Firstly, I wouldn't usually make such an urgent sounding thread, but an article i've read on the Independent's website (UK Newspaper) is utterly terrifying and MUST NOT continue to happen....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Now I know that there are quite a lot of you from the US, but would you feel safe with a privatised police force?!

I know one city in the US replaced the police with private unarmed security (technically, they didn't have a police force before; they had been paying the sheriff's office to have deputies assume the role of city police). IIRC, they didn't actually do investigations, 911 calls, or serious arrests, though (there was still a sheriff's office to handle the REAL police work; they just didn't have a deputy in the city very often anymore).

EDIT: However, many private companies (especially railroads and universities) have their own police forces that work for their employer, but are still fully-fledged police officers. So we have "privatized" police, but the officers still pass normal training.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by cp702

But in here they DO want the firms to do investigations and respond to calls...that's a very worrying thought...

It's already starting to happen in the US. Not only that, but the bigger issue here is that our PDs are becoming militarized. Now nearly every officer is given an AR-15 (semi auto M4, which is what our military uses) and some large cities even have M249 SAWs and M240s in their stock. A massive majority of the PDs also have armoured vehicles of some type. Don't get me wrong, there are uses for select officers(supervisers and SWAT members) to be using AR-15s, like active shooters, and SWAT teams are needed for things like hostage situations, but there is a point when it becomes too much and you start to wonder if you're not in America and instead in the twilight zone.

It's already starting to happen in the US. Not only that, but the bigger issue here is that our PDs are becoming militarized. Now nearly every officer is given an AR-15 (semi auto M4, which is what our military uses) and some large cities even have M249 SAWs and M240s in their stock. A massive majority of the PDs also have armoured vehicles of some type. Don't get me wrong, there are uses for select officers(supervisers and SWAT members) to be using AR-15s, like active shooters, and SWAT teams are needed for things like hostage situations, but there is a point when it becomes too much and you start to wonder if you're not in America and instead in the twilight zone.

Im not really afraid of officers becoming more "Heavy armed", Why? Because Id rather have an officer loaded to the teeth with arms and able to adapt to any situation with out having to wait for something like S.W.A.T, Rather than having something like this happen all over again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU

I'm more worried about public relations/police oppression!

I'd personally be terrified by UK policing anyway, because they aren't armed. Given that, I'm less certain how I would feel with privatization (not saying it's not bad, I'd still probably dislike privatized front-line police work [i really couldn't care less who manages the cars, though], but I couldn't say much about it)

(NOTE: I know it works well for you guys to have unarmed police; I'm not criticizing it. I'm just saying that I would mentally compare it to (armed) US police, which is a different story altogether)

It's already starting to happen in the US. Not only that, but the bigger issue here is that our PDs are becoming militarized. Now nearly every officer is given an AR-15 (semi auto M4, which is what our military uses) and some large cities even have M249 SAWs and M240s in their stock. A massive majority of the PDs also have armoured vehicles of some type. Don't get me wrong, there are uses for select officers(supervisers and SWAT members) to be using AR-15s, like active shooters, and SWAT teams are needed for things like hostage situations, but there is a point when it becomes too much and you start to wonder if you're not in America and instead in the twilight zone.

Simple reasoning:

Pistol = pretty bad as weapon compared to other firearms, main advantage is it can be holstered.

Shotgun = accurate, deadly, but you have to be somewhat close

Rifle = good weapon

(Also, this belongs in another topic; it's a very different debate)

Opening up for the privatization of police will be the start of a long list of scandals and decline in the service provided by police, private companies have proven time and time again that they cannot fulfil the responsibilities that comes with such important tasks.

The police would not feel part of the community if they were privatised, more like a business.....

If that goes ahead, it's one more reason for me to leave this terrible country.

I'm going to reply to these and drop the issue because it is kinda off topic, but still an issue involving policeing.

Im not really afraid of officers becoming more "Heavy armed", Why? Because Id rather have an officer loaded to the teeth with arms and able to adapt to any situation with out having to wait for something like S.W.A.T, Rather than having something like this happen all over again:

But a situation like the North Hollywood Shootout has only happened once, and there are many more cases where it only took one officer with an AR-15 compared to giving every officer one. If a few people a shift in each district are given an AR-15 and strategically placed throughout the city, then there would be no need for each officer to have an AR-15, money would be saved, and maybe some more officers could be hired. A system of making SWAT officer's primary job to be patrol and SWAT if needed would fix this.

Simple reasoning:

Pistol = pretty bad as weapon compared to other firearms, main advantage is it can be holstered.

Shotgun = accurate, deadly, but you have to be somewhat close

Rifle = good weapon

(Also, this belongs in another topic; it's a very different debate)

Owning all of those types of weapons, all it takes is practice to be able to use sidearms effectively. I know people who used to be cops, and they didn't need ARs in the 90s because they were recertified several times a month instead of being certified once a year like my area's cities do now. Not to mention that .223 has a lot more penetration power and is less likely to stop inside of a suspect than a pistol. I shoot that caliber at long distances of 600 yards, and it is not something to be underestimated. One missed shot could hit someone out of sight, which is why I advocate a select few officers using them. Also, shotguns can be loaded with slugs which give them more stopping power than a .223 and it is almost as accurate for the distances that shootouts usually happen. Considering that most police shootouts are at point blank range and even their snipers try to keep to distances below 100 yards, long range weapons for every officer are not needed.

On topic, the US organization for private policeing is called American Police Force and patrols some towns in Montana. I could only see this getting worse.

But a situation like the North Hollywood Shootout has only happened once, and there are many more cases where it only took one officer with an AR-15 compared to giving every officer one. If a few people a shift in each district are given an AR-15 and strategically placed throughout the city, then there would be no need for each officer to have an AR-15, money would be saved, and maybe some more officers could be hired. A system of making SWAT officer's primary job to be patrol and SWAT if needed would fix this.

I agree with this, but I feel the STL County PD's patrol rifle policy is sufficient enough. Officers are not issued rifles, but if they feel the need to/want to, theyre allowed to bring their own rifles to work. Being in one of the safer counties in the country, It doesn't really matter as Officers are rarely fired upon, at least in the county, But anyways, back on topic. I have no serious problem with privatization as long as the services provided are the same, or better than it was before. And also that the cost of the private company is equal to or lower than the current PD's costs to the average Joe. Just my opinion on that topic.

As it's in the UK, and it's a private company, it will be a case of "profits before protection"!

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by waihonlam1994

I agree with this, but I feel the STL County PD's patrol rifle policy is sufficient enough. Officers are not issued rifles, but if they feel the need to/want to, theyre allowed to bring their own rifles to work. Being in one of the safer counties in the country, It doesn't really matter as Officers are rarely fired upon, at least in the county, But anyways, back on topic. I have no serious problem with privatization as long as the services provided are the same, or better than it was before. And also that the cost of the private company is equal to or lower than the current PD's costs to the average Joe. Just my opinion on that topic.

The issue I have is that a private company could be less accountable for routine patrols, but could actually be too accountable for when things go wrong. AFAIK, actual police have a much easier time justifying use of force, because they are certified by the state to meet all requirements, and are working directly for the government. If stuff goes down, I wouldn't want a cop worrying about being fired because he got his employer sued. I'd much rather have him focus on dealing with the situation as he sees necessary.

Or, like many cities in Saint Louis County, instead of privatization, have County PD take over for cities that PD isnt effective enough, or cant afford the costs, etc.

EDIT: Here is a recent example. http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Jennings-police-department-dissolves-117864314.html

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by Antoine Blanc

That's an entirely different matter. In that case, it's still a normal police agency, with government-employed officers (also, it's not a new concept to have a county agency provide PD services for a fee).

EDIT: Also, generally the county agency has full LE powers anywhere in the county anyway, so they could police there whether or not they were paid to.

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by cp702

Luckily, privatizing the police force in America is something that I believe will never happen. It isn't a system that would work or be supported by the government nor the citizens. However, there are places that are moving that direction for the prisons and I'm also strongly against that as well. The reason why the system wouldn't work in America is primarily due to our laws. It takes a certain level of certification and being sworn in to perform the duties of a police officer.

I'll also comment on the use of AR-15's in law enforcement since I'm a cop. I have an AR-15 (M4) as well as a Remington shotgun mounted in my patrol vehicle. For those who are unfamiliar with law enforcement (primarily citizens who have never done this job), it is sometimes unsettling to wonder why we would carry that type of fire power and that idea has presented itself by people posting in this thread before me. There are a multitude of functions for tha type of firepower outside of a SWAT scenario, and this is why I have one in my vehicle. Although my patrol zone is primarily suburban, I also have some rural areas in my district and I'd say about once or twice a month I run across a scenario where I bring my AR-15 simply because I may need to take a longer range shot if the situation presents itself. Also, just the appearance of having an AR-15 slinged around my shoulder is sometimes enough to deter a criminal from taking further action. I also use it if I need to clear a large open structure such as a business warehouse. It's good to have a couple deputies using handguns and one or two deputies with a long-gun (shotgun or AR-15) to hold or cover hallways and large open areas. I encounter this quite frequently responding to business alarms (usually false-alarms), but our policy is we have to clear a structure when we find an open or unsecured door.

However, I do resent the comment that having an AR-15 means we are militarized. That couldn't be further from the truth. It just means we have another tool that can be used in certain situations. It doesn't mean I'm going to pull it out all the time (I rarely do), but I'd hate to encounter a situation and wish I had an AR-15. Better to have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it. I prefer using the AR-15 rather than the shotgun in the situations I typically face because I don't know where the rounds out of a shotgun cartridge are going to spread to, but I know exactly where the single 223 round I fire is going to go and I can set myself up to make a safe shot without having to worry how far the round is going to travel.

The officer I last rode with simply commented on the tactical rifle with: "We used to use shotguns, but they weren't accurate enough." That was the tacical response to the question. The humanitarian answer to the question (if you really must have one) is that the shotguns inaccuracies can put other people at risk. A rifle shot being more accurate means less collateral damage, be it fatalities or otherwise. It also believe it or not has less chance of death or injury with a well placed shot. An M16/M4 round in the leg can simply penetrate it and go out the other side. A shotgun slug or close range buckshot can rip a leg completely off. I'd rather take the M4 round in the leg, thanks.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by unr3al

Actually, I've now started wondering what it's like being an officer in a campus or railroad police department (since they're employed by a private company). Anyone have any idea?

If we're talking about the US, most campus police departments consist of officers who are considered to be state police officers since universities are run by the state.