Looks like the embed is turned off and it lost the time cue when going to youtube. Thanks for cuing it up, not your fault they broke it.
Jump to 1:34:34 - it's not youtube that broke the timestamp link... it's the forum's processing of youtube links - removing hyperlinks for previews only
in doing so the only link available 'watch on youtube' doesn't include timestamps in the original URL.
Interesting. I hear that as the police force is understaffed for the level of service required.
Not necessarily. When private entities do things that require more police presence, that burden is often put to the private entity to fund or provide. How depends on the kind of activity it is and what regulation it goes through. For instance, an event permit process may require them to provide the policing to get the permit. A zoning application may require them to provide the services to get approval, etc.
Where it gets messier is when something is a by-right activity. And in the case of something existing, it's hard to tack on after the fact. Here, Disney and the District could have been paying for additional staff based on activity or threat levels above and beyond the normal baselines. Paying overtime doesn't necessarily mean 'understaffed' -- it usually means more shifts were used and they had to pay overtime to get the bodies.
It matters because it's not the same. The Sheriff cannot just go out and offer a private policing force to anyone.
Yes, they can. The officers hired through the off-duty programs as 'Extra-Duty' shifts retain their regular policing powers. They are not just trained goons - they still retain their normal powers. Of course officers can also be hired in non-policing roles... but that's not to their benefit.
Lots of companies hire off duty police to act in a security function. If they were funneling that type of arrangement through a tax structure, I would agree that it is incorrect. Likewise, if they were using official police staff to peform security officer responsiblities, I would agree that is incorrect. Both of those would look like some type of financial fraud.
There isn't really anything incorrect either way - because the District could have made legitimate arguments of why both law enforcement and non-law enforcement roles would be necessary public safety needs that benefit the district's interests and within their delegated authority with the cities.
The only delta here is the sweetheart arrangement between Disney and the District.. which we've already covered ad nauseum. Besides, public safety at large public places (no matter who the business is) is an easy explanation.
The ability to police, and take actions that are restricted to the police is a government monopoly. Different government entities can contract with each other to provide that service explicitly because they are both government entities. A private company cannot hire the police to perform policing actions.
They can and do - but what maybe is the distinction in your statement is they don't perform policing actions at the behest of who hires them, they do so within their established appointment and jurisdiction. You don't hire the police to be 'your private police' -- you hire the police to be there (vs elsewhere) and cover specific responsibilities.
You are going down this path as if the off-duty are hired to be mercenaries doing Disney's bidding... that's not how it works. When you hire off-duty police to work as police - they are infact still police, and will act as such. Just with specific areas of interest, time, and responsibilities.
This has nothing to do with the money coming from a private entity or gov. These officers are working inconjunction with the approval of their employer.
For instance, I live in an unincorpated county area. If someone decides to setup a campsite on the boarder between us and our neighbor, and we both call the police to report trespasses along with pressing charges to have them removed. There's not any choices here. The county is responsible for the police responsibilty. They don't get to say, you didn't pay us directly so we're not doing it. My neighbor doesn't get to say they paid extra to get better service.
I honestly have no idea where you are going with all this.
If you hired an off-duty officer to work as law enforcement on your property, he could infact cite someone for tresspass. You would get a benefit because your response time would be much better. If you didn't hire them, you could still call the police for service, and the responsible jurisdiction would respond, and the outcome would be the same... but it would take a lot longer.
I could pay the police to act in a private capacity as a security guard to discourage the campers from entering my property. In that private capactiy, they'll exhaust what they can do at some point and require non contracted service provided as part of a goverment function to take official police actions.
Yes, and that's the difference between hiring an off-duty police to work as police... vs hiring 'bob' as a non-law enforcement role or just 'bob' directly. But if 'bob' is an off-duty officer, he can still act as an officer within the laws of his jurisdiction. But that would be Bob just acting on his own, not as your employee.
