Alabama Senate Says Church Can Start Its Own Police Force

[Teddy B 17,252]

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). 

 

Quote

If those who own private property want to permanently pay for such services that's well within their rights.

Not when it's the town's police force that is paid for using taxpayer money they don't.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, bcking said:

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.

why is it separate? churches wouldn't get so mega and sprawling in the first place if they had to pay property taxes.

i don't either. 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

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.

Police regularly are borrowed for private events even from far away cities. When I lived in Santa Clara, even when I went to SJSU, it was not uncommon to visit friends at SCU and walk by officers from Modesto there. It's kinda humorous how this issue is being blown up by the left because ze churches. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

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

 

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!

exactly, and apparently alabama is already set up to allow just that..

 

Quote

Earlier this month, Alabama's House adopted the Alabama Church Protection Act, which would help religious groups form armed security patrols.

It authorizes "any church or place of worship to establish a security program by which designated members are authorized to carry firearms for the protection of the congregation of the church or place of worship."

The act also provides "limited immunity for members of such a program when they're acting within their duties.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

 

Not when it's the town's police force that is paid for using taxpayer money they don't.

If they're off duty or reserve it doesn't impact that force which is why some lend their officers regularly to maintain budget. Stanislaus is a perfect example. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

i don't see where the church specified that they wanted a off duty and reserve police force or even where they said they just wanted a couple cops to borrow for a particular event. iamx has all these deets, no idea where they're coming from.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Police regularly are borrowed for private events even from far away cities. When I lived in Santa Clara, even when I went to SJSU, it was not uncommon to visit friends at SCU and walk by officers from Modesto there. It's kinda humorous how this issue is being blown up by the left because ze churches. 

Thank you again for helping prove my point.

 

In your own example you state they are used for private events.

 

Absolutely i agree. Private events are specific situations. 

 

This church wants a police force permanently. Not for like one big service on Easter. 

 

Again, answer my question -

 

Why is private security not sufficient?

[Teddy B 17,252]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

If they're off duty or reserve it doesn't impact that force which is why some lend their officers regularly to maintain budget. Stanislaus is a perfect example. 

It's a huge conflict of interest, that's why it is not common practice anywhere else.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Thank you again for helping prove my point.

 

In your own example you state they are used for private events.

 

Absolutely i agree. Private events are specific situations. 

 

This church wants a police force permanently. Not for like one big service on Easter. 

 

Again, answer my question -

 

Why is private security not sufficient?

It's clearly not sufficient. I'm not the church so I don't know why nor do I care. Only those with a political axe to grind will care. Hence all the whining of separation of church and state on a property issue. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't see where the church specified that they wanted a off duty and reserve police force or even where they said they just wanted a couple cops to borrow for a particular event. iamx has all these deets, no idea where they're coming from.

Some peeps are just in the know, yanno?

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, Teddy B said:

It's a huge conflict of interest, that's why it is not common practice anywhere else.

It isn't conflicting whatsoever, it's people that have a large amount of land and property that want permanent police presence. Not that outrageous. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

It's clearly not sufficient. I'm not the church so I don't know why nor do I care. Only those with a political axe to grind will care. Hence all the whining of separation of church and state on a property issue. 

so maybe don't discuss it? if you think this discussion is all about whining about churches, you're wrong. you've been asked specific questions concerning the op. you've stated you're lazy and you don't care. maybe it's time to carry yourself out of the thread?

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

It isn't conflicting whatsoever, it's people that have a large amount of land and property that want permanent police presence. Not that outrageous. 

They want permanent police protection for a price. What happens when the church says we'll give you a little more cash if you respond to our calls before the taxpayers calls? Or we'll give you extra cash if you keep all of your cruisers over on our side of town? The county is always going to get the taxpayer money no matter what, but the separate payments by the church are an extra cash cow. It's a huge conflict of interest.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Teddy B

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

It isn't conflicting whatsoever, it's people that have a large amount of land and property that want permanent police presence. Not that outrageous. 

Please provide other examples where large private organizations with large amounts of land pay for permanent state run police presence.

 

If you cann't provide examples, then this is unique and therefore it is "outrageous". To say it's not outrageous implies that it is done all the time in other situations.

 

What are those other situations? 

[smilesammich 10,727]

18 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

They want permanent police protection for a price. What happens when the church says we'll give you a little more cash if you respond to our calls before the taxpayers calls? Or we'll give you extra cash if you keep all of your cruisers over on our side of town? The county is always going to get the taxpayer money no matter what, but the separate payments by the church are an extra cash cow. It's a huge conflict of interest.

sounds familiar..