Well, somehow I do not believe this monkey-of-a-non-special-police-officer has taken law enforcement training, and that he is given city wide jurisdiction which falls on this beach. Soooo, he is not a Company Police or Special Police as such. In other words, he has no arrest nor detention powers even in Virginia. In more other words, he does NOTHING of what a police officer does. In even more other words, he is not a rent-a-cop. If you want to specifically denote rent-a-cops to special and company police, so be it. I cannot refute that logic. Same as rent-a-teachers and all companies that use contractors.

In fact, by the same logic you used, the electricians and computer IT guys in Iraq could be considered rent-a-soldiers by your definition...

Problem is, regular security does not do what police do--in practice or by law. Same with IT and other contractors for the military. They provide different services. Even if they carry guns for protection---like class G security guards in Florida.

Yes, I know about class G and all the stuff you point to as "evidence" to your point of view. However, it is moot. You are too intellectual for this meaningless point behind the debate. I am not trying to be the rightest here---just trying to get rid of a degrading term applied to a working class of individuals who are not all bad.


>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.
In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.
As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.
Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurityOfficer.cfm

I understand the need to keep people from the work areas and allowing the work to continue unhindered. I even understand preventing the guy from approaching the rest area to some degree. But there are ways to deal with it that don't involve what is being shown in this video. They could simply barricade the area, post signs to keep the unauthorized out, and have their guards escort anyone off who enters the area without authorization.

But that is implying that they have the right to do that, which a lot of these areas are public locations. If they had the power it would be announced on the news and radio, and posted to keep away from these areas until announced otherwise. And that would be the best way to deal with the problem of camera men and the public at large, and made it a crime at the same time giving more deterrent. Except that I don't think they want to keep all the public from within speaking range of the workers, they just want to keep the people with cameras away. If it were truly dangerous to the public at large, it would be done by now. And we all know the public at large can't keep from driving through construction sites without barricades, avoiding uncovered man hole covers without barricades, and dealing with much of anything out of the normal where they can stick their nose to find out what's going on (don't those rubberneckers just piss you off? Especially when they drift all over the place.)

And this isn't just actual work sites they are preventing people from going to and filming. There are plenty of videos of the COAST GUARD stopping people from filming and exploring the coast line from sea because BP said so with no other reason than that. No booms were in place, there was absolutely nothing but oil coated coastline and dead/dying birds, sea life, etc.

And Im rather curious that there isn't a lot of personal footage being shot from people's own land of the mess and sent to these news networks to be aired, but I suspect that is being discouraged in another unknown manner as of yet.

As a sidenote: BP has been putting out low ball estimated reports for the leak, that webcam is underwater with no real frame of reference for the public. Without scale, that thing could be a pin prick in a garden hose or the size of that sink hole in Chile. They've since repositioned the camera a little to give better footage, but scale is still pretty hard to judge if you don't know how big the items being shown are. It's kinda like the realtors who like to shoot everything with that fish eye lens that warps everything out of shape to make it appear bigger...wasting your time looking at that shit since it could have been taken in a barbie house for all you know.


Coast Guard with BP guys stop reporters trying to check out oil covered location..they say it's not their rules by BP's rules "under threat of arrest".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/bp-coast-guard-officers-b_n_581779.html

Hadn't seen this one myself yet...it's even more apparent that they are blocking media exclusively...even from flying over:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html


Common sense and critical thinking tell me that they don't want the public at large getting pissed off and pressuring Congress to actually punish the company. The longer they can keep the illusion alive that the problem isn't horrifically bad, the more time they have to let the oil sink under the surface of the water and clean up those beaches...so it won't look as bad as it truly is. Oh and the illusion helps keep their stock prices up, if the clean up outlook is grim...their stock prices will tank. Can't have that happening. If they can keep the stock up, and Congress off their back...they'll only be out up to 75 mil in damages when the lawsuits start coming in...pretty nifty deal with the government contracts already having paid them 800+ million this year.

And upon watching it again, the supervisor gave the media permission to approach the rest areas (after the guards denied it, didn't ask the supervisor at any point as well) to see if the workers would speak to them. The security guards told them not to and continued to do so until they spoke for themselves. At which point the reporter thanked them for cleaning up the beaches and left. And as for the "deadness" of the shots, they didn't shoot much beyond the guards blocking access and their attempt to ask workers to speak to them. We don't know how many people the guards have chased off with or without the authority to do so under the law.

