View Full Version : OR - Interesting story. Mental eval for purchasing firearms.
I'll reserve my opinion on this for now but please feel free to post yours. http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315
Police act swiftly after gun purchases. ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47.
March 09, 2010
By Anita Burke
Concerns about an Oregon Department of Transportation employee who purchased several guns after being placed on leave prompted law enforcement across Southern Oregon to step in.
Negotiators and a SWAT team from Medford police safely took a man — whose name wasn't released — into protective custody Monday morning in the 500 block of Effie Street, Medford police said in a news release.
He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.
The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.
ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.
Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
Douglas and Jackson County sheriff's departments, OSP officers based in both counties and police in Medford and Roseburg collaborated, he said.
Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.
Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.
Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.
After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.
Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
EzGoingKev
03-10-10, 12:17
WTF is an "Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun"??
It's a USP; that's what USP stands for. "Universal Self-loading Pistol" (actually stands for the German words, but I don't know those).
Business_Casual
03-10-10, 12:24
This is thought crime, pure and simple. The founding fathers detested thought crime and we should all well know that.
M_P
SouthWolfGA
03-10-10, 12:34
I don't knwo if I would go as far as to say it is thought crime. He isn't being charged with anything. Personally I think it's good work. His employer voiced a concern and the police saw activity that raised flags. In order to prevent this turning into the next Breaking News Story, had the gentleman checked out for his own safety as well as possibly others. I've had to enact similar actions at my workplace after firing someone and they made verbal threats to get back at the company. Most the time, these are probably just an angry person venting and nothing comes of it, but it only takes one time of not doing something about to have a mild situation turn a major one, causing pain for many.
I have no concerns about this particular incident, but it is treading on a very fine line. AS long as it doesn't evolve into charging people on what we think they might do, I'm ok with it. I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing otherwise good people from doing bad things out of emotion by seeing the signs and getting them help.
Belmont31R
03-10-10, 12:47
I don't knwo if I would go as far as to say it is thought crime. He isn't being charged with anything. Personally I think it's good work. His employer voiced a concern and the police saw activity that raised flags. In order to prevent this turning into the next Breaking News Story, had the gentleman checked out for his own safety as well as possibly others. I've had to enact similar actions at my workplace after firing someone and they made verbal threats to get back at the company. Most the time, these are probably just an angry person venting and nothing comes of it, but it only takes one time of not doing something about to have a mild situation turn a major one, causing pain for many.
I have no concerns about this particular incident, but it is treading on a very fine line. AS long as it doesn't evolve into charging people on what we think they might do, I'm ok with it. I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing otherwise good people from doing bad things out of emotion by seeing the signs and getting them help.
So if a person gets fired, and gets pissed its cool to call up the police, and have them taken in along with their property confiscated?
Might as well just bar people from owning guns all together because we never know when someone is going to snap, and its for the public good right?
See here in the USA we're supposed to be punished for what we have done (thats against the law) not what we MIGHT do.
If I ever get fired Ill have to remember not to get pissed off less my former employer call the cops, and the SWAT team comes for my guns....:rolleyes:
It sounds to me like the guy is going along with everything he's been asked to do.
Such as...
Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.
I'm guessing he allowed the police to hang on to them?
After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.
So what happens if he just gos back to bed?
If he's been "forced" into any of this...I would say there's a lawsuit in the not too distant future.
Unless there is something big missing from the story - like the part where he actually made threats or indicated that he would be back for blood with his alien friends - this is absolutely ridiculous.
I would be irate if my house was surrounded by a SWAT team and my property was confiscated simply because I got fired and - shockingly - wasn't happy about it. I'm wondering what "situation" they were sent to "defuse," and under what authority they seized the guns.
If the guy really had lost it, and a judicial official issued a temporary detention order or something similar based upon sworn representations of his concerning behavior/statements, then no foul. Otherwise I hope this guy enjoys a year or two taxpayer funded retirement from his settlement.
SouthWolfGA
03-10-10, 13:12
So if a person gets fired, and gets pissed its cool to call up the police, and have them taken in along with their property confiscated?
Might as well just bar people from owning guns all together because we never know when someone is going to snap, and its for the public good right?
See here in the USA we're supposed to be punished for what we have done (thats against the law) not what we MIGHT do.
If I ever get fired Ill have to remember not to get pissed off less my former employer call the cops, and the SWAT team comes for my guns....:rolleyes:
No but it is cool if the person gets fired or other punitive action is taken and they display behavior that could indicate they may want to "retaliate" somehow and then within a day or two suddenly start buying up an arsenal of weaponry, then I would say there is reason for concern and I'd rather have a professional make sure he is in the right state of mind before he does something that will result in his arrest, death or others death.
If a person, such as you or me, already owns such weaponry and makes reasonable statements of anger or disapproval about being fired or placed on leave, then I am not saying it is needed for law enforcement to come in. But if you say something along the lines of "You'll all come to regret this!" or any other menacing behavior of this nature and then the police as a precaution are watching you to make sure you actually just were venting and cool off, notice you loading ammo and weapons in your car, yes, they should take action.
We as gun owners have a right to be gun owners, but it is also improtant that we are responsable with that right. Like I said, there is a fine line being tread in this story. I think they went a little...ok a lot overboard with the swat team and everything, but he isn't being criminally charged and it is action being taken out of concern for him and his safety as well as others. It's no different to me, than someone saying they just want to die, and then see them buying a pistol later that same day. Any sane person is going to have concern about the sequence of those events.
Business_Casual
03-10-10, 13:12
I don't knwo if I would go as far as to say it is thought crime. He isn't being charged with anything. Personally I think it's good work. His employer voiced a concern and the police saw activity that raised flags. In order to prevent this turning into the next Breaking News Story, had the gentleman checked out for his own safety as well as possibly others. I've had to enact similar actions at my workplace after firing someone and they made verbal threats to get back at the company. Most the time, these are probably just an angry person venting and nothing comes of it, but it only takes one time of not doing something about to have a mild situation turn a major one, causing pain for many.
I have no concerns about this particular incident, but it is treading on a very fine line. AS long as it doesn't evolve into charging people on what we think they might do, I'm ok with it. I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing otherwise good people from doing bad things out of emotion by seeing the signs and getting them help.
I fear for our Republic.
M_P
Same response I make in other posts with news articles: I want to know what hasn't been printed before I form a firmer opinion.
That being said, this smells really funny. I hope threre's more to this.
An ex parte protective order of some sort, granted upon sworn affidavit of a petitioner, that included provisions for the firearms, should handle the legalities of what they did (depending on OR law). There's no mention of that.
And I see the world is the same everywhere:
Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
I don't knwo if I would go as far as to say it is thought crime. He isn't being charged with anything. Personally I think it's good work. His employer voiced a concern and the police saw activity that raised flags. In order to prevent this turning into the next Breaking News Story, had the gentleman checked out for his own safety as well as possibly others. I've had to enact similar actions at my workplace after firing someone and they made verbal threats to get back at the company. Most the time, these are probably just an angry person venting and nothing comes of it, but it only takes one time of not doing something about to have a mild situation turn a major one, causing pain for many.
I have no concerns about this particular incident, but it is treading on a very fine line. AS long as it doesn't evolve into charging people on what we think they might do, I'm ok with it. I would rather my tax dollars be spent preventing otherwise good people from doing bad things out of emotion by seeing the signs and getting them help.
There is one on every forum it seems. :rolleyes:
Will be waiting for some followup on this one.
Belmont31R
03-10-10, 13:44
No but it is cool if the person gets fired or other punitive action is taken and they display behavior that could indicate they may want to "retaliate" somehow and then within a day or two suddenly start buying up an arsenal of weaponry, then I would say there is reason for concern and I'd rather have a professional make sure he is in the right state of mind before he does something that will result in his arrest, death or others death.
If a person, such as you or me, already owns such weaponry and makes reasonable statements of anger or disapproval about being fired or placed on leave, then I am not saying it is needed for law enforcement to come in. But if you say something along the lines of "You'll all come to regret this!" or any other menacing behavior of this nature and then the police as a precaution are watching you to make sure you actually just were venting and cool off, notice you loading ammo and weapons in your car, yes, they should take action.
We as gun owners have a right to be gun owners, but it is also improtant that we are responsable with that right. Like I said, there is a fine line being tread in this story. I think they went a little...ok a lot overboard with the swat team and everything, but he isn't being criminally charged and it is action being taken out of concern for him and his safety as well as others. It's no different to me, than someone saying they just want to die, and then see them buying a pistol later that same day. Any sane person is going to have concern about the sequence of those events.
So a gun owner isn't allowed to get pissed off after being fired, and should be watched by the police? Nothing like a big nanny state eh?
If he made threats they should have charged him with making terroristic threats. Sounds like they didn't have anything to charge him with, and decided to surround his house with a SWAT team, and then take him in to see a shrink.
Yeah gun owners do need to be responsible, and they should be punished if they commit a crime with their gun. They should not be punished for what they MIGHT do. If you think people should be taken in by SWAT team to go see a shrink because of what they "might" do then they need to go round up every gun own because we "might" blow up and go shoot up our place of employment. I'm sure every single one of us has gotten pissed off at some point so why not right?
SouthWolfGA
03-10-10, 13:55
So a gun owner isn't allowed to get pissed off after being fired, and should be watched by the police? Nothing like a big nanny state eh?
If he made threats they should have charged him with making terroristic threats. Sounds like they didn't have anything to charge him with, and decided to surround his house with a SWAT team, and then take him in to see a shrink.
Yeah gun owners do need to be responsible, and they should be punished if they commit a crime with their gun. They should not be punished for what they MIGHT do. If you think people should be taken in by SWAT team to go see a shrink because of what they "might" do then they need to go round up every gun own because we "might" blow up and go shoot up our place of employment. I'm sure every single one of us has gotten pissed off at some point so why not right?
You know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Play the scenario out if they don't take precautions if they see an angry person suddenly buy up an arsenal of weaponry. Then you read in the paper of some ticked off employee taking out 6 to 20 heads at his work place when he walks in guns a blazing and then taking himself out. Think of the backlash that wil cause.
That's exactly the fuel Gun control activist need to push their agenda first of all. Then on top of that, you have heat on his supervisor if he did not report said disturbing behavior to anyone, or if he did, the police take heat for not doing enough about the supervisor reporting it.
Again, he hasn't been charged with anything, and his weapons are only being held for safe keeping until he is cleared as in stable mind.
And anyone with or without guns, should be careful about what spout off with their mouth. These are dangerous times and you have to assume someone will follow through with any kind of dangerous threat because so many do. Just imagine your wife or someone you care about works at the same place this guy did. Wouldn't you be a little thankful of these actions? especially if it turns out this guys is seriously jacked up in the head?
I think so far, with the exception of the excessive show of force, it has been dealt with fairly reasonably. This is of course given the information we do have available to us. There could be other information we don't know that may sway this debate one way or the other.
You know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Play the scenario out if they don't take precautions if they see an angry person suddenly buy up an arsenal of weaponry. Then you read in the paper of some ticked off employee taking out 6 to 20 heads at his work place when he walks in guns a blazing and then taking himself out. Think of the backlash that wil cause.
That's exactly the fuel Gun control activist need to push their agenda first of all. Then on top of that, you have heat on his supervisor if he did not report said disturbing behavior to anyone, or if he did, the police take heat for not doing enough about the supervisor reporting it.
Again, he hasn't been charged with anything, and his weapons are only being held for safe keeping until he is cleared as in stable mind.
And anyone with or without guns, should be careful about what spout off with their mouth. These are dangerous times and you have to assume someone will follow through with any kind of dangerous threat because so many do. Just imagine your wife or someone you care about works at the same place this guy did. Wouldn't you be a little thankful of these actions? especially if it turns out this guys is seriously jacked up in the head?
I think so far, with the exception of the excessive show of force, it has been dealt with fairly reasonably. This is of course given the information we do have available to us. There could be other information we don't know that may sway this debate one way or the other.
Won't you be happy that they took these reasonable percautions when they kick in your door because that neighbor down the street who gets scared because he sees you ferrying rifles cases back and forth from your vehicle, calls the police to report "threats". Of course that neighbor will have immunity because they called in "good faith". Yeah, it is good faith even if they are members of the Brady Foundation & militant PETA/Vegans & you didn't actually do or say anything threatening. Now you are going to be taken to a facility by force & your only hope of a short stay is to cooperate fully. Your neighbors are evacuated by SWAT in the early am hours "for their safety" before the raid, that'll make living in that neighborhood fun. Your doors and windows that got broken, well you will need to pay for those. . . because it was a legal warrant & immunity clause, blah, blah. After you are cleared, it will take a year and a half or more and thousands of lawyer dollars to get your property back. Just because you finally get a court order for the release of your property, doesn't mean you have any recourse to recoup your losses .. . it is just out of pocket. Glad to hear you support this reality SouthWolfGA, it won't hurt a bit when they come for you. You have a slush fund for legal fees & some extra doors and windows laying around right?
That's exactly the fuel Gun control activist need to push their agenda first of all. Well, yeah, Sarah Brady will call this a "win" . . . they "prevented" a crime by pre-emptively misusing the police against a law abidding citizen. Yea Sarah!
I fear for our Republic.
M_P
We're in the same boat, pirate boat that is.
Belmont31R
03-10-10, 15:42
You know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Play the scenario out if they don't take precautions if they see an angry person suddenly buy up an arsenal of weaponry. Then you read in the paper of some ticked off employee taking out 6 to 20 heads at his work place when he walks in guns a blazing and then taking himself out. Think of the backlash that wil cause.
That's exactly the fuel Gun control activist need to push their agenda first of all. Then on top of that, you have heat on his supervisor if he did not report said disturbing behavior to anyone, or if he did, the police take heat for not doing enough about the supervisor reporting it.
Again, he hasn't been charged with anything, and his weapons are only being held for safe keeping until he is cleared as in stable mind.
And anyone with or without guns, should be careful about what spout off with their mouth. These are dangerous times and you have to assume someone will follow through with any kind of dangerous threat because so many do. Just imagine your wife or someone you care about works at the same place this guy did. Wouldn't you be a little thankful of these actions? especially if it turns out this guys is seriously jacked up in the head?
I think so far, with the exception of the excessive show of force, it has been dealt with fairly reasonably. This is of course given the information we do have available to us. There could be other information we don't know that may sway this debate one way or the other.
I don't think its reasonable for police to get a call about an ex employee, and then surround the house with a SWAT team to take the guy in for a mental eval without the guy doing anything to bring charges on himself.
If he made actual threats then they can charge him with that. Not well he was pissed off he lost his job, and bought some guns so we're gonna send in the SWAT team, and then see if he is of (by our definition of course by our shrink) mental state to own a gun.
Seriously the anti-gunners use the same arguments against CCW, open carry, owning "military guns", etc. That we are about to pop off, and its dangerous for people to own these guns or carry them. "Pre-emptive" laws are no different than sending the SWAT team because Billy Joe got pissed he lost his job so we're going to take his guns "for safe keeping" because he MIGHT pop off.
This is why "might" laws and pre-emptive police action is so dangerous because you can take almost any person, and construe something about them. Its damn risky to liberty to engage in this type of stuff. Yeah they might catch a couple people who were planning on doing something but for every one guy they catch early how many others are going to get surrounded by a SWAT team, and hauled off to the shrink when they actually didn't do anything. And just based on a random accusation? How many people lose their guns because their crazy ex-wife makes false accusations? Getting some call, and then taking drastic action against someone is simply wrong. Although I may be wrong if he made threats drastic enough to bring in the SWAT team those threats would be enough to charge him with terroristic threats. But they didn't do that....so he must not have said anything enough to even warrant charges. Instead its a forced "health and welfare" check at the point of a gun. I don't like it.
See here in the USA we're supposed to be punished for what we have done (thats against the law) not what we MIGHT do.
Minority Report.
I fear for the republic as well.
I want to know about how they knew he was purchasing weapons.
I can think of a situation where this response could be reasonable and not totally illegal.
<scenario>
Man gets fired from job, says some fightin' words. Cry baby 'employer' is bored, and as a government employee has likely little else to do, calls police. Police do what they should do: write a report.
Susy Q Sister/Wife/Friend/Neighbor calls police, shes scared. My brother just got fired/laid off/pissed from his job he just bought a bunch of guns the next day.
<-begin news story->
This all seems above board if that is the case.
OR
Already unconstitutional NICS background checks are accessible to police without a proper warrant. Fuddy duddy cry baby gov't 'employer' (comisar) calls police, police pull illegal surveillance file, and pull up with the swat team to pick a fight.
This is an extreme problem requiring such a solution, if that is the case.
In either case, the swat team is just pickin' a fight, I'm afraid.
GermanSynergy
03-10-10, 16:00
He needs to stop playing nice and hire the most demonic lawyer he can find. From what I've read, it appears that he has been deprived of his personal property without due process. Sue the pants off of anyone and any agency involved.
You know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
No, it really isn't. Who is going to be in trouble, or who is going to get sued, if they do nothing?
The answer is nobody, because the government (e.g., the police) have sovereign immunity in situations like this with regard to their decisions, and in any case have no legal duty to protect the ex-employer, or anyone else in particular for that matter. The most it would cause would be a public/political uproar if the guy ended up doing something. I've never understood the fear amongst LE of getting in trouble for failing to arrest/cite/detain or otherwise act affirmatively. Other than getting a naughty note from your supervisor and the feeling of "gee, I should have ..." that might come with it, you aren't in any real trouble. Nobody can sue you successfully for a discretionary, governmental decision to not act. Very rarely does the government get into legal trouble for doing nothing. It's when they actually DO something that deprives somebody of his liberty or property that it gets sued.
On the other hand, surrounding somebody's house with a SWAT team at 3 a.m. and seizing his property can in fact have some real implications if not done properly.
SouthWolfGA
03-10-10, 16:34
Yeah, they defiantely went overboard using the SWAT force. However, I don't necesarily disagree that he needed to be checked out. It seems everyone keeps ignoring the part that he is not being charged with anything and is not under any type of arrest. They are simply geting a him mentally evaluated due to the circumstances. The part I'm upset about is not that they looked into him and reacted to the red flags. I am a little disturbed at how they reacted. SWAT at 3 am in the morning is a little nuts. But I do agree it's best that this guys was closely watched.
As far as a neighbor getting upset seeing me traffic weapons to my car and calling the police....did I make a threatening remark? Does this individual have legitimate reason to belive I am a danger to anyone besides my possession of firearms? If the answer is yes, then by all means action should be taken. If the answer is no, then it's up to LE to dicern that. They should ask those questions.
These are two different scenarios. In one scenario you got a person being investigated just for owning firearms. In the other, an individual displayed potential intent to do harm and then suddenly bought several weapons capable of carrying out said intentions. Let's not compare apples and oranges.
Again...
Who's to say he didn't agree to go along with all of this?
I'm still uncomfortable with how he was being watched and how he was "approached".But that's a separate issue that more details may clarify.
But being "taken in" and the police having his guns could be something he willingly went along with.
