# Oath keepers



## myrtle55

Met with some today, wondering if any of you have any input on this group


----------



## Geek999

We've had some threads discussing them in the past. They also have a website.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

If you met with some im sure you got the basics. Military, leo, and firefighters that took the oath and have pledged not to violate that oath in the face of contradictory orders.what else would you like to know?


----------



## Geek999

This is the last discussion I recall where they were discussed.

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f26/constitutional-sheriffs-peace-officers-association-24184/


----------



## myrtle55

Wow Geek, thanks for the link. I took an oath in 1974, I am retired now but my oath to uphold the constitution and to protect American citizens from all, foreign or domestic still stands in my heart and mind. I feel like Oath Keepers feels the same and just wondered if others believe that as well. Reading those posts answered my question. Again, thank you


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> Wow Geek, thanks for the link. I took an oath in 1974, I am retired now but my oath to uphold the constitution and to protect American citizens from all, foreign or domestic still stands in my heart and mind. I feel like Oath Keepers feels the same and just wondered if others believe that as well. Reading those posts answered my question. Again, thank you


Keeping your oath is a good thing. You shouldn't require an oath to keep an oath, and I don't think you need one.


----------



## labotomi

myrtle55 said:


> Wow Geek, thanks for the link. I took an oath in 1974, I am retired now but my oath to uphold the constitution and to protect American citizens from all, foreign or domestic still stands in my heart and mind. I feel like Oath Keepers feels the same and just wondered if others believe that as well. Reading those posts answered my question. Again, thank you


There are different oaths of service. Which did you take?


----------



## Viking

myrtle55 said:


> Wow Geek, thanks for the link. I took an oath in 1974, I am retired now but my oath to uphold the constitution and to protect American citizens from all, foreign or domestic still stands in my heart and mind. I feel like Oath Keepers feels the same and just wondered if others believe that as well. Reading those posts answered my question. Again, thank you


I too remember taking that oath when I joined the Air Force, I refreshed that oath at a sheriff Mack meeting in Roseburg, Oregon, it's a reminder of a commitment to America, it's people and what the founders of the Republic set forth. If you have ever read about what happened to most of those who signed the Declaration of Independence you realize it was a blood bond they gave for the future generations, nothing to be taken lightly. In taking that oath you are saying that you will give your life to uphold that blood bond. Maybe you think you shouldn't have to take that oath, on the other hand one has to ask, are you willing to give your life for generations to come so that they have freedom? To me repeating an oath sets it in my heart and down deep in my subconsciousness, it prepares me to more readily be willing to give my life for others, when or if the situation came about. It's probably one of the reasons a soldier would fall on a grenade thrown in a fox hole to save his fellow soldiers. I happen to believe that I would rather stand back to back with a fellow oath keeper in a bad situation than someone who thinks it's not necessary. I believe that it is because of those who gave the oath in past times that so many enjoy the freedoms we now have.


----------



## Geek999

Viking said:


> I too remember taking that oath when I joined the Air Force, I refreshed that oath at a sheriff Mack meeting in Roseburg, Oregon, it's a reminder of a commitment to America, it's people and what the founders of the Republic set forth. If you have ever read about what happened to most of those who signed the Declaration of Independence you realize it was a blood bond they gave for the future generations, nothing to be taken lightly. In taking that oath you are saying that you will give your life to uphold that blood bond. Maybe you think you shouldn't have to take that oath, on the other hand one has to ask, are you willing to give your life for generations to come so that they have freedom? To me repeating an oath sets it in my heart and down deep in my subconsciousness, it prepares me to more readily be willing to give my life for others, when or if the situation came about. It's probably one of the reasons a soldier would fall on a grenade thrown in a fox hole to save his fellow soldiers. I happen to believe that I would rather stand back to back with a fellow oath keeper in a bad situation than someone who thinks it's not necessary. I believe that it is because of those who gave the oath in past times that so many enjoy the freedoms we now have.


The question is whether the Oath Keeper organization represents folks who will keep their oath any more than folks who have taken an oath with full intent to keep it, and haven't joined the Oath Keeper organization.

I am more comfortable with someone like Myrtle than I am with an Oath Keeper organization that endorses urban warfare tactics to serve warrants, which they did as of the last time I checked their website.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> The question is whether the Oath Keeper organization represents folks who will keep their oath any more than folks who have taken an oath with full intent to keep it, and haven't joined the Oath Keeper organization.
> 
> I am more comfortable with someone like Myrtle than I am with an Oath Keeper organization that endorses urban warfare tactics to serve warrants, which they did as of the last time I checked their website.


The OK folks I've met and corresponded with who joined Oath Keepers did so specifically because they have read and understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This might distinguish them from others who have taken the oath without having actually read and understood those documents first.

There is no shortage of examples of ways in which LE and elected officials break their oaths with impunity. If you have examples of Oath Keepers behaving in a hypocritical way, please post some links because I would like to ask Stewart Rhodes (probably via Bob Wright) about that.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> The OK folks I've met and corresponded with who joined Oath Keepers did so specifically because they have read and understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This might distinguish them from others who have taken the oath without having actually read and understood those documents first.
> 
> There is no shortage of examples of ways in which LE and elected officials break their oaths with impunity. If you have examples of Oath Keepers behaving in a hypocritical way, please post some links because I would like to ask Stewart Rhodes (probably via Bob Wright) about that.


To the best of my knowledge Oath Keepers has never done anything that distinguishes them from the broader Law enforcement community.

I personally think that until SCOTUS rules a practice unconstitutional they won't object but by the time something is ruled on by SCOTUS all LEOs wil come around. As a result, I don't see them as hypocritical, but I do see them as irrelevant.

I'd like to be wrong on this but in the other thread the examples of Oath Keeper actions were things like putting up a billboard.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> To the best of my knowledge Oath Keepers has never done anything that distinguishes them from the broader Law enforcement community.
> 
> I personally think that until SCOTUS rules a practice unconstitutional they won't object but by the time something is ruled on by SCOTUS all LEOs wil come around. As a result, I don't see them as hypocritical, but I do see them as irrelevant.
> 
> I'd like to be wrong on this but in the other thread the examples of Oath Keeper actions were things like putting up a billboard.


If you consider the large number of unconstitutional actions undertaken by people who have sworn the oath, as defined by people who can read plain English as opposed to the opinions of the nine black-robed High Priests of the Supreme Court, the question becomes this: have Oath Keepers been similarly negligent or do they stand, so far, in compliance with keeping to the oaths they took?

You made mention of the Oath Keepers endorsing urban warfare tactics to serve warrants. Can you elaborate?

(Side note: While the SCOTUS is an arbiter of what is and is not lawful and constitutional, it is not the sole arbiter. We citizens get to decide that, too, _Marbury v. Madison_ notwithstanding.)


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> If you consider the large number of unconstitutional actions undertaken by people who have sworn the oath, as defined by people who can read plain English as opposed to the opinions of the nine black-robed High Priests of the Supreme Court, the question becomes this: have Oath Keepers been similarly negligent or do they stand, so far, in compliance with keeping to the oaths they took?
> 
> You made mention of the Oath Keepers endorsing urban warfare tactics to serve warrants. Can you elaborate?
> 
> (Side note: While the SCOTUS is an arbiter of what is and is not lawful and constitutional, it is not the sole arbiter. We citizens get to decide that, too, _Marbury v. Madison_ notwithstanding.)


On their website OathKeepers promotes SWAT. SWAT is simply urban warfare tactics brought into law enforcement. While I think there may be a handful of legitimate uses for this, SWAT has been used on barbershops, organic farms and in general to just serve warrants. I believe many of these cases violate the 4th amendment.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> On their website OathKeepers promotes SWAT. SWAT is simply urban warfare tactics brought into law enforcement. While I think there may be a handful of legitimate uses for this, SWAT has been used on barbershops, organic farms and in general to just serve warrants. I believe many of these cases violate the 4th amendment.


SWAT is not urban warfare except in the context of what we have come to know it: no-knock 3:00am entries resulting in chaos, mayhem and possible injury and death. Used the right way, in the same way as a firearm can be used the right way, it's fine.

My question was whether or not OK endorses the unconstitutional and illegal implementation of SWAT teams and if you had any indication members of OK have betrayed their oaths.

The preponderance of SWAT teams and their usage is admittedly concerning. But that doesn't mean such teams should not exist ever for any reason or that the existence of SWAT teams is unconstitutional or that those who serve on them are betraying their oaths.


----------



## GaryS

As I stated on an earlier thread, I was one of the first people in Texas to join Oath Keepers, but their mission at the time was geared almost entirely toward active duty military and law enforcement, but even they were expected to indulge in purely negative participation when it came time to face unconstitutional situations . Since the veteran pool is much deeper than active duty military, they wanted prior service to join, presumably to show large membership, but they weren't at all interested in our participation in any way other than monetary. 

I once mentioned on a discussion forum that there was a large number of veterans who were capable of more than passive monetary support, and I was severely chastised for mentioning any possibility of active response by anyone in OK, to any situation. I couldn't see any reason for me to continue in the group, so I quit sending money, but told them they could keep my name on the rolls.

Now, their mission has obviously changed as I see them holding rallies, supporting victims of over-the-top legal oppression, and protesting various government entities that cross the constitutional line. 

I doubt I'll ever become active in the organization again, since I don't need my fingers slapped if I say the wrong thing. I'm sort of fed up with most organizations, as I find that once they begin to grow the power hungry folks always rush to the front of the line.


----------



## FrankW

myrtle55 said:


> Met with some today, wondering if any of you have any input on this group


A fantastic group and worthy of your support.

If you are active reserve, Guard or police you should strongly consider joining.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> SWAT is not urban warfare except in the context of what we have come to know it: no-knock 3:00am entries resulting in chaos, mayhem and possible injury and death. Used the right way, in the same way as a firearm can be used the right way, it's fine.
> 
> My question was whether or not OK endorses the unconstitutional and illegal implementation of SWAT teams and if you had any indication members of OK have betrayed their oaths.
> 
> The preponderance of SWAT teams and their usage is admittedly concerning. But that doesn't mean such teams should not exist ever for any reason or that the existence of SWAT teams is unconstitutional or that those who serve on them are betraying their oaths.


From what I saw on their website they made no distinction. They were simply pro-SWAT. Granted it has been a few months since I looked at the site.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> From what I saw on their website they made no distinction. They were simply pro-SWAT. Granted it has been a few months since I looked at the site.


Well, I'm pro-gun but that doesn't make me a murderer or a supporter of those who use guns to commit crimes.

I suggest anyone interested in Oath Keepers check them out and decide if it's something you want to be a part of. It's a reaffirmation of your oath in a context of "yes, I read the documents this time and I know what I'm doing". It came about in part to build the ranks of those public servants (whether cops or military or elected officials) to dissuade those in power from passing unconstitutional laws because they would not be enforced, and in part because there have been a number of examples of illegal, unconstitutional actions by LE resulting in the loss of property and human life.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> Well, I'm pro-gun but that doesn't make me a murderer or a supporter of those who use guns to commit crimes.
> 
> I suggest anyone interested in Oath Keepers check them out and decide if it's something you want to be a part of. It's a reaffirmation of your oath in a context of "yes, I read the documents this time and I know what I'm doing". It came about in part to build the ranks of those public servants (whether cops or military or elected officials) to dissuade those in power from passing unconstitutional laws because they would not be enforced, and in part because there have been a number of examples of illegal, unconstitutional actions by LE resulting in the loss of property and human life.


I didn't get the impression they had a problem with a SWAT raid on a barbershop for barbering without a license. If they want to convince me they respect the 4th amendment, they need to make the distinction. It's not my role to define what they are for or against. I'm just going by their website. I have never actually met anyone who is in the organization and I think they are pretty rare around here.

If they are actually refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws, I'd like to know what laws they consider unconstitutional.


----------



## hellrazor762

I've ran in to 3 oath keepers that I know of. All of them had served 1 term in the army, 1 had been discharged early for some BS reason and all of them had nothing good to say about the military and spoke to me like I was a communist for still serving. Their web site seems like a legit organization but not sure how strict the membership process is. I wouldn't associate with them just based on my experiences.


Sent from my iPad using Survival Forum


----------



## LongRider

bkt said:


> The preponderance of SWAT teams and their usage is admittedly concerning. But that doesn't mean such teams should not exist ever for any reason or that the existence of SWAT teams is unconstitutional or that those who serve on them are betraying their oaths.


IMO SWAT is in fact a violation of Posse Comitatus Act. They can call it whatever they like. Fact is they are militarized police with all of the weapons of war. They are engaged in the "War on Drugs" which is nothing more than war against the people. Just as prohibition was. Since when are tanks needed to serve FTA warrants or arrest doctors for writing legal (in their state) marijuana prescriptions? While I tend to disagree with the tone and gist of Geek999 posts. As I believe that he Oath Keepers are a valuable needed organization as evidenced by LEO's conduct at Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee to name but a few. I do think that SWAT violates Posse Comitatus.

The Oath Keepers are needed because the public and the police have long been being brainwashed in accepting a police state mentality.

Most believe that if you refuse to provide ID on demand you must be a criminal hiding something. When we once mocked Nazi Germany for demanding their subject carry papers. 
Even more believe only criminals plead the fifth and refuse to talk to the police without a lawyer present.
As they believe that only criminals refuse to allow the police to search their person, cars homes or places of business on demand without a warrant.
Just as most even pro 2A advocates fail to recognize the fact that 9/11 and over 3,000 Americans died as a direct result of the violation of our Constitutional Rights.


----------



## Geek999

LongRider said:


> IMO SWAT is in fact a violation of Posse Comitatus Act. They can call it whatever they like. Fact is they are militarized police with all of the weapons of war. They are engaged in the "War on Drugs" which is nothing more than war against the people. Just as prohibition was. Since when are tanks needed to serve FTA warrants or arrest doctors for writing legal (in their state) marijuana prescriptions? While I tend to disagree with the tone and gist of Geek999 posts. As I believe that he Oath Keepers are a valuable needed organization as evidenced by LEO's conduct at Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee to name but a few. I do think that SWAT violates Posse Comitatus.
> 
> The Oath Keepers are needed because the public and the police have long been being brainwashed in accepting a police state mentality.
> 
> Most believe that if you refuse to provide ID on demand you must be a criminal hiding something. When we once mocked Nazi Germany for demanding their subject carry papers.
> Even more believe only criminals plead the fifth and refuse to talk to the police without a lawyer present.
> As they believe that only criminals refuse to allow the police to search their person, cars homes or places of business on demand without a warrant.
> Just as most even pro 2A advocates fail to recognize the fact that 9/11 and over 3,000 Americans died as a direct result of the violation of our Constitutional Rights.


