Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So for all you know it could already be...centralized?

I'm waiting on you to tell me what the department that I deal with every single day at work actually is. Please Google it and educate me, I'm just an idiot that has worked with them for over 5 years.

Federal Protective Service of the Department of Homeland Security.

That's who the police force is in my hospital?

Better tell them to switch out the batches on their uniforms...

Switch out their batches? The Feds are Growing rent a cops now! It has begun...

if I could figure out whatever point you're trying to make I would respond. You want me to guess who you work with?
Er...ok. Pam and Sandy. Peecachoo I choose you!

They fall under them in DHS.

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We have our own.

The VA isn't a police force. Arming some VA employees is not the same thing as having police. Nor does the model make any sense when compared to any other hospital administration.

So the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Police does not count as the VA having a police? It's just "arming some VA employees"?

The lack of knowledge about what it is that these departments do, and how it might be or might not be law enforcement, is not exactly making these arguments against them look very educated.

Aren't we getting things messed up a bit?

There's a difference between "Security Officers" and "Police Officers"??? Right?

Frazz/Manchu... the VA complex is huge and I'm sure the local police don't have jurisdiction (right d-usa??). So, it'd make sense that there needs to be security personel (who may need to be armed) and some sort of federal police force.

I hear Sandy's sweet but Pam can be a real pain.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So for all you know it could already be...centralized?

I'm waiting on you to tell me what the department that I deal with every single day at work actually is. Please Google it and educate me, I'm just an idiot that has worked with them for over 5 years.

Federal Protective Service of the Department of Homeland Security.

That's who the police force is in my hospital?

Better tell them to switch out the batches on their uniforms...

Switch out their batches? The Feds are Growing rent a cops now! It has begun...

if I could figure out whatever point you're trying to make I would respond. You want me to guess who you work with?
Er...ok. Pam and Sandy. Peecachoo I choose you!

I told you that we have our own PD.

You posted some random link to another PD and asked if I'm sure that we don't have these guys.

I told you to Google it since you clearly think I don't know who walks our halls.

I know who they are, apparently you think you know more about our cops than I do.

They fall under FPS. They are not a "Stand Alone Entity"

 d-usa wrote:
I told you that we have our own PD.

You posted some random link to another PD and asked if I'm sure that we don't have these guys.

I told you to Google it since you clearly think I don't know who walks our halls.

I know who they are, apparently you think you know more about our cops than I do.

VA does indeed have their own cops.

I'm unclear why what thy do couldn't be handled by private security officers, though.

Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

Private hospitals don't have police that covers them? You wanna stick with that statement or do you want to reconsider why it might be a pretty dumb statement?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

Dude... it's a federal operation on federal building/land.

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Military bases are frequently guarded by private security these days, in the US.

Military police do exist, and they'll be the guys pulling you over for speeding on base. But I don't think your cops do that.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

Dude... it's a federal operation on federal building/land.

Dude its pronounced DUUUUUUUUUUUD.
1. I believe its already covered as we noted earlier.
2. So? Its stilla hospital. Again, why would it be a special snowflake?

 Frazzled wrote:

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

My guess would be that, unlike the VA, "private" hospital's primary clientele are NOT "highly trained killers" ( I use that term very loosely, but there are certainly those vets out there with issues that can/will make them very liable to violent acts)

But at the same time, I KNOW that in my home town, security is provided for by on-duty city police officers (though I have seen the occasional county/state officer in there from time to time), not some private security company or other rent-a-cop type agency.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

Dude... it's a federal operation on federal building/land.

And all the private hospitals inside city limits are covered by Oklahoma City PD and Oklahoma County SD, both of which usually have on-duty guys on the property as well.

Except the state hospital, which has state law enforcement on property.

Every hospital has PD on-duty, at least in Oklahoma City.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Military bases are frequently guarded by private security these days, in the US.

Military police do exist, and they'll be the guys pulling you over for speeding on base. But I don't think your cops do that.

They actually do.

We have the private security guys checking IDs in the parking lot entrance, that's pretty much it.

Our PD does the actual law enforcement side of things, from petty things such as writing tickets for speeding, parking, littering, picking up drunks and taking them to the drunk tank, investigate threats made against staff, investigate fraud, etc. Our guys actually do quite a bit of real police work that can't be done by private security, similar to the Military Police.

That's not saying that one giant law-enforcement agency can't take stuff like that over for all departments, but it's not something that security can handle because they don't have the legal authority for that kind of stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

My guess would be that, unlike the VA, "private" hospital's primary clientele are NOT "highly trained killers" ( I use that term very loosely, but there are certainly those vets out there with issues that can/will make them very liable to violent acts)

But at the same time, I KNOW that in my home town, security is provided for by on-duty city police officers (though I have seen the occasional county/state officer in there from time to time), not some private security company or other rent-a-cop type agency.

Pretty much this: every hospital in the city has on-duty cops. We are not special there.

And unlike the VA, every other hospital in the city can actually call the cops and have them respond.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because private security cannot enforce laws.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason you have military police instead of security and the FBI.

Strangely non VA hospitals manage to get by with private security just fine (usually off duty Po Po). Why are you a special snowflake?

Dude... it's a federal operation on federal building/land.

Dude its pronounced DUUUUUUUUUUUD.
1. I believe its already covered as we noted earlier.
2. So? Its stilla hospital. Again, why would it be a special snowflake?

Frazz... both d-usa and Ensis is right.

gak man, I work in one of the large hospital system in the mid-west. Our largest hospital actually has a fully accredited PD office (jails and all) within the building.

And do they have rifles, MRAPs and sniper gear?

I'm not sayign they can't have police. on the contrary. I'm saying there should be a blanket Fed security force that handles that. Looks like there is in actuality.

I'm also arguing that every govenrment entity should not have fed security forces and especially should not have SWAT type units. Come on, really?

If there are criminal fraud units - fine but those should be centralized into another service.

Federal lands may require management but they do not require policing

So, I can even quote an entire page from BLM's own website talking about their law enforcement mandate (which they've had since the forties), and people continue talking about how they don't have one.

]And so the judiciary branch has its own executive branch?

Yes. Seriously, most of these bodies have been extant since the 70's and many long before that. The current structure of the executive is such that most agencies have been granted a narrow law enforcement mandate relevant to their field. The sad thing here is that there are intelligent people basking in ignorance of basic facts. Not liking those facts is one thing, telling other people they don't exist is one of the saddest things I think I've seen on this forum.

Jesus Christ the Marshals were founded in 1789 for the specific purpose to carrying out the will of the courts. They're the oldest Federal law enforcement body in the US by a few decades (BIA wouldn't exist until 1824).

 LordofHats wrote:


Jesus Christ the Marshals were founded in 1789 for the specific purpose to carrying out the will of the courts. They're the oldest Federal law enforcement body in the US by a few decades (BIA wouldn't exist until 1824).

They are an organ of the government and therefore repressing the people.

The tyrannical George Washington is to blame for the predicament we're in. He started this whole overzealous reach of the executing branch aborting the rights of brave rugged individuals from practicing their freedom to graze on land once belonging to Native Americans.

True Americans would no stand for such clearly communistic intent.

I see your Marshals of 1789 and add in US Coast Guard of 1790 which at that time was "Revenue Marines"

 Jihadin wrote:
I see your Marshals of 1789 and add in US Coast Guard of 1790 which at that time was "Revenue Marines"

Why stop there?

We have a whole list of agencies we need to trim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies


And that list was provided free of charge by hard working private sector employees.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't think that anyone is looking to disarm the agencies in question. I fully support having Park Rangers being armed as they are often in the wilderness with a very long window before back up. But do I believe that they, or the IRS, needs a dedicated SWAT team ready to go at a moments notice? Not really

It's a misconception that BLM or these other agenices have dedicated SWAT teams. Outside of major cities and groups like the FBI's HRT there's not a lot of full time, specialist tactical response units out there. In almost every case it's guys who otherwise work elsewhere in the department, who maintain some level of qualification for a tactical team who will be called up when an incident like Bundy happens.

I mean, can you imagine how frustrating your job would be if you worked full time in a tactical unit at BLM, training day after day, just waiting to finally get called up, and when it finally happens the BLM withdraws you before you get to shoot anyone?


To me it makes sense to remove these units from bureaus and require the FBI to fill in where required. There is scope for cost saving because having all these guys maintaining their qualifications is expensive - rather than 40 depts keeping their own guys qualified just in case they are needed, I suspect it would be much cheaper to expand the number of FBI teams slightly and make them available to those departments when needed. And on top of that there's also an issue of quality - full time, professional tactical teams are going to do the job better than regular field workers who've managed to maintain a qualification on an AR-15.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
BLM was armed first and they came heavy - again in SWAT formation.

The BLM armed themselves after threats of violence were issued.

Interesting that the elefties are ok with SWAT tactics in thsi context. Ok with SWAT tactics when they kick in your door looking for drugs and if you blink funny you're dead?

I've never had a problem with police arming themselves, and ensuring that they maintain absolute force superiority where they operate.

Now, there's scope for debate about how often police over-estimate the potential for armed resistance, but for people who complain that the police shouldn't be using such weapons where a threat is reasonably expected, well those people just aren't being very sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Believe it or not, I'm not that liberal. It's just that so much gets posted on here about conservatives and from a conservative perspective I often find myself debating conservative insanity with more frequency than liberal insanity.

Yep, that's my position too. I don't really think I'm left or right wing, as much as anti-lunatic. When a socialist comes in and tries to claim that banks are responsible for all our hardships or something equally silly, then I'll debate them just as much as any time a conservative posts something crazy.

It's just that the conservatives post so much more nonsense on this site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpha 1 wrote:
The BLM more than likely deal with much smaller communities with police forces that do not have the funding, equipment or training to handle something like the Bundy case and what is more important is that the Police might not be impartial to the situation and even support the suspect and relying on these officer could put BLM agents in danger.

In the event that the BLM needed to deploy heavily armed troops, they would likely have to bring in more men and not just rely on local BLM officers. There isn't much of a reason those men being brought in couldn't be FBI or belong to some other agency instead of being BLM.

So now the issue is dose the FBI have the mandate to actually get involved with a BLM operation and what if the FBI can not assist the BLM because their resources are tied up? Another issue would be logistics if the BLM call FBI Tac units who is in charge the BLM or FBI who calls the shots and who takes responsibility.The thing is people have no problem taking the credit but taking responsibility for something that goes wrong now that another issue.

Liability is the biggest reason why these agencies have a law enforcement elements and have dedicated tac units because the FBI, ATF or local police do not want to be anywere near them if something goes wrong ie WACO.

 sebster wrote:
It's a misconception that BLM or these other agenices have dedicated SWAT teams. Outside of major cities and groups like the FBI's HRT there's not a lot of full time, specialist tactical response units out there. In almost every case it's guys who otherwise work elsewhere in the department, who maintain some level of qualification for a tactical team who will be called up when an incident like Bundy happens.

The BLM were mentioned because it had alread been brought up, but I do take your point.

 sebster wrote:
I mean, can you imagine how frustrating your job would be if you worked full time in a tactical unit at BLM, training day after day, just waiting to finally get called up, and when it finally happens the BLM withdraws you before you get to shoot anyone?

Poor babies

 sebster wrote:
To me it makes sense to remove these units from bureaus and require the FBI to fill in where required. There is scope for cost saving because having all these guys maintaining their qualifications is expensive - rather than 40 depts keeping their own guys qualified just in case they are needed, I suspect it would be much cheaper to expand the number of FBI teams slightly and make them available to those departments when needed. And on top of that there's also an issue of quality - full time, professional tactical teams are going to do the job better than regular field workers who've managed to maintain a qualification on an AR-15.

I am in absolute agreement here. Just the logistics required to co-ordinate multiple units with different equipment, procedures, and cultures is a massive undertaking.

Alpha 1 wrote:
So now the issue is dose the FBI have the mandate to actually get involved with a BLM operation and what if the FBI can not assist the BLM because their resources are tied up? Another issue would be logistics if the BLM call FBI Tac units who is in charge the BLM or FBI who calls the shots and who takes responsibility.The thing is people have no problem taking the credit but taking responsibility for something that goes wrong now that another issue.

Liability is the biggest reason why these agencies have a law enforcement elements and have dedicated tac units because the FBI, ATF or local police do not want to be anywere near them if something goes wrong ie WACO.

Easy... If BLM calls in support, then it's BLMs gig... Just like the military, they're in charge of everything good/bad, unless they end up giving an unlawful order.