He needs to stop playing nice and hire the most demonic lawyer he can find. From what I've read, it appears that he has been deprived of his personal property without due process. Sue the pants off of anyone and any agency involved.
Most states have "immunity clauses" that prevent someone attacked via the system, from civil or criminal recourse if the report was made "in good faith". The burden of proof is on the victim to prove the report was malicious. When this stuff goes down, all you can do is jump through the hoops, pay the lawyers & suck it up however you have to to get your stuff back. I am of course, speaking from personal experience. I wish I was alone, but this dude out in OR just joined my unfortunate club.
Without a doubt, if this guy had actually made threats that would actually warrant this action, he would have been charged with terroristic threats. They love to hand that one out because it carries a lifetime firearm ban & that is what they are after. If they could have charged him with it, they would have. That he went through this crap & didn't slip up & make a chargable statement anywhere in the "arrest" or 72 hour hold, is a pretty good indicator he has his head screwwed on right.
I am continually astonished at the destruction of liberty that people blandly accept day in and day out. Let me be clear, I am not advocating going toe to toe with the SWAT team when the show up in the middle of the night. But he should be screaming from the rooftops that his civil rights have been absolutely trampled. That is a hanging offense (or at least a seven figure civil offense) if the action violates some policitally correct taboo these days. If however, it is something icky to liberals like the second amendment, everyone just looks the other way. I'm shocked the ACLU has not leapt to his defense...
Don't people realize that it is just a matter of time until thinking of or being involved in an activity that is important to them could result in the same type of treatment. Paving the way for this type of action for buying guns or being in a bad mood over a job loss is one step from having the SWAT team at your door at 3 am because you espoused the wrong political view or worship the wrong diety.
I don't sit around with my tinfoil hat on thinking that black helecopters are coming to get me tomorrow but I am beginning to wonder how long it is going to take for us to simply abdicate our freedom in a fit of apathy.
Business_Casual
03-10-10, 16:42
It seems everyone keeps ignoring the part that he is not being charged with anything and is not under any type of arrest. They are simply geting a him mentally evaluated due to the circumstances.
So you dislike due process as well?
Do you know what the Soviet Union did with dissidents? They had them adjudicated mentally insane and put them in prisons in Siberia. Because they didn't think the way the government wanted them to think. Similar to how the British put Catholic priests in chains because they didn't think the way they should either. Maybe we have the Bill of Rights precisely to prevent situations where people are in prison because the government doesn't like the way they think. Or, if they have the luck of the Irish, sail their sloop too close to the leeward wind.
M_P
Again...
Who's to say he didn't agree to go along with all of this?
I'm still uncomfortable with how he was being watched and how he was "approached".But that's a separate issue that more details may clarify.
But being "taken in" and the police having his guns could be something he willingly went along with.
You go along with it or you get "Ruby Ridged". Seriously, the cops come to take you in for a 72 hour hold . .. it ain't optional. You can "go along with" and use that as an indicator that you are "sane" to the powers that be, or you can stand up and fight, get shot down & discredited in the media as yet another reason we need to ban guns. Criminy! I hear some of ya'll blaming the victim for "cooperating with an extra-legal request" just don't seem to understand how this stuff works. You come out of your house and give up, or you become a baricaded and violent subject that needs the full SWAT treatment with all the cracked door frames and dead pets that can involved. Moreover you score the "resisting" charges and all that jazz. No, SWAT comes to the door, the opportunity to say "no thank you" is WAY, WAY past. If someone is sane, they will do exactly what this dude did.
Or, if they have the luck of the Irish, sail their sloop too close to the leeward wind.
M_P
Translation: "Sail close to the wind", to do something that is dangerous or only just legal or acceptable. :D
crazy, crazy behavior. i hope medford PD and OSP have some REALLY compelling evidence to support this activity.. otherwise the good people of oregon will be buying this guy a hell of a lot of stuff.
You go along with it or you get "Ruby Ridged". Seriously, the cops come to take you in for a 72 hour hold . .. it ain't optional. You can "go along with" and use that as an indicator that you are "sane" to the powers that be, or you can stand up and fight, get shot down & discredited in the media as yet another reason we need to ban guns. Criminy! I hear some of ya'll blaming the victim for "cooperating with an extra-legal request" just don't seem to understand how this stuff works. You come out of your house and give up, or you become a baricaded and violent subject that needs the full SWAT treatment with all the cracked door frames and dead pets that can involved. Moreover you score the "resisting" charges and all that jazz. No, SWAT comes to the door, the opportunity to say "no thank you" is WAY, WAY past. If someone is sane, they will do exactly what this dude did.
I hear yuh,I do.
But if he comes out unarmed and says...
"No I'm not going with you and you can't have my guns unless I'm being charged/arrested."?
All I'm saying is if the guy didn't know his rights or chose not to excercise them he is the one to "blame" for that.The options aren't limited to a shootout/standoff and bending over.
I hear yuh,I do.
But if he comes out unarmed and says...
"No I'm not going with you and you can't have my guns unless I'm being charged/arrested."?
All I'm saying is if the guy didn't know his rights or chose not to excercise them he is the one to "blame" for that.The options aren't limited to a shootout/standoff and bending over.
being surrounded by SWAT and having a hostage negotiator contact you is definitely evidence that a reasonable person could automatically assume he was, indeed, under "arrest," and that voluntary compliance was nothing more than preventing involuntary compliance.
being surrounded by SWAT and having a hostage negotiator contact you is definitely evidence that a reasonable person could automatically assume he was, indeed, under "arrest," and that voluntary compliance was nothing more than preventing involuntary compliance.
I'd damn sure like to know what I was being arrested for.It would be the first thing on my mind.
SouthWolfGA
03-10-10, 17:33
being surrounded by SWAT and having a hostage negotiator contact you is definitely evidence that a reasonable person could automatically assume he was, indeed, under "arrest," and that voluntary compliance was nothing more than preventing involuntary compliance.
This is where my problem lies, the fact that they surround this guys house with SWAT at 2 am. I feel this issue could have been handled by a plain clothes cop showing up and knocking on the door at 2 PM would have been a better approach.
However, IF this gentleman made some shady remarks that eluded to him coming back and turning the place into his own firing range and then buying several firearms shortly there after.......yeah, I think there is every bit of a reason for concern.
I mean, if someone said something to the effect of "You're gonna regret this." to you or your family and then you found out they purchased all these firearms directly after, wouldn't you want this individual's state of mind checked out?
Once this story changes to say he was arrested or is being charged with something other than terroristic threats,(as long as he made them) by all means, then the line is crossed.
http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/precrime-2.jpg
It's even worse that he isn't being charged.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Mo_Zam_Beek
03-10-10, 17:53
As a guy that actually lives in Medford Oregon, I can tell you there had to be a reason to take this precaution. The sheriff and city LE are generally very pro gun. It is a shall issue state. In fact the sheriff denied the paper access to the list of CHL holders here in the valley and forced it to court. Additionally, I have had my C3 sign offs in as little as an hour and a max of 3 days. Anyone notice the article wherein ODOT is refusing to discuss some issues? Anyone want to take a guess at who asked that these steps be taken? I also deal with ODOT regularly - region 3 (Medford) there're pretty rational folks as well. There are very likely parts of this story that are not being told.
Good luck
Medford PD press release: http://www.ci.medford.or.us/News.asp?NewsID=2800
MEDIA RELEASE
Medford Police Department
411 W 8th Street
Medford, OR 97501
Date: March 8, 2010
Contact: Lt. Bob Hansen
Public Information Officer
541-774-2217
Type of Incident: Disgruntled Employee to be Evaluated
Date and time of incident: 03/08/10 at 2100 hours
Location of incident: 500 block of Effie Street, Medford
On 030810, the Medford Police Department SWAT Team and the Hostage Negotiating Team were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation.
The subject had been recently placed on administrative leave from his place of employment and was very disgruntled. The subject had legally purchased several firearms within the last of couple of days.
Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers. Early this morning, members of the Hostage Negotiating Team were able to talk the subject into voluntarily surrendering to awaiting SWAT Team members. The subject was transported for treatment at a local hospital. The firearms were seized for safekeeping.
Media Release prepared by: Lt. Bob Hansen Date: 3/8/2010 Time: 10:03 AM
(After business hours and weekends, contact Watch Commander at 541-774-2290)
I'd damn sure like to know what I was being arrested for.It would be the first thing on my mind.Um, sure. Here is a hypothetical dialogue:
"We have reason to believe you may be a threat to yourself or others" PD
"What? Why? What are you talking about?" victim
"Well ,that is for you to discuss with the doctors at county medical. I am just going to make sure you get there safely" PD
"I don't feel I need to talk to the doctors at county medical" victim
"Sir, I am going to have to ask you to place your hands ontop of your head. This is for your safety and mine. (cuffs victim) If you give me the combination to your gunsafe, we can avoid cutting it open to sieze your guns for your safety". PD
"Wow! What? it is in the _____ and the combination is _______, what is this all about?" Victim
"just relax and stop resisting, I don't want to have to taser you" PD
"What? I am just aski eeeeeeeEEEE! OW!" victim
QuietShootr
03-10-10, 18:46
I can add nothing to this thread that won't get me banned, but I wish to express my displeasure with this situation.
just a guess... the press doesn't have all the info nor would they be interested in including it if they did.
I'm betting that this statement:
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
is the part that lent credence to the concern.
If I were a betting man, since the cops aren't going to release details (especially since it is now a medical issue and not an enforcement issue), I'd say that there is probably a voice mail, surveillance video from the work place, written note/letter, or e-mail outlining a specific threat... followed up on by the guy taking steps to fulfill his threats (buying the guns).
How'd the cops know about the guns? Hmmm... the sprawling metropolis of Medford is so huge that nobody at work would bump into him. Maybe someone saw him, he told someone (my personal favorite - everyone likes to talk), or the gun store called the cops because he was acting crazy buying a gun every 6 hrs ranting about his former employer.
edit: one more scenario. He was home alone at 3:00 when SWAT was called out. Is he married? Did the wife bail from the house in the middle of the night and call the cops saying her bat-shit crazy husband had been on the gun-a-day club since getting fired and acting more and more irrationally, making threats, etc.?
If I were a betting man, since the cops aren't going to release details (especially since it is now a medical issue and not an enforcement issue), I'd say that there is probably a voice mail, surveillance video from the work place, written note/letter, or e-mail outlining a specific threat... followed up on by the guy taking steps to fulfill his threats (buying the guns).
How'd the cops know about the guns? Hmmm... the sprawling metropolis of Medford is so huge that nobody at work would bump into him. Maybe someone saw him, he told someone (my personal favorite - everyone likes to talk), or the gun store called the cops because he was acting crazy buying a gun every 6 hrs ranting about his former employer.
I'd like to know how the cops found out about his firearms purchases. Your assumption that he was acting crazy and ranting while buying a gun every 6 hours is a bit out there.
As for the population of Medford, in 2008, the city had a total population of 76,850 and a metropolitan area population of 202,310. Chances are very likely that he didn't just bump into someone and on top of that tell them he planned on committing murder. I lived on an aircraft carrier for almost 4 years and saw new people everyday on 6 month deployments, we had less than 6000 people in a much smaller area.
I'd like to know how the cops found out about his firearms purchases. Your assumption that he was acting crazy and ranting while buying a gun every 6 hours is a bit out there.
As for the population of Medford, in 2008, the city had a total population of 76,850 and a metropolitan area population of 202,310. Chances are very likely that he didn't just bump into someone and on top of that tell them he planned on committing murder. I lived on an aircraft carrier for almost 4 years and saw new people everyday on 6 month deployments, we had less than 6000 people in a much smaller area.
That's why option 3 is my favorite... People like to talk. Especially pissed off people, fired from their jobs, making threats, buying guns... what do the head shrinkers call that? Attention seeking behavior? They REALLY like to tell people what bad asses they are in hopes someone will notice and offer them help since, for whatever reason, they are unwilling/unable to ask for it.
I'm sure Medford PD will respond to a FOIA request if you're dying to know.
Um, sure. Here is a hypothetical dialogue:
"We have reason to believe you may be a threat to yourself or others" PD
"What? Why? What are you talking about?" victim
"Well ,that is for you to discuss with the doctors at county medical. I am just going to make sure you get there safely" PD
"I don't feel I need to talk to the doctors at county medical" victim
"Sir, I am going to have to ask you to place your hands ontop of your head. This is for your safety and mine. (cuffs victim) If you give me the combination to your gunsafe, we can avoid cutting it open to sieze your guns for your safety". PD
"Wow! What? it is in the _____ and the combination is _______, what is this all about?" Victim
"just relax and stop resisting, I don't want to have to taser you" PD
"What? I am just aski eeeeeeeEEEE! OW!" victim
Or...
"What's the problem?"
"We have reason to be concerned....."
"Sure,I'll go with you and I suppose you can hold onto my guns until we get this straightened out."
Could your hypothetical have happened?Sure.
All I'm saying is we don't know how it went down.
Perhaps SWAT was just an overly cautious reaction to what was really just a simple "contact".
There's far too little info here.If things went like you suggest I'll be happy to join in the outrage.
ORS 166.412 (6)a Looks like any firearm bought in OR through a dealer is going to have a form (with info to go into a database) tied to it that Oregon State Police have access to.
I'd say the police knew because he bought through a dealer. . . . which of course is not indicative of him trying to be covert or hide some plot he had hatching in his head.
Beyond the obvious civil liberties problems . . . it pains me to see someone who has not commited a crime get thrown under the bus by his own community (gunowners). Yuk!
*Er, (7)a . . . . looking up OR complied statutes is like pulling teeth!
(7)(a) The department may { + not + } retain a record of the
information obtained during a request for a criminal records
check for { - no - } more than { - five years - } { + 30
days. A person who violates this paragraph commits a Class A
violation + }.
(b) The record of the information obtained during a request for
a criminal records check by a gun dealer is exempt from
disclosure under public records law.
Looks like it was amended at some point, but what the current state of the law is . . . . I haven't had the best 'O luck finding.
OK, the guy going with the cops voluntarily seems kosher. (Calling in SWAT seems a bit excessive, tho.) His first question should have been "am I being arrested and on what charge?"
Where the line was crossed was if private property was seized without a warrant. If the guy gave up the property voluntarily, shame on him, but there's no foul at that point. Good luck getting the guns back without a lot of expensive attorney fees and a court order, btw.
IMO, if the guy made threats, that is a criminal offense and the LEOs would have had an arrest warrant based upon a sworn complaint. The lack of an arrest appears to me that no threats were made and there was no grounds for legal action. "Being concerned for your mental state" is not grounds for what ocurred. Bringing SWAT to a citizen's residence in the wee hours without any kind of warrant has a ring of third world totalitarian activity to it.
I've purchased 3 handguns and applied for a CCW permit in the past 10 days - does this mean I'm gonna get the "knock on the door in the middle of the night" too?
Belmont31R
03-11-10, 02:04
OK, the guy going with the cops voluntarily seems kosher. (Calling in SWAT seems a bit excessive, tho.) His first question should have been "am I being arrested and on what charge?"
Where the line was crossed was if private property was seized without a warrant. If the guy gave up the property voluntarily, shame on him, but there's no foul at that point. Good luck getting the guns back without a lot of expensive attorney fees and a court order, btw.
IMO, if the guy made threats, that is a criminal offense and the LEOs would have had an arrest warrant based upon a sworn complaint. The lack of an arrest appears to me that no threats were made and there was no grounds for legal action. "Being concerned for your mental state" is not grounds for what ocurred. Bringing SWAT to a citizen's residence in the wee hours without any kind of warrant has a ring of third world totalitarian activity to it.
I've purchased 3 handguns and applied for a CCW permit in the past 10 days - does this mean I'm gonna get the "knock on the door in the middle of the night" too?
Umm if SWAT is at your house they are probably ordering you out in one way or another. Complying with LEO commands is not voluntarily "going with them". Whats the other option? Stay inside, and they rush the house?
I just find it ludicrous that a private citizen can make a claim against someone else, and thats enough justification to send the SWAT team after someone to go stick them in the mental hospital for a few days.
Bobert0989
03-11-10, 04:05
Hope he got a deal on those guns, because if I were just fired, the last thing on my mind would be spending my entire final paycheck on firearms. Heck, I'd be looking for ANYTHING that doesn't "go boom" in the house that I could sell off, and even contemplating which rifle would have to go first...
Seriously, a USP .45, AK-47, and a 12 guage? Rough used estimates = ballpark of $1200 on the low side, right? Thats a lot of money to throw down to not have any more coming in behind it. I guess it could've been somethig he'd planned for a while, and maybe had the extra put back in savings or something, but I feel it did cause some concern for the former employer.
Also, did it mention how/when the employer found out that he had purchased these firearms?
GermanSynergy
03-11-10, 06:38
I'm interested to hear the whole story....
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 08:57
I agree, the unknown's of this story can be potentialy worrisome. But what we do know is he was disgruntled, the employer filed a complaint, and because of this, the police were watching him. That is how they knew he bought the guns. They were keeping an eye on him because of the employer's complaint.
Minority Report.
Exactly what came to mind.
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
You now have absolutely no standing to get pissed if 'citizens' start doing that
PdxMotoxer
03-11-10, 09:22
I keep reading in members posts the he was "fired" but if you re-read it....
It just says he was placed on "administrative leave".
Notice they (the media) do not inform the public why he was placed on
"administrative leave".
They only stated
1. He was placed on administrative leave for an unknown reason
(or their not telling us because then the story would make sense and not be as interesting or news worthy)
2. He was "Disgruntled"
(exactly what is Disgruntled.. being mad because you're being placed on leave
when you didn't do anything wrong? or being angry your being placed on administrative leave?)
Who gets happy they might be loosing their cushy state job?
I know as a teen I got happy when I got caught "skipping school" and was
told as a penalty for not going to class I had to stay home for 3 days.
I agree with others that said there is to much about this story that is unknown or untold.
You know it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Play the scenario out if they don't take precautions if they see an angry person suddenly buy up an arsenal of weaponry. Then you read in the paper of some ticked off employee taking out 6 to 20 heads at his work place when he walks in guns a blazing and then taking himself out. Think of the backlash that wil cause.
That's exactly the fuel Gun control activist need to push their agenda first of all. Then on top of that, you have heat on his supervisor if he did not report said disturbing behavior to anyone, or if he did, the police take heat for not doing enough about the supervisor reporting it.
Again, he hasn't been charged with anything, and his weapons are only being held for safe keeping until he is cleared as in stable mind.
And anyone with or without guns, should be careful about what spout off with their mouth. These are dangerous times and you have to assume someone will follow through with any kind of dangerous threat because so many do. Just imagine your wife or someone you care about works at the same place this guy did. Wouldn't you be a little thankful of these actions? especially if it turns out this guys is seriously jacked up in the head?
I think so far, with the exception of the excessive show of force, it has been dealt with fairly reasonably. This is of course given the information we do have available to us. There could be other information we don't know that may sway this debate one way or the other.
You show an incredible lack of understanding for the concept of freedom.
