Neighborhood Fires Sheriff Dept and Goes Private Security Cuts Crime in Half.

[phill4paul]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/26/houston-neighborhood-goes-private-security-cuts-crime/



He looks like a cop, he dresses like a cop, but he is actual a member of S.E.A.L. security. A Houston neighborhood decided to go with private security and cuts crime in half.

When Sharpstown, a small suburb in Houston, Texas, received their last bill from Harris County sheriff department, they thought they could go cheaper. Harris County told them to put their money where their mouth is. So they did. Not only have they gained a presence of three patrol cars at any given hour, but saved the suburb about $200,000 a year.

They don’t pull people over, they don’t stop traffic, but they do stop crime. The city said crime is down in fact by over 50%. Not bad from just increasing visibility of law enforcement. The private security company is armed and does have the power to make arrests. The funny aspect is that they take them to Harris County lock up.

The S.E.A.L. company has its own academy. All patrol officers are licensed. They have K-9 units trained and at their disposal. While they specialize in business and residential security in the state of Texas, when they were contacted by the suburb in need of help, they were all too happy to provide them with the best package deal for the town. The suburb is happy with the arrangement along with the S.E.A.L. Security Solutions Firm.

So one must ask what is the downside to this? So far the only people saying anything negative is Harris County that lost out on the contract due to over charging the suburb. Even the news finds this strange but seems interested in the arrangement.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z9TMI_oUfqY

[fisharmor]

Very nice find. Proves much of what is said here.
But then there's also the fact that people will zero in on the fact that increased visibility was part of this, and entirely miss the point... and probably use that as justification for more funding of the police state.

[specsaregood]

how exactly is this different any other city police (nonsheriff) department?

[phill4paul]

Very nice find. Proves much of what is said here.
But then there's also the fact that people will zero in on the fact that increased visibility was part of this, and entirely miss the point... and probably use that as justification for more funding of the police state.

It puts the sheriff department back into its original role. To serve warrants, to watch over the court and maintain the jail.
I do wonder if these individuals that work with SEAL Security have any kind of the "qualified immunity" that police forces traditionally do. I would think not. Which goes a long way towards solving some matters.

[aGameOfThrones]

how exactly is this different any other city police (nonsheriff) department?

more accountable?

[pcosmar]

Cut crime even further,,
Remove 90% of the laws, and crime will be Reduced.
Arm local citizens and crime will be rare.

[phill4paul]

how exactly is this different any other city police (nonsheriff) department?

It's cheaper. They don't try to make a living busting people for rolling stops and other bullshit. They actually reduce property and violent crimes and as mentioned in my above post I would think that they don't have "qualified immunity."

[donnay]

Cut crime even further,,
Remove 90% of the laws, and crime will be Reduced.
Arm local citizens and crime will be rare.

Absolutely! +rep

[Cleaner44]

I would be willing to bet that these private officers conduct themselves as professionals and do not treat their customers, the citizens that hired them, with contempt.

[specsaregood]

It's cheaper. They don't try to make a living busting people for rolling stops and other bullshit. They actually reduce property and violent crimes and as mentioned in my above post I would think that they don't have "qualified immunity."

Any city police department could be told not to do those things as well. These guys are hired by the govt, not the people. The security people aren't elected. I'm just not understanding how there is any different status here than any other city police.

[Thor]

Interesting isn't it. It cost less money using a private firm to do the job that is actually supposed to be done, rather than paying over inflated rates for them to "patrol" the area which reveals itself with the main focus of sucking the neighborhood drier with petty traffic fine - i.e. revenue collection.

I wonder if you lump all those stupid fines for traffic infractions and all the other revenue collection BS the private firm is not concerned with into the contract fees that the neighborhood was paying to the sheriff department, what the REAL savings are. Way more than 50% I bet....

Yet people argue that the libertarian way of privatization of things wouldn't work..... Yet it is working here.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

If I had the capital I would start such a protection firm.

[Thor]

I would be willing to bet that these private officers conduct themselves as professionals and do not treat their customers, the citizens that hired them, with contempt.

Well duh... the private firm can be fired and replaced. They have to be professional. Officer douche-bag does not have that accountability measure hanging over his head. More areas need to start firing local sheriffs and privatizing the services.

[FSP-Rebel]

I like this but in this instance, it seems as if this suburb doesn't have their own PD and used to rely on the county sheriffs for patrols. In many small cities and towns, the police, city council, mayor, fire dept are all usually buddy-buddy so how would areas like these emulate Sharpstown? Also, do these same city's/town's charters call for local PDs in them? I could see certain outlying areas of Detroit trying such a thing and if the results could hold, it would be fantastic.

