TexasCHLforum.com

The other day in San Antonio, three guys slung rifles over their backs and sat at Starbucks, drinking coffee. Members of the public called police. The consensus on the thread was that the reason was context. While it is legal to open carry rifles, it isn't a norm and when three of them did it at one time, it had a tone of intimidation. They did not have to do anything but show up with the rifles to have an intimidating effect.

The police arrived. After some discussion with the three men, disorderly conduct charges were issued against them. I personally believe that is a big stretch but I understand two aspects of that action.
1. The men where responsible for alarming the public and since they were knowingly doing it, their conduct could be termed disorderly.
2. The purposed of the charges was intimidation. It is possible that those charges may be dropped but the reasoning behind them was to disperse the men and it worked - the men left.

Relevancy to this thread?

The context argument runs both ways.

I've always believed that SWAT has two purposes
1. To deploy specific assets and personnel with specific training to situations which may require them
2. To display a show of force and thus intimidation to the BGs involved. Demonstrating that the BGs are out-manned and outgunned has been a factor in the resolution of SWAT standoffs.

Were #2 not a factor with SWAT, the number of situations resolved without killing the BGs would be much different. I won't hazard a specific guess as the the number of SWAT deployments versus the number of SWAT usages of the special firepower that they have but I'm going to guess that it is near a 10 to 1 ratio. Most of the time SWAT is called out, someone doesn't die at their hands.

Perception is reality. Most people who haven't been around guns won't recognize an AR-15. They just understand it as a scarey looking rifle. So, too, is body armor perceived. Officers can wear bullet proof vests all the time under their uniforms and, because it isn't visible, it will not raise public concern Put the armor on the outside and the context changes. The perception becomes that the officers involved are there specifically expecting trouble or have come to generate it. If enough officers show up with body armor, even if they didn't have a weapon of any kind on them, there is a perception of force and intimidation. To me, this exactly the argument between concealed handguns and OC. We haven't been able to get the latter passed in Texas because of the same perception.

My immediate area is more than 50,000 people. It is rare for us to see police deployed more than 1 or 2 at a time. Three patrol cars at one location draws a lot of attention. Eight officers in body amour, even in my area, would be a newsworthy event. In a much smaller circumstance, as was the remote town in the OP, such a show of force has a high level of intimidation. That intimidation exists, as it did with the 3 guys and their rifles, whether or not those involved wish it to be so or understand that it is so.

I'm not a purist. For me if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it is a duck Just as it isn't necessary to arrive in a turret mounted APC in order to perceived as SWAT, it isn't necessary to to display Brown Tactical Elite to convey that perception.

I don't ask others to share my perceptions. But one of those perceptions is that in far too many cases minor matters are being handled in an extremely heavy handed and intently intimidating manner.

I'm personally furious of the boating incident in the OP. I will always be furious when an otherwise law abiding citizen has an interaction with a police like authority over an minor matter (in this case boating safety) and ends up in jail. Why? Because the rationale for releasing violent offenders is that there isn't enough jail space for them. A violent felon is a much greater threat to society than some 60+ guy who took umbrage at a Federal boarding party. What that says is that compliance in more important the crime and that is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!. The guy made a mistake. But go to an inner city and watch how the public reacts with the LEOS. If they similarly locked up every citizen who gives police a hard time, many times the current jails space would not be enough to house all the "criminals". The difference is that those involved were Federal officials and they have no tolerance for disrespect. Locking people up for disrespect should never be part of our legal system. The man had no weapons and was not a threat to anyone.

So I personally want to challenge every example of what I perceive to be heavy handed tactics. I believe that if we don't all start challenging them, the number and severity of them will continue to grow, particularly among the Federal agencies who seem to be expanding the number of such units at an exponential rate. For me, it is another case where absolute power corrupts absolutely. The check and balance is the outrage of citizens. There really is nothing else to even retard the trend.

The title came from Drudge who is obviously biased in his own right. But I do agree with his characterization of the group.

I completely understand that the police have their own very technical definition for what SWAT is. It includes rifles and probably a lot more specific assets, usually even a special vehicle.

But, for me, the definition doesn't stop there. When there is an overwhelming force (8 officers in a town of 17) and their body armor is visible to all, they fall under the SWAT umbrella, regardless exactly which weapons they are carrying. The core issue is that a significant force was used for a situation that doesn't appear to call for it. I certainly hope that the Clean Water act enforcement isn't driven by similar tactics.

It is the fact that the combined Federal agencies believe that they need to kind of action against otherwise law abiding citizens that I hope we will focus on. Compliance with the 100s of 1000s of pages of regulations is difficult enough without trying add intimidation to the mix.

And yes, I think it was intended to be intimidation. The absence of an EBR doesn't change that.

PUCKER wrote:chasfm11: OK, you've piqued my interest...you've gotta share some more details! Will be fun to share the story on the docks this weekend!

PM Sent

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:According to the article, those that set upon the old man were National Park Service Rangers. I cannot imagine them ever being held personally responsible for any action that they take. There was an interesting story about a park in Arizona a couple of weeks back where similar heavy handed techniques were used and I think that the State got the practices stopped but those responsible were simply "doing their job." I admit that I don't remember the specifics on that one.

Hey now, as long as they followed "policy," it has to be OK. And I don't think I've ever heard of an incident where they didn't "follow policy."

I know of one case where a government official was fired for following policy. It was a civilian COE lake manager at Grapevine who got into a feud with a concessionaire. The lake manager made sure that one particular COE policy was followed to the exact letter and, in doing so, carried out a daily harassment campaign against that concessionaire. Unfortunately for the lake manager, the concessionaire had "friends" in high places.

We were all surprised when he was fired rather than just being demoted or transferred or both. What he did was exactly what the policy said but no other COE group on any of the other surrounding lakes was following that policy with the same vigor so it deemed discrimination. I seriously doubt that the same action would be taken today. It would more likely result in an award to the lake manager.

mamabearCali wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

To me, this is exactly what makes this and situations like unconscionable. A boating safety check ( I've been through dozens of them by the Feds on Lake Grapevine) is to determine if proper safety equipment like flares and lifevests are on board. There is no reason to have to conduct such a check in the middle of a river that has a lot of current. It is simply an opportunity to teach another citizen who doesn't like the tactics a lesson. They could so they did. Compliance is the most important thing.

Somehow we need to have consequences for people who abuse their authority as they did here with the man in the boat. Not consequences to the city, but to the individual. Something along the lines of "you act like a jack booted thug for no good reason in the name of the people of the state of X and we see to it that it is your last opportunity to do so." Perhaps that would cut down on the "I did it cause I could bit."

According to the article, those that set upon the old man were National Park Service Rangers. I cannot imagine them ever being held personally responsible for any action that they take. There was an interesting story about a park in Arizona a couple of weeks back where similar heavy handed techniques were used and I think that the State got the practices stopped but those responsible were simply "doing their job." I admit that I don't remember the specifics on that one.

philip964 wrote:Swat team to check for dirty water.

Pretty much says it all.

How bout the poor old man later on in the article that failed to stop mid stream for a safety inspection and when he got to shore to discuss it with them, they arrested him and took him a 100 miles to jail.

To me, this is exactly what makes this and situations like unconscionable. A boating safety check ( I've been through dozens of them by the Feds on Lake Grapevine) is to determine if proper safety equipment like flares and lifevests are on board. There is no reason to have to conduct such a check in the middle of a river that has a lot of current. It is simply an opportunity to teach another citizen who doesn't like the tactics a lesson. They could so they did. Compliance is the most important thing.

Alaska Dispatch
By Sean Doogan September 3, 2013
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/2 ... -epa-raids

The EPA has refused to publicly explain why it used armed officers as part of what it called a “multi-jurisdictional” investigation of possible Clean Water Act violations in the area.

I know that we have seen several threads about the overuse of SWAT and there has been a lot of discussion as to whether the Federal government needs so many SWAT units in the various departments. This looks like yet another example.

I realize, as the article says, that the Federal government owns or controls a lot of the land in Alaska. But 8 SWAT officers for a town of 17??? I also realize that Alaskan citizens are usually armed but the regular police seem to be able to do their jobs without this kind of approach.

Clean water? Really?

Edited to correct link. Thanks TAM