Orange County Sheriff adds mounted patrols to Disney Springs

Posted Thursday, December 31, 2015 9:01 AM | Contributed by Jeff

The Orange County Sheriff's Office's mounted patrol unit is expected to start patrolling at Disney Springs next month. Disney and a sheriff's spokesman wouldn't disclose how often the horses will walk the premises.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Monday, January 4, 2016 11:32 AM

How is a cop on a horse taking away your rights?

In exactly the same fashion as walking through a metal detector or having your bag looked through when entering a private establishment - it doesn't.

Monday, January 4, 2016 11:37 AM

What Josh said. It doesn't. Neither does having to walk thru wanders to get into a private park.

As for the stirring the pot comment, is this not a discussion forum? Arguing a point isn't always a negative. I don't look at slither or others as doing any thing different, we're all here discussing a fairly civil argument. YMMV

Monday, January 4, 2016 11:56 AM

That Kool-Aid must be really good.

Monday, January 4, 2016 11:58 AM

Maybe you should get that reference correct then come back and try again. Who's making this personal here?

And at least whatever I'm drinking doesn't make me wish that people were kicked in the face simply for doing their nonthreatening job.

Last edited by Tekwardo, Monday, January 4, 2016 12:02 PM
Monday, January 4, 2016 12:30 PM

Raven-Phile said:

How is a cop on a horse taking away your rights?

In exactly the same fashion as walking through a metal detector or having your bag looked through when entering a private establishment - it doesn't.

Perhaps I'm in the minority of the anti-theater crowd, but I don't see where anyone mentioned "taking away our rights" as the problem with security theater.

The overarching argument against security theater seems to be that it's an irrational response, and furthermore that said response to the theater (hey dude, it's only a small delay, no biggie) is alarming.

To be clear, I don't care much about the added delay through the gate, though I will say some of you seem to undervalue your time far more than I do. I care about the fact that people argue so vehemently in favor of something that is of little value. That indicates a frightening shift in values.

Monday, January 4, 2016 12:57 PM

The 4th amendment was brought up in the metal detectors discussion as early as the 3rd of July - about the same time the Ben Franklin quotes started flying around.

The point is, you're entering private property. Your 4th amendment rights are not being violated by a wand, metal detector and some guy poking a flashlight into your backpack.

I'm not in favor of it, but it's here to stay - and I completely understand that they are well within their rights to do so.

Kind of like that whole "may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" scenario.

Monday, January 4, 2016 1:29 PM

So, you two are arguing against a point made (and apparently dropped) 7 months ago?

Monday, January 4, 2016 1:38 PM

You mean the point that any number of the members of the broken record squad keep bringing up every time someone mentions bag checks and scanners?

I did a search for "Security Theater" and it's the same thing over and over. I was at Cedar Point one day during Halloweekends when some enthusiast was going through the bag checks (coaster shirt, so yes, it was an enthusiast) screaming at the top of their lungs "here we go, through the useless security theater, here we go... security theater is useless and you're violating me!! Security theater doesn't work!"
Just kept yelling and repeating himself. If I were one of the security people or s park employee, I'd have asked him to turn around and leave. He was causing one hell of a disturbance over what amounts to nothing in the grand scheme.

Monday, January 4, 2016 2:10 PM

I'm not in point buzz, I'm addressing comments here. Nothing from 7 months ago.

Monday, January 4, 2016 2:33 PM

Tekwardo said:

okay, fine. What about minorities that don't like this because they've been treated poorly by an officer and now there are all of a sudden mounted police at Disney World.

I guess I would like to better understand this objection. According to the article: The deputies on horseback will be in addition to 63 sheriff's employees who already serve the resort through a $7.6 million annual contract. So is the objection that 63 sheriff employees are fine but no more? Or is the objection to sheriffs employees on horseback such that there could be 3,000 sheriffs employees in the parks as long as none of there were on horses? How about deputies on bikes because the article also indicates that the Disney contract with the sheriffs office has been increased to cover the cost of 8 bicycle deputies patrolling new parking garages at Disney Springs?

Monday, January 4, 2016 3:17 PM

I don't understand why the idea is that "you said one method of prevention can't be effective so another can't be either!"

That is to say, I think "security theater" is a derogatory term used to descibe methods that are (proven?) ineffective but look impressive and useful.

The reason it's not used in this case by people who used it in other circumstances is because the method being discussed here (putting officers on horseback) is believed to provide greater utility and minimal hassle for everyone.

In other words, "those people" aren't calling this security theater because they see putting an officer on horseback as a useful and effective method to increase his effectiveness in certain situations, while they see forcing everyone through a bag/person check as a practice that has done little-to-nothing to prevent anything ever...especially for the hassle it creates for everyone.

The main difference seems to be the effect it has on the customer/guest. You can arm a police force with whatever might help them whether it's useful or not and it doesn't affect me unless I do something. Things termed "security theater" are intrusive, showy and invasive and affect everyone regardless of their intention. In fact, the problem seems to be that it wastes time and resources of perfectly innocent people with no intentions of doing anything remotely wrong.

I've said it in every thread so far - I wouldn't make a fuss and I wouldn't avoid a place because they did this. I don't think it's a violation of my (or anyone's) rights in any way. I do think it's a violation of common sense, time and money.

Monday, January 4, 2016 3:28 PM

Sure, but it's their money and common sense, not mine. Can't change it, so might as well roll with it.

Monday, January 4, 2016 3:44 PM

Insert "that's why the terrorists win" comment here.

Monday, January 4, 2016 4:10 PM

Raven-Phile said:

Sure, but it's their money and common sense, not mine. Can't change it, so might as well roll with it.

But again, is anyone here arguing that these private entities shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on useless theater? I sure don't see that argument, just as I don't see the "taking away our rights" argument being made (certainly not to the extent that that argument is used as a straw man).

The problem is not simply that many people accept it as the new normal, but also that some will go so far as to argue against those who do question accepting it as the new normal.

Monday, January 4, 2016 7:43 PM

Lord Gonchar hits the nail squarely upon the head.

Monday, January 4, 2016 8:10 PM

Not all mounted officers are created equal...

Monday, January 4, 2016 8:18 PM

Stop, Snidely Whiplash, in the name of the law!

Tuesday, January 5, 2016 4:16 PM

Personally, I suspect the mounted officers are a direct response to what happened because of the Bongos incident, specifically the unsafe situation of people panicking and going in every direction. Mounted police are a very effective means of crowd control, and serve very, very well as a physical barrier preventing or slowing movement into/out of an area.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC