Thoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another thing that helps is we have 3 dogs who are very familiar with neighbors' cars and even the noise their tires make on the gravel road. They won't bark when neighbors' cars approach and drive by but when a strange car or UPS/FedEx delivery/trash trucks approach/drive by, they are barking up the storm against the wire fence. Of course, any car lost or checking out the neighborhood are met with these barking dogs.
Sounds like a great way to get shot. I'm not sure I have heard of anything as reckless.
The vehicles are approached at distance (usually from my property behind the barking dogs) with a friendly wave to see if they are lost. If they are lost (as the road does not go through as indicated on Google map), they welcome directions. If they are checking out the neighborhood, they would know their presence would be met by barking dogs and usually drive off before I could get close to the car.

But looks like this is not what the OP was discussing.
 
Where do I start, Jeff? You and Kleanbore are suggesting you are the only ones capable of determining what is best for the rest of us, and we are not possessing any skills and knowledge to analyze and employ designs meeting our needs. Indeed, you are arguing like liberal Democrats, who, by intent want their agendas implemented at the expense of all opposition.

Rather than digging in on the notion of armed checkpoints, full blown tactical resistance, and total societal collapse, I suggest you consider those alternatives that would preserve the public interest and safety that go beyond the reactive assistance of law enforcement. Try to initiate those proactive designs that accompany legal guidelines and offer the citizenry the safety and security they seek.

I don’t require lecture on what the law states and what the statues tell me I can do. If we are to follow your didactic instructions, neither the Guardian Angels or police community relations would be allowed.
 
I suggest you consider those alternatives that would preserve the public interest and safety that go beyond the reactive assistance of law enforcement. Try to initiate those proactive designs that accompany legal guidelines and offer the citizenry the safety and security they seek.
Why don't you suggest some? The OP started this thread on forming an armed response force. If you are talking about something different I'd like to hear it. Without any input into what you are talking about I have to assume you are talking about forming an armed response force.
 
Where do I start, Jeff? You and Kleanbore are suggesting you are the only ones capable of determining what is best for the rest of us, and we are not possessing any skills and knowledge to analyze and employ designs meeting our needs.
Not at all.

The vast majority of, and perhaps all, persons who are really knowledgeable about use of force tactics and law will responsibly advise against the active maintenance of order by organized private citizens, other than calling the police and advising neighbors about suspicious activity, and for very good reason.

I suggest you consider those alternatives that would preserve the public interest and safety that go beyond the reactive assistance of law enforcement. Try to initiate those proactive designs that accompany legal guidelines and offer the citizenry the safety and security they seek.
One more time, what do you have in mind?
 
Since I didn't get to read the OP, I am guessing.

Are we talking about emergency situation in the absence of law and order or daily routine with availability of ready law enforcement response?
 
Perhaps the most viable design would be the implementation of auxiliary police, I.e., citizens who have completed training consistent with LEO’s in their respective communities and have been given police powers but retain their private sector status. Auxiliary officers are private citizens with police powers who have to maintain continuing education and training to maintain their officer status. These officers assist in public events, disasters, public unrest, and even conduct patrol when there may be overwhelming calls for service. This is not new thinking as it was utilized by my department in 1970 when I became a police officer.

The community I enforced the law was plagued by two riots consistent with the civil unrest observed nationally in the 1960’s and 70’s. A substantial portion of the city was burned to the ground and were it not for our auxiliary officers, much of the carnage would have spilled to other parts of the city.

Employing private citizens, properly trained and managed, located in strategic parts of the community would go a long way in addressing those problems we are discussing.
 
auxiliary police, I.e., citizens who have completed training consistent with LEO’s in their respective communities
Do you think it realistic to expect private citizens in any numbers to complete a regimen of police training?

What would you expect them to do?

How, and under that authority, would they request back-up?

citizens who... have been given police powers but retain their private sector status.
That sounds contradictory to me--perhaps you could explain the second part.

How would this work within the framework of the Fourth Amendment and Qualified Immunity?

Who would assume the liability for civil suits?
 
