SWATing.

davidmcbeth · Aug 30, 2015

Grapeshot said:
davidmcbeth -

The sentence/thought to which I object is "The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires."

That is broad brushing, because neither of us can state with any authority what was the government's motivation is this instance. Therefore it can hardly be extrapolated to a general condition.

Examples do not equate to goals. In fact IMO these force multipliers are the exception rather than the customary response.

Dial 911 for Emergencies Only

Appropriate uses of 911 are instances of immediate danger or there is a crime in progress, such as:
person with a weapon (gun/knife)
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/

That is not a broad stroke itself? Equating just carrying with an immediate danger or crime. Because the gov't desires (unarmed citizens) it so.

Motivation is extrapolated from the policy ... a logical conclusion. And don't expect them to tell you their true motivations.

Every time I have listened to a 911 call where the gov't should not have sent the police I expected the caller to be hysterical and this motivated the police response .... not so. I expect the 911 call here to be similar; we'll see.

I look at facts and draw conclusions from such facts .... if there is another explanation that's fine .. it does not invalidate the possibility that my conclusion is not more proper.

Expecting the gov't to behave rationally is irrational.

solus · Aug 30, 2015

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-captures-colorado-cops-swarming-swatting-prank/story?id=25158294

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...for-victim-and-he-has-the-injury-to-prove-it/

http://nationalreport.net/15-year-old-swatted-domestic-terrorism/

as the violence escalates between the citizenry and the nice LEs, it could be deadly serious for all concerned.

this was in a small town in NC and it was suppose to be a welfare check on an elderly gentleman...ended in tragedy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erly-army-veteran-end-up-killing-him-instead/

IMHO...you and your future partner were very fortunate.

ipse

Grapeshot · Aug 31, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
Dial 911 for Emergencies Only

Appropriate uses of 911 are instances of immediate danger or there is a crime in progress, such as:
person with a weapon (gun/knife)
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/

That is not a broad stroke itself? Equating just carrying with an immediate danger or crime. Because the gov't desires (unarmed citizens) it so.

Motivation is extrapolated from the policy ... a logical conclusion. And don't expect them to tell you their true motivations.

Every time I have listened to a 911 call where the gov't should not have sent the police I expected the caller to be hysterical and this motivated the police response .... not so. I expect the 911 call here to be similar; we'll see.

I look at facts and draw conclusions from such facts .... if there is another explanation that's fine .. it does not invalidate the possibility that my conclusion is not more proper.

Expecting the gov't to behave rationally is irrational.

Perhaps you are predisposed to finding what you want, a self fulfilling prophecy - not keeping an open mind.

A vast majority of my experiences/interactions with government personnel, including LEOs, has been favorable. Because some people are bad, doesn't make all people bad. We even have several forum rules that apply to this.

It is true that In Virginia, the die hard antis like Senators Warner and Kaine are set in stone.

OC for ME · Aug 31, 2015

poetdante said:
So I had heard about ... Before leaving they had asked the employees if they were ok with it (me open carrying) and they said "yes".

...

What a load of BS. The nitwit cop just couldn't help himself could he. It's in their DNA it seems. Anti-liberty fool.

poetdante · Aug 31, 2015

I got the request in. I won't post the audio call as the guy gives his name and cell phone number. I WILL (when I have time today) make a careful transcript for you guys to read. In the meantime, a PDF that I redacted.

A couple notes from the top, the guy who approached me did make the call. He DID ask me if I had my concealed carry license but told dispatch I said I did not have a license to carry (despite confirming I was open carrying).

That was the entire basis of the event: "he said he did not have a license to carry". This was a lie. He asked me if I had my license and I told him I did, but did not need it to open carry.

So dispatch confirmed I was OC'ing, did not ask if I was doing anything suspicious, that it was in my holster, and said they would send an officer out. Several arrived.

solus · Aug 31, 2015

poetdante said:
I got the request in. I won't post the audio call as the guy gives his name and cell phone number. I WILL (when I have time today) make a careful transcript for you guys to read. In the meantime, a PDF that I redacted.

A couple notes from the top, the guy who approached me did make the call. He DID ask me if I had my concealed carry license but told dispatch I said I did not have a license to carry (despite confirming I was open carrying).

That was the entire basis of the event: "he said he did not have a license to carry".

So dispatch confirmed I was OC'ing, did not ask if I was doing anything suspicious, that it was in my holster, and said they would send an officer out. Several arrived. View attachment 12732

while i understand members of this august membership want to revel in each and every very specific detail of your incident to provide their own personal insight...but:

i would like to make a suggestion before you continue posting any further information about your event...DO NOT UNTIL YOU CONSULT A CIVIL or DEFENSE ATTORNEY!!!

especially if you are going to seek remediation from the DA or pursue this what-so-ever.

information provided on this public forum could come back to bite you in the arse...and leave marks!!

ipse

WalkingWolf · Aug 31, 2015

I thought a permit was not required in Kentucky to OC, if so the whether you had a permit or not did not matter. So the complaint was you were carrying a firearm legally, and they still dispatched several cars. Shear waste of taxpayer money, the dispatcher should be reprimanded.

Unless things have changed a MWAG call to Harnett Sheriff's department here the caller gets told it is legal to OC, end of story.

poetdante · Aug 31, 2015

solus said:
while i understand members of this august membership want to revel in each and every very specific detail of your incident to provide their own personal insight...but:

i would like to make a suggestion before you continue posting any further information about your event...DO NOT UNTIL YOU CONSULT A CIVIL or DEFENSE ATTORNEY!!!

especially if you are going to seek remediation from the DA or pursue this what-so-ever.

information provided on this public forum could come back to bite you in the arse...and leave marks!!

ipse

As long as I do not post anything identifiable, would it be a problem. I mean, I posted an event reported to a public agency, in public, and the guy willingly gave his name and number but I don't want to list it so hence I was to post my transcribed transcript (basically saying everything but "my name is ____" and "I am calling from 502-__-____". But maybe I should quit the discussion as I can't afford any lawyer, even a consultation (broke grad student haha). I wish some more of the seasoned members would pipe in. The purpose of this thread was the issue at hand, using my experience as an example.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 31, 2015

Even with the lie about the concealed license how did this justify 9 cops?

WalkingWolf · Aug 31, 2015

poetdante said:
As long as I do not post anything identifiable, would it be a problem. I mean, I posted an event reported to a public agency, in public, and the guy willingly gave his name and number but I don't want to list it so hence I was to post my transcribed transcript (basically saying everything but "my name is ____" and "I am calling from 502-__-____". But maybe I should quit the discussion as I can't afford any lawyer, even a consultation (broke grad student haha). I wish some more of the seasoned members would pipe in. The purpose of this thread was the issue at hand, using my experience as an example.

Since you were not approached, and your rights not violated I see no problem with posting. Except for the lie about the permit, the most the caller could be charged with is abusing 911. If the PDF is an accurate account of his words. He reported a man carrying a legal gun, which is not a crime. He should be charged with abuse of the system, which is only a misdemeanor in most states.

The dispatcher is the real screw up here, he endangered the officers lives, and possibly yours by sending them on a non crime. They could have got in an accident while driving in a hurry endangering innocent citizens. The dispatcher deserves some training, and a warning not to do it again.

poetdante · Aug 31, 2015

Right, I'm saying that this seems to be more of a dispatch/police education issue rather than the caller. Anti-gunners are liars (and allergic to statistics) haha. I'm wanting this addressed in such a way that potentially worse outcomes from newer OCers doesn't happen. Some folks called for making an example of this guy and seeking litigation, I'm thinking "you can't fix stupid" but maybe we can have dispatch not waste resources by letting citizens know OC is ok here. I vaguely recall hearing a 911 call do just that somewhere...

solus · Aug 31, 2015

poetdante said:
As long as I do not post anything identifiable, would it be a problem. I mean, I posted an event reported to a public agency, in public, and the guy willingly gave his name and number but I don't want to list it so hence I was to post my transcribed transcript (basically saying everything but "my name is ____" and "I am calling from 502-__-____". But maybe I should quit the discussion as I can't afford any lawyer, even a consultation (broke grad student haha). I wish some more of the seasoned members would pipe in. The purpose of this thread was the issue at hand, using my experience as an example.

yes, your issue may only be the tip of the iceberg with how the nice LEs in your community are trained to hand OC'g activities, if you will...

IMHO, you are at a cusp, minimum letter to chief, city council, and dispatch mgmt asking for better training for response to these types of calls to save valuable resources, e.g., nine nice LE's tied up needlessly, possible reaction by the nine nice LE's inadvertently being improperly trained and reacting unprofessionally towards you and your fiance, possible lawsuits and monitary award(s) resulting from nine nice LE's reacting unprofessionally, etc.

max you find a sympathetic attorney who will pursue this with the vigor required on a contingency. consultation should not cost you a dime...also consider contacting Second Amendment Foundation for guidance...

there are references by VA USER who says the prosecution has used OCDO forum posts against his clients ~ to no avail he added, but still used the information gather to show premeditation.

want more input wait and pose the question...i am sure grape, skid, gutshot and bb62 will be along to offer their perspectives...heed them and then make a viable decision. in the mean time contact SAF and see if they want to provide guidance.

ipse

BB62 · Aug 31, 2015

poetdante said:
As long as I do not post anything identifiable, would it be a problem. I mean, I posted an event reported to a public agency, in public, and the guy willingly gave his name and number but I don't want to list it so hence I was to post my transcribed transcript (basically saying everything but "my name is ____" and "I am calling from 502-__-____". But maybe I should quit the discussion as I can't afford any lawyer, even a consultation (broke grad student haha). I wish some more of the seasoned members would pipe in. The purpose of this thread was the issue at hand, using my experience as an example.

Don't waste your time or your brain cells worrying about jeopardizing what legal recourse you might personally seek. Not only do I think that the DA/prosecutor/whatever they're called in your neck of the woods won't be interested in pursuing the guy, if all he did was lie about whether you had a license, but your legal pursuit of the guy would be an expensive and unproductive endeavor.

IF you were arrested/cited based on gross lies or police misconduct, things would be much different - but I'm not seeing either (except ridiculous LEO response) at this point. Barring new revelations, methinks that a calm letter to the Chief, the City Counsel, and the head of dispatch would be a better use of your time.

color of law · Aug 31, 2015

This is a case for the police being damned if they do and damned if they don't. Once the cops understood there was no issue they retreated. Where a problem comes about is the cops wanting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I this case they didn't.

As to the dispatcher, labeling the call as a "suspicious person" is troubling. "M HAS A HANDGUN IN HOLSTER, COMP ASKED M IF HE HAD CDW AND HE SAID NO" has no relevancy as it related to CDW. Firearm holstered is important. Why, how many BG do you know who open carries in a holster?

I would file a formal written complaint with the police stating this person has abused the 911 system. But, thank goodness the police did not overreact, possibly resulting in a tragedy.

Grapeshot · Aug 31, 2015

BB62 said:
Don't waste your time or your brain cells worrying about jeopardizing what legal recourse you might personally seek. Not only do I think that the DA/prosecutor/whatever they're called in your neck of the woods won't be interested in pursuing the guy, if all he did was lie about whether you had a license, but your legal pursuit of the guy would be an expensive and unproductive endeavor.

IF you were arrested/cited based on gross lies or police misconduct, things would be much different - but I'm not seeing either (except ridiculous LEO response) at this point. Barring new revelations, methinks that a calm letter to the Chief, the City Counsel, and the head of dispatch would be a better use of your time.

Agree totally.

IMO there is absolutely no basis for a suit. The OP was not detained, heck he wasn't even questioned by the officers.

Insofar as the 911 caller lying about the permit - he will just say he misunderstood the answer and made the call to be on the safe side.

The dispatcher may not have made a poor decision, done anything improper. We neither know what his instructions are nor his training.

The place to resolve this is with upper management = the chief and city council - the need for proper training standards and stop wasting resources on non-events. Still IMHO you will have a hard time getting many excited about this if it is an isolated incident, not a regular problem. A good option would be to file a formal complaint with the PD.

poetdante · Aug 31, 2015

color of law said:
This is a case for the police being damned if they do and damned if they don't. Once the cops understood there was no issue they retreated. Where a problem comes about is the cops wanting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I this case they didn't.

As to the dispatcher, labeling the call as a "suspicious person" is troubling. "M HAS A HANDGUN IN HOLSTER, COMP ASKED M IF HE HAD CDW AND HE SAID NO" has no relevancy as it related to CDW. Firearm holstered is important. Why, how many BG do you know who open carries in a holster?

I would file a formal written complaint with the police stating this person has abused the 911 system. But, thank goodness the police did not overreact, possibly resulting in a tragedy.

Will do BB and Gutshot.

And as for the cops, I think they acted well. Like I said, I figured it was some outrageous call on me which is why the cops looked so peeved when they saw nothing was the matter. Their questions to the staff was just them being thorough. I'm just surprised at the dispatcher, she asked all the right questions, but failed to tell the caller that what I was doing was ok. She even asked if it was a handgun or a long gun, so it sounds like they are at least prepped on the event of a OC event with rifles.

And yes gutshot, I too enjoy seeing cop cars drive by. I find it nice when a plain clothes cop stops at the park shortly after driving by me and sits at a bench, only leaving after I do. Like it was said, better safe than sorry and if they are putting OT cops onto TARC buses (if they are still doing that) then why wouldn't they quietly keep an eye on OCers.

Good advice guys. I would like to keep the discussion of SWATing in general open, any thoughts on how it could go wrong, from both parties? It's armchair commando/lawyer time!
And no, there is no sarcasm there, it's all sincere desire to hear what folks think.

davidmcbeth · Aug 31, 2015

gutshot said:
<snip> Let it go!

Perhaps they swarmed in his area to give him a "good citizenship award" ... a, no.

The goal of the response was to intimidate the carrier. And the response is to check out the 911 call and see if the caller defamed the citizen...if so, a defamation lawsuit is most appropriate.

Just forget it? Then you are empowering these callers to continue to call and call and call.

WalkingWolf · Aug 31, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
Perhaps they swarmed in his area to give him a "good citizenship award" ... a, no.

The goal of the response was to intimidate the carrier. And the response is to check out the 911 call and see if the caller defamed the citizen...if so, a defamation lawsuit is most appropriate.

Just forget it? Then you are empowering these callers to continue to call and call and call.

Where are the damages? The caller did not defame him, he reported him as a man with a gun, which he was, and is legal. The caller DID abuse the 911 system though.

The person who screwed the pooch was the dispatcher.

WalkingWolf · Aug 31, 2015

gutshot said:
No! This is just a few of the members of this forum wetting their panties over nothing. The police never approached you and never spoke to you. Whatever resources they used or whatever manpower they wasted is not your or my concern. Once they arrived on the scene, they reached the proper conclusion and acted correctly. Their having sufficient resources to handle a more serious situation just indicates that they were prepared, as they should be. I don't care if they roll 100 cars as long as they leave me alone. This reaction by them is no different that one of us saying that we have to be prepared for any situation when we try to explain to a novice why we might be carrying more than one gun. Let it go!

You apparently do not pay taxes.

BB62 · Aug 31, 2015

I'm wondering how it is that nine cops showed up? Slow day? Dispatcher? :question:

VERY interested in reading your transcript. If you can figure out how, you can slice/splice the original audio to eliminate the caller's private information. I use Audacity.

SWATing.

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate