Neighborhoods paying for police patrols. (Pittsburgh, Oakland: 2014, renting, crime)

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by ferraris

What's your source for this?

Nextdoor. From someone whose HOA pays. That should give you a hint which neighborhood.

[gladhands]

http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/citipar...fety_Rates.pdf

[szug-bot]

i believe what the OP is referring to is hiring police officers who are off duty. is that it?
that is certainly legal.

I am lost - is it easily discerned what affluent "subdivision" this is? Somerset (sp) at Frick Park?

i see no problem with this on the surface. I do not agree that gg's hypothetical is a threat.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

i believe what the OP is referring to is hiring police officers who are off duty. is that it?
that is certainly legal.

I am lost - is it easily discerned what affluent "subdivision" this is? Somerset (sp) at Frick Park?

i see no problem with this on the surface. I do not agree that gg's hypothetical is a threat.

If they're in uniform, driving squad cars and being paid by the police department, how exactly are they "off duty"?

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by gladhands

If they're in uniform, driving squad cars and being paid by the police department, how exactly are they "off duty"?

Because they already worked their shift. After they worked their shift they're off duty. They don't work 24 hours.

People got together and decided to make their neighborhood safer by paying the department for more patrols. The department likely asked off duty officers if they wanted to work more and get paid with money from the neighborhood people. The off duty officers either accept the additional work or not.

The officers work their regular shift and repeat the process over again.

As long as the neighborhood is paying for the service and it's not coming out of any other taxpayers dollars there should be nothing wrong with it.

Great for the neighborhood for coming up with a solution to their problem instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.

[selltheburgh]

Some neighborhood CDCs have done this with their own funds.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by selltheburgh

Some neighborhood CDCs have done this with their own funds.

Excellent for them.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by gladhands

If they're in uniform, driving squad cars and being paid by the police department, how exactly are they "off duty"?

I believe it's a fairly recent requirement that the officers are paid through the department as the police union was complaining that direct pay could lead to preferential treatment in regards to who is getting these outside jobs. It's not the city actually paying them anything though.

[RogersParkTransplant]

Originally Posted by gladhands

If they're in uniform, driving squad cars and being paid by the police department, how exactly are they "off duty"?

I can't believe I have to say this, but I will. One time.

Gladhands is right. If an officer is being paid privately to protect a specific group of people, they need to wear the uniform of a security officer when they are doing it. Not the uniform of a city police officer. The difference is that security officers are paid to look after a specific group of patrons who pay them, and police officers are paid to look after the public.

The difference between public and private service matters. There should be no ambiguity in this. Nobody denies that money can pay for privilege, and always has, but it should not be packaged in a form that blurs the lines between the shared resources of the entire city and the private interests of the wealthy few.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by RogersParkTransplant

I can't believe I have to say this, but I will. One time.

Gladhands is right. If an officer is being paid privately to protect a specific group of people, they need to wear the uniform of a security officer when they are doing it. Not the uniform of a city police officer. The difference is that security officers are paid to look after a specific group of patrons who pay them, and police officers are paid to look after the public.

The difference between public and private service matters. There should be no ambiguity in this. Nobody denies that money can pay for privilege, and always has, but it should not be packaged in a form that blurs the lines between the shared resources of the entire city and the private interests of the wealthy few.

Who said the officers are being paid privately?

Are private security officers allowed to patrol city streets/neighborhoods?

If the money is being paid to the city/police department and the money is issued to them from there then there should be no issue at all. Pretty simple concept and excellent idea.