TexasCHLforum.com

Neither article indicates the house was "raided" as that term is commonly used. They went to his house and talked to the owner.

That said, I think also points out the continuing unnecessary expansion of the use of SWAT teams. Apparently, the call to the PD said a man MAY have threatened them but they are sure, and he MAY have had a gun. In my view, this does not justify a military-like response.

I know some of the responses I'll get, so let me say this, if you don't want the risk of being a COP, do something else. When an agency or officer put the lives of the officers above those of the people they are sworn to protect, then they are not fit to wear a badge.

Chas.

The one guy in all black seems pretty serious in the previous link. Over reaction? Or is this the new normal when someone says gun.

So can you be arrested for spicing your story to 911? Seems that happened in Las Vegas with deadly consequences.

Would having a gun in your waist band being visible on your own property and not touching it be illegal? Is ordering a utility crew off your property illegal?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Neither article indicates the house was "raided" as that term is commonly used. They went to his house and talked to the owner.

That said, I think also points out the continuing unnecessary expansion of the use of SWAT teams. Apparently, the call to the PD said a man MAY have threatened them but they are sure, and he MAY have had a gun. In my view, this does not justify a military-like response.

I know some of the responses I'll get, so let me say this, if you don't want the risk of being a COP, do something else. When an agency or officer put the lives of the officers above those of the people they are sworn to protect, then they are not fit to wear a badge.

Chas.

Agreed based on that much more toned down 911 call. I could see them using SWAT if the call was much more "spiced up" as it were.

Those sheriff's ser4ously need better winter hats. They look like cast members from Super Troopers. Meow...

Homeowner awakened by noise on his property. If the homeowner had actually been armed he would have been within his rights. I think the only thing he did not do correctly was call 911 before the utility crew (potential tresspassers). Just because you have a right of way does not mean you can cross onto someone's property without notifying them. Common courtesy is lost to many today.

Anygunanywhere

Looking at the pics, I don't think that looks like a real gun even at a distance. IMO, the police need to have a chat with the guys who called 911.

The first article mentioned the police showed up with assault weapons so I assumed they did more than just knock on the door politely. I certainly could be mistaken.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That said, I think also points out the continuing unnecessary expansion of the use of SWAT teams. Apparently, the call to the PD said a man MAY have threatened them but they are sure, and he MAY have had a gun. In my view, this does not justify a military-like response.

I know some of the responses I'll get, so let me say this, if you don't want the risk of being a COP, do something else. When an agency or officer put the lives of the officers above those of the people they are sworn to protect, then they are not fit to wear a badge.

I completely agree with both points...especially the second point!

texanjoker wrote:I think the key quote is missing from your post. He went out and yelled at them. They obviously thought they saw a gun being a life sized tattoo and called 911 which would be a man with a gun yelling at people.... police arrived, sorted it out and left with no arrest. Can't see an issue there. If I were on a cover position I would probably have my rifle as well.

He went outside shirtless and yelled at the workers to leave. When he’s not wearing a shirt, the tattoo looks like a gun tucked into his waistband.

I don't think it's obvious at all that they thought they saw a gun. More likely I think is that they called the cops to get payback and told them they saw a gun and pretended they didn't know better.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Heck he could have effectively been "SWAT'd" by the construction crew in retaliation for yelling at them.

This is the most likely scenario.

android wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Must be a really good tattoo to be confused as a real gun.

This article has a better picture and lot better reporting.

Yeah, it could be believable from a distance.

Click if you want to see shirtless tattooed dude.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Norr ... lice_.html

Come on, it doesn't look anything like a real gun.....I've certainly never seen a real gun that is paper thin with a grip that curves around the stomach and would have to be glued onto his skin, since the tip of the barrel wouldn't be enough to hold it in place like that....a least on a planet with gravity. It's not even a good tattoo, it's a flat two dimensional image like you see on a gun busters sign.

healthinsp wrote:Surprise, surprise. The media used language to sensationalize the interaction between the police and the individual. (...raided his home...) The police didn't even go inside. Using the phrase "raided his home" is sure to elicit an emotional response to the story.

The extensive misuse of the term "murder" is similar.

Seriously? They're laying outside behind cover pointing rifles at him and calling him out.....pointing a loaded gun at someone is serious business....and while not entirely accurate, I don't think the language is sensational.

Remember folks, this happened in the Northeast, not Texas. I don't think this same response would have occurred here, but I may be wrong. After seeing the tattoo, I don't think it was very "real" looking even from a distance. Just my opinion.

I've got to wonder about the mentality of that tattoo in the first place. Yes, it is his right. But a lot of the things that follow, "Hold my beer and watch this," are also rights. I've got one tattoo and there meaning behind it and a reason for it. Most folks I know with ink also have reason for them. Just wondering what his reasoning was.

txglock21 wrote:Remember folks, this happened in the Northeast, not Texas. I don't think this same response would have occurred here, but I may be wrong. After seeing the tattoo, I don't think it was very "real" looking even from a distance. Just my opinion.

From this thread.

texanjoker wrote:I think the key quote is missing from your post. He went out and yelled at them. They obviously thought they saw a gun being a life sized tattoo and called 911 which would be a man with a gun yelling at people.... police arrived, sorted it out and left with no arrest. Can't see an issue there. If I were on a cover position I would probably have my rifle as well.

This guy is not your typical clean-cut neighbor. He's a white supremacist. Here's a photo



Check out the Nazi Party tattoo on his left inner arm. A real winner IMO.

This is the reason I don't have a tattoo.