Perhaps the most viable design would be the implementation of auxiliary police, I.e., citizens who have completed training consistent with LEO’s in their respective communities and have been given police powers but retain their private sector status.
Auxiliary officers are the police. When they are on duty they have the same powers as fully sworn officers and the same coverage liability wise. That's completely different then forming an armed civilian group for the purposes of maintaining law and order.

How would this work within the framework of the Fourth Amendment and Qualified Immunity?
Auxiliary officers are part of the police department and they are covered by the department or the department's insurer. They have the same qualified immunity as an officer working for pay. In fact here in Illinois if a police officer asks a citizen to assist him, that private citizen is cloaked with the officer's peace officer status and enjoys the same qualified immunity. Of course Illinois also has a law making it mandatory to assist an officer if he requests you to and I know of one prosecution for refusing to assist in the last 10 years or so.
 
Auxiliary officers are the police. When they are on duty they have the same powers as fully sworn officers and the same coverage liability wise.
So, that's to say that they do not retain "private sector status" while on duty?

The mobilization of such officers would obviously have to start with the police department, and not with a group of citizens getting together.
 
Auxiliary officers are volunteers, except to meet those legal requirements are paid one dollar per year. They complete those minimum training standards and are vetted. The municipal agency or state POST board certifies their completion and the auxiliary officer falls under the agency’s liability insurance and qualified immunity when they are summoned to duty or responding to exigent circumstances, the same as an on or off duty professional officer.

When employed as an on-duty tour, these auxiliary officers utilize the same equipment as their professional counter parts. My agency required auxiliary officers to complete twenty-four hours monthly either as patrol back-up, traffic assignments, or other designated police functions. There were two hundred personnel, sworn and civilian on my department with twenty auxiliary officers. There was always a waiting list for admittance into the auxiliary officer program.

I appreciate your questions, Kleanbore. Our auxiliary officers were the vanguards for their respective geographic locations in the community. I personally conducted patrol and investigations with them and recognized the value of their community service and involvement.
 
Last edited:
So how are auxiliary officers the same as what the thread started with, a group of neighbors forming their own, unsanctioned group? You're arguing apples and oranges here. No one is saying their can't or shouldn't be auxiliary officers.
 
Do you think it realistic to expect private citizens in any numbers to complete a regimen of police training?

No way is it possible for the average person to complete the required regimen of police training. After all the training, a new officer rides "shotgun" with a training officer until they complete all the "requirements" which takes a few months. The training requirements are not just book smart; they include foot pursuit and a lot more.
So, your post was spot on about implying that it is unrealistic for a private citizen to complete the required regimen of police training.
I'm pretty certain of that being factual as my grandson is a deputy sheriff in NC.


 
Clearly, we have some folks here who believe that only the ruling establishment's law enforcement branch can take care of the citizenry.
No way is it possible for the average person to complete the required regimen of police training.
Of course, we all know that the required regimen of police training is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of all the citizens.
We all know how well that worked out in Louisiana and Mississippi post-Katrina.
 
Of course, we all know that the required regimen of police training is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of all the citizens.
We all know how well that worked out in Louisiana and Mississippi post-Katrina.
What on Earth do you mean by that?
 
A Nation of Cowards, a fine essay on this subject.
It's a good read, but off=topic.

The subject at hand is the lawful engagement of organized citizens to reduce crime, and that has been further defined as the training and deployment of auxiliary police officers by police departments.
 
It's a good read, but off=topic.

The subject at hand is the lawful engagement of organized citizens to reduce crime, and that has been further defined as the training and deployment of auxiliary police officers by police departments.

Does a volunteer constable count? Lots of those out here with the car, the gear, the weapons but unpaid xcept for when they are actually on-duty. Confuses me though because constables usually serve papers and low level warrants here I think.
 
Jeff, I’m surprised at your last question: How are auxiliary officers relevant to the original OP? It may not be the best probability to citizen response for their safety and security, but it has been proven to be effective in matters involving civil unrest. I suggest the members in this discussion consider the labels we have been tossing around, i.e., militia, home guard, vigilante, mob, etc. Although the constitution identifies militia, law has regulated the term with its application for civil usage and limits citizens’ involvement without government sanction. Please review the moderators’ correct analysis in their above comments. Note that the moderators refer to citizen groups who wear uniforms and practice together as illegal unless they have government approval. Their comments regarding these groups are colorful.

This is an important point because auxiliary officers generate government approval because of their legal status and conduct community organization within the color of law. Auxiliary officers have been utilized to successfully organize citizens in many aspects we are covering in this discussion. Employing citizens, trained to be trainers as auxiliary officers are, meets any standard for government sanctioned groups seeking self-made security when necessity dictates their implementation. These citizen officers have been the vanguard for community service and proven to be a valuable asset in times of need.

The original OP merely sought suggestions on what or how to realize his concern. I can understand his frustration when he was pelted with those negative labels rather than constructive analysis.
 
You’re half right. The reserves are part of the standing army. The National Guard is the Organized Militia. The Dick Act passed and signed into law in 1903 divided the militia as organized in the Militia Act of 1792 into the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. By law the National Guard is the Organized Militia. The Unorganized Militia consists of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. Some states have State Guard Units but they have no federal role and are forbidden to wear US military insignia. These State guard units are funded by their state and receive no federal funds or training.

By federal law the militia is divided into the organized and unorganized militia, the National Guard comprises the organized militia.

However the Dick Act did not supercede Presser and it does not give members of the unorganized militia the right to form their own units which was the idea that took us down this rabbit hole.

Interestingly enough it was an internet rumor that the Dick Act invalidated all gun laws in the US. I’m not sure how anyone read that into the law but it was a thing for awhile.

Whatever.

All I know is when I served alongside National Guard troops in the Balkans, they all wore the same uniform I did that had "US ARMY" on it. I was the detachment Motor Sergeant and I even had to submit my Deadline Report to a LTC from the South Carolina National Guard.
 
The original OP merely sought suggestions on what or how to realize his concern.
I do not want to pile on to criticism of the OP, and I do not his suggestion inappropriate here, but as put forth it is a non starter.

His idea was for armed citizens to organize and act. Auxilliary police are not organized civilians.
 
Whatever.

All I know is when I served alongside National Guard troops in the Balkans, they all wore the same uniform I did that had "US ARMY" on it. I was the detachment Motor Sergeant and I even had to submit my Deadline Report to a LTC from the South Carolina National Guard.
Irrelevant.
 
All I know is when I served alongside National Guard troops in the Balkans, they all wore the same uniform I did that had "US ARMY" on it. I was the detachment Motor Sergeant and I even had to submit my Deadline Report to a LTC from the South Carolina National Guard.

When one enlists in the Guard they take a dual oath. They are enlisting in the National Guard of (Fill in the state) and as a reserve of the Army or the Air Force. The Militia Act of 1792 gave the federal government the legal power to call the militia of the various states into federal service in times of crisis. George Washington was the first president to do so when he called up the local militia in the Northeast to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. A more modern example would be president Eisenhower calling the Arkansas guard into federal service after the governor of Arkansas mobilized them to stop the desegregation of the university which was ordered by a federal court. One day the guardsmen were on duty as the state militia keeping the university from being desegregated, the next day they were in the US Army enforcing the court order.

The National Guard soldiers you served with in the Balkans were members of the US Army and they were on active duty under Title 10 of the US Code. When they were mobilized to deploy they were given Title 10 orders that made them members of the active army. While at home station guardsmen serve under one of a few different sub-paragraphs of Title 32 of the US Code. The government plays with the dual status of the guard to get around the Posse Commitatus Act all the time. When we first sent troops to the border we sent mostly guard troops who were called to active duty under a different sub-paragraph of Title 32 then covered them in their status as drilling reservists. This allowed them to assist with law enforcement functions because technically they weren't on active duty with the Army and Posse Commitatus didn't apply.

During the height of the Iraq war several governors tried to make a political statement by refusing to allow units in their state to be called up. Ironically it was this kind of thing during the Spanish American War that prompted congress to pass the Dick Act. Those governors lost their lawsuits in federal court and the units were called into federal service and deployed.

The unique dual status of the guard creates enough paperwork to employ a small army of bureaucrats and lawyers. For instance if a governor calls up the National Guard that the state reimburses the federal government for the use of the equipment and fuel and pays the salary of the guardsmen called to state active duty out of the state budget. In many cases the state legislature sets a different rate of pay then they would make if called to federal duty. This is why you don't often see a large mobilization of the guard after a natural disaster until the president declares an emergency. Once it's a federal emergency the state is reimbursed for those costs by FEMA. When a unit is called up for state active duty, the active duty soldiers and airmen that run it full time aren't called up because they are federal troops. Often they take leave and mobilize with the unit for state active duty and double dip, collecting a check from the state as well as their active duty pay.

The original OP merely sought suggestions on what or how to realize his concern. I can understand his frustration when he was pelted with those negative labels rather than constructive analysis
The original post was not asking anything about how to become an auxiliary officer. The OP asked about training his neighbors to defend the neighborhood. When I pointed out that there wasn't even a formal provision in Wisconsin law to allow for a citizens arrest he responded with they weren't going to arrest or detain anyone. So if you are going to form an armed group to keep people out of your neighborhood but you don/t intend on detaining or arresting anyone, you have to assume that the OP was wanting advice on creating a combat unit. Are you somehow connected with the OP that you know what he was intending to ask? He had every opportunity to explain what he was talking about in subsequent posts. Yet he chose to withdraw from the conversation.
 
When cops follow bad orders that are blatantly unconstitutional. Or when cops follow legal but not moral lines.
Not to mention, when cops abandon their posts (or don't even show up for their shifts), leaving only the citizens to defend their own property. And gosh, some of those officers even joined the looters post-Katrina ...

Then there was LAPD's hands-off approach during the riots, leaving only the good citizens in Koreatown to provide armed defense of their neighborhoods, shops and stores from the rioters and the looters.

So if you are going to form an armed group to keep people out of your neighborhood but you don/t intend on detaining or arresting anyone, you have to assume that the OP was wanting advice on creating a combat unit.
Your assumption. You and a couple others seem to be the only people in the thread assuming this. I read the OP prior to his deleting his post, and like Terry, I saw that he was frustrated when immediately, the militia word was spouted and someone mentioned George Zimmermann.

I've spent almost all my adult life in one aspect or another of armed law enforcement and the military; I'm as pro-cop as anyone here, but I have to chuckle at the implication by some that the defense of one's home and neighborhood has to be left solely to one's local LE agency (or, in event of a disaster, the National Guard, since the official THR board position seems to be it's the only authorized militia extant).

We're all making assumptions here, and since the OP has abdicated his thread, perhaps it should be locked, as folks seem to be just talking around each other.
 
I've spent almost all my adult life in one aspect or another of armed law enforcement and the military; I'm as pro-cop as anyone here, but I have to chuckle at the implication by some that the defense of one's home and neighborhood has to be left solely to one's local LE agency (or, in event of a disaster, the National Guard, since the official THR board position seems to be it's the only authorized militia extant).
I have spent ALL of my adult life in the military and law enforcement. The law is very clear that the only authorized armed force in the US is in fact the police and the militia authorized by state and federal law. We do not advocate breaking the law on THR. What part of Presser v Illinois is so hard to understand? It's not just the position of THR, it's the law. We can disagree with the law, but it's the law none the less and we have to live within it. When someone comes on here asking about how to form an armed group of private citizens to defend their neighborhood it is our obligation to point out the possible legal ramifications of doing so. If you don't think this is a serious issue you need to look at what the newly elected Democrat majority in the Virginia legislature is doing by introducing a bill to outlaw all firearms training under their prohibition on conducting paramilitary training.

No one here is saying that if one is faced with a riot or other disaster that might be threatening your neighborhood that you have no right band together with your neighbors to protect your property, what we are saying is that preparing for that eventuality by organizing and training in advance is walking through a legal minefield considering the laws and the current political situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top