[NullInvictus]

You have to have been raised pretty sweetly to not have known this kind of racketeering was a 'thing' for a very long time. Pressure to hire cops is rampant. 'rent-a-cop' is not aimed at the fact that security companies apply aggressive mimicry to their people, but that these people are themselves often off-duty cops. Security companies are strongly "encouraged" to hire off-duty cops, and find themselves left out to dry or otherwise 'convinced' if they try to resist.

Before you add 'Why don't [you|they] do...' responses, recognize for a moment that the police in the U.S. are largely out of control, have undue control of local government and politics, and have an ideology that enforces self-righteousness and an 'enemy at the gates' siege mentality, and oh yeah, are able to apply violence at a level unmatched in society. These are not polite people, and the way one 'deals' with them has far more in common with radical militias rather than state bureaucrats. If you haven't encountered that, you're just lucky enough to have never threatened their interests.

[edrxty]

It's pretty eye opening to watch every bill pushed through in the name of firearm safety turning out to have massive exemptions for off duty and retired cops. They're such a powerful political force that it's outright expected they should have a disproportionate ability to deliver force even after they're retired.

[PumpkinSpice]

My favorite part is that California has a roster of handguns approved for sale. The pretext for its existence is consumer safety (it is entirely separate from bans on stuff like assault weapons or large magazines), but the actual effect is that you have a very limited selection in stores, and most of the designs are very dated.

But if you're a police officer? You get an exemption! Apparently, the state has no regard for your safety as a consumer, and allows you to buy whatever you want...

[giantg2]

Most of the reason for cops being security and being excluded from most firearms safety bills is because rhey already have a credential that was more strenuous to achieve than what the proposed bill is. That training, whether effective or not, is also seen to mitigate risks around litigation when they work security due to how our courts work (how things look can be more important).

Although there are other laws that do illustrate what you are saying.

[pard68]

You have a citation for your interpretation of "rent-a-cop"? I am intrigued but cannot find any use of the phrase other than something to the effect of "wannabe cop". Even the 1987 movie by that name is a former cop who works private security (fair warning I have never heard of the movie until reading the wiki summary a few minutes ago).

[mcv]

I live in a different country where this sort of racketeering would be extremely illegal and a national scandal if it happened. I find this article far too mild in calling out the blatant crime that these police officers openly engage in. With full knowledge of the city. People should be going to prison for this. A lot of people. That this is allowed to continue so openly is incomprehensible to me.

[cvccvroomvroom]

Some types of publics works projects require hiring police for traffic safety and insurance reasons.

In addition, retired police officers often can keep their uniforms and work privately in an official capacity.

[Ylpertnodi]

Impersonating a police officer? Where...?

[mnky9800n]

Don't forget if none of that gets them whatever it is that they want then they can just lie about whatever until they get it. Supreme court stamp of approval.

[TurkishPoptart]

Yes, but this epidemic of urban crime is very new for our generation. We haven't had these "catch-and-release" policies with violent criminals. We haven't legalized shoplifting for sums under $950 before. We haven't had DAs in many major cities that are opposed to jailing violent offenders for "diversity and equity" reasons.

[sneak]

> We haven't legalized shoplifting for sums under $950 before.

One of the main reasons for this is because mobile phones keep getting more expensive, and high school kids frequently steal other high school kids' phones. The limit keeps getting raised so that 18 year olds don't end up with felonies on their record.

[jancsika]

> have undue control of local government and politics

Now, some facts:

In North Carolina at least, the Council-Manager form of government provides that the police chief is hired/fired by the city manager-- who is hired/fired by and reports directly to the city council. Depending on the city's charter, the manager may hire/fire the police chief with or without approval of the council.

Apparently there are a few city councils who have a charter that requires the police chief to be hired/fired directly by the city council.

This council-manager form is by far the most popular form of city government in NC. IIRC, there are only two other forms allowed by state law-- one is a city council without a professional manager (only an administrator with the elected council making all the important decisions), and one other one which I can't remember atm.

So on the local level, local sheriffs are hired/fired by the local government-- either directly, or by a professional manager who reports directly to the council.

County sheriffs are elected in NC. But the day to day goings on in a municipality-- i.e., any politics related to businesses hiring 'rent-a-cops'-- would be handled by local police officers. (Outside of perhaps one or two counties out of a 100, and unincorporated towns.)

Apparently, the council-manager form of government comes from a template for local governments that is used by many other states in the U.S. The only way I can think of that NC is special is that there are no county roads-- only state and town (which, again, puts citizens in contact with local police way more often than county police).

In conclusion, the very popular form of council-manager government is counter to your claim that local police have "undue control over local government and politics."

> These are not polite people, and the way one 'deals' with them has far more in common with radical militias rather than state bureaucrats. If you haven't encountered that, you're just lucky enough to have never threatened their interests.

I don't have the stats on radical militias. But I'd wager at least two orders of magnitude lower chance of being killed for threatening retaliation to a police officer in the U.S. than for threatening retaliation to a member of a radical militia.

Edit: threatening retaliation, as in their job/livelihood, to fit with your general statement "threaten their interests."

[sbarre]

And yet, stories like this one are not uncommon:

https://www.propublica.org/article/homicide-detective-st-lou...