Outlander Systems
03-11-10, 09:42
http://a2.vox.com/6a00c225239a5e8fdb00f48cf08d7a0003-500pi
Being "proactive" is a good thing, but what the police seem to have missed is that there's more than one way to be "proactive." Clearly this guy's civil rights were violated in the way that they went about this. If I were him I would be furious about the way he was taken out of his house, with a SWAT team--in the middle of the night. I mean, aside from the fact that he won't be tortured, how is this scenario any different from the "jack booted thug" stories in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, where they come and drag you off in the middle of the night based on a neighbor's accusation?
If they were concerned, the authorities could have sent a squad car over to the guy's house during daytime hours to chat with him informally and evaluate the situation. Talking to someone does not necessarily have to violate their rights, and would give an opportunity to determine if he appeared to be unstable. Taking him into custody and confiscating all his stuff, strictly on the word of someone else that he "might be a danger to himself or others" is insane and unconstitutional. If we have come to the point where your rights can be violated simply on someone else's speculation about your mental state, we are in some deep do-do.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 09:48
You show an incredible lack of understanding for the concept of freedom.
No, I understand the concept of freedom very well. I also understand the concept of moral duty and public safety. I have good reason to believe that a person is likely to cause harm to themselves or others, it is my responsability to attempt to prevent it. If I am aware of this possiblity and do nothing about it and as a result this individual follows through with it and he or others end up dead as a result.....well I may as well have been the one to pull the trigger myself because I could have prevented it.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 09:50
Being "proactive" is a good thing, but what the police seem to have missed is that there's more than one way to be "proactive." Clearly this guy's civil rights were violated in the way that they went about this. If I were him I would be furious about the way he was taken out of his house, with a SWAT team--in the middle of the night. I mean, aside from the fact that he won't be tortured, how is this scenario any different from the "jack booted thug" stories in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, where they come and drag you off in the middle of the night based on a neighbor's accusation?
If they were concerned, the authorities could have sent a squad car over to the guy's house during daytime hours to chat with him informally and evaluate the situation. Talking to someone does not necessarily have to violate their rights, and would give an opportunity to determine if he appeared to be unstable. Taking him into custody and confiscating all his stuff, strictly on the word of someone else that he "might be a danger to himself or others" is insane and unconstitutional. If we have come to the point where your rights can be violated simply on someone else's speculation about your mental state, we are in some deep do-do.
+1
Agree 100%, it's not that they did something it's how they did something.
Belmont31R
03-11-10, 09:51
Being "proactive" is a good thing, but what the police seem to have missed is that there's more than one way to be "proactive." Clearly this guy's civil rights were violated in the way that they went about this. If I were him I would be furious about the way he was taken out of his house, with a SWAT team--in the middle of the night. I mean, aside from the fact that he won't be tortured, how is this scenario any different from the "jack booted thug" stories in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, where they come and drag you off in the middle of the night based on a neighbor's accusation?
If they were concerned, the authorities could have sent a squad car over to the guy's house during daytime hours to chat with him informally and evaluate the situation. Talking to someone does not necessarily have to violate their rights, and would give an opportunity to determine if he appeared to be unstable. Taking him into custody and confiscating all his stuff, strictly on the word of someone else that he "might be a danger to himself or others" is insane and unconstitutional. If we have come to the point where your rights can be violated simply on someone else's speculation about your mental state, we are in some deep do-do.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Seems like society now is all about ditching our freedoms for some sense of security......
Also this guy is/was sent to a state employed shrink to see if he is fit to own guns. Very likely this guy will lose his gun rights based on this shrinks recommendation once its sent to a judge.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 09:55
Also this guy is/was sent to a state employed shrink to see if he is fit to own guns. Very likely this guy will lose his gun rights based on this shrinks recommendation once its sent to a judge.
Seems like we are being a bit hypocritical here. Passing judgement on what a shrink might do before they actually do it. hmmm?
Seems like society now is all about ditching our freedoms for some sense of security......
Also this guy is/was sent to a state employed shrink to see if he is fit to own guns. Very likely this guy will lose his gun rights based on this shrinks recommendation once its sent to a judge.
Amen brother. Historically, whenever the bulk of the population is either hungry, or in fear of something, they are usually willing to trade off freedom for bread and security.
The police did not enter the house, they talked the occupant out of it. No FA violation.
They used the SWAT team as a protective corden and as a contingency force. No FA violation.
Based on talks with the ODOT employee, his coworkers, and others a decision was made to refer said person for a psychiatric evaluation. No FA violation.
The detained dangerous devices of a person referred for a psychiatric are held pending the outcome for safety and security. No FA violation.
His civil rights were not violated and no one is getting sued.
Belmont31R
03-11-10, 10:26
The police did not enter the house, they talked the occupant out of it. No FA violation.
They used the SWAT team as a protective corden and as a contingency force. No FA violation.
Based on talks with the ODOT employee, his coworkers, and others a decision was made to refer said person for a psychiatric evaluation. No FA violation.
The detained dangerous devices of a person referred for a psychiatric are held pending the outcome for safety and security. No FA violation.
His civil rights were not violated and no one is getting sued.
If you have SWAT outside your house ordering you out its not exactly "free will". Its under duress, and following police orders which is not "free will".
What kind of society allows your neighbors or coworkers to make a claim, and that claim alone is enough to send in the SWAT team, and haul a person off for 72HRS to go likely lose their gun rights forever?
When I was in Baghdad I talked to our interpreters a lot about what it was like under Saddam. It also helped we were staying in an old Iraqi intellegence barracks/base, and we got to 'tour' the basement which was their prison and torture area. People were sent there because a neighbor ratted them out for something they said, maybe just because they were Shiite, maybe just because their neighbor had a grievance, and wanted them "gone". In these cells some of the prisoners scratched their stories on the walls. Who knows how many never made it out of there alive. From what I was told everyone was paranoid all the time wondering when it was going to be there time. People disapeared in the middle of the night never to be heard from again.
So now we have this "pro-active" police work where based on a neighbors claim, maybe a ex-wife, maybe your coworkers, etc.....make a claim, and you are taken in the middle of night to go sit in a cell and tell your story....maybe they'll lock you up for being a threat, you get to talk to them about your life, justify why you bought a couple guns, basically plead for your rights against a system setup to deny you rights whenever it can be done. Next time it might be you. Might go through a divorce, and your wife claims you hit her or made some threats, maybe you have some rabid anti-gun coworker, and they claim you threatened them, etc. Don't be so quick to throw someone under the bus as one day it might you waking up to a SWAT team outside your house to be dragged off, and locked in the loony bin for a few days while they try to squeeze out of you a reason to deny your rights for the rest of your life. All simply based on an allegation from someone else.
Yeah we'd all like a safe society where people don't get pissed off, and go shoot up their work place but you can never fully prevent that. What you can do is give people a sense of security, and start denying people their rights. That is the price of freedom. You cannot have both. I like LE as much as the next guy but I like freedom just a wee bit more. I don't want to see people hauled off in the middle of the night because the guy bought some guns, and his coworkers said something about him. They may have indeed prevented the guy from killing people. But as I said before for everyone they do prevent how many more are going to lose their rights, and be dragged through the mud. There is simply no telling where or when someone can allege something against you. I hope there is some compelling evidence other than a couple coworkers saying something about him. I really do.
A negotiator talked him out of the house, the presence of the SWAT team is immaterial. Who said he lost his firearms forever? No one did. You are reading way too much into what happened. dissect the facts presented, nothing more. As this is a "medical issue" the police cannot release much more information then they have, privacy laws guide that. A threat of some sort was articulated. The police acted on that information out of an abundance of caution and with remarkable restraint. How long should they have waited and what should have been their trigger point, when he walked into his former place of employment, the court house, the public school down the street? Some of you guys spend way too much time staring at the sky looking for nonexistent black helicopters from the U.N.
QuietShootr
03-11-10, 10:41
I'd damn sure like to know what I was being arrested for.It would be the first thing on my mind.
Yeah. I'm not going anywhere without being arrested..and if that means coming to my house and ****ing with me, THEN arresting me for something I wouldn't have done unless you came and ****ed with me? Mmmm...I'm thinking more things that would get me banned. Pack a lunch.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 10:46
A negotiator talked him out of the house, the presence of the SWAT team is immaterial. Who said he lost his firearms forever? No one did. You are reading way too much into what happened. dissect the facts presented, nothing more. As this is a "medical issue" the police cannot release much more information then they have, privacy laws guide that. A threat of some sort was articulated. The police acted on that information out of an abundance of caution and with remarkable restraint. How long should they have waited and what should have been their trigger point, when he walked into his former place of employment, the court house, the public school down the street? Some of you guys spend way too much time staring at the sky looking for nonexistent black helicopters from the U.N.
Glad to see someone is looking logically at what information is known and not the unknowns.
Glad to see someone is looking logically at what information is known and not the unknowns.
What's your name? That way I can call the police, say you were acting disgruntled towards me and they can send the SWAT team to apprehend you, interrogate you, give you a psych eval and take away your guns for an undetermined amount of time.
I'll reserve my opinion on this for now but please feel free to post yours. http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315
This is absolute insanity. I don't agree with it at all, in fact it makes me sick to my stomach.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 12:36
What's your name? That way I can call the police, say you were acting disgruntled towards me and they can send the SWAT team to apprehend you, interrogate you, give you a psych eval and take away your guns for an undetermined amount of time.
Sure, it's not going to do any good, because they will more than likely want you to come in or meet you in person and have signed documented statement form you identifying these claims. Then if you jump through those hoops, they will probably show up at my house and want to question me and might even take things to the extent they have with this gentleman. In the end however, I will more than likely be found to be pretty sane and all will be back to normal.
