Talk:Private police/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Private police. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Florida
In Florida, Critical Intervention Services, widely known as CIS, do not possess any arrest powers anywhere in the state. Its Officers do not possess a "Peace Officer" status and like any other private security company in the state of Florida, their operations are regulated by F.S.493.[1]
This is not in correct area needs some attention of someone that is familiar with it, I think.Schemel (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Interesting sources
- Private Security and Public Safety: A Community-Based Approach [Paperback] K. C. Poulin Charles P. Nemeth (Author)
Tisane (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Rename to private policing?
Would that make more sense, given the overlap between private police and security guard, private investigator, etc.? Tisane (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a valid reason to have an article called "Private Police" or "Special Police" because private police and security companies are not the same things. Private police have been granted official and usually limited police powers by the state, whereas security companies do not have official police power. For example, in the U.S., railroad police have state and federal police powers written into law and are commission peace officers of the state, whereas security guards at the mall do not have police powers at all and are not commissioned peace officers. So we are talking about two different things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:680:B710:ADEF:DE61:C6F8:8F5C (talk) 6:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Problem with the "Perceived advantages" section
There are at least two very distinct possible situations: 1. a state contracts private police firms to enforce the law, 2. a group of citizens (like homeowners in a certain residential area) pay a private police to protect their properties. The "Perceived advantages" section does not clearly enough distinguish between the tow. If a state uses private police, a lot of these perceived advantages no longer apply, because these advantages only apply to citizens using private police. An article on the website of The Guardian states that Surrey and West Midlands are looking at private firms to investigate crime and detain suspects.[1] This made me curious about the perceived advantages. I then noticed that the "Perceived advantages" section lists several things without making clear what applies to states using private police firms, and citizens using them. Take, for example, this text: "citizens could unilaterally fire their police company, rather than having to lobby the government to do so" --82.171.13.139 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Other articles
Tisane (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to post propaganda whether it be for or against something WP SOAP. This in no way adds to the discussion of this page, it just promotes your viewpoint. DetroitSeattle (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
neutrality
The perceived disadvantages section cites one disadvantage and then continues defending the idea of anarcho-capitalism for three paragraphs. It is in no way a neutral account of the disadvantages of private policing. I also take issue with the anarcho-capitalism section. It's sort of irrelevant to talk about how private police figure into one specific ideology, when it is not the only ideology that advocates private policing and is a hypothetical model to begin with. This is a quibble however. The information is interesting. My main concern is the state of the disadvantages section. Also... "perceived" disadvantages and "perceived" advantages? I feel like that sort of wishy washy language is no where else on the wikipedia. If we are citing credible sources we can certainly drop the word, "precived."
- Yes, I read that article as very biased and focussed on the theories of a very unbalanced selection of philosophers. --78.53.84.119 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This article does indeed appear to be heavily biased. I will add a pov tag to the top of the article. DetroitSeattle (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that article as very biased and focussed on the theories of a very unbalanced selection of philosophers. --78.53.84.119 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Globalization tag
There is an article called Private police in the United States which should contain most of the material present here about the U.S. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Total Re-write
Anyone interested in assisting me with a complete re-write of this article? It’s really all over the place, contradicts itself, etc. I’m a civilian LEO in the US (public sector, not private), but LE history and the like is a hobby of mine, I hate to see this page in this condition. MWFwiki (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I am going to be working on this myself (retired LEO as well) :::BlauGraf
- I added a lot of text explaining that security guards and private police are not the same things. Feel free to use some of that for the rewrite. I did not erase other people's work, but it is clear that some contributors do not know the difference between private police and security guards. I'm not sure how best to deal with that, so I will leave that for more experienced editors. :::WisTex— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:680:B710:A1DB:555D:2D67:C4FF (talk) 7:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)