First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Briarwood Church Seeks Own Official Police Force, ACLU Opposes
Posted 4/18/17
ACLU is a joke they will block anything I see them all the time standing in front of malls handing out flyers
i take their crap and throw it in the trash..
35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17

Ravenstein wrote:
2. Are there that many crimes being committed on the church campus?


No, the news has been digging into it and there are no local stories or 911 call records that indicate the church has ever had any kind of trouble. The only incident of any note was in 2015 when some of their students got caught up in a drug bust. But the school and the cops swept it completely under the rug.



Ravenstein wrote:3. If there is a large school or college on campus that they need to protect, would it not be more prudent to attach the police force, if even necessary, to that? As stated in this thread and the article, many schools and universities already do have their own police forces.


The campus is currently served by two police forces from two different counties and is patrolled by a third.



Ravenstein wrote:
1. Why does the church need an official police force instead of relying on existing local police forces?

2. What duties would they perform that a private security company could not?


It doesn't and the church is actually free to hire not just a security but its own armed guards if it sees fit. So if Sandy Hook is the motivator as their leader claims, they can hire armed guards. So it is suspect that they're seeking full police powers. Perhaps they want further legal control over their own students so they don't embarrass the church by smoking weed. -.-



NillaWaferz wrote:
If we pretend that the organization isn't a church, but a secular institution (Say for example, a privately owned community athletics complex or civic center), do we have the same objections as if the petitioner is a church, synagogue or mosque (or what have you)? If so, we should deny policing proposals from either one. Otherwise we don't have sound objections to their formation, with the caveat being that these police must enforce the laws of the land, not those of the people paying their salaries.


The weasel in the works of this story I think is more in the background of the church itself. None of these articles actually go into the history of the church ( or the member sponsoring the bill ). But this is a full on fundamentalist church that ticks all of the discrimination boxes ( anti-gay, horrifyingly racist history, etc ). This is the same church whose high school football team got in shit last year for bringing a "Make America Great Again, Trump The Tigers" banner when playing against a rival school that was predominantly black.

So there are some serious and sincere questions as to what sort of code of conduct, if any, said force would have and whether or not it would hold itself to the same standards of conduct and anti-discrimination guidelines as a regular police force.

39728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 4/18/17

runec wrote:

. This is the same church whose high school football team got in shit last year for bringing a "Make America Great Again, Trump The Tigers" banner when playing against a rival school that was predominantly black.




Oh my goodness! How could we suffer those bigots to live?!?!
21517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17
I think Alabama has bigger things to worry bout then this

Isn't like half their state government in jail for corruption?
27659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/18/17
First off most churches have cops directing traffic out front on Sunday morn, Wednesday nights. Secondly why don't you just hire a security company or make your own? Thirdly ACLU showing their true colors...
22232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17
Interestingly enough, "Code 16-22-1 of Alabama law provides for the employment of one or more persons to act as police officers at colleges and other private educational institutions"


http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/02/briarwood_presbyterian_church_2.html

I need more research. Is it private officers or not? Public universities I thought were under the jurisdiction of the Government. In any case, I believe if they want to hire police officers, then they should. In any case, I am not sure what is illegal that would get in the way. They apparently have shortages and want supervising full timers?

Money cannot be an issue. It seems to be a debate on police jurisdiction?
22232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/18/17
(a) The president or chief executive officer of any state college or university, the president or chief executive officer of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind, the Presidents of Talladega College, Concordia College, Samford University, Birmingham-Southern College, Miles College, Stillman College, Tuskegee University, Spring Hill College, Faulkner University, and Selma University may appoint and employ one or more suitable persons to act as police officers to keep off intruders and prevent trespass upon and damage to the property of the college or university or of the institute.  These persons shall be charged with all the duties and invested with all the powers of police officers.
(b) Any person appointed to act as a police officer, pursuant to subsection (a), while on duty, shall carry and be trained in the proper use of a nonlethal weapon.  For the purposes of this subsection, a nonlethal weapon is a weapon that is explicitly designed and primarily employed to immediately incapacitate the targeted person while minimizing fatalities and permanent injury.  A nonlethal weapon is intended to have a reversible effect on the targeted person.
(c) A person appointed as a police officer pursuant to subsection (a) shall be certified through the Alabama Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission.

http://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-16-education/al-code-sect-16-22-1.html

(a) Any police officer appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-47-10 or 16-22-1, is a peace officer whose authority extends to any place in the state;  provided, that the primary duty of any such police or peace officer shall be the enforcement of the law on property owned or leased by the institution of higher education employing said peace officers;  provided further, that he shall not otherwise act as a peace officer in enforcing the law except:
(1) When in pursuit of any offender or suspected offender who is charged with the commission of a crime while on the premises of said institution;  or
(2) To make arrests otherwise lawfully for crimes committed, or for which there is probable cause to believe have been committed, within his presence or within the boundaries of said property owned or leased.
(b) The provisions of this section granting authority to police officers at institutions of higher learning in the State of Alabama are not intended to limit or abridge any powers heretofore granted to said officers by law, and the provisions of this section are, therefore, to be considered cumulative.
(c) Nothing in this section shall grant authority to any persons appointed under the provisions of this section to enter a classroom for the purpose of enforcing traffic or parking citations.

http://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-16-education/al-code-sect-16-22-2.html


jdyun2 
16298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/18/17
I am against any religious body having any armed people to work for them or directly on their payroll.
What do they need the extra police for anyway?
8120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/18/17

runec wrote:

discrimination boxes ( anti-gay, horrifyingly racist history, etc ).



That's morally and socially repugnant, distasteful and bigoted. If these factors would influence policy of the prospective officers working for the church or in its jurisdiction then it bears consideration for the passage (or non-passage) of the proposal. Otherwise I don't see how it matters. Private individuals and organizations should and do have the right to employ racists and other bigots, hold bigoted views and spread bigoted ideas to other people. Free speech and expression isn't really free unless it protects the most vile, uncouth, offensive speech imaginable. But more to the point at hand: even if Briarwood espouses such view, the officers they employ might not necessarily share them or act on them if they do.



quote]runec wrote:

This is the same church whose high school football team got in shit last year for bringing a "Make America Great Again, Trump The Tigers" banner when playing against a rival school that was predominantly black.



What's the actual problem with this? It's just an incorporation of a political message with one of team/school spirit. I could see why the media might make a stink about it, but there's no racist or anti-black message here unless you believe that supporting the Republican Party, its presidential ticket or Donald Trump in particular is inherently racist. But if you're going to say so, go ahead and call well over half of Americans racist (because presumably the voting population is a more or less representative sample of the entire population statistically and also because presumably more than a few racists voted for his opponents. I'm aware that he "lost the popular vote")
35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/18/17 , edited 4/18/17

NillaWaferz wrote:
That's morally and socially repugnant, distasteful and bigoted. If these factors would influence policy of the prospective officers working for the church or in its jurisdiction then it bears consideration for the passage (or non-passage) of the proposal.


Well, that's the problem. There doesn't appear to be any direction or clarity on whether these officers will be working under a proper code of conduct and guidelines. Powers of the state are secular in nature and granting powers of the state ( policing ) to a private religious institution without any clear guidelines as to its usage seems asking for trouble.



NillaWaferz wrote:But more to the point at hand: even if Briarwood espouses such view, the officers they employ might not necessarily share them or act on them if they do.


That seems rather optimistic given, you know, Alabama.



NillaWaferz wrote:
What's the actual problem with this? It's just an incorporation of a political message with one of team/school spirit. I could see why the media might make a stink about it, but there's no racist or anti-black message here unless you believe that supporting the Republican Party, its presidential ticket or Donald Trump in particular is inherently racist. But if you're going to say so, go ahead and call well over half of Americans racist (because presumably the voting population is a more or less representative sample of the entire population statistically and also because presumably more than a few racists voted for his opponents. I'm aware that he "lost the popular vote")


That too seems rather optimistic. What point is there in utilizing a political message ( especially one consistently used as an attack at Trump rallies ) against an opposing high school? Why is defeating the rival team making America great again? Why use it, in particular, against an opposing team from a predominantly black school? Politics shouldn't be out at a high school football game to begin with but the implications of that one in particular, intended or not, are problematic.

As for the rest of your argument, you're making an appeal to extremes. Not everyone who voted Trump is a racist, obviously, but that likewise does not mean that racism was not a component of his campaign. Also, again, we're talking about a predominantly white fundamentalist church in Alabama with a long, proud history of racism and segregation.

This church formed specifically because it pulled away from the main Presbyterian church over the issue of racial integration. Mainly, they did not want non-whites in their church so they went and made their own church rather than desegregate. And this was in the 70s, mind you. Not the 1800s.

So intended or not, you can see why the entire affair might have raised some eyebrows and led to the church to apologize.




8120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/19/17

runec wrote:

There doesn't appear to be any direction or clarity on whether these officers will be working under a proper code of conduct and guidelines. Powers of the state are secular in nature and granting powers of the state ( policing ) to a private religious institution without any clear guidelines as to its usage seems asking for trouble.



And what exactly is the basis for that assumption? Why do you have any reason to assume that they will be any different from other limited jurisdiction police? Because their employers are a bunch of racists? Show me some hard evidence instead of conjecture.



runec wrote:

That seems rather optimistic given, you know, Alabama.



What the hell does that mean? Nice broad brush you're painting with there.





runec wrote:

What point is there in utilizing a political message ( especially one consistently used as an attack at Trump rallies ) against an opposing high school?



What does consistently even mean and who is being attacked when someone promises to "make America great again?" It's an empty slogan that could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people or nothing at all, just like Obama's "hope and change" mantra.



runec wrote:

Why is defeating the rival team making America great again? Why use it, in particular, against an opposing team from a predominantly black school? Politics shouldn't be out at a high school football game to begin with but the implications of that one in particular, intended or not, are problematic.



Again, why does it matter that the other school is predominantly black? And what's problematic about wanting to "make America great again?" Why shouldn't politics "be out" at a football game? It isn't against the law to espouse a political belief as part of a public event, especially for a private organization. Should the fans in the crowd not be able to carry political signage to the game either?



runec wrote:

As for the rest of your argument, you're making an appeal to extremes. Not everyone who voted Trump is a racist, obviously, but that likewise does not mean that racism was not a component of his campaign. Also, again, we're talking about a predominantly white fundamentalist church in Alabama with a long, proud history of racism and segregation.

This church formed specifically because it pulled away from the main Presbyterian church over the issue of racial integration. Mainly, they did not want non-whites in their church so they went and made their own church rather than desegregate. And this was in the 70s, mind you. Not the 1800s.



I'm not making an appeal to extremes, you are! Show me hard proof that racism was a component of Trump's campaign. I bet you can't find any. Did some racists vote for Donald Trump? Sure, I think that's beyond question. But they don't represent even a plurality of his voters, much less a majority. None of Donald Trump's campaign promises or platform planks are overtly racist or discriminatory. And yet all you seem to be willing to admit is that "not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist."

I don't care that a church broke away from the rest of its denomination forty years ago so they could all be vile little racists together. It's none of my damned business and it's none of yours either. The Presbyterians should be glad to be rid of them!

You set up a very nice row of strawmen, but very little in the way of compelling arguments.
35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/17 , edited 4/19/17

NillaWaferz wrote:
And what exactly is the basis for that assumption? Why do you have any reason to assume that they will be any different from other limited jurisdiction police? Because their employers are a bunch of racists? Show me some hard evidence instead of conjecture.


Erm, that's not how this works. You don't set up a police force and *then* see what rules and regs you need after you see what they do or do not do. It is also not an assumption, the bill itself is little more than "yeah they can have their own cops". There are no details on what guidelines said cops will follow or what code of conduct they will use. Given that there have been numerous problems with campus police forces these are very reasonable concerns.



NillaWaferz wrote:
What the hell does that mean? Nice broad brush you're painting with there.


It means that Alabama is not exactly known for legislating in a manner that adheres to the Constitution. Especially when it comes to racial, religious and social issues.



NillaWaferz wrote:
What does consistently even mean and who is being attacked when someone promises to "make America great again?" It's an empty slogan that could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people or nothing at all, just like Obama's "hope and change" mantra.


I don't know if you're being intentionally disingenuous or actually failing to see the problem here. Have you never seen a Trump rally or heard slogans such as "Trump that bitch"?.



NillaWaferz wrote:
Again, why does it matter that the other school is predominantly black? And what's problematic about wanting to "make America great again?" Why shouldn't politics "be out" at a football game? It isn't against the law to espouse a political belief as part of a public event, especially for a private organization. Should the fans in the crowd not be able to carry political signage to the game either?


Again, why does a predominantly white school with a history of racism defeating a predominantly black school make America great? Why is the rival school an opponent of Trump? You are also once again leaping to an extreme. Criticizing the politicization of a high school football game isn't calling for it to be against the law.



NillaWaferz wrote:
I'm not making an appeal to extremes, you are!


The Peewee Herman defense is not an argument.



NillaWaferz wrote:Show me hard proof that racism was a component of Trump's campaign. I bet you can't find any. Did some racists vote for Donald Trump? Sure, I think that's beyond question. But they don't represent even a plurality of his voters, much less a majority. None of Donald Trump's campaign promises or platform planks are overtly racist or discriminatory. And yet all you seem to be willing to admit is that "not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist."


You sincerely require my assistance to recognize racist components of the campaign and administration? "Some, I assume, are good people"? Attacking a Gold Star family? Saying a federal judge was bias because he was of Mexican descent? Pretending not to know KKK leaders and declining to condemn them? Blaming that lack of condemnation on a "faulty earpiece" later on? The Muslim ban? The farking Birther movement? Assuming all black people know each other? Telling a room full of Jewish people that he's "a negotiator, like you"?

And thats before you even get into his business history. People that claim to be "the least racist person" don't get sued by the DoJ for racial discrimination. Twice.



NillaWaferz wrote:
I don't care that a church broke away from the rest of its denomination forty years ago so they could all be vile little racists together. It's none of my damned business and it's none of yours either. The Presbyterians should be glad to be rid of them!


It is most certainly your ( and everyone else's ) business if said vile little racists are going to be granted a key power of the state.



NillaWaferz wrote:
You set up a very nice row of strawmen, but very little in the way of compelling arguments.


That word, I do not think you know what it means.










First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.