Mega-Church to get its own police force

[CarnalK]

He’s not in Vermont, he’s in Ontario. Burlington, Ont has a population of 180k, Milton has 110k and Oakville 190k. But yes, you live in different worlds.

[Lord_Feldon]

@RickJay

Your point about the atomizing of municipalities is a good one but, after all, counties and regions do figure this shit out sometimes. Oakville, to use that example a little further, is a separate municipality from Burlington and Milton but they share a police force (but don’t share a fire department) so there is a choice there.

Did they actually figure it out, or was it driven by the province resolving what it saw as an inefficiency?

To use an example where I know what happened, look at Toronto. The amalgamation was unpopular, all of the local institutions were against it, and the province said “tough shit” and did it anyways. Even if that was politically feasible here, it would in most states be unconstitutional.

[Kent_Clark]

@CarnalK

He’s not in Vermont, he’s in Ontario. Burlington, Ont has a population of 180k, Milton has 110k and Oakville 190k. But yes, you live in different worlds.

My US-centric mistake. I saw Burlington and thought Vermont.

[Irishman]

I’ve seen small suburban communities create collective arrangements for Police or Fire service, here in the good ol’ USA, while maintaining separate political entities.

I’ve also seen communities forcibly absorbed by the greater metropolitan area and subsumed in that city’s authority. Typically, they take over the existing stations and make them substations of their downtown, and life goes on.

I don’t think any of the private police forces of universities, hospitals, etc. have authority for murder investigations. Though they do seem to have some independence with respect to assault investigations, so I don’t know.

I’m not for the Mega-church getting it’s own private police force because I’m not for any more organizations that circumvent public accountability through open records policies. They should be publicly accountable.

I’m also not fond of a police force under the authority of church leadership. Seems against the First Amendment.

I can sort of see an argument for having a consistent security detail that gets familiar with the church members, rather than rotating officers. That may reduce the likelihood of undo violence upon actual church members, but won’t address the concerns of those who see a black kid and think “must be an intruder” or necessarily reduce any violence differences in response against white vs black.

I do see value in having good training programs for private security forces of whatever name, and using state police standards and facilities has merit, if paid for by the organization. Again, assuming the state police standards and policies are scrutinized for how they address crime and potential criminal situations. That’s a separate issue.

[Omar_Little]

I actually believe that these big southern mega-churches whom have regular Sunday attendance well into the thousands, even some over ten thousand, will become targets for terroristic activities. You have a weekly large gathering of people with minimal or no security that have established routines that can be tracked, surveilled and watched easily. Such a terrorist event could conceivably end up with a higher body count than 9/11. Regardless of their beliefs these people need protection as well.

[nelliebly]

@Omar_Little

I actually believe that these big southern mega-churches whom have regular Sunday attendance well into the thousands, even some over ten thousand, will become targets for terroristic activities. You have a weekly large gathering of people with minimal or no security that have established routines that can be tracked, surveilled and watched easily. Such a terrorist event could conceivably end up with a higher body count than 9/11. Regardless of their beliefs these people need protection as well.

I don’t think anyone doubts that. The question is how to provide that security in a way that’s constitutional. Hence the discussion.

[UltraVires]

@RickJay

I can see the budgetary problems, but the safe, logical thing for the University of Shitville to do is to pay the Shitville PD for the added cost of a number of cops with the agreement that they will patrol UofS. Private interests and subjurisdictions do this sort of thing, too. On a large scale, for instance, most of Canada’s provinces pay the RCMP to provide local policing rather than setting up their own provincial cops (like Ontario and Quebec do.) On a smaller scale, it’s not uncommon for sports teams to pay a little extra for cops to provide security services at games.

Your point about the atomizing of municipalities is a good one but, after all, counties and regions do figure this shit out sometimes. Oakville, to use that example a little further, is a separate municipality from Burlington and Milton but they share a police force (but don’t share a fire department) so there is a choice there. I’m not saying the politics are easily overcome, but it can be done.

But the question here is not one of the best way to police an area but the constitutionality of it, and I think the analysis should be quite simple: If this church was allowed to have its own police force because it is a religious organization, then that is unconstitutional. Conversely, if it was prohibited from having its own police force because it is a religious organization, then that would likewise be unconstitutional.

But if it is considered for a police force on the same terms as any other organization of equal size and needs (say I had a major sports complex for kids and wanted my own police force) then there is no constitutional issue.

Many opinions in this thread would themselves create constitutional difficulties as they would deny them a police force simply because it is a church.

Others, like you, don’t believe any of these organizations should have a police force but should rely on the municipality that they are in. That is fine too as long as it is equally applied to religious and non-religious organizations.

[Kent_Clark]

@Irishman

I’ve seen small suburban communities create collective arrangements for Police or Fire service, here in the good ol’ USA, while maintaining separate political entities.

Here in Shitville, the big and small police forces have banded together to form a Major Case Squad, that pools resources to investigate serious crimes that require a lot of manpower. It’s reciprocal, so any department can call on it when they need help. And the University police departments (the real ones, with arrest powers) are members.

[CarnalK]

@Omar_Little

I actually believe that these big southern mega-churches whom have regular Sunday attendance well into the thousands, even some over ten thousand, will become targets for terroristic activities. You have a weekly large gathering of people with minimal or no security that have established routines that can be tracked, surveilled and watched easily. Such a terrorist event could conceivably end up with a higher body count than 9/11. Regardless of their beliefs these people need protection as well.

Why would you think that? What’s anyone waiting for? Plenty of places of worship have been attacked.

[John_Bredin]

@Kent_Clark

Every one of those organizations has its own police force because they want more uniformed officers than the local government can provide on regular patrols.

Also, for metro transit systems, the question is which local government would be providing officers if they didn’t have their own police, as they operate in multiple municipalities in multiple counties. Heck, Washington Metro has lines in the District of Columbia and two states.