[specsaregood]

Interesting isn't it. It cost less money using a private firm to do the job that is actually supposed to be done, rather than paying over inflated rates for them to "patrol" the area which reveals itself with the main focus of sucking the neighborhood drier with petty traffic fine - i.e. revenue collection.

I wonder if you lump all those stupid fines for traffic infractions and all the other revenue collection BS the private firm is not concerned with into the contract fees that the neighborhood was paying to the sheriff department, what the REAL savings are. Way more than 50% I bet....

Yet people argue that the libertarian way of privatization of things wouldn't work..... Yet it is working here.

Unless I'm missing something here, this is not the libertarian way of things. This is more like fascism. Would not the libertarian way be the individuals of this neighborhood hiring security for themselves? This is just a city outsourcing police functions.

[dannno]

I'm just not understanding how there is any different status here than any other city police.

Cost = Half

Effectiveness = Double

:confused:

[dannno]

Unless I'm missing something here, this is not the libertarian way of things. This is more like fascism. Would not the libertarian way be the individuals of this neighborhood hiring security for themselves? This is just a city outsourcing police functions.

Well the fact that it is a city government helps a lot, but you are correct that it would be better if the citizens hired them and were not forced to pay for them.

I imagine cities don't have a lot of say about how police departments really function, it seems to be so universal.. at least with a private firm you can instruct them how to react to specific situations.

I'm wondering what they use the K-9 for.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Unless I'm missing something here, this is not the libertarian way of things. This is more like fascism. Would not the libertarian way be the individuals of this neighborhood hiring security for themselves? This is just a city outsourcing police functions.

Can you cite one instance where a fascist country used private police forces?

[dannno]

Unless I'm missing something here, this is not the libertarian way of things. This is more like fascism. Would not the libertarian way be the individuals of this neighborhood hiring security for themselves? This is just a city outsourcing police functions.

If the city council was paid off and hired a security firm that overcharged and took a lot of leeway with regards to the rights of the citizens then you could see a poor result from this model - you also get a similar result with police unions - but if the city council is held accountable and people in the community are paying attention you can get a better model out of this than a normal city police dept., if nothing else they can be more customized like I said in my previous post.

[dannno]

Can you cite one instance where a fascist country used private police forces?

Blackwater.

[specsaregood]

Can you cite one instance where a fascist country used private police forces?

Dunno, I'm not gonna go research it. You prefer corporatism? What do you call it when a govt takes tax dollars and funnels that money to private businesses? I don't think that's libertarian.

[specsaregood]

Cost = Half
Effectiveness = Double
:confused:

I'd argue that this is a result of the job functions they are being hired to perform and not wasting resources on tickets, jaywalkig and seatbelt stops. And I'd guess lack of a union. I don't see any reason that any city police department could not be ordered to limit their enforcement to the same set of issues. ie: focus on actual crimes with victims. You'd probably have similar results. no outsourcing necessary.

[Thor]

Unless I'm missing something here, this is not the libertarian way of things. This is more like fascism. Would not the libertarian way be the individuals of this neighborhood hiring security for themselves? This is just a city outsourcing police functions.

Unless I read the article wrong, the neighborhood did hire the security firm for themselves. The neighborhood council fired the Sheriff Department and hired the private firm. The council was elected to represent the neighborhood. It should be representational of the individuals in the neighborhood ("should be.")

Sure, this is not private protection on a per person or per household basis, but on a neighborhood basis. It seemed to be more cost effective (and for sure was more cost effective versus the government option), and generally more secure to have a private firm watch the entire neighborhood, rather than a firm hired for just a single household, or single person in the household. But if all the citizens are armed as well, that that is even better.

The fact that the government entity was replaced with a private firm is a step in a more libertarian direction. Private roads would not be just for a single user, but for all users who want to pay to drive on the private road. The security firm was not just for a single person or household, but for all the neighbors paying to use the private firm.

[Thor]

Can you cite one instance where a fascist country used private police forces?


Blackwater.

Hired by a government entity to do the bidding of the government entity. Not hired by the people to protect the people.

[AFPVet]

It's a step in the right direction. As others mentioned, it removes legal immunity from officers, saves money, and removes the income generating enforcement. Going one step further, you could arm the population and create a volunteer (reserve) force. Reserve deputies are unpaid/volunteer officers.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Dunno, I'm not gonna go research it. You prefer corporatism? What do you call it when a govt takes tax dollars and funnels that money to private businesses? I don't think that's libertarian.

How will people ever see private police forces as a better alternative if they only have monopolized government police?

Not everyone is like us and can imagine a better world based on our philosophy. They need to see the difference in person.

And yes I agree with you that it would be better if the people hired the security directly.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It's a step in the right direction. As others mentioned, it removes legal immunity from officers, saves money, and removes the income generating enforcement. Going one step further, you could arm the population and create a volunteer (reserve) force. Reserve deputies are unpaid/volunteer officers.

spot on.

[specsaregood]

How will people ever see private police forces as a better alternative if they only have monopolized government police?
Not everyone is like us and can imagine a better world based on our philosophy. They need to see the difference in person.
And yes I agree with you that it would be better if the people hired the security directly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against this. I'm just saying it can be claimed to be a win for libertarian ideas/ideals because it isn't.

If I was to discuss the situation with non libertarians, I would focus on the fact that the private securities job functions are limited to only going after crimes with actual victims and argue THAT is the biggest reason for a reduction in crime. If more city police departments did that instead of going after victimless crimes, I think you would have similar results.

[bunklocoempire]

Cut crime even further,,
Remove 90% of the laws, and crime will be Reduced.
Arm local citizens and crime will be rare.

Yep. Very recent history shows us this.

[EBounding]

That's good, but this is better:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco&feature=youtu.be

[Thor]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against this. I'm just saying it can('t) be claimed to be a win for libertarian ideas/ideals because it isn't.

If I was to discuss the situation with non libertarians, I would focus on the fact that the private securities job functions are limited to only going after crimes with actual victims and argue THAT is the biggest reason for a reduction in crime. If more city police departments did that instead of going after victimless crimes, I think you would have similar results.

I think removing the government police force and hiring a private firm that does a better job at a lower cost, and does not waste time or money with victimless crimes, is a win for libertarian ideas / ideals. Is it perfect in libertarian theory? No. But is it a big step to waking people up that they don't need the Nanny for everything? Yup!

City police departments are more focused on raising revenue through seat-belt violations and stop sign infractions (victimless crimes) than doing their jobs of preventing people from infringing upon the rights of another, or crimes with a victim.

[dannno]

Going one step further, you could arm the population and create a volunteer (reserve) force. Reserve deputies are unpaid/volunteer officers.

Ya that might not be the best way to try and convince the general public until after more people have forgotten about the Zimmerman media debacle.

[Occam's Banana]

This reminds me of a very brief item I read in the "Reflections" section of Liberty magazine back in the '90s. From what I remember ...

Some small Massachusetts burg (its name started with "E," I think) fired its entire 6-or-so-man police department (due to corruption & ineffectiveness, as I recall). They replaced it by hiring a private security firm. Everything was going fine, and the residents were very happy & satisfied with the change. But then some buttinsky District Attorney - NOT from the district the town was in, but from some other district in MA - took exception to the situation and sued the town in state court ...

The judge found against the town, ruling that the government and only the government should ever be allowed to provide police services - regardless of how corrupt or incompetent the government-operated police might be. He stated that the fact that residents overwhelmingly preferred the private firm was irrelevant, and that it was solely the State's prerogative to field policing operations (no matter how poorly it might do so - or how much better a private interest might prove to be at it).

[Henry Rogue]

Cut crime even further,,
Remove 90% of the laws, and crime will be Reduced.
Arm local citizens and crime will be rare.
This is my first choice.

[Thor]

This reminds me of a very brief item I read in the "Reflections" section of Liberty magazine back in the '90s. From what I remember ...

Some small Massachusetts burg (its name started with "E," I think) fired its entire 6-or-so-man police department (due to corruption & ineffectiveness, as I recall). They replaced it by hiring a private security firm. Everything was going fine, and the residents were very happy & satisfied with the change. But then some buttinsky District Attorney - NOT from the district the town was in, but from some other district in MA - took exception to the situation and sued the town in state court ...

The judge found against the town, ruling that the government and only the government should ever be allowed to provide police services - regardless of how corrupt or incompetent the government-operated police might be. He stated that the fact that residents overwhelmingly preferred the private firm was irrelevant, and that it was solely the State's prerogative to field policing operations (no matter how poorly it might do so - or how much better a private interest might prove to be at it).

Just-Us system

[phill4paul]

This reminds me of a very brief item I read in the "Reflections" section of Liberty magazine back in the '90s. From what I remember ...

Some small Massachusetts burg (its name started with "E," I think) fired its entire 6-or-so-man police department (due to corruption & ineffectiveness, as I recall). They replaced it by hiring a private security firm. Everything was going fine, and the residents were very happy & satisfied with the change. But then some buttinsky District Attorney - NOT from the district the town was in, but from some other district in MA - took exception to the situation and sued the town in state court ...

The judge found against the town, ruling that the government and only the government should ever be allowed to provide police services - regardless of how corrupt or incompetent the government-operated police might be. He stated that the fact that residents overwhelmingly preferred the private firm was irrelevant, and that it was solely the State's prerogative to field policing operations (no matter how poorly it might do so - or how much better a private interest might prove to be at it).

I'm sure the buttinsky DA received some campaign funding from police unions.

As others have mentioned what I take away from this article is this....

