Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmccree | Hacker News Reader

You do realize that all the officers that are on the LEC SWAT team are employed by local police agencies, none work for NEMLEC. Mutual aid emergency services teams comprised of members of multiple agencies are common all over the country. "Northwest Regional SWAT" just sounds less scary than NEMLEC. All the individual police agencies that are members of nemlec would still fall under whatever open records laws apply in that state. You can see which dept chiefs lead which units here: http://nemlec.com/units.htm

View on HN

> "Northwest Regional SWAT" just sounds less scary than NEMLEC.

Wrong. It all sounds like a militarized police force with little to no responsibility. For example, the SWAT launched a flash bang grenade in the crib of a 2 year old. But you know, the SWAT response was a botchet attempt at finding a non-violent drug crime.

The kid still has a hole in his body that hasn't healed. And they are unsure of brain damage. It's likely though.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_m...

I'm getting really tired of the repetition of the 'SWAT team throws grenade at infant' line used as though this is now routine policy in these teams, babies are getting blown up left right and centre across the US, and so on. That was a terrible mistake, not a fucking policy decision.

That was a terrible mistake, not a fucking policy decision.

Using heavily armed SWAT teams to conduct raids on family homes for small-time drug offenses seems like a policy decision to me...

There's a reasonable way of handling drug crimes.

Have 2 cars with 2-4 cops go arrest everyone and then look for drugs, given an appropriate warrant. If you see heavy arsenal, THEN calling in heavy guns can be called for.

But you dont just show up at someone's house with SWAT by default and do whatever you want. That's just wrong. But that's done. Just go look up the new phenomenon "Swatting".

> All the individual police agencies that are members of nemlec would still fall under whatever open records laws apply in that state.

You do realize that the article highlights the fact that regardless of the employment of the officers involved, the argument is being made that "an operation" was conducted as NEMLEC, a private corporation not beholden to open information requests.

Off duty officers shoot people. Some times they are just acting as private citizens. Sometimes they are uniformed private security. Other times they are just plain old moon-lighted security. The legal protection carried by the civil police force to the officer varies under each of these scenarios. The actual police force that the officer is on the payroll of is "usually" not obligated to defend the officer under any of these considering the scenario of a lawsuit, wrongful death, civil liberties, or misconduct. Further, there is usually some Union (non-government entity) involved with similar obligations/exceptions for defending the officer.

Despite the argument that the operation is being conducted by NEMLEC and not the city, it should be noted all of the activities of NEMLEC involve on duty officers - a reading of either the article or the NEMLEC website makes this clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com