babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » in cahoots   » Rent-a-cops lose tasers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rent-a-cops lose tasers
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Manitoba justice officials have intervened to cool down a private security outfit that has been enforcing laws outside its jurisdiction. Prairie Bylaw Enforcement Services employees have been stripped of their taser guns and told to back off.

National Union of Public and General Employees


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, this story really pisses me off. I mean, what the hell is this?

quote:
Instead of confining themselves to areas they are competent to deal with, the overzealous rent-a-cops, some equipped with high-voltage taser guns, batons and radar, have been busting citizens for infractions normally policed by the RCMP.

Manitoba justice officials have been forced to intervene, taking taser guns away from the officers and ordering them to leave highways under provincial jurisdiction alone.


Isn't it a crime to impersonate a police officer? They shouldn't just have their tasers taken away from them - they should damn well have criminal charges laid against them.

What the hell is this "hiring police"? For ANYTHING? I don't care if it's by-law enforcement or anything else - there should be no privately-owned cops. All police and peace officers should be public servants, paid publically, and distributed equally.

If these idiot employers want to have cops enforce bylaws, then they should damn well have to call the police like everyone else instead of being able to buy additional police services. If a noise bylaw infraction is too small-potatoes for the real police to take care of, then sorry, you don't get extra protection because you can pay for it.

No one should be able to hire police for their own special and personal law enforcement. That's bullshit.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 05 September 2004 10:57 AM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What the hell is this "hiring police"? For ANYTHING? I don't care if it's by-law enforcement or anything else - there should be no privately-owned cops. All police and peace officers should be public servants, paid publically, and distributed equally.

Hear, hear! And they should also be governed by an independent body, and held to strict standards of procedure and behaviour.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 September 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read elsewhere that municipalities were hiring these mental void-cases because they share a greater portion of the revenue they collect from running down such offences with the muni.

Now, how this tomfoolery got accepted as valid reasoning for contracting rent-a-cops instead of the RCMP, I have no idea, but it does point up an interesting Americanization of the Canadian policing and city-finance system.

In the USA, counties and municipalities that are strapped for cash often have an unofficial policy of having police interpret motor vehicle laws as strictly as possible in order to generate the maximum fine revenue that they can to supplement often-inadequate tax and other revenue, usually precipitated by dumb-assery on the part of the state government and/or voters who think property tax and county sales tax limitation measures are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Looks like some places in Manitoba are getting caught in the same situation due to Manitoba not transferring enough to cities and towns.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 05 September 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What the hell is this "hiring police"? For ANYTHING? I don't care if it's by-law enforcement or anything else - there should be no privately-owned cops. All police and peace officers should be public servants, paid publically, and distributed equally.

In other words, absolutely all matters of security should be handled by the state. Works well as long as you like the government at the time...

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
If these idiot employers want to have cops enforce bylaws, then they should damn well have to call the police like everyone else instead of being able to buy additional police services. If a noise bylaw infraction is too small-potatoes for the real police to take care of, then sorry, you don't get extra protection because you can pay for it.

Why? Who (except people who break the law) is harmed by this "extra protection"? What, should we just stand by and let people break the law at their leisure if the police can't be bothered to deal with the situation?

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
No one should be able to hire police for their own special and personal law enforcement. That's bullshit.

Bullshit- privately employed security guards, or not enforcing the law? I choose the latter.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In other words, absolutely all matters of security should be handled by the state.

No -- all state laws should be enforced by the state. Further, the state is not the government.

Allowing private security guards to begin doing, as Michelle rightly puts it, their impressions of tough cops is several steps down the road to vigilantism.

I'm surprised at you, Gir.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's hard to believe people can graduate from high school without knowing these basics about the roles of government, state, and so forth.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 05 September 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Employees of rent-a-cop businesses are often police department wanna-bes and can be dangerous for a variety of reasons, one of which is improper or incomplete training. Many of these people develop an inflated view of themselves as a result of having this job, which actually is more a bouncer-type responsibility, not police work. They shouldn't have equipment that could endanger lives.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 05 September 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Having been a security guard while at university, I'd like to point out a few things. Unless a security guard gets special constable status (like auxilary police) they have the same abilities and rights as a private citizen (like none). You can make a citizens arrest only if its a criminal code offense (like not jaywalking) and the person is likely to get away without being stopped by police. Otherwise a security guard cant touch you physically (thats assault) unless you touch him.

Having said this, more and more security guard agencies are getting special constable status for all their guards, allowing them to have guns, give tickets etc


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984

posted 05 September 2004 06:04 PM      Profile for 1st Person        Edit/Delete Post
Security guards have no more powers of arrest than any other citizen. They can enforce the Trespass to Property Act on the property for which they represent the property owner. That means that under certain conditions, they can arrest trespassers, just as anyone else can on their own property. And as Bachus stated, they can make citizen's arrests if they witness a criminal offence.

The only ticket laying I've seen does involve by-laws for parking infractions (such as parking in a firelane), but again, only on the property for which they represent the owner. To be authorized to give such tickets, the guards have to complete training that is provided by the municipality.

As well, all security guards are licenced by the province, so there is presumably some measure of state control over them (though it's probably nothing more than revenue for handing out licences).

It's true that there are attempts by security companies to take over responsibilities traditionally held by police and municipal by-law enforcers. They sell themselves obviously as a cheaper alternative, and it must be tempting to some municipalities to contract them instead of investing in police.

How the hell security guards managed to get tasers is a troubling question. In Ontario, not even patrol officers get tasers. Only the tactical teams (or members thereof) get them.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]


From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 1st Person:

The only ticket laying I've seen does involve by-laws for parking infractions (such as parking in a firelane), but again, only on the property for which they represent the owner. To be authorized to give such tickets, the guards have to complete training that is provided by the municipality.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]


1st Person, I agree with everything else in your post, but the above portion has me puzzled. As I understand it (and I just went and rechecked the Provincial Offences Act) only a Provincial Offence Officer (embarassingly referred to as "POO's) can lay process under the Act.

Provincial Offence Officers include police officers and those people designated by a Provincial Ministry. The latter include people such as park wardes/rangers by the Min. Natural Resources, Employment Standards branch enforcement personel, building inspectors, municipal "meter maids", etc. I am not aware of any private sector people having such a designation.

Am I misinformed ?


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 07:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1st Person, I thought this could be a subject that we would agree upon!

The only people who should be enforcing the laws of the state are employees of the state, namely police officers. They have the training, the standards, and most of all, no one should have more state protection than anyone else.

In other words, no one gets to hop out of the "triage" by hiring their own private guns. Private companies who want people prosecuted for noise bylaws should have to have their complaints go through the same queue as everyone else's complaints - and if their complaints are pissy or frivolous or just not as important as others at the moment, then their complaints get addressed in order of importance, like everyone else's.

If I can't have a police officer by my side every moment of the day, at my beck and call to ticket every little infraction of the law I see around me ("Hey, look! He just littered! Go ticket him pronto!" "Yes, ma'am!"), then neither should someone else just because they have more money, or because they're a corporation.

No private policing should be allowed. Policing should be public, non-political, non-corporate, and publically-accountable, with equal access for everyone. No one should be able to hire a private cop to harass their political or labour opponents.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I don't want to contribute to thread drift, but in light of your last post, I am curious as to your take on this issue, that has just recently become a heated one in this community. Off-duty municiple cops hired as security in bars. They have been doing it here for 30 years +, but it has recently become an issue. I can see both sides of the argument; am undecided. I'd be interested in what all of you think. If it should be a separate thread, I'll start one; but there seems an obvious connection.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 05 September 2004 08:28 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post
So, if you can not get the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws; dogs, curfew, noise etc.,
who would you get to do it.

I a person finds that they are in danger, and
the RCMP can not provide security, if they can afford it, who are you to say they can protect
themselves.


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 05 September 2004 08:34 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone can hire someone to protect themselves - the problem is with sanctioning those 'hirees' with the same rights and protections as a police officer.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 08:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was thinking of that issue too, James. I think that if a cop is off-duty, they should either not be enforcing laws that police enforce, or, if they have a duty to enforce the law if they see it broken after hours, then they shouldn't be allowed to moonlight as a private cop.

Security guards I don't have a problem with, as long as they don't step into the role of cop. If cops, on their off-duty hours, want to be security guards, great. They can call on-duty cops if they see a situation brewing that requires police action.

I know that a lot of places hire retired cops as commissionaires as well. I don't really have a problem with that, as long as it's the real cops, who are being paid publically at the time, who are enforcing the laws of the state.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 08:53 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I was thinking of that issue too, James. I think that if a cop is off-duty, they should either not be enforcing laws that police enforce, or, if they have a duty to enforce the law if they see it broken after hours, then they shouldn't be allowed to moonlight as a private cop.

In part, but only in part, that is the problem. A cop is a sworn peace officer, and off-duty or on, retains the rights and obligations that go with that office.

But beyond that, these people make $200. or more for for 3 -4 hours work; usually cash, and associate with the (often) sexy, young, glamorous other bar staff.

The question/concern is the potential for conflict of interest. Not just with the individual cop, but with collegues. " you look out for my private duty, I look out for yours ".

On the other hand, we hbout the highest per capita policing costs in Canada. As a city of 200,000, we have over 20,000 young bar kids (mostly USian) in a few block area on any given weekend night. Why should the community at large bear all of those extra policing cost; as opposed to those businesses who are proffiting most from it ? Beyond that; eliminating the practice will
piss off the police union big time, and lead to even higher salary demands (already amonst the highest). So; I'm torn.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 05 September 2004 09:05 PM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an idea:

Let's hire out police officers at (what is it?) $60++ per hour, so the government can rake in money operating as a private business.

Then lets designate enforcement of the law to minimum wage security guards so the government can save even more money!!

Anyone else see a pattern here?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 09:20 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steve N:
Here's an idea:

Let's hire out police officers at (what is it?) $60++ per hour, so the government can rake in money operating as a private business.


Steve, they aren't "hired out". They are hired privately; though they do have to sign-in and sign-out at headquarters. In fact, the people who want to change the system want them to be "hired-out", i.e. paid by the Police Dept. The Chief wants nothing to do with that; saying he has enough to administer without adding something more. Needless to say, the union is opposed as well.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In that case, James, I say, they shouldn't be allowed to moonlight as security. It's a conflict of interest.

Sure, it's a drag, but hey. That's life. You wanna be a police officer, then there are certain things you can't do. You can't publicly speak for political parties because of conflict of interest, and you can't sell law enforcement privately because of conflict of interest.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 05 September 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
You wanna be a police officer, then there are certain things you can't do. You can't publicly speak for political parties because of conflict of interest, and you can't sell law enforcement privately because of conflict of interest.

Judges, as representatives of the judicial and law enforcement system, are under similar constraints, as far as speaking out on political matters. And they are *definitely* not allowed to "hire themselves out"... Why should cops be any different?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 09:44 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
But the thing is, in our unique situation ( i.e. having more than 10 % of our population being youngsters from Michigan, Ohio, Indiania, etc. here every weekend, we do need extra peace officers downtown. When I say peace officers, I mean those with the powers to enforce the Criminal Code. Only "cops" have those powers. Should retired folks who live in the suburbs; struggling to keep their own home, and who never go downtown have to bear that cost ?

