County Government concerned about their own safety?

Did anyone attend the BCC meeting in the Funk last night? I got the news blurb from WZEP, and two things made me sort of shake my head:

"Commissioner Sara Comander said there was an issue with security in April at a BCC meeting, so everyone now has to enter through the metal detectors. A person on the code enforcement board questioned why their safety has not also been taken into consideration. Those going before code enforcement might have to pay for a deputy. Administrator Ronnie Bell said they have provided a bailiff when requested."

So the county commissioners, and apparently the code enforcement board, feel the need to be protected from their constituency?

I brought this up at a CE meeting one time after some threats were made. I also told SaraK that it was interesting that the BCC, who get paid, take these extraordinary steps for their safety, yet those of us that serve on these public quasi-judicial boards, who impose fines and tell people what they can and can not do with their property as we enforce codes the BCC has passed, are left hanging out there. My thoughts were if someone was going to strike out at authority, and the BCC was going to remove itself as a high profile target, it actually would increase the risk to the rest of us, if there were an actual risk. I guess my problem is that I actually have to pay for my family health care coverage, and if I get hurt the premium could increase.

I brought this up at a CE meeting one time after some threats were made. I also told SaraK that it was interesting that the BCC, who get paid, take these extraordinary steps for their safety, yet those of us that serve on these public quasi-judicial boards, who impose fines and tell people what they can and can not do with their property as we enforce codes the BCC has passed, are left hanging out there. My thoughts were if someone was going to strike out at authority, and the BCC was going to remove itself as a high profile target, it actually would increase the risk to the rest of us, if there were an actual risk. I guess my problem is that I actually have to pay for my family health care coverage, and if I get hurt the premium could increase.

If there is a need for security, it makes more sense to have metal detectors at the entrance to the building - if there is a threat to a commissioner, why is there not a threat to the clerks who have to deal with the public every day? To your point, what makes the BCC more valuable than every other board that meets with public input?

Sounds like the same sort of thinking that led to the BCC having better health benefits than everyone else....

I believe providing security for all County Courthouses and for those meetings that occur is appropriate. I also believe meetings may need to be limited to a few buildings if for no other reason than it is easier to protect. As for going through metal detectors, hopefully a Deputy/ Baliff/ Security Guard are stationed there. Also how many public entrances/ exits would be required. Robert, I for one would not want you or any of the other folks to be harmed by our Counties lack of responsible security.

I believe providing security for all County Courthouses and for those meetings that occur is appropriate. I also believe meetings may need to be limited to a few buildings if for no other reason than it is easier to protect. As for going through metal detectors, hopefully a Deputy/ Baliff/ Security Guard are stationed there. Also how many public entrances/ exits would be required. Robert, I for one would not want you or any of the other folks to be harmed by our Counties lack of responsible security.

The problem again, is one of logic. The courthouse in DeFuniak is very secure. But the same people do the same sort of business in south Walton which is not secure in the least. That leads me to believe that if a tragedy were ever going to happen, it would be at the annex.

So if they believe that there is a security problem, then why are they not fixing the whole problem?

The problem again, is one of logic. The courthouse in DeFuniak is very secure. But the same people do the same sort of business in south Walton which is not secure in the least. That leads me to believe that if a tragedy were ever going to happen, it would be at the annex.

So if they believe that there is a security problem, then why are they not fixing the whole problem?

I agree and even though you think the Court House is secure, I personally don't believe that, unless it has changed in the last 2 years. All of it should be reviewed and updates implemented. Our public service workers should be as secure as possible, that includes those who are elected and volunteer their time to carry on the business of the County. We should also make it safe for the constituents that have business in those buildings.

From my experiences at the two locations of the BCC meetings, South Walton Courthouse annex doesn't have metal detectors, and personally, I think they are a crock anyway and wouldn't allow me to take a simple pocket-knife in with me, even though I take it most everywhere. A Sheriff Deputy is always present at the BCC meetings, and that, and concerned citizens should suffice just fine.

The old Courtroom in Defuniak had metal detectors at the entrance of the Courtroom. Now, they have several deputies, I've never seen less than two, stationed at the entrance of the Court House, with fancy baggage screening equipment, metal detectors, and I always get waved down with one of those metal detector wands, usually by a third Deputy Sheriff. They typically operate until the regular departments in the Court House close. If you go to the BCC meeting late, they don't check all that stuff, but you still have to walk through the metal detector.

I can see a need for Court Room security since you are dealing with alleged criminals, sometimes violent criminals. However, in day to day operations, I doubt there is a real threat toward people who work in the Court House, and if there is, the Sheriff's Office would be all over it like white on rice.

Are the County Commissioners receiving threats? That wouldn't surprise me, as that is common in many counties in many states. Personally, the closest I've seen to a threat came when Comm Larry Jones alerted the Deputy to be ready to restrain Mr O, even though Mr O had done nothing to even look like a threat was coming.

I could see wanted a metal detector - people keep getting crazier and far too many think violence or a firearm improves a situation.

Even as kids (and on a weekend) we had to go through the detectors and most parts of the courthouse were on lockdown for our Mock Trial competitions.

On the flip side, we live in a small town - if I was that type of person and had a beef, I could easily find them sans deputy or detector. Heck, I think Sara's house was on the Holiday homes tour.

Sara Commander said there was an issue with security at an April meeting. I just find this hard to believe - if there had been , why wasn't the person arrested?

On the flip side, we live in a small town - if I was that type of person and had a beef, I could easily find them sans deputy or detector. Heck, I think Sara's house was on the Holiday homes tour.

which April Meeting? the defuniak one or the south Walton meeting?

which April Meeting? the defuniak one or the south Walton meeting?

The article didn't say.

My parents were both elected County Officers and both have been threatened numerous times, but if any threats would have been carried out, it would not have been at the Court House. It would have done elsewhere, where it would have been easier to avoid arrest and conviction.

Seriously, stopping weapons at the door to the Court House doesn't stop someone who wants to act out a threat. Each of the Commissioners has an office, without metal detectors, and each has a home without metal detectors, each is listed in the phone book and addresses are public record when they run, each gets into a car and drives away from the "secure" Court House after meetings, and each is willing to meet with their constituents. So, if there is a threat to any Commissioner, having a secure meeting room does little in the way of real protection.

Let me also say that threats should be taken seriously and there are plenty of fruit loops wanting to come after people in these thankless, yet powerful positions. Growing up as a child in a family of politicians who were threatened, I would want no part of it. Unfortunately, threats come with many jobs. The only way to avoid the threats is to avoid the job. Security is just a bluff, though might prevent some real stupid people from acting out their threats.

Six Dead In Missouri City Council Shooting - CBS News

SJ
As you have so aptly put it, you may not stop some intent upon harm, but providing security to at least be a deterent is not bad. Read the link above, hope it works, about someone who was intent upon mayhem, and there were police among those killed.

Security is provided at the BCC meetings, in the form of a Deputy. Having a metal detector wouldn't stop a psycho who was not scared of shooting the deputies at the metal detector station. Having deputies present obviously is not secure either. It is virtually impossible to have complete security, as there are failures in every system. If having a metal detector makes elected officials feel secure at public meetings, so be it, but it prevents only the truly stupid from acting out their threats.

There seem to be freaks who do crazy things, regardless of the business -- post office, financial centers, court houses, etc. We cannot protect ourselves from all freaks, and we need to realize that we shouldn't work so damn hard at limiting freedom in exchange for safety. Security is a false state of mind. Everyday, people drive on highways, eat food at restaurants, smoke, drink, take prescription meds, etc. We take our chances, but enjoy our right to eat a big, fat ribeye if we want. If Commissioners want to be safe, ask them not to drive on a highway to their meetings, because the chances of them dying in a car crash are likely much higher than getting shot at a County Commissioner meeting. Let's keep it in perspective.

Sara Commander said there was an issue with security at an April meeting. I just find this hard to believe - if there had been , why wasn't the person arrested?

It was in the paper and on the news. I think it started as a threat that morning at code enforcement, then sort of grew. May have been phoned in. I never understood how it got to be a threat against the BCC. But then how they find out things is not always put out for public consumption.

It was in the paper and on the news. I think it started as a threat that morning at code enforcement, then sort of grew. May have been phoned in. I never understood how it got to be a threat against the BCC. But then how they find out things is not always put out for public consumption.

It was a call placed to CE and a mention about the courthouse was made. News of the call reached the courthouse that afternoon, right before a BCC meeting and the WCSO went out to check on them. It turned out to be nothing according to all the LEO's I spoke with when I did a write-up on it.

Isn't that a felony? Like a fake bomb threat?

Isn't that a felony? Like a fake bomb threat?

My understanding, from the limited amount of information I could get from all three offices involved(WCSO, DFSPD,OCSO) was that it was a contractor upset over losing a bid and the threat supposedly grew bigger as the story of the phone call made it's way around. The WCSO and the OCSO made a visit together to the persons house(due to it being on the county line) and decided they were not a threat. No official report was filed on the incident.

My understanding, from the limited amount of information I could get from all three offices involved(WCSO, DFSPD,OCSO) was that it was a contractor upset over losing a bid and the threat supposedly grew bigger as the story of the phone call made it's way around. The WCSO and the OCSO made a visit together to the persons house(due to it being on the county line) and decided they were not a threat. No official report was filed on the incident.

I thought anything like that meant automatic charges - whether you intended harm or not?

Glad it was just ranting/misspeak, not an actual threat to safety.

I thought anything like that meant automatic charges - whether you intended harm or not?

Glad it was just ranting/misspeak, not an actual threat to safety.

I was of the same mind.

The problem again, is one of logic. The courthouse in DeFuniak is very secure. But the same people do the same sort of business in south Walton which is not secure in the least. That leads me to believe that if a tragedy were ever going to happen, it would be at the annex.

So if they believe that there is a security problem, then why are they not fixing the whole problem?

Unfortunately, as history has shown time and time again, nothing will be done until after a tradegy has occured.

tragedies typically bring over-reaction. Tragedies are not common.

tragedies typically bring over-reaction. Tragedies are not common.

And of course there is no such thing a security. If someone is determined to commit murder whether on a specific individual or a group the chances of stopping them is remote. Metal dectectors are nice but a fertilizer bomb could take out the whole court house.

I was of the same mind.

Got to meet the elements of the crime. Mens rea and all that.