Originally Posted by
ralfp
Am I the only one who finds the idea of privately employed police officers somewhat unseemly? The payment of a salary creates an obligation that could all-too-easily run counter to the duties of a law-enforcement officer.
While off-topic, I will say that sure there is potential for conflict of interest, but is that different from any other infinite number of similar scenarios in life? All I can say is if doesn't fulfill his sworn duties and gets caught, there are consequences for that
Originally Posted by
ralfp
If a privately employed police officer witnesses a crime committed by his/her employer or employee thereof, does ignoring that crime constitute bribery (salary would stop if the arrest were made)?
Probably not - honestly it seems more likely that the company would be held liable for threatening retaliatory action against their employee for doing what he was supposed to do
Originally Posted by
ralfp
How often can this be the case? How many railroad assets are in the aircraft cabin or "sterile" area of an airport.
That's not necessarily the issue - the law lays out 6 situations for carrying onboard:
1) On a protective assignment
2) On a surveillance assignment deemed to be hazardous
3) On official travel required to report to another location, armed and prepared for duty
4) Employed as a Federal LEO and required by agency policy to be armed at all times
5) Escorting a prisoner
6) TSA Federal Air Marshal on duty status
The ones that could apply here include (1), (2), (3), and (5) - definitely most likely (3) - this is basically the catchall reason the LEO's use to carry when they want to