After that I can sue you for making false accusations and defamation of chartacter and live happily ever after. Not to mention the police will more than likely figure out that no such thing has happened and you will be charged with whatever people are charged with for wasting their time and tax payer money.
There are laws in place to keep people from making rediculous and unwarranted claims against each other just because they don't like someone. Yes, in the beggining you can make life very tough for someone, but in the end you will end up on bottom by doing such a thing.
Sure, it's not going to do any good, because they will more than likely want you to come in or meet you in person and have signed documented statement form you identifying these claims. Then if you jump through those hoops, they will probably show up at my house and want to question me and might even take things to the extent they have with this gentleman. In the end however, I will more than likely be found to be pretty sane and all will be back to normal.
After that I can sue you for making false accusations and defamation of chartacter and live happily ever after. Not to mention the police will more than likely figure out that no such thing has happened and you will be charged with whatever people are charged with for wasting their time and tax payer money.
There are laws in place to keep people from making rediculous and unwarranted claims against each other just because they don't like someone. Yes, in the beggining you can make life very tough for someone, but in the end you will end up on bottom by doing such a thing.
Sure but, and don't take offense to this, everything you just described is everything that is wrong with this country right now. You seem to describe such a government intrusion into your life as something that you would simply just get on with once it's over. The whole point is that it should never happen to begin with. We live in a nation that with media hype, and current knee jerk trends in both conservative and liberal circles, people are guilty before proven innocent. Take a home owners association, or say you live in a gated community. Having this seizure of your firearms, and detainment simply happen is enough to damn you in the eyes of your neighbors and your community. People could loose jobs, homes, ext for such a "proactive response". Unfortunately, while you may think you do, you don't live in a society where people are very willing to forgive. After such a gross display of force, your peers will not be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. All they will see is Police Arrest + Trip to Funny Farm + AK-47 = threat to their false sense of security.
As for you be willing to sue. Don't even get me started on lawsuits. Such actions are the reason so many of these over reactions happen in the first place, and also the reasoning behind how pathetic our nation has become.
Third, you seem to think that the arresting officers would assume that IrishLuck in this hypothetical situation would somehow be in the wrong for reporting you in the first place, and thus charge him with making false statements. This assumes (and falsely) that the police will be on your side in all of this. While your assumption may be right I highly doubt that a police force that is willing to do a "proactive" response such as this, is going to question anyone that calls in their neighbor. In fact I would be more willing to bet that they would encourage such calls.
What's your name? That way I can call the police, say you were acting disgruntled towards me and they can send the SWAT team to apprehend you, interrogate you, give you a psych eval and take away your guns for an undetermined amount of time.
Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if kmrtnsn & SouthWolfGA are just playing devil's advocate, or if they really don't get it. This stuff happens. This stuff happens and it is a slap in the face to anyone who ever swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.
I know because it has happened to me. Yes, I was cleared. Yes, I have every one of my guns back. Yes, I will tell you exactly what I "did" to bring that nightmare on myself: My wife was friends with a woman who is on disability for mental illness. When we were newly together the friend got jealous of the time my wife was spending with me (he new husband), the crazy lady made some calls to some people & told some lies . . . those people, out of concern for my wife's safety, made some calls to some official types parroting the lies the crazy lady told. There ya have it. My crime was being a newlywed. Cost a lot of money, both in repairs on the house and lawyer fees to get the guns back. I had to refinish the stocks on a couple of the rifles because the police were not gentle with my lawfully owned & not mentioned in any warrant, property. So, yeah, an innocent & sane guy will get his guns back and be released. That doesn't make it right & it sure as hell doesn't make it cheap. There is no recourse, the LEOs were acting in good faith on a bad tip. There is no recourse, the law grants immunity to people who "report" people in good faith & the burden of proof would be on the victim to prove malice (more lawyer bills, blood out of a turnip, what is the point).
When I hear folks defending the way this was handled, I very much think they are failing to put themselves in the shoes of a guy going about his life without breaking any laws (or even uttering anything that could inspire that lovely blanket charge "terroristic threats" bear in mind that there is no penalty for charging the guy and not getting a conviction . . . so if they could have charged him .. . . the math isn't that hard) and you get the SWAT treatment. Comply and you get out with some hope of retaining your gun rights. Resist and you are sure as hell going to be charged with something that will cost you your 2A.
A negotiator talked him out of the house, the presence of the SWAT team is immaterial. Only if you mean, it is obvious that the guy is sane because he came out when the negotiator asked rather than having some insane fantasy about SWAT coming in and things "going well" for him as if he were Neo in some scene from the Matrix.
Some of you guys spend way too much time staring at the sky looking for nonexistent black helicopters from the U.N. May the pitter patter of Jackboots grace your doorstep. While I can admit I am a little close to this story & my feelings are formed out of experience . . . your excuse for writting off civil liberties is? What, that it hasn't happened to you yet?
After that I can sue you for making false accusations and defamation of chartacter and live happily ever after. Not to mention the police will more than likely figure out that no such thing has happened and you will be charged with whatever people are charged with for wasting their time and tax payer money.
There are laws in place to keep people from making rediculous and unwarranted claims against each other just because they don't like someone. Yes, in the beggining you can make life very tough for someone, but in the end you will end up on bottom by doing such a thing.
There are also laws to protect people who make false claims "mistakenly" or "in good faith" and the burden of proof will be on you, to prove malice. Meanwhile, your guns will be missing and most of your lawyer money will probably be tied up with that. Since it will be a civil matter, you will need to pay the lawyer who'd be fulfilling the prosecutor's role (if it were a criminal matter). How much lawyer money do you have? How much time can you take off work for the court appearances? How many continuences can irishluck73 hypothetically get, realizing you have to pay your lawyer everytime there is a court date? How long will it take for the case to be heard? What if you sue him and win 75% of everything he owns after all that . . . only to find he only has $20 bucks and a coffee can of .308 brass to his name? In the real world, people can make false claims that cause untold grief on a person and get away with it. That is a big problem in our society, especially for people it happens to. That would be the point of the story, it isn't right & it is something we should all be concerned about.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 13:40
There are also laws to protect people who make false claims "mistakenly" or "in good faith" and the burden of proof will be on you, to prove malice. Meanwhile, your guns will be missing and most of your lawyer money will probably be tied up with that. Since it will be a civil matter, you will need to pay the lawyer who'd be fulfilling the prosecutor's role (if it were a criminal matter). How much lawyer money do you have? How much time can you take off work for the court appearances? How many continuences can irishluck73 hypothetically get, realizing you have to pay your lawyer everytime there is a court date? How long will it take for the case to be heard? What if you sue him and win 75% of everything he owns after all that . . . only to find he only has $20 bucks and a coffee can of .308 brass to his name? In the real world, people can make false claims that cause untold grief on a person and get away with it. That is a big problem in our society, especially for people it happens to. That would be the point of the story, it isn't right & it is something we should all be concerned about.
This is tin hat talk again. In the real world I can say you are growing a pot farm under your house or making bombs just as easily as anything else. Do you not think the cops will want a little bit more detail before they go busting the door down? So what stops people from doing this to each other out of spite more often? What happens when you call 911 fraudulantly?
I do have problems with pieces of this story based on the facts that are available. I do feel that using SWAT, even if it was just on standby, and evacuating neighbors was grossly overboard. I alread said once, that a plain clothes detective or negotiator could have handled this much more covertly than the spectacle they put on. But the fact that he was investigated or being watched and raised alarms when he bought close to $1500 worth of firearms with his financial future uncertain is not such a heinous idea. Any sane person would want to question this guys intentions. We are also unsure of what his exact remarks were when he was placed on admin leave.
In any case, I cannot blame the PD for investigating this issue, only with going over the top with the confrontation itself. If anyone is to blame for initiating any unwarranted attacks on this man's rights, it's not the PD, it's the Employer. If this man gave no legitimate reason with his behavior or did not make any threats or comments eluding to such and the employer reported it, it's his fault and he is the one who should be punished.
Maybe he will get due justice, maybe not if he is in the wrong. However, you can't fault the PD for not ignoring the situation. If this was me in a similar situation I would not be angry at the police of government. I would be angry at the person making the accusations. Who are you more upset with Macx?
On the other hand, if some one is making threats to your or your family, and you report it to the police and they do nothing, what would be your stance then? I'm not saying they have an easy decision to make. There is a fine line that LE has to walk in these situations. I can't say I would have reacted much differently given this situation and what information is available to us with the exception of the extreme show of force at 3 am.
Dirk Williams
03-11-10, 14:00
Im confused, Please educate me with your worldly wisdom, what was the right thing to do.
If you were in charge how would you handle this situation.
D Williams
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 14:13
Im confused, Please educate me with your worldly wisdom, what was the right thing to do.
If you were in charge how would you handle this situation.
D Williams
If I was the Employer, I would have done the exact same if I had legite concerns of violent behavior.
If I was the LE Supervisor, I would have sent a plain clothes cop to his house with backup being very nearby at a reasonable time of day to talk to the man. I would have asked if he would be willing to take a mental eval to calm everyone's concern and show he is stable and not a harm to anyone. At this point, that is all they could do without charging him with something. If he refused, without sufficient evidence to charge and arrest him as he has done nothing wrong yet, I would have him continue to be monitored just in case he decided the time had come to carry out any heinous acts.
Im confused, Please educate me with your worldly wisdom, what was the right thing to do.
As some other people said, not enough detail to know what information the police were acting on.
If it turns out that they were reacting to a vague notion he was "disgruntled" after losing his job (as most people are when fired) and intimidated him at gunpoint essentially into agreeing to a mental evaluation after he legally purchased firearms I will be pretty surprised and angry. In that circumstance (no specific threats, firearms legally purchased, etc.) the only Constitutional and lawful approach would be the "reactive" one the OSP officer stated was not taken in this instance.
However, I hope they were acting off something more specific than that, and if that's the case it will probably take some time for more complete information to surface.
Dirk Williams
03-11-10, 14:22
Sounds reasonable to me. Are there any other options available.
D Williams
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 14:28
This is so much BS. Whatever happened to talking to the guy instead of going full SWAT and evacuating the neighbors, etc? His name has now been thoroughly dragged through the mud now. I hope he sues.
My dad tells me about a time when cops didn't go tactical at the drop of a hat and knew their community and talked to those in it.
Dirk Williams
03-11-10, 14:40
Confused again, who broadcast this guys name and actions publicly?.
D Williams
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 14:45
His neighbors know, that's for damned sure. It's no stretch to see that his former colleagues know now as well. What a cluster****.
parishioner
03-11-10, 14:53
A threat of some sort was articulated.
If so, wouldn't a threat constitute charges being brought up therefore resulting in the suspect being arrested?
The way I see it.
Threat=Charges and police action.
No threat=No problem or police involvement.
Maybe he will get due justice, maybe not if he is in the wrong. However, you can't fault the PD for not ignoring the situation. If this was me in a similar situation I would not be angry at the police of government. I would be angry at the person making the accusations. Who are you more upset with Macx?
On the other hand, if some one is making threats to your or your family, and you report it to the police and they do nothing, what would be your stance then? I'm not saying they have an easy decision to make. There is a fine line that LE has to walk in these situations.
If he was "in the wrong" and up to no good, don't you think the media would be all over it? Don't ya think some suit-type LEO would be taking credit for stopping a domestic terrorist & yadda yadda . . . like that airsoft siezure a week or so ago? As is, national media isn't picking it up & local media doesn't seem to be dwelling on it. That tends to indicate there isn't a decent anti-gun story to be spun out of the situation.
It is easy to excuse the cops acting on bad intel, no doubt. Once cleared, still having to go through all kinds of B.S. to get guns that were never on any warrant back & all the lawyer bills involved in that . . . well that is something to be pissed off about. The rifle they did the most damage to was a Remington with some kind of shellac finish I have had since I was 9, when I sanded it down to refinish it I found some amazing walnut under there . . it is now a beautiful gun & I suppose I should be happy about that. Mentally ill people do crazy crap . . . that is why they get on disability for mental illness. In answer to the question who am I most upset with . . . I am most upset with the sane albeit alarmist peope the crazy woman was able to recruit who were willing to make hearsay statements as if they were first hand. Those folks, I am having a hard time forgiving. I can write the LEO's off as "just following orders" and the crazy lady off as "crazy" . . . but the people who bought her B.S. don't get a pass. When I read this story out in OR, I can't help but think that someone in the O-Dot was his "crazy lady" maybe stirred up some stuff that wasn't there & got "bad workplace mojo" rolling leading to this guy's administrative leave . . . like I say, if there was something there that could be spun as the cops stopping a crazy with guns from going on a rampage or any other anti-gun spin, it'd be all over the media . . . & it isn't.
There is a fine line that LE has to walk in these situations. The 4th amendment is not to be violated. The 2nd amendment is not to be violated. The 5th amendment is not to be violated. Citizens are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Liberty is to be our default. When erring on the side of caution, that caution should be to avoid trampling rights bought at such a high cost by men of unmatched valor for these few centuries.
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 15:02
Nice, the PDs are doing "preemptive strikes" based on purchases and gossip from employers.
If so, wouldn't a threat constitute charges being brought up therefore resulting in the suspect being arrested?
The way I see it.
Threat=Charges and police action.
No threat=No problem or police involvement.
That'd be theraputic. :rolleyes:
Why would the police arrest the guy and take him to jail if the guy needed medical/mental care?
A trip to jail might be useful as a short term stop gap to get a crazy person into custody in some situations... but it isn't a long term solution to this guy's problems and he was willing to come out and go get help so not arresting him and taking him to jail sounds like a better course of action.
As crazy as it sounds, the cops can actually use descretion for things other than not writing tickets to their freinds. ;)
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 15:20
Yes, very discreet.
Yes, very discreet.
I'm just saying, not everything does or should end in arrest and charges. The goal is to mitigate the danger to the community, not just arrest people and pump up your arrest stats for the month.
I'm judging this situation as a police officer in the same region that this happened in but not in/near the jurisdiction where it happened.
Around here, it takes a LOT to get a SWAT call out. It would need to be very credible and much more than a he said / she said situation. So that is influencing how I see this situation manifesting itself. Maybe Medford rolls on thin info. But, from my experience, it would have to be a very legitimate and believable threat to get a phone call for armor in the street at 03:00.
Was SWAT excessive? Maybe. But around here it probably would have been a min 4 car response with a supervisor on scene and an officer trained either in negotiation or crisis intervention making the phone call into the house to talk to the guy.
It sure wouldn't have been a "knock and talk" in close proximity to the house or anywhere along any outbound fields of fire.
Calling in and being discrete is great... unless the guy decides to make good on his threats and start shooting... then who's inside who's OODA loop?
I've been to more than a few of these simple welfare check type of calls that end up with the crazy guy shooting at cops, neighbors, themselves, etc. Fool me once and all that.
Based on talks with the ODOT employee, his coworkers, and others a decision was made to refer said person for a psychiatric evaluation. No FA violation.
Who "referred" him? Who made that decision? Show me the court order referring him that would open the door to allowing what the police did, and the affirmations or affidavits supporting it.
A negotiator talked him out of the house, the presence of the SWAT team is immaterial.
You cannot possibly be serious with that statement. A SWAT team surrounding my house is immaterial? Any reasonable person is going to believe that he has been arrested when a SWAT team has surrounded his home. His surrender was not even close to voluntary in any sense of that word.
As this is a "medical issue" the police cannot release much more information then they have, privacy laws guide that. A threat of some sort was articulated.
Where is the report of the threat? I must have missed that. Also, you can't take somebody off to the looney bin without paperwork and an order from a magistrate. That stuff is either there or it isn't. If it's not, this is total BS.
The police acted on that information out of an abundance of caution and with remarkable restraint. How long should they have waited and what should have been their trigger point, when he walked into his former place of employment, the court house, the public school down the street? Some of you guys spend way too much time staring at the sky looking for nonexistent black helicopters from the U.N.
Acted with restraint? By sending a SWAT team to his house? Jesus, I'd hate to be in your jurisdiction when the police DON'T act with "remarkable restraint." I can't even imagine what that entails.
I see you threw in a consipiracy theory jab at the end. You're right, we're all ****ing crazy loonies living in a shack in Idaho because we're troubled by this ridiculous overreaction by the police. We should just trust the government. They know best.
Confused again, who broadcast this guys name and actions publicly?.
D Williams
Are you serious?
I grew up in pro-gun town of 25,000 people, and if this happened to my family, the entire town would have known within less then a day about what happened. I've lived in Southern Oregon, the Willamette Valley, and the Columbia Valley in Oregon, and I can tell you that the EXACT same thing would have happened in all of those towns, even the Eugene Springfield area of 200,000+ people. His name was drug through the dirt the second the police force decided to take this action.
As stated before you made this statement, if there was no more information on the part of the police then what was published in this report, they did not commit a legal action, and their actions need to be reviewed by a high court of law, and those people that violated the law held accountable.
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 16:00
Evacuating three houses near his. Showing up well before 5:45AM. God knows how many cars and officers they had on site. All over the media. Very restrained. I lump this in with killing Labrador Retrievers running away from the cops in Maryland.
Mo_Zam_Beek
03-11-10, 16:09
I keep reading in members posts the he was "fired" but if you re-read it....
It just says he was placed on "administrative leave".
Notice they (the media) do not inform the public why he was placed on
"administrative leave".
They only stated
1. He was placed on administrative leave for an unknown reason
(or their not telling us because then the story would make sense and not be as interesting or news worthy)
2. He was "Disgruntled"
(exactly what is Disgruntled.. being mad because you're being placed on leave
when you didn't do anything wrong? or being angry your being placed on administrative leave?)
Who gets happy they might be loosing their cushy state job?
I know as a teen I got happy when I got caught "skipping school" and was
told as a penalty for not going to class I had to stay home for 3 days.
I agree with others that said there is to much about this story that is unknown or untold.
As I said - I live in Medford and interact with ODOT. Last night I found out the name of this person. I think LE gets a pat on the back on this one.
For those that see JBTs here - he was taken in for evaluation at 6am and a free man at 11 am. He will get his guns back in 2 to 4 weeks. IMHO - he could use the cooling off period.
Remember - Words have meaning. Think before speaking.
Good luck
parishioner
03-11-10, 16:12
That'd be theraputic. :rolleyes:
Why would the police arrest the guy and take him to jail if the guy needed medical/mental care?
You are apparently saying that if the man made threatening comments towards someone, arresting them is such an asinine course of action that you would roll your eyes at it. You just said that.
I was under the impression that a threat of violence is considered assault. Assault is a crime. People who commit crimes go to jail regardless of mental status. The judge then determines what happens next.
Am I safe to say that if I threaten to harm my neighbor, I will merely be asked to be evaluated by a mental physician since this, after all, is more therapeutic?
We don't truly know if threatening comments were made but it appears as though none were made based on the police's action.
Like I said previously,
If he made a threat, he should be charged accordingly.
If he didn't make a threat, (no crime) the police should not be involved. Period.
This is so much BS. Whatever happened to talking to the guy instead of going full SWAT and evacuating the neighbors, etc? His name has now been thoroughly dragged through the mud now. I hope he sues.
My dad tells me about a time when cops didn't go tactical at the drop of a hat and knew their community and talked to those in it.
Yeah, but isn't it fun to get all dressed up with the ninja suit, drop leg holster and M4?
I honestly can't believe that there are people defending this action in this forum.
No offense to the natives of the region that still live there that are members of this forum, but this thread has been a blatant reminder of why my fiance and I left the Pacific North West. I can't help buy be reminded of the number of times this tactic was used in Eugene Oregon while we lived there, and how upset both of us were to hear that this was the route LE in the area was taking. And those incidents resulted in arrests (sure the convictions are being appealed on constitutional grounds, but that is besides the point that arrests were made). I can't believe it has gone so far as to be used in a situation like this where no arrests were made.
Mo_Zam_Beek
03-11-10, 16:18
Medford OR is about as different to Eugene OR as Black is to White.
Good luck
Medford OR is about as different to Eugene OR as Black is to White.
Good luck
Did you read my post above that stated the other areas in OR I had lived?
Didn't think so.
QuietShootr
03-11-10, 16:54
As I said - I live in Medford and interact with ODOT. Last night I found out the name of this person. I think LE gets a pat on the back on this one.
For those that see JBTs here - he was taken in for evaluation at 6am and a free man at 11 am. He will get his guns back in 2 to 4 weeks. IMHO - he could use the cooling off period.
Remember - Words have meaning. Think before speaking.
Good luck
Taken in at 6, released at 11, not charged with anything, and they kept his guns anyway? And you're OK with that?
I think some of you are sorely confused about what this country is all about.
ETA: and what really bothers me is that most of the aforementioned "you" are wearing badges.
ETA: and what really bothers me is that most of the aforementioned "you" are wearing badges.
You said it not me...
QuietShootr
03-11-10, 17:08
Where is the report of the threat? I must have missed that. Also, you can't take somebody off to the looney bin without paperwork and an order from a magistrate. That stuff is either there or it isn't. If it's not, this is total BS.
Yeah, this is the part that worries me. Like this:
<knock knock>
<peers through peephole> "What do you want?"
"Mr. QS, you'll need to come with us."
"Got a warrant?"
"Um, er..no...you need to come out of there right now or we're coming in!"
"I don't think so. My lawyer's name is XXXXX, and he can be reached at XXXXX. Have a good evening."
This is where the scenario branches. As the police are fond of saying, THEY will decide what happens next. How can they legally justify breaking in with no warrant, no exigency of hot pursuit, or anything. More to the point, what out-of-control agency would risk being placed in an opposed forced entry for no better reason than "Mr. So-and-so scared Miz Vagina-Brown in HR because he didn't offer her flowers and candy when she fired him!"
One of the posters above talked about moral duty. We all have moral duties, my friend.
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 17:21
Remember - Words have meaning. Think before speaking.
Does that mean someone's First Amendment rights will also be stripped before a crime is committed?
Does that mean someone's First Amendment rights will also be stripped before a crime is committed?
first amendment revocable privilege. remember what obama said?
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 17:26
first amendment revocable privilege. remember what obama said?
Yeah, apparently some rights are revocable before a crime is committed; revocable completely on suspicion in Oregon and there are folks in this thread that approve of it.
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 19:20
What's the law regarding confiscation of one's legally purchased firearms and a "cooling off period" in Oregon?
no cooling-off period.. as many guns, however often.
i cant find any law in the ORS specifically pertaining to firearms and an LEOs authority to confiscate, nor any expressly prohibiting it. in this regard, firearms are no different than any other legally owned property. incident to arrest, all property in a person's immediate possession are subject to confiscation... firearms, car keys, sunglasses...
oregon state constitution does protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms- and all oregon gun laws are based on that principle. i imagine any LEO or LEA confiscating firearms specifically because they're firearms would need to clearly articulate a strong case as to why, but i doubt there's any established "punishment" for unlaw seizure of property- they just give it back if ordered to by the court, and the individual can sue if he wants. but this last part is just me speculating.
For those that see JBTs here - he was taken in for evaluation at 6am and a free man at 11 am. He will get his guns back in 2 to 4 weeks. IMHO - he could use the cooling off period.
Can you (or any Oregon poster for that matter) enlighten us as to the ORS sections that pertain to property being seized like this not being returned for up to a month after a voluntary mental evaluation that doesn't result in court ordered treatment? I don't understand the legal justification for keeping his property without an arrest and without court order.
For example, if this happened in Washington RCW 9.41.098 Forfeiture of firearms would govern, and it references various circumstances surrounding an arrest, a conviction, involuntary commitment or finding of being incompetent by a court, etc., all of which seem missing in this situation.
Littlelebowski
03-11-10, 20:36
Imagine this scenario: You're surrounded by liberal/anti gunners at work. You hate your job because of them. You argue with them constantly. You get let go and maybe get 2 months severance. You get a job lined up. You say "screw it, I have a job, now's the time to spend that severance on some guns I've always wanted." You do so happily. Meanwhile, your passive aggressive boss at work has made a phone call. Cops bang on your door at 5AM because they just know that since you're accused of being "disgruntled" and you've damned yourself by buying guns that you're a threat. Your neighbors are evacuated. Your guns are taken from you for "2-4 weeks while you cool down." You've made nation wide news.
This could happen to you in Oregon apparently. I am not saying this individual didn't have problems; I don't know. But it scares the shit out of me that this can happen and LEOs on this forum don't see the problem here. This could be used as a weapon to screw people over. All it takes is an accusation, possession of guns, and the SWAT team is at your door.
You are apparently saying that if the man made threatening comments towards someone, arresting them is such an asinine course of action that you would roll your eyes at it. You just said that.
I was under the impression that a threat of violence is considered assault. Assault is a crime. People who commit crimes go to jail regardless of mental status. The judge then determines what happens next.
Am I safe to say that if I threaten to harm my neighbor, I will merely be asked to be evaluated by a mental physician since this, after all, is more therapeutic?
We don't truly know if threatening comments were made but it appears as though none were made based on the police's action.
Like I said previously,
If he made a threat, he should be charged accordingly.
If he didn't make a threat, (no crime) the police should not be involved. Period.
That's not what I meant at all.
I'm saying that if a person makes threats to someone and then takes steps to fulfill those threats that is a, what? Class C misdemeanor? So... a fine and time served for being an asshole? Waste of time for everyone.
The issue/problem that brought the cops to this point is that the person has a problem that can't be solved by a weekend in jail... and arresting him wouldn't be conducive to his rehabilitation.
Cops can’t just run around arresting people and hoping the courts wave their magical “sanity wand” over everyone. It just doesn’t work. A person who needs help, needs help from somewhere the police can’t help.
Maybe this cools him off... maybe he goes ape-shit... who knows. If he does, you can bet your ass it will **** up gun rights for the rest of us.
crofoot629
03-11-10, 22:27
Guess what? He wants his guns back.
I’m very interested to see how this one play out. For the record, on the face of it, I think the cops stepped in it.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS07/3110334
March 11, 2010
The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police for safekeeping Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return.
David J. Pyles has asked police to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He sent an e-mailed request today, forwarding copies to legislators and media outlets.
Medford police said they were watching the Effie Street home starting Sunday night in response to law enforcement concerns about the man after he was placed on administrative leave from his job on Thursday.
A Medford police news release described him as disgruntled and said police knew he had legally purchased several firearms over two days. Police identified the guns as a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle.
In what police described as a "proactive" move, they wanted to defuse the situation before people started their daily routines on Monday.
The guns, along with another handgun and a shotgun the man also owned, were seized for "safekeeping" Monday, police said. The man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.
Now, Pyles wants his property returned.
Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.
Hansen declined to discuss Pyles' request, but described the department's process, which can take several weeks. Processing weapons takes longer than other items, he said.
When a person requests the release of property held by police, first the officer handling the case confirms that the item is no longer needed for the investigation, he said. Property control specialists confirm the owner's identity, then, for weapons, send information to Oregon State Police to determine if the person can legally have the weapon. OSP checks criminal records and looks for medical holds that might block gun ownership, Hansen said. Local police check additional municipal court records.
Authorities also check to make sure the gun isn't reported stolen or linked to other crimes. After a final review to ensure all records are in order, the owner is notified to come claim the item.
— Anita Burke
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 22:31
Imagine this scenario: You're surrounded by liberal/anti gunners at work. You hate your job because of them. You argue with them constantly. You get let go and maybe get 2 months severance. You get a job lined up. You say "screw it, I have a job, now's the time to spend that severance on some guns I've always wanted." You do so happily. Meanwhile, your passive aggressive boss at work has made a phone call. Cops bang on your door at 5AM because they just know that since you're accused of being "disgruntled" and you've damned yourself by buying guns that you're a threat. Your neighbors are evacuated. Your guns are taken from you for "2-4 weeks while you cool down." You've made nation wide news.
This could happen to you in Oregon apparently. I am not saying this individual didn't have problems; I don't know. But it scares the shit out of me that this can happen and LEOs on this forum don't see the problem here. This could be used as a weapon to screw people over. All it takes is an accusation, possession of guns, and the SWAT team is at your door.
I just don't get the impression that this guy was an avid gun owner prior to his shopping spree after being placed on administrative leave for unknown reasons.
parishioner
03-11-10, 22:43
That's not what I meant at all.
I'm saying that if a person makes threats to someone and then takes steps to fulfill those threats that is a, what? Class C misdemeanor? So... a fine and time served for being an asshole? Waste of time for everyone.
The issue/problem that brