Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The video looks and sounds like nothing more than slick propaganda BS....
So they've lied about how their town is doing? No way for anyone to call them out since their budget and spending is a matter of public record? Don't pull anything reaching like that.
Based on what? Because you said so? watch the video then comment.
If you watched the video, you would have noticed public safety is still in public control, not private. They're not running a private security force (there goes your argument, look at it crumble).
Quote:
What world do you live in? Private companies cannot violate a persons rights and get away with it. Straight forward.
Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment originally only applied in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rights guaranteed by the text of the Fourth Amendment (sans the exclusionary rule to be discussed below) apply equally in state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees to the citizen of every state the right to due process and equal protection of the laws. The process by which the Supreme Court has made certain fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights applicable to the states is known as the doctrine of incorporation.
Not every search and seizure that is scrutinized in state and federal court raises a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment. However, Fourth Amendment concerns do arise when those same actions are taken by a law enforcement official or a private person working in conjunction with law enforcement.
Imagine that "private" security force just rolling up to your house and going through your belongings. Even if they had a clause in their contract that they can't go through your belongings without your consent--and they do anyway--they can still charge you with anything they find, because the fourth amendment does not apply to private entities. They worst thing that'll happen is that they fire the patsy who dug up your evidence.
Quote:
Sandy Springs is a public/private combo. They have a bit more say so over the police than the people do with a purely public sector. They control it through money.
Do you not watch the news or read about the abusive police force that kills innocent people and are not punished? Where is the accountability there?
I'm smart enough to differentiate between the masochistic fantasy of what's on the news, and the reality outside. Cops hate dirty cops.
Quote:
As I said. A quality product for a fair price.
And who says the private sector can't provide that? You? Based on what? That silly rhetoric is unfounded. Gee I'm shocked. Watch the video, then comment.
Obviously the fact that the public safety services are still public programs tells me they can't.
Quote:
Grandma is dangerous right? A Colorado Springs grandmother who suffered a heart attack when drug agents stormed into her home in 2009 has filed suit claiming the officers’ tactics were “extreme, unreasonable and outrageous.”
An emphysema sufferer, Santistevan was alone in bed receiving oxygen on Oct. 6, 2009, when a multijurisdictional SWAT task force with a search warrant surrounded her home in the 200 block of South Prospect Street. They threw in a flash-bang grenade before rushing in with guns drawn, authorities have confirmed.
Stricken by a heart attack, Santistevan was admitted in critical condition at Memorial Hospital Central, where she remained for several days. A search of her home yielded no arrests and turned up no drugs, the family said.
Prohibition increased violence. That's what happens when government tries to be moral. Unintended consequences. The dealers use kids because they know the kids are attracted to the easy money they cannot normally earn and wont end up with long jail sentences. The violent crime comes overwhelmingly from the drug gangs and cartels who will do anything to protect their business and stay out of jail. Just like what happened with prohibition.
***I should have been saying public/private instead of private. It's contracted out.
I'm not a proponent of the drug war. I'm saying drug-dealers tend to be well armed and violent--high-risk--which is why SWAT teams et. al. are used. I'm not defending the misapplication of those resources, merely the reason why those resources are used. And for every scared grandmother you can drag up, I'll be able to provide ten stories of armed dealers. Reality, remember that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
What?? The constitution only applies to government employees???????
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
So they've lied about how their town is doing? No way for anyone to call them out since their budget and spending is a matter of public record? Don't pull anything reaching like that.
Did you see how they cut their budget? They went from 50m to 25m in expenditures each year by essentially cutting pensions and benefits. I.E., what every other private employer normally provides. And they have flat-taxes (which are regressive and awful). I wouldn't want to work there.
If you watched the video, you would have noticed public safety is still in public control, not private. They're not running a private security force (there goes your argument, look at it crumble).
your comment that I responded too
Originally Posted by Konraden Better than a private one ever would.
You haven't shown proof so how does my argument crumble? Again because you say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Imagine that "private" security force just rolling up to your house and going through your belongings. Even if they had a clause in their contract that they can't go through your belongings without your consent--and they do anyway--they can still charge you with anything they find, because the fourth amendment does not apply to private entities. They worst thing that'll happen is that they fire the patsy who dug up your evidence.
Sigh what proof do you have that a private entity can charge you with anything? Because the 4th amendment applies to public only so according to you there is no other recourse? "An individual who wants to object to a search and seizure must also have something called "standing." Standing is the legal concept which says that a person can object to a search of my person, my home, my car or anywhere I have a legitimate expectation of privacy."
And thus begins the lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm smart enough to differentiate between the masochistic fantasy of what's on the news, and the reality outside. Cops hate dirty cops.
