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

181–190 of 606 posts

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

#181

Post by FireBeyond »

willcipriano wrote: post #130
Eisenstein wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it your contention that every establishment serving customers more than a beer an hour should require security on premises?

I'd be OK if they closed entirely, but barring that I demand they pay the costs of externalities they create. One method of doing so would be hiring private security. They should also have to carry a bond to pay out for any DUIs, violence, vandalism, domestic violence or sexual assault that they are a co-conspirator of.

You obviously have an issue with nightclubs.

Let's extend your logic - should a gas station convenience store also carry that bond? I mean, you can buy a box of beer at the gas station and go home and be violent.

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

#182

Post by lainga »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #47
h2odragon wrote: post #33

I know of a local Volunteer fire Dept that went that way; started having the head guy and a couple of his big cousins go around and tell people how much the VFD needed support, and how flammable their house or business looked. Couple months after that started, the guy's house burned down. I heard the trucks came out twice, the second time there were more people responding and the police got into the guy's barn with a…

Firefighter arson is a relatively well known phenomenon. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fires-set-by-firefigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson

Oh my goodness, that FBI behavioural profile on the second link. "We're looking for a suspect who's depressed... alcoholic... and HOMOSEXUAL"

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

#183

Post by lelanthran »

malfist wrote: post #56
willcipriano wrote: post #28

You have to scroll far past the accusations of racism and outrage to reach the story here: > Here’s how the off-duty work program works: Some businesses — like large nightclubs — are required by the city to have security, which until 2020, sometimes had to be off-duty Minneapolis police officers. Nightclubs often are required to have security beacuse they are a nuisance to the surrounding area and the taxpayer should…

Did you miss the part where the cops weren't requiring it for white ran nightclubs? That smells just a little bit like racism to me.

> That smells just a little bit like racism to me.

No, it smells like a claim of racism. But claims of various 'isms is so common now it's lost all meaning.

I'm more interested in why the focus is seen to be on corrupt cops, and not on the fact that the damn city required it!

If you've got a corrupt city, is it any wonder that the cops are going to be corrupt too? You can't fix the cops without first fixing their paymasters.

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

#184

Post by ensignavenger »

mattmaroon wrote: post #119

I plan live events these days and the off duty cop shakedown is so real. Good luck getting really any permit. “Oh you’re hiring private security? We don’t think your security plan is sufficient to keep everyone safe.”

I would record that conversation and send it to the FBI, and if that didn't get any traction, the Press.

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

#185

Post by FireBeyond »

willcipriano wrote: post #77
Eisenstein wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nightclubs often are required to have security beacuse they are a nuisance to the surrounding area How many night clubs are located in non-urban residential areas? The commercial properties near them would be closed because, you know, they operate during the day and night clubs don't. > the taxpayer shouldn't be picking up the tab because you decided to overserve your customers The solution to overserved customers…

You understand that any visible intoxication is overserving a customer right? You could give most people a beer an hour or so and forget about bottle service. Mixed drinks would have to contain less than a shots worth. I'm on board but the nightclubs won't be.

> You understand that any visible intoxication is overserving a customer right?

No, it's not. Continued service of someone who is visibly intoxicated, however, is.

I understand the tenets of responsible service of alcohol, and that as a server, you are meant to stop service immediately at that point.

Realities, however, are more nuanced.

I teach new EMTs and paramedics, and one of the discussion points is around informed consent and implied consent. Every class has a scenario or two where a student inevitably says to or about a mock patient, "Well, you have been drinking alcohol so I have implied consent to treat you" or similar. "So, because he's had a drink, he can't refuse medical advice/treatment?" "Right."

"So I can go to a restaurant, have two glasses of red wine with dinner, and be legally allowed to drive a motor vehicle home, but not legally make decisions about my own health?"

RSA education is generally more black and white, but even with your comment above you show that it is easy to misinterpret. It is not a case of "if your customer is visibly intoxicated, then you overserved them", because they weren't intoxicated until that point (all else being equal, if someone sits on a bar stool and orders 4 shots of tequila to start and downs them all in front of you, then reasonability applies, of course).

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

#186

Post by specproc »

I live in a country where this is fully integrated into the police system at a national level. There are two sorts of beat cops: traditional "patrol" police and "security" police, which you pay for.

I only discovered the distinction recently, when a couple came knocking on my door, asking about my neighbour who'd missed a payment.

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

#187

Post by NickC25 »

ahtihn wrote: post #180
NickC25 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be mandated to hire private security. If they are utilizing the majority of the resources available but aren't willing to pay the real costs of that, well, they need to suck it up and pay.

I thought the US was like the most advanced nation in the world? And businesses are supposed to pay for their own security instead of relying on police? What next? Families of murder victims should cover the cost of the investigation?

ITT: people defending the actions of a corporation owned by a family worth over 230 billion USD.

Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. But those same businesses can't then go and bribe the government to cut worker protection laws, labor laws, can't slash wages and expect that the government covers the costs of labor, etc...

If Walmart paid their workers lavishly, gave them huge pensions, didn't engage in far-right lobbying to diminish worker protections, didn't demolish the proverbial Main Street all across America, sure, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we should cover their security costs. But look at their actions over the last 35 years....they've enriched themselves greatly as a corporation, bribed the government, and told regular Americans to pound sand.

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

#188

Post by permo-w »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #90
permo-w wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the difference?

"a gang" implies youth staking out territory, going up against other gangs, etc. Mafia implies it's a lot more subtle, someone coming up to a business going "Nice place you got here, would be a shame if something were to happen to it". Protection racket ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket ).

this is very tenuous and subjective. typically the mafia is regarded as a type of gang

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

#189

Post by tomcam »

ahtihn wrote: post #180
NickC25 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be mandated to hire private security. If they are utilizing the majority of the resources available but aren't willing to pay the real costs of that, well, they need to suck it up and pay.

I thought the US was like the most advanced nation in the world? And businesses are supposed to pay for their own security instead of relying on police? What next? Families of murder victims should cover the cost of the investigation?

In many of the places Wal-Mart has the most problems, both police and private security are sharply limited in what actions they can take against shoplifters. And places like California, Oregon, and Washington won’t prosecute for crimes under about $950.

What do you propose Wal-Mart do in these localities?

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

#190

Post by FireBeyond »

ta1243 wrote: post #71
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, that ship has long sailed for the US. Second amendment and all.

Funny how the list of exceptions for the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights (well ok maybe not #3) is neverending

"The right to an abortion is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist".

(I recognize some of the "issues" with Roe v Wade, tangential/orthogonal to that of access to medical services...)

"The right to purchase arms is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, but must exist despite that, because how else could you bear arms?"

Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't.

Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"?

"This document is correct and perfect in every way. Except the bit where the authors say it isn't."

Post reply on HN