Death by Silent Submission - Page 9

mentholated · 12-11-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Mentholated, I could probably correct you, but you'd need to pass basic government first to understand and believe it.

Suffice to say you have some fundamental ideas incorrect including what constitutes laws, law enforcement, and the legal process in general.

Its like a pantsless man standing in front of signs that says "No shirt, No pants, No service" and "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" declaring its against the law they threw him out and he has a right to be served.

No, I'm aware that what I said isn't "technically" the way it is, but since apparently every entity of the government appears to be able to use its own interpretation of the law, I've decided that I will too.

**tHa_KhAn** · 12-12-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

In what circumstance? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, I don't have to do that.

Again, you are assuming the officer knows you are doing nothing and not a person they are looking for. Are you telling me there is a difference between you walking down the street doing nothing and someone who committed a crime that matches your description? No there is no difference until the officer verifies your identity. Many of the "rights" people believe we have, only apply on your own private property. Walking down or driving down a public road changes a great many things. Read your local laws regarding such things, many of our "rights" went out the window as soon as we stepped into a public setting.

**CingularDuality** · 12-12-2007, 10:26 AM

Sigh...

Private security has no right to search your person. Sure, they can make it a condition of entering their property, but that's you consenting. If you don't consent, they can't do it. And they certainly can't arrest you if you haven't broken the law, without opening themselves up to criminal charges of wrongful arrest/unlawful detention and/or big bucks in civil suits.

The Constitution is indeed intended to restrict our government, but that doesn't mean that private citizens and corporations are able to violate the Constitution and your rights.

Kerostasis · 12-12-2007, 12:36 PM

I'm seconding Cingular, there's some people here with some strange opinions on how private security works. While on the one hand it's true that private security is not bound by legal restrictions on public police officers, they also do not have the legal authority that public police officers wield. They wield only the authority posessed by whatever private citizen employs them. By default, this is the same authority that YOU, as another private citizen, also possesses.

Now, I'll grant that private security gains some additional powers when you are on their property, but this usually caps out at the ability to insist that you leave their property, and to enforce that request if you refuse. Anything more than that has to come from an agreement that you voluntarily entered into, perhaps as a condition of membership.

**tHa_KhAn** · 12-12-2007, 02:05 PM

When I received my private security license, we essentially could use physical force in two ways that a normal person couldn't legally. Number one, we could physically bar entry. Example: Block a door and use the minimal necessary force to keep someone from that door. Number two, restrain a shoplifter. Again, only use necessary force to keep that person detained. Private security is essentially a glorified auto 911 dialer. The main purpose of private security, is deterrent through observation.

In most cases, putting your hands on someone is illegal. I think simple battery is defined as unwanted physical contact. So an unlicensed bouncer at a club/bar could never actually physically stop you from entering without themselves committing a crime. You have trespassed, but they committed battery. Happens all the time, most bouncers will tell you that.

**CingularDuality** · 12-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tHa_KhAn

When I received my private security license, we essentially could use physical force in two ways that a normal person couldn't legally.

That's a state issue, not a Constitutional issue. In many states, a private citizen may arrest someone for a crime just like a police officer does. In some states, private citizens may only do it for felonies.

Let me ask you a question, if someone breaks into your house, and you wake up and catch them and hold them at gunpoint until the police get there, have you not made an arrest and have you not detained the criminal when the criminal wanted to leave? If you've done that, have you violated anyone's rights? Are allowed to do such an outrageous thing???

Constitutionally, anyone may arrest a criminal. But doing so certainly opens yourself up to a whole new level of liability. You had better ensure that you are making a lawful arrest, including complying with state laws which are often much more specific and restrictive than the US Constitution.

**tHa_KhAn** · 12-12-2007, 04:44 PM

You are correct CD, I forgot to qualify that statement with "In my state" or "by my state law". Personal home defense is another issue entirely. Also, personal defense in general is different than denying entry to someone else's private property.

**Tarenth** · 12-12-2007, 04:48 PM

It actually goes around into one giant gorgon's knot of legality.

Private Security employees can get away 'legally' with doing what you would considering unconstitutional because they are not covered by constitutional law. They are covered by Administrative law derived from the policies and authorty granted them by the company they are employed with because they are agents of the company. That company is in turn governed by the state, and sometimes federal, laws that govern how it may act and do business because they, as an entity, are a part of society and thus agents of the public. In theory if the administrative law is wrong then it would be the company that gets in trouble and not the security agent.

