just mad

[Nob0dy]

He's not "double dipping" so what's the issue. It WOULD be an issue if he wasn't getting paid by the business and the department was just sending a cop over to sit there. The business is taking all the cost involved, so the "tax-payer" argument is non-existent. That's the very reason they are paying "extra" in addition to their taxes (because they are tax-payers also). You as a citizen are not paying for anything, the business is.

This is true, and sometimes the department bills the officer for us if the patrol car and equipment.

 

[chucklenut]

all im saying is if you dont see a problem where you can buy police then there aint much to discuss here lol

 

[Patronus]

He's not "double dipping" so what's the issue. It WOULD be an issue if he wasn't getting paid by the business and the department was just sending a cop over to sit there. The business is taking all the cost involved, so the "tax-payer" argument is non-existent. That's the very reason they are paying "extra" in addition to their taxes (because they are tax-payers also). You as a citizen are not paying for anything, the business is.

This is NOT true. The tax payer pays the officers health insurance, liability claims for wrongful actions and ANY other expenses incurred in the maintenance and upkeep of the officers equipment and training. And the company KNOWS this. The company is released from having to provide ANY benefits to a full time employee by contracting the security work out rather than hire to fill a position. But the greater savings to the company is in being able to pass off any possible litigation to the department if the officer ever needs to act.

Say a customer gets angry and the security guard feels he needs to restrain the patron. But the patron sues. The patrons lawyer will sue the deepest pockets...the theaters, naming the guard as co-defendant. The threater will have lawyers fight it and may well win. But the movie will be out the legal fees and incidentals or worse if they lose. If the theater has a cop there and the same incident arises it is the cop and the cops primary employer, the department that will be sued. Oh they MIGHT name the theater as co-defendant, but even if they do it is the departments lawyer who will be defending the officer and bearing the brunt of the case and expense. The theater has already won and the tax payer lost without even knowing why.

 

[Nob0dy]

all im saying is if you dont see a problem where you can buy police then there aint much to discuss here lol

It's not like we are doing their evil bidding, we are still only gong by Georgia law. I provide you with extra security if you wanted it.it's not just for one person anybody can do it

 

[Nob0dy]

This is NOT true. The tax payer pays the officers health insurance, liability claims for wrongful actions and ANY other expenses incurred in the maintenance and upkeep of the officers equipment and training. And the company KNOWS this. The company is released from having to provide ANY benefits to a full time employee by contracting the security work out rather than hire to fill a position. But the greater savings to the company is in being able to pass off any possible litigation to the department if the officer ever needs to act.

Say a customer gets angry and the security guard feels he needs to restrain the patron. But the patron sues. The patrons lawyer will sue the deepest pockets...the theaters, naming the guard as co-defendant. The threater will have lawyers fight it and may well win. But the movie will be out the legal fees and incidentals or worse if they lose. If the theater has a cop there and the same incident arises it is the cop and the cops primary employer, the department that will be sued. Oh they MIGHT name the theater as co-defendant, but even if they do it is the departments lawyer who will be defending the officer and bearing the brunt of the case and expense. The theater has already won and the tax payer lost without even knowing why.

The theater can still be sued caused they hired the off duty officer and secondly I still party for my healthcare but also due to Obama care your technically paying for everybody's health insurance.

 

[DinkyDau]

Damn this is a Marathon!

 

[Nob0dy]

If police were paid a wage equal to the risk, we wouldn't have to work side jobs to make ends meet. Yes we could go into another profession but I love what I'm doing.

So what is the financial cost of a life? We the tax payers are paying big bucks for problems greater then this.

 

[Patronus]

Damn this is a Marathon!

Because for some reason they refuse to acknowledge the intrinsically unethical quandary involved in public servants exercising the power and authority granted by the public for private gain. Now when others see the iissues but you don't (or won't) then it can only come from being too close to see or being too self-interested in the outcome to acknowledge. Cops can moonlight but not as cops. Cops can ONLY work for the public as cops. Anything else is unethical. And SHOULD be illegal.

 

[Patronus]

If police were paid a wage equal to the risk, we wouldn't have to work side jobs to make ends meet. Yes we could go into another profession but I love what I'm doing.

So what is the financial cost of a life? We the tax payers are paying big bucks for problems greater then this.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with the first part. But you CAN moonlight, just not taking the power and authority of the public trust with you when you do. Again, SHOULD be the law, not IS the law.

 

[Patronus]

But I will mention that that statement shows the "I deserve more" mentality that I made a smart as comment about before. That's the justification used to excuse a lot of crime throughout history.