The Alaska Dispatch reports the Department of Lies has decided not to prosecute anyone in the Drop Zone false arrest of Tony Hopfinger. They use the excuse that militia gear seller and supplier of thugs ,William Fulton, the owner of the Drop Zone claims they were not security guards, they were "security agents". Yes, this is why they came with handcuffs and their little boy security toys like communication devices. According to the DOL and the DPS there were no problems with their actions, so I guess they can continue to practice thuggery for hire.
This is just par for the course here in Alaska. Decisions are always granted on the side of business owners, whether they have appropriate licenses or not (I found out in Homer). It starts with the police, they generally just listen to the business owner and ignore the person having a problem with the business owner. I happen to know that they do pretty much nothing about people who run businesses without licenses who don’t pay state business taxes as well. I know of a man with several businesses and not one current license. What is that about?
The business should have been required to have a license and the dufuses working for them should have had security guard licenses. The problem is the statute describes only a limited security guard function with a very limited definition of a security guard. What is that about? What were those who wrote that legislation thinking? This is SOP and a prime example of how they allow some people in this state to do as they damn well please without regard to the rights of others. The state of Alaska is essentially saying, Fuck you, to the rights if the media and the civil rights and safety of citizens. Check this old post for information about the statutes.
I suspect the employees and owner of Drop Zone were likely to have not met question #25 on the application for a security guard license:
25. Is each applicant or any partner of the partnership not suffering from any psychopathic condition or mental illness impairing the powers of memory, reason, judgment, or perception? (13 AAC 60.010 (a)(5))
Why was AS 18.65.490 written in such a way as to exclude the type of security involving people? They have body guards, but by definition they carry guns and are required to have licenses. Would it not seem even more prudent to make sure they were trained to not violate people’s rights and make sure they are skilled enough to keep the events they work at safe than those guarding inanimate objects? Oh yea, I forgot, in Alaska only certain people have rights. In Alaska people come secondary to things, businesses and the “special people”. Why are background checks required for guarding things, but not people? Yes they wrote the law so guys like these could do whatever they wanted. Thanks Alaska government for caring more about things than people.