If the employee has the backing of the company's administrative law then the employee is protected. That's because while working under that law your acts are right and lawful in the due execution of your duties as an employee. Its why private security in large companies can carry guns. But even if things are legally airtight, there's always the publicity angle to consider. If they have a policy that the security agents can shoot you on sight if they don't like the way you dress on company property, your company is going to get a lot of flak from the negative PR that will generate. Negative PR, being bad for business, will therefore influence a change in the administrative law and self regulate the authority given to private security. This then leads to the scape goat issues where companies put blame on poorly thought out administrative law execution and blame the agent while changing the rules. That shields the company because the 'lawful execution' is no longer an issue and thus do you have private citizen vs private citizen debates.

If your company thinks what you are doing is right, then what you are doing is right by their laws. The catch is what they think is the right course and what's best for the company image.

Another issue is that private security can detain in a private lockup, but they cannot 'arrest' people as we know it. The proceedure for arrest and incarceration are governed by the Judicial branch (courts) and Executive branch (prisons/jails) and the entire due process is under constitutional law as a result. Because of the legality of due process it is 'difficult' to get someone incarcerated constitutionally with acts that were unconstitutional yet legal. As for private lockups...they can detain you for as long as the company is willing to put up with the negative PR such a detainment will bring. The company is also open to legal actions because the company must still follow constitutional law even if their security agents follow administrative law.

Backing up a bit so things aren't too convoluted. Administrative law is the rules, policies, and set proceedures set by an establishment for all agents and participants of that establishment. If it is policy that security agents can do A, B, and C then security agents can do A, B, and C while acting as agents of security for that company. Most people come in contact with these administrative laws with things such as return policies in retail and customer service 'give and take' negotiations in conflict resolution. If they authorize someone to do something (such as a manager making the meal free or a discount as a way of apology) then the company is making it clear that they can do that. I'm sure everyone at some point in time has heard "I'm sorry sir/ma'am, but I can't do that. You'll have to talk to the manager/my supervisor" which would be the restriction of authority placed on an agent until you reach a high position. But that's going off topic even if it serves to point out the law in practice.

Walking into private owned/run property is an unspoken acceptance of the administrative laws that govern that private sector. In another way of thinking: You walk into Best Buy and you follow Best Buy's return policy on Best Buy merchandise.

If you want to equate private security with private defense then you have to take things a different level of looking at it. If you, personally, act in such a way then you are not acting under administrative law because you are the executor and creator of those laws. As such you fall directly under the laws as a member of the public. But expand on that a bit and look at what we have in public. If you owned a mansion with a security system, fence, and a staff that included maids, butlers, cooks, and security then you are delegating authority towards others through administrative laws. If you say the retired police officer who does your security can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight then that security officer can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight. Any penalties and repercussions of those actions will fall on you, as the employer, instead of your employee.

**CingularDuality** · 12-12-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Walking into private owned/run property is an unspoken acceptance of the administrative laws that govern that private sector.

That's crazy talk. By your logic, if WalMart wanted gang rape to be legal in their store, then walking into their store is unspoken acceptance of that?

No, the Constitution applies to everyone in the United States, and it doesn't matter if you're on private property or public property. I'm not sure who's telling you these things, but they're WAAAAY wrong.

mentholated · 12-12-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

It actually goes around into one giant gorgon's knot of legality.

Private Security employees can get away 'legally' with doing what you would considering unconstitutional because they are not covered by constitutional law. They are covered by Administrative law derived from the policies and authorty granted them by the company they are employed with because they are agents of the company. That company is in turn governed by the state, and sometimes federal, laws that govern how it may act and do business because they, as an entity, are a part of society and thus agents of the public. In theory if the administrative law is wrong then it would be the company that gets in trouble and not the security agent.

If the employee has the backing of the company's administrative law then the employee is protected. That's because while working under that law your acts are right and lawful in the due execution of your duties as an employee. Its why private security in large companies can carry guns. But even if things are legally airtight, there's always the publicity angle to consider. If they have a policy that the security agents can shoot you on sight if they don't like the way you dress on company property, your company is going to get a lot of flak from the negative PR that will generate. Negative PR, being bad for business, will therefore influence a change in the administrative law and self regulate the authority given to private security. This then leads to the scape goat issues where companies put blame on poorly thought out administrative law execution and blame the agent while changing the rules. That shields the company because the 'lawful execution' is no longer an issue and thus do you have private citizen vs private citizen debates.

If your company thinks what you are doing is right, then what you are doing is right by their laws. The catch is what they think is the right course and what's best for the company image.

Another issue is that private security can detain in a private lockup, but they cannot 'arrest' people as we know it. The proceedure for arrest and incarceration are governed by the Judicial branch (courts) and Executive branch (prisons/jails) and the entire due process is under constitutional law as a result. Because of the legality of due process it is 'difficult' to get someone incarcerated constitutionally with acts that were unconstitutional yet legal. As for private lockups...they can detain you for as long as the company is willing to put up with the negative PR such a detainment will bring. The company is also open to legal actions because the company must still follow constitutional law even if their security agents follow administrative law.

Backing up a bit so things aren't too convoluted. Administrative law is the rules, policies, and set proceedures set by an establishment for all agents and participants of that establishment. If it is policy that security agents can do A, B, and C then security agents can do A, B, and C while acting as agents of security for that company. Most people come in contact with these administrative laws with things such as return policies in retail and customer service 'give and take' negotiations in conflict resolution. If they authorize someone to do something (such as a manager making the meal free or a discount as a way of apology) then the company is making it clear that they can do that. I'm sure everyone at some point in time has heard "I'm sorry sir/ma'am, but I can't do that. You'll have to talk to the manager/my supervisor" which would be the restriction of authority placed on an agent until you reach a high position. But that's going off topic even if it serves to point out the law in practice.

Walking into private owned/run property is an unspoken acceptance of the administrative laws that govern that private sector. In another way of thinking: You walk into Best Buy and you follow Best Buy's return policy on Best Buy merchandise.

If you want to equate private security with private defense then you have to take things a different level of looking at it. If you, personally, act in such a way then you are not acting under administrative law because you are the executor and creator of those laws. As such you fall directly under the laws as a member of the public. But expand on that a bit and look at what we have in public. If you owned a mansion with a security system, fence, and a staff that included maids, butlers, cooks, and security then you are delegating authority towards others through administrative laws. If you say the retired police officer who does your security can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight then that security officer can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight. Any penalties and repercussions of those actions will fall on you, as the employer, instead of your employee.

Did you know that corporations are considered private citizens under "federal law?"

Funny federal government we have. The constitution restricts it, yet it somehow manages to grant more power to corporations than private agents are given, yet still be considered equal to them.

You are flat out wrong. Any agent (free or federal, public or private) in this land abides by the constitution. There is no exceptions whatsoever to that rule. Period. Any federal law or small print you find declaring otherwise is illegal. Period.

Administrative law is subordinate wholly and fully to constitutional law. In other words, if an entity's "administrative law" is unconstitutional, it is not legal. However, if you sign an agreement with that entity's administrative law, you give up your constitutional rights and are then agreeing to step outside of constitutional law. Your actions herein are then rendered illegal should the contract between you and said entity entail acts or responsibilities that are in violation of constitutional law. You, and the entity you enter into contract with, are still responsible for adhering to constitutional law.

Kerostasis · 12-12-2007, 06:26 PM

Your descriptions of agents covered by "administrative law" rather than constitutional law are kind of right, and kind of not right. Mostly what administrative policies do is shift responsibility.

For example, if your company policy says you can shoot this guy on sight, and you shoot him while executing your duties for the company, you personally may be protected because the policy shifts responsibility for the illegal act from you to the company as a whole. But that doesn't mean the act wasn't still illegal. There's still going to be a prosecution for wrongful shooting, its just that the company will be the defendant instead of the particular guard who did the shooting.

(At least thats the way it works in theory. In practice the agent who commits an unlawful act for the company is often sacrificed to protect the larger company.)

The various administrative policies set up by a particular company determine how much authority is delegated from the company to the agent -- but no matter what the policies say, they cannot delegate authority that they do not possess in the first place. A private security guard on company land can wield, at most, exactly the same power that a private citizen in his own house can wield.

**Tarenth** · 12-12-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

That's crazy talk. By your logic, if WalMart wanted gang rape to be legal in their store, then walking into their store is unspoken acceptance of that?

No, the Constitution applies to everyone in the United States, and it doesn't matter if you're on private property or public property. I'm not sure who's telling you these things, but they're WAAAAY wrong.

If Wal-Mart hired and assigned public gang-rape specialists who greet you in the store and say "We're here to gang rape you" and then proceed with the act then they can. The employees hired and tasked with the duty of acting out the gang-rape would then acting out of the policy of the store and protected by following store policy. However, Walmart itself would come under fire for having policies justifying that act which is illegal.

In short. You file charges against Walmart instead of the walmart employees if you were gang raped by their authorized gang rape specialists hired with that task in mind with a stature in the policies allowing it.

