Why isn't Homeland Security Under Department of Public Safety?

Firestone Discussion
1

It is a public safety department. It does many of the same operations as SCSO and FSP. Yet it is not bound to the regulation of DPS. I think it should be. It is unfair to have DHS employees exempt to the rules their fellow LEOs must follow. DHS officer should be held to the same standards as deputies and troopers.

DHS consists of several operations, one of which is a police patrol service. I understand that some of DHS operations are not explicitly public safety and law enforcement (like surveillance, escort driving), but everyone in DHS is a LEO for the purposes of public safety. The guy that drives a limo (aka Tahoe) and protects government officials is the same guy who would arrest/cite/engage a criminal for breaking the law. Their duties are primarily focused on government security, but they nonetheless enforce the same laws and perform the same duties as SCSO and FSP. For this reason, they should be held to the same standards, for the benefit of our citizens.

Let’s look at some legal stuff…

A Bill to Officially Departments says that DHS is:

SECTION 1D: Firestone Department of Homeland Security (Firestone Department of Homeland Security - Roblox) is responsible for statewide security, including protecting Firestone citizens, combating terrorisim, and protecting government or important figures

It also says this about DPS:

SECTION 1H: Firestone Department of Public Safety (Firestone Department of Public Safety - Roblox 1) is responsible for ensuring the public safe and secured from all potential threats, by all police, fire and medical operations. In an instance that the public safety is at a low, and civilians of Firestone are in grave danger, the department will make necessary actions to resolve it. This department acts as an internal affairs of all public safety operations.

There is also this law:

image
image792Ă—269 19.1 KB

What exactly is “police” and “public safety”??

image

image

We assume those definitions are what the lawmakers were referring to when creating the law. So why is the description of DHS not fitting with these definitions? You tell me!

Here are some examples of laws which list DHS as a law enforcement and public safety agency.

A Bill to Establish Work Zones:

SECTION 3: The Department of Public Works and Department of Transportation shall follow this legislation, and the StapIeton County Sheriff’s Office, the Firestone State Patrol, and the Firestone Department of Homeland Security shall enforce this legislation.

A Bill to Update the Established Road Laws

Section 3: This legislation shall be enforced by the Firestone State Patrol, Stapleton County Sheriff’s Office, Department of Corrections, and Department of Homeland security. If law enforcement officers decide to intentionally break traffic laws while not responding to calls shall be reported and brought up to their HICOM.

Enlighten me

1 Like
2

Wrong. DHS dont really patrol, plus their operations are classified so DPS cant do anything about it

1 Like
3

because we are public safety

889f3383c03a6203048c9e21ae70cc4c
889f3383c03a6203048c9e21ae70cc4c1049Ă—141 9.17 KB

dps is state level

dhs is federal level

not my fault fed put a federal department under a state

1 Like
4

DHS is special and doesn’t follow the same rules as other departments. They do classified shit. What if DPS put a SS or IO agent under investigation? Will DPS uncover the stalking operations and assassination plans?

1 Like
5

sorry it’s a state group
not my fault congress established a state level homeland security

image

1 Like
7

ok about the classified, that doesn’t need to be given to DPS

What I’m talking about is their on-duty actions, especially with citizens. For example
Remember when DPS arrest logs were gonna be a thing - why would DHS arrests be exempt?
LOVID arrest information - DHS does not have to follow this when they arrest people.
All other DPS directives - DHS is exempt.

Here is the DPS trello with all of their policies. I encourage you to take a look and ask why DHS should be exempt.

1 Like
8

Haven’t we been over this? The last time we brought this up was a year ago and the official reason we gave it is because DHS didn’t want to be under the Administration DPS had at the time.

1 Like
9

none of the departments under DPS want to be under it either

3 Likes
10

That’s true, DHS was a special case for some reason.

1 Like
11

Because some of the ppl in DHS are VIPs and mods that get to decide if DHS should be under DPS or not

2 Likes
12

when i was dps secretary dhs was off limits and it was fine that way

fed also liked dhs being independent and not under dps

dhs should be somewhat separate, they have way too much classified shit for dps to be poking their nose into

3 Likes
13

Such as assassination plans and stalking ops?

1 Like
14

That’s gonna be a negatory captain

1 Like
15

i mean, there have been multiple massive blowups over whether or not DHS should be under DPS, are you really sure that it’s worth causing another, Fergie?

last time there was a big deal about it (that I remember, anyway, from back when I was deputy SECDPS) our compromise was basically a system that kept DHS out from under DPS but if issues arose there was a way to have them under DPS within 30 seconds (depending on whether the Governor was online). I don’t really see a reason to try to get them under DPS without a good reason for it.

Also, I fail to see how DHS going under DPS would be to the benefit of the citizens. I’ve never seen DPS do a great job with FSP/SCSO/DOC, and I fail to see how making DHS subject to the same troubles would improve it.

1 Like
16

it basically amounts to DHS hicomm and others putting up too much of a fight for it to be worth it, particularly when DHS doesn’t have any major problems anyway, so the only reason to put them under DPS is basically “why aren’t they?”

though if someone more involved than me wants to point out a reason better than that I’m open to hearing it

1 Like
17

hahaha i wish i could say that and not have dps

theyre both state level since “federal” does not exist in firestone

dps has never looked through any scso chats or trellos, so they havent really looked through our privacy and should not do the same-- its really at the discretion of the governor

in no way does this post mean that i like dps

1 Like
18

no just no

1 Like
19

There’s no real point having DHS under DPS. Their current running is working perfectly, with any issues that DPS could/would take up being sorted quickly and efficiently. When I was in DHS ages ago issues were sorted in-house by a HCOMM with no bias towards or against the “defendant” so to speak. This view might be old fashioned as I was in DHS from V1 and the transition into V2, but I digress

And what if DPS just so happened to need classified info for an “investigation”? Where would the line be drawn? At the front desk or in the archives? These are questions for the lawmakers, but I highly doubt it would go even through the door when it comes to classified information.

p.s this is my possibly outdated and heavily DHS oriented view because if they gain control over DHS why not gain control of MP and CG which both have the tools and training to be defined as “police”.

edited pp.s i highly doubt the lawmakers would even try this, they know the legal minefield that is DHS being under DPS

3 Likes
20

Have you ever noticed how DPS always messes departments up, gets in their way, and does useless stuff? DHS has IA and that’s good enough. If DHS was under DPS, DPS officials will feel they have rights to classified information and feel they have authority to know everything in DHS. DHS isn’t under DPS because there is IA and DHS works very differently from all other LEAs and SCFD. also who the hell wants to protect dps officials.

4 Likes
21

amen fella

1 Like