A modern spin on something that has been happening in less developed and some developed nations for a long time. While I lived in Cape Town, South Africa part of my office lease went towards private security guards, and at one apartment I rented part of that rent went towards private security as well.
It was very common throughout the city and other regions to find co-ops form around businesses, farmers, home owners, etc. who would pool their money together and hire a private security force.
At our second office, it was the entire main street of shopholders with some of the offices chipping in to hire a dozen fulltime security guards to patrol the street, check cars, etc.
It worked reasonably well. You get to know the guards really well, they get to know the area well, and they were much more effective in responding to incidents than the police or other local authorities (in an earlier incident a man was once stabbed right infront of me, I called the ambulance and waited with him for an hour, he died and his body was eventually picked up later that night).
There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a makeshift prison cell and beat the three 'suspects' up and kept them in there for 24 hours. I can't describe how much blood there was on the floor and walls, but the three were eventually released (I was told they 'have to' do this so that other potential thieves go elsewhere, and that the police wouldn't do anything)
At first I was uneasy with the thought of having private security, but because of the failing of government to provide basic safety I ended up only every moving to areas that had a similar setup.
Residents resorting to self-funded policing is a sign that something is very, very wrong with government administration. I never thought i'd see this play out in a major American city.
It's also not like this is new in the US, it's just becoming more affordable and easier to arrange. Private railroad police have been here since the time of Lincoln. Office buildings, hotels, and apartment/condo buildings have had door men and security since forever. High end gated neighborhoods have had private security patrols, "armed response" services, even hiring their own dedicated sheriff/police patrols for a long time. More recently there are plenty of middle class "gated" neighborhoods with their own security.
For over a hundred years ranchers in Texas have had an industry association with it's own private deputized investigators for cow theft. Look how many downtown areas now have "Ambassadors" that are just private security patrolling. In many states there are some form of "Improvement Districts" that allows a neighborhood to self-tax and pay for private security or extra police patrols. Where I live, in Atlanta, almost every neighborhood you'd want to live in employs off-duty police to patrol.
And of course, every government agency from federal to local you can think of has their own police force to protect their property. FBI Police, CIA Police, National Zoo Police, Mint Police, Federal Reserve Police, (insert state here) Capitol Police, University Police, School District Police, Park Police, Hospital Police, Convention Center Police... It goes on.
The US is a huge country without a nationalized police force. Since the beginning those that could afford (or legislate) more security/policing have done so. The more directly a security force works for their clients, the more responsive they can be. This is why many cities were and are incorporated, to provide a higher level of police than counties/states were providing. It's why the FBI has it's own police vs relying on local PD. As the standard of living for everyone in the US rises, so will the amount of people hiring private security and police, it's no longer the domain of just the rich and powerful.
A fair number of years ago, the company I was with swapped in new senior management in conjunction with / for the purpose of executing a severe downsizing.
Suddenly, I'm walking past armed guards in the lobby.
This was not a "security" related company. Just an old-line business suffering under the changes brought by technology and too long under reactionary management.
But this new management was paranoid that someone was going to come in and shoot them up.
I'll differ with jmccree in that I don't see this as the result of rising prosperity. Rather, I see it as the result of rising inequality.
The rich are all the more able to pay for this and to force it through, when the masses -- including those from whom they hire their security -- are worse off. They can more easily afford the wages, and they more easily -- through their influence -- control the political implications.
As for the trend in the U.S., which also is occurring in e.g. fire fighting support and other areas. Many would argue it's another sign that, beneath the GDP totals, the U.S. is no longer a first world country. Piece by piece, link by link in an increasingly severed social contract.
I had similar thoughts reading this. However, American standards are far higher than our own, and they have a lower tolerance for crime: in Johannesburg we've had robberies outside Gautrain stations, where people have been shot, and there hasn't been an enormous amount of outrage.
I have a friend who just got back from San Francisco (not Oakland, admittedly), and I specifically asked him about bums and filth in SF, because I've seen that mentioned previously on HN. He said that he saw a few bums, but as soon as they jay-walked the cops were all over them, courteously, but firmly, pulling them back onto the sidewalk; and asking them to move on when they were loitering. He was astonished -contrast this with cities like Johannesburg where bums, beggars and vagrants occupy intersections with impunity.
I don't want to belittle the Oakland problem, but I do think some perspective is required, and it's a bit of a stretch to say that conditions are approaching those in South Africa.
But, once again, to put things in perspective, anywhere in South Africa today, routinely giving rides to strangers is regarded as suicidal-the idea of Casual Car Pooling would be regarded as insane. And the robbers would probably NOT have been apprehended by the police, as they have been in Oakland.
Another anecdote that could put things in perspective: in 2009, my sister-in-law, who was a student, was abducted from a petrol station in a nicer part of Johannesburg, by an knife-weilding vagrant, driven around, threatened with rape, and taken to an ATM to withdraw cash, before the vagrant left her car. There was a camera at the petrol station, and at the ATM. The cops came (I insisted that she call the cops, she didn't even want to bother). The police did nothing after taking her statement- they were supposed to send a sketch artist, but he never pitched. The idea of going to look at the CCTV footage probably never entered the cops' minds. I'm sure the criminal still hangs around in the same area. There was obviously no media coverage of the story - such things are too routine. The bank did station a full-time security guard at the ATM after I contacted them.
I am merely pointing out that comparing the situation described in OP to what's happened in South Africa is overly alarmist. And the idea that rent-a-cops are a new phenomenon in the US is also not accurate.
>> There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a makeshift prison cell and beat the three 'suspects' up and kept them in there for 24 hours. I can't describe how much blood there was on the floor and walls, but the three were eventually released (I was told they 'have to' do this so that other potential thieves go elsewhere, and that the police wouldn't do anything)
I hope this doesn't make me sound like a cruel person. I realize sensitivity to this kind of stuff is different depending where you are in the world. But, why do you consider this a failure? I understand it isn't as "civilized, humanitarian, feel-good" as the western-world's perceived standards, but this is absolutely how it's done in areas without reliable police enforcement. Until a stable & reliable law-enforcement can be set up, I honestly believe significant beatings for would-be thieves is the best deterrent for crime. Especially for 3rd-world countries; less things truly fall into complete chaos.
Because the rule of law hinges upon the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. Jumping a fence is not sufficient evidence alone that they were going to steal.
Furthermore, beating people like savages is not an acceptable punishment even if they were.
It seems to me like you've never been accused of a crime you didn't actually commit.
The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent.
The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent.
That idea is awesome. Nay, it is the lynchpin of a successful society. And it is all namby-pamby, Gandhi-an truth-and-justice until you have to live and survive in situations where crimes happen with impunity and go unpunished due to systemic apathy of the law-enforcers.
You can spew principles all day from your basement, but they mean naught until you have walked in the shoes of those you criticize.
I'm not talking about apathy, I'm talking about justice. If systemic apathy is the problem, then they won't be beating them, either. It's a straw man argument.
This has always been a terrible system and will continue to be. Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community.
> Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community.
So, other than the rape it's about the same as American law enforcement. ;) I'm sorry, I'm just joking.... _kinda_.
To be serious though, I think a community has more power over a hired private security group than the community has power over first-world law enforcement. If the people of Oakland felt there was more negative than positive with the security group being around, they can just stop paying them[1]. To stop the Oakland PD, is a bit more complicated.
I also believe the Oakland community would get to know the security-enforcers a bit more if they directly hire them. Perhaps even become friends; then maybe members of the community would join in at which point the line between the defenders & defendees would blur. The community would feel stronger. That feeling, even if not really true, of enpowerment I think counters feelings of hopelessness and could be the beginning of real change in troubled parts of Oakland. Or, I could be very wrong. The private-security-group could try to enforce, get completely gunned down and quit and the whole experiment fails....
1. They really need to make sure they find the right people though. Hiring the wrong people, then firing them can make things worse than when it started. I think it's important that whoever they hire work closely with community members and befriended.
Good point. Mobs beating suspected crooks up is frowned upon by the educated middle class (Rule of Law and all that), less so by the poor (which these security guards probably were), and who are more exposed to police ineptitude.
> Residents resorting to self-funded policing is a sign that something is very, very wrong with government administration. I never thought i'd see this play out in a major American city.
As someone who grew up in Detroit, I never thought it would take this long to happen.
Louis Theroux's documentary Law and Disorder in Johannesburg touches on the topic of private security. As someone with no experience of such situations I found this fascinating:
One section shows a situation similar to that which you described, in which the private security guards beat a suspected criminal to discourage repeat behaviour. Interestingly, the most brutal of the private security guards later falls foul of a mob of citizens, and must be protected/arrested by the real police (there's a chance I'm confusing this with another Theroux documentary).
Quick fix, yes. What happens with those security companies once the crime goes down though? Just like private prisons in US, I'd be worried these guys will make crime to keep the paycheck going.
The prison lobby is a problem, not just because of what they're peddling, but because there are takers - the political system. Private providers to private clients don't generally have that problem because the gravy train has a nasty habit of coming to an abrupt halt if any shenanigans are discovered.
Private prisons don't make crimes in the sense of making people do things that are widely regarded as immoral, they just seek to make sure things already regarded as immoral become or remain illegal, and seek to have the penalties set as high as possible. That isn't what security companies would need to do to increase demand.
Remember that the costs to security companies of trying to increase crime rates would be born by whoever lobbies to reduce police effectiveness, whereas the benefits would be shared by every security company. Industries form associations to get around these problems, but you can only really do that if you can claim with a straight face that you're acting in the public interest. But while "We need to be tough on crime" and "I'm helping to keep criminals behind bars" are two statements that are easy to publicly resolve "We shouldn't waste so much money on police" and "You should give me money to protect you" make the speaker look like a hypocrite.
I'm sure that security companies lobby in various ways to get legal exemptions to weapons laws, let their employees detain people more easily, etc. Just probably not in ways that would increase crime.
It was very common throughout the city and other regions to find co-ops form around businesses, farmers, home owners, etc. who would pool their money together and hire a private security force.
At our second office, it was the entire main street of shopholders with some of the offices chipping in to hire a dozen fulltime security guards to patrol the street, check cars, etc.
It worked reasonably well. You get to know the guards really well, they get to know the area well, and they were much more effective in responding to incidents than the police or other local authorities (in an earlier incident a man was once stabbed right infront of me, I called the ambulance and waited with him for an hour, he died and his body was eventually picked up later that night).
There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a makeshift prison cell and beat the three 'suspects' up and kept them in there for 24 hours. I can't describe how much blood there was on the floor and walls, but the three were eventually released (I was told they 'have to' do this so that other potential thieves go elsewhere, and that the police wouldn't do anything)
At first I was uneasy with the thought of having private security, but because of the failing of government to provide basic safety I ended up only every moving to areas that had a similar setup.
Residents resorting to self-funded policing is a sign that something is very, very wrong with government administration. I never thought i'd see this play out in a major American city.