[joezydeco]

They were Chicago Department of Aviation police. They're hired by the City Aviation department and usually have police training, but are not allowed to arrest citizens or carry guns (although they have been asking).

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2017/3-Things-to-K...

tldr: They're rent-a-cops hired by the airport, not United.

[15155]

So, it stands to reason they have _zero_ civil immunity, unlike a sworn officer?

[joezydeco]

It does stand to reason.

However, this is Chicago. Locals know to never assume anything about city government because you'll tend to discover the opposite later on.

[neeleshs]

Fascinating. I'm genuinely curious to know some examples of this.

[joezydeco]

Here's a pretty famous example.

If you're the mayor and you want to close an airport, do you follow FAA procedure and give notice to the government and all the aircraft owners (especially the ones with planes parked on the tarmac)?

Nope! You shut it down in the middle of the night and bulldoze the runway. Problem solved!

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2003/march/31/m...

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/day-shut-down-meigs-...

[toomuchtodo]

Google "Chicago government corruption".

Having lived in Chicago before, you fear the Chicago Police and your local alderman is the fixer.

[srtjstjsj]

Why would you assume they aren't sworn officers? They are government employees.

[true_religion]

They're sworn officers acting off duty.

[Animats]

Not necessarily.[1] Also, Illinois law doesn't give local police state-wide jurisdiction. (Some states, including California, do, but Illinois does not.) Unless they're off-duty Chicago cops, they don't have any more authority than ordinary rent-a-cops. They could be charged with assault and battery.

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-united-...