How Many St. Louis-Area Cops Are Members of "Patriot" Groups?

There are may questions one can ask concerning the Brown incident in Missouri. For me it boils down to this, "why was an unarmed (debated by some considering his size) individual shot at 11 times (hit by 6) by a trained police officer? Or simply, when did shoot to kill become public policy numero uno? (And yes I realize I am over simplifying it.)

For others, such as Adam Weinstein over at Gawker, the questions are much bigger: "Why is it that the liberty-loving, government-loathing patriots who have for so long warned of a tank-driving, brutal police state were so willing to put their lives on the line for a Cliven Bundy [who was breaking the law], but not a Ferguson, Missouri?" [Hint the answer is in the attached video.]

Two notables associated with the movement that remained "quiet" and nowhere to be found include:

Larry Pratt, who instead highlighted this article claiming that Michael Brown wasn’t unarmed because he was “young and strong.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Bundy ally who has bragged,

"We want this military surplus so we have enough firepower to protect ourselves and the public," said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was among the first in the nation to take advantage of free combat supplies.

Included in the sheriff's arsenal: M-16s, a .50-caliber machine gun and a tank.

Arpaio said jail tents and armored SWAT vehicles have saved untold tax dollars. The tank is a display item, he added. And the .50-caliber?

"No, we haven't used it," the sheriff said. "But it's in the Batmobile, ready."

So is the so-called patriot movement for or against the government and its alleged over-reach? Based on their response, they don't even know what counts as government.

__

But not enough is being written about the inherent contradiction in Page's affiliations. Here was a police officer, shutting down media and largely peaceful demonstrators, participating in a heavy-handed, "militarized" law enforcement response on the streets of Ferguson... at the same time that he claimed kinship with a "patriot" group whose very stated mission is to prevent and resist militarized tyranny in the United States.

[,,,]
And yet. For all their delusions, the Oath Keepers seem tailor-made to counter the surreal overarmed police state that may have played a role in Michael Brown's death by cop in Ferguson, and that has ebbed and flowed through the streets there ever since. The oath that Oath Keepers keep is to disobey a set of orders they believe may be given by government authorities. Hence they swear, in part:

• We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
• We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
• We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

In other words—minus the incendiary and frankly dumb "concentration camp" rhetoric—the Oath Keepers should be as hopping mad about the police response in St. Louis County as anyone. If they have members and sympathizers on the police forces involved, you'd think those members would be marching off the job, joining the protests, organizing as many cross-country treks to Ferguson by their far-off counterparts as they did to protect a land-grabbing peckerwood in Bunkerville, Nevada.

How Many St. Louis-Area Cops Are Members of "Patriot" Groups?