Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: In Mass. do swat teams have any immunity? Their answer to FOIA request says no

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    In Mass. do swat teams have any immunity? Their answer to FOIA request says no

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...-records-laws/

    Interesting argument that expands out beyond just records requests.

    If they are not part of the gov't .. then they have no immunity either.

    And the laws pertaining to a citizen not being able to use force to protect themselves (citizens are just supposed to suck-it-up when cops commit crimes against the citizen and handle the issues after the fact) also goes down the drain.

    And even private companies can be subject to records laws ... under certain conditions that the MA swat teams likely meet.

    So I think that the SWAT teams just screwed themselves. They will not win being exempt from records requests but just argued that they are a group outside of immunity and people can now take immediate action against them.

    Kudos ... kudos again.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Good luck.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Hmm, private corporations using AOW?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Maybe they are trained to double speak and grasp at straws?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Would that mean that any machine guns owned by the SWAT teams must be manufactured before 1986? because the only private interests exempted from the NFA is contractors who provide Nuclear plant security....

    are private organizations exempted from the commonwealths AWB?

    is there any law permitting a search warrant of any kind issued to private interests?

    does the local police chief have to meet the SWAT team and say "Yea Verrily, I Deputize these citizen to serveth this warrant" ?
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 06-27-2014 at 12:18 AM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
    The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

    So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

    The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

    Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
    The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

    So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

    The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

    Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    maybe these private cops need a badge, since I'm in favor of recycling, maybe we can dust off a few dozen of these from museums and hand them out

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Bethlehem_Badge.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	11737
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Would that mean that any machine guns owned by the SWAT teams must be manufactured before 1986? because the only private interests exempted from the NFA is contractors who provide Nuclear plant security....

    are private organizations exempted from the commonwealths AWB?

    is there any law permitting a search warrant of any kind issued to private interests?

    does the local police chief have to meet the SWAT team and say "Yea Verrily, I Deputize these citizen to serveth this warrant" ?
    Good point .. I guess when you see them you just arrest them for having new automatic weapons ...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    maybe these private cops need a badge, since I'm in favor of recycling, maybe we can dust off a few dozen of these from museums and hand them out

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Bethlehem_Badge.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	11737
    dClick image for larger version. 

Name:	badge 001.jpg 
Views:	129 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	11739

    My tin contribution.

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    dClick image for larger version. 

Name:	badge 001.jpg 
Views:	129 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	11739

    My tin contribution.

    CCJ
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	badge 001.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	11740
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Release the data and find the truth, then let the chips fall where they may. If the private SWAT corporation is on the up and up then release the data. The data will prove that you are on the up and up. Not releasing the data sends a different signal regarding their acts and the legality thereof.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Release the data and find the truth, then let the chips fall where they may. If the private SWAT corporation is on the up and up then release the data. The data will prove that you are on the up and up. Not releasing the data sends a different signal regarding their acts and the legality thereof.
    I would not expect a private company that is not subject to a records law to produce records just because someone asks for them...would you?

    But in this case, I think that the company is a quasi-or functional equivalent of a state agency and they may be required to be subject to the records laws. But even if so, it would not negate their assertions that they are not part of any formal state agency so they'll lose immunity and other goodies that gov't agencies and their employees enjoy. Records laws are one their own for the most part. But their arguments can be used against them in a court of law.

    The ACLU should get records pertaining to any contract with gov't agencies to show that they get $$$ from the state, and records showing that they are highly regulated by the state, and that the state oversees the company. If all are gotten then evidence that they are a functional equivalent to a state agency should be easy to prove.

    Most states have the same records-law rules ... see p.13 of the linked decision:
    http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=509404 2011-440 case before a quasi-judicial admin hearing agency in my state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would not expect a private company that is not subject to a records law to produce records just because someone asks for them...would you?

    But in this case, I think that the company is a quasi-or functional equivalent of a state agency and they may be required to be subject to the records laws. But even if so, it would not negate their assertions that they are not part of any formal state agency so they'll lose immunity and other goodies that gov't agencies and their employees enjoy. Records laws are one their own for the most part. But their arguments can be used against them in a court of law.

    The ACLU should get records pertaining to any contract with gov't agencies to show that they get $$$ from the state, and records showing that they are highly regulated by the state, and that the state oversees the company. If all are gotten then evidence that they are a functional equivalent to a state agency should be easy to prove.

    Most states have the same records-law rules ... see p.13 of the linked decision:
    http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=509404 2011-440 case before a quasi-judicial admin hearing agency in my state.
    They'll just make up the law as they go, they'll claim the council is a private corp, but because the members are sworn then each individual member has immunity....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    This discussion would he comical if you guys weren't so serious. Some are so far off base and out of touch with reality it'd again be funny if they weren't serious.

    Also, as usual, the biases and jadedness rears its ugly head.

    This is based on 1 article that not many if any guys in here have read.

    These are cops that are on the teams. Sworn officers that work together to make a regional team. The regional team is run by a "council".

    This whole situation is just the council telling the ACLU to get screwed and coming up with a legal way to deny them records. THAT is what everyone should be pissed about.

    Take any team.... Semlec nemlec metro etc. Etc. When they serve a warrant they are still cops. You don't become unsworn when you report to your team.

    This is administrative issue only. To say "oh they are just civilians and have no immunity" shows the lack of knowledge of how it works. The worst part is none seem to actually care enough to research or ask. Just get the bad info and run with it.

    A warrant is a warrant is a warrant...... To be served by a duly served law enforcement officer..... Look that up. It doesnt matter if a LT from.a different department calls and says "hey we are serving said warrant". Doesn't make you any less sworn of an officer.

    Again... Administrative actions to block the ACLU. Be mad at that. At least you'll be accurate.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Very interesting. So are the special weapons attack team( SWAT) acting as a private non government entity? If yes, I would think all personal immunity is lost. Any and all civil law suits against any member of said SWAT team would apply.
    The main issue would be that only a government can violate a citizens Constitutional rights. A private entity can only be accused of civil rights violations..

    So now Massachusetts has their own team of private ASSASINS..

    The big question, WHO YOU GONNA CALL WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU?

    Primus, will you defend the citizens when the private entity police come a calling?

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    No. If a SWORN OFFICER from another town comes rolling in with a warrant then there's nothing to defend.

    I like the "private assassins" line... Good rhetoric and drama. Sure to get the troops riled up.

    Completely inaccurate and baseless. But hey the point isnt to be accurate and honest right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No. If a SWORN OFFICER from another town comes rolling in with a warrant then there's nothing to defend.

    I like the "private assassins" line... Good rhetoric and drama. Sure to get the troops riled up.

    Completely inaccurate and baseless. But hey the point isnt to be accurate and honest right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    But that's just it...they are not sworn officers .. they are just employees of a company.

    I would think that warrant's execution must be performed by a governmental agency, not through any contracted one.
    So they are not "rolling in with a warrant"...they are attackers, ie criminals.

    I see where you would not want to defend citizens against such attacks, you just want to go home.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    But that's just it...they are not sworn officers .. they are just employees of a company.

    I would think that warrant's execution must be performed by a governmental agency, not through any contracted one.
    So they are not "rolling in with a warrant"...they are attackers, ie criminals.

    I see where you would not want to defend citizens against such attacks, you just want to go home.
    Can you cite where a police officer who serves a warrant is somehow unsworn? It DOESNT just go away...



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Can you cite where a police officer who serves a warrant is somehow unsworn? It DOESNT just go away...



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Those that do with the MASS. private swat team company of course ! And they are not "police" during these operations. They are mercenaries....
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 06-27-2014 at 10:19 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Those that do with the MASS. private swat team company of course ! And they are not "police" during these operations. They are mercenaries....
    That's the best you had?

    What did I expect...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    This discussion would he comical if you guys weren't so serious. Some are so far off base and out of touch with reality it'd again be funny if they weren't serious.

    Also, as usual, the biases and jadedness rears its ugly head.

    This is based on 1 article that not many if any guys in here have read.

    These are cops that are on the teams. Sworn officers that work together to make a regional team. The regional team is run by a "council".

    This whole situation is just the council telling the ACLU to get screwed and coming up with a legal way to deny them records. THAT is what everyone should be pissed about.

    Take any team.... Semlec nemlec metro etc. Etc. When they serve a warrant they are still cops. You don't become unsworn when you report to your team.

    This is administrative issue only. To say "oh they are just civilians and have no immunity" shows the lack of knowledge of how it works. The worst part is none seem to actually care enough to research or ask. Just get the bad info and run with it.

    A warrant is a warrant is a warrant...... To be served by a duly served law enforcement officer..... Look that up. It doesnt matter if a LT from.a different department calls and says "hey we are serving said warrant". Doesn't make you any less sworn of an officer.

    Again... Administrative actions to block the ACLU. Be mad at that. At least you'll be accurate.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    So you are saying it is ok for them to not have to explain themselves to the public. The same public that funds them? You are always so fos and backtracking.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    That's the best you had?

    What did I expect...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    1980 witnessed about 3,000 midnight raids by SWAT teams upon residential homes

    By 2001 we had about 45,000 annual SWAT raids

    2013 witnessed about 80,000 SWAT raids

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    That's the best you had?

    What did I expect...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    And I expected nothing more of significance ... unfortunately you maybe brainwashed so I don't think its your fault....

    I am capable of independent thought & to discuss new ideas.

    You are free to think that jacketed goofs coming in swat gear for a noise complaint is appropriate...I'll keep my faith in my own ideas ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 06-27-2014 at 11:24 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    This discussion would he comical if you guys weren't so serious. Some are so far off base and out of touch with reality it'd again be funny if they weren't serious.

    Also, as usual, the biases and jadedness rears its ugly head.

    This is based on 1 article that not many if any guys in here have read.

    These are cops that are on the teams. Sworn officers that work together to make a regional team. The regional team is run by a "council".

    This whole situation is just the council telling the ACLU to get screwed and coming up with a legal way to deny them records. THAT is what everyone should be pissed about.

    Take any team.... Semlec nemlec metro etc. Etc. When they serve a warrant they are still cops. You don't become unsworn when you report to your team.

    This is administrative issue only. To say "oh they are just civilians and have no immunity" shows the lack of knowledge of how it works. The worst part is none seem to actually care enough to research or ask. Just get the bad info and run with it.

    A warrant is a warrant is a warrant...... To be served by a duly served law enforcement officer..... Look that up. It doesnt matter if a LT from.a different department calls and says "hey we are serving said warrant". Doesn't make you any less sworn of an officer.

    Again... Administrative actions to block the ACLU. Be mad at that. At least you'll be accurate.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Either they are a part of the government and thus subject to FOIA requests, or they aren't and thus they can't do all of the things that they can do while working for the police force. The second that they execute that warrant from the government they are acting in an official capacity and are subject to it. Likewise, if they are a private organization and not subject to it then they are effectively acting as bounty hunters and lose the policy immunities for simply "thinking" they were the following and what not. Also as a private organization I'm sure there would be all sorts of issues in regards to grant money...something they already seem to be having an issue.

    Yes the people are cops, but IF the organization is a private organization then the cops have to act like it. Just as how you can't take a bunch of military, throw them into a private organization, send them to war, and then claim "oh private organization, denied" when someone FOIA's about it. Not to mention that the private organization would need to follow all civilian laws in regards to weaponry even if it was all military members who did the foot work.

    Thus the "administrative action" holds even less water than a wet paper bag with the bottom blown out of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Either they are a part of the government and thus subject to FOIA requests, or they aren't and thus they can't do all of the things that they can do while working for the police force. The second that they execute that warrant from the government they are acting in an official capacity and are subject to it. Likewise, if they are a private organization and not subject to it then they are effectively acting as bounty hunters and lose the policy immunities for simply "thinking" they were the following and what not. Also as a private organization I'm sure there would be all sorts of issues in regards to grant money...something they already seem to be having an issue.

    Yes the people are cops, but IF the organization is a private organization then the cops have to act like it. Just as how you can't take a bunch of military, throw them into a private organization, send them to war, and then claim "oh private organization, denied" when someone FOIA's about it. Not to mention that the private organization would need to follow all civilian laws in regards to weaponry even if it was all military members who did the foot work.

    Thus the "administrative action" holds even less water than a wet paper bag with the bottom blown out of it.
    I agree. This foia request denial will never hold up and as it SHOULDNT.

    I think it was just an attempt by them to keep the ACLU away. That's all.

    These guys are clearly cops. They are clearly acting as police when they execute any warrants or respond to any incidents (barricade, hostage,active shooter).

    The uproar about "private assassins" is completely misplaced.

    These teams should be held accountable and open to reviews of records.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  25. #25
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by wizzi01 View Post
    So you are saying it is ok for them to not have to explain themselves to the public. The same public that funds them? You are always so fos and backtracking.
    Never backtracked from anything. That was actually one of my first actual posts in this thread.

    Never said it was ok for then to deny the request. The teams are and should be held accountable.

    I was shedding some light through the BS. That's all.

    I most ironic part about this is just yesterday while it was getting deep on here I was actually training with one of the teams in question. Maybe they were hiding but I failed to see all the private ninjas and bounty hunter assassins.... It was just a bunch of cops shooting each other with simmunitions.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •