Posted on 11/29/2014 3:29:48 PM PST by Second Amendment First
Police questioned group members early in the week and allowed them to stay. But Saturday, after an inquiry by a reporter, St. Louis County Police officers ordered the Oath Keepers to leave the rooftops.
Threatened with arrest for operating without a license, the volunteers argued but eventually left their positions early Saturday morning, Rhodes said.
"We are going to go back as protesters," Rhodes said Saturday afternoon.
Rhodes, who said he is Mexican-American, stressed that Oath Keepers is not anti-government. He said the group volunteers pulling rooftop security in Ferguson were current or former government employees and first responders, many who have intense military, police and EMS training.
“We thought they were going to do it right this time,” Rhodes said of government response to the grand jury decision released Monday night in the Darren Wilson case. “But when Monday rolled around and they didn’t park the National Guard at these businesses, that’s when we said we have got to do something.
“Historically, the government almost always fails to protect people,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Bull CRAP. People protecting property is NOT against the law.
The difference between the Rodney King riots (Korean shopkeepers w/guns) and Ferguson Riots (Oathkeepers guarding merchants w/guns) is the occupant of the executive mansion. PERIOD.
Especially if it’s their own property.
Does the gov’t think it’s “against the law” to protect their buildings?
Well....never mind...Benghazi comes to mind /s
Individual property owners can request “security assistance” on their own property.
The idea of the cops “negotiating” with the protesters and then failing to do their damn jobs is disgusting!
I guess the rights of criminals and looters come first in Obama’s Amerika
Companies hire private security all the time and they’re armed. This is no different. The objection is ideological, not legal.
Threatens to arrest people defending others from rioters. Does nothing about rioters.
I’m guessing Jay is doing what he can to win friends in DC because he realizes MO is done with him.
If you want to know what is wrong with St. Louis, read that headline again.
“mysterious”.
What is mysterious to reasonable people about wanting to protect your property?
What is “mysterious” about the Oath Keepers?
What kind of reporter would write such a headline and what kind of editor would let it go to print?
That is not mysterious.
How dare people protect private property from looters. The Just-us department has assured HDTVs and Nikes for free.
Yeah, stupid whitey! Trying to protect your property from minorities is ILLEGAL!
How much you wanna bet if they didn’t leave peacefully the NG would have been sicced on them?
We would finally have evidence that the NG exists
Now even defending businesses from looters is criminal I guess
Operating without a license.
Why, by gum, that could be ANYTHING.
"Sir, you need to move along. You are 'operating without a license'."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.