The Era Of Private Security Is Here.

Pros and Cons of Security V. Policing and the return of the militia (prediction)

Recently, a video from Fox 29 went viral showing a gas station owner hiring a contingent of gentlemen to watch his store, with the intent to cut down on the rampant crime wave facing his community. I think this is not only the right approach, but it’s the only approach that will work for multiple reasons. The tragedy of the scenario though is the fact that it was necessary in the first place. In my opinion, private security works BEST in tandem with law enforcement, not in place of it. While I really like what is man is doing, I think this will end up being the only way that people in this community will be able to get back just a little bit of the sense of safety that was ripped from them in the aftermath of the George Floyd riots, or “The Summer of Love.”

Philadelphia was one of the many cities to “Defund” their police departments, from what I can find, somewhere around $33 Million Dollars. The end result? Perhaps the 200+ person disparity in homicide deaths across the city between 2019 and 2021 for example. I think it’s irresponsible what the government of the Philly area decided to do. I do have a problem with corruption in policing. I have a problem with police breaking the law, and not being held accountable. I think the Democrat lead cities are overcorrecting here. Instead of investigating corruption, they destroyed their departments. Instead of holding people accountable, they let criminals free to do whatever they wanted. Now that there’s no legal means to deal with the system we’re left with a community that has no recourse, no legal system to represent them, no officer to defend them when they are in danger. What is there to do then? Before I get into this topic, I would like to say, I am NOT a lawyer, nothing that I say should be taken as legal advice. “The Police” are not a monolith, rather a semi-decentralized series of state funded organizations that vary wildly depending on their community’s needs. Every organization that hires security may not consider the same things, there are different types of security forces. In this article I will only be referring to security organizations that hire officers specifically for private property, and integrated into the daily operations of those organizations.

Pro’s and Con’s

In all honesty, there is nothing police can do if say, 100 people decide to ransack a convenience store. Without a massive multiagency response, it would be easy for any department to become overwhelmed if they were to respond to an event such as that. In fact, unless an officer is near, or already on the scene when a crime occurs, most interactions with police may just become an investigative exercise to build a case for prosecution within the legal system if the crime was committed without successful intervention. Luckily for a State like Mississippi with something like their “Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement” or S.M.A.C. , multiple law enforcement agencies can immediately be dispatched and coordinated via a shared radio network, equipment, and standards (P25 compliant systems). By Mississippi state law, every emergency organization is in an agreement to train, communicate, support, and defend each other. It’s not necessarily apparent to me that Philadelphia has that type of relationship with their law enforcement entities. The only things that can get in the way would be city officials blocking measures that would otherwise allow officers to cooperate or organize. Private security doesn’t have any of these features, all communications and trainings will likely be conducted internally. In my opinion this can be a problem in situations such as a active shooter or bomb threat scenario. However, if the security is armed they’re likely going to be trained or tasked to follow the standard “Direct to threat” measures. Don’t expect that in unarmed security.

Many departments prefer strategic deterrence in order to deal with crime. What that means is when cops are handed their assignments they might be told patrol a different precinct/district for example, so that the natural routine of an officer might not so easily be determined by a criminal element that does their homework. Or perhaps, when a roadblock is set up, the location or time may be randomized to increase the effectiveness of the deterrence. If by chance the officers can execute a warrant, or stop a petty crime in the process all the better. In fact, a working department may increase the policing of petty crimes (non-felony offenses) in order to maintain the perception that any and all crime will be swiftly dealt with. This is a concept known as “broken windows policing.” This comes with a price in our modern age of communications though. If you believe that police are a symbol of oppression this can become evidence of such oppression, and in the age of communication that’s how it will be framed. We know this because of the explosion of “Police Brutality” videos that go viral and seem to pre-empt the conversations on these things. On top of that, Cops may not attempt to respond or assist at all in the event a non-criminal event occurs on private property. Anything from a petty dispute, to a disruptive visitor, valuable items lost/stolen on company property, or even a squatter who refuses to leave (if state laws allow) can be very hard to deal with, if there’s even a low level legal remedy at all. It also increases the prospect for personal liability, and to be honest, it’s just more paperwork. Street level cops may tend to prefer to leave these problems to the discretion of the organization’s owner. That’s where Security comes in.

You may have heard the term “Agent” before in terms such as “federal agent”, or “agent of the state.” This term simply refers to someone who is hired to act on the behalf of an individual or organization. Police are agents of the state, hired of the city, state, or county government to enforce laws. Private security are agents, meant to represent an organization, or individual, specifically for the purpose enforcing rules, regulations, property boundaries, safety, etc. In comparison, law enforcement is the enforcer rules implemented by the state, and they are given special legal protections in very specific circumstances. That being said, security is very limited in what they can do to an individual. For example, a security guard generally cannot make an arrest for non-felony offenses, and arrests for felony offenses would be on the level of something like a “citizens arrest” either way, these type of instances would ultimately be resolved eventually by law enforcement. Even then, a private security guard could still be subject to detainment or even arrest by law enforcement if they’re wrong in making those types of moves.

In terms of security, the main goal is to find out the immediate problem, and take that problem off property. That being said, private security guard likely couldn’t do anything to anyone outside of the property limits that he has been hired to guard. So the purpose there is if the people involved in a dispute or if a person is being disruptive, the organization that the guard represent simply would prefer not to be involved in whatever that is. In that case, removing that individual from property is the preferred method. An example of this is say, someone is loitering (hanging out with no purpose) on a side walk (public property) and someone representing the interests of the company wants that loiterer to leave the area. Tough luck. In America, the first amendment allows people to gather on public land for any reason. If that person were to say, shout threats towards the organization, but was still on the sidewalk, the only thing the guard could do is take any action that individual takes on the property, but law enforcement agencies would have to take care of the loiterer turned criminal threat maker as long as he is off property.

Security and Law enforcement are separate entities, and for the majority of the time, should have nothing to do with each other. The best way for these entities to interact is sharing information and working to find solutions that solve the problem of those dangerous streets that bleed over into any organization. It would be amazing if every time a criminal problem occurred at your workplace, security arrived on scene to take stock of the scene, and walk the criminal out to police who then share the information, and take the guy away. Of course, there’s much more to it after the fact. but unfortunately our cities are not that safe and not that efficient. The biggest downside of every organization hiring private security while police fail to solve crime is the main problem that security can deter crime, they can intervein and stop crime, but only on private property. So, if you live in the city where everyone’s got their private heavily armed security, but little to no cops, and criminals with free reign in the streets, you will simply just have to keep yourself safe until you get somewhere where that responsibility goes to the organization you wish to visit. It’s evolving, but not in the right way. The overcorrection of defunding the police will and IS currently evolving into some type of Neo-Feudalism.

The solution for the average citizen

The individual solution would be, in my opinion, the second amendment. Learning to use and carry a weapon is absolutely critical. No, I am not saying grab the biggest gun you can, and become a vigilante. What I am saying is if we the people do not get public protection, if the state has failed it’s promise to provide for the common defense and support the general welfare; the crime is so bad businesses are more comparable to feudal nations maintaining private armies on retainer; and while moving between those “tiny nations” the average citizen is subjected to a wasteland of crime and villainy; (I’m being hyperbolic) the very minimum that citizens should do is take care of themselves individually. If the state is getting in the way of that like in New York, California, Oregon, Washington, and cities like Philadelphia, and Chicago, perhaps they aught not actively conspire against their citizens. I highly doubt being a victim is truly the popular consensus, though I don’t live there, so perhaps I could be wrong on that one. I just say this, even in the age of feudalism, travelers had swords, daggers, bows, and crossbows between the cities. Those who didn’t, didn’t leave their lords’ lands. My big question to you is… Why should you be denied your sword when there are brigands about?

I think we have forgotten that our safety is our responsibility. To be able to defend yourself is your right. We’ve recently been learning with the integration of technology that we give up our privacy with cameras, we give up our control with our contracts, and we give up our speech when we capitulate to with social media. For every service you hand over your responsibilities to a third party organization, you loose your autonomy on the subject. So be careful. I say this as someone who does private security for a living. The more we give up our personal security to someone else, the harder it will be to exercise your rights. You have to contend with private property rights. Much of the conversation in today’s politics is who get’s to determine your rights. The “Lelft” tends to say the government, the “Right” tends to say private companies, though not as much in recent days. Just know, no one cares about you and your family as much as you. Be careful not to fall into the false dichotomy. No one should be in control of your rights but you. that just so happens to mean you have to take care of it yourself, because when you need these systems the most, they may just fail you.

Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoyed it. If you think I’m getting something right here, like, comment, and subscribe to my Substack! If you think I’m wrong, tell me why and let’s have that conversation. I want to hear it.