Jay Walking?
I don't understand the need to reign in where people cross the road. Surely one should be at liberty to use one's own initiative on where to cross?
Printable View
Jay Walking?
I don't understand the need to reign in where people cross the road. Surely one should be at liberty to use one's own initiative on where to cross?
It really depends on where you live. In most Urban Cities in the US there has been a lot of accidents involving Jaywalkers, just out of sheer stupidity. Even if it was the pedestrians responsiblities, it sure puts a wreck on someones day if you run the person over. Most non urban places don't have jaywalking laws, and in fact it's the drivers responsibility to look for Pedestrians. *cough* Montana *cough*
There you go. He was packing peppermints. Obviously a villain.:laugh4:Quote:
The officer asked for identification. The professor asked for his, after which Officer Leonpacher told him he was under arrest and, the professor claims, kicked his legs from under him, pinned him to the ground and confiscated his box of peppermints.
Pedestrian crosses street, car swerves out of his way, hits other car/poodle/small child. Of course it's illegal. He probably actually got in trouble for sassing the police mind you.
Article says nothing about cops beating him up :2thumbsup:
That should be legal; even a requirement that carries lots of bonus points to advance to the next level...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Ok, I am leaving...
Quid
On a related note, if anyone ever chases you in Switzerland, just cross the road where there is no crossing. They will stand at the other side looking worried and confused, unable to follow.
But then they'll shoot you with the gun kept under every Swiss bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
In many urban/suburban commercial areas, pedestrians are treated with suspicion here in the US. Most of these areas are built with cars in mind, not pedestrians, and trying to cross 4-lane roads, even at traffic lights, is a risky proposition. I've known several Brits visiting that have been stopped when trying to walk from their hotel to the strip mall across the street. It's just, odd-looking, ridiculous as that sounds. Around here, the only people you see on sidewalks have dogs or are jogging.
Besides, nobody over here actually walks anywhere. We drive to the end of the driveway to get our paper in the morning. :rolleyes2: Those 2 long(er) dangly things below our waist are for pushing the pedals in the car. Everybody knows that!
Welcome to ATL. :2thumbsup:
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto eh? Well how dare that -possibly illegal! - hispanic try and ask a cop in civilian clothes for identification....:no:
Silly police brutality this.
Also, I'd say this is almost as bad as that Freedom Hating Brazilian Shot by UK Cops for Taking the Tube.
Cheeky monkeys would be wise to comply with a police officer's reasonable request. It's generally accepted that to get respect, one must give some respect.
Ignoring/dismissing a person in a police uniform, refusing to show some ID and talking/acting belligerently might impress his colleagues, but is not a very smart way to handle a simple misunderstanding.
I guess the "Ugly American" overbroad stereotype isn't mutually exclusive to Americans is it.
Nice headline btw.~;)
Oops, duplicate post.
Brutality?
First, it's a common scam by grifters in America to get hit by a car,then sue. As most American jurisdictions have a rule that the motor vehicle operator is always responsible for avoiding the pedestrian, regardless of the conditions, the only way for drivers to have a chance is to enforce jay-walking rules.
Second, he didn't get beaten. He got arrested for mouthing off to the cops. I'm sorry, maybe we're a little rougher over here, but our police don't simpishly beg for you to comply. You do, or you get cuffed and stuffed.
I do wish to note the following: Many of you hold the BBC up as a highly respectable, objective newspaper (bullocks, I say) . Yet, they didn't even make an effort to contact the Atlanta police department regarding the story. Biased, much? :idea2:
The wording in the article leads me to believe that the officer that asked him for ID wasn't in uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
If some stranger ever came up to me wearing civilian clothes and demanded to see my ID, my response would be considerably less polite than simply asking to see his first.
And as far as I understand the law (which admittedly is not a great deal), if he refused identify himself then tried to physically restrain me, I would not be held responsible for the bloody nose and sore genital region he would most surely receive.
he should have known better than to be british.
So who asked him for his ID? The fat guy or one of the 7 uniformed police?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Given that the man is a university professor, I would expect him to be able to make the stunning leap of logic that any person dressed all in blue or black with a metal badge on their chest, a gun on their hip, and a nightstick and radio on their belt was probably a police officer. Since he was not able to identify the person asking him for ID as such, I am assuming the person wasn't in uniform.Quote:
The bespectacled professor says he didn't realise the "rather intrusive young man" shouting that he shouldn't cross there was a policeman. "I thanked him for his advice and went on." The officer asked for identification. The professor asked for his, after which Officer Leonpacher told him he was under arrest and, the professor claims, kicked his legs from under him, pinned him to the ground and confiscated his box of peppermints.
Except that this professor clearly wasn't at a loss for words. If the man who detained him hadn't been in uniform at the time he was detained, don't you think he would have said so? He said "I didn't know he was a police officer". That covers a lot more ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I can only go by what the article says, Don. It says that he didn't know the guy shouting at him then asking him for ID was a cop. That leads me to believe the cop wasn't in uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The cop asked him for ID, then the prof made the very reasonable (assuming the cop was not in uniform) request to see his first, at which point the cop put him on the ground and handcuffed him.
Slice it any way you want, Don: while I certainly wouldn't call it police brutality, I would definitely say it's a case of a bully with a badge deciding to prove to everybody how big his penis is.
Well, perhaps you'd explain to me why if if it was a plain clothes policeman, or one off duty, the professor didn't actually say he was in street clothes?
Also, I notice you sidestepped my question on the impartiality of the article. Do you really think the professor is giving us a 100% impartial, unbiased view? Because the BBC appears to...
So, Atlanta PD is using plainclothes detectives to enforce jaywalking laws now? I think it's just as likely that the good professor figured he was too important to have to listen to an "intrusive young man" and ignored him after making his "thanks for the advice" smart ass remark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
They overreacted, as police often do, but I don't think it was brutality. :shrug:
He may not of known the guy was a cop because he may have kept walking with his nose stuck up high, never looking back to see the chap. If his legs were kicked from under him it may have been because he wouldn't stop walking. He must've had that elitist-i'm-a-famous-historian attitude.
He's lucky he wasn't shot 57 times and sodomized with a plunger.
Plainclothes policemen identify themselves as such when effecting an arrest, it's department procedure and the law. This incident occured on a busy street during the day, plenty of witnesses about. It's not like he was challenged on a dark lonely street where one might reasonably be suspicious of foul play. So using that logic doesn't pass muster.
Simply showing his ID, and respectfully explaining he was a vistor from another country and was unaware of his misdemeanor, the cop would have most likely let him go. Plainclothes cops aren't usually in the habit of writing tickets for minor violations of traffic law. The paperwork involved in writing tickets is considered beneath the duties of these undercover investigators , they handle much more serious crimes than that.
My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win. Unless you enjoy the pain that is, hell, I know a few inmates who consider fighting with staff to be their recreation.
That's by special request,only.Quote:
He's lucky he wasn't shot 57 times and sodomized with a plunger
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ng_in_atlanta/
But between you and me I dare say he probably could have been nicer about it. (F F-A I mean)Quote:
"When I questioned who he was he said something to the effect of 'When I give you an order, you obey it,'" Fernandez-Armesto said. "I asked him what his authority was because I didn't see a badge. Where I'm from, you don't associate young gentlemen in bomber jackets with the police. But he was extremely upset I had questioned his bona fides."
This is good advice even in the UK. Though they may shoot you repeatedly in the head even so.Quote:
My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
And in response to this:
jaywalking not only causes the obvious injuries becuase people, especially kids and ESPECIALLY teenagers are stupid and will try to cross when they shoudln't, but it also causes multiple car accidents when a person swerves to avoid little jimmy and instead takes out a couple of cars in the other lanes and/or people on the sidewalk.
Some of the speed limits in urban eareas get as high as 55 on streets with population. While I would generally agree that a lower speed limit would do more to stave off the carnage, the pedestrain casualty rate is incredibly high even in low speed, densely populated areas like san fransisco and chicago.
Crosswalks our a staple of our lives since we were little kids. After school we go to the crosswalk where the crossing guard stops traffic and lets all the kids cross at once. Care to guess what would happen if 100 1st graders were allowed just to cross willy nilly whenever they wanted?
I can't speak for places like NYC, but in the midwest crosswalks and jaywalking laws are used more on the defensive/after-the-fact meter than offensively. I know of no one around here ever, ever getting a jaywalking ticket or write up. I do, however, know plenty of cases of pedestrians getting run over and the driver being cleared of all wrongdoing because the pedestrian chose to dart into the road rather than using the crosswalk located 75 feet away.
There are simply too many cars on the road and too many things going on to have to pay attention to the guy walking on the curb and wondering if he's going to sprint in front of you
*sigh*
This is a response to:
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Again boys, I am assuming that the cop in question wasn't in uniform. I make this assumption because:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
1) The prof said he didn't know he was a cop, and police uniforms are pretty much universally identifiable by anybody who has lived in a western democracy and reached the age of 3 years old
2) In the photo, there is an individual that appears to be a police officer (because he is standing with the police, inside the police tape, and at this point in time appears to have some sort of badge hanging from the breast pocket of his suit)
3) The judge immediately threw out the case and the prof was released without charges.
But whatever. I can see how my logic is full of gaping holes...
Yes, the prof may be lieing, the BBC may be part of the International Conspiracy to Make American Cops Look Dumb, and the prof's breath mints may in fact have been condensed anthrax tablets.
But it is impossible to determine any of that from the article.
How about this:
I concede that if my assumption is wrong, and the cop was in fact in uniform, then the prof deserved to be arrested for being a smartass and failing to comply with lawful civil authority.
In return, you three concede that if my assumption is correct, and the cop neither identified himself nor was wearing a uniform, then the cop's actions were out of line and the whole incident could have been prevented if he had simply produced his badge.
Oh yeah, and STOP BEING SO WORRIED THAT I AM TRYING TO SHOW WHAT IDIOTS YOU AMERICANS ARE!
I'm not.
Assuming he was not in uniform, the actions taked by the cop were IMO over the top, no matter which flag he happens to pledge allegiance to.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ng_in_atlanta/
"At that point, he says the officer lost patience, kicked his legs from under him and held him down. Two other officers helped hold him down as he was arrested."
Interesting quote; there were two officers immediately at the scene. Coupled with Xiahou's observations it makes me doubt the professor's story. But then, APD do have liberal use of force rules. I've recently heard that in Germany there are virtually no restrictions on the use of force and that people comply because they know just how far the police officers can go.
Which is why I stated:Quote:
Assuming he was not in uniform, the actions taked by the cop were IMO over the top, no matter which flag he happens to pledge allegiance to.
Cops are subject to the same human frailties as the rest of us. They're good ones and bad, the same as any group of people. If one feels they are being unjustly detained, arrested, wronged in some way; the best and safest course of action is not to resist. You'll get your day in court.Quote:
My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win.
Whether one is unjustly arrested or not, resisting arrest IS illegal.
He was jaywalking to get into a busy convention? Sounds like he was trying to cut in line, everyone knows there are no cuts in ATL. ~D
If a cop is not in uniform, how are we to know he is a cop and that we might "get hurt?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Are you honestly telling me that if some guy in a bomber jacket yells at you, then asks you for ID, you would just hand it over without question? Without so much as asking "Oh, are you a policeman?"
Resisting arrest is only illegal if the person making the rest is identifiable or identifies himself as a lawful authority.
I'm sure you've seen T.J. Hooker. Why do you think he always yelled "Freeze! Police!" before busting a cap in some lowlife drugdealer's a$$?
:yes:
You watch to much TV if your quoting T.J. Hooker, that and when one is quoting cop shows one must quote Police Academy above all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Of course I'll admit that if the cop was in plain-clothes and didn't bother to identify himself, he was acting well beyond his authority.
I didn't say the BBC was the founders of an international conspriacy (to which you belong) to make American police look stupid. I'm merely suggesting that the story might be a little more complicated than the Beeb, and you, are portraying it. Why wouldn't the BBC talk to the Atlanta police department about it? Isn't it common practice in journalism to question all parties involved in a dispute?
I'm Canadian. We're only allowed to watch shows starring Bill Shatner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That is so 1901, get with the times. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
English assassin already provided the link.Quote:
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto was stopped by a plainclothes police officer after crossing a street in downtown Atlanta.
Because the APD made a mess and are unsurprisingly not commenting on the case, not even to the American press?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
Quote:
Police confirmed the professor was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, said Officer Steve Coleman of the Atlanta Police Department. But Coleman told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that more details of the arrest were not available Monday night and police would not be able to comment.
This guy is an elitist idiot. His nose must have been stuck to high in the air to notice the big POLICE sign on their bomber jackets. If yall will notice the wonderful picture that accompanies the article of the moment of arrest, all but one of the cops is fully uniformed. The one that isnt has a pistol to his side and his badge in full view on his chest. This genius was trying to start something, and he obviously got what he wanted. Next time I would advise him to listen to the uniformed police officer and not continue walking along your way. They generally wont swipe your legs out from under you if you stop walking.....:oops:
The BBC has already admitted to being biased, anti-American, bible burning, koran loving lefties. So it's no suprise at all they didn't even ask the Atlanta PD or even attempt to look at the other side of this arrest. Instead they went for what would sell, sensationalized a simple arrest screaming police brutality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The BBC should have used Idaho's thread headliner too....~;)
Now, Louis, you raise an interesting point. EA's article does indeed include addtional details. But do they know that the officer was plain-clothed? If so, then I'm about to switch sides and favor the professor. If a plain-clothed detective just walked up to somebody and demanded their identification without identifying his own self, he's very much in the wrong.
Or, is the Boston paper making the same assumption that Goofball is?
As for the no-statement, that doesn't look good for the Atlanta PD, granted. But again, why wouldn't the BBC even bother to contact them?
Saying "I'm a cop" as you simeltaneously whack the guy in the nose and pepper spray him is, in police terms, 'identifying yourself." Kind of like yelling "police" from under a ninja mask as you ram a door down
Unvote: ProfessorQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Vote: APD
I find it hard to believe that they had a photographer at the scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
The point is that jaywalking isn't such a big deal as everyone here would have it. The guy's a fully-grown man, would he have crossed if he had seen cars coming? I jaywalk all the time. All the cool kids do it. The cop who arrested him is a tool, plain and simple.
I'm not sure where the "BBC didn't bother to contact...." comes from. But then this story is of no real importance - just amusing website filler.
"confiscated his box of peppermints."
LOL.
In many European countries I would request the ID and note the number of a uniformed police officer if challenged, let alone a plainclothes man. On the spot fines equal scammers on the prowl.
What makes me laugh is that all you yanks love to go on about Socialist Europe and our nanny state - but you aren't even allowed to cross the road without the man clubbing the shed out of you ~:D
The cop who stopped him was PLAIN CLOTHED according to sources quoted in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
And why exactly is he elitist?
Cops keep a guy in jail for 8 hours for crossing the road...sounds like brutality to me.
Apprently its too difficult to realise the guy was foreign and politely inform him of the local laws regarding crossing the road... :idea2:
Yank in Britain.... why don't those damn Yanks learn our laws before coming here.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Limey in USA.... why can't those damn Yanks bend the rules for us? We don't have those laws on the books.
Limeys anywhere.... those damn Yanks. They just see things from anybody's viewpoint but their own...
Hmmm, sounds fair to me...
Bend the rules? You mean everytime someone steps onto the road in Atlanta they get wrestled to the ground and surrounded by half a dozen cops? Still, I suppose cops everywhere have targets to meet, and a crime dealt with is one for the Solved list!
European definition of brutality. :laugh4: He should have been put in a gibbet!Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
So, I'm looking at the picture- where's the plainclothes cop wearing a bomber jacket? The only plainclothes officer is see is the portly guy wearing a suit jacket. Everyone else is clearly a uniformed officer. Yes, the photo is obviously taken after the alleged incident- but it can't be long after because the professor is still sitting on the ground.
Did this plainclothes bully just walk up and beat the snot out of the guy and then finish his shift and go home? Something tells me that he'd be obligated to stay on the scene after such an incident. I still don't think we're getting the whole story here- and we may never get it....
Edit: Here's something new I found...linkQuote:
Leonpacher, in his incident report, maintains he was in his police uniform when told Fernandez-Armesto to use a crosswalk to cross from the Marriott Marquis to the Hilton. Leonpacher said Fernandez-Armesto ignored his warning and that he approached Fernandez-Armesto after the professor had crossed.
Fernandez-Armesto was taken into custody, where he spent the next eight hours along with "extremely unfortunate members of the underclass."
:laugh4: There are no whores in England, just a great deal of unfortunate women--"From Hell"
"It was the most violence I've ever experienced in my life," said Fernandez-Armesto. "And I was mugged once while at Oxford."
Well, at least it shows that England has some polite criminals. :2thumbsup:
"Pardon me old chap, may I have your wallet?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
"Oh, are you mugging me?"
"Indeed I am, good sir."
"Ah, very well, here you are."
"Thank you very kindly, have a nice day!"
:clown:
He was politely informed of the law, to which he ignored the cop and went along his way. He also noted that the "plain clothes" officer was wearing a blue bomber jacket. Those are police issued uniforms for cold weather, like you see in the picture there, the jackets also have the word POLICE in bold white lettering on the police blue jacket. If he doesnt even respect the law when he's informed of it then he should recieve the punishment for breaking it.Quote:
Apprently its too difficult to realise the guy was foreign and politely inform him of the local laws regarding crossing the road...
The Jaywalking law's are there for a good reason. If a car swerves to miss a idiot running across the middle of the road they can hit other people, killing them. Crosswalks are never to far appart.
I wonder if he had a chance to meet some of the male hookers Atlanta is infamous for. :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
First of all-- YAY JAYWALKERS!! The only way to cross the street. Anyone who disagrees is most clearly a freedom-hating nanny-stater. This means you, Don Corleone. ~;)
Second of all-- Atlanta sucks. Period. They also have the worst Greyhound station in the country (followed closely by Dallas).
From Xiahous link...
So what are the rules on police officers moonlighting , and what are the rules concerning wearing a police uniform (if in the unlikely event he was wearing one ) to do a job that isn't policework ?Quote:
Leonpacher was working an extra job at the Hilton Hotel on Courtland Street at the time of the incident.
He probably had to rush off back to work , the hotel would take a dim view of one of its staff harrasing tourists instead of opening doors for them and carrying their bags .Quote:
So, I'm looking at the picture- where's the plainclothes cop wearing a bomber jacket?
He should have stuck to the "have a nice day" routine instead of the "show me your ID" line . :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I think "extra job" means something different from what you're taking it me mean. I usually see it referred to as an extra duty/shift that's outside of their normal hours. Like a cop who takes an "extra job" directing traffic outside a concert venue. The best way to find an answer would be to ask an American cop... if there's any here.
They get hired to do security on their off time and wear their uniforms while doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So if he was working as a security guard at a hotel then does he have any right to demand someones ID in the street ?Quote:
They get hired to do security on their off time and wear their uniforms while doing it.
He would be expected to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
My mind is boggling here. Are you saying that any American business or individual with enough $$ can hire a cop to do his bidding while the cop is still acting in his capacity and exercising his authority as a police officer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That does not sound right.
I can understand hiring a cop to work security for you while he is off duty, but it seems, well, corrupt, for lack of a better word, to have a police officer trading on the authority granted to him by virtue of his uniform.
How come? I could see it if they were acting suspiciously on trying to enter the premises, but not actually with regard to an offence they commited not directly connected to the hotel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
They are supposed to stop crime if they see it even if off duty. Makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by D Wilson
A cop on another forum was taking questions and he said this. Businesses like to hire police because they are trained and reliable, and cops like to make extra money. If you see standing around walmart that's what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
[QUOTE=Sasaki Kojiro]They are supposed to stop crime if they see it even if off duty. Makes sense to me.
/QUOTE]
Hmm yes, but then how does that expectation extend to an average citixen's civic duty?
Average citizens aren't cops? If someone tells you "hey, you can't walk across the street like that" and you are over the age of 15, then they are a cop. Not a "rude young man" or whatever :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by D Wilson
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I was waiting at the mouth of my driveway yesterday to pull out into traffic, when a pedestrian walked up to my window (my driveway, as many do, crosses the sidewalk, so my vehicle was blocking the sidewalk as I waited for an opening in traffic). She was quite angry with me and told me in a voice that had quite an air of command to it that I had to back up off of the sidewalk to let pedestrians pass.
By your criteria, I should have assumed that she was a police officer and done exactly what she told me to do.
As it happens, I played the odds that she wasn't a police officer, and told her exactly what I thought she should do...
:laugh4:
But they should not be able to do this in uniform, pretending to still be acting in their official capacity as police officers, when, in the case you describe, they are nothing more than Wal Mart employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I thought you lived in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Why not? They can still arrest people. They would be there to catch shoplifters not restock shelves or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Oh yeah, I agree with this point. Every security guard in every store (in the UK, I don't know about how things are done elsewhere) should have powers of arrest. I remember working security in stores in Edinburgh and knowing that I only had whatever pretend authority I could muster to detain a shoplifter, knowing that if I laid a finger on him I could end up in the cells (for even lomger if he was a she and claimed sexual assault). But the best we could do was ask them to accompany us to the back of the store to wait for police, which was very difficult when they tended to dive into the shelves and claimed I'd thumped them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You know what police force doesnt mess around? The russians. Watching a video where the russians set up a raid on a couple of red mafia drug dealers, they went STRAIGHT down to the ground when they saw the cops coming
Trust Yanks to be overly gung-ho. :no:
Here you can jaywalk as long as it is not within 20m of a sactioned crossing.
Not a good example, given the subject of the thread. Many Russian police will randomly fine perfectly law-abiding people - for say, possessing a loud tie after the hours of darkness. Especially if you look rich or foreign. Unless you look very rich, in which case they'll suspect you're one of the Mafia that pays the rest of their top-ups and start staring into the middle distance and whistling.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
I happen to know Professor Fernandez-Armesto in real life, and he is a wonderfully cultured and gentle person of impeccable manners. However, he is quite other-worldly and would no doubt seem like a pompous jerk to a policeman who I suspect is more used to dealing with vulgarity and the anticipation of a violent reaction. The professor may well have appeared as if he was on drugs rather than utterly bewildered.
It seems to me to be a particularly unfortunate clash of cultures from opposite ends of the US/European divide. This appears to be borne out by the wise judgement from the more reflective bench. I think the police over-reacted, but one imagines that on the streets of Atlanta, one wants to be sure a suspect is powerless before unleashes a gun or somesuch.
Just for variety, the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...istorian11.xml
Seems to me a gross over-reaction by the Police but more unfortunate than milicious.
As to Policemen doing any other job to top up their pay, in Britain they get into serious trouble for doing that.
To be honest I'd rather not have big untrained guys being allowed to jump me if they thought I'd stolen something. I like not being crippled by over-enthusiastic and bored guys whenever I walk into a chain store.Quote:
Oh yeah, I agree with this point. Every security guard in every store (in the UK, I don't know about how things are done elsewhere) should have powers of arrest. I remember working security in stores in Edinburgh and knowing that I only had whatever pretend authority I could muster to detain a shoplifter, knowing that if I laid a finger on him I could end up in the cells (for even lomger if he was a she and claimed sexual assault). But the best we could do was ask them to accompany us to the back of the store to wait for police, which was very difficult when they tended to dive into the shelves and claimed I'd thumped them!
A peace officer is sworn to uphold the law. This means they can be fired for indescretions "off the clock" and on the flip side it means if they are acting as second job security at Wal-Mart in uniform people are expected to do as they say. I don't know where the plainclothes fits in here, as I have personally told many a security guard to kiss my butt because they have no legal authority outside of private property protection.
Seems like a cop-become-guard not in cop uniform could be a tricky situation
Of course there should be limits, but I mean in situations when the guy has seen someone commit the offence, has pulled them up on it and they've refused to stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
When the guy only suspects something, or has got a description of someone acting suspiciously over the radio, the powers should remain the same, IE none past watching them like a hawk and wandering round the store after them in that "I'm pretending not to be watching you, and you're pretending not to have seen me, but we all know what's happening here" kind of way.
I don't advocate being able to jump anyone unless you've seen with your own eyes them do something, but you're always going to get less reputable guys pushing guidelines like that to their limits.
:laugh4: Elitist idiots are so funny sticking noses up at them selves!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Can you provide link?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
So, let me get this straight, if there is a perfectly empty road with ne'er a tin cage in sight, just begging to be crossed, then your average 'freedom-loving' American would still rather walk to the crossing half a mile away in order to cross said road instead? They allow you to own and carry firearms, but don't trust you to cross the road? Crazy.
The enforcement of these rules seems like a waste of police time and resources to me, speaking purely as a 'freedom-hating' Brit of course. With the fines involved (I assume), it also seems like another revenue scam for the local authorities, which means that it will be coming to Britain soon! :no:
Gotta laugh at the touchy responses from our US friends on here though. :laugh4:
... never use the daily mail to try and prove something....
Fair point, as far as I'm aware that's the only source though. :sweatdrop:
Really? I wonder why? I simply can't believe that the Daily Mail would have an agenda on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
:laugh4: