Church seeks to establish it's own police force.

[Cymrea]

Plus the cool slurs like Jesustapo.

Officers = Shepherds
Detectives = Inquisitors
Chief = High Inquisitor

[Calladan]

The Vatican is its own state - its own country (more or less). The church down the end of the road does not get to claim the same thing - and it certainly does not get to have its own laws and internal judicial system.

So as long as the "church police" are just security guards, and are answerable to the laws of the land (and no other laws - such as blasphemy or "not suffering a witch to live" and so forth) and the judicial and legal system of the land then all is well.

God you people just like to drag everything out proportion. I feel like I'm watching MSNBC. They aren't asking to make Laws. They aren't asking for jurisdiction outside of the church. They are simply asking for a police force, which will enforce US law on US citizens in the church community. Since when is trying to get good citizens to follow the law such a bad thing? I'll tell you why all you left wingers think it's a bad thing. Because it's a Church that wants to make people follow the law. If it were some climate change organization asking for the right to arrest people who didn't believe in Climate Change, everybody on this site would be all over that.

Then call them "security guards" or something like that. "Police force" gives them an implied authority that puts them on the level with actual police officers - with powers of arrest and so forth. Which - given they are not answerable to the state (or, in the UK, the government/local authority) is TERRIFYING to people like me who think that private police forces - answerable to private institutions - are an abomination.

[Hurdergaryp]

Plus the cool slurs like Jesustapo.

Pretty sure Christapo would be more popular.

[Ethel mermania]

God you people just like to drag everything out proportion. I feel like I'm watching MSNBC. They aren't asking to make Laws. They aren't asking for jurisdiction outside of the church. They are simply asking for a police force, which will enforce US law on US citizens in the church community. Since when is trying to get good citizens to follow the law such a bad thing? I'll tell you why all you left wingers think it's a bad thing. Because it's a Church that wants to make people follow the law. If it were some climate change organization asking for the right to arrest people who didn't believe in Climate Change, everybody on this site would be all over that.

Then call them "security guards" or something like that. "Police force" gives them an implied authority that puts them on the level with actual police officers - with powers of arrest and so forth. Which - given they are not answerable to the state (or, in the UK, the government/local authority) is TERRIFYING to people like me who think that private police forces - answerable to private institutions - are an abomination.

Why wouldn't they be answerable to thr state?

[Jamzmania]

God you people just like to drag everything out proportion. I feel like I'm watching MSNBC. They aren't asking to make Laws. They aren't asking for jurisdiction outside of the church. They are simply asking for a police force, which will enforce US law on US citizens in the church community. Since when is trying to get good citizens to follow the law such a bad thing? I'll tell you why all you left wingers think it's a bad thing. Because it's a Church that wants to make people follow the law. If it were some climate change organization asking for the right to arrest people who didn't believe in Climate Change, everybody on this site would be all over that.

Then call them "security guards" or something like that. "Police force" gives them an implied authority that puts them on the level with actual police officers - with powers of arrest and so forth. Which - given they are not answerable to the state (or, in the UK, the government/local authority) is TERRIFYING to people like me who think that private police forces - answerable to private institutions - are an abomination.

They would still be held accountable if they did anything illegal.

[Calladan]

Then call them "security guards" or something like that. "Police force" gives them an implied authority that puts them on the level with actual police officers - with powers of arrest and so forth. Which - given they are not answerable to the state (or, in the UK, the government/local authority) is TERRIFYING to people like me who think that private police forces - answerable to private institutions - are an abomination.

Why wouldn't they be answerable to thr state?

Then call them "security guards" or something like that. "Police force" gives them an implied authority that puts them on the level with actual police officers - with powers of arrest and so forth. Which - given they are not answerable to the state (or, in the UK, the government/local authority) is TERRIFYING to people like me who think that private police forces - answerable to private institutions - are an abomination.

They would still be held accountable if they did anything illegal.

I misspoke slightly - not DIRECTLY answerable to the state. In that they have another boss first - The Church (whichever one it is they work for). Maybe I am not explaining why I think it is a bad idea entirely correctly, but....... well - hold on.

When you think of security guards, or security staff, or "mall cops", generally they are just there to patrol wherever they patrol (the shopping centre, the building, the church etc) and keep an eye on it. Make sure no one breaks in, sets it on fire or steals anything. Prevent vandals from graffiti-ing the place and things like that. They can take you to their office and wait for the real police to arrive, but I think that is about the limit of what they can do (in the UK at least - god knows what they can do in America).

When you think of police officers, you think of people who can arrest you, put you in jail over night, hit you with truncheons or metal batons if they need to subdue you, spray you with CS Spray and - in America - shoot you and possibly kill you.

I think you would agree these are two VASTLY DIFFERENT sets of outcomes to dealing with people - if you peed against the wall of a church (because you were drunk) and a "church police officer" came out and shot you for it, you'd probably be taken a little aback by that (assuming you weren't dead).

And if the "police force" is employed by the church then yes - they would be answerable to the local authority, but first and foremost they would be answerable to their employers, who might demand more rigorous standards of enforcement (that are still within the law) - so instead of just chasing someone off, or giving them a caution for peeing against the wall, they might smack someone or shoot them with a taser or something, because that's what their bosses demand and it's not illegal.

Like I said - if they are just security guards, there to stop people nicking the silverware and so on, that's all well and good. But private police forces that have private employers are just wrong. And nothing will convince me otherwise.

[Jamzmania]

Why wouldn't they be answerable to thr state?

They would still be held accountable if they did anything illegal.

I misspoke slightly - not DIRECTLY answerable to the state. In that they have another boss first - The Church (whichever one it is they work for). Maybe I am not explaining why I think it is a bad idea entirely correctly, but....... well - hold on.

When you think of security guards, or security staff, or "mall cops", generally they are just there to patrol wherever they patrol (the shopping centre, the building, the church etc) and keep an eye on it. Make sure no one breaks in, sets it on fire or steals anything. Prevent vandals from graffiti-ing the place and things like that. They can take you to their office and wait for the real police to arrive, but I think that is about the limit of what they can do (in the UK at least - god knows what they can do in America).

When you think of police officers, you think of people who can arrest you, put you in jail over night, hit you with truncheons or metal batons if they need to subdue you, spray you with CS Spray and - in America - shoot you and possibly kill you.

I think you would agree these are two VASTLY DIFFERENT sets of outcomes to dealing with people - if you peed against the wall of a church (because you were drunk) and a "church police officer" came out and shot you for it, you'd probably be taken a little aback by that (assuming you weren't dead).

And if the "police force" is employed by the church then yes - they would be answerable to the local authority, but first and foremost they would be answerable to their employers, who might demand more rigorous standards of enforcement (that are still within the law) - so instead of just chasing someone off, or giving them a caution for peeing against the wall, they might smack someone or shoot them with a taser or something, because that's what their bosses demand and it's not illegal.

Like I said - if they are just security guards, there to stop people nicking the silverware and so on, that's all well and good. But private police forces that have private employers are just wrong. And nothing will convince me otherwise.

It is illegal to shoot people for nothing more than peeing on a wall. That will get you charged with murder.

[San Marlindo]

They act as security guards not as police officers.

Actually, I did some reading and it turns out the Vatican indeed has its own police force apart from the Swiss Guard (which is classified formally as a military unit of the Holy See, not the state of Vatican City itself).

They have powers of arrest and detention as well as full customs authority, so they're not just security officers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_ ... tican_City

[Ethel mermania]

Why wouldn't they be answerable to thr state?

They would still be held accountable if they did anything illegal.

I misspoke slightly - not DIRECTLY answerable to the state. In that they have another boss first - The Church (whichever one it is they work for). Maybe I am not explaining why I think it is a bad idea entirely correctly, but....... well - hold on.

When you think of security guards, or security staff, or "mall cops", generally they are just there to patrol wherever they patrol (the shopping centre, the building, the church etc) and keep an eye on it. Make sure no one breaks in, sets it on fire or steals anything. Prevent vandals from graffiti-ing the place and things like that. They can take you to their office and wait for the real police to arrive, but I think that is about the limit of what they can do (in the UK at least - god knows what they can do in America).

When you think of police officers, you think of people who can arrest you, put you in jail over night, hit you with truncheons or metal batons if they need to subdue you, spray you with CS Spray and - in America - shoot you and possibly kill you.

I think you would agree these are two VASTLY DIFFERENT sets of outcomes to dealing with people - if you peed against the wall of a church (because you were drunk) and a "church police officer" came out and shot you for it, you'd probably be taken a little aback by that (assuming you weren't dead).

And if the "police force" is employed by the church then yes - they would be answerable to the local authority, but first and foremost they would be answerable to their employers, who might demand more rigorous standards of enforcement (that are still within the law) - so instead of just chasing someone off, or giving them a caution for peeing against the wall, they might smack someone or shoot them with a taser or something, because that's what their bosses demand and it's not illegal.

Like I said - if they are just security guards, there to stop people nicking the silverware and so on, that's all well and good. But private police forces that have private employers are just wrong. And nothing will convince me otherwise.

ate
in most states, being a police force means meeting state requirements, for training, paperwork, and are answerable to state authorities in terms of practice so they are answerable to the state as well as the private payer. a private security force is only beholden to its employer. Shooting kids with tasers unless the cop is in danger is very much illegal, and because of the mandated state trainings that will be taught to them.

now as to the private police arguement. My kid goes to a university with their own police force. my probelm with that is a kid with a beer or a joint in their hand, gets arrested and winds up with an a criminal record. a private security force is more likely to just take it away from the kid, it may get documented in the college files, but if there is no arrest record

[The Alexanderians]

So long as the police force doesn't extend outside the Church's influence, I don't see a problem. Many private organizations have their own security, like malls.

Or Reservations. Somehow I'll don't think it'll be so limited.

[The Morian Empire]

I have stumbled here.

[Genivaria]

I have stumbled here.

3 months old, let it die.