TexasCHLforum.com

I recently posted a link to an articles about SWATting which mainly pointed to MAIG and their followers.

The story at the link below is about a Virginia OCer who was going about his usual business on a motorcycle ride. He stopped at a 7-11. The gun control loon spotted him and called 911 to report that the OCer had robbed the 7-11.

The man was stopped by four officers. To give the officers their due they did not treat the man as a possible felon. The biker handled himself well.The police knew who the caller was.

Why did they not arrest and prosecute the caller? Until these scumbags are prosecuted and sent to jail these types will never learn.

http://bearingarms.com/virginia-open-ca ... ampaign=nl

I do believe if it was me who had been SWATted I would obtain legal counsel and press the DA to act and pursue civil action against the caller.

Kudos to FCPD!

SWATing puts the lives of both the victim and responding LEO's at risk, and should treated as a serious Felony crime.

anygunanywhere wrote:I recently posted a link to an articles about SWATting which mainly pointed to MAIG and their followers.

The story at the link below is about a Virginia OCer who was going about his usual business on a motorcycle ride. He stopped at a 7-11. The gun control loon spotted him and called 911 to report that the OCer had robbed the 7-11.

The man was stopped by four officers. To give the officers their due they did not treat the man as a possible felon. The biker handled himself well.The police knew who the caller was.

Why did they not arrest and prosecute the caller? Until these scumbags are prosecuted and sent to jail these types will never learn.

http://bearingarms.com/virginia-open-ca ... ampaign=nl

I do believe if it was me who had been SWATted I would obtain legal counsel and press the DA to act and pursue civil action against the caller.

On what evidenciary grounds?
*Did you call?
*yes
*Why?
*I thought he was robbing the store.

Its really hard to prove a negative and generally against public policy if you start prosecuting people that call 911.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I recently posted a link to an articles about SWATting which mainly pointed to MAIG and their followers.

The story at the link below is about a Virginia OCer who was going about his usual business on a motorcycle ride. He stopped at a 7-11. The gun control loon spotted him and called 911 to report that the OCer had robbed the 7-11.

The man was stopped by four officers. To give the officers their due they did not treat the man as a possible felon. The biker handled himself well.The police knew who the caller was.

Why did they not arrest and prosecute the caller? Until these scumbags are prosecuted and sent to jail these types will never learn.

http://bearingarms.com/virginia-open-ca ... ampaign=nl

I do believe if it was me who had been SWATted I would obtain legal counsel and press the DA to act and pursue civil action against the caller.

On what evidenciary grounds?
*Did you call?
*yes
*Why?
*I thought he was robbing the store.

Its really hard to prove a negative and generally against public policy if you start prosecuting people that call 911.

Edited after I thought about it. If I have to explain it you don't want to understand. Anyone who carries should be concerned about this. Well, almost everyone.

While I sympathisize I don't think you'd find a DA born who would prosecute the instance you cited.

Whats the crime?

How are you going to prove it?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:While I sympathisize I don't think you'd find a DA born who would prosecute the instance you cited.

Whats the crime?

How are you going to prove it?

Providing false statement to the police.?
Abuse of 911?

There's certainly mens rea.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:While I sympathisize I don't think you'd find a DA born who would prosecute the instance you cited.

Whats the crime?

From Texas Statutes

Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:
(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the false report is of an emergency involving a public or private institution of higher education or involving a public primary or secondary school, public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1114, ch. 530, Sec. 4, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 910 (H.B. 1284), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 42.061. SILENT OR ABUSIVE CALLS TO 9-1-1 SERVICE. (a) In this section "9-1-1 service" and "public safety answering point" or "PSAP" have the meanings assigned by Section 771.001, Health and Safety Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person makes a call to a 9-1-1 service, or requests 9-1-1 service using an electronic communications device, when there is not an emergency and knowingly or intentionally:
(1) remains silent; or
(2) makes abusive or harassing statements to a PSAP employee.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly permits an electronic communications device, including a telephone, under the person's control to be used by another person in a manner described in Subsection (b).
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 582, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 14, Sec. 284(2), eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 331 (H.B. 1972), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2013.

How are you going to prove it?

Ummm, let's see. Taped 911 call? Caller ID through enhanced 911 system? Just throwing it out there. I seem to have heard this is possible.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:While I sympathisize I don't think you'd find a DA born who would prosecute the instance you cited.

