LDS Security Detains Affectionate (Gay) Couple on Plaza

[_maklelan]

People leave all the time. That's what a description of the suspect(s) is for.

And that's why professional security personnel prefer to detain people when they call the cops, and why the cops expect them to do so. You keep deflecting these facts and responding with tangents. Can you engage the details of this issue, or just continue to throw out increasingly insignificant anecdotal quips?

[_karl61]

This is my last response but it is because of one word lawsuit. Not just against the people that detained but a lot of times against the employer when the employee gets hurt. I have two close friends that retired decades ago in their twenties because of fights they go into when they were cops because of back injuries. If it takes another hour to avoid getting physical then do it, do anything you can to avoid a physical confrontation. They only thing altercations do is make workman's comp and personal injury lawyers more money.

Of course shouting profanities on Temple Square is not something Church security personnel should be expected to allow to go on indefinitely. You're appealing to anecdotal evidence and refusing to recognize that the details of this situation mitigate your reductive perspective.

"Gill dropped the trespassing case Wednesday, saying that signs on the downtown plaza did not properly notify visitors that they were entering private property "at will," meaning they could be ejected at any time for any reason. "

Lucky for the LDS church this time, the men want to move on with their life and are not planning a lawsuit.

[_karl61]

People leave all the time. That's what a description of the suspect(s) is for.

And that's why professional security personnel prefer to detain people when they call the cops, and why the cops expect them to do so. You keep deflecting these facts and responding with tangents. Can you engage the details of this issue, or just continue to throw out increasingly insignificant anecdotal quips?

Don't tell me about the profession or professional buddy because I worked in it, have YOU?

[_maklelan]

Lucky for the LDS church this time, the men want to move on with their life and are not planning a lawsuit.

Please. There's nothing on heaven or earth that could possibly help them win a lawsuit. They flat broke the law. That's not up for debate.

Gill's afraid to cause a stir among anyone but Mormons, and he either flat ignored or didn't even know that the Aune, by his own admission, was well aware he was on private property and was antagonistic toward the church for their proprietorship. Aune knows better than to pretend he has a case against the church, and Gill didn't want to run off a portion of his constituency.

[_maklelan]

Don't tell me about the profession or professional buddy because I worked in it, have YOU?

Can you be more specific than "worked in it"? In what capacity did you work in "it"? And please define "it" so I can be specific in my response.

[_karl61]

I have worked in the security field. I have also worked for a city police department and a state agency. I won't go into anything further. It is none of your business.

[_maklelan]

I have worked in the security field. I have also worked for a city police department and a state agency. I won't go into anything further. Is is none your business.

I'm not asking for a badge number or company, I just want something a little more solid than "I worked in it." I believe I already made that clear. I too have worked in security, although not for the church. I was roommates for three years with a BYU security officer, though.

Are you going to tell me that my description of security procedures is incorrect, or is bringing up that you worked in security supposed to tacitly do that for you? If you intend to tell me I'm wrong I'd appreciate you filling us all in on what professional security personnel are generally required to do when calling the police regarding a trespasser.

[_karl61]

Every City or company has it's own training and policy. You follow your training and what the policy says. If LDS security policy tells them they can physically detain someone in that setting then go ahead and do it. Be my guest. If they think becoming physical at the beginning of a verbal argument is the best way to go and have been trained to do that then that is how they should proceed. I think it's wrong. You can talk to the person while the police are arriving. If they are a physical threat to someone then put the cuffs on them but if they are not then don't.

[_maklelan]

Every City or company has it's own training and policy. You follow your training and what the policy says. If LDS security policy tells them they can physically detain someone in that setting then go ahead and do it. Be my guest. If they think becoming physical at the beginning of a verbal argument is the best way to go and have been trained to do that then that is how they should proceed. I think it's wrong.

I think that's wrong too, and that's not what happened. According to the couple's own account, security personnel began gathering after their argument became heated, and they made their way over throughout the argument. The video begins after the officers have already congregated, and the detaining takes place over 30 seconds later. There's no telling how long they were arguing, but your assumption that is was at the "beginning of a verbal argument" is demonstrably false. Your assessment seems based on assumptions, not facts.

You can talk to the person while the police are arriving. If they are a physical threat to someone then put the cuffs on them but if they are not then don't.

Is this your personal opinion, or are you asserting there is a general rule that says you do not cuff someone unless they physically threaten you?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Maklelan,

After watching that video, can you honestly say the Mormon church is living by the Golden Rule?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me