The Sheriffs Dept. felt it had a monopoly on protective services and charged the neighborhood what they wanted. When told to put their "money were the mouth was" the citizens hired a private firm. I'm sure the Sheriff felt that if the neighborhood canceled the service that crime would rise and the citizens would pay him even more when they came crawling back. Now that there is another protective service in town the sheriff is gonna have to rethink his business model.

[Thor]

This reminds me of a very brief item I read in the "Reflections" section of Liberty magazine back in the '90s. From what I remember ...

Some small Massachusetts burg (its name started with "E," I think) fired its entire 6-or-so-man police department (due to corruption & ineffectiveness, as I recall). They replaced it by hiring a private security firm. Everything was going fine, and the residents were very happy & satisfied with the change. But then some buttinsky District Attorney - NOT from the district the town was in, but from some other district in MA - took exception to the situation and sued the town in state court ...

The judge found against the town, ruling that the government and only the government should ever be allowed to provide police services - regardless of how corrupt or incompetent the government-operated police might be. He stated that the fact that residents overwhelmingly preferred the private firm was irrelevant, and that it was solely the State's prerogative to field policing operations (no matter how poorly it might do so - or how much better a private interest might prove to be at it).


I'm sure the buttinsky DA received some campaign funding from police unions.

As others have mentioned what I take away from this article is this....

The Sheriffs Dept. felt it had a monopoly on protective services and charged the neighborhood what they wanted. When told to put their "money were the mouth was" the citizens hired a private firm. I'm sure the Sheriff felt that if the neighborhood canceled the service that crime would rise and the citizens would pay him even more when they came crawling back. Now that there is another protective service in town the sheriff is gonna have to rethink his business model.


Paging Slutter to defend the DA... Slutter McGee. j/k

[Czolgosz]

This reminds me of a very brief item I read in the "Reflections" section of Liberty magazine back in the '90s. From what I remember ...

Some small Massachusetts burg (its name started with "E," I think) fired its entire 6-or-so-man police department (due to corruption & ineffectiveness, as I recall). They replaced it by hiring a private security firm. Everything was going fine, and the residents were very happy & satisfied with the change. But then some buttinsky District Attorney - NOT from the district the town was in, but from some other district in MA - took exception to the situation and sued the town in state court ...

The judge found against the town, ruling that the government and only the government should ever be allowed to provide police services - regardless of how corrupt or incompetent the government-operated police might be. He stated that the fact that residents overwhelmingly preferred the private firm was irrelevant, and that it was solely the State's prerogative to field policing operations (no matter how poorly it might do so - or how much better a private interest might prove to be at it).


Sounds like America.

[aGameOfThrones]

I'm sure the buttinsky DA received some campaign funding from police unions.

As others have mentioned what I take away from this article is this....

The Sheriffs Dept. felt it had a monopoly on protective services and charged the neighborhood what they wanted. When told to put their "money were the mouth was" the citizens hired a private firm. I'm sure the Sheriff felt that if the neighborhood canceled the service that crime would rise and the citizens would pay him even more when they came crawling back. Now that there is another protective service in town the sheriff is gonna have to rethink his business model.


What to do?

http://worldnewspress.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/giphy-11.gif

[angelatc]

Dunno, I'm not gonna go research it. You prefer corporatism? What do you call it when a govt takes tax dollars and funnels that money to private businesses? I don't think that's libertarian.


I have less of a problem with it when it's done locally than federally.

This is an interesting concept - do they have arrest powers?

One thing I like about it is that it breaks the bond between the courts and the police. I think a judge would be much less likely to believe a private cop when questionable circumstances arise, and the people would get a better shot at a fair trial.

[Occam's Banana]

This is an interesting concept - do they have arrest powers?

Apparently so. FTA:

The private security company is armed and does have the power to make arrests.

[phill4paul]

This is an interesting concept - do they have arrest powers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest_in_the_United_States


Most states have codified the common law rule that a warrantless arrest may be made by a private person for a felony, misdemeanor or "breach of peace"

It depends on the state one resides in.


One thing I like about it is that it breaks the bond between the courts and the police. I think a judge would be much less likely to believe a private cop when questionable circumstances arise, and the people would get a better shot at a fair trial.

Again from wiki:


Private persons do not enjoy the same protections as the police in arresting others. While the powers to arrest are similar, police are entitled to mistake of fact in most cases, while citizens are held to a stricter liability.

So I see it as a good thing. Around here we often say that the police should not have any more special consideration than a citizen. In this case it would appear that they don't.

[helmuth_hubener]

Well duh... the private firm can be fired and replaced. They have to be professional. Officer douche-bag does not have that accountability measure hanging over his head. More areas need to start firing local sheriffs and privatizing the services.

Exactly. We need to have a free market in everything. Free competition allows superior products to win out.