>> ^BrknPhoenix:

Please do re-read your hippie comments and reflect for a bit. These things are why you are throwing fire on an Internet website and not making actual decisions.
Let's think about it a minute. If BP/the gov't gives carte blanche for all reporters, what's going to happen? The next day they're going to have thousands of reporters standing in the way of the actual work being done. All of the workers will be talking to reporters instead of working. They will create a disruption.
I'm not defending BP for the oil spill at all, but having a little fucking common sense, people. The media does have access. There's a web cam on the spill itself for Christs' sake. That does NOT mean any random person can just walk right up to it and get in the way. It's no difference than me going to the White House, and after being denied access, claiming that because of that, they have something to hide.
Also, take a look at that shot. It's dead. There's not a ton of reporters there. Everyone knows the rules. These douchebags know the rules too. They're deliberately trying to stir shit up by asking questions to "Rent-a-cops" about what the CEO of the company says, and making unreasonable demands about going onto a work-site.
Do keep this in mind one day when you finally go over the edge, and after mowing down half a school's worth of kids in your Prius after a hella cocaine bender, the media can't follow you right into your place of work because you too enjoy protections like the workers of BP! Isn't America wonderful.
The steps go like this. Step 1) Think critically. Step 2) Lynch. Not the other way around.

Please do re-read your hippie comments and reflect for a bit. These things are why you are throwing fire on an Internet website and not making actual decisions.

Let's think about it a minute. If BP/the gov't gives carte blanche for all reporters, what's going to happen? The next day they're going to have thousands of reporters standing in the way of the actual work being done. All of the workers will be talking to reporters instead of working. They will create a disruption.

I'm not defending BP for the oil spill at all, but having a little fucking common sense, people. The media does have access. There's a web cam on the spill itself for Christs' sake. That does NOT mean any random person can just walk right up to it and get in the way. It's no difference than me going to the White House, and after being denied access, claiming that because of that, they have something to hide.

Also, take a look at that shot. It's dead. There's not a ton of reporters there. Everyone knows the rules. These douchebags know the rules too. They're deliberately trying to stir shit up by asking questions to "Rent-a-cops" about what the CEO of the company says, and making unreasonable demands about going onto a work-site.

Do keep this in mind one day when you finally go over the edge, and after mowing down half a school's worth of kids in your Prius after a hella cocaine bender, the media can't follow you right into your place of work because you too enjoy protections like the workers of BP! Isn't America wonderful.

The steps go like this. Step 1) Think critically. Step 2) Lynch. Not the other way around.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.


Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.

In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.

As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.

Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurityOfficer.cfm

>> ^raverman:
This is the point in history where we all realised that the power of corporations over take the nation state and freedoms, bills of rights, and constitutions are no longer relevant.
You are now a consumer first and a citizen second.
Go on your way.


We just realized that? It has been going on since before mankind started to form civilization. Stone Inc., for example. Didn't we have a teaparty because of this? Back before the new teaparty?

I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Your video, BP Rent a Cop Halts Media Coverage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^volumptuous:
HEY EVERYONE!!
TWO GUYS WERE DOUCHEBAGS>>> ALL GOVERNMENT MUST BE DESTROYED!!

Is volumptuous just a troll now? Being that it was more than a dozen police, and no one is advocating the destruction of government but him? Should he be on a watch list?


Actually, wrong again. Good grief! Two of the men in the vid go above and beyond. One of those douches makes a threat. All are rent-a-cops. The real cops just question harmlessly and realize they are beaten. If that makes them douches....good god we have high standards.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.
A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.



No, you are missing the point and in this rare circumstance, I agree with someone 100%. I know the example I am about to give will be extreme, however, even if extreme, by your reasoning, congress could make NO LAW every prohibiting it...

A man rapes a random woman/passerby because he wants to protest women's rights. Per the NO LAW, ever, clause you mention, this would be a lawful act. Even the laws on the books about rape could not prohibit this man from his wrong doing because, since he is protesting and using free speach, he is immune from prosecution.

Like I said, that example is extreme. However, the law, strictly read, is extreme as well. So there SHOULD be SOME leeway in there. You need a permit? The state cannot discriminate so apply for one and it will be granted. This does not, in anyway, stop a protest by a concerned, non-lazy citizen...

Also, who are these tards to ask for ID, say it is required, and not give their own info? Is it required? Because I don't think it is required of rent-a-cops or other private sectors... I know Florida's courtroom security is run by a private corporation...

As I said in general. What this recording seems to be is a squable between someone who seems to have the authority of a rent a cop, then everything else seems to go pretty amicably.

While I agree with the cheese steak comment, I have to choose your first option. Between hanging a dalass cowboys fan over the upper deck, throwing snowballs at Santa, D-sized batteries at JD Drew (again at a Phillies game) distractions in a game are fine by most of us. You may have great fans up there in Toronto, but they are not Philly fans. So yes, people do enjoy the baseball, but they also enjoy the shenanigans that seem to encompass going to a sporting event in Philadelphia.

If some kid wants to run around on a field to eventually get tazed down by some pathetic fat fuck of a cop, I'll cheer for the kid, just like the fans in the video. He wasted a few minutes of the game to give people extra enjoyment, at great cost to himself. The fines you get for these acts are not cheap. Most times the kid tires out or runs off the field himself, the game continues. Apparently the fat fuck of a rent-a-cop didn't get that memo. This wouldn't even make the news most night except of the idiot cop.

I don't know about a magical telepathic connection, but I do know there's an etiquette surrounding these events. I bet that rent-a-cop doesn't work another sporting event here for his own safety. I'd explain fan loyalty to you, but obviously it wouldn't stick to a Blue Jays fan.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Sigh:
"In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at a Jays game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing."
You know nothing of us Philadelphia fans, and if you are one you should be ashamed for your idiotic remarks.

Fine, fixed it for you with my own team. What's the fucking difference? I paid to see a baseball game, not some young kid showboating. I have been to a phillys game when I was down in Philadelphia, the people around me seemed to enjoy the actual baseball too.
Is there some kind of magical telepathic connection that everybody gets once they're a phillys fan that makes it so they all prefer to see some idiot on the field then watch the game? Or are they just the same kinds of fans that the rest of the baseball teams have except with really fucking good cheesesteaks in their stadium.
my vote is on the latter.

Shoplifting is one charge, misdemeanor, but if you struggle, and they want to press charges, it could become assault wile committing a robbery, a felony in most states. Problem is, you've got your redneck factor to be wary of, and the yahoos at the store, those rent-a-cops and clerks ready to break your neck for cheese whiz ad say you attacked them-Know Your Terrain!

>> ^imstellar28:
Its illegal to spit watermelon seeds on a sidewalk on Sundays. Ever seen a sign on a sidewalk posting that law? There is nothing about laws that say they need to be posted. A cop can arrest you for practically anything because the US has over 50,000+ laws. How can such a system ever be legitimate, if there are so many laws you can never know whether you are acting legally or illegally?


This isn't about any little known law forbidding a particular behavior, it is about a rent-a-cop making up rules to suit his whims, calling "real" police when his commands are rebuffed, and a shitty cop backing him up and threatening to charge innocent citizens with crimes they have not committed. There are rules posted for the skate park and no where does it forbid getting on top of the wall for any reason.


Also, what kind of person thinks its a good idea to argue with a police officer, or tell them what to do?


If you're in the right there is no reason not to argue. As long as you don't threaten the officer or become physically aggressive, they can only run their mouth and try to intimidate you. If they were to arrest you it'd be some time out of your day, but it'd cost them their job. And you might get a decent settlement check from the city when you SUED THEIR ASSES. Cops are continuously abusing their limited powers, and using intimidation and fear of arrest to make people bend to their will. It's time we let them know they're not going to get away with it anymore.

Walmart created an unsafe condition. They should be held liable.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
That's Bullshit hon. This is not the store's fault. Hiring a couple of rent-a-cops to hold their hands up at them wouldn't have made a difference.
They would have been trampled along w/ the store workers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart hires security now though...

In reply to this comment by ArtfulDodger:
The store should be held liable for this. They know how crazy people get over sales and yet they have no safeguards to insure an orderly entrance into the store. I hope they get sued for millions.

That's Bullshit hon. This is not the store's fault. Hiring a couple of rent-a-cops to hold their hands up at them wouldn't have made a difference.
They would have been trampled along w/ the store workers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart hires security now though...

In reply to this comment by ArtfulDodger:
The store should be held liable for this. They know how crazy people get over sales and yet they have no safeguards to insure an orderly entrance into the store. I hope they get sued for millions.