TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: It's self explanatory for those not looking to argue or debate.

Well I assume most people on here are at least looking for discussion but but somehow the "IF you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" grade school tactics seems a bit unnecessary. If you don't want to discuss it then why bring it up and if you won't be forthcoming on your stance it's a bit hard to have an open discussion.

mojo84 wrote:Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

EEllis wrote:

Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Why?

tacticool wrote:

jmra wrote:

Hola Gato wrote: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.

100%

Ethically it's in the same category as slipping the building inspector a few bucks to fast lane your paperwork or paying a judge on the side to use his office to your benefit.

Since one is illegal and the other is not there seems to be a big difference ethically speaking

mojo84 wrote: 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.

Well they sometime do that to a point but it also adds a level of bureaucracy and cost to everything and could serve to turn a police dept in to little more than a for profit company if it goes to far.

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.

That kind of is my point as to my statement that you don't really hire cops as security. You pay them to be cops where you want them to. They still have limitations to their authority that regular security don't. They can't enforce policies just law for instance. Cops can't, at least in theory, decide you are trespassing. You need to be asked to leave by someone else and then cops can step in.

nightmare69 wrote: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.

I wasn't questioning your qualifications or even ability. I think of it, as I think I said before, as paying police to "police" at a specific place rather than the cops being "security". In a case such as your you would have a person who has no police powers off duty so how can they "police" off duty? Then there is the fact that you work for a private institution so under who's supervision and guidelines are you working? HPD requires officers to get permits to work off duty and regulates where and how they do their jobs even off duty. How could a private agency supervise their officers working off duty? Sure it sucks for you but I can understand why it's like it is. I knew of a Rice U cop who worked uniform security as a second job just for the reason you brought up. His issue was that due to physical issues he couldn't get on with a large public Dept. It is just unfortunate that you didn't know all this going in.

nightmare69 wrote:

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.

While it's unfortunate that you are having such a hard time right now I can't say I disagree with the laws. You basically are working for a private enterprise and still have the privilege of having police powers. This is hardly universal. You then want to go and work as police off duty for extra money. But you are only police when you are working at the private university so.....yeah I don't know about that. Basically you think you should be the same as all peace officers but you took a job where you are only a peace officer, sort of, when you are working. You may not abuse them but you shouldn't have police powers outside your job.

That being said it's hard to get started in a new field sometimes. I'm sure you are still looking and you will get there if it's what you're meant to do. You might want to think about reserve work because that often leads to full time and gives you that extra needed experience. Constable Deputies can make extra money sometimes by serving warrants and working the JP courts depending on the dept.

victory wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

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.

What happened to Article 14.01, Code of Criminal Procedure?

This would be the reason for the class. Security have the same arrest powers of any citizen. Basically breaches of the public peace and felonies with in view. What they don't have, and citizens either, is the power to detain. Mind you they are idiots if they tell a cop they arrested someone but if they prevent someone from leaving with either force or threat, including intimidation, then they have legally arrested them or committed a crime by "detaining" them. Now there are some exceptions and grey areas but a security officer should never use the word detain.

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".

It wouldn't be a penal code violation but a city ordinance or code and if you don't think they could come up with something , well there is really nothing to discuss. I know it happened with a store here in Houston. They were told they could hire traffic control or pay for a stop light. They hired cops for years and when the city did some street work they eventually put in a light. I'm sure it wasn't direct "hire cops" but rather a list of choices and some comments on possible consequences if they didn't.

talltex wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It's a shame some just look for opportunities to take unnecessary and uncalled for potshots at others. Having cops as part of the church security team is beneficial to all involved including the passing public when the cops are working traffic which makes for safer ingress and egress.

I'll just have to disagree with you on this issue. I live in a small rural town, so traffic is not an issue here at all. But I've done business in the DFW and Austin metro areas for many years, and it's an everyday occurrence there for many corporate employers who are willing to pay the small hourly cost to have an off duty LEO on hand, because it's a perk for their employees to be able to exit the parking lots quickly without hassle. I'll grant you that it may enhance safety to some degree, but I honestly don't think, that's the primary motive.

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.

mojo84 wrote: I also think it crazy a commissioned officer "qualified" to work as a security guard. Whatever perceived training deficiencies could easily be addressed without requiring a cop to get a security guard license.

Basically it isn't only training but the fact that they are only "police" when they are on duty. When you hire off duty cops you can think about it as paying for them to be cops that happen to be at the location you want. Reserve officers don't have police powers when they are not on the clock and then there are the liability issues, insurance, etc. And if you think most cops really know the laws for working security you are sadly mistaken. Of course most security don't either but at least in theory they are supervised and told by their employer what they can and can't do.