Whats the crime?

How are you going to prove it?

Providing false statement to the police.?
Abuse of 911?

There's certainly mens rea.

anygunanywhere wrote:

How are you going to prove it?

Ummm, let's see. Taped 911 call? Caller ID through enhanced 911 system? Just throwing it out there. I seem to have heard this is possible.

Exactly. While you don't want to discourage legitimate 911 calls, the jurisdictional authorities also have a vested interest in discouraging illegitimate ones. In a state where OC is legal, the presence of an openly carried and holstered firearm is NOT evidence of a robbery going down. In most cases, I am against the passing of additional laws where one will do. But the problem is this:

1. LE agencies are not as inconvenienced by the SWATTING as the person SWATTED. They are already spread thin. A SWATTING now and then isn't going to spread them any thinner than they already are. Agencies are going to roll on the assumption that the call is real because the liabilities of NOT rolling outweigh the liabilities of rolling. Furthermore, SWATTINGS are probably a small fraction of the total illegitimate calls, which in turn are only a fraction of ALL calls. The majority of bogus calls are probably people complaining because they were served a single instead of a double whopper, and they want the police to make it right.
2. To the person being SWATTED however, the impact can be anything from a minor setback in their daily schedule, to being killed by accident while drawing out their wallet after the SWAT team that shows up asks to see ID or whatever........and anything in between, including possibly an arrest and legal expenses.

So for the SWATTEE, this can be a MAJOR issue. It is akin to false CPS reports and false domestic violence claims just to get back at the accused for some emotional slight or other, except that the risk of injury or death to the SWATTEE is much higher. If someone can be proven to have SWATTED another person, NOT that hard to prove, the accused deserves 6 months minimum in the county lockup for it. You don't do that to people. Making a false claim which has a reasonable probability of resulting in the other person's detention or death is ABSOLUTELY inexcusable, and MUST be punished, SEVERELY enough for the word to get out that doing so is a fast track into the prison system. If I have done nothing wrong, then MY liberty ALWAYS trumps your need to to be a nasty little piece of work.

People already know that making a false 911 call will almost never result in any backblast to themselves, so they do it. They do it, because they know they will get away with it. They get away with it because the perceived "victim" in the public eye is the overworked police department. It never gets viewed as an assault upon another person's freedom. But if you pass a law, or amend existing law, to making SWATTING a category of aggravated assault (the police are armed, after all), and mandating prosecution as such, with ALL the same penalties as any other aggravated assault, then perhaps the number of incidents will decrease.

You throw a few of those fascists in prison with real criminals for a few months, and maybe they will rethink not only their previous sins, but ALSO perhaps understand better exactly WHO privately owned guns are protecting their owners against. It might make them into gun owners........ except for that pesky felony rap......

I don't know why anyone would assume there was no evidence. In addition to what is mentioned above, there is likely survalence video from the store showing the victim acting normally. If it came to a jury, there is plenty to show the person is lying.

Also likely, I bet the caller has a 911 call history as well as an online history that could be used against him.

The main question in my mind is under what grounds could you sue the person? Can you sue for attempted murder? Harassment?

MechAg94 wrote:I don't know why anyone would assume there was no evidence. In addition to what is mentioned above, there is likely survalence video from the store showing the victim acting normally. If it came to a jury, there is plenty to show the person is lying.

Also likely, I bet the caller has a 911 call history as well as an online history that could be used against him.

The main question in my mind is under what grounds could you sue the person? Can you sue for attempted murder? Harassment?

I have been told that you can sue for anything. IANAL, I don't play one on TV and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Given that the biker was the subject of the false report and the false report is illegal that there is grounds for civil action.

Another thought, there was a person a while back who called 911 because McDonalds was out of chicken nuggets. The police arrested that person and no one questioned there was not grounds to do so.

The only issue I can see is if there are a lot of anti gunners such that a jury would refused to convict.

If the DA says it's not a crime does that mean it's legal to SWAT the DA?

tbrown wrote:If the DA says it's not a crime does that mean it's legal to SWAT the DA?

Bet it becomes a crime real quick.

much as I despise MAG, their methods and any groups that do SWATting

this guy was stopped by 4 cops.....he wasn't SWATed. now, the caller was probably attempting to SWAT, but failed, because it is stated, said caller is known to the police.