That is the enigma.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 05 September 2004 09:51 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds like your municipal tax laws need revamping. If these people are tourists in your town, then the businesses that profit from the tourism should have sufficient taxes levied against them to pay for the necessary services. Sounds like your town council is gutless and would rather just fob off the community policing responsibilities onto individual businesses, rather than doing its job, which is providing adequate policing for the city.

Windsor isn't the only city in the world with tourists who just come to town to spend money rowdily - in other places those who benefit from the tourism pay the city (either through taxes, special assessments or per-event levies) for the use of the extra services they require.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 10:03 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
In Ontario. the province regulatates, in very specific terms, how properties can be taxed. Any percieved variations from those formulae can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is provincially appointed. To a very large extent, the municipality's hands are tied.

And I disagree with your saying that that there are many comparable situations. We have about 50 million U.S. citizens within a 2 hour drive. The Ontario "drinking age" is 19 as oppossed to 21 in all neighbouring xtates. We have no dress codes or cerfews. Our marihauna possession laws are reasonable, and/or unenforceable. Of course they flock here. And of course, we enjoy the economic benefits. And the tribulations.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course they should have to pay for whatever police protection is necessary in their town. It's their choice to live in a city with a bustling tourist trade and nightlife. If they don't want to pay taxes toward a police force, they can go move to rural Ontario somewhere.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Of course they should have to pay for whatever police protection is necessary in their town. It's their choice to live in a city with a bustling tourist trade and nightlife. If they don't want to pay taxes toward a police force, they can go move to rural Ontario somewhere.

I know "where you're coming from, but most in this city would see that as a very "hard-assed, right-wing" position.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's hard-assed and right-wing to expect people to pay more taxes for the public provision of a public service instead of hiring it out to private firms??

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 September 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's hard-assed and right-wing to expect people to pay more taxes for the public provision of a public service instead of hiring it out to private firms??


No, private firms don't enter into it; at this point. The debate is - Do the private bars privately hire off-duty city cops, (the solution endorsed by the labour community, and the Chief of Police) or does the community-at-large bear the expense for "on-duty" cops.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 September 2004 11:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Vancouver City Council levies a specific surtax onto the bars downtown for part of the cost of policing associated with the nature of their business.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984

posted 06 September 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for 1st Person        Edit/Delete Post
James: "Provincial Offence Officers include police officers and those people designated by a Provincial Ministry. The latter include people such as park wardes/rangers by the Min. Natural Resources, Employment Standards branch enforcement personel, building inspectors, municipal "meter maids", etc. I am not aware of any private sector people having such a designation.

Am I misinformed?"

Municipal by-laws do not fall under provincial statutes. You don't have to be a peace officer to lay a parking ticket on a vehicle. Again, the only time I myself have seen that occur was on private property - specificaly, vehicles parked in designated fire routes at apartment buildings. 9 years ago I worked for a security company in Toronto, and some of the guards were trained by the city to issue parking tickets.

On the other hand, we were never authorized to enforce other by-laws on the properties we worked for (such as noise by-laws). Those issues needed the police or by-law inspectors.

There's no doubt that security companies are trying to expand their areas of authorized enforcement. I know that at least one company has tried in the past to secure contracts for municipal parking enforcement. It would be a big mistake. There are many types of services which should be carried out only by state controlled agencies, and law enforcement is the most obvious.

I have no problem with the current standards by which security guards can be hired to protect private property and / or people. For example, I see nothing wrong with armed Brink's guards who have to transport large quantities of money, jewellery, etc. They of course have to be licenced to carry a firearm, and to get said licence must pass police checks.

But we certainly don't want to be contracting out to private firms to enforce the laws of the land. The bottom line for said firms are profits, of course.

As for police officers working off-duty, you are talking about "paid duties". These are the officers you see on outdoor film sets, construction sights, and at some bars and clubs. These officers are paid by the said bars, film companies, etc. However they are not paid to do and allow whatever these companies want. They are paid to be there - as police officers. When I used to work paid duties at the clubs in Toronto, it was not our job to be doormen. We were there mostly to help keep the peace merely by our presence. If there were altercations between drunks and doormen, we were there only to ensure that no laws were broken and to keep the peace.

At construction sights,police are used to help direct traffic when heavy loads are being lifted over streets by crane, etc.

Having said that, the paid duties at bars has been a tricky issue. At one point Fantino banned officers from doing paid duties at any establishment where the main source of income was alcohol. However that didn't last long, as I recall.


From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 September 2004 09:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pleasure to read you on this subject, 1st Person.

James, I don't see how Michelle's position is "hard-assed right wing." In this town, it certainly would not be. I mean, this sounds like an old song: the sweet and pure suburbanites who want to pick and choose to pay for some but not all of the advantages that living near a vibrant city gives them.

Tourism to Windsor benefits the whole of Windsor in many ways, direct and indirect. It isn't just the entertainment-district owners who are making a profit. Suburbanites have a long history of playing ostrich when it comes to the real costs of running a city and how much of that is their share.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 06 September 2004 10:11 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

James, I don't see how Michelle's position is "hard-assed right wing."

I should have expressed that differently.

It's a complicated issue; one that makes strange bedfellows. Here it the union people and progressives who are largely backing the off-duty cops in bars, and the usually right-wing colunmists, media, and others who are agitating against the long established practice.

In fairness to skdadl, I observe that in this city, most of the suburbanites are union members and visa versa, so that analysis also fits.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 September 2004 10:23 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure it is complicated, James.

