Alabama Senate Says Church Can Start Its Own Police Force

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

So you're saying just have the church pay extra fees and have the state/city police force have staff that are dedicated to protecting/patrolling the church's properties exclusively?

 

That I think would definitely blur some "separation of church and state" lines. I also imagine the church would probably prefer to have something it controls. 

 

I'm still not sure why the Church can't just have something like a University has. Why do they need more than that? I think the onus should have been on the Church to give specific reasons for why that wouldn't be sufficient. What exactly do they need that a private security force can't provide?

It doesn't violate separation of church and state. The left think anything that involve a church is a violation of the 1st. This is a property issue. By definition churches are private property. Universities with private police forces are also private property. It's pretty easy. 

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

It doesn't violate separation of church and state. The left think anything that involve a church is a violation of the 1st. This is a property issue. By definition churches are private property. Universities with private police forces are also private property. It's pretty easy. 

I agree that the Church should be treated like a University.

 

To my knowledge, a University's "Campus Security" DOES NOT have the same powers as Law Enforcement. I don't see why a Church should get something that a University doesn't. 

 

Assigning actual police officers specifically to protect a Church (even if the Church is paying extra for it) is unconstitutional, in my opinion. The police officers are protectors of the state, they should not be specifically responsible with protection of a Church beyond their responsibiltities to all citizens equally. 

 

If a private organization (Church, corporation, university) wants additional "security" beyond what police provide to everyone, they should be hiring security forces. Those security forces ARE NOT the same thing as state-run police officers.

Edited April 13, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I agree that the Church should be treated like a University.

 

To my knowledge, a University's "Campus Security" DOES NOT have the same powers as Law Enforcement. I don't see why a Church should get something that a University doesn't. 

 

Assigning actual police officers specifically to protect a Church (even if the Church is paying extra for it) is unconstitutional, in my opinion. The police officers are protectors of the state, they should not be specifically responsible with protection of a Church beyond their responsibiltities to all citizens equally. 

 

If a private organization (Church, corporation, university) wants additional "security" beyond what police provide to everyone, they should be hiring security forces. Those security forces ARE NOT the same thing as state-run police officers.

Police do not provide regular services to them, that's why they're seeking it out. Police do not have authority to operate on private property. 

 

The two solutions I find reasonable are let them have their own police force or pay to utilize the local police. The latter I find the "compromise" with the reasonable concern about private police force there covering things up. 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Police do not provide regular services to them, that's why they're seeking it out. Police do not have authority to operate on private property. 

 

The two solutions I find reasonable are let them have their own police force or pay to utilize the local police. The latter I find the "compromise" with the reasonable concern about private police force there covering things up. 

Do large corporations pay to utilize local police on a permanent basis? The only large corporations/businesses I have experience with are hospitals, and they all have their own security and then as needed there are police officers involved, but they are separate. One could also argue hospitals fit into a slightly different category.

 

If a large bank building wanted security can they just pay the local police to provide permanent protection? I don't think so, but I'm not absolutely sure.

 

I'm fine with the church having private security. They should have private security just like a university, bank, hospital or anything else would have private security. Those ARE NOT police officers. This law seems to be granting them the authority to have people that have EQUAL powers to police officers. To my knowledge other forms of private security don't have that, so I don't know why the Church gets special treatment.

 

In the newsweek article about it, it reads: 

 

"Briarwood, which comprises 4,100 members across 40 ministries and includes a comprehensive school, is already served by deputies from the two counties which it borders, Jefferson and Shelby. But the attorney representing Briarwood, Eric Johnston, toldNewsweek that neither those police forces nor private security were sufficient to deal with the present threat to churches such as Briarwood." (http://www.newsweek.com/alabama-church-police-force-senate-583299)

 

I just think the lawyer/Church needs to be more specific when they say that "private security were [not] sufficient to deal with the present threat"

 

Why is private security, like every other corporation/business would do, not sufficient?

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

what's the present threat?

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

what's the present threat?

The same as it's always been, lefties!

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Do large corporations pay to utilize local police on a permanent basis? The only large corporations/businesses I have experience with are hospitals, and they all have their own security and then as needed there are police officers involved, but they are separate. One could also argue hospitals fit into a slightly different category.

 

If a large bank building wanted security can they just pay the local police to provide permanent protection? I don't think so, but I'm not absolutely sure.

 

I'm fine with the church having private security. They should have private security just like a university, bank, hospital or anything else would have private security. Those ARE NOT police officers. This law seems to be granting them the authority to have people that have EQUAL powers to police officers. To my knowledge other forms of private security don't have that, so I don't know why the Church gets special treatment.

 

In the newsweek article about it, it reads: 

 

"Briarwood, which comprises 4,100 members across 40 ministries and includes a comprehensive school, is already served by deputies from the two counties which it borders, Jefferson and Shelby. But the attorney representing Briarwood, Eric Johnston, toldNewsweek that neither those police forces nor private security were sufficient to deal with the present threat to churches such as Briarwood." (http://www.newsweek.com/alabama-church-police-force-senate-583299)

 

I just think the lawyer/Church needs to be more specific when they say that "private security were [not] sufficient to deal with the present threat"

 

Why is private security, like every other corporation/business would do, not sufficient?

 

They don't feel that is sufficient so as all private property have the right to do, pay for police services specially for your property. Easy. If they want to utilize it permanently so what? Much ado about nothing. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The same as it's always been, lefties!

wow, those lefties must have really put a hurtin on that mega church to overpower private security. wonder what happened.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

They don't feel that is sufficient so as all private property have the right to do, pay for police services specially for your property. Easy. If they want to utilize it permanently so what? Much ado about nothing. 

where do you see the church say the 'present threat' they're referencing has to do with their private property? 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

They don't feel that is sufficient so as all private property have the right to do, pay for police services specially for your property. Easy. If they want to utilize it permanently so what? Much ado about nothing. 

Can you give me an example where a private property pays for additional permanent security from a police department? Just never heard of that happening.

 

Just to be clear - Anyone can respond to this. I'm not just asking you. I just have never heard of something like that happening. Every private property that I think of in my head that has security uses a private security. Malls, theatres, universities, hospitals. The security cooperates with police forces but I just can't think of a private property/private company that actually pays the police directly for protection.

 

Manhattan has a lot of very large, very wealthy organizations. I just can't recall during my time there any of them having police officers in their building as a form of "permanent" protection. When certain events occured, then yes. But it was always temporary in response to a specific threat or something.

Edited April 13, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Can you give me an example where a private property pays for additional permanent security from a police department? Just never heard of that happening.

non-taxpaying private property pays for additional permanent security..

[Teddy B 17,252]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

wow, those lefties must have really put a hurtin on that mega church to overpower private security. wonder what happened.

It appears that it was one lefty in particular that spurred on the feeling of insecurities within this church.

 

Quote

 

Briarwood Presbyterian Church, located about 10 miles from downtown Birmingham, claims it was motivated to create its own police force by the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, in which 26 people were killed, including 20 children. 

“After the shooting at Sandy Hook and in the wake of similar assaults at churches and schools, Briarwood recognized the need to provide qualified first responders to coordinate with local law enforcement who so heroically and effectively serve their communities,” read a statement from Briarwood church administrator Matt Moore upon the introduction of a similar bill to the House in February. “The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests.”

 

What I don't understand is why does a southern church in the heart of a red state need anything else to protect themselves with than their own weapons? Haven't we been told for years on this board by the card carrying republicans that arming yourself is the best crime prevention money can buy? Now they're scared because of Sandy Hook? Arm the children, adults and ministers!

Edited April 13, 2017 by Teddy B

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Can you give me an example where a private property pays for additional permanent security from a police department? Just never heard of that happening.

I couldn't and I'm far too lazy to bother even using Google to find out because it's irrelevant. This is a criteria invented by the left to justify their cries of "wahhh churches". If those who own private property want to permanently pay for such services that's well within their rights. Doesn't matter if it's a private university, church, mosque, bunny ranch, or corporate grounds (such as Google campus). 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

non-taxpaying private property pays for additional permanent security..

The "non-tax paying" issue is separate.

 

I'm asking for ANY private organization, tax paying or not, who pays a police department directly for additional permanent security.

 

I just don't think that is the job of police.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

I couldn't and I'm far too lazy to bother even using Google to find out because it's irrelevant. This is a criteria invented by the left to justify their cries of "wahhh churches". If those who own private property want to permanently pay for such services that's well within their rights. Doesn't matter if it's a private university, church, mosque, bunny ranch, or corporate grounds (such as Google campus). 

I complete agree with you.

 

You did not say that they are able to pay police departments for those services. They pay private security organizations.

 

The church is well within their rights to hire private security, but they don't want to. I will use the same quote again: 

 

"Briarwood, which comprises 4,100 members across 40 ministries and includes a comprehensive school, is already served by deputies from the two counties which it borders, Jefferson and Shelby. But the attorney representing Briarwood, Eric Johnston, toldNewsweek that neither those police forces nor private security were sufficient to deal with the present threat to churches such as Briarwood." (http://www.newsweek.com/alabama-church-police-force-senate-583299)

 

Why is private security not sufficient? What can private security NOT do, that a force with equal authority to a police department can? What are they looking for specifically?