiction in MA? Are you that ignorant?You really have no idea of the ins and outs of Law Enforcement in Massachusetts
DUDE
How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.You really have no idea of the ins and outs of Law Enforcement in Massachusetts
DUDE
How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.
Minimum wage civilian unarmed mall cop? No training? Yes, that we definitely agree on. No argument there. Makes perfect sense. Protect the almighty bottom line. Doesn't surprise me one bit. WWIW, elevator inspectors in Illinois are special state police investigators. They are state employees. No bottom line to ptotect, as opposed to the privatel sector. If you can figure out why, please let me know!I knew a dude who banged some gutterslut who had a cousin who shared needles with a plumber who was detained by a mall security guard for drooling on himself inna store, so I know things about cops, dude.
You think this place has elevators?... elevator inspectors in Illinois are special state police investigators. They are state employees. No bottom line to ptotect, as opposed to the privatel sector. If you can figure out why, please let me know!
So..contact Longwood or Boston PD. Get an education about the reality of Special Police Officers. Then get back to me. I am not "all over the map". Privately appointed police officers are a reality here. Actually. In most statesI would argue with you but you are all over map and can't seem to make a point.
The housing projects are special police under Boston PD Rule 400. The revolvers are not "per legal requirement" but "per regulations established by the Boston PD as part of the conditions under which they serve as special police officers". The Boston PD could have included standard issue Boston PD sidearms in the regulations, but this maintains the caste system, and provides a very visible indication they are the low pay (very low) contractors assisting the regular officers. There is a load of other stuff in the regs, like the limitations on when/where these specials are considered police, and that they are always to be subservient to any regular Boston police officer.How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.
The young man who signed off on my first mortgage had to hold a "justice of the peace" certificate, since he was also a notary public. On paper, this guy had a lot of power under IL law. He could sign off on your mortgage or car loan, marry you, issue a search warrant for your property or a warrant for your arrest, and direct the sheriff or IL State Police to seize, lien, levy, and execute upon property. Would he actually do it? Not likely. But he did have the authority to do so if he was so inclined!The housing projects are special police under Boston PD Rule 400. The revolvers are not "per legal requirement" but "per regulations established by the Boston PD as part of the conditions under which they serve as special police officers". The Boston PD could have included standard issue Boston PD sidearms in the regulations, but this maintains the caste system, and provides a very visible indication they are the low pay (very low) contractors assisting the regular officers. There is a load of other stuff in the regs, like the limitations on when/where these specials are considered police, and that they are always to be subservient to any regular Boston police officer.
Read Section 5 that limits police powers to only the location specified on the special officer license.
All of this means squat to persons granted "special officer" status under other situations - many have much more limited authority.
My wife recently met a woman at a church event. By coincidence, they both worked for Sears, albeit in different states. This woman worked loss prevention at the now-defunct Sears store in the Burlington Mall. She graduated from a part-time police academy (paid for by Sears) and was sworn as a Special Police Officer by the town of Burlington.Her colleagues in loss prevention had the same status. She apprehended shoplifters, mostly teenage girls and testified against them in court. Not sure how much jurisdiction she had outside of the store. Mall management had contracted unarmed security guards to patrol the interior concourses and outside parking lots.
The woman lied to you. Sears absolutely did not pay for her to go to an academy.
Out of curiosity how old was this woman?
I never met her. She was a career Sears employee, now retired. Probably the one who shut the lights off when they closed the place. At one time, it was a good company to work for. My wife spent 5 years at a Sears in Clayton, MO. She never got involved in loss prevention, though. Sears was very tough on shoplifters, apprehending and prosecuting them as a matter of policy.
I'm pretty sure they only had one long term full time female in security. She ended up being part time near the end I believe prior to retirement.I’m very familiar with how Sears Loss Prevention works. I’m also pretty sure I know who your speaking of.
While it’s entirely plausible that she went through and academy, Sears did not pay for it. Also that stopped being a thing about 20+ years ago.
Mine is less fluffy. He's black and white. We got him used, his original name was "Skunk," for obvious reasons.
I am very interested in learning where you consider me to be in error so I can try to figure out which one of us is wrong.
Are you stating that my claim they have full police powers is inaccurate, or are you saying they can do things like use an "internally issued warrant issued by the school" (i.e., letter from a dean authorizing a search). Or do you mean to imply that not stopping for a campus sworn LEO will not result in "Failure to stop for a police officer" charge? (remember, there is no crime "failure to stop for a private security guard"). Or, perhaps do you mean that these sworn police can be arrested for carrying a gun onto the property of a school other than the one they work at? Details and specifics please.
Or, are you saying they would be held accountable, rather than being told "glad you made it home safe" if they shot Pommeranian Phydeaux?
Very interested in details/corrections.
Did not intend for the reply to be so terse/rude omitted some wording which should have been included. A campus security official is authorized in MA by the Commander of the State Police as a SSPO-special state police officer and in the Commonwealth, as in most all other States-the powers of arrest/enforcement are strictly limited to the campus and property owned by the institution. I don't believe that enough emphasis is placed on the restrictions of power confusing/perhaps misleading to state that campus security has the same authority, or rather it is confusing/misleading to -me- additionally I believe it is accurate to state that presenting the job of campus security in the manner cited places campus security on the same level of importance , for lack of a better word, as state or municipal or local law enforcement agencies and to me this is wrong. To be clear; the position of a campus security officer can be dangerous, the job of campus security officer is necessary and is needed as it takes demands off the public agencies assets but also to be clear the noble job of campus security officer is exactly that, the term Police Officer traditionally has and must continue to refer to sworn officials of public agencies. and no I don't have as much as issue with the term Campus Police Officer. On to the railroad , quite different in my opinion because in the States I was in these guys would ALWAYS, if able, provide backup on the road until another local/state or county unit arrived, then they would quietly leave with the same class they arrived with ; so I do have a bias here. The rail commission generally does come from the commander of the state police in all the States I have knowledge of and many of the jurisdictions limit the police powers to property owned/maintained or leased by the rail company. Amtrak is the only exception I am aware of that many of the larger cities will include language in the commission which would include -in/upon, in the immediate and adjacent vicinity of the property and station blah, blah and I am of the opinion that this is as it should be. Keep in mind that rail service is an attractive target for terrorism and US Code does acknowledge and provide for the protection of rail infrastructure as necessary to the national interests of our great Nation. I remain unclear as to the exact status of Amtrak officers-all the maint trucks I see have had US Govt plates but the vast majority of the cruisers have had local registrations. I know that they have always wanted to be absorbed in the Federal system and if this has not happened I think it really should, the guys I have met have all been great, sharp/professional and many attended a FLETC-usually Glynco.
Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.I’m very familiar with how Sears Loss Prevention works. I’m also pretty sure I know who your speaking of.
While it’s entirely plausible that she went through and academy, Sears did not pay for it. Also that stopped being a thing about 20+ years ago.
Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
A lawsuit is almost a certainty. The testimony of a fully trained and sworn "special police officer" would, all else being equal, carry more credibility in a court of law than that of a untrained security guard. In Illinois, such special police appointments were sought by companies which provided armed security. The primary reason was to circumvent a patchwork of bans on the private possession of handguns. This was a real problem in Chicago and many of its northern suburbs. Only police officers and active military were allowed to possess handguns. With military appointments being unrealistic and impractical, the default solution was special police and special deputy sheriff appointments. With this LE status, an armed private security guard could carry out his or her duties without fear of going to jail for illegal possession of a handgun. Of course, all of that changed with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.
Wait, somehow there's a spoof going on with this thread!! Sounds like this new guy is trolling!!
And by Sears policy, loss prevention is not allowed to apprehend anyone. Observe and report. They were allowed to "ask" the suspected shoplifter to stay while they call the police, but that is all. Same as almost any security, the liability of having anyone apprehend or detain anyone is huge. Whether they have a special police designation or not.Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
A lawsuit is almost a certainty. The testimony of a fully trained and sworn "special police officer" would, all else being equal, carry more credibility in a court of law than that of a untrained security guard. In Illinois, such special police appointments were sought by companies which provided armed security. The primary reason was to circumvent a patchwork of bans on the private possession of handguns. This was a real problem in Chicago and many of its northern suburbs. Only police officers and active military were allowed to possess handguns. With military appointments being unrealistic and impractical, the default solution was special police and special deputy sheriff appointments. With this LE status, an armed private security guard could carry out his or her duties without fear of going to jail for illegal possession of a handgun. Of course, all of that changed with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.
And by Sears policy, loss prevention is not allowed to apprehend anyone. Observe and report. They were allowed to "ask" the suspected shoplifter to stay while they call the police, but that is all. Same as almost any security, the liability of having anyone apprehend or detain anyone is huge. Whether they have a special police designation or not.
I also wonder if there is a difference of special designation depending on if the town is a civil service town or not. Burlington is not, their regular police do not have to take civil service exams.