Like Kerostasis states the act itself may be illegal, but the shift of responsibility is removed from the employee to the employer who allows such an act. Therefore, the employee may act in such a manner as long as the employer is willing to take the blame for it.

This process is self regulating and varies from how and where the 'private sector' is located. If the company in question is Walmart then because of how public it is and dependent on positive PR the company will not have policies that could be deemed questionable. They COULD, but they won't because legal action against them is just not worth the benefit hard laws like that would give them.

However if the company was...say...a private research and development group that is located somewhere remote and has a fear of corporate espionage then the security measures and policies will be a LOT more strict and possible pressure and repercussions from outside forces are less important.

Unless you want to make a case that private companies like PG&E or Boeing aren't exactly legal because they have armed guards with the authority to use deadly force and who can perform search and seizure without warrents on company grounds.

Private security guards have a bit more power than the average citizen because they are placed in a position where they are delegated the responsibility of others and the company. If you are hired as a lab tech you do lab work as a lab tech. If you are hired as a security guard, you do work as a security guard. The difference between the two within the company is that the lab tech is not hired to protect the security guard while the security guard was hired with the expressed duty of the lab tech's protection.

**TheFeniX** · 12-13-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

If Wal-Mart hired and assigned public gang-rape specialists who greet you in the store and say "We're here to gang rape you" and then proceed with the act then they can. The employees hired and tasked with the duty of acting out the gang-rape would then acting out of the policy of the store and protected by following store policy. However, Walmart itself would come under fire for having policies justifying that act which is illegal.

What? No wait.... what? A private contract (especially some kind of verbal one like "We'll rape you if you come in here") cannot be used to cover up or as a defense to a crime, especially a felony.

Quote:

In short. You file charges against Walmart instead of the walmart employees if you were gang raped by their authorized gang rape specialists hired with that task in mind with a stature in the policies allowing it.

No. In short: EVERYONE involved is going to receive punishment in that case. Down from the guy who wrote the "policy" and even those who just watched it happen.

Quote:

Like Kerostasis states the act itself may be illegal, but the shift of responsibility is removed from the employee to the employer who allows such an act. Therefore, the employee may act in such a manner as long as the employer is willing to take the blame for it.

Um... no. I don't know where you got this information from, but if I was contracted to go out and install monitoring wells at a site and my boss told me to just dig some holes in the ground 2 foot down and stick in some PVC and fake the results: we're both going to end up in deep crap if the EPA finds out. The only real way around this is if the average employee could claim he/she had no knowledge of the crime being committed.

Seriously, whoever is giving you this information.... I'd stay the Hell away from them.

**CingularDuality** · 12-13-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Unless you want to make a case that private companies like PG&E or Boeing aren't exactly legal because they have armed guards with the authority to use deadly force and who can perform search and seizure without warrents on company grounds.

Man, you are so far off... Kero is talking about liability, not criminal guilt. WalMart rape specialists? C'mon...

And I wanted to get back to this search and seizure misconception. Security on Boeing's campus is allowed to search you because you consent to their search. They have large signs at the entrance to their facilities that plainly say that entering the facility constitutes consent to search. Any arrests would have to be in accordance with state laws, as would the use of deadly force.

Keep in mind, however, that the word "reasonable" and the phrase "threat to others" is often used in laws that allow deadly force. Security at Best Buy can't use deadly force to prevent someone from entering the stockroom when a load of Nintendo Wiis arrive. Security at Lockheed probably can use deadly force to prevent a trespasser from accessing a facility that has been reasonably protected against innocent access, and that has research systems (weapons?) that could present a grave threat to others if the wrong people have access to it... They're still following the same law that Best Buy is following, but their situation is different.

12-12-2007, 10:26 AM	#123 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,815	Re: Death by Silent Submission Sigh... Private security has no right to search your person. Sure, they can make it a condition of entering their property, but that's you consenting. If you don't consent, they can't do it. And they certainly can't arrest you if you haven't broken the law, without opening themselves up to criminal charges of wrongful arrest/unlawful detention and/or big bucks in civil suits. The Constitution is indeed intended to restrict our government, but that doesn't mean that private citizens and corporations are able to violate the Constitution and your rights. __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

12-12-2007, 02:05 PM	#125 (permalink)
tHa_KhAn Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Gunshine State Age: 27 Posts: 2,120	Re: Death by Silent Submission When I received my private security license, we essentially could use physical force in two ways that a normal person couldn't legally. Number one, we could physically bar entry. Example: Block a door and use the minimal necessary force to keep someone from that door. Number two, restrain a shoplifter. Again, only use necessary force to keep that person detained. Private security is essentially a glorified auto 911 dialer. The main purpose of private security, is deterrent through observation. In most cases, putting your hands on someone is illegal. I think simple battery is defined as unwanted physical contact. So an unlicensed bouncer at a club/bar could never actually physically stop you from entering without themselves committing a crime. You have trespassed, but they committed battery. Happens all the time, most bouncers will tell you that. __________________

12-12-2007, 04:44 PM	#127 (permalink)
tHa_KhAn Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Gunshine State Age: 27 Posts: 2,120	Re: Death by Silent Submission You are correct CD, I forgot to qualify that statement with "In my state" or "by my state law". Personal home defense is another issue entirely. Also, personal defense in general is different than denying entry to someone else's private property. __________________

12-12-2007, 04:48 PM	#128 (permalink)
Tarenth Join Date: May 2006 Location: California Posts: 2,161	Re: Death by Silent Submission It actually goes around into one giant gorgon's knot of legality. Private Security employees can get away 'legally' with doing what you would considering unconstitutional because they are not covered by constitutional law. They are covered by Administrative law derived from the policies and authorty granted them by the company they are employed with because they are agents of the company. That company is in turn governed by the state, and sometimes federal, laws that govern how it may act and do business because they, as an entity, are a part of society and thus agents of the public. In theory if the administrative law is wrong then it would be the company that gets in trouble and not the security agent. If the employee has the backing of the company's administrative law then the employee is protected. That's because while working under that law your acts are right and lawful in the due execution of your duties as an employee. Its why private security in large companies can carry guns. But even if things are legally airtight, there's always the publicity angle to consider. If they have a policy that the security agents can shoot you on sight if they don't like the way you dress on company property, your company is going to get a lot of flak from the negative PR that will generate. Negative PR, being bad for business, will therefore influence a change in the administrative law and self regulate the authority given to private security. This then leads to the scape goat issues where companies put blame on poorly thought out administrative law execution and blame the agent while changing the rules. That shields the company because the 'lawful execution' is no longer an issue and thus do you have private citizen vs private citizen debates. If your company thinks what you are doing is right, then what you are doing is right by their laws. The catch is what they think is the right course and what's best for the company image. Another issue is that private security can detain in a private lockup, but they cannot 'arrest' people as we know it. The proceedure for arrest and incarceration are governed by the Judicial branch (courts) and Executive branch (prisons/jails) and the entire due process is under constitutional law as a result. Because of the legality of due process it is 'difficult' to get someone incarcerated constitutionally with acts that were unconstitutional yet legal. As for private lockups...they can detain you for as long as the company is willing to put up with the negative PR such a detainment will bring. The company is also open to legal actions because the company must still follow constitutional law even if their security agents follow administrative law. Backing up a bit so things aren't too convoluted. Administrative law is the rules, policies, and set proceedures set by an establishment for all agents and participants of that establishment. If it is policy that security agents can do A, B, and C then security agents can do A, B, and C while acting as agents of security for that company. Most people come in contact with these administrative laws with things such as return policies in retail and customer service 'give and take' negotiations in conflict resolution. If they authorize someone to do something (such as a manager making the meal free or a discount as a way of apology) then the company is making it clear that they can do that. I'm sure everyone at some point in time has heard "I'm sorry sir/ma'am, but I can't do that. You'll have to talk to the manager/my supervisor" which would be the restriction of authority placed on an agent until you reach a high position. But that's going off topic even if it serves to point out the law in practice. Walking into private owned/run property is an unspoken acceptance of the administrative laws that govern that private sector. In another way of thinking: You walk into Best Buy and you follow Best Buy's return policy on Best Buy merchandise. If you want to equate private security with private defense then you have to take things a different level of looking at it. If you, personally, act in such a way then you are not acting under administrative law because you are the executor and creator of those laws. As such you fall directly under the laws as a member of the public. But expand on that a bit and look at what we have in public. If you owned a mansion with a security system, fence, and a staff that included maids, butlers, cooks, and security then you are delegating authority towards others through administrative laws. If you say the retired police officer who does your security can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight then that security officer can have a shotgun and shoot trespassers on sight. Any penalties and repercussions of those actions will fall on you, as the employer, instead of your employee. __________________ My sanity is not in question... It was a confirmed casualty some time ago. \|TG\|Tarenth Battlefield 2142 Mirra World of Warcraft Light, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they ticked me off.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links