( Savannah, GA. ): What happens when the private sector loses the the will ( not the ability ) to defend itself? I ask this against a pervasive off-duty police presence in the local security market.

Most readers automatically assume that police doing security is a good thing. With their uniforms, arrest powers and patrol cars, this should be the best protection money can buy?

Possibly. Full disclosure compels me to state that I am a security consultant and my clients include nightclubs and special events. My following observations are based upon years of close range experience with the topic and not bias against people ( off duty officers ) earning honest extra dollars for their families.

While a very good legal argument can be made against a government law enforcement person using his public resources for personal gain ( I can hear the Georgia Chiefs of Police and Georgia Sheriffs Association hackles rising at the mere implication ), some questions come to mind.

How can the city of Savannah mandate that employers of off duty police ( nightclubs especially ) offer them Workman's Comp when they are assuming this extra risk independently and not as a function of their official duties? It's obviously a way for the city to avoid more medical costs and law suits for injuries and liability incurred off the municipal clock.

Still, as a private professional, unless my agreement states otherwise, as an independent contractor all medical costs are borne by me. The same should hold true for an off duty police officer, because, public garb and authority aside, in this context he is an entrepreneur offering his police status as a unique selling proposition to clients.

Nightclubs are a major industry where one sees off duty police. It's interesting to observe this dynamic, especially from the vantage of working beside them. Frankly, most of them must feel their uniformed presence alone magically wards off trouble.

Most either stay in their cars during the entire shift or talk on the phone throughout the night.

When incidents occur, some will engage and back up security while others refuse to assist unless the potential for a serious misdemeanor or felony arises. Usually, all that's needed is a rowdy customer's non-compliance to spur them into action.

Add to this the extra perk of being paid the full agreed upon amount regardless of how little actual time is worked and one sees how sweet this deal can be.

Some club owners also whisper about not so subtle hints from area commanders that establishments not using off duty Metro officers won't get calls for service answered quickly. Further whispers allege venues without off duty security are subjected to increased traffic stops, complaints forwarded to city council and ticket writing than their peers who use Metro.

If true, these accusations resemble underworld protection rackets instead of guardians of the public trust.

The old protection racket operated like this: a gangster sent his representatives to business owners to explain the cost of doing business in their territory. Those who refused to accept this strong arm service were in turn strong armed until they complied... or died, whichever came first!

Years ago, a crusty old security company owner, a White man for those who keep note of such things, advised me not to get into the private security/investigation business here because " the police monopolize everything. " He told me how their encroachment made it very hard for companies like his to compete.

While there are obvious positives to off duty police security, one question this raises in my mind is, " Does this make the private sector less able to defend itself?" If businesses toss aside their right to reasonably question, search and detain suspects on their property, are they really providing a safe environment for customers or actively protecting their own bottom line?

One supermarket chain I secured had store managers who routinely beat security and off duty officers to the scene of fights and shoplifting.

When the private sector becomes so dependent on government that it even uses government to provide private security, is this the private sector really contributing to public safety?

A private sector that always needs government to protect it is helpless when government doesn't have anybody around to fight its battles.

Savannah in particular and Georgia generally needs to revisit this issue. While off duty police security has many positives, it shouldn't overshadow the right of businesses and private security to act in their own defense too.

There are only so many police officers to go around and an engaged private sector is more than capable of protecting itself and can summon law enforcement to either transport suspects or as back up.

Off duty police security isn't a bad idea, but businesses privately protecting themselves and their customers isn't bad either.

Who is the watchman when events like St. Patricks Day, the G8 Summit or sudden emergencies like the Great Savannah Blackout of 08 commit all police resources, with none left over for off duty jobs?

Who?

-NADRA ENZI aka CAPT BLACK
"IF WE KNEW BETTER, WE'D DO BETTER!!"