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

601–606 of 606 posts

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

#601

Post by TrueSlacker0 »

smolder wrote: post #585
TrueSlacker0 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I live in a different world. I have run multiple large beer events. (4 or 5,000ppl at the last one) These get approved by our city and state. All I have ever been asked is if we have a security plan, not any details, just that one exists. And it's sort of in passing, usually after the we need a copy of your insurance requirement. There were not any requirements to hire an officer. I still choose to hire 3 off…

You choose to hire off-duty police and don't have the same experience as the person who didn't choose to hire off-duty police... I'm positive that corruption like GP described is able to coexist with scenarios like yours where everything's above board, but given you are hiring the off-duty police voluntarily, you haven't established that there wouldn't be repercussions for not doing so.

There is absolutely zero repercussions, I hire them after all licensing approval. After the point of any city or state interference. I have run some of the smaller 400-600ppl events with zero police.

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

#602

Post by permo-w »

manmal wrote: post #341
TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the slanted history point of view is that he started fires, so he can buy the distressed property. hospitals don't have an incentive to give you a heart attack.

I‘m curious, why don’t hospitals have such an incentive? Naive conjecture would tell me otherwise.

litigiousness

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

#603

Post by bryans »

lobf wrote: post #591
bryans wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to drug abuse, harm reduction can mean providing clean needles and other supplies to the user. The person isn't going to stop just because they're denied clean supplies. In the same way that you can't stop people from acquiring guns, but you can help prevent them from purchasing guns that are fundamentally unsafe to operate.

You absolutely can stop people from acquiring guns. Most western democracies do this very effectively. That should be our focus.

No, you literally cannot stop people from acquiring guns in the United States, as it's baked in the Constitution. Please make arguments based in reality.

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

#604

Post by smolder »

TrueSlacker0 wrote: post #601
smolder wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You choose to hire off-duty police and don't have the same experience as the person who didn't choose to hire off-duty police... I'm positive that corruption like GP described is able to coexist with scenarios like yours where everything's above board, but given you are hiring the off-duty police voluntarily, you haven't established that there wouldn't be repercussions for not doing so.

There is absolutely zero repercussions, I hire them after all licensing approval. After the point of any city or state interference. I have run some of the smaller 400-600ppl events with zero police.

Thanks for clarifying.

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

#605

Post by hellojesus »

Tostino wrote: post #577
hellojesus wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The market based approach states that if the demand is there, supply will come online if profitable. In this case it doesn't seem like the cost is more than $100-200 incremental, which isn't outlandish.

If enough people buy unsafe firearms and then are subsequently jailed for negligence, or the companies are sued out of existence, I would imagine the safe version would organically emerge.

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

#606

Post by hellojesus »

mcv wrote: post #588
some_random wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to talk about callous? Calling people who commit suicide "Killers" is callous ( https://concealedcarrykillers.org/ ). Using suicides to pad statistics to push magazine capacity bans or bans on ergonomic features is callous. You pretending that children being pushed to take their own lives is the same as being killed as bystanders in gang violence or killed in school shootings just so it can be all called "gu…

I am not the person in this conversation who was suggesting that people killing themselves was not so bad. Are you suggesting it's callous to take suicide seriously? Sorry, but your rhetorical trickery over people's lives is sickening.

It seems misplaced to remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves simply because some people suicide via the same mechanism.
Post reply on HN