On June 28, 2009, a grave miscarriage of justice occurred. A group of bar patrons became enraged that they should be held accountable to the same standards as all other bar patrons throughout the state of Texas. Activists, some who were patrons, but many who were not, set out to create a propaganda campaign to grab national media and political attention. They sought to use an ordinary bar check as a platform to advance an unrelated agenda. Many well-meaning individuals, believing that they were throwing their support behind an engine seeking to further gay rights, were instead sucked into a whirlpool of misinformation.

As a result, nine honorable commissioned peace officers came to be the target of public outcry. The group of activists and their followers who coalesced against these officers did not come together based on righteous fact, however. Instead, they fed on hearsay-based hysteria, assumptions and flat-out fabrications. While the officers, whose livelihoods hang in the balance, eagerly await the conclusion of various investigations, the voices of those who would seek to destroy them has reached a fever pitch. It’s time to bring that pitch back down to a low rumble.


Disclaimer: The information posted on this site has not been prepared or approved by any police agency, police association, or legal or law enforcement professional. It has been compiled through research of already available information and should not be relied upon as legal advice or as findings of an investigation.

Next Section

  • Tom Hayden July 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM

    "Overly aggressive", "there with a vengeance" and "it’s pretty clear that he knows something about why the City of Fort Worth and the FWPD" are all gratuitous assertions. Where is your evidence.

  • Tom Hayden July 18, 2009 at 6:05 PM

    Mr. Harris,
    Asserting that a normal bar check would not lead to injury is a non-sequitur (does not follow). Furthermore, if you had read the entire site as I did, you would know that the person in question only had a concussion, which does not fall within the normal definition of "brain damage".

  • Tom Hayden July 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM

    At least be witty enough to say "Bovine Scattology".

  • Editor July 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM

    The Editors of this site are concerned with that as seems, right now, that this is the ONLY place where accurate reporting is going on. Scary.

  • D July 22, 2009 at 11:39 PM

    From D:

    Part II

    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style="">Police officers are not "honorable" just because they put on a uniform, although most people who frequent gay bars probably give them the benefit of the doubt.  They are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the TABC has already admitted that their officers violated policy, and apologies have abounded.  Fort Worth police may or may not have violated policy.  You do think policy is good, don't you?  Gosh I hope so.     </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style=""> </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style="">At present, things aren't going well for the officers.  Maybe things will improve for them.  What you fail to understand is that sometimes a "bunch of activists and drunks" are right, and officers turn out to be the bad guys.  It's unfortunate, if all the officers followed proper procedure - oh, wait, the TABC already admitted they did not, right?  </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style=""> </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style="">Time will tell.  But Tom, please.  This whole site is a gratuitous assertion.  You start that way in the introduction.  </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style=""> </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style="">Finally, you do know that eyewitness accounts are relevant, considered, and often times dispositive.  Police officer accounts are often unreliable for obvious reasons, but you know that, don't you?  Let's see how many witnesses not in a uniform will support the police officers' stories.  If a few come forward, or maybe even two or three, then the police officers deserve for them to be heard.  A agree that time will tell.  </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style=""> </span>
    <p style="margin: 0in 6pt 0pt;"><span style="">But the only accurate reporting is being done here?  Come on...  </span>

  • Editor July 23, 2009 at 7:55 AM

    First, thank you for presenting a far more reasonable reply than many visitors to this site.

    Next, here's what we can agree on: the full body of facts have not yet been presented - but so far, a majority of media attention has focused on accounts that cannot be substantiated.  This site is a response to that.  The point of this site, further, isn't to blindly believe in anything...which is why nearly every single page links to outside resources.  And why, we believe, people are only commenting on the introductions; the substantiated information on the remaining pages is fairly unassailable.

    We can also agree that not all police officers are honorable.  Making an absolute comment like that would be irresponsible.  This site does not attempt to argue that all police officers act appropriately in all situations.  What it does assert, and what is substantiated by links to dozens of outside sources, is that they acted appropriately in the situation at hand.

    Here's what we can't agree on: the supposition that cops were there to harrass a gay bar (they have better things to do), the belief that Alan Steen's comments were based on actual policy (they weren't), and the veracity of the "eyewitnesses" (whose accounts not only contradict each other, but whose accounts to differing sources contradict themselves).

    Again, thank you for a far more reasoned comment than most have left.  I only wish you'd gotten farther than the introduction before you responded; I wonder how your thoughts would have changed after learning much more.

  • SpecDev July 27, 2009 at 5:31 PM

    The abuse of power carried out habitually by agents at the prohibition era anachronism that is the TABC are common knowledge among college students.  Pushing around college kids is easy because they aren't organized and no court or reporter would take the word of a 18-22 year old over that of a TABC agent with his fancy badge and cowboy hat.  Now, however, the TABC has made the mistake of hamhandedly screwing with a segment of the population that was already organized and had more media access than the TABC could dream of. 

    I'm not gay, nor do I consider myelf a prominent supporter of gay rights.  I do, however, consider myself a strong proponent of law enforcement being accountable to the tax payers they serve.  Simply put, there is no law enforcement organization in Texas that lacks accountability more so than the TABC does. 

    Drunk on their own power over the sliver of law enforcement jurisdiction they have, the TABC's agents are notorious for their lack of civility among anyone who has ever encountered them. 

    I'd like to give my most sincere thanks to all the TABC agents involved in the Rainbow Lounge raid, as your ineptitude and clumsiness in dealing with the simplest of altercations has allowed the media and public-at-large to see the TABC for what it really is.  Without your actions, the TABC may have gone on lurking in the shadows of college and hotel bars, ticketing and arresting those who don't have the ability to defend themselves from you.  Now, however, you have allowed all Texans to see what a liability your agency is and how you long ago lived out your usefulness.

  • Editor July 30, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    Your comment seems to be in line with many of others who have contributed to the public outcry after the bar check at the Rainbow Lounge - heavy on accusation, light on examples.  "Drunk on their own power," "abuse of power," "ineptitude and clumsiness" - aren't those sticks and stones kinds of arguments?  In other words, they are empty words with zero substance to back them up.  Come on back when you can show actual incidents (as in patterns, not single events) and your remarks will then have more credibility.

Posts on Restoring Reason are now static; comments are still being accepted.