Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

minnesotareformer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 606 posts

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#571

Post by sneak »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #539
NullInvictus wrote: post #310

You have to have been raised pretty sweetly to not have known this kind of racketeering was a 'thing' for a very long time. Pressure to hire cops is rampant. 'rent-a-cop' is not aimed at the fact that security companies apply aggressive mimicry to their people, but that these people are themselves often off-duty cops. Security companies are strongly "encouraged" to hire off-duty cops, and find themselves left out to…

Yes, but this epidemic of urban crime is very new for our generation. We haven't had these "catch-and-release" policies with violent criminals. We haven't legalized shoplifting for sums under $950 before. We haven't had DAs in many major cities that are opposed to jailing violent offenders for "diversity and equity" reasons.

> We haven't legalized shoplifting for sums under $950 before.

One of the main reasons for this is because mobile phones keep getting more expensive, and high school kids frequently steal other high school kids' phones. The limit keeps getting raised so that 18 year olds don't end up with felonies on their record.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#572

Post by a-french-anon »

pkulak wrote: post #540
Jerrrry wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you should practice carry and conceal, and hopefully never have to draw on it. You can always just give the muggers everything, including your gun. You can't barter back your (or your family's) life, and putting the massive asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry.

If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? Seems like the danger from having a gun on my person and in my house vastly outnumbers the chance I become Dirty Harry for an evening, no matter how thrilling that thought is. And I won't be Dirty Harry, I'll be Bernie Goetz. No thanks. > asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry Don't try…

Do you put your seatbelt on when driving? I do. Not because I expect to be in a situation where I'll need it, but because if said extremely rare situation happens, I'll be happy I did; the consequence:probability ratio is just too big, as my life (and that of my family if I had one) has a value of ∞.

Having a weapon on yourself in preparing for the worst case scenario. "Hope for the best and plan for the worst", you know.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#573

Post by webninja »

BWStearns wrote: post #93

Friend of mine runs a drone photography business (think instagram people on vacation or house photography for real estate). The city requires he hire an off duty cop for $100/hr to “manage the set” and the minimum time per engagement for this rent-a-racketeer service is four hours. The shoots are usually about 30 minutes.

Sounds like something a gang would require.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#574

Post by mcv »

NullInvictus wrote: post #310

You have to have been raised pretty sweetly to not have known this kind of racketeering was a 'thing' for a very long time. Pressure to hire cops is rampant. 'rent-a-cop' is not aimed at the fact that security companies apply aggressive mimicry to their people, but that these people are themselves often off-duty cops. Security companies are strongly "encouraged" to hire off-duty cops, and find themselves left out to…

I live in a different country where this sort of racketeering would be extremely illegal and a national scandal if it happened. I find this article far too mild in calling out the blatant crime that these police officers openly engage in. With full knowledge of the city. People should be going to prison for this. A lot of people. That this is allowed to continue so openly is incomprehensible to me.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#575

Post by mcv »

edrxty wrote: post #334
PumpkinSpice wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite part is that California has a roster of handguns approved for sale. The pretext for its existence is consumer safety (it is entirely separate from bans on stuff like assault weapons or large magazines), but the actual effect is that you have a very limited selection in stores, and most of the designs are very dated. But if you're a police officer? You get an exemption! Apparently, the state has no regard…

And importantly, as a cop, you're allowed to buy off-roster (modern) handguns and then turn around and sell them to the public at a profit. You have to be slightly careful because the ATF doesn't like non dealers buying and selling tons of guns, but it's a huge racket where cops will make a few thousand dollars a year selling modern/desirable guns to the pubilc (through FFLs).

Why do po police officers buy their own guns? Do they not get their guns provided to them by the police department?

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#576

Post by mcv »

pkulak wrote: post #532
a-french-anon wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's that little something called "dignity". You know, trying to do something about your situation instead of rolling over and praying for the meanies to be lenient with you.

I find dignity in being alive for my family.

The whole notion of using a gun for self-defense sounds insane to me. The criminal is the one starting the violent interaction and is therefore prepared for it, probably has their gun ready or within easy reach. For me to then want to draw my gun sounds like a recipe to get shot. Being not a threat to a dangerous idiot and getting out alive sounds far preferable to me than dying like a wannabe John Wayne.

Everybody being armed ups the stakes for everybody, and I'd expect criminals to be more likely to shoot in that situation. And having guns for everybody, but only the best guns for criminals, sounds like the worst idea of all.

Best of all would be to make it harder for criminals specifically to get guns by having every gun and gun transaction registered and verified. Every loophole is going to be abused.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#577

Post by Tostino »

hellojesus wrote: post #514
constantly wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever your ideology it seems a little craven to not want guns that happen to be out in circulation to be as safe as possible from incidents like misfires from accidental dropping.

Sig has yet to undo the reputational damage caused by their p320 failing the drop test, despite being fixed back in 2018 or 2019. I agree that drop tests and other ND tests are appropriate. Although I would prefer a market based solution here instead of regulation.

The market failed to innovate on safety for years. And the issue with a market based solution is it can be much cheaper to just not include any of those safety features.

Some things can be below your personal risk tolerance, but be well above the acceptable risk tolerance at a social level.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#578

Post by NickC25 »

WalterBright wrote: post #569
Apocryphon wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lobbies just like any other corporate giant. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/issues?... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526 On the far right front, here's what I found: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Walmart_and_Politics https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/new-report-on-political-... > A new report issued Tuesday shows that Walmart and the Walton family that found…

The Walton family is not Walmart, and the individuals in the Walton family are free to donate to whatever causes they want to.

Uh, yes, they are. They all sit on the board, and collectively own a majority of the company's stock IIRC. You're also not remembering that the company literally bears their family name. Multiple Walton family members are on the board, and the 1st, 2nd and 5th largest shareholders of the company's stock are Waltons. Those 3 shareholders collectively own roughly 42% of all outstanding shares.

They also donate not out of the good of their hearts, but to protect and grow their economic interests, which is primarily the value of Walmart's stock.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#579

Post by mcv »

a-french-anon wrote: post #572
pkulak wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? Seems like the danger from having a gun on my person and in my house vastly outnumbers the chance I become Dirty Harry for an evening, no matter how thrilling that thought is. And I won't be Dirty Harry, I'll be Bernie Goetz. No thanks. > asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry Don't try…

Do you put your seatbelt on when driving? I do. Not because I expect to be in a situation where I'll need it, but because if said extremely rare situation happens, I'll be happy I did; the consequence:probability ratio is just too big, as my life (and that of my family if I had one) has a value of ∞. Having a weapon on yourself in preparing for the worst case scenario. "Hope for the best and plan for the worst", you…

Not really a good comparison. Seat belts save lives, guns take it. The fact that a gun is a real threat to the mugger, makes it a threat to you. Because the mugger knows that you might be carrying a gun. I'm pretty sure that muggers and burglars in the US use a lot more deadly force than elsewhere, exactly because of the chance their victim may be armed.

Of course given that muggers expect you might be armed, you might as well be. But I'm still not convinced they actually make you safer; lots of Americans get killed by their own gun.

Re: Small business owners say they're pressured to hire off-duty cops for security

#580

Post by mcv »

boppo1 wrote: post #560
datavirtue wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I used to live in an area that was overrun with a biker gang and had friends who had slight involvement with them and ended up getting intimidated into giving them their nicer positions like furniture and TVs. Classic bully shit but a grown adult coming into your house and taking your shit. I had a retail shop in the community and also lived next to a bar and a property where they would congregate and some woul…

>When I first moved there I had no idea that it was like this. What advice would you give someone moving to an unfamiliar area to avoid this?

Maybe first check if the area is ruled by gangs.
Post reply on HN