[The Final Dakar]

At least in MA. – Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws - The Washington Post

As part of the American Civil Liberties Union’s recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the organization sent open records requests to SWAT teams across that state. It received an interesting response.

As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments.…Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws.

The argument that the LECs in Massachusetts are private corporations and therefore immune to the state open records law was made by Jack Collins, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.

Seems thread-worthy.

[OAW]

The million dollar question is how is it even legal for these LEC's to incorporate in the first place?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Stolen from another forum – SWAT Teams are people, my friend.

[BadKosh]

People who are clueless gave them this status. WHO are they? The IRS? Lois Lerner & Company?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Stolen from another forum – SWAT Teams are people, my friend.

beat me to it.

[reader50]

So also sue them for being a private corporation that is exercising government-mandated powers to enforce laws. Enter their own statements into evidence. They have to concede either the encroach-on-government suit, or the FOIA suit.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The more socialist states are getting super scary.

[iMOTOR]

I wonder if these police departments have to comply with open records laws:

UP: Union Pacific Special Agents

CSX Police Department - CSX

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

I wonder if these police departments have to comply with open records laws:

UP: Union Pacific Special Agents

CSX Police Department - CSX

Read the article, that's why this was brought up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The more socialist states are getting super scary.

Well that's an... interesting interpretation.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

All of this is happening in very liberal areas of the country; Mass, NYC, St Louis, Chicago, Delaware, maybe it's time to look into the root cause and find out what draconian policies are fostering this type of behavior, because comparatively very little of this type of thing is occurring south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

maybe it's time to look into the root cause

Population density.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Read the article, that's why this was brought up.

I read the article. The LECs that it refers to are apparently 100% funded by public money. But, as I understand it, railroad police departments are entirely funded by a private corporation in addition to the corporation being the sworn peace officers employer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

I read the article. The LECs that it refers to are apparently 100% funded by public money. But, as I understand it, railroad police departments are entirely funded by a private corporation in addition to the corporation being the sworn peace officers employer.

I should have read your post better.

I would think they don't.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Population density.

Because there are no big cities down south?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Because there are no big cities down south?

I'm not sure what the angle of complaint is here, but yes, forces down south are capable of some pretty heinous behavior. Civil forfeiture and stingray use come to mind.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Civil forfeiture

Since the AG barred that WRT federal laws, the practice, at least in my state, has virtually stopped, and as for Stingray operations, I think you've got the South confused with California (the worst offender, by far).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Since the AG barred that WRT federal laws, the practice, at least in my state, has virtually stopped

This isn't about you

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and as for Stingray operations, I think you've got the South confused with California (the worst offender, by far).

This isn't a dick measuring contest for worst offender, either.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This isn't about you

Really? It's about states, and they're not seizing property at the rate the were since the feds changed the rules.

This isn't a dick measuring contest for worst offender, either.

Maybe the northern states should send their LEOs to the South so they can learn how to behave more like human beings. While we aren't without instances of shitty behavior, the fact that a disproportional amount of this is coming from far more liberal areas is quite telling (too many laws, too many ways to abuse them, too dependent on fines as revenue).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

(too many laws, too many ways to abuse them

Well I have no idea about the amount of laws on each states books, but I find the idea that this is somehow limited to the north interesting.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's what happens when you pack people like rats and then impose predatory laws on them (which then become a required revenue source).

[Snow-i]

This is the best evidence yet that the citizens of America need to formally organize their local militias.

Unchecked paramilitary police forces without oversight are completely and fundamentally unacceptable, and a bigger threat to our nation than any "terrorist". Their attempts to circumvent oversight and transparency is direct evidence of their intent to abdicate the public trust.

The police should not have access to military weaponry for use against civilians, and they certainly should not be given any privacy rights bestowed upon private entities. They are fundamentally public, and these "private entities" amount to a secret police which is patently unconstitutional.

These private organizations funded by public organizations should be labeled terrorist organizations and treated as such, if not by our federal government then by our citizenry at large.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is the best evidence yet that the citizens of America need to formally organize their local militias.

Unchecked paramilitary police forces without oversight are completely and fundamentally unacceptable, and a bigger threat to our nation than any "terrorist". Their attempts to circumvent oversight and transparency is direct evidence of their intent to abdicate the public trust.

The police should not have access to military weaponry for use against civilians, and they certainly should not be given any privacy rights bestowed upon private entities. They are fundamentally public, and these "private entities" amount to a secret police which is patently unconstitutional.

These private organizations funded by public organizations should be labeled terrorist organizations and treated as such, if not by our federal government then by our citizenry at large.

All of this.

[subego]

This feels sensationalized.

The ACLU is claiming the LECs "oversee" police activity.

They don't.

If a SWAT team gets called out, it's the chief for that municipality who is overseeing the police activity, and their records are public.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

This feels sensationalized.

The ACLU is claiming the LECs "oversee" police activity.

They don't.

If a SWAT team gets called out, it's the chief for that municipality who is overseeing the police activity, and their records are public.

Then what is the purpose of having an LEC at all? They are funneling money from public organizations to private ones.

It's either a monumental waste of time and taxpayer money or a dereliction of duty of the highest order. The police do not get to make the rules in this country, nor should any private entities be involved or have any influence over the police at all. If we are interested in preventing ferguson type incidents, the first thing we need to do is remind the police of their place in our society, with the full force of law and beyond that if need be. This country is sick of police with small-man syndrome, and giving the brass private funds to play around with is going to move us in the wrong direction.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

This feels sensationalized.

The ACLU is claiming the LECs "oversee" police activity.

They don't.

If a SWAT team gets called out, it's the chief for that municipality who is overseeing the police activity, and their records are public.

The article also claims as a primary source that there are LECs actually operating SWAT teams (paramilitary forces) regionally. Unless the Post is misreporting this, these LECs are actually operating these SWAT teams.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The article also claims as a primary source that there are LECs actually operating SWAT teams (paramilitary forces) regionally. Unless the Post is misreporting this, these LECs are actually operating these SWAT teams.

That's why I'm saying this is sensationalized. I don't think that's what's happening.

As I said, I'm pretty sure when the LEC SWAT gets called out to municipality X, they are operating as officers of municipality X, not the LEC.

The reason it's done this way is to distribute the costs of a SWAT team over a bunch of municipalities. Muni X can't afford one, neither can muni Y and Z. They pool together and make one SWAT team to cover all three municipalities, comprised of officers from all three municipalities.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's why I'm saying this is sensationalized. I don't think that's what's happening.

As I said, I'm pretty sure when the LEC SWAT gets called out to municipality X, they are operating as officers of municipality X, not the LEC.

The reason it's done this way is to distribute the costs of a SWAT team over a bunch of municipalities. Muni X can't afford one, neither can muni Y and Z. They pool together and make one SWAT team to cover all three municipalities, comprised of officers from all three municipalities.

You'll have to cite this, as the article states pretty clearly that the LECs are the ones operating the units.

Originally Posted by Washington Post[/quote

METROLEC, one of the largest of the law enforcement councils covering the metropolitan Boston area, operates a range of specialized resources, including a Canine Unit, Computer Crimes Unit, Crisis Negotiation Team, Mobile Operations Motorcycle Unit, and Regional Response Team, in addition to its SWAT force. The organization maintains its own BearCat armored vehicle, as well as a $700,000 state of the art command and control post. In 2012, METROLEC reportedly used its BearCat 26 times, mostly for drug busts, and applied to the Federal Aviation Administration to obtain a drone license.

Why would they need a C&C unit if not to C&C? Regardless of who has operational command over the teams, the nature of a private LEC to the police is still highly inappropriate and an existential threat to the citizenry of the areas they operate. If they are private organizations, who's to say they won't start making deals with other private entities? Their promise? Without transparency, the police will do as police do and obfuscate their operations to the point that "protect and serve" will only apply to those buying these private corporations' services.

Why do these local municipalities even need paramilitary forces? Do the state police/national guard inadequately police the area? Is this an overreaction to the boston bombing? I fail to see how a local PD even has a need for SWAT teams, as any SWAT type situation could easily be handled by state police. Militarizing the police, though a separate thread topic, should also be halted in all its forms.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You'll have to cite this, as the article states pretty clearly that the LECs are the ones operating the units.

Here's the relevant Massachusetts law pertaining to who's in charge when operating under the state's framework for mutual-aid requests:

Chapter 40, Section 4J(e): The requesting party shall be responsible for the overall operation, assignment and deployment of resources and personnel provided by a sending party consistent with the incident command system.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...er40/Section4J

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the relevant Massachusetts law pertaining to who's in charge when operating under the state's framework for mutual-aid requests:

Chapter 40, Section 4J(e): The requesting party shall be responsible for the overall operation, assignment and deployment of resources and personnel provided by a sending party consistent with the incident command system.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...er40/Section4J

So the requesting PD is pretty much leasing private paramilitary forces?

This doesn't negate any of the issues of having a private paramilitary force operating as local PD for rent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So the requesting PD is pretty much leasing private paramilitary forces?

No.

The requesting PD is leasing personnel from other municipalities, not from the LEC.

I'm holding off on discussing the implications until we come to some basic agreement as to what the LEC is actually doing.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

No.

The requesting PD is leasing personnel from other municipalities, not from the LEC.

Through the privately incorporated LEC?

Don't forget about the arms and armor, either.

Also, can you cite your source? The article states clearly that the LEC itself is employing the specialized units, not borrowing them from member municipalities.

Originally Posted by article

The North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC) similarly operates a SWAT team, as well as a Computer Crime Unit, Motorcycle Unit, School Threat Assessment & Response System, and Regional Communications and Incident Management Assistance Team. Its SWAT team members are trained and equipped to “deal with active shooters, armed barricaded subjects, hostage takers and terrorists,” and they dress in military-style gear with the words “NEMLEC SWAT” emblazoned on their uniforms. Given this training, it is not surprising that the NEMLEC SWAT team has over the past decade led numerous operations that involved armored vehicles, flash-bang devices, and automatic weapons.

I'm holding off on discussing the implications until we come to some basic agreement as to what the LEC is actually doing.

Ok.

[subego]

I cited Massachussets law.

These LECs don't exactly keep a high-profile web presence, so we're going to have to Occam's Razor this as a team. I think you would be well served by putting on your "don't trust the media" hat for a bit.

Does the article call into question, even for a moment, the legality of what these LECs do in their day to day operations?

NEMLEC has existed for at least a decade. Don't you think if their business model was illegal, wouldn't they have taken some heat by now? What about all the other LECs?

I know sometimes it feels like SWAT teams are private hit squads, but unless NEMLEC has bagged and tagged every perp they've encountered over the last 10 years, at least one of these people is going to have a decent attorney, who would get their client off if they were manhandled by some extralegal entity.

So that's my first proposition: there is zero evidence what's going on is illegal, and tons of evidence it's legal.


If it's legal, then there are two options. Either Massachusetts has a law wherein private paramilitary organizations can lease themselves out to the police to do police work, or NEMLEC operates within the state mutual aid law. Which is more likely?


I should also add, even though I like the ACLU, they consistently tart shit up to get people outraged so they write letters and send donations. The WP article is regurgitating the ACLU brief. The quote you gave me is directly from the ACLU.

I'm not even going to get into whether the frigging Post benefits from tarting things up and manufacturing outrage.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I should also add, even though I like the ACLU, they consistently tart shit up to get people outraged so they write letters and send donations. The WP article is regurgitating the ACLU brief. The quote you gave me is directly from the ACLU.

I'm not even going to get into whether the frigging Post benefits from tarting things up and manufacturing outrage.

So, I've been swindled?

[subego]

That's the feeling I get.

I'll also note the WP article is 9 months old at this point.

[The Final Dakar]

Feel free to flog me.

[subego]

Giving me leave to flog you demonstrates integrity.

Since you have integrity, there's no reason to flog you.

[The Final Dakar]

What if I knew you'd answer like that and am faking it?

[subego]

The Post is hiring.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I cited Massachussets law.

Without access to the privately operated LEC's records, just how we be sure they are following the law? The law, even the constitution, hasn't stopped police overreach to this point.

These LECs don't exactly keep a high-profile web presence, so we're going to have to Occam's Razor this as a team. I think you would be well served by putting on your "don't trust the media" hat for a bit.

If you're asking me who I trust more, the police or the media...we'll my head isn't big enough for either hat.

Does the article call into question, even for a moment, the legality of what these LECs do in their day to day operations?

Yes. The very purpose of the article is whether or not these LECs are operating legally with all the oversight and transparency police operations should have.

NEMLEC has existed for at least a decade. Don't you think if their business model was illegal, wouldn't they have taken some heat by now? What about all the other LECs?

Business models change depending on where the dollars are coming from. Just because they started out legal doesn't mean the money flowing in didn't do as money is ought to - corrupt.

I know sometimes it feels like SWAT teams are private hit squads, but unless NEMLEC has bagged and tagged every perp they've encountered over the last 10 years, at least one of these people is going to have a decent attorney, who would get their client off if they were manhandled by some extralegal entity.

The cops themselves are not at issue here. If the LECs have nothing to hide, why not offer up the records? It's the same logic those same people are using on us.

So that's my first proposition: there is zero evidence what's going on is illegal, and tons of evidence it's legal.

No. There's evidence that what we do know is legal, but that hiding behind privacy protections intended for businesses and refusing to release records normally covered under FOIA is enough to warrant a closer inspection of what we know we don't know.

If it's legal, then there are two options. Either Massachusetts has a law wherein private paramilitary organizations can lease themselves out to the police to do police work, or NEMLEC operates within the state mutual aid law. Which is more likely?

The police all over this country, including several federal organizations and a secret court system having been skirting the law for decades. Which is more likely? I don't know, I'd need to see some dollar figures before we could play that game. The funny part is, as is it stands, is discovering the legality of their operations is exactly what's at stake here. If we don't have their records, you cannot make a claim either way as to the legality of this private for-rent paramilitary force.

Monetizing the police and especially SWAT operations is what's got me so buggered here, regardless of the legality of what they're doing today. The private LECs have a vested interest in using SWAT, encouraging local PDs to use their for-money services and quite possibly incentivizing the use of SWAT.

We've seen countless times that unchecked, secretive police organizations including the NSA and a slew of other three letter organizations abuse their power. How can you guarantee that, without public oversight, these LEC's are operating within the law?

You can't. You can only assume. Our history as a country is littered with abuse by governmental police organizations. These local PDs are sidestepping even that debate, by attempting to make their operations and records private against the interest of the public's trust. Whether any abuse is happening today is moot, this set's a precedent in the name of security that is absolutely begging for abuse, just like the secret courts and the feds are doing today.

The difference is now that it will be private paramilitary forces rented to public municipalities. Sure, the public organizations will retain records of their use, but LEC employed cops have a vested, money-driven interest in keeping any abuse or law-skirting from ever reaching the public domain.

I should also add, even though I like the ACLU, they consistently tart shit up to get people outraged so they write letters and send donations. The WP article is regurgitating the ACLU brief. The quote you gave me is directly from the ACLU.

Everyone's got skin in the game - the same is true for the LEC's in question. They gain from keeping it quiet, the ACLU & media gain from blowing it up.

I'm still not sure what rationale can be used for these LEC's to claim immunity to FOIA, and how thats necessary to successful police ops in the area.

I'm not even going to get into whether the frigging Post benefits from tarting things up and manufacturing outrage.

I get where you're coming from, I do. But if we're talking about who gains from what. What could these LECs possibly gain from keeping their records private and beyond the reach of public oversight?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still not sure what rationale can be used for these LEC's to claim immunity to FOIA

Thanks for reminding me why I started the thread in the first place. This is where I mention that there's also controversy over FOIA requests on stingray use being denied because law enforcement claim they have NDAs with the companies that manufacture them. As far as I'm concerned, if your job requires transparency then that NDA can't be signed or is invalid.

[subego]

@Snow-I

I'm having some big semantic trouble here.

I posit a SWAT team (NEMLEC or otherwise) comprised of on-duty officers cannot be considered a private entity. By virtue of being on-duty, everyone in the team is operating under multiple sets of legislative protocols to maintain accountability.

In the case of a NEMLEC team, though ostensibly "operating" it, as on-duty officers, none of those officers are accountable to NEMLEC. They're accountable to their department(s).

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thanks for reminding me why I started the thread in the first place. This is where I mention that there's also controversy over FOIA requests on stingray use being denied because law enforcement claim they have NDAs with the companies that manufacture them. As far as I'm concerned, if your job requires transparency then that NDA can't be signed or is invalid.

Unlike the LEC thing, which looks legit to me from a legal standpoint, this is very weak.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thanks for reminding me why I started the thread in the first place. This is where I mention that there's also controversy over FOIA requests on stingray use being denied because law enforcement claim they have NDAs with the companies that manufacture them. As far as I'm concerned, if your job requires transparency then that NDA can't be signed or is invalid.

I agree.

I've never heard of any private contract superseding the law. What a ridiculous rationale!

So If I make a contract to embezzle millions from the government, will putting myself under NDA make all of that evidence inadmissible?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Snow-I

I'm having some big semantic trouble here.

Ok, lets try to get through it.

I posit a SWAT team (NEMLEC or otherwise) comprised of on-duty officers cannot be considered a private entity. By virtue of being on-duty, everyone in the team is operating under multiple sets of legislative protocols to maintain accountability.

The actuals calls and who has operational command of the police from a tactical perspective is irrelevant to me. It isn't the on-duty cops that's the problem for me.

The problem for me is the behind the scenes, where money is changing hands for the use of SWAT, and the utter lack of transparency for who is using SWAT when, for what purpose, etc.

Apparently, all the LEC would have to do is make the Officers sign an NDA then could start running black ops for other private entities. Of course, you could stretch this out to absurdity - but my point is still the same.

Does that help at all?

In the case of a NEMLEC team, though ostensibly "operating" it, as on-duty officers, none of those officers are accountable to NEMLEC. They're accountable to their department(s).

Responsible to the departments renting them or the one's they're from? Both present challenges in officer accountability, with good old mute NEMLEC right there in between, collecting their fees.

[subego]

I apologize if I've been (and continue to be) frustrating. I'm honestly trying my best not to be. Either way, I appreciate your patience.

Let's say a police department has their own dedicated SWAT team. If we want to know how and against whom it's used, we ask said police department. The mechanism by which they answer are transparency laws. You'll get no argument these laws are usually inadequate, and police departments often go out of their way not to fulfill their legal obligations to be forthcoming with information.

If the police department instead uses a NEMLEC team, I don't see how anything has changed in this regard. If we want to know how and against whom it was used, we ask the department who used it. Their responsibility to provide this information is identical.

So this is the main thing I'm still confused about. You say there's no transparency about who's using SWAT teams. I don't see how that's true. While it would be nice for there to be a low-friction, centralized information source, the transparency level we have with a silent NEMLEC is no different than what we would have if each member department had their own team.

Of course, NEMLEC isn't exactly silent. If they were, they'd get fisted by the IRS. On the most recent 990 form I could dig up, they couldn't even break $4,000 in fees. While they have other years with significantly higher revenue from services, the low number for 2012 most certainly gives fair challenge to the notion they're trying to monetize the use of SWAT teams.


As far as private black ops go, unless the employer can somehow swing a warrant, or send them to a place where there's an imminent threat to public safety, there's very little they can actually do with a SWAT team which doesn't land everyone in the pokey. If this is what's happening, I doubt a transparency law is going coerce anyone to admit what amounts to full-on organized crime.

More importantly however, if engaging in full-on organized crime, it would be in their best interest to... well, not to put too fine a point on it, it would be in their best interest not to incorporate as an NFP.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I apologize if I've been (and continue to be) frustrating. I'm honestly trying my best not to be. Either way, I appreciate your patience.

No worries!

Let's say a police department has their own dedicated SWAT team. If we want to know how and against whom it's used, we ask said police department. The mechanism by which they answer are transparency laws. You'll get no argument these laws are usually inadequate, and police departments often go out of their way not to fulfill their legal obligations to be forthcoming with information.

With ya so far.

If the police department instead uses a NEMLEC team, I don't see how anything has changed in this regard. If we want to know how and against whom it was used, we ask the department who used it. Their responsibility to provide this information is identical.

But the NEMLEC SWAT team itself isn't doing the reporting at that point. The requesting department is a 2nd party source. This is the problem. NEMLEC has a money driven interest to keep any abuse under wraps, the the department itself may be keeping records that are inaccurate. How would they know? It's not their officers doing the reporting. If NEMLEC's swat is lying or hiding something from the department, you cannot hold that department accountable. You'd have to go after NEMLEC, which you can't, since there's no accountability from that side.

So this is the main thing I'm still confused about. You say there's no transparency about who's using SWAT teams. I don't see how that's true. While it would be nice for there to be a low-friction, centralized information source, the transparency level we have with a silent NEMLEC is no different than what we would have if each member department had their own team.

I disagree wholeheartedly, as I said above - NEMLEC's money driven interest is to keep the reporting under wraps, especially when it indicates abuse on NEMLEC's part. Since the SWAT teams themselves are operated by NEMLEC, the requesting departments' reporting is 2nd party. NEMLEC officers could also be being paid extra under the table for nefarious purposes, and so long as they fudge the report to the requesting department (who has no ability to fact-check the reports) we've lost effective oversight of the NEMLEC SWAT teams.

Of course, NEMLEC isn't exactly silent. If they were, they'd get fisted by the IRS. On the most recent 990 form I could dig up, they couldn't even break $4,000 in fees. While they have other years with significantly higher revenue from services, the low number for 2012 most certainly gives fair challenge to the notion they're trying to monetize the use of SWAT teams.

Saying one abusive, out of control governmental agency that has no direct civilian oversight would be overseeing another isn't exactly making your point.

As far as private black ops go, unless the employer can somehow swing a warrant, or send them to a place where there's an imminent threat to public safety, there's very little they can actually do with a SWAT team which doesn't land everyone in the pokey. If this is what's happening, I doubt a transparency law is going coerce anyone to admit what amounts to full-on organized crime.

But it would make it 10 times harder to discover it and root it out. This is my point - it leaves the door open for shenanigans while serving no justifiable police-related purpose. (It being NEMLEC's secrecy).

More importantly however, if engaging in full-on organized crime, it would be in their best interest to... well, not to put too fine a point on it, it would be in their best interest not to incorporate as an NFP.

You've still failed to answer one major point: What do the citizens of the affected districts gain by NEMLEC staying silent? NEMLEC gains something, else they wouldn't do it. You're saying it's effectively the same oversight, but what I'm trying to tell you is if that were true they wouldn't be fighting FOIA. Why do they need to become an NPO in the first place?

It's taxpayer money, and I have a huge problem with private entities performing public services using taxpayer money without direct, 1st party reporting oversight. You say the departments are responsible for this, but all you've done is shift the reporting responsibility to an entity that A) Has no control over how NEMLEC Swat teams report and B) can't do anything about it anyways and C) wouldn't want to even if they found discrepancies in the reporting. It makes it too easy to sweep abuse under the rug - something PDs all over the country are having massive problems with already.

Local PDs should not be using SWAT in the first place, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Snow-i]

Subego. Let me ask you this:

If a NEMLEC SWAT job goes south and innocent people get killed, who is responsible for paying civil damages? The department who rented them? Or the NEMLEC Swat teams themselves?

[Snow-i]

One more thing to add to give you a bit of clarity from my position:

This SWAT first ask questions later philosophy adopted by PDs all over the nation needs to be stopped, lest the innocent people they keep killing start shooting back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...t-grandfather/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/j...na-settlement/

http://www.local10.com/news/family-c...-home/27369504

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/19/sw...ng-something-m

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-wifi-network/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ZcGj0Xr8Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORPk3udApZI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpfLLtPJvxA


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/gra...ll-dog-walked/

It's way more common than i think you're aware of. The officers involved rarely are held accountable for their actions. NEMLEC further distances their accountability from civilian oversight.

Watch that bottom one, would ya? Then tell me NEMLEC and their secretive operations are a good idea. All of these examples are really recent, and there's no shortage of them. I hadn't woken up to these incidents until it happened 2 blocks away from where I lived in college, at the Mayor's house no less. An Address mix up cost the mayor his dogs while his family was sitting down to dinner because the SWAT team couldn't be bothered to do basic police work, including who's house they were raiding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_...ence_drug_raid

Originally Posted by SWAT's Response to raiding the wrong house

Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "We've apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets. Quite frankly, we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]

.

He'd do it again, tonight. He'd raid the wrong house, kill that person's dogs, trash the house, and forever scar any victims involved....He'd do that tonight.

It's unsettling for me, and I'm sure many other Americans, as if we attempt to defend our homes from SWAT teams getting it wrong we will be killed in the process while the city just shrugs and says "Terrorism and children!!!" over and over again. SWAT ops should be handled by the National Guard, not the police. Police do not need access to military gear and they certainly don't need to be pretending to be the US military. Until we demilitarize our police this will not end, and it will culminate in a civil uprising eventually, as it did in Ferguson just this past year (which was mild, as the progenitor incident was dubious in it's worthiness as a cause). The police response in Ferguson was exactly what you'd expect - Orwellian, and thats being nice about it.

Police should be part of the community, not running rampant through it using military gear based on often faulty information and supreme ignorance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But the NEMLEC SWAT team itself isn't doing the reporting at that point. The requesting department is a 2nd party source. This is the problem.

Let me try a different tack...

Let's say, hypothetically, the requesting department is by law, fully responsible for the actions of the LEC team, and said department is given the legal requirement to report the actions of the team as if it was their own.

Would it be okay for a LEC to operate under these constraints as a private entity?


P.S. Not ignoring your other points, just starting with a bite-sized piece.