If it's right-wingers you're talking with, though, you might remind them that Mike Harris and the gang were ever so keen on making all kinds of things attractive to our friends in the border states so that they would visit here, invest here, etc. And now it is occurring to a few of that gang that there may be costs involved? Hmmmn?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 06 September 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:
And I disagree with your saying that that there are many comparable situations.

1. Hull
2. Atlantic City
3. Las Vegas
4. Tijuana
5. Anaheim
6. Paris
7. Cadiz
8. Miami Beach
9. Whistler
10. Lake Tahoe

There are lots and lots of towns and cities where people go to drink and party for a few hours or a weekend. How do they deal with it? As Dr Conway and I said above, they tax appropriately those who benefit most from the tourist dollars in order to protect and serve full-time residents.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 September 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Instead of confining themselves to areas they are competent to deal with, the overzealous rent-a-cops, some equipped with high-voltage taser guns, batons and radar, have been busting citizens for infractions normally policed by the RCMP.

Kinda reminds me of Mr. Leahy from Trailer Park Boys


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 September 2004 07:00 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LOL! That was a good episode!

[ 06 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 06 September 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, police themselves-or ANYONE-who 'oversteps the boundaries' of the laws would be open to some 'punishment', whether it is a $fine, incarceration, or losing their job, or it's 'rights' (Ie.in the case in question=Taser guns)

However, my son was a security gaurd (undercover)for a VERY large department store chain. He has been attacked by skateboard gangs, and his fellow guards have even been shot at! They themselves are not allowed guns-ONLY handcuffs and/or a baton , making for a very one-sided fight against those with machetes, knives, bats and guns...! He-and they-have five steps they MUST follow-before they arrest someone! And when they do arrest someone-that 'someone' NEEDS to be arrested-and these guards must do MORE than just 'touch them' in MANY, MANY instances...!

As he's said; "We can do more than the police can-they don't care for us as we are doing their jobs the way they should be done...!"

In most instances-it's the police who have been 'handcuffed'...one should be THANKFUL that these these security guards are trying to help 'clean up' your communities AND your streets...robbers don't just single out STORES ONLY you know...!

Sure-get rid of the guards, watch crime escalate even more...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 September 2004 11:37 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Wow!

Dirty Harry's dad wrote in!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984

posted 07 September 2004 12:39 AM      Profile for 1st Person        Edit/Delete Post
When I worked security in Toronto back in '95, I was posted at some very dangerous places. The buildings where I worked at Finch & Kipling were infested with drug dealers, and it would be no exageration to say that there were gun shots almost on a nightly basis. I once saw a shotgun attack in broad daylight in front of the building...in front of dozens of kids.

Not to mention the cases of empty beer bottles dropped on us from above, as well as furniture. (It should be noted that this was done not just to security, but to other tenants as well...which is why they had security there in the first place.) We arrested some dealers and real bad guys for trespassing. I was even swarmed once and had a bottle thrown at my face.

For this I got $8/hr. On top of that we had to pay for our own equipment. I spent a few hundred dollars on a belt, mag light, and handcuffs. Plus the company took 5 cents an hour off our pay for "uniform fees". Some guys bought their own body armour, but I just didn't want to spend $500 for it.

Once the police showed up with the ETF looking for a gunman. One of the officers thought that I was crazy for not wearing body armour - and he was right. But the police get it issued to them. I didn't have $500 to spend.

Like some of the other guys that worked there, I was educated, knew how to talk, and even had some peacekeeping experience under my belt. We could deal with people without using force if it was possible. Most of us have of course obtained jobs with police departments.

I still say to my colleagues where I now work that I arrested more guys - and much badder guys - when I was a security guard in Toronto then I do as a cop in Kingston. And all of those arrests were on private property, almost all for trespassing. The police of course can't be protecting buildings 24 hours a day. I think that in some of the places we worked, we really did make a difference and made things safer for quite a few tenants. I'd venture to say that I did more "community policing" - especially when I was switched to downtown - then I ever have as a police officer. I will never forget some of the sad individuals that we managed to help out to some extent.

So I don't agree with knee-jerk security guard bashing. Fact is, there are all kinds out there. Yes, there are definitely some really freaky cop imitators who are all about image and power trips. But there are also some good kids doing the job, grossly under payed and exploited, but brave enough to put themselves on the line. Looking back at that kind of bravery, and with a fuller knowledge know of the dangers we were facing, I think it was often foolish. Live and learn.

What I do have a problem with is the operators of companies who deliberately place these kids in dangerous situations for peanuts - while the owner makes considerable profits. They will hire almost anyone, and while there were some good guys where I worked, there were also some nutbars. I just can't see how a security company can be expected to be responsible for anything outside the private realm. Law enforcement will never be their top priority. Profits will be.


From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 07 September 2004 03:31 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Dirty Harry's dad wrote in!"

It's much better than being 'Michael Moore's mother'...

1st Person, you left out parts-like on New year's Eve, when everyone else (like probably 'Michael Moore's mama') was out getting ready to party-guys-like our son-were down at the police station filling out reports on the guy he'd just arrested (a druggie who'd tried unsuccessfully to maim him)

I wonder if 'Dirty Harry' ever got awards for 'Most Arrests' (Several times a year)while collecting such meager pay-like our son did?

I wonder if 'Dirty Harry' ever arrested a 'down and out' fellow for stealing razor blades (so the guy could clean up and apply for a job)and THEN after giving him a lecture-bought the fellow the razor blades with his OWN money? (Y'know, the $8 pr. hr.?)

And about an even BIGGER 'price'...when he finally quit-to go to college to try to become a lawyer-he was continually shaking, and chain smoking...(he's not doing either, today...!)

Luckily, all he received (besides the $8 per hr.)was a completely mangled finger during one of those many 'skirmishes' he'd been involved in.

Let's hope Department store costs don't increase when Hephaeston goes shopping these days...

Anyway, 1st person, YOU I can salute!


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 September 2004 03:42 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Man, did you guys need a union.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 September 2004 07:03 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
Let's hope Department store costs don't increase when Hephaeston goes shopping these days...

Not sure exactly what that means, but I'll settle for hoping that there's no security guards out there with the attitude that:

quote:

"We can do more than the police can-they don't care for us as we are doing their jobs the way they should be done...!"

That kind of attitude reveals a contempt for the law and the legal process and a willingness to resort to vigilanteeism. After all, who needs due process when we *know* this guy is a scumbag? Who even needs a cop? Let's just beat the shit out of him right now and be done with it.

I am not trying to denegrate hard-working security guards who are doing their best in an impossible situation for far too little wages— some of my friends have had that type of thankless job in the past, and "1st Person" raises several worthy points.

But Denner's attitude is more in keeping with the vigilante cops in Vancouver who were recently charged for beating the crap out of suspects in Stanley Park. I am aware there was a lot of sympathy for them, and many who defended their actions as "understandable". But, to put it bluntly, there's a reason that this type of "mob justice" is not tolerated.

If Denner is not happy with that, he might find a justice system more to his liking in Iran, where they still have beheadings and stonings. I'll stick with the system we have here, for all its flaws. Thanks anyway.

And I'm sure Michael Moore has a very nice mom indeed, for what it's worth.

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 September 2004 07:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't have a problem with security guards at all. I'm just saying that they're not police and shouldn't be enforcing public laws. If there is an incident, they should call the police in to deal with it.

If there aren't enough police to deal with it, hire more. We shouldn't be having people paid eight bucks an hour by a private company enforcing PUBLIC laws.

As for James's situation in Windsor - if you don't want the poor overburdened sprawling suburbanites paying for more police to deal with the nightlife that your city council has zoned for the city, then there are other options. Raise property taxes for bars and nightclubs that require this service. I realize that won't cover the whole cost. But those suburbanites need to realize that, sorry, you can't have country living prices when you're living in an urban centre. There are costs that come with the convenience of owning a big piece of land in an urban centre.

Suck it up.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 07 September 2004 09:44 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I quite agree that law enforcement should be done by the police.

Whatever critique some of us may have from time to time about police departments, at least they are well trained, paid reasonably well and are publicly accountable.

"Rent-a-cops" are not.

I have a big problem with privatizing law enforcement be it police or prison guards...hell the Bush administration is going so far as to privatize the military in Iraq.

As for hiring off-duty cops to police the bars, I have some concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. If that's happening then I think there needs to be some very clear regulations to deal with the conflict-of-interest potential.

For bar owners, I think that if the operation of their business is negatively impacting on the public interest that its only fair that they pay some of the associated costs.

It may not be possible under Ontario legislation to raise property taxes on bar owners, but possibly there may be room to levy municipal licensing fees for the operation of a bar within certain sectors of cities like Windsor. The revenues raised from those licensing fees could pay for the additional policing costs.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 07 September 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

As for James's situation in Windsor - if you don't want the poor overburdened sprawling suburbanites paying for more police to deal with the nightlife that your city council has zoned for the city, then there are other options. Raise property taxes for bars and nightclubs that require this service. Suck it up.

I am responding here to two parts of your post. It seems that you might be equating me with the "suburbanite" fat cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. My one bedroom apartment is not suburbia, and my income level is more "out of sight - out of mind" than the water at the bottom of a south = Alberta coulie.I merely brought the issue up as an interesting socio/political juxtaposion; one that defies conventional answers.

Second, and this was part of my initial point, your suggestion re "adjusting the tax levels" is no longer possible at the municipal level in Ontario. Apres Harris, the supposedly independant Tax assessment Corporation" or whatever it is now called sets the taxable value, and the province regulates the relationship between properties of one class or the other, Thus, a community with a particular problem has very little "wiggle - room" to allocate its taxes and resources fairly.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 08 September 2004 02:35 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"And I'm sure Michael Moore has a very nice mom indeed, for what it's worth."

That's quite possible. BUT, I have greater reason to be PROUDER of our son-who I KNOW has been totally honest-and hates liars, cheaters, and criminals...!

Among his arrests have been a bank manager, a policeman, (yes!)ANOTHER security guard,(you were saying?)and a manager of a very big department store chain! And, some of these weren't 'first timers'!

Yes, not ALL 'security guards' are 'scrupulous'-neither are all cops...

The police in Vancouver? (Stanley Park incident? I don't know-I wasn't THERE-were YOU?

Wasn't there an investigation after that?

To clue you in, the department stores mainly hire their security to get out of paying atrocious insurance premiums-that they'd be required to-(without security!)Therefore 'costs' would go up-yours and mine...and/or these stores would go out of business because we'd then shop at stores that DID have lower prices on goods...!

As I'd SAID-the security guards-such as our son-MUST follow FIVE steps-BEFORE they can legally act...did I NOT include the word, "legally" before?

He and his various 'teams' were calling the police almost non-stop-until a few years ago-when the police 'couldn't be bothered'(too busy) and told them to just handcuff the 'First-Timers' (Usually First Time CAUGHT, actually)and walk them around the mall to '"embarrass" them.

(S'funny thing-REPORTED CRIME went down in Canada that year...[laugh])

You don't know 'jack' about my 'attitude'-thank you-I now accept that you have no real right to 'whine' when crime escalates...or when home invaders are in your place, you see, it was OUR SON who drove OURS out (of our home two years ago) with his knowledge of the law-and two steak knives...!

The cops showed up ten minutes after the crook had gone!

You go gamble with YOUR life-allow us to handle ours...we seem to be doing okay, no thanks to SOME of the 'methods' re your 'agenda' here...

Remember, the police get there GENERALLY AFTER THE FACT!


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 September 2004 10:55 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

whatEVER!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where did I say that you were a suburbanite?

Sorry, I was engaging in a stereotype. But as someone who grew up in suburbia, the kind of NIMBY attitudes I talk about are not exactly scarce. All of the amenities, all the yards, all the sprawl, all the proximity to urban centres, and whining about property taxes. The suburban dream.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 08 September 2004 12:11 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Denner: With all due respect to you, your son, and your experiences,

One data point (your son) does not a trend make. By that logic there's nothing wrong in any situation, provided you can find one decent person in it.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 September 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By that logic there's nothing wrong in any situation, provided you can find one decent person in it.

That's pretty much the "logic" that keeps Catholicism from being roundly criticized at babble. Why shouldn't it apply to security guards, and Capitalists, and big corporations and the like too?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since when has Catholicism been "kept from" being roundly criticized on babble?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 September 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any time the criticism gets too 'harsh' someone invariably points out that there are some good Catholic scholars, or a friend of theirs is a Catholic and voted NDP, or whatever.

I've never seen any other oppressive organization exempted from the tarring and feathering on those grounds.

Seems reasonable to me that if anyone can provide anecdotal evidence of knowing a few good Capitalists, or a few good CEOs or a few good "yuppies" then they should get the same kid glove treatment.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Any time the criticism gets too 'harsh' someone invariably points out that there are some good Catholic scholars, or a friend of theirs is a Catholic and voted NDP, or whatever.

So? What's your point? People can point it out all they like. That's what a discussion board is all about, Magoo. You've been here for how long, and you're finally catching on! Good for you!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 September 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough then. I know some decent folk who happen to be Capitalists. I therefore insist that any discussion of Capitalism take place respectfully. Very respectfully.

Thank you.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And we can feel free to ignore you or argue against that. No one has enforced any rules on babble about talking respectfully about the bigoted assholes who run the Catholic church, despite the fact that one or two priests might be renegades and actually believe, against official church policy, that women aren't second class citizens.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 September 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. I mean, I won't lie - I was kicking the anthill a little. And in case any newbies read this, no, there's never been an official crackdown on criticism of any religion and my comments here were not a critique of the moderation here, just for the record.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 08 September 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"One data point (your son) does not a trend make. By that logic there's nothing wrong in any situation, provided you can find one decent person in it."

Uh, no, actually the 'trend' appears to be to protect the rights and well-being of miscreants and criminals..we do see a lot of that these days...there's the 'logic'...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 September 2004 11:16 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
Uh, no, actually the 'trend' appears to be to protect the rights and well-being of miscreants and criminals..we do see a lot of that these days...there's the 'logic'...

I suspect your 'proof' of this is just as anecdotally based as your original assertion.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 09 September 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"we do see a lot of that these days...there's the 'logic'..."

My 'proof' has already been witnessed in the newspapers and t.v. news....(not to mention rising crime stats.)


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 09 September 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:

My 'proof' has already been witnessed in the newspapers and t.v. news....(not to mention rising crime stats.)

A link to those "rising crime stats", please.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 09 September 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've got a link (not exactly what you asked for, James...)


CRIME STATISTICS 2003

quote:
The property crime rate in Canada, including residential and business break-ins and vehicle thefts, went up 4 percent in 2003. That was from a 20 year low the year before, so the rate is still more than 25 percent lower than it was a decade ago.

quote:
In 2003, the drug crime rate in Canada fell about 8 percent, dropping for the first time in a decade. A reduction in the rate of cannabis possession offences by 18 percent was the significant factor in the drop. The uncertainty from court rulings and the introduction of a bill to reform marijuana laws likely contributed to the reduction in the number of charges for marijuana possession laid by police in 2003.

quote:
The violent crime rate in Canada has fallen 11 percent since 1993.

The homicide rate for Canada went down 7 percent in 2003 to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police.



Edited to add: STATSCAN

quote:
Violent crime: Homicide rate continues downward trend

The violent crime rate has generally declined since the early 1990s after increasing throughout most of the three previous decades. Since 1993, it has fallen 11%, and in 2003, it remained virtually unchanged.

Most violent crime categories recorded declines in 2003, except for robbery, which increased 5%, and attempted murder, which rose 4%.

The national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police, 34 fewer than in 2002. A major factor was a large decrease in both British Columbia and Quebec. However, there were 32 more attempted murders in Canada last year.

Saskatchewan reported the largest increase in homicides, from 27 in 2002 to 41 in 2003. This gave it the highest homicide rate in the country and also its highest provincial rate since 1977. The four Atlantic provinces reported the lowest homicides rates. Nova Scotia and Quebec each reported their lowest homicide rate in over 25 years.

Among all census metropolitan areas (CMAs), Abbotsford and Regina reported the highest homicide rates. Three CMAs in Quebec reported no homicides: Saguenay, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières. Among the nine largest CMAs, Winnipeg had the highest rate and Québec the lowest.

The national sexual assault rate declined 5% to its lowest level in almost 20 years. There were just under 23,000 Level 1 sexual assaults reported by police in 2003, the least serious form of this offence. In addition, there were 361 sexual assaults involving a weapon, and 180 aggravated sexual assaults.

The rate of robberies rose 5%, the first gain since 1996. This included a 10% increase in robberies committed with a firearm. Of the more than 28,000 robberies in 2003, 14% involved a firearm, 38% were committed with a weapon other than a firearm, and nearly half were committed without a weapon.


[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 September 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
My 'proof' has already been witnessed in the newspapers and t.v. news....(not to mention rising crime stats.)

Translation:

"What's 'sensationalism', precious?"


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 09 September 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
'sensationalism' wouldn't be "rising crime stats"
now, would it?

Since you haven't been able to refute my 'proof'- I will rest my case...."precious" as it may be.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 September 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course there are no serious "rising crime stats"; there is only media sensationalism.

On a more serious note, Magoo wrote:

quote:
That's pretty much the "logic" that keeps Catholicism from being roundly criticized at babble. Why shouldn't it apply to security guards, and Capitalists, and big corporations and the like too?

Because "religion" is a listed category in those laws which outlaw stereotyping.

While any stereotyping may reflect needless generalizing, ie: "Big corporations don't care about the little guy", such generalizing is not intrinsicly offensive.

But, for historical reasons, some forms of generalizing, especially concerning minorities, are prima facie out of bounds.

"I won't hire blacks, they are lazy" reflects an attitude which may well land someone in violation of the Human Rights Code. "I won't buy from a big corporation, they are uncaring" is a far more benevolent comment. I see nothing wrong with it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 September 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
Since you haven't been able to refute my 'proof'- I will rest my case...."precious" as it may be.

Way to ignore the post Anchoress made!


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 09 September 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's OK, Dr. On this board I'm invisible (unless I'm talking about penises, then *everybody* seems to read me).
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 September 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez I never see anchoress say anything except about penises
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 September 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But, for historical reasons, some forms of generalizing, especially concerning minorities, are prima facie out of bounds.

Hehe. And yet there's an active thread on babble right now about the "Christian Reich", so I don't think it's that religion, per se, is out of bounds.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 09 September 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Geez I never see anchoress say anything except about penises

I kid! I kid because I love!

enis:


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 09 September 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Way to ignore the post Anchoress made!"

Ignoring her post? As 'her' stats 'ignored' my statement regarding less crimes being REPORTED...why shouldn't I?

But-come to think of it-you are right-I SHOULDN'T have 'ignored'it,(I'm assuming you meant her 'statscan' post?)as it BACKS UP what I was talking about; "Most violent crime categories recorded declines in 2003, except for robbery, which increased 5%, and attempted murder, which rose 4%."

Although I wasn't on about Homicides in particular, notice that "Attempted Homicides" are up "4%"-quite possibly because our health care facilities and knowledge are better today than many years ago...and the victims aren't dying as 'quickly'...?

And, I wonder how statscan figures work within these headlines; "New Crime Figures Show It's Time For A Major Crackdown"-Vancouver Province Newspaper, July 24/'04.

"Burnaby's Crime Rate Up 19 per cent"-Burnaby Newsleader, July 31/'04, which also connotes; "Crime in New Westminster Is Up 11 Per Cent According To Solicitor General's Stats."

"Police Ponder New Unit To Tackle Rising Level Of Property Crime" New West Record, (no specific date but 2004)

"B.C. Crime Rate Hits 10 Year High" Vancouver Sun, July 29, '04. which also connotes; "Counterfeiting and Property Crime behind rise; Statscan)

"Break-ins, Garage Thefts Soar In Maple Ridge, B.C." Van. Sun, AUG. 7, '04.

Now, before anyone even tries any; "One Province does not make a 'trend'" stuff, remember that, although your particular area may not have crime 'rising' at this particular time-it IS still 'there and happening'! Just because it isn't happening to 'YOU', it's a VERY real and significant problem to those whom it DOES happen to...in any area...at ANY given time...!

And, I have to wonder-for the sake of 'hypocracy'-how many of those here, that are (or maybe were) against 'private police', have vicious and untrained (or even 'trained') guard dogs protecting their property(ties)?



From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 September 2004 01:36 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for making my case for me that media sensationalism paints a very distorted picture of crime-rate statistics. Localized increases are not indicative of a general trend if they're short-lived, and tend to be confined to that area.

Those headlines are also a great example of cheating with statistics, because they're comparing a sudden sharp spike against a longer-term downward trend. That's basically comparing peak to trough instead of peak to peak.

As for guard pets, I might have guard amoebae somewhere in the back yard, but no, I have no guard dogs.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 10 September 2004 01:57 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, WHERE does it say they're 'short-lived-or 'tend to be confined' to those areas? Are you seeing things you may only 'want to see'...?


And, NO thank you, if you are being satisfied that ANY crime(s) would be 'confined to' ANY area(s)! Those people would need HELP! (and, hopefully probably any 'sympathy'you could give them...not any hindrance(s) that's for sure...!

But, back to this 'newspaper sensationalism'-I read the reports-they print the stories and they print the stats-is that not what these papers are supposed to do? Is the fact that some of those stories are printed as 'headlines' a bother to you? Were those stories and 'headlines' false? Were they even misleading?

"As for guard pets, I might have guard amoebae somewhere in the back yard, but no, I have no guard dogs."

Ah yes, but this wasn't just about 'you' as you may know....(unless you're being unnecessarily on...guard... )


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 September 2004 02:14 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And, I have to wonder-for the sake of 'hypocracy'-how many of those here, that are (or maybe were) against 'private police', have vicious and untrained (or even 'trained') guard dogs protecting their property(ties)?

quote:
Ah yes, but this wasn't just about 'you' as you may know....(unless you're being unnecessarily on...guard... )

Don't get cute with me. I happen to be against private police as you should well know, so your original question encompasses me.

I was, in point of fact, being mildly sarcastic about the guard amoebae thing (do you even know what an amoeba is?).

Funny thing is, you write a lot like the right-wing pro-gun people who would come on here every now and then and use those stupid fucking single quotes all over the goddamn place.

Hint: It doesn't make you look sophisticated, it just makes you look stupid.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 10 September 2004 10:31 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please to read for content.

quote:
Although I wasn't on about Homicides in particular, notice that "Attempted Homicides" are up "4%"-quite possibly because our health care facilities and knowledge are better today than many years ago...and the victims aren't dying as 'quickly'...?

Many years ago...like 2002, which is what the 4% increase was over?

It's a singly year increase against an overall trend of decreasing crime across the country, and you're trying to use it to say 'the barbarians are at the gate'!

You need to sharpen your analysis a bit if you're going to convince anyone that isn't already on your side.

My room is protected by a vicious pile of dirty laundry and a rabid bicycle, since we're counting.

Edited to add: you've yet to offer us any proof of your statement that 'reported crime is decreasing (laugh)'. Do you have anything aside from your personal opinion and say-so to prove this statement? 'Cause I'd like to see it.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 10 September 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It's a singly year increase against an overall trend of decreasing crime across the country, and you're trying to use it to say 'the barbarians are at the gate'!"


Please to notice I said; "Quite [b]possible[b]" also followed by a ? mark...

"Across the COUNTRY"-then 'perhaps' I should have said the trend IS UP in certain areas "across the country"

Like Vancouver City-which has been for several years (like 6) the 'Property Crime Capital of Canada'-looks like the "barbarians" have been at their 'gate' for quite some time! (AND in many other 'areas' around here-like Surrey, B.C.-which has now the distinction of being the 'Car Theft Capital of Canada'-and second to Miami in N. America.

Now, since my son and I-and his security guard acquaintances-around here-have been told ,by the police, NOT to bother reporting FIRST TIME OFFENDERS to them, are we to believe this does NOT happen in other areas? Are we to believe that, when something is SUBRACTED, (the reports)that this would make NO difference?

Believe what YOU wish-in the meantime I shall continue to 'report' what I've witnessed...

Tell ya what, gov.-since 'you'r' area is okay-fine-get rid of 'your' area's 'private police'-we'll just try to hang on to ours -maybe even add a few-here..!

"Dirty laundry"

That just might do it....

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 10 September 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"so your original question encompasses me."

Yes, it does, or rather, did. But, as I've said it wasn't ONLY about "just you"!

You don't have guard dog-fine. Maybe 'you' don't need one. BUT, as I've indicated, there ARE MANY OTHERS who feel the need-and who obviously DO 'need private security guards' One of our banks was recently robbed three times in one month-they HAD a security guard-and now they've just hired a second one!(Of course, one might say; "Two times nothing is STILL nothing" BUT-they (the banks) OBVIOUSLY 'feel the need'!)

"pro-gun people who would come on here every now and then and use those stupid fucking single quotes all over the goddamn place.

Hint: It doesn't make you look sophisticated, it just makes you look stupid."

I AM one of those 'pro-gun' people who come on here every now and then (when I see a subject that interests me), and don't worry-I DON'T come in here to try to 'look sophisticated' (hint- now it's YOU that is 'looking stupid'....)

"Single quotes"-Yes, I do use them from time to time, and, though they may look "fucking stupid" to YOU, if you don't like them-simply refute them-TRY to 'destroy them'...if you can...

Or take your 'cute' suggestions/assumptions about folks looking stupid-and 'stuff 'em'....(how's THAT for 'sophistication'?)

"Hint"-YOU asked for it...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 September 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
Uh, no, actually the 'trend' appears to be to protect the rights and well-being of miscreants and criminals..we do see a lot of that these days...there's the 'logic'...
The thing about those 'rights' you're refering to, is that they're universal. That's right, everyone get's 'em, whether they're a criminal or not, an asshole or not, a virtuous and civic-minded paragon of responsibility or not. Both the innocent and the presumed-innocent-until-proven-otherwise have the same rights. Even the guilty have rights, because if we took them away, then we could rationalize taking away anyone's rights, guilty or no.

Our justice system isn't anything like a level playing field. There's justice for the rich, and justice for the poor, and there is no doubt where the benefit lies. But that isn't necessarily the fault of the laws themselves, but rather of the often fallible and corruptible human beings enforcing them.

Because human beings are fallible and corruptible, all levels of law enforcement and all legal processes need to be as transparent and accountable as possible. When a police officer takes someone to a remote area and beats the crap out of them, that officer is operating outside the law, outside the system of transparency and accountability.

Now maybe the alleged scumbag really deserves to have the crap kicked out of him. Maybe the officer knows that. But we don't know that, do we? We don't know that the cop isn't pounding on his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend on the pretext of a trumped-up charge, do we? We don't know that the cop is overzealous, overstressed, or has just mistaken the innocent person he's beating on for another. We can't know whether the beaten-up scumbag is really a scumbag because there has been no due process, no rational or objective verification of said scumbaggedness.

Denner, you operate on the assumption that a small minority of people can consider themselves outside the law and able to make better legislative decisions than the legislative decisions arrived at by thousands of lawmakers over centuries of lawmaking. Take it a bit further, and you have this elite deciding who has rights and who doesn't. Who is an acceptible person and who isn't. Who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Devising their own final solution to all societies problems.

Depending on which way you push it, it's either anarchy or fascism. Neither of these things is a model for a peaceful society. Quite the opposite.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 17 September 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Depending on which way you push it, it's either anarchy or fascism. Neither of these things is a model for a peaceful society. Quite the opposite."

And, obviously, 'lying down and taking it' until the cops decide to show up, isn't a "model for a peaceful society" either, is it?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca