TexasCHLforum.com

Nice ninja edit guys. Its time for this thread to be closed.

mojo84 wrote: Should I in the future decide it bothers me enough, I'll take it up with the appropriate authorities. Until then, I'll feel free to express my thoughts and opinions on the subject as I wish.

Even if you did file a complaint it won't change anything. The people want police presence working security throughout their daily lives and that is something you will either have to get used too or tolerate.

carlson1 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them.

Help me understand this statement. If they are commissioned Peace Officers their authority travels with them - I thought.

We were told in the academy that you have full police authority within the county you are commissioned in regardless if you work for a city, county, ISD, etc, agency. Outside your county you can only arrest for a felony.

(d) A peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer's presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, a breach of the peace, or an offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code. A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall, as soon as practicable after making the arrest, notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06 of this code.

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

Maybe the companies, churches etc should contract with the police department or sheriff's office for extra service and pay the contract fee to the agency for the extra service. Then the agency can pay the officer. I don't have much of a problem when they wear their official uniforms as I do them using agency vehicles and resources for personal gain.

What the people want the people get and they want uniformed officers. My bank for example hire deputy's from another county to work security and they wear their department issue uniform. These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them. What you are wanting makes sense but it's a pipe dream. If the officers department allows them to use their patrol car and wear their uniform then I don't blame them for taking advantage. It all boils down to it makes the public feel safe seeing a patrol car outside a bank and an uniformed officer standing inside.

If you see such going on and don't like it you can always call the department and file a complaint. You can also refuse to do business with a company who employees uniformed off duty officers.

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

Even though I work for a private university I still went through the same academy and hold the same lisence through TCOLE. Plus I still have my commission with a local sheriff dept.

DocV wrote:
There is probably a law against your working there too.

Would becoming an auxiliary member of a local agency be possible or useful?

I've thought about going to my local constable and asking him to hold my commision. The problem with that is I doubt anyone will hold my commision just so I can work off duty jobs. You would think it would be simple to make some extra money in this state but that's not the case. The laws and regulations IMO serve no purpose but to keep man from making a living. All I'm trying to do is work but the bureaucracy in Austin is preventing such. Sorry for the rant, I'm going to find a part time job doing maintenance or something to keep my head above water.

Another bombshell. Thanks to the Education Code 51.212 I cannot work off duty jobs cause I don't have full police athority outside the private university's property. This law should be repealed. I never would have thought trying to earn extra money would be so complicated. I hear McDonalds is hiring, I'll go get a application.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:I think is some cases it's almost a necessity. Without some traffic control not only can it take forever to get in and out of a parking lot but the length of time it takes encourages behavior that drastically increases the risk of collisions. In some places businesses are told to hire cops or face fines because since it's their traffic is the problem they should pay, not the city.

I'd like to see an actual example of a business being told to hire a cop or face fines...and under what statute in the penal code a business could be charged with an offense for "Failure to Hire Cops".

My previous employee was a large public school who built a new football stadium off a busy loop. Traffic would back up for miles causing accidents and preventing emergency vehicles from responding. I don't know the details but the city along with the local police department had a meeting with the school and told them to do whatever it takes to control their football traffic. They ended up hiring more officers and civilians for traffic control.

So you don't have evidence. I'd love to see a city try to sue a public school. Not sure if thats even possible legally.

I wasent in on the meeting nor do I have a podcast of it. Just telling you what I know.


I had a meeting with my chief and I'm all clear to work off duty jobs.

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:I think is some cases it's almost a necessity. Without some traffic control not only can it take forever to get in and out of a parking lot but the length of time it takes encourages behavior that drastically increases the risk of collisions. In some places businesses are told to hire cops or face fines because since it's their traffic is the problem they should pay, not the city.

I'd like to see an actual example of a business being told to hire a cop or face fines...and under what statute in the penal code a business could be charged with an offense for "Failure to Hire Cops".

My previous employee was a large public school who built a new football stadium off a busy loop. Traffic would back up for miles causing accidents and preventing emergency vehicles from responding. I don't know the details but the city along with the local police department had a meeting with the school and told them to do whatever it takes to control their football traffic. They ended up hiring more officers and civilians for traffic control.

mojo84 wrote:I agree. Just making the point through a sarcastic question. It's not everywhere a part time job doing less and requiring less skill/training pays more than someone's primary job.

Hate the game not the player. A lot of these jobs came available especially with schools after Sandy Hook shooting. All the schools in my area either armed staff or the ones who could afford it brought in police. Some made improvements to the front entrances to better control visitors.

victory wrote:If I could double my pay by taking a one week class, I would jump at the opportunity. I woudn't waste a second complaining on the internet that it was unfair, redundant or superfluous. At least not until after I doubled my pay.

If I did take the class I would be working under a armed security license and not my peace officers license. I would not be able to arrest but only detain and call police. The public wants police officers over security guards as they feel safer with police presence. I would have trouble finding work as a security guard.

SQLGeek wrote:Sounds like your ax to grind is with your chief who lied to you out of ignorance or maliciousness. Sorry to hear that.

No he didn't lie and he had no idea of this law. He is a good man and Ill put my faith that we can find a solution.

gigag04 wrote: Please loose the attitude. You haven't been in long enough to gripe and getting snippy with people on the internet because you're not happy with the compensation for the career that you chose looks bad. There are enough police apologists out there.

Just cause Im a rookie does not mean I don't have the right to vent and voice my opinion. Im sorry if you think it looks bad but Im getting some good advise. This is a huge issue for me and the outcome will determine whether I stay with this department or seek other employment to get the hours I need to survive.

jmra wrote: I think other LEO have done a great job of answering this but I'll stick my two cents in. Welcome to the real world. Many people are in the same boat with one exception, they don't have the benefit of laws generated in order to create an artificial market where they can make $35/hr cash standing around doing nothing. How many of those extra duty jobs do you think there would be if churches weren't prohibited from using CHLs on safety teams? Or if other charitable organizations were allowed to do the same?
You want to talk about being away from your family? I worked a job where I didn't know what country I would be in from one week to the next in order to provide for my family.
Think before I post? Great advice. Maybe you should have taken it before you started this whining thread.

What law says that you have to pay $35/hr for off duty LEOs? People will pay good money to feel safe, people like seeing a patrol car outside a business and a uniformed LEO at the entrance. Its a great deterrent for crime vs a CHL holder or security guard.

gljjt wrote:Google "average police officer salary in texas". An officer making $14.30 an hour after 6 years might want to look for another department. That is low starting salary level in low paying department.

Some departments are poor and don't have the money to compete with the bigger departments. The Sheriff only make 36k a year, the pay was the main reason I found another job.

jmra wrote: They aren't worth $35/hr. That's the point - it's an artificially created market by lobbyist. In a free market it would be more like $15/hr paid by payroll check. I also take issue with the whole "cash payment". Everyone in the real world would have to make $55 to $60/hr to walk away with $35/hr in our pocket.
Of course the money to pay those off duty officers those absurd hourly amounts ultimately comes out of the pockets of the average guy whose just trying to put food on the table.
It is time to change some laws - changes that would allow the free market to function properly.

If you feel that way then don't do business with anyplace who employess off duty LEOs. Aware me on how its not a free market and who created and set the price?

I have friends who work in the DFW area and a few places there pay $45hr plus for uniformed LEOs. I can also get free or reduced rent at an apartment complex to be their courtesy officer and answer calls within the complex. One of the perks of being a licensed peace officer. If I could make it through the police academy anyone could.

jmra wrote: Yep. I'll remember that the next time I hear about police officers being underpaid.

You think we like working all the time to support our familes. You believe we enjoy missing out on kids growing up to make sure we have money for food? We do it cause we have too to make a living.

I know full time deputy's at my county that cannot afford insurance for their wife or kids. Their kids are on Medicaid cause it would cost an extra 1,300 per month to add their family on the insurance. I know for a fact that the Sergeant makes only 14.30 a hour and he had been there 6yrs. So guess how much the full time deputy's make. You understand why off duty jobs are critical for cops now? Next time think before posting.