You object to my tone, but you bring up the Nazis? :eyebulge:


----------



## LongRider

Geek999 said:


> You object to my tone, but you bring up the Nazis? :eyebulge:


Yes you're consistently snide and disparaging about the Oath Keepers based on unsubstantiated innuendo. You heard, you remember, or were once told (by a guy in a tin foil hat?) something derogatory about the Oath Keepers but are unable to provide a link as has been requested on several occasions to validate your accusations. I find that objectionable. If you have a complaint about the Oath Keepers fine, than state what it is and substantiate your complaint with some verifiable evidence like a link. That whole he said, she said, you once heard (while playing Black Sabbath backwards at 78 ) does not hold much water and sounds like sour grapes.

What is it about my comment about the Nazis that you find inaccurate? If you are not old enough to remember the validity of my statement, perhaps you should pick up a history book.


----------



## Geek999

Problem solved.


----------



## labotomi

LongRider said:


> IMO SWAT is in fact a violation of Posse Comitatus Act. They can call it whatever they like. Fact is they are militarized police with all of the weapons of war.


Militarized in this case is a description of the tactics and equipment. It does not mean that they are part of the US military and thus does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus act is clear on this issue so your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of the act, SWAT or a combination of both.


----------



## bkt

LongRider said:


> I do think that SWAT violates Posse Comitatus.


I'm pretty sure you do not know what Posse Comitatus covers. You might want to read up on it a bit.

Oath Keepers is an outstanding organization and I applaud them. I hope their numbers grow exponentially.

That said, and not at all contradictory to OK or what they stand for, if I ever have a loved one held hostage among a bunch of other hostages by a couple freaks and those freaks start shooting hostages to demonstrate their sincerity and devotion to their screwed-up cause, I hope a couple SWAT snipers turn their heads into pink mist and get the hostages out of their unscathed.


----------



## LongRider

labotomi said:


> Militarized in this case is a description of the tactics and equipment. It does not mean that they are part of the US military and thus does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
> 
> The Posse Comitatus act is clear on this issue so your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of the act, SWAT or a combination of both.


No I am clear on the Posse Comitatus act. we differ based upon semantics. Set aside the propaganda and SWAT is a military organization or force by any definition anyone want to use to describe a military force. They train like spec ops military not just grunts, they use military tactics, they use military equipment they are organized like a military unit. 
Granted there have been rare occasions where the police were seriously our gunned as in the 1968 Miami FBI shootout and North Hollywood shootout. Which was the rational for SWAT's creation but those instances have been extremely rare especially in comparisons to the proliferation of SWAT teams. The problem with that is once funded they "need" to use those SWAT teams to justify their existence so they are used often without just cause or reason. To the extent that Federal marshal SWAT teams are used to enforce traffic ticket warrants, which I know to be fact. If you are willing to have a different perspective take a look at This Backwoods magazines installment of *The Coming American Dictatorship Part XII
The militarization of America's police forces* John Silveira is far more articulate than I on the subject. Backwoods Magazine is far from a radical or anti police magazine.Backwoods Magazine is a mag that every prepper should be reading monthly or at least those of us who want to be self sustaining. Massad Ayoob is on their staff and he is as far from being anti cop as anyone could be. Just as I am not anti LEO in any way. As already stated I am asupporter and advocate of Oath Keepers and one of the very first to mention them here. Oath Keepers exist because our police have gotten completely out of hand many without the slightest clue of what their oath means. SWAT is a symptom of that.


----------



## labotomi

LongRider said:


> No I am clear on the Posse Comitatus act. we differ based upon semantics. Set aside the propaganda and SWAT is a military organization or force by any definition anyone want to use to describe a military force.


No. Not by a long shot. They do not fall under the United States Military and thus do not fall under the Posse Comitatus act. It's very, very clear. The semantic argument you offer fails because of the difference in Military force and "militarized" force. Propoganda has nothing at all to do with it.


LongRider said:


> They train like spec ops military not just grunts, they use military tactics, they use military equipment they are organized like a military unit.


Training techniques and type of equipment used are not what makes a group part of the military (as I alrady stated). Being part of the military is what defines who the Posse Comitatus act limits. Those limited are the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force. SWAT are not members of those organizations. Neither their training nor equipment matters one bit as that was not the purpose of Posse Comitatus.


----------



## LongRider

labotomi said:


> The semantic argument you offer fails because of the difference in Military force and "militarized" force.


Bet you did not bother to read the article and drank more of that kool aid instead. But why bother you know it all. Of course you are right. Sieg Heil!


----------



## labotomi

You should read the Posse Comitatus Act and understanding what "armed forces of the United States" entails instead of misrepresenative articles. 

I'm glad you finally realize that I'm right. I'll take your admission as a form of apology as well.


----------



## bkt

Rather than bickering and implying someone is a Nazi because they see things differently, maybe trying to understand one another would make more sense. Things really are going to hell and the more people who can come together on the big issues, the better.

Yes, cops are being militarized all across the nation. That's extremely alarming. Looking at some goings-on in government where there's law-breaking with impunity, agencies incorrectly flagging preppers and those who believe in the rule of law as potential domestic terrorists, etc., etc. is also alarming. And yes, we are hearing a lot about some cops who murder people and destroy property because they think they're in a war zone and that they're above the law.

The last issue is why I'm a fan of Oath Keepers. ANYTHING that can be done to intelligently remind LE and military about the Constitution and what it says and that they are obliged to disobey an illegal order is good, IMO.

I don't think you'll find too many people here disagreeing with that.

However, it is wrong to conflate federal boundaries with municipal law enforcement boundaries. Posse Comitatus comes into play if an American is hauled off to Guantanamo and not charged or tried. It doesn't come into play if an overzealous idiot cop shoots an innocent, unarmed person.

When police agencies choose not to police their own and instead when the sheriff or chief comes to the defense of a cop whose actions are indefensible, then yes, we have a problem. Let's call it what it is and fix it the right way and not by carrying on about a law that doesn't apply.


----------



## cowboyhermit

bkt said:


> Posse Comitatus comes into play if an American is hauled off to Guantanamo and not charged or tried. It doesn't come into play if an overzealous idiot cop shoots an innocent, unarmed person.


Just for the sake of clarity Posse Comitatus an the Posse Comitatus ACT are two significantly different things. I am not sure how either one is at the core of those particular scenarios.

It is my understanding the the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the government's use of "military" for law enforcement at the state level. The key points being they are controlled by the Federal government, and enforcing "state laws".

The act was written at a time when the Military was the ONLY agency that could be employed for this task was it not? They did not include the Airforce of course, because they did not exist, naturally they did not include the FBI or other federal agencies either for similar reasons I would think

It would certainly seem to me that some of the things done by your federal government would be contrary to the original intent of the law. I do not mean to imply that this argument should have force of law, merely that the original intent of the law can be subjugated in many ways.

Ie; government can't use military to enforce state laws.
Government creates new organization that can do the job but is not called military
And/or government writes laws that cover things that they were not originally intended to.


----------



## bkt

cowboyhermit said:


> Ie; government can't use military to enforce state laws.
> Government creates new organization that can do the job but is not called military
> And/or government writes laws that cover things that they were not originally intended to.


Yes, you're correct.

My reference to Gitmo was that Americans can be shipped off there and held indefinitely by the military without charge or trial. Habeas Corpus comes into play, certainly. Maybe it's a stretch to say PC is violated given Gitmo's in another country.

The real point was not to pin on local LE laws that bind federal entities.


----------



## cowboyhermit

bkt said:


> The real point was not to pin on local LE laws that bind federal entities.


I see your point, putting aside whether swat etc. is right or wrong, it seems to me even the original intent of the Act was to only affect entities controlled by the U.S federal government.


----------



## LongRider

labotomi said:


> I'm glad you finally realize that I'm right. I'll take your admission as a form of apology as well.


Assume all you like.



bkt said:


> However, it is wrong to conflate federal boundaries with municipal law enforcement boundaries.


Maybe my bad but SWAT is NOT limited to local PD i did specifically refer to Federal Marshals. What I fail to grasp is why the insistence that because the government calls something one thing that makes it so. Fact is the government lies. Because the government says that Delta Force were police advisers at Waco does that make it true? Or is Delta Force a military unit that was used to exterminate Dissenters? I tend to believe the latter because i simply do not believe everything that the government says. Just as I do not believe that Federal SWAT teams are not a military force. If the government calls the Seals boy scouts does not make it so.


----------



## bkt

Federal swat teams (or their equivalents) are rarely used relative to municipal swat teams. Usually when people refer to SWAT, they're referring to a local PD's SWAT team rather than the FBI or whatnot. And the government doesn't call the SEALs Boy Scouts.

All of this matters.

If we object to the government lying and breaking laws, it's prudent we pay attention to the details and know the law.

I understand what you're saying and don't disagree that a whole lot of what and who we think should be working for us is actually working against us and is out of control.


----------



## LongRider

bkt said:


> Federal swat teams (or their equivalents) are rarely used relative to municipal swat teams.


I know for a fact Federal marshal SWAT teams are used to serve failure to appear traffic warrants. As well as a whole list of other things they were never intended or needed to do



bkt said:


> And the government doesn't call the SEALs Boy Scouts.


Nor did I say they do. I said


LongRider said:


> If the government calls the Seals boy scouts does not make it so.


 *IF* being the operative word and you seem to have missed my point. Or maybe I did not make it clear enough. Which is that just because the government says something is one thing does not make it true. As in the example I gave of the government calling Delta Force, police advisers when any moron knows that they are in fact military. Another would be the Patriots Act that the government claims was enacted for national security. When we all know (actually anyone who has read it) the reality is that it is the Traitors Act, designed to strip us of our Constitutional Rights. So to, just because the government might call SWAT police, does not mean that in fact they are not military. BTW, ALL SWAT teams are federally funded and equipped. Which in turn means that all SWAT teams are federally controlled.

The point of all this is that the police are way out of hand, we are increasingly becoming a police state. Something I think many do not see because they have grown up with it. Do not recall when Ricco, and 24/365 surveillance of every aspect of our lives did not exist. Which is why, groups like Oath Keepers are needed


----------



## labotomi

LongRider said:


> *IF* being the operative word and you seem to have missed my point. Or maybe I did not make it clear enough. Which is that just because the government says something is one thing does not make it true. As in the example I gave of the government calling Delta Force, police advisers when any moron knows that they are in fact military.


Your point is irrelevant in the case of Delta Force in this instance. Posse Comitatus allows the military to be used in an advisory role. They weren't hiding that Delta Force was there by calling them something else, they were explaining in what capacity Delta Force was participating. Non active participation does not violate the Posse Comitatus act.



LongRider said:


> just because the government might call SWAT police, does not mean that in fact they are not military. BTW, ALL SWAT teams are federally funded and equipped. Which in turn means that all SWAT teams are federally controlled.


Federally funded does not indicate that they are military. Federally funded police force wearing BDUs carrying assault weapons with grenades and driving humvees does not mean military. Walking in formation saluting higher ranking officials does not mean military.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about the over militarization of police forces, but claiming it's an obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus act is erroneous.


----------



## LongRider

labotomi said:


> Federally funded does not indicate that they are military. Federally funded police force wearing BDUs carrying assault weapons with grenades and driving humvees does not mean military. Walking in formation saluting higher ranking officials does not mean military.


Using military tactics, military training, military attire, military weapons, military hierarchy, while engaged in a war is not military because the government says so, Right?

Wrong, at least to anyone whose perception of the obvious is not blinded by unquestioning acceptance of government propaganda. You are free to continue to drink the kool aid and stand by your unwavering belief in the infallible integrity of the government. Say whatever you will, We will never agree, I have family who have lived through this before. I trust them, my and their experience far more than I do the government. My perception of the obvious is not impaired. I grew up in the military lived much of my life by a military base I know what a military op looks like when in comes charging through my front door.

We will just need to agree to disagree. Think we have derailed the topic enough


----------



## labotomi

LongRider said:


> I grew up in the military lived much of my life by a military base


Yet you do not understand what organizations make up the Armed Forces of the United States.


----------



## bkt

I guess it's more fun to piss and moan about some other guy's post and talk past each other than it is to understand we all largely agree on the issue.

Here's to hoping for more intelligent conversation in the future on issues like LE (at any level) breaking the law (any law).


----------



## LongRider

labotomi said:


> Yet you do not understand what organizations make up the Armed Forces of the United States.


:surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender: *OK OK I GIVE YOU WIN*:surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender:​I had already said


LongRider said:


> We will just need to agree to disagree.


Apparently your reading comprehension skills are so impaired you are incapable of grasping the meaning of that. You insist on remaining stuck on stupid to continue you asinine circular argument. Fortunately this forum has an ignore feature that eliminates anyone's posts I don't want to waste my time on. You have made that list, so post away. Talk all the trash you like knowing I won't be wasting my or others time by reading it or responding to your nonsense.

To the rest of the forum please accept my apology for my part in this BS and allowing it to continue for so long


----------



## labotomi

Someone already alluded to this but it's more harmful to make incorrect claims of illegal behavior. It's easily discounted and gives others reason to treat you as a "chicken little".


----------



## BillM

I am a member of Oath Keepers.

Oath Keepers is exactly what it says it is.

As for all the disparaging remarks about LEO's, I was a Deputy Sheriff and took the oath of a KY. Peace officer twice.

I never violated the Constitutional rights or Civil rights of any citizen and would not have allowed anyone else to.

My advise is to access the Oath Keepers web site and read what they are about and what they represent.

There are people who think all LEO's are only out to deprive them of their rights and they will never be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> I am a member of Oath Keepers.
> 
> Oath Keepers is exactly what it says it is.
> 
> As for all the disparaging remarks about LEO's, I was a Deputy Sheriff and took the oath of a KY. Peace officer twice.
> 
> I never violated the Constitutional rights or Civil rights of any citizen and would not have allowed anyone else to.
> 
> My advise is to access the Oath Keepers web site and read what they are about and what they represent.
> 
> There are people who think all LEO's are only out to deprive them of their rights and they will never be convinced otherwise.


I am pleased that you did not violate anyone's constitutional rights as an LEO. While I don't think "all LEOs are out to deprive me of my rights", I have had my rights violated, so there clearly are bad and incompetent LEOs. I suspect that most of them don't get up in the morning saying "I am going out to violate someone's rights today". Rather, they screw up and often do not recognize that they have violated someone's rights, even after they have done it. They are then protected by other LEOs.

That would seem to support the purpose of an organization such as Oath Keepers. The question then becomes whether they are effective at promoting greater support of the constitution through their activities. To be effective, they would have to both promote a better understanding of the constitution among LEOs and be willing to take actions to push back on the trend toward rights violations.

I have looked at the Oath Keepers website and it supports broader use of SWAT, one of the key things that many of us see as a violation of the 4th Amendment, not to mention the source of many of the more outrageous news stories that get these threads going, e.g. SWAT team critically burns toddler (and LEO member defends that as being okay). IMHO Oath Keepers is on the wrong side of the issue of whether SWAT is being overused. That gives me the impression the Oath Keepers have taken no meaningful action re: the 4th Amendment.

Meanwhile, my impression is that other than refusing to engage in confiscations, they will enforce all the unconstitutional gun laws in places like NJ, NY, CA, etc. That places Oath Keepers in a slightly better position vs. the 2nd Amendment than the 4th, but not much.

I would like to think that Oath Keepers will live up to its stated purpose, but as a citizen, not a member of law enforcement, I am curious what the Oath Keepers will do to fulfill their purpose. When I have asked this question previously I have gotten answers like "put up a billboard, held rallies, etc." One doesn't need to be an LEO, let alone an Oath Keeper, for this sort of thing. These are ineffective actions.

What I would like to hear is "Oath Keepers announces their members will not enforce the NY SAFE act." along with an announcement that any member who does enforce the NY SAFE act will be kicked out. That would tell me that Oath Keepers has moved from rhetoric to actually fulfilling its stated purpose.

So that leaves me in the position so many have decided is "anti-LEO", i.e. I am skeptical that Oath Keepers is doing anything effective about unconstitutional laws and orders, or incompetence among LEOs, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Unfortunately, the website actually reinforced my impression that Oath Keepers is ineffective.

Please understand that I am not against Oath Keepers, as so many here seem to think. I am skeptical that they will have a positive impact, which is a very different thing. I would hope they would be effective in the future, just as I would hope the broader LEO community would police their own ranks.

As a member of Oath Keepers, you are in an ideal position to either convince me that Oath Keepers is doing more than it appears to folks like me, or to convince the Oath Keepers they need to do more to actually fulfill their stated purpose, or both.


----------



## BillM

*A couple of points.*



Geek999 said:


> I am pleased that you did not violate anyone's constitutional rights as an LEO. While I don't think "all LEOs are out to deprive me of my rights", I have had my rights violated, so there clearly are bad and incompetent LEOs. I suspect that most of them don't get up in the morning saying "I am going out to violate someone's rights today". Rather, they screw up and often do not recognize that they have violated someone's rights, even after they have done it. They are then protected by other LEOs.
> 
> That would seem to support the purpose of an organization such as Oath Keepers. The question then becomes whether they are effective at promoting greater support of the constitution through their activities. To be effective, they would have to both promote a better understanding of the constitution among LEOs and be willing to take actions to push back on the trend toward rights violations.
> 
> I have looked at the Oath Keepers website and it supports broader use of SWAT, one of the key things that many of us see as a violation of the 4th Amendment, not to mention the source of many of the more outrageous news stories that get these threads going, e.g. SWAT team critically burns toddler (and LEO member defends that as being okay). IMHO Oath Keepers is on the wrong side of the issue of whether SWAT is being overused. That gives me the impression the Oath Keepers have taken no meaningful action re: the 4th Amendment.
> 
> Meanwhile, my impression is that other than refusing to engage in confiscations, they will enforce all the unconstitutional gun laws in places like NJ, NY, CA, etc. That places Oath Keepers in a slightly better position vs. the 2nd Amendment than the 4th, but not much.
> 
> I would like to think that Oath Keepers will live up to its stated purpose, but as a citizen, not a member of law enforcement, I am curious what the Oath Keepers will do to fulfill their purpose. When I have asked this question previously I have gotten answers like "put up a billboard, held rallies, etc." One doesn't need to be an LEO, let alone an Oath Keeper, for this sort of thing. These are ineffective actions.
> 
> What I would like to hear is "Oath Keepers announces their members will not enforce the NY SAFE act." along with an announcement that any member who does enforce the NY SAFE act will be kicked out. That would tell me that Oath Keepers has moved from rhetoric to actually fulfilling its stated purpose.
> 
> So that leaves me in the position so many have decided is "anti-LEO", i.e. I am skeptical that Oath Keepers is doing anything effective about unconstitutional laws and orders, or incompetence among LEOs, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Unfortunately, the website actually reinforced my impression that Oath Keepers is ineffective.
> 
> Please understand that I am not against Oath Keepers, as so many here seem to think. I am skeptical that they will have a positive impact, which is a very different thing. I would hope they would be effective in the future, just as I would hope the broader LEO community would police their own ranks.
> 
> As a member of Oath Keepers, you are in an ideal position to either convince me that Oath Keepers is doing more than it appears to folks like me, or to convince the Oath Keepers they need to do more to actually fulfill their stated purpose, or both.


Geek, I would like to address a couple of points you have made.

The inadvertent violation of a suspects Constitutional rights by law enforcement. In the Sheriff's department, we recognized that occasionally, an officer would unintentionally violate the Constitutional rights of a suspect. I have done so myself. when this happens, the suspect goes free and no arrest is made. that was our rule. In my case, I opened the door of a suspects vehicle too quick. I could not see the hands of a passenger in the back seat and I was afraid that he was concealing a weapon and was going to shoot my partner. He did not have a weapon and even though we suspicioned that they had drugs in the vehicle, we let them go. At that point , even if we had found drugs, we could not have successfully prosecuted the case because of my opening that car door before we had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed.

I don't know what you do for a living but I bet you have made a mistake or two doing your job. Should anyone who makes an honest mistake be prosecuted of lose his job for making an occasional mistake ?

Oath keepers is not about creating perfect cops or military men. It is about committing them to follow their oath when it conflicts with the direct orders of a superior officer. Oath Keepers study the Constitution diligently to avoid violating their oath.

Every member is not perfict but in what organization are they?

Regarding the NY "Safe Act", I agree that it is unconstitutional and I would not enforce it as many of our members in Law enforcement in NY likewise do not enforce it.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> I don't know what you do for a living but I bet you have made a mistake or two doing your job. Should anyone who makes an honest mistake be prosecuted of lose his job for making an occasional mistake ?
> 
> Oath keepers is not about creating perfect cops or military men. It is about committing them to follow their oath when it conflicts with the direct orders of a superior officer. Oath Keepers study the Constitution diligently to avoid


I think that when there is an accusation of misconduct on the part of police it needs to be investigated. What penalty is appropriate depends on the specifics.

Unfortunately, in my case the police refused to investigate. I would have been satisfied with an investigation and an assurance that it would not happen again. That did not happen.

It is the impression of many here that police routinely ignore or cover up police misconduct, which is consistent with my experience. My impression is Oath Keepers has done nothing about that situation. If an Oath Keeper sees another LEO violate someone's rights what is his obligation?

I am pleased to hear that individual Oath Keepers will not enforce the NY SAFE act. If an Oath Keeper does enforce the NY SAFE act, what happens? Has the Oath Keeper organization, as distinct from individuals, ever declared any gun law anathema to the Oath Keeper oath?

Has the Oath Keeper organization taken any action to protect our 4th Amendment rights? SWAT raids for barbering without a license strike most of us as over the top. Where is OathKeepers on Stop and Frisk?

If there is more to Oath Keepers than I have heard that's great, but meanwhile the routine violation of our constitutional rights goes on.


----------



## BillM

*I have stated before*



Geek999 said:


> I think that when there is an accusation of misconduct on the part of police it needs to be investigated. What penalty is appropriate depends on the specifics.
> 
> Unfortunately, in my case the police refused to investigate. I would have been satisfied with an investigation and an assurance that it would not happen again. That did not happen.
> 
> It is the impression of many here that police routinely ignore or cover up police misconduct, which is consistent with my experience. My impression is Oath Keepers has done nothing about that situation. If an Oath Keeper sees anothe LEO violate someone's rights what is his obligation?
> 
> I am pleased to hear that individual Oath Keepers will not enforce the NY SAFE act. If an Oath Keeper does enforce the NY SAFE act, what happens? Has the Oath Keeper organization, as distinct from individuals, ever declared any gun law anathema to the Oath Keeper oath?
> 
> Has the Oath Keeper organization taken any action to protect our 4th Amendment rights? SWAT raids for barbering without a license strike most of us as over the top. Where is OathKeepers on Stop and Frisk?
> 
> If there is more to Oath Keepers than I have heard that's great, but meanwhile the routine violation of our constitutional rights goes on.


I have stated before that SWAT has it's rightful place in law enforcement.

When there is a high risk of armed conflict during the service of a legal warrant, such as a drug dealers house.

Cutting hair without a license would be a misuse of a SWAT team.

All SWAT members should rotate through regular patrol duties so that they do not get the idea that they are not police officers and subject to the same restrictions as normal police.

When all you have is a hammer, it is easy to see only nails.

I do not know the specifics of what the police did to you so I can't really comment on it but I hope it did not result in you being charged with a crime.


----------



## Turtle

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> I have stated before that SWAT has it's rightful place in law enforcement.
> 
> When there is a high risk of armed conflict during the service of a legal warrant, such as a drug dealers house.
> 
> Cutting hair without a license would be a misuse of a SWAT team.
> 
> All SWAT members should rotate through regular patrol duties so that they do not get the idea that they are not police officers and subject to the same restrictions as normal police.
> 
> When all you have is a hammer, it is easy to see only nails.
> 
> I do not know the specifics of what the police did to you so I can't really comment on it but I hope it did not result in you being charged with a crime.


What happened to me has been discussed previously and I see no need to hijack this thread with a rehash. My reason for mentioning was as a reminder that some of us have experienced violations of our constitutional rights by LEOs.

It seems to me that if OathKeepers wants to encourage respect for the constitution. then we are in agreement on the goals, we just haven't reached a point where we agree what they are doing is working.

I agree that in really dangerous situations SWAT may be appropriate. The example of a SWAT team hitting a barbershop is a real example of misuse of SWAT and you seem to agree with me that it was inappropriate.

I don't agree that every drug warrant carries inordinate risk of violence. The risk of violence should be the criteria and one should not assume that simply because drugs are suspected that violence can be presumed. It seems to me that may have been a factor in the critically burned toddler.

We can disagree on that without ducking the question of what Oath Keepers is doing to protect 4th Amendment rights, or the overuse of SWAT in particular. At present, I am under the impression the OathKeepers has done nothing to regarding 4th Amendment rights. Please correct me if there is something that OathKeepers is doing re: 4th amendment that I am not aware of.

Turtle: It seems to me that we are close to getting some answers from BillM as to what OathKeepers is actually doing to protect our rights. I would like to think there is some middle ground in our views on law enforcement generally, but we will never find it until someone from the LEO community is prepared to recognize that the opposing views have some real basis that needs to be addressed.

I feel BillM is trying to do that and would encourage him to continue the dialog.


----------



## BillM

*Thank You*

Thank You Geek.

You have read the mission statement of the Oath Keepers.

While I wish every officer or military member was a member and held themselves to the Oath Keeper standard, it is unrealistic to believe that will be the case.

There are many fine officers who do not belong to our organization and there are undoubtedly some who belong but will fail to hold them selves to the oath when faced with opposition.

To say that if the organization can not ensure that no officer will ever again violate a suspects constitutional or civil rights is unrealistic and beyond the ability of any organization.

Oath Keepers trys to raise the bar and that is a start.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> Thank You Geek.
> 
> You have read the mission statement of the Oath Keepers.
> 
> While I wish every officer or military member was a member and held themselves to the Oath Keeper standard, it is unrealistic to believe that will be the case.
> 
> There are many fine officers who do not belong to our organization and there are undoubtedly some who belong but will fail to hold them selves to the oath when faced with opposition.
> 
> To say that if the organization can not ensure that no officer will ever again violate a suspects constitutional or civil rights is unrealistic and beyond the ability of any organization.
> 
> Oath Keepers trys to raise the bar and that is a start.


You're talking about a standard that is beyond what I am looking for. I've got real simple questions about OathKeepers.

1) Is there a gun control law that the organization will not enforce, or is it up to each individual member to decide for himself where the line is? NY SAFE act is a good example. You've already said that some members will not enforce it, which is good, but has the organization taken the position that either NY SAFE act, or any other gun control law, is unconstitutional and should not be enforced by OathKeepers? I believe it would be helpful if OathKeepers gave that sort of guidance to their members.

2) Is OathKeepers doing anything about 4th amendment violations, which I think are as bad or worse than what is going on with the 2nd amendment? Right now the website encourages SWAT. I'd love to see a statement that OathKeepers position is that SWAT is inappropriate unless there is an expectation of violence.

3) Is there any circumstance under which OathKeepers would eject a member for violating his oath? If not, we have the same flaw as the local police, i.e. a lack of enforcement where it is most needed.

If the answers are No, No and No, then I don't see them having much impact, though I wish them good luck. If the answers are Yes, Yes and Yes, then I am much more encouraged that they will have an impact and interested in knowing more specifics.

I don't expect perfection, nor have I asked for it. However, if the organization is to have an impact on public perception, or for that matter my perception, it needs to take concrete actions, such as the actions I am asking about or similar credible actions. Otherwise it sounds more like an AA program for cops. I'm sure that isn't the intent, but that's the impression given.

Whatever the status, they are where they are. If my impression of the organization is accurate, i.e. "sounds nice, but not ready to do much specific" is correct, then that's where they are. I'd rather encourage them to do more than knock them.


----------



## Turtle

Geek, I have never said that there isn't SOME validity to SOME of what you say. I'm just glad that you see there is a middle ground between you always seeming to be on the attack and the LEOs generally seeming to be on the defensive where applicable.

We can all agree that nobody is perfect. We can all agree that efforts are made on both sides to avoid tragic accidents. I think where our views diverge is our perceptions of the AMOUNT of effort on both sides. We may never agree. We are all a product of our experiences. Mine have been 95% positive with law enforcement. Yours seems to be 95% negative. All that any of us can do, really, is our own personal best. We cannot pretend to control our surroundings to the extent that we can prove the other wrong. But I can assure you that I will always hold myself to the highest standards and hold my fellows accountable for their actions. More than that you cannot ask or expect. Anything outside of that standard of behavior is an unrealistic expectation on your part. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Geek, I have never said that there isn't SOME validity to SOME of what you say. I'm just glad that you see there is a middle ground between you always seeming to be on the attack and the LEOs generally seeming to be on the defensive where applicable.
> 
> We can all agree that nobody is perfect. We can all agree that efforts are made on both sides to avoid tragic accidents. I think where our views diverge is our perceptions of the AMOUNT of effort on both sides. We may never agree. We are all a product of our experiences. Mine have been 95% positive with law enforcement. Yours seems to be 95% negative. All that any of us can do, really, is our own personal best. We cannot pretend to control our surroundings to the extent that we can prove the other wrong. But I can assure you that I will always hold myself to the highest standards and hold my fellows accountable for their actions. More than that you cannot ask or expect. Anything outside of that standard of behavior is an unrealistic expectation on your part.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


In this thread, as opposed to others in which we have had related dialogs, the question is about OathKeepers. I am not attacking them as your opening paragraph infers. I am trying to learn enough about them to form an opinion on whether they can be effective. My opinion at the moment is they are not effective, but my opinion is open to change based upon what I learn about them.

As for law enforcement in general, the issue is not whether they are 95% right or wrong, but whether the law enforcement community is trying to improve to a higher standard. Despite your comments about holding yourself or your fellows LEOs to a high standard, many of us are under the impression that normally when a LEO screws up, little effort will be made to correct the situation. Even if you think we are wrong, that's the impression we have. In my case I have actually experienced it, so I may well be the toughest sell, but I am hardly alone in the impression that LEOs will not be held to account for illegal or unconstitutional actions.

Furthermore, the dialogs on this forum have tended to reinforce that impression. In the thread about the critically burned toddler, the LEO position seemed to be that because this was a drug case, the toddler was acceptable collateral damage. Setting children on fire is not going to be acceptable to the broader public. The thread would have been much shorter and more satisfying if some LEOs had stepped up and said the burned toddler was a disastrous result, and that PD needs to take steps to improve. Instead we were left with the impression that LEOs are just plain out of touch.

The recurring theme in these threads isn't going to go away without at least some movement on the LEO side. So far there has been movement to the extent that folks like yourself and BillM are willing to agree that LEOs are not all prefect. You know there are LEOs on this forum who won't even admit to that.

If you go back and really read all those old threads where you perceive me as being "on the attack" I think you'll find that my positions are easier to agree with than you admit at the moment. I don't think setting kids on fire is acceptable and something needs to happen in the PD where that happened to avoid a repetition. Is that really an attack on cops in general? Only if you have a knee jerk reaction to always support LEOs no matter what.

It ought to be pretty easy for someone who says that his experience with LEOs is 95% positive to agree that incident is part of the 5% negative and that steps need to be taken to avoid a repeat.

To get back on the point of OathKeepers, I think that incident is so egregious that it ought to be a topic of discussion in every OathKeeper meeting in the country. That alone would earn a lot of respect with the public.


----------



## Turtle

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a burned toddler, but I cannot imagine ANY LEO bring okay with that. Children are not acceptable losses, even the children of scumbags. The children still have a chance. 

I bring up you being on the attack because every time any comment is made about law enforcement, you inevitably bring up:
1) Your personal incident in which you were apparently wronged. 

And, 

2) Your dislike of the use of SWAT teams. 

The Oath Keepers are okay with the use of SWAT teams. So are cops. That's just not going to change. They are a useful tool and they definitely have their place. Period. End of argument. You may disagree with the FREQUENCY or SCOPE of their use... but i doubt that even you can say that they should not exist. 

Truck drivers. My personal favorite whipping-boy to use as an example. Ever seen those tandem trailers that look like a little three-car-train flying down the highway? I don't like them, I don't feel safe around them, but apparently they have a purpose. Not all truckers drive them, but some are trained to do so, and do so relatively safely on a regular basis. Now, does it make sense for me, who is not a truck driver and has never had a CDL, to unilaterally say that they should not exist just because I don't like them and think they are unnecessary? Of course not. The NHTSA has determined that they can be safely operated, despite my objections. 

I'll wager that truckers accidentally injure and/or kill a lot more people than botched SWAT missions. Do you hear me calling for the responsible drivers to insist that truckers are taken off the road? I have personal experience with two truckers severely injuring members if my family. Do I constantly rail against them? No, because rationally, I know that most are professionals who can handle their job. 

So, Geek, can we drop the SWAT thing? Give it a rest. You were wronged. I apologize for that. But you NEED to move on. It's not healthy to fixate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a burned toddler, but I cannot imagine ANY LEO bring okay with that. Children are not acceptable losses, even the children of scumbags. The children still have a chance.
> 
> I bring up you being on the attack because every time any comment is made about law enforcement, you inevitably bring up:
> 1) Your personal incident in which you were apparently wronged.
> 
> And,
> 
> 2) Your dislike of the use of SWAT teams.
> 
> The Oath Keepers are okay with the use of SWAT teams. So are cops. That's just not going to change. They are a useful tool and they definitely have their place. Period. End of argument. You may disagree with the FREQUENCY or SCOPE of their use... but i doubt that even you can say that they should not exist.
> 
> Truck drivers. My personal favorite whipping-boy to use as an example. Ever seen those tandem trailers that look like a little three-car-train flying down the highway? I don't like them, I don't feel safe around them, but apparently they have a purpose. Not all truckers drive them, but some are trained to do so, and do so relatively safely on a regular basis. Now, does it make sense for me, who is not a truck driver and has never had a CDL, to unilaterally say that they should not exist just because I don't like them and think they are unnecessary? Of course not. The NHTSA has determined that they can be safely operated, despite my objections.
> 
> I'll wager that truckers accidentally injure and/or kill a lot more people than botched SWAT missions. Do you hear me calling for the responsible drivers to insist that truckers are taken off the road? I have personal experience with two truckers severely injuring members if my family. Do I constantly rail against them? No, because rationally, I know that most are professionals who can handle their job.
> 
> So, Geek, can we drop the SWAT thing? Give it a rest. You were wronged. I apologize for that. But you NEED to move on. It's not healthy to fixate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


The incident with the critically burned toddler was both the subject of a news story and a thread here quite recently. I don't recall you personally participating in that thread but you may wish to read it.

Short version: a SWAT raid on a suspected drug dealer included a flash bang tossed into the playpen of a 15 month old child resulting in the child having burns over 50% of his body. The suspect was not at home when this occurred.

If you are going to understand where a large part of the discontent with LEOs comes from you should follow these stories. You should also read Radley Balko's book. You don't have to agree with this stuff, but you won't understand why many of us see cops the way we do if you ignore the national news on the subject.


----------



## Turtle

I did go back and find the thread. I didn't add to it because it seems to have been pretty thoroughly addressed. 

As I said prior to reading it, no LEO, or any conscionable human being, could rationally say that burning a baby is acceptable. That was a terrible, terrible side effect of an otherwise acceptable tactic. 

I missed that particular story, but it doesn't mean that I keep my head in the sand regarding the news. Frankly, items of national security are of far greater concern and relevance to me. Like most of us, I do my best to stay abreast of what is going on in the world, but I have an actual life outside of the magical realm of Teh Interwebz. 

I'm not familiar with the book you mentioned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I did go back and find the thread. I didn't add to it because it seems to have been pretty thoroughly addressed.
> 
> As I said prior to reading it, no LEO, or any conscionable human being, could rationally say that burning a baby is acceptable. That was a terrible, terrible side effect of an otherwise acceptable tactic.
> 
> I missed that particular story, but it doesn't mean that I keep my head in the sand regarding the news. Frankly, items of national security are of far greater concern and relevance to me. Like most of us, I do my best to stay abreast of what is going on in the world, but I have an actual life outside of the magical realm of Teh Interwebz.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the book you mentioned.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


SWAT may be an acceptable tactic, but ths case was a monumental screw up and neither the PD nor the LEOs on the thread wanted to agree to any sort of investigation of what went wrong or change to prevent a reoccurrence.

If you think that outcome was unacceptable pease note that the main LEO participant wanted to blame the whole fiasco on the suspect and change nothing from the LEO side. That is an unacceptable ducking of responsibility. If SWAT raids can't be conducted without this sort of injury, then I woud say SWAT is NOT an acceptable tactic.

From my perspective the LEO participants in that thread are coverng up gross violaton of the rights of that child and. I hope the PD gets tagged for milions..

Radley Balko's book can be found on Amazon. T would probably be good readng for every LEO, whether you agree with him or not.


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> SWAT may be an acceptable tactic, but ths case was a monumental screw up and neither the PD nor the LEOs on the thread wanted to agree to any sort of investigation of what went wrong or change to prevent a reoccurrence.
> 
> If you think that outcome was unacceptable pease note that the main LEO participant wanted to blame the whole fiasco on the suspect and change nothing from the LEO side. That is an unacceptable ducking of responsibility. If SWAT raids can't be conducted without this sort of injury, then I woud say SWAT is NOT an acceptable tactic.
> 
> From my perspective the LEO participants in that thread are coverng up gross violaton of the rights of that child and. I hope the PD gets tagged for milions..
> 
> Radley Balko's book can be found on Amazon. T would probably be good readng for every LEO, whether you agree with him or not.


See, I can't say that if I were in the exact same position, that I would have done anything differently, either. The tactic is sound. That particular turn of events is tragic, but it is impossible to predict, prepare, and prevent every eventuality and possible outcome. You could do all the homework that you want, months of surveillance, have a dozen sources that point to that house being a crack den for Al Qaeda snipers, and when you actually open the door? A bus full of nuns and orphans dressed in polyester jumpsuits holding ten litters of fluffy kittens could be inside using the phone because their bus broke down. Pop a stun grenade, and POOF! They all go up like Roman candles.

As someone said in the other thread, it was irresponsible of the parent of that child to bring the child into a house used to manufacture or distribute drugs.

So, to recap:

SWAT = good; burning babies = bad. 
Cop doing his job, keeping a neighborhood safe = good; scumbag parent failing to look out for their child and provide a safe environment = bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> See, I can't say that if I were in the exact same position, that I would have done anything differently, either. The tactic is sound. That particular turn of events is tragic, but it is impossible to predict, prepare, and prevent every eventuality and possible outcome. You could do all the homework that you want, months of surveillance, have a dozen sources that point to that house being a crack den for Al Qaeda snipers, and when you actually open the door? A bus full of nuns and orphans dressed in polyester jumpsuits holding ten litters of fluffy kittens could be inside using the phone because their bus broke down. Pop a stun grenade, and POOF! They all go up like Roman candles.
> 
> As someone said in the other thread, it was irresponsible of the parent of that child to bring the child into a house used to manufacture or distribute drugs.
> 
> So, to recap:
> 
> SWAT = good; burning babies = bad.
> Cop doing his job, keeping a neighborhood safe = good; scumbag parent failing to look out for their child and provide a safe environment = bad.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


If SWAT can't be used without injuring toddlers, then I disagree that it is sound.

Suggestions that came from non-LEOs included:

Investigate what went wrong.
Determine whether a SWAT raid was appropriiate iin thiis case.
Verify who is in the house.
Verify that the suspect was present.
Avoid the use of flashbangs
Look where flashbangs are to be thrown before using them.
Determine whether procedures were followed.

The LEOs on the thread rejected all suggestions for improvement. They would attack another child tomorrow and not lose sleep over it.

The non-LEOs on the thread were basically of the posiition that the safety of the child took precedence over the arrest of a drug dealer.

That difference is what all of these threads are about.

To connect this back to Oathkeepers: How are Oathkeepers going to avoid this kind of outcome? I can't support an organization that. Thinks this sort of conduct doesn't even need to be investigated.


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> If SWAT can't be used without injuring toddlers, then I disagree that it is sound.
> 
> Suggestions that came from non-LEOs included:
> 
> Investigate what went wrong.
> Determine whether a SWAT raid was appropriiate iin thiis case.
> Verify who is in the house.
> Verify that the suspect was present.
> Avoid the use of flashbangs
> Look where flashbangs are to be thrown before using them.
> Determine whether procedures were followed.
> 
> The LEOs on the thread rejected all suggestions for improvement. They would attack another child tomorrow and not lose sleep over it.
> 
> The non-LEOs on the thread were basically of the posiition that the safety of the child took precedence over the arrest of a drug dealer.
> 
> That difference is what all of these threads are about.
> 
> To connect this back to Oathkeepers: How are Oathkeepers going to avoid this kind of outcome? I can't support an organization that. Thinks this sort of conduct doesn't even need to be investigated.


You are missing the point. There wasn't supposed to be any toddlers in the house! As I said, you cannot scrap an otherwise effective tool due to an inability to predict the future with 100% accuracy! To think otherwise is absolutely insane.

The possibility exists, that on my way home tonight, a child could run out into the street in front of my car, chasing after a ball. Should I not drive home because that MAY happen? Or should I continue using an effective tool in the manner in which it was designed, as safely as possible, and take all steps possible to avoid an accident? If a kid were to run out in front of me, would you insist that cars cannot be controlled unless you can guarantee that zero accidents will ever occur and demand that all cars be immediately taken off the road?

As for the suggestions, a lot of those would occur naturally as part of an after-action report. Of course the first questions will be: what went right and what went wrong? Was is within our control? How do we fix it? How do we do it better next time?

I have only been part of SWAT activity a handful of times, but each time it was followed by all of the officers reviewing exactly that. At the bare minimum, the lieutenant in charge of the unit is there, usually the specialty unit major as well, if he is working.

How can you think otherwise? Do you think that we are soul-less killing machines who delight in causing death and destruction? That this is like a Stallone or Schwartzeneiger movie, where everybody gives high-fives, a slap on the back, and then cracks open a keg while scantily clad women dance?

This is serious. This is life and death. And we deal with it every day. To think that we don't take it seriously is a slap in the face.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> You are missing the point. There wasn't supposed to be any toddlers in the house! As I said, you cannot scrap an otherwise effective tool due to an inability to predict the future with 100% accuracy! To think otherwise is absolutely insane.
> 
> The possibility exists, that on my way home tonight, a child could run out into the street in front of my car, chasing after a ball. Should I not drive home because that MAY happen? Or should I continue using an effective tool in the manner in which it was designed, as safely as possible, and take all steps possible to avoid an accident? If a kid were to run out in front of me, would you insist that cars cannot be controlled unless you can guarantee that zero accidents will ever occur and demand that all cars be immediately taken off the road?
> 
> As for the suggestions, a lot of those would occur naturally as part of an after-action report. Of course the first questions will be: what went right and what went wrong? Was is within our control? How do we fix it? How do we do it better next time?
> 
> I have only been part of SWAT activity a handful of times, but each time it was followed by all of the officers reviewing exactly that. At the bare minimum, the lieutenant in charge of the unit is there, usually the specialty unit major as well, if he is working.
> 
> How can you think otherwise? Do you think that we are soul-less killing machines who delight in causing death and destruction? That this is like a Stallone or Schwartzeneiger movie, where everybody gives high-fives, a slap on the back, and then cracks open a keg while scantily clad women dance?
> 
> This is serious. This is life and death. And we deal with it every day. To think that we don't take it seriously is a slap in the face.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


If you hit a toddler with your car it would be investigated. There does not appear to have been any investigation in this case but there are a tring of things that could have been done better starting with making sure the guy they wanted was there.

You are the only LEO to suggest that any post action review may have been conducted and if one was conducted the results have been kept from the public, I.e. Coverup.


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> If you hit a toddler with your car it would be investigated. There does not appear to have been any investigation in this case but there are a tring of things that could have been done better starting with making sure the guy they wanted was there.
> 
> You are the only LEO to suggest that any post action review may have been conducted and if one was conducted the results have been kept from the public, I.e. Coverup.


Haha, I didn't release the grades of the last class that I taught to the public, either... Is that a cover-up, too? Records like that would not be released to the general public, not should they be. Don't be looking to create a conspiracy where there is none. I can almost guarantee you with 99% certainty that this was reviewed. And if it wasn't? Then you are damned-straight correct that it SHOULD have been.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## BillM

*After Action*

Geek, there is always an after action report done following every SWAT entry or action.

I was not there but I can well imagine the tears shed when the flash bang burnt the baby .

I am also sure that there was not supposed to be children in the house according to the best intelligence available of flash bangs would not have been used.

Car chases are a point of contention when police engage in the pursuit of a fleeing vehicle. When the crash kills an innocent victim who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It may turn out that the person who runs from the police has an expired license but they just lose it and run. Looking at a situation after the fact, you are in possession of facts the police did not have at the time. The person who chose to run, may be kidnaping the passenger or they may have just committed a murder, robbery, rape, ect.

The officer has to make an instant decision and act with his experience and judgment.

Because he goes to work every day wearing lethal weapons and deals with criminals who may kill him or worse innocent persons. Because he drives in high speed pursuits and serves warrants wherein someone is armed on the other side of the door and the other side of the law, accidents occasionally happen. It is the nature of the job !

Every officer I ever worked with, took the job to help make the community a safer place and it was common place for us to place ourselves in danger to protect the people of our county from the wolves.

Until you have done the job they do, you will never understand how dangerous it really is.


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Haha, I didn't release the grades of the last class that I taught to the public, either... Is that a cover-up, too? Records like that would not be released to the general public, not should they be. Don't be looking to create a conspiracy where there is none. I can almost guarantee you with 99% certainty that this was reviewed. And if it wasn't? Then you are damned-straight correct that it SHOULD have been.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Well, at least we agree that a review should have taken place. (I would go for an independent investigation. As you know I do not automatically trust cops to investigate themselves.) There is no evidence a review took place or that any changes are forthcoming.

I sincerely hope there is a massive lawsuit in this case which brings everything to light and takes care of the needs of that child.

Getting back to SWAT generally, you made. The comment that SWAT is "tactically sound" and others have said that SWAT is a "proven" technique.

Unless someone can explain those positions in light of not only this case, but raids on organic farms, barber shops, the wrong houses, etc. I have to place that one up there with "global warming is proven science".

And to stay on topic with OathKeepers, I'd say since they support SWAT, they need to figure out how to square that with all the SWAT screwups that occur.


----------



## painter

I've been following this thread. I don't know how to quote text from my phone unfortunately ...

But I tend to agree with Geek on this one. The impressions I have gotten from LEO on this issue in this thread is precisely that:
(1) no post-event review need be done
(2) the infant's safety and present condition are not even worthy of concern

I myself find that rather abhorrent.

This is where any disconnect between the citizenry and LE side lies.



Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> Geek, there is always an after action report done following every SWAT entry or action.
> 
> I was not there but I can well imagine the tears shed when the flash bang burnt the baby .
> 
> I am also sure that there was not supposed to be children in the house according to the best intelligence available of flash bangs would not have been used.
> 
> Car chases are a point of contention when police engage in the pursuit of a fleeing vehicle. When the crash kills an innocent victim who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It may turn out that the person who runs from the police has an expired license but they just lose it and run. Looking at a situation after the fact, you are in possession of facts the police did not have at the time. The person who chose to run, may be kidnaping the passenger or they may have just committed a murder, robbery, rape, ect.
> 
> The officer has to make an instant decision and act with his experience and judgment.
> 
> Because he goes to work every day wearing lethal weapons and deals with criminals who may kill him or worse innocent persons. Because he drives in high speed pursuits and serves warrants wherein someone is armed on the other side of the door and the other side of the law, accidents occasionally happen. It is the nature of the job !
> 
> Every officer I ever worked with, took the job to help make the community a safer place and it was common place for us to place ourselves in danger to protect the people of our county from the wolves.
> 
> Until you have done the job they do, you will never understand how dangerous it really is.


Two votes for an internal review. That's good. Somehow the PD in this case was able to publicly claim everything was okay within a day. I think an independent review is approprate in this case, perhaps every case in which someone is injured. After all the claim is SWAT is safer.

Does anybody have stats on how many times innocent people are killed or injured in SWAT raids? How many dogs are killed? How much property damage occurs?

As for LEOs wanting to make things safer, I just can't reconcile that with my local PD. Re: doing the job (SWAT), I am not convinced it should be done. Until we are past that hurdle that is a moot point.


----------



## Geek999

painter said:


> I've been following this thread. I don't know how to quote text from my phone unfortunately ...
> 
> But I tend to agree with Geek on this one. The impressions I have gotten from LEO on this issue in this thread is precisely that:
> (1) no post-event review need be done
> (2) the infant's safety and present condition are not even worthy of concern
> 
> I myself find that rather abhorrent.
> 
> This is where any disconnect between the citizenry and LE side lies.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I think it is easier for the LEOs if they think I am some sort of lone nutjob. 

These LEOs are actually much better than the ones who participated in the earlier thread. They came off as totally lacking in human empathy. These just need to figure out that sometimes the right answer is "knock on the door" even if it is passe.


----------



## Turtle

painter said:


> I've been following this thread. I don't know how to quote text from my phone unfortunately ...
> 
> But I tend to agree with Geek on this one. The impressions I have gotten from LEO on this issue in this thread is precisely that:
> (1) no post-event review need be done
> (2) the infant's safety and present condition are not even worthy of concern
> 
> I myself find that rather abhorrent.
> 
> This is where any disconnect between the citizenry and LE side lies.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I literally cannot begin to fathom where you begin to get those opinions, because the very first thing that I said was that it is terrible that an innocent suffered so greatly. The last thing I said was that a review of the incident would be conducted as a matter of routine procedure, and if it hasn't been, it damned sure should have.

No offense, but a quote would back up your position. I can't imagine how/why you came to that erroneous conclusion.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> I think it is easier for the LEOs if they think I am some sort of lone nutjob.
> 
> These LEOs are actually much better than the ones who participated in the earlier thread. They came off as totally lacking in human empathy. These just need to figure out that sometimes the right answer is "knock on the door" even if it is passe.


I'll acknowledge that if you will acknowledge that sometimes the right answer is "blow the f***er off of its hinges, dump bodies through the door, and dominate the scene before the bad guys can reach a gun and try to kill us. ".

They both have their place.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I literally cannot begin to fathom where you begin to get those opinions, because the very first thing that I said was that it is terrible that an innocent suffered so greatly. The last thing I said was that a review of the incident would be conducted as a matter of routine procedure, and if it hasn't been, it damned sure should have.
> 
> No offense, but a quote would back up your position. I can't imagine how/why you came to that erroneous conclusion.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I don't think he was reacting to you personally. He was reacting to the news, the comments of others on this topic, and voicing a general impression of how LEOs operate.

In case you didn't notice, we did have an LEO in the original thread who really didn't seem to care what happened to the child. Your expression of concern for the child is appreciated.

I'll ask a simple question that actually has something to do with Oathkeepers. I'd like BillM's view as well. I have said previously that LEOs have a PR problem, even if they are as noble as they think they are. There is a swath of the law abiding public that just doesn't trust them due to a mix of bad personal experiences, awareness of bad cops, news stories about cops setting kids on fire, etc.

It seems to me that Oathkeepers, by its very existence is an acknowledgement that there is a problem, either real or of a PR nature, but a problem nonetheless. What do you think Oathkeepers can do to improve the public perception of LEOs?


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> I don't think he was reacting to you personally. He was reacting to the news, the comments of others on this topic, and voicing a general impression of how LEOs operate.
> 
> In case you didn't notice, we did have an LEO in the original thread who really didn't seem to care what happened to the child. Your expression of concern for the child is appreciated.
> 
> I'll ask a simple question that actually has something to do with Oathkeepers. I'd like BillM's view as well. I have said previously that LEOs have a PR problem, even if they are as noble as they think they are. There is a swath of the law abiding public that just doesn't trust them due to a mix of bad personal experiences, awareness of bad cops, news stories about cops setting kids on fire, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that Oathkeepers, by its very existence is an acknowledgement that there is a problem, either real or of a PR nature, but a problem nonetheless. What do you think Oathkeepers can do to improve the public perception of LEOs?


I don't think that there is a majority of the population who mistrust us. I know that is a PORTION, but I would say that it is far from a majority.

I would say that the best thing we can do, as OathKeepers or simply as officers on the job or soldiers on deployment, is continue to embody the image of courteous professionalism which is generally attributed to men and women in uniform. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people in uniform get in to this calling because we are compelled to protect the weak, hold criminals accountable for their actions, and ensure that justice is served.

Throughout policing, there has been an effort to trend back to "community oriented policing". Departments are recognizing how crucial it really is for officers to connect with the citizens whom they protect.

I've said it before and I will say it again: why does no one ever wonder if it is possible that the mainstream media, which is so intent upon dividing this country, seems so eager to smear police officers in recent years? To undermine the public trust in those sworn to protect the people? Of course there have been people throughout history who have abused their power, and a small number of police officers have done the same over the years. But there are now far more people in this country who disrespect or outright hate police officers than ever before, while professionalism and accountability have only increased.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I don't think that there is a majority of the population who mistrust us. I know that is a PORTION, but I would say that it is far from a majority.
> 
> I would say that the best thing we can do, as OathKeepers or simply as officers on the job or soldiers on deployment, is continue to embody the image of courteous professionalism which is generally attributed to men and women in uniform. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people in uniform get in to this calling because we are compelled to protect the weak, hold criminals accountable for their actions, and ensure that justice is served.
> 
> Throughout policing, there has been an effort to trend back to "community oriented policing". Departments are recognizing how crucial it really is for officers to connect with the citizens whom they protect.
> 
> I've said it before and I will say it again: why does no one ever wonder if it is possible that the mainstream media, which is so intent upon dividing this country, seems so eager to smear police officers in recent years? To undermine the public trust in those sworn to protect the people? Of course there have been people throughout history who have abused their power, and a small number of police officers have done the same over the years. But there are now far more people in this country who disrespect or outright hate police officers than ever before, while professionalism and accountability have only increased.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I haven't claimed a majority, . . .yet. The number is growing however, as you state: "there are now far more people in this country who disrespect or outright hate police officers than ever before". That is the PR problem I am talking about.

IMHO SWAT is one reason for the problem. Every hit on the wrong house, barber shop, organic farm, burned kid, innocent person shot thinking a home invasion is occurring, is a legitimate news story. The news may not get everything right, but they aren't inventing these stories either.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination on the part of the public to realize anyone's house could be the next wrong house hit. Maybe your own child will get burned when your house is hit based on a false tip.

BTW: As far as the media goes, LEOs have it easy compared to bankers.


----------



## painter

Turtle said:


> I literally cannot begin to fathom where you begin to get those opinions, because the very first thing that I said was that it is terrible that an innocent suffered so greatly. The last thing I said was that a review of the incident would be conducted as a matter of routine procedure, and if it hasn't been, it damned sure should have.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I had figured out quoting before, I would have been more clear.

I did mean to say the impression I had gotten from LEO was what I posted .... UP UNTIL THE POINT YOU ARRIVED. You were clearly very reasonable about it, and I appreciate that!

And Geek was correct, I believe it was a different thread (not this one) where the raid was discussed with the opinions I found, let's say, less than stellar.

Again, I really appreciate your views on the issue, thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> I haven't claimed a majority, . . .yet. The number is growing however, as you state: "there are now far more people in this country who disrespect or outright hate police officers than ever before". That is the PR problem I am talking about.
> 
> IMHO SWAT is one reason for the problem. Every hit on the wrong house, barber shop, organic farm, burned kid, innocent person shot thinking a home invasion is occurring, is a legitimate news story. The news may not get everything right, but they aren't inventing these stories either.
> 
> It doesn't take a lot of imagination on the part of the public to realize anyone's house could be the next wrong house hit. Maybe your own child will get burned when your house is hit based on a false tip.
> 
> BTW: As far as the media goes, LEOs have it easy compared to bankers.


Well, that's because everyone knows that bankers are all greedy, soul-less bottom feeders, only one step above lawyers. 

My point is that the media spins things. We all know that. A lot of these things are not as bad as they are made out to be, but the stories get spun to maximize sensationalism.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Turtle

painter said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I had figured out quoting before, I would have been more clear.
> 
> I did mean to say the impression I had gotten from LEO was what I posted .... UP UNTIL THE POINT YOU ARRIVED. You were clearly very reasonable about it, and I appreciate that!
> 
> And Geek was correct, I believe it was a different thread (not this one) where the raid was discussed with the opinions I found, let's say, less than stellar.
> 
> Again, I really appreciate your views on the issue, thanks.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


No apology necessary, my friend. I simply didn't want there to be any misunderstandings as to my stance on the matter.

Unfortunately, this is one of those topics on which everyone has an opinion, and for those of us who are in the thick of it on a daily basis, those opinions can get heated.

But, at the end of the day, that's the reason that we are all here; to share opinions and learn new perspectives.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Well, that's because everyone knows that bankers are all greedy, soul-less bottom feeders, only one step above lawyers.
> 
> My point is that the media spins things. We all know that. A lot of these things are not as bad as they are made out to be, but the stories get spun to maximize sensationalism.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I got your point about the media. I just don't buy that it is all media spin and that cops are the good guys in these cases. For instance, the story under discussion definitely has a critically burned toddler. LEOs on this very forum, in the other thread, left several of us with the impression that they were okay with that. The media didn't do that. LEOs did with their own words. Believe it or not, my already low opinion of LEOs dropped another notch because of LEOs right here on this forum.

Are we in agreement that LEOs have a PR problem? You seemed to acknowledge it. The existence of OathKeepers seems to acknowledge it as well.

If so, we can perhaps discuss what OathKeepers can do about it. You mentioned earlier simply doing their jobs professionally. That is certainly a good idea. It would be novel in NJ.  However, it will be inadequate if the cause of the problem is not simply media.


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> I got your point about the media. I just don't buy that it is all media spin and that cops are the good guys in these cases. For instance, the story under discussion definitely has a critically burned toddler. LEOs on this very forum, in the other thread, left several of us with the impression that they were okay with that. The media didn't do that. LEOs did with their own words. Believe it or not, my already low opinion of LEOs dropped another notch because of LEOs right here on this forum.
> 
> Are we in agreement that LEOs have a PR problem? You seemed to acknowledge it. The existence of OathKeepers seems to acknowledge it as well.
> 
> If so, we can perhaps discuss what OathKeepers can do about it. You mentioned earlier simply doing their jobs professionally. That is certainly a good idea. It would be novel in NJ.  However, it will be inadequate if the cause of the problem is not simply media.


Using the story of the burned toddler is a perfect example. The cop that threw that stun grenade (to my knowledge) did nothing wrong. He was using a proven tool, a proven technique, and did so legally and within the scope of his powers. The END RESULT of the toddler being burned is NOT HIS FAULT. they were acting on the best information they had, and it seemed like a good time to move on the target.

No, I can't agree that police, as a whole, have a PR problem. I think that police are an easy target for media smear campaigns, because we put ourselves out there in the public eye and are constantly visible. I think that the VAST majority of cops are good people doing a good job on a daily basis. But whenever you have a visible public servant with any sort of authority, they are (rightly) subject to scrutiny. This is why cops strive to set a good example and stay above reproach. Of course, there are some within any organization who will fall short. Even the best will mess up. That's being human.

OathKeepers is not a PR firm. That was never their intent. They exist to stand up to corruption in government. If they were about PR, they would be going to parades, kissing hands and shaking babies. Their purpose is to make a public declaration that there are men and women in uniform who will not follow orders which conflict with the Constitution.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Using the story of the burned toddler is a perfect example. The cop that threw that stun grenade (to my knowledge) did nothing wrong. He was using a proven tool, a proven technique, and did so legally and within the scope of his powers. The END RESULT of the toddler being burned is NOT HIS FAULT. they were acting on the best information they had, and it seemed like a good time to move on the target.
> 
> No, I can't agree that police, as a whole, have a PR problem. I think that police are an easy target for media smear campaigns, because we put ourselves out there in the public eye and are constantly visible. I think that the VAST majority of cops are good people doing a good job on a daily basis. But whenever you have a visible public servant with any sort of authority, they are (rightly) subject to scrutiny. This is why cops strive to set a good example and stay above reproach. Of course, there are some within any organization who will fall short. Even the best will mess up. That's being human.
> 
> OathKeepers is not a PR firm. That was never their intent. They exist to stand up to corruption in government. If they were about PR, they would be going to parades, kissing hands and shaking babies. Their purpose is to make a public declaration that there are men and women in uniform who will not follow orders which conflict with the Constitution.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


You are focused too narrowly. If you were to tell me that the problem with the toddler was faulty intelligence and PD needs a higher standard of intelligence before conducting a raid and that was the issue rather than the specific officer who threw the grenade, that would be a useful viewpoint.

The idea that these raids can be conducted with such disastrous results and life just goes on with no changes to procedures and no accountability to anyone is unacceptable to me and to most non-LEOs.

Something needs to change to prevent a repeat. Without some action to avoid a recurrence then these raids should stop totally. Too many innocents are being harmed.


----------



## Geek999

This seems to provide some additional information about the incident under discussion.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/24/military-us-police-swat-teams-raids-aclu


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

Talking about the burned toddler again is pointless. Geek, you have made up your mind that the blame is law enforcements and no logic will apparently change that. Not really fair imo but you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.


----------



## Geek999

CrackbottomLouis said:


> Talking about the burned toddler again is pointless. Geek, you have made up your mind that the blame is law enforcements and no logic will apparently change that. Not really fair imo but you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.


There has been no logic or argument offered as to why SWAT is used for routine warrants. There have simply been assertions that it is "proven", or "safer" or "tactically sound" despite all the stories to the contrary.

No one has offered any basis for these claims. If you have something to offer that goes beyond "I am an LEO and you aren't so take my word for it." Then I'll certainly read what you post.


----------



## Turtle

Serving warrants:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/why-the-spike-in-shootings-of-u-s-marshals

Young Marshal killed in the line of duty while serving a warrant:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021706600.html

This is just one agency, but I selected them because they specialize in serving warrants and apprehending fugitives. The second article ends by saying that if they had had better equipment or more men, the young man may still be alive.

They serve an average of around 40,000 warrants each year. They don't lose a lot of deputies, because they know what level of force it takes to apprehend an individual. Sometimes it is two or three deputies knocking on a door. Sometimes it is a tactical unit kicking in a door at 4am.

SWAT units have a purpose. They work. Ever hear the saying that if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics must suck? We all know that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, right? Well, SWAT is like bringing a gun to a knife fight. You always want to be at least one level above the guy you are fighting. That just ensures that your odds of survival are higher.

The story where the young Marshal was killed and two others were wounded serving a "routine warrant"? If they had used a tactical team, that good man may not be dead. It only takes a few losses like that before you realize, better safe than sorry.

I don't think you are aware of the number of warrants served every year. The number of SWAT accidents are so tiny, they are statistically insignificant.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Serving warrants:
> 
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/why-the-spike-in-shootings-of-u-s-marshals
> 
> Young Marshal killed in the line of duty while serving a warrant:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021706600.html
> 
> This is just one agency, but I selected them because they specialize in serving warrants and apprehending fugitives. The second article ends by saying that if they had had better equipment or more men, the young man may still be alive.
> 
> They serve an average of around 40,000 warrants each year. They don't lose a lot of deputies, because they know what level of force it takes to apprehend an individual. Sometimes it is two or three deputies knocking on a door. Sometimes it is a tactical unit kicking in a door at 4am.
> 
> SWAT units have a purpose. They work. Ever hear the saying that if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics must suck? We all know that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, right? Well, SWAT is like bringing a gun to a knife fight. You always want to be at least one level above the guy you are fighting. That just ensures that your odds of survival are higher.
> 
> The story where the young Marshal was killed and two others were wounded serving a "routine warrant"? If they had used a tactical team, that good man may not be dead. It only takes a few losses like that before you realize, better safe than sorry.
> 
> I don't think you are aware of the number of warrants served every year. The number of SWAT accidents are so tiny, they are statistically insignificant.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


According to the first article the losses were the first for the Marshalls in 20 years. Not bad. That would seem to indicate that LEOs have some risk, but it is a lot lower than it is for the folks being arrested.

Unfortunately the number of SWAT accidents is not tiny as you assert and your articles don't support that position. The only way you can conclude they are tiny is to have some real stats which I've never seen. The last link I posted referred to 7 civilian deaths and 46 injuries out of a sample they looked at. If LEOs keep stats on their screw ups I'd take them as the lowest possible measure as we've already had the PD Chief for the burned toddler come out publicly saying essentially "that went well". It appears that civilian deaths don't matter to LEOs.

How much property damage is there? If it averages $500 to replace a damaged door you're talking $30,000,000 just in doors. How many dogs are shot? Most importantly, how much difficulty were people put through to get compensated for these losses? What is done when police discover they have hit the wrong house, which I'll define as one where a) it isn't the right address, b) the person they are looking for isn't there, c) the person they are after turns out to be innocent.

I don't know what the conviction rate is for SWAT specific raids, (another who cares number for the LEOs) but overall it is about 90% for criminal cases. Not bad, but if the rate holds for SWAT raids, then with 60,000 raids a year that means 6,000 SWAT raids on innocent families every year just on c. alone.

Were those families compensated for the damage done to their homes? Were they compensated for their dogs that were killed? Were they compensated for injuries they sustained? These are huge costs being fobbed off on innocent people.

Then we also have the issue of when the address is right, and an arrest and conviction might follow, but the cops maim or kill someone they were supposed to arrest, or injure another household member who wasn't the target. Is this measured?

I'm still left with the sense of LEOs (collectively, not you personally) being so callous about the injuries and damage they are causing, that they don't even track the cost to the public in money and ruined, or lost, lives.

If the only measure of whether these tactics work is how many LEOs are killed, with no thought to how many civilians are killed or harmed, then LEOs just don't give a hoot about the public's safety. If they don't track it, and don't measure it, then they have no basis for claiming it is "safer", or "proven", etc.

I think if PDs even had to pay for the doors they destroy, let alone be held accountable for deaths and injuries to innocent parties, this whole trend would come to a screeching halt.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

So we, as taxpayers, should have to pay for the doors of criminals when police have to kick them in to protec5 the public? Thats asinine. Rethink that one.


----------



## Turtle

Okay, you want stats? 
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125876

This is an old article, but it will give us some round numbers to work with.

The article mentions that there are 789,000 warrants in the FBI's database for felonies and serious misdemeanors, thought he number is actually far higher because states are not required to list all warrants. The article further states that California alone has 252,000 and Florida has 325,000. So, I am sure there is some overlap, but just for good round numbers and to cover the difference from other states lets add those numbers together. That comes out to 1,366,000. Almost a million and a half warrants. You mentioned 7 civilian deaths. Those are pretty good odds.

I'm sorry, but sometimes? It just goes sideways. Poop happens. People get hurt on both sides that shouldn't. But until you find a way to predict the future and control every imaginable possible outcome, accidents will continue to happen, despite our best efforts. If you expect perfection, then that is your own issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

CrackbottomLouis said:


> So we, as taxpayers, should have to pay for the doors of criminals when police have to kick them in to protec5 the public? Thats asinine. Rethink that one.


That's great. You've convicted the person beforre you've arrested them.

And yes, you should pay for damages whenever you fail to get a conviction and even when you do get a conviction if someone other than the person you are trying to arrest owns the property. Kicking in the door is NOT a requirement. It is a choice made by the police.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

Geek999 said:


> That's great. You've convicted the person beforre you've arrested them.
> 
> And yes, you should pay for damages whenever you fail to get a conviction and even when you do get a conviction if someone other than the person you are trying to arrest owns the property. Kicking in the door is NOT a requirement. It is a choice made by the police.


You didnt specify "if they fail to get a conviction". And you made it sound as if they just go around shooting peoples pets at every opportunity. Not all your points are bad but maybe a little fairness in the discussion would help us all see how close together we actually are on the subject. I do think swat has a place in law enforcement. I do believe it should be reserved for extreme cases. I do believe it is overused now and would like to see other tactics used instead. No knock warrants should be used even less frequently. Misuse of swat and mistakes on addresses should lead to charges or some type of punishment for law enforcement and judicial parties involved. On the other hand we do have some pretty sophisticated and dangerous criminal enterprises in this country and am not opposed to giving law enforcement the means to fight them in as an effective and safe manner as possible. I also believe that mistakes made (while not acceptable) are fewer than the impression media leaves us with. I also am an oathkeeper and believe the organization is a good one with great intent and wish to see it become more outspoken and effective over time due to wider support and decisive leadership. While some of your points are very good geek you do seem to have very harsh views on law enforcement and you certainly dont miss an opportunity to have this same discussion over and over again with the same end result. Beginning to sound like an annoying broken record a bit. Im sorry if thats offensive but its true. If you dont like law enforcement join it and change it with your leadership. If you dont want to join it start a more effective group than oathkeepers. Get a law degree and fight the system in the courts. Anything would be more effective than simply rehashing this same converastion ad nauseum.


----------



## Geek999

CrackbottomLouis said:


> You didnt specify "if they fail to get a conviction".


I specified wrong addresses, right address but suspect is not there or doesn't live there and later found innocent.

Absent any hard stats I am estimating over 6000 such raids per year based on overall conviction rates for criminal offenses.

The cops should pay for every bit of damage in these cases.


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Okay, you want stats?
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125876
> 
> This is an old article, but it will give us some round numbers to work with.
> 
> The article mentions that there are 789,000 warrants in the FBI's database for felonies and serious misdemeanors, thought he number is actually far higher because states are not required to list all warrants. The article further states that California alone has 252,000 and Florida has 325,000. So, I am sure there is some overlap, but just for good round numbers and to cover the difference from other states lets add those numbers together. That comes out to 1,366,000. Almost a million and a half warrants. You mentioned 7 civilian deaths. Those are pretty good odds.
> 
> I'm sorry, but sometimes? It just goes sideways. Poop happens. People get hurt on both sides that shouldn't. But until you find a way to predict the future and control every imaginable possible outcome, accidents will continue to happen, despite our best efforts. If you expect perfection, then that is your own issue.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Overall warrants, most of which are not served with SWAT tactics are not relevant. The 7 innocent civilian deaths and 46 injuries was out of a small sample of SWAT raids covered by the study. I don't know if the numbers would hold over all SWAT raids or be better or worse.

It still looks to me like cops don't care enough about the safety of others to even track the numbers.


----------



## Turtle

I'm sure the stats exist. I didn't find them during a quick google search on my phone. Honestly, it isn't worth my time to research it further to keep banging my head against the wall to try to influence your opinion, when I am rather certain that it will never change. 








Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I'm sure the stats exist. I didn't find them during a quick google search on my phone. Honestly, it isn't worth my time to research it further to keep banging my head against the wall to try to influence your opinion, when I am rather certain that it will never change.
> View attachment 8906
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I think the stats are with Lois Lerner's emails.

More importantly, without some measure of injuries and property damage to innocent peope there is no way to support the idea that SWAT raids are safer.

If you want to drop the topic that's your perogative, but if you want to influence my opinion insults are a poor way to go about it.


----------



## Turtle

Geek999 said:


> I think the stats are with Lois Lerner's emails.
> 
> More importantly, without some measure of injuries and property damage to innocent peope there is no way to support the idea that SWAT raids are safer.
> 
> If you want to drop the topic that's your perogative, but if you want to influence my opinion insults are a poor way to go about it.


I never insulted you. I implied that it is pointless to argue with you on a topic about which you are inflexible.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> I never insulted you. I implied that it is pointless to argue with you on a topic about which you are inflexible.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


I'm not infexible. I simply do not accept the idea that SWAT raids are safer for non-LEOs on nothing more than an assertion that defies common sense.

It is very clear that if the police want to arrest the guy next door and come to my house in error that I am safer with a knock on the door than a SWAT raid. If you want to convnce me otherwise then you need to introduce more than an assertion it is safer.

For instance, I could be convinced by some real stats on civilian casuaties and property damage. I could be convinced by a reasoned explanation of how it is safer despite common sense telling me the opposite. I could be somewhat mollified by knowing that innocents who were harmed were taken care of properly.

The only thing forrthcomng is you and other LEOs claming it is safer without anything to back up the claim. That makes me skeptical, not inflexible and in that context your prior post was an insult.


----------



## myrtle55

I just wondered about info on Oath Keepers. I am sorry I got everyone all riled up


----------



## Turtle

myrtle55 said:


> I just wondered about info on Oath Keepers. I am sorry I got everyone all riled up


Not your fault. It's an old issue which keeps getting rehashed. Which is better, Ford or Chevy? Jeep or Toyota? 9mm or .40? Letting bad guys get away to hurt more people or using proven techniques to limit the damage.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> I just wondered about info on Oath Keepers. I am sorry I got everyone all riled up


It is not your fault. OathKeepers represent a subset of LEOs and military. They sound like a good thing. However, it is unclear whether they live up to their rhetoric.

I've never met an OathKeeper, but their website promotes SWAT, which is very troubllng to some of the non-LEOs lke myself. I can't support an organization that supports tactics that place innocent Americans in danger just to catch some drug dealers. You may wish to form your opinion based on the people you met.


----------



## Geek999

Turtle said:


> Not your fault. It's an old issue which keeps getting rehashed. Which is better, Ford or Chevy? Jeep or Toyota? 9mm or .40? Letting bad guys get away to hurt more people or using proven techniques to limit the damage.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Again the "proven techniques". Do you have anything to support that or is it just a claim you are repeating? The choice to me looks to be not Ford or Chevy, but police state vs. Rule of law.

The Washington Post diisagrees with you today:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/th...f-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/


----------



## *Andi

Back to the OP or I will lock it down ...

Thanks...


----------



## northstarprepper

Question for those of you who know this area much better than I...

I read on another site an article that claims in the event of a declaration of martial law or any order to disarm the American people, the oath keepers will stand against the government in open defiance of any such orders...be they LEO, active duty, or retired military. This author claimed that the oath keepers would be a 200,000 strong core of resistance to any strong armed tactics by the present regime or any sucessor to take away the Constitutional rights of the American people.

His premise seemed a bit far fetched to me, allowing that there may not be enough oath keepers in major metropolitan areas to prevent military force from being used against the people, especially considering the growing numbers of non-citizen Latinos in the military specifically to earn their own legal citizenship. This author seemed to think the rest of the armed population would rally to these resistance leaders to fight against the government. He also stated that it was the oath keepers who rallied around the Cliven Bundy ranch and drove off the BLM SWAT Teams. I have no way of knowing if any of those claims are true or just the wild fantasies of some wanna be revolutionary. Opinions?


----------



## Geek999

northstarprepper said:


> Question for those of you who know this area much better than I...
> 
> I read on another site an article that claims in the event of a declaration of martial law or any order to disarm the American people, the oath keepers will stand against the government in open defiance of any such orders...be they LEO, active duty, or retired military. This author claimed that the oath keepers would be a 200,000 strong core of resistance to any strong armed tactics by the present regime or any sucessor to take away the Constitutional rights of the American people.
> 
> His premise seemed a bit far fetched to me, allowing that there may not be enough oath keepers in major metropolitan areas to prevent military force from being used against the people, especially considering the growing numbers of non-citizen Latinos in the military specifically to earn their own legal citizenship. This author seemed to think the rest of the armed population would rally to these resistance leaders to fight against the government. He also stated that it was the oath keepers who rallied around the Cliven Bundy ranch and drove off the BLM SWAT Teams. I have no way of knowing if any of those claims are true or just the wild fantasies of some wanna be revolutionary. Opinions?


As I understand it you are correct that they will not engage in mass illegal gun confiscations, as happened during Katrina. Whether indvidual OathKeepers would keep that pledge is anybody's guess but I'll take them at their word.

On the other hand, that should be the position of every LEO as that is settled law.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis

Certainly should be. Those post Katrina gun confiscation vids make me think in a bad situation we may have to be concerned. I hope the oathkeepers follow through when it counts.


----------



## Geek999

CrackbottomLouis said:


> Certainly should be. Those post Katrina gun confiscation vids make me think in a bad situation we may have to be concerned. I hope the oathkeepers follow through when it counts.


I think it is a nice sentiment, but I don't see how they can really make a difference if that is all they do.


----------



## myrtle55

I just thought changes could come where we will need backup against or own, and this is what I heard them say in the form that they support LEO and MIlitary in their pursuit to uphold the constitution . That was my oath, and I knew when I took that oath I would die defending it if need be. There will be gray areas but there are also black places in the enforcement of that oath. I may never be perfect, but I will never use my position in the black areas, and will defend others that will not do so as well. We as humans make mistakes, and I believe we can only perform to the very best of our abilities. If there are others That feel as I do, I might like to align with them..so I was seeking info on this group specifically. .


----------



## myrtle55

Everything I do n my life is driven by my conviction that I have the most info I can obtain, and I act on my beliefs and morals as I see fit. If I make a mistake, I own it and make amends as I can.


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> I just thought changes could come where we will need backup against or own, and this is what I heard them say in the form that they support LEO and MIlitary in their pursuit to uphold the constitution . That was my oath, and I knew when I took that oath I would die defending it if need be. There will be gray areas but there are also black places in the enforcement of that oath. I may never be perfect, but I will never use my position in the black areas, and will defend others that will not do so as well. We as humans make mistakes, and I believe we can only perform to the very best of our abilities. If there are others That feel as I do, I might like to align with them..so I was seeking info on this group specifically. .


Unfortunately, the "gray" areas are the ones that need some commitment, not the easy ones like gun confiscations. For instance, there has been a question of cell phone searches requiring a warrant. LEOs have been doing this routinely. We just got a ruling from SCOTUS that warrants are required. DUH! How many LEOs have questioned whether something like a cell phone search is proper? Not many is my guess.

What is needed is not just LEOs who will obey the courts, but LEOs who will recognize our rights day to day, so that court rulings are not required. If you think OathKeepers is heading that way you might enjoy participation.


----------



## myrtle55

I was looking for info on OK to see if I wanted to participate. Yes the gray areas are where things go wrong, but I believe most feel as I do, that there is where our personal ethics come into play. Non of us is infallible, but I think the majority of us try our best to be the best we can be..yes there are the sheeple, but I think they are a minority with a lot of headline grabbing. How much press do you believe the ones that do it" right" get? I think these decisions are extremely personal to each person, and gathering Intel is how we make them. Thanks for your input


----------



## myrtle55

Geek, I don't know if you are aware, but OK has associate members, people who have not served but believe in the cause..perhaps you might be interested in adding your passionate feelings to their cause? Just thinking out loud here


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> Geek, I don't know if you are aware, but OK has associate members, people who have not served but believe in the cause..perhaps you might be interested in adding your passionate feelings to their cause? Just thinking out loud here


I will not support an organizatiion that supports the use of SWAT for routine warrants. That's my position. It doesn't need to be yours.


----------



## BillM

*Routine warrants*



Geek999 said:


> I will not support an organizatiion that supports the use of SWAT for routine warrants. That's my position. It doesn't need to be yours.


I agree that SWAT should not be used for routine warrants but only for high risk warrants.

That being said, a routine warrant can quickly turn high risk and any activity involving people with deadly weapons can become high risk whether it is a special weapons and tactics officer or that constitutional officer you refer to.

Without police, criminals would run free and prey on the innocent at a much higher rate than they currently do.

With police, there are going to be a small percentage of tragedies, it is just the nature of the business.

No officer that I ever knew wanted to see a child injured .

The requirement that you would place on an officer would make him an idiot if he ever pinned on a badge again.

I don't mean to devalue anything you have said and I agree with some of it , just not all of it.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> I agree that SWAT should not be used for routine warrants but only for high risk warrants.
> 
> That being said, a routine warrant can quickly turn high risk and any activity involving people with deadly weapons can become high risk whether it is a special weapons and tactics officer or that constitutional officer you refer to.
> 
> Without police, criminals would run free and prey on the innocent at a much higher rate than they currently do.
> 
> With police, there are going to be a small percentage of tragedies, it is just the nature of the business.
> 
> No officer that I ever knew wanted to see a child injured .
> 
> The requirement that you would place on an officer would make him an idiot if he ever pinned on a badge again.
> 
> I don't mean to devalue anything you have said and I agree with some of it , just not all of it.


If you read the Washington Post article you'd find that most SWAT raids are searches, or low level arrest warrants. Only 7% are for the types of situations SWAT was originally intended for. They also found that a surprisingly high level of raids result in no arrests, or in the case of search warrants, none of what they were looking for, e.g. drugs.

Here is the link again in case you didn't read it the first time.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/th...f-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/

So with that level of performance, I can't support an organization that wants even more SWAT raids. The LEOs that want to argue with me are of the opinion there are very few mistakes where they hit someone who is not a criminal. That just does not seem to be true.

As for police preventing criminals from running free, I'd have to say they are a huge fail now. The highest profile crime we've had around here recently was a car jacking where the owner of the car was murdered in front of his wife by a crew of 4 carjackers. This was just a few months ago. All 4 were taken down with SWAT raids (no complaint from me on that bunch). However, two of them are already back on the streets.

As a result, I'd say the cops are having very little impact on crime, while the vast bulk of SWAT raids are on suspected low level drug dealers. Sometimes they're right, and too many times they are wrong.

Used in that fashion SWAT is an absurd waste of resources when they are right, and a horrible injustice when they are wrong.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> As for police preventing criminals from running free, I'd have to say they are a huge fail now. The highest profile crime we've had around here recently was a car jacking where the owner of the car was murdered in front of his wife by a crew of 4 carjackers. This was just a few months ago. All 4 were taken down with SWAT raids (no complaint from me on that bunch). However, two of them are already back on the streets.


That's a failure of our justice system, not the cops. Credit where credit is due.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> That's a failure of our justice system, not the cops. Credit where credit is due.


You have a point. The same judges who are signing no knock warrants for routine searches are turning the criminals loose while the innocents who get SWATed are left wth the damage to their lives and property. Judges are definitely part of the problem.

However, you can't have cops claiming it is not their job to protect us and then use protectng us as an excuse for attacking people in their homes. They aren't protecting us, they're pursuing a "war on drugs" and we are just collateral damage. Welcome to Fallujah.

There is the famous line that "those who will trade liberty for safety will have neither". I'll keep my liberty.


----------



## BillM

*If I*



Geek999 said:


> You have a point. The same judges who are signing no knock warrants for routine searches are turning the criminals loose while the innocents who get SWATed are left wth the damage to their lives and property. Judges are definitely part of the problem.
> 
> However, you can't have cops claiming it is not their job to protect us and then use protectng us as an excuse for attacking people in their homes. They aren't protecting us, they're pursuing a "war on drugs" and we are just collateral damage. Welcome to Fallujah.
> 
> There is the famous line that "those who will trade liberty for safety will have neither". I'll keep my liberty.


If I felt as strongly as you do about Cops, I would forgo ever calling 911.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> If I felt as strongly as you do about Cops, I would forgo ever calling 911.


I have stated previously on this forum that I will never call 911 from my home. I have called 911 to report traffic accidents as that is a legal requirement here, but if I have an emergency in my home I'll deal with it myself.


----------



## rugster

The price of freedom isn't really paid on some battle field It's the price paid living in a free society. 


There's is always some logical all be it emotional push for more laws, regulations, intrusion into citizens affairs 
for "the good of the many" ....the patriot act, fusion centers and such. 

It only cost a little anonymity and freedom to make us safe a little here a little there until it's all gone!


----------



## bkt

rugster said:


> The price of freedom isn't really paid on some battle field It's the price paid living in a free society.
> 
> There's is always some logical all be it emotional push for more laws, regulations, intrusion into citizens affairs
> for "the good of the many" ....the patriot act, fusion centers and such.
> 
> It only cost a little anonymity and freedom to make us safe a little here a little there until it's all gone!


Actually, it's really only emotional reactions to events rather than logical rationale that lead to more onerous laws that degrade our freedom in the name of safety. At the end of the day, it sure looks like government at every level wants to be safe from the people it ostensibly serves; constant monitoring, militarized police, draconian assaults on 2A rights, and a hefty dumping on the BoR.


----------



## BillM

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/...after-motorized-scooter-breaks-down/20895178/


----------



## bkt

The purpose of this thread, if I may presume, is not to accuse all LE personnel of being heartless, mindless thugs. Most cops are great - they go out of their way to do good things for people they don't know.

The point is to illustrate a few things. First, not all cops are great people. It has been estimated that up to one-third of cops who are either near retirement or new to the force won't rock the apple cart and will carry out illegal orders. Second, we have read about lots of no-knock screw-up entries in the least year or so that have left innocents dead or wounded or, at best, with significant property damage without any criminal charges being filed against the cops who screwed up. Third, the militarization of cops, in light of the other issues just mentioned, has a whole lot of people on edge and wondering about and possibly mistrusting cops as a whole. When chiefs cover for bad/rogue cops and when regular cops turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, that does far more harm in the long run.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> The purpose of this thread, if I may presume, is not to accuse all LE personnel of being heartless, mindless thugs. Most cops are great - they go out of their way to do good things for people they don't know.
> 
> The point is to illustrate a few things. First, not all cops are great people. It has been estimated that up to one-third of cops who are either near retirement or new to the force won't rock the apple cart and will carry out illegal orders. Second, we have read about lots of no-knock screw-up entries in the least year or so that have left innocents dead or wounded or, at best, with significant property damage without any criminal charges being filed against the cops who screwed up. Third, the militarization of cops, in light of the other issues just mentioned, has a whole lot of people on edge and wondering about and possibly mistrusting cops as a whole. When chiefs cover for bad/rogue cops and when regular cops turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, that does far more harm in the long run.


Here in NJ (I can't speak for elsewhere) one of the complaints I hear from former LEOs, retired or just bailed out, is that the cops today do not know the law. As a result, the likelihood of following an illegal order is near 100% because the cops would never recognize the order was illegal.

The OP was about Oath Keepers, which is hard to discuss without discussing LEOs more broadly, so much of the thread has been about what ails law enforcement more broadly. Oath Keepers only makes sense in the context of the broader law enforcement environment.


----------



## LongRider

northstarprepper said:


> Question for those of you who know this area much better than I...
> 
> I read on another site an article that claims in the event of a declaration of martial law or any order to disarm the American people, the oath keepers will stand against the government in open defiance of any such orders...be they LEO, active duty, or retired military. This author claimed that the oath keepers would be a 200,000 strong core of resistance to any strong armed tactics by the present regime or any sucessor to take away the Constitutional rights of the American people.


Oath Keepers have already been successfully done. Not members of the Oatg Keepers organization per say but Oath Keepers in that they kept the Oath the swore before God to uphold.

As I recall there are some interviews on their website. During Katrina there were LEO and National Guardsmen who refused to follow those orders and educated their superiors of the unlawful unconstitutionality of those orders. I believe that is the preferred tact as I am sure no one wants to turn on their brothers in arms. That by their individual actions and education will they prevent crimes being committed against the people under the color of law.


----------



## tc556guy

I've only met a couple of OK.
They weren't exactly stellar well -balanced folks.
I'm not into conspiracy folks.
Maybe others in the group aren't so "out there"


----------



## Geek999

tc556guy said:


> I've only met a couple of OK.
> They weren't exactly stellar well -balanced folks.
> I'm not into conspiracy folks.
> Maybe others in the group aren't so "out there"


I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying the Oathkeepers you met were conspiracy theorists? If so, what conspiracy were they concerned about?


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying the Oathkeepers you met were conspiracy theorists? If so, what conspiracy were they concerned about?


I'm saying that they didn't come across as being normal, well-balanced individuals. Not so much about any conspiracy theories they may have expressed, but definitely a little bit of the crazy eyes and some channeling of Doc Brown from Back To The Future going on in their conversation.


----------



## bkt

tc556guy said:


> I'm saying that they didn't come across as being normal, well-balanced individuals. Not so much about any conspiracy theories they may have expressed, but definitely a little bit of the crazy eyes and some channeling of Doc Brown from Back To The Future going on in their conversation.


Heck, that happens to me these days when I look at the headlines at the top of Drudge.


----------



## Viking

tc556guy said:


> I'm saying that they didn't come across as being normal, well-balanced individuals. Not so much about any conspiracy theories they may have expressed, but definitely a little bit of the crazy eyes and some channeling of Doc Brown from Back To The Future going on in their conversation.


I've met a lot of people over the years from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a number of them had issues so it is only logical that they may also show up in the ranks of Oath Keepers, it doesn't mean they are bad or shouldn't belong in OK, it's just that one needs to understand what some went through.


----------



## BillM

*Everyone who claims*

Everyone who claims to belong to "Oath Keepers", doesn't necessarily belong to our organization.

Just like everyone who claims to have been a Navy SEAL or Delta Force sniper isn't.

Just ask to see their ID card.

I am "Oath Keeper # 013718.

Wild eyed , crazy conspiracy theorists are discouraged from membership.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> Everyone who claims to belong to "Oath Keepers", doesn't necessarily belong to our organization.
> 
> Just like everyone who claims to have been a Navy SEAL or Delta Force sniper isn't.
> 
> Just ask to see their ID card.
> 
> I am "Oath Keeper # 013718.
> 
> Wild eyed , crazy conspiracy theorists are discouraged from membership.


Are NJ LEOs who are willing to enforce NJ gun laws encouraged or discouraged from membership?

How about SWAT team members who are okay with using SWAT tactics for routine search warrants?


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> How about SWAT team members who are okay with using SWAT tactics for routine search warrants?


SWAT isn't used for "routine" search warrants


----------



## Geek999

tc556guy said:


> SWAT isn't used for "routine" search warrants


Then Oathkeepers should have no problem opposing SWAT being used for such situations.

I've decided to take a home invasion class taught locally by some former Special Forces guys. I'm not worried about criminals. I'm worried cops will violate my home and my rights.


----------



## BillM

*Home Invasion*



Geek999 said:


> Then Oathkeepers should have no problem opposing SWAT being used for such situations.
> 
> I've decided to take a home invasion class taught locally by some former Special Forces guys. I'm not worried about criminals. I'm worried cops will violate my home and my rights.


The quickest way to stop a home invasion is to escape or convince the home invaders that someone else escaped.

Once someone has escaped and is sounding the alarm, they will take flight.

It is then , game over.

The object is to contain everyone in the dueling until they succeed in getting all your valuables.


----------



## Cabowabo

I'm a paying member of Oath Keepers, When this year membership is up I'll be buying a lifetime membership if I have the money. 
I haven't seen the Conspiracy nuts that was mentioned earlier. I'll admit I have my own questions concerning what the feds are doing or trying to do. But its nice knowing that if I'm asked to commit an act that is unconstitutional I have people backing me up.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> The quickest way to stop a home invasion is to escape or convince the home invaders that someone else escaped.
> 
> Once someone has escaped and is sounding the alarm, they will take flight.
> 
> It is then , game over.
> 
> The object is to contain everyone in the dueling until they succeed in getting all your valuables.


I think you have missed my concern. Who is going to respond to an "alarm"? I I am NOT calling 911 because I do NOT trust the PD. I also consider it more likely I'll be facing a SWAT team at the wrong address than criminals.

I didn't always feel that way, but the LEOs on this forum have convinced me they really are that bad.

So coming back to Oathkeepers, what about them should make me feel more comfortable?


----------



## Cabowabo

Geek999 said:


> I think you have missed my concern. Who is going to respond to an "alarm"? I I am NOT calling 9/11 because I do NOT trust the PD. I also consider it more likely I'll be facing a SWAT team at the wrong address than criminals.
> 
> I didn't always feel that way but the LEOs on this forum have convnced me they really are that bad.
> 
> So coming back to Oathkeepers, what about them should make me feel more comfortable?


Its to make people remember this oath.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I took that oath, and the most important thing to me is I will protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Oath Keepers is to encourage those of us who took that oath to remember that oath. It encourages people to do their job in compliance with their oath.

Seriously what can be so bad about that?


----------



## Geek999

Cabowabo said:


> Its to make people remember this oath.
> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
> 
> I took that oath, and the most important thing to me is I will protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> Oath Keepers is to encourage those of us who took that oath to remember that oath. It encourages people to do their job in compliance with their oath.
> 
> Seriously what can be so bad about that?


Nothing is wrong with it as far as it goes. In fact given that there are LEOs who will perform unconstitutional acts, it sounds like an excellent idea, particularly given some of the discussions that have occurred on this forum.

What I find disturbing about Oathkeepers is that they had an article extolling greater use of SWAT on their website, despite the fact that SWAT has been greatly abused (only 7% of SWAT raids are for situations for which SWAT was intended according to the Washington Post) and is questionable under the 4th amendment at best. This causes me to question whether Oathkeepers is really what it purports to be, or is just a bunch of LEOs telling themselves what great guys they are.

I am open to hearing that they are doing something to protect the Constitutional rights of the rest of us, but their website makes me skeptical.


----------



## myrtle55

I believe IMHO, that they are a group committed to the oath. Not to go door to door to force others to do so, but a group that says, this is what I will do, and no more. As Americans, we all can voice our displeasure with incidents that turn our stomachs..their oath is not different than the Oath we took when we did, it is just saying" THIS BUT NOT THAT"..so that brings to the forefront that they understand some will blindly follow orders without remembering the content of that oath, which is to defend us against all enemies. Not to start a new movement but to reinforce and bring to the forefront that oath. Basically a visual and verbal reminder. Any feel free to correct me if I am in error.


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> I believe IMHO, that they are a group committed to the oath. Not to go door to door to force others to do so, but a group that says, this is what I will do, and no more. As Americans, we all can voice our displeasure with incidents that turn our stomachs..their oath is not different than the Oath we took when we did, it is just saying" THIS BUT NOT THAT"..so that brings to the forefront that they understand some will blindly follow orders without remembering the content of that oath, which is to defend us against all enemies. Not to start a new movement but to reinforce and bring to the forefront that oath. Basically a visual and verbal reminder. Any feel free to correct me if I am in error.


I am not disagreeing, but I am not clear on what they are saying. I believe that there is more to the constitution than the 2nd amendment, and there is more to the 2nd amendment than prohibiting gun confiscations.

So back to my questions: I believe the NJ gun laws violate the constitution. Does Oathkeepers agree, or leave it up to the individual? I believe that the 4th amendment is being routinely abused. Does Oathkeepers expect its members to observe the 4th amendment, or is it only about the 2nd amendment? If they do expect members to respect the 4th amendment, how do they reconcile that with promoting SWAT?

Do they do anything beyond reaffirming their oath and then the members go about their business? Do they recognize how serious the situation in the country has become?


----------



## bkt

OK is about reaffirming one's oath to support and defend the Constitution as a whole. Is it perfect? Can they ensure everyone who joins will always stick to their oath? No, of course not. But then again, joining is voluntary and anyone who joins presumably has a strong appreciation for the rule of law and is not eager to break the law in order to get their rocks off by stepping on other people.

If there is evidence that people who are official members of OK are breaking their oaths, please let us know. If you know of a more effective organization than OK, please let us know.


----------



## Geek999

What this sounds like is an old married couple reaffirming their vows. No harm in it, but it really doesn't change anything.


----------



## myrtle55

Probably means something to the old married couple: )


----------



## Geek999

myrtle55 said:


> Probably means something to the old married couple: )


Very true.


----------



## LongRider

Deleted, disregard


----------



## LongRider

tc556guy said:


> SWAT isn't used for "routine" search warrants


Unfortunately that is incorrect. Even worst those "routine" search warrants have been served at the wrong address or issued on bogus information. As I recall some of those have resulted in fatalities. I in fact have had some personal experience with that not SWAT but Federal Marshals. Pretty scary stuff over a traffic ticket.


----------



## LincTex

LongRider said:


> I in fact have had some personal experience with that not SWAT but Federal Marshals. Pretty scary stuff over a traffic ticket.


Cops now have auto scan/read/run of license plate numbers.

My dad got pulled over by a "squadron" of cars when the scanning computer misplaced an "O'" for a "D" (or vice-versa) and it came back as a stolen vehicle. He said one cop followed him at a distance for several miles until all of a sudden there were 6 more cars on him, all at once.


----------



## tc556guy

LongRider said:


> Unfortunately that is incorrect. Even worst those "routine" search warrants have been served at the wrong address or issued on bogus information. As I recall some of those have resulted in fatalities. I in fact have had some personal experience with that not SWAT but Federal Marshals. Pretty scary stuff over a traffic ticket.


Actually what I said IS correct
If SWAT is being spun up for a warrant execution it's because there is some element about the location, parties involved etc that make SWAT needed
The issue of wrong addresses is entirely different than why SWAT is involved in a particular warrant


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> What I find disturbing about Oathkeepers is that they had an article extolling greater use of SWAT on their website, despite the fact that SWAT has been greatly abused (only 7% of SWAT raids are for situations for which SWAT was intended according to the Washington Post) and is questionable under the 4th amendment at best. This causes me to question whether Oathkeepers is really what it purports to be, or is just a bunch of LEOs telling themselves what great guys they are.
> 
> I am open to hearing that they are doing something to protect the Constitutional rights of the rest of us, but their website makes me skeptical.


The more important number is that something like 99% of call outs of SWAT end with the situation ended with no one hurt
To liability-adverse agency heads that's an important number


----------

