• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law Enforcement for Sale in America, Canadian Company is the Buyer.

SheWolf said:
Why not just call the article fake news and go back to sticking your head in the sand?
Click to expand...

Because the article isn't fake news. It clearly is well researched and provides in depth investigation into this story.

The title is click baity and the author's point of view appears to be slanted, but I have no reason to see this as fake. It's just that, having read the article and some of its source materials critically, I come to a slightly different conclusion than the author.

There are some questionable activities Pembina has taken mentioned in the article, but cost-sharing non lethal equipment and training with a local Sheriff's office as per federal law does not rate high on my scare-o-meter.
 
Evilroddy said:
apdst:

Is Wal-mart a foreign company building a pipeline and LNG terminal which could detonate with the same force as a small yield nuclear weapon and hiring coppers to stop protesters effectively challenging that dangerous possibility?

I don't think so.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant
 
Evilroddy said:
adpst:

No it doesn't!

So maybe China's tech giant Huawei should hire an army of coppers to force through the G-5 network installation in America despite your Government's protests, eh?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Canadian pipeline company is paying for security to protect it's private property. There's no law against that.
 
apdst said:
I've been under the impression that Wal-Mart does pay LEO's to work security details at their stores.
Click to expand...

Wal Mart has its very own security detail or they simply record the action and turn it over to police.
 
SheWolf said:
Within reading the first half of the article, I am in complete shock. How is this legal? It's obviously not just America's fault either, Evilroddy. Why does Canada allow their companies to do this?

No doubt, this is a big problem for America. It's sick and disgusting to think a private company could buy a police unit, for the sake of the private company's interests. It should be illegal. It's also a huge freedom of speech issue to arrest protestors, and spread propaganda as a trained force for private interests. WTF. It's fascism.
Click to expand...

Oy vey! :lamo
Your commentary is as stupid as it is lame.


Law enforcement agencies have been doing this for a long time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it and there is no freedom of speech issue here.


SheWolf said:
Oh please. There is nothing normal about a foreign private company purchasing a police dept. your framing is dishonest. It’s not an issue about protecting private property and enforcing trespassing, vandalism, and other legit crimes. Nobody is debating that
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is your framing of "purchasing" which is dishonest, as it is hyperbolic nonsense.




Evilroddy said:
[...] Your legal system should throw the book at the oil pipeline company. [...]
Click to expand...
:lamo
For what exactly?
Their actions are legal.


Evilroddy said:
Condor060:

It's a problem because the Sherrifs are supposed to be impartial enforcers of the law. But they are being trained, kitted out with riot gear, drilled to work with private PMSCs hired by Pembina and lavished on retreats with the expectation of reciprocity at some time down the road. These Sherrifs will be denying other parties their freedoms to associate and speak as well as protest on behalf of their foreign patrons, just as was done on the North Dakota Pipeline protests and on other pipeline protests throughout the USA.

The law should not be bought nor be seen to be bought.
Click to expand...
No. Your commentary is convoluted nonsense. Their is no problem here and there will be no problem unless a law is violated.
A remote possibility of something unlawful happening on the part of law enforcement is not a reason to disallow this association.




Irredentist said:
They're not enforcing law, they're enforcing a corporate building project. They're acting as private security, paid for by the company.
Click to expand...

:doh They are not violating the law, and if a violation happens, by any party, LEO's are there and can put a stop to it.




Moonglow said:
Wal Mart has its very own security detail or they simply record the action and turn it over to police.
Click to expand...

Walmart hires off duty but in uniform Officers to provide security on top of their own loss prevention team.

examples
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

The only problem that arises with that is if they enforce policy that violates the law. Such as an unjustified bag/receipt check.

Here is an example of a private company (Dillard's) hiring of police officers going wrong.

​
 
Exxon:

Excon said:
:lamo
For what exactly?
Their actions are legal.
Click to expand...

Influence peddling/bribery of public law enforcement agencies/officers. Graft and corruption. That's what they'd face if they pulled this kind of crap in Canada.

"Legal" is something determined by courts. When private companies attempt to change the behaviour of public law enforcement officers and institutions by spending millions of dollars in gifts, training, and retreats on those institutions, then there is an expectation that there will be a demand for reciprocity at some point. Pembina is a for-profit company and its management is duty bound to maximise profits. Those managers could not explain or justify gift giving in a foreign country unless profit or some other benefit accrued to the company as a result of the expenditure of about $2 million over four years. That is what a court must examine using the tools of the law to get to the bottom of this.



No. Your commentary is convoluted nonsense. Their is no problem here and there will be no problem unless a law is violated.
A remote possibility of something unlawful happening on the part of law enforcement is not a reason to disallow this association.
Click to expand...

See the above explanation.

Yes it is. As public institutions with great coercive power, police and all other law enforcement institutions, like all branches of the legal system, should be off limits to the buying of influence or the appearance of that.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
[SUP][SUP]Influence peddling/bribery of public law enforcement agencies/officers. Graft and corruption. That's what they'd face if they pulled this kind of crap in Canada.

"Legal" is something determined by courts. When private companies attempt to change the behaviour of public law enforcement officers and institutions by spending millions of dollars in gifts, training, and retreats on those institutions, then there is an expectation that there will be a demand for reciprocity at some point. Pembina is a for-profit company and its management is duty bound to maximise profits. Those managers could not explain or justify gift giving in a foreign country unless profit or some other benefit accrued to the company as a result of the expenditure of about $2 million over four years. That is what a court must examine using the tools of the law to get to the bottom of this.