Okay but who cares what they think? Their actions are the way you judge them. The dirty ones and the ones who overstep their authority go unpunished too often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Obviously the fact that the public safety services are still public programs tells me they can't.
Georgias' constitution says it has to be public
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm not a proponent of the drug war. I'm saying drug-dealers tend to be well armed and violent--high-risk--which is why SWAT teams et. al. are used. I'm not defending the misapplication of those resources, merely the reason why those resources are used. And for every scared grandmother you can drag up, I'll be able to provide ten stories of armed dealers. Reality, remember that.
So if one out of every 11 houses that SWAT goes into is done like Grand Ma's you're happy with that? Stop already.
Instead of using intimidation tactics and rushing houses when they know innocent people are there, how about staking out the house and going in when the innocents are not there? How hard was that to figure out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Did you see how they cut their budget? They went from 50m to 25m in expenditures each year by essentially cutting pensions and benefits. I.E., what every other private employer normally provides. And they have flat-taxes (which are regressive and awful). I wouldn't want to work there.
No not all of the cuts came from that. They cut their budget because it was outsourced and contracted out. The went for the best service/price combo. That's what competition does, lowers the price and increases quality. They are taking bids as a way to insure the price stays low. A move which has been estimated will save them an additional $7 mil a year.
The city has no long term liabilities. They get 401K's instead. The pension contributions are deducted from the paycheck. It is those benefits you said you want which is causing the financial strife many cities and towns have. Where are you going to work when the town goes bankrupt and can't afford to pay people? Unfunded pension liabilities in the rest of the country are at $3 trillion.
Is that a rosey picture?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 12-29-2012 at 04:50 PM..
your comment that I responded too
Originally Posted by Konraden Better than a private one ever would.
You haven't shown proof so how does my argument crumble? Again because you say so?
I demonstrated such with the Pinkerton police. Essentially thugs for hire, because all that mattered was money not safety.
Quote:
Sigh what proof do you have that a private entity can charge you with anything?
What's the point of replacing public safety officers with private security if they don't have the powers of arrest?
[quote]Okay but who cares what they think? Their actions are the way you judge them. The dirty ones and the ones who overstep their authority go unpunished too often.[/quotes]
Says you.
Quote:
Georgias' constitution says it has to be public
As it should be.
Quote:
So if one out of every 11 houses that SWAT goes into is done like Grand Ma's you're happy with that? Stop already.
Instead of using intimidation tactics and rushing houses when they know innocent people are there, how about staking out the house and going in when the innocents are not there? How hard was that to figure out?
I'm sorry, is that what I said? No? Stop already.
Quote:
They cut their budget because it was outsourced and contracted out. The went for the best service/price combo. That's what competition does, lowers the price and increases quality.
The city has no long term liabilities. They get 401K's instead.
No they don't. They have no defined contribution programs. They get nothing.
Quote:
The pension contributions are deducted from the paycheck. It is those benefits you said you want which is causing the financial strife many cities and towns have. Where are you going to work when the town goes bankrupt and can't afford to pay people? Unfunded pension liabilities in the rest of the country are at $3 trillion.
Is that a rosey picture?
It's terribly dishonest to claim the private\public partnership is the saving grace when an upper middle-class and wealthy community decides to fire everyone, hire them back at a fraction of their wages, and cut all of their benefits.
And, by the way, it's still a public police force. You posted that video as to why private police forces were the way to go--and Sandy Springs didn't do that.
I demonstrated such with the Pinkerton police. Essentially thugs for hire, because all that mattered was money not safety.
Really Pinkertons which went all over the US is comparable to a town? How ? Why? The funny part is YOU screaming about them making money when you cry about the police losing money later in your post. Which is it this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
What's the point of replacing public safety officers with private security if they don't have the powers of arrest?
Again here is your post. Imagine that "private" security force just rolling up to your house and going through your belongings. Even if they had a clause in their contract that they can't go through your belongings without your consent
Only someone ignorant of the law would think a private police force can trespass onto your private property and not suffer consequences. They have to have a clause to tell them that???? I'm embarrassed for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Says you.
No not says me. Says hundreds of articles in papers around the country. Rodney King ring a bell? Become informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm sorry, is that what I said? No? Stop already.
Obviously you think a 10 to 1 ratio is good. Otherwise why the comment? Stop already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
No they don't. They have no defined contribution programs. They get nothing.
LMAO They get 401k's which is what I said and not the garbage that you want that bankrupts cities and is currently a 3 TRILLION DOLLAR liability. You need to quit scratching the surface.
FACT - Its employees receive 401(k)s, by which pension contributions are deducted from pay cheques, rather than the defined-benefit pensions that are crushing, and even driving into bankruptcy, many other American cities. Government services: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's terribly dishonest to claim the private\public partnership is the saving grace when an upper middle-class and wealthy community decides to fire everyone, hire them back at a fraction of their wages, and cut all of their benefits.
Here's the control freak I've been waiting for. YOU get to set wages. YOU get to tell people what their benefits are because after all YOU are the great decider who gets to run others lives for them because they can't figure it out for yourself. Oh thank you thank you benevolent one. LMAO what a joke your posts are.
The dishonesty is coming from your posts. Dishonestly saying they have no 401k while doing ZERO research and then you are proven wrong. But then again searching for the truth isn't what you are after in this thread.
But yes please please lets continue to pile up insurmountable UNFUNDED debt and bankrupt cities and go through layoffs because YOU think someone deserves it, NOT what the market will bear, because after all you know best.
Gee guess what happened when the big government, that you love, did that with housing? duuuhhhhhh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And, by the way, it's still a public police force. You posted that video as to why private police forces were the way to go--and Sandy Springs didn't do that.
And by the way, if you read my posts, which you obviously didn't you'd have noticed I said, "I should have called it public/private not private." But keep deflecting since you have nothing except vapid comments.
And btw what I successfully proved, was in the money saved and the quality when the locals have control and the public officials are out. And btw it was I not YOU who said it's in the state constitution. You didn't know that either.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 12-29-2012 at 07:11 PM..
Really Pinkertons which went all over the US is comparable to a town? How ? Why? The funny part is YOU screaming about them making money when you cry about the police losing money later in your post. Which is it this time?
Don't like that private "police" forces were slaughtering civilians? Too bad.
Quote:
Again here is your post. Imagine that "private" security force just rolling up to your house and going through your belongings. Even if they had a clause in their contract that they can't go through your belongings without your consent
Only someone ignorant of the law would think a private police force can trespass onto your private property and not suffer consequences. They have to have a clause to tell them that???? I'm embarrassed for you.
Private police forces that are not sworn officers of a state need neither warrant nor consent to search private property. It's no different than a private-eye. I quoted the passage and gave you the source. Apparently you're too lazy to read it.
Quote:
No not says me. Says hundreds of articles in papers around the country. Rodney King ring a bell? Become informed.
The news tends to report anything that sells (instead of what's important). Nobody hears about the 35,000 police officers doing their job every day in NYC, but rather the one who pepper sprayed a couple on the street .
Quote:
Obviously you think a 10 to 1 ratio is good. Otherwise why the comment? Stop already.
Because I'm defending the actions of high-risk warrant searches, not the actions of the Drug War. I don't expect you to understand that because you still think the police in Sandy Springs are in any way privatized.
Quote:
LMAO They get 401k's which is what I said and not the garbage that you want that bankrupts cities and is currently a 3 TRILLION DOLLAR liability. You need to quit scratching the surface.
FACT - Its employees receive 401(k)s, by which pension contributions are deducted from pay cheques, rather than the defined-benefit pensions that are crushing, and even driving into bankruptcy, many other American cities. Government services: Here
You're right--a 401k with no company matching--that's cutting benefits. It's precisely how this city is saving money.
Quote:
Here's the control freak I've been waiting for. YOU get to set wages. YOU get to tell people what their benefits are because after all YOU are the great decider who gets to run others lives for them because they can't figure it out for yourself. Oh thank you thank you benevolent one. LMAO what a joke your posts are.
The dishonesty is coming from your posts. Dishonestly saying they have no 401k while doing ZERO research and then you are proven wrong. But then again searching for the truth isn't what you are after in this thread.
Because I'm pointing out what's actually going on? They "privatized" their city services, which is essentially just firing the people, hiring them back at less wagers, and cutting benefits--oh, and it's all for profit. There are no morals in profit.
Quote:
But yes please please lets continue to pile up insurmountable UNFUNDED debt and bankrupt cities and go through layoffs because YOU think someone deserves it, NOT what the market will bear, because after all you know best.
Gee guess what happened when the big government, that you love, did that with housing? duuuhhhhhh
Most of Europe runs unfunded programs, as do we. That's not surprising. What happens when you force unfunded programs to fund themselves? The Postal Service, which would be fine if it didn't have to have a fund for all of its pensions up front.
The government can survive with unfunded programs because it's always going to draw in tax dollars.
Quote:
And by the way, if you read my posts, which you obviously didn't you'd have noticed I said, "I should have called it public/private not private." But keep deflecting since you have nothing except vapid comments.
And btw what I successfully proved, was in the money saved and the quality when the locals have control and the public officials are out. And btw it was I not YOU who said it's in the state constitution. You didn't know that either.
You specifically posted that video has evidence of private security working, and now you're renegging on that. That police force is 100% public. You couldn't be any more wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't pull anything reaching like that. 
