Massachusetts
Related: About this forumMass. SWAT teams claim they’re private companies and don’t have to tell you anything
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/26/mass-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-companies-and-dont-have-to-tell-you-anything/Mass. SWAT teams claim theyre private companies and dont have to tell you anything
By Travis Gettys
Thursday, June 26, 2014 14:56 EDT
After the ACLU sent open records requests as part of its investigative report on police militarization, SWAT teams in Massachusetts claimed they were exempt because they were private corporations.
Some SWAT teams in the state operate as law enforcement councils, or LECs, which are funded by several police departments and overseen by an executive board largely made up of local police chiefs.
Member police departments pay annual membership dues to the LECs, which share technology and oversee crime scene investigators or other specialists.
~snip~
Lets be clear, wrote Radley Balko for The Washington Post. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure, and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because theyve incorporated, theyre immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The states residents arent permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what theyre used for, what sort of training they get or who theyre primarily used against.
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,220 posts)And we the citizens are not privy to this, had no say in it? Phone calls today.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,325 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For example, we have the lowest rate of pot busts in the country, by far, because cops have a policy of ignoring pot laws - they don't want to mess up people's lives over something that stupid. Boston was the only Occupy that ended with a negotiated settlement instead of Occupiers being carted off. And so forth.
I suspect that this "we don't have to answer your stinkin' questions" thing will get cleared up shortly.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That are very, very unlikely to happen in Massachusetts, and I also,addressed the issue (i.e, this refusal will likely get turned around quickly.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,325 posts)house to house searches, and SWAT drug raids...
Here is the ACLU report:
https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I've not heard anything but praise from the locals. As scary as they looked, the cops were relaxed and polite (except when they got the guy).
i'm glad that the ACLU is doing what it's doing, and hope they get the records they want. I just feel bad when Mass cops get lumped in with the bad cops of that abound these days.
cprise
(8,445 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,325 posts)looks into. It is disturbing, however nice(er) they may seem, that SWAT teams in MA refused to answer the ACLU for the reasons they stated.
You are correct to say that MA police units received praise for their handling of most of the manhunt. However, not everyone would say the police or especially SWAT teams were particularly "relaxed" or especially "polite" (That is my brother's apartment building in the picture above)
It was an extaordinary event requiring a big amount of cooperation by the otherwise quiet neighborhoods they searched. We're all glad it turned out pretty well...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm sure it'll get rectified promptly. Stupid stuff doesn't stay stupid for long here, in all but a few cases.
Is your brother's building in the top or bottom photo? We used to live in Newton Corner on the brighton line, by Oak Square. We moved last summer across town to West Newton/Newtonville.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Last paragraphs in the OP:
The ACLU survey found that only 7 percent of SWAT missions involved incidents they were originally designed to handle such as hostage situations or shootings while 62 percent of their mission involved drug searches.
mahatmakanejeeves
(60,993 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)And just as 'legitimate?'
Sorry, they can't have it both ways.
handmade34
(22,925 posts)for less privatization, not more...
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)back at you.
valerief
(53,235 posts)90-percent
(6,890 posts)I visited my sister there recently in the Atlanta region. I was told about a girl in her office that got pulled over for a D.U.I. and blew 0.0 on the breathalyser. ZERO-POINT-ZERO
She was prosecuted for D.U.I. anyway, and it ended up costing her about $10,000 to go to Court and clear it up.
Nice justice yawl got down there in Georgia.
-90% Jimmy
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)This shit is getting out of hand, fast.
Purrfessor
(1,190 posts)including their health insurance and pensions.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to be in the hands of a private, ill-regulated private entity; a tiny tyranny. No way no how.
mopinko
(71,829 posts)and another with a swat team. rahm is in hot water for turning tourism over to a non-profit that just got a ruling from the ag that it doesnt have to show it's records.
but this here.....
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... you know, because they're private corporations and all that...
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Whose bright idea?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Then again, this might be the way they are planning to open the door to domestic Blackwaters....