See the above explanation.

Yes it is. As public institutions with great coercive power, police and all other law enforcement institutions, like all branches of the legal system, should be off limits to the buying of influence or the appearance of that.[/SUP][/SUP]
Click to expand...
You haven't made a valid argument and the ones you have made are just plain stupid.

Companies hire police for security all the time.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about it.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
You haven't made a valid argument and the ones you have made are just plain stupid.

Companies hire police for security all the time.
There is nothing wrong or illegal about it.
Click to expand...

Excon:

There was nothing to protect. The project has not been approved by both state and Federal authorities and no infrastructure was there to be protected. The company was paying the sheriffs for time spent training, and for learning how to better liaison with Pembina's privately contracted PMSCs.

I don't have to make the case. The cited article has laid out the facts and now it's time for legal authorities in Oregon and Washington DC to investigate and to determine if this behaviour was benign charity (in which case the management of Pembina should be fired for wasting shareholders money) or malign influence peddling and graft (in which case prosecutions should be initiated).

Illegality is for courts to determine, not you.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
There was nothing to protect.

The project has not been approved by both state and Federal authorities and no infrastructure was there to be protected.
Click to expand...
Oy vey! Are they planning on having them provide security for that possibility or not? Your point that it is not realized yet, is irrelevant.



Evilroddy said:
The company was paying the sheriffs for time spent training, and for learning how to better liaison with Pembina's privately contracted PMSCs.
Click to expand...
That is sound practice.
Many organizations plan and train for anticipated future endeavors.


Evilroddy said:
I don't have to make the case.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. One cant be made.


Evilroddy said:
The cited article has laid out the facts and now it's time for legal authorities in Oregon and Washington DC to investigate and to determine if this behaviour was benign charity (in which case the management of Pembina should be fired for wasting shareholders money) or malign influence peddling and graft (in which case prosecutions should be initiated).
Click to expand...
And now it's time for ... ? :lamo
iLOL :doh There is nothing to actually investigate.


Evilroddy said:
Illegality is for courts to determine, not you.
Click to expand...
Stop with the nonsense. No one disputes that a court decides legal issues.
But that does not preclude us (at a forum specifically for debate) from pointing out that there is no violation of law in the information provided.

We can see there is nothing illegal here and nothing illegal has been cited.
 
Excon said:
Oy vey! :lamo
Your commentary is as stupid as it is lame.


Law enforcement agencies have been doing this for a long time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it and there is no freedom of speech issue here.


Wrong. It is your framing of "purchasing" which is dishonest, as it is hyperbolic nonsense.




:lamo
For what exactly?
Their actions are legal.



No. Your commentary is convoluted nonsense. Their is no problem here and there will be no problem unless a law is violated.
A remote possibility of something unlawful happening on the part of law enforcement is not a reason to disallow this association.






:doh They are not violating the law, and if a violation happens, by any party, LEO's are there and can put a stop to it.






Walmart hires off duty but in uniform Officers to provide security on top of their own loss prevention team.

examples
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

The only problem that arises with that is if they enforce policy that violates the law. Such as an unjustified bag/receipt check.

Here is an example of a private company (Dillard's) hiring of police officers going wrong.

​
Click to expand...

There are zero off duty cops at the Wal Marts I go to in three state area.
 
Moonglow said:
There are zero off duty cops at the Wal Marts I go to in three state area.
Click to expand...

Do you know all the cops in those three states well enough to recognize if any of them were in Walmart at the same time you were?
 
Moonglow said:
oui mon ami.
Click to expand...

Well then, I'm flabbergasted that none of those cops shop at Walmart! But as I don't have any data, I'm hesitant to even guess why that would be! Most likely a reflection of the limits of my own experience and imagination.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Well then, I'm flabbergasted that none of those cops shop at Walmart! But as I don't have any data, I'm hesitant to even guess why that would be! Most likely a reflection of the limits of my own experience and imagination.
Click to expand...

Probably because Walmart is not near around here. Have you heard of home delivery yet?
 
Moonglow said:
Probably because Walmart is not near around here. Have you heard of home delivery yet?
Click to expand...

None near an entire three state area!? Hard to believe, but I don't know Walmarts markets very intimately.

I'm vaguely aware of home delivery, but currently use their curbside pickup far more often.
 
Metric Mouse said:
None near an entire three state area!? Hard to believe, but I don't know Walmarts markets very intimately.

I'm vaguely aware of home delivery, but currently use their curbside pickup far more often.
Click to expand...

Amazon delivers also I don't go to the store to buy 57 pound bags of dog food.
 
Moonglow said:
There are zero off duty cops at the Wal Marts I go to in three state area.
Click to expand...
iLOL Prove it.

Even if true, it is irrelevant to the reality of the information you were provided.
Again.
Walmart hires off duty but in uniform Officers to provide security on top of their own loss prevention team.​
 
Moonglow said:
Amazon delivers also I don't go to the store to buy 57 pound bags of dog food.
Click to expand...

Right? I always feel bad making the poor delivery person schlep heavy items to my door. I mean, I still totally do it, I just feel bad about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom