Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Whew, I thought this involed my guys..nope, Texas Air Force arresting citizens

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Whew, I thought this involed my guys..nope, Texas Air Force arresting citizens

    http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015/...vate-property/

    Hunters in San Angelo are upset after a recent incident with guards from Goodfellow Air Force Base. On Tuesday, the opening day of dove season in Texas, six hunters were detained by base personnel while traveling through private farmland adjacent to the base

    They have zero right to have arrested these guys. I have been at bases where hunters do the same .. we just waved at each other. These Goodfellow guys have no measure of discipline what so ever.

    OOOOOhhh..guys with guns ... we're a-scared.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    In the imaginary world where things happen as they are supposed to, all sorts of hellfire and brimstone would be raining down on those AP - and not just from civil law suits. I hear DHS frowns on anybody poaching in their territory.

    In the real world there will probably be a letter saying we never did it but are sorry and promise to never do it again.

    david -

    Not sure what you mean by "my guys" but this http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/Units/1...ningGroup.aspx
    pretty much suggests they are not AFNG but "regular" zoomies.

    Also, "Texas" in the headline merely identifies where they are based, not that they are something different from the government-constituted AF.

    Two for two with this post. Good job - keep it up.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Oh boy. The cloud jockeys stepped in it this time. They just violated Posse Comitatus, and they did it on camera.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    If it was me there would have been a stand-off. Do people not understand that the citizen only needs to follow lawful orders.

    Then the news makes it sound like the hunters did not follow proper protocol.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Oh boy. The cloud jockeys stepped in it this time. They just violated Posse Comitatus, and they did it on camera.
    Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken.

    The Chair Force popo did not come out of their hive to enforce civilian law - or at least so it seems. It's more like they "extended" the base boundary by adding an additional security perimeter that had no warning signs that the field was now considered part of the federal facility.

    But yes, they did step in it - up past their waist. Still, I do not expect anything in the way of discipline or compensation to come of it. Terrorism, don'tcha know?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    LOL Good catch McBeth, and thank you for your service. I enjoyed the comments there, repartee but some not so witty. I note my ignore list's proper function!
    Last edited by Nightmare; 09-05-2015 at 10:31 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    detained by base personnel while traveling through private farmland adjacent to the base. The property was leased by the company that organized the hunt, Wildlife Systems, and had been used previously for hunting.
    Military authority, even for security purposes, ends at the boundary between the govt owned and civilian owned, except when chasing a suspect fleeing off of base property OR reacting to a VERIFIED threat (i.e. actually taking fire) coming from outside the base. "Extending" an additional security interception perimeter into privately owned property is illegal. By exiting the base property to detain the civilians, they acted as "domestic law enforcement." Protocol in the situation SHOULD have been to observe the individuals, call in to local LEO's (sheriff probably, maybe state) and have THEM check out the civilians. I confess, as a an Army mudbug, I'm not up on AF regs. However, I can safely say they don't allow AF personnel to violate federal law or the Constitution.

    In 2009, Geneva County Sheriff's Office in southern Alabama requested Army MP's assistance from Ft. Rucker during an incident. This was given, wrongly, and even with the very limited roles assigned to the Army MP's, they were still found to have violated the PCA. A couple of NCO's and an officer or two were administratively disciplined.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    couple of questions arise...
    1. leased from whom? the government?
    2. something is amiss as it is not normal security forces' protocol to immediately put citizens on the ground (even if they are armed unless there is a perception of an immediate threat) so could the civilians have postured inappropriately?
    3. map of goodfellow show the base on the east and south has a road called perimeter road and sw is called 1223? the north's road seems to be 388 and the west seems to be surrounded by housing development(s).
    4. the se corner seems the only clear 'hunting area' per se and like i mentioned it is off a road called perimeter road..
    (cite for #s 3 & 4: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...964bed!6m1!1e1)

    bottom line, i do not see a viable 'dove' shooting area and if they are on the aerofield side of the base, i believe the Security Forces acted appropriately to protect the aerofield from real or perceived threats.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 09-05-2015 at 11:29 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    couple of questions arise...
    1. leased from whom? the government?
    2. something is amiss as it is not normal security forces' protocol to immediately put citizens on the ground (even if they are armed unless there is a perception of an immediate threat) so could the civilians have postured inappropriately?
    3. map of goodfellow show the base on the east and south has a road called perimeter road and sw is called 1223? the north's road seems to be 388 and the west seems to be surrounded by housing development(s).
    4. the se corner seems the only clear 'hunting area' per se and like i mentioned it is off a road called perimeter road..
    (cite for #s 3 & 4: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...964bed!6m1!1e1)

    bottom line, i do not see a viable 'dove' shooting area and if they are on the aerofield side of the base, i believe the Security Forces acted appropriately to protect the aerofield from real or perceived threats.
    1. Private land owner of the fields to the EAST of the base.
    2. Doesn't matter. AF personnel were in the wrong being outside the wire.
    3.&4. See pic below. There is a second dirt road along the outside of the fence line.

    Last edited by DeSchaine; 09-05-2015 at 12:09 PM.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    couple of questions arise...
    1. leased from whom? the government?
    No - private property. Someone besides the .gov owns it. A civilian, if you please.

    2. something is amiss as it is not normal security forces' protocol to immediately put citizens on the ground (even if they are armed unless there is a perception of an immediate threat) so could the civilians have postured inappropriately?
    TV news coverage with real-time video of the incident - http://www.myfoxzone.com/story/29954...nting-surprise . Does not look to me like inappropriate posturing for the sake of publicity or any other motive.

    3. map of goodfellow show the base on the east and south has a road called perimeter road and sw is called 1223? the north's road seems to be 388 and the west seems to be surrounded by housing development(s).
    4. the se corner seems the only clear 'hunting area' per se and like i mentioned it is off a road called perimeter road..
    (cite for #s 3 & 4: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...964bed!6m1!1e1)

    bottom line, i do not see a viable 'dove' shooting area and if they are on the aerofield side of the base, i believe the Security Forces acted appropriately to protect the aerofield from real or perceived threats.

    ipse
    Areas all along the southern and eastern edges of the base look to be likely spots for dove hunting.

    Are you saying that if they were outside the fence on the runway side the AP still had reason to consider them a real or perceived treat? Especially when it has been mentioned several times that earlier hunts on that same field had gone off with positive response from the AP?

    No matter what sort of spin you try to put on it (and "terrorism" is probably the cheapest shot one could use) it was a heaping pile of steaming Oops that the AF guys stepped in. The entertainment will be watching to see what, if any, repercussions follow.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    . By exiting the base property to detain the civilians, they acted as "domestic law enforcement." Protocol in the situation SHOULD have been to observe the individuals, call in to local LEO's (sheriff probably, maybe state) and have THEM check out the civilians. .
    I'm confused. If they acted as "domestic law enforcement" what domestic laws were they enforcing? Which is why I disagree on the Posse Comitatus aspect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    Recent legislative events

    In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[7]

    Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

    The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[8]

    In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[9] It was originally written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

    In 2011, President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1021(b)(2) extended the definition of a "covered person", i.e., someone possibly subject to detention under this law, to include:

    A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.[10]

    Section 1021(e) purports to limit the scope of said authority with the text, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."[11]
    So nope! Not Posse Comitatus even under the expanded rules/definitions. Not Posse Comitatus because there was no violation of state law they went off the reservation to enforce in the (immediate) absence of state/local law enforcement.

    About the only thing they might have a legitimate reason to respond to off the base would have been shots fired into the base (malicious intent or bad aim). Nothing nowhere nohow says the hunters were doing that.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 09-05-2015 at 12:32 PM. Reason: added final paragraph
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    couple of questions arise...
    1. leased from whom? the government?
    2. something is amiss as it is not normal security forces' protocol to immediately put citizens on the ground (even if they are armed unless there is a perception of an immediate threat) so could the civilians have postured inappropriately?
    3. map of goodfellow show the base on the east and south has a road called perimeter road and sw is called 1223? the north's road seems to be 388 and the west seems to be surrounded by housing development(s).
    4. the se corner seems the only clear 'hunting area' per se and like i mentioned it is off a road called perimeter road..
    (cite for #s 3 & 4: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...964bed!6m1!1e1)

    bottom line, i do not see a viable 'dove' shooting area and if they are on the aerofield side of the base, i believe the Security Forces acted appropriately to protect the aerofield from real or perceived threats.

    ipse
    Incorrect. Look at the map. Perimeter Rd. is within the fenced base. The military trespassed onto private property. Where the hunters were accosted was on the driveway of that private land. That driveway is off Old Eola rd.

  13. #13
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    When a cop stops you and detains you just because you're wearing a firearm, what law is he enforcing? None, really. He's just being a PITA. He has within the scope of his "duties" the ability to detain and identify persons he presumes (lawfully or not, as we constantly see on these forums) to be engaged in some sort of criminal activity.

    Military security forces have the same scope but only on a military reservation! The second they stepped off the base to detain and identify non threatening civilians on privately owned land, they engaged in the enforcement of civilian law.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  14. #14
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Chair Force Security P*****s.

    Letters need to be sent to their congressional delegation and the secretaries of the Chair Force and Defense DEMANDING disciplinary action be taken against all personnel involved!
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-07-2015 at 06:11 PM. Reason: Unacceptable language on public forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    USAF...the JV military branch...growing pains...give'm a break.

    skid is likely got this one nailed...notta gunna happen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    USAF...the JV military branch...growing pains...give'm a break.

    .
    Gotta ask that you give them a break - even if it's only a small one. They aint completely stupid -

    like the Navy they exist to throw officers at the enemy.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Goodfellow is a training base, i.e. classroom training, it airfields were shut done ~1975.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    USAF...the JV military branch...growing pains...give'm a break.

    skid is likely got this one nailed...notta gunna happen.
    Hey ! That hurt. Also was not the USAF ....

    But still on point. Weeks after 9/11/2001 I was flying domestically with my young son. The security guy at the airport wanted to look down my kid's pants. He said it was a rule. I told him it was my rule to jap slap anyone who wanted to look down my kid's pants. So the security guy waives over to a AF airman (complete with M16) to talk to me. Bad idea as I chewed that kid out for about 20 minutes and explained to him about his responsibilities not to follow unlawful orders and the limitations that military personnel have over civilian US citizens. Needless to say, they did not get to look down my son's pants and we went on our way to our flight.

    And another incident a few months ago where a National Guard Sgt. "ordered" me around wherein I was not on any military property. He got the same earful and I ignored his "commands".

    I have few USAF vets on my block ... we make fun of the Navy vets. All in good fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •