Does a Private company have the authority to arrest and detain citizens?

[..PAUL4PRES..]

http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/59284497.html

"BILLINGS - The jail in Hardin has been empty for about two years, but on September 4th officials with the Two Rivers Authority, the economic development agency that paid for the facility, signed a contract with a private police firm called American Police Force to fill the jail."

http://www.americanpolicegroup.com/index.html

[Objectivist]

Sure

[.Tom]

No.

[heavenlyboy34]

only if they are hired by a property owner, and make the arrests in order to defend the property

[constituent]

Depends on the charter (for the municipality or county), and the individual state's law. It's pretty much a case-by-case kinda situation.

[SwordOfShannarah]

Only terror suspects.

[pcosmar]

You mean like the Pinkertons right.
They should be allowed to arrest folks that refuse to sell out of bow down to the wealthy employer? ( before they have to burn them out)

I would vote no.

eta, I have a low opinion of Mercenaries.

[Danke]

No, only publicly traded ones.

[Dr.3D]

Only if they can get away with it.

[fisharmor]

I'm not totally convinced anymore that it is right to support the idea of corporate personhood.

Ralph Nader of all people (let me set the tone on how much I hate him by stating that I grew up riding around in a Corvair) got me thinking about this during the RP sponsored press conference last year.

What reason is there to be able to magically create people whose express purpose is to take the fall if something bad happens? I see this as a way to knowingly do bad things and basically to have an out when society turns against you.

In this case, why is a "company" doing the arrest? By asking the question this way, aren't we assigning personhood to the company in question? Why do we need to agree on that company's personhood to answer?

Consider this... if you break down my front door at 3am, and I intercept you in my living room, and you somehow manage to live for five more seconds, then you bet I'm arresting and detaining you. Your ass is getting hogtied with strapping tape.

Doesn't it make sense that people acting in behalf of a "company" would occasionally have a reason to do likewise?

I guess my short answer is "yes" and my long answer is "yes, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that the individual performing the arrest should be legally protected".

[hillbilly123069]

The right to make a citizens arrest is the only authority granted to non law enforcement personnel.

[tmosley]

They do, but only if the arrested parties have signed a contract allowing it.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/003917.asp

[heavenlyboy34]

They do, but only if the arrested parties have signed a contract allowing it.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/003917.asp (http://blog.mises.org/archives/003917.asp)

If you mean that the arrested parties agreed beforehand that they recognize the Private companies' legitimacy as an arresting authority, I agree. This is pretty interesting topic, eh? :):cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not totally convinced anymore that it is right to support the idea of corporate personhood.

Ralph Nader of all people (let me set the tone on how much I hate him by stating that I grew up riding around in a Corvair) got me thinking about this during the RP sponsored press conference last year.

What reason is there to be able to magically create people whose express purpose is to take the fall if something bad happens? I see this as a way to knowingly do bad things and basically to have an out when society turns against you.

In this case, why is a "company" doing the arrest? By asking the question this way, aren't we assigning personhood to the company in question? Why do we need to agree on that company's personhood to answer?

Consider this... if you break down my front door at 3am, and I intercept you in my living room, and you somehow manage to live for five more seconds, then you bet I'm arresting and detaining you. Your ass is getting hogtied with strapping tape.

Doesn't it make sense that people acting in behalf of a "company" would occasionally have a reason to do likewise?

I guess my short answer is "yes" and my long answer is "yes, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that the individual performing the arrest should be legally protected".


I agree. But if you take this to the logical extreme, you will be called a market anarchist and so on, and dismissed as a "nutjob". Good luck to you!

[Dieseler]

Maybe not the company
but
If deputized I don't see any reason why a companies employees couldn't arrest someone.
Ever heard of a Posse.
Used to happen all the time, Hell, entire towns have been deputized and given arrest powers at times.
By edict of the King before that even I'm sure.

[wizardwatson]

It's situational, would have to be decided in court.

[pcosmar]

It has been done. And with mixed results.
Dieseler mentioned a Posse. that is not a private company. That was generally the Sheriff deputizing Citizens to deal with some criminal acctivity.
I have no problem with that.

The other is the "Robber Barons" having a private Army. This resulted in them having free run to strong-arm citizens, steal land and and abuse workers. There is a lot of room for abuse of a Private Police Force. They are accountable to the "money", and not the "people".

Private Security is different, if it is confined to protecting the private Property and subject to the local authority.

[Dieseler]

It has been done. And with mixed results.
Dieseler mentioned a Posse. that is not a private company. That was generally the Sheriff deputizing Citizens to deal with some criminal acctivity.
I have no problem with that.

The other is the "Robber Barons" having a private Army. This resulted in them having free run to strong-arm citizens, steal land and and abuse workers. There is a lot of room for abuse of a Private Police Force. They are accountable to the "money", and not the "people".

Private Security is different, if it is confined to protecting the private Property and subject to the local authority.

You got me there man but an entire companies staff still could be deputized.
That's what I meant.
There's no reason why a whole battalion of Blackwater (Xe) emplyees could not be deputized and dropped on a town to carry out the business of law and order.
I'm sure there's a law.
Maybe even a super duper secret law.

[Dieseler]

Its gonna happen eventually and like wizard said, it will be sorted out in court after the fact unless of course the media is paid to sweep it under the rug by edict of the King.

Didn't they already basically do this in New Orleans?
Iraq?
Elsewhere?

[pcosmar]

Elsewhere?

The Pinkertons. The Homestead strike comes to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

There is also the story of how Jessie James became an outlaw. Pinkertons tried to burn out his family. Firebombed the house.

[Dieseler]

The Pinkertons. The Homestead strike comes to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

There is also the story of how Jessie James became an outlaw. Pinkertons tried to burn out his family. Firebombed the house.

Yup.
Shouldn't come as any surprise if stuff like this happens again.
Nothing new about this or whole nations using mercenaries to help fight wars.

[pcosmar]

Yup.
Shouldn't come as any surprise if stuff like this happens again.
Nothing new about this or whole nations using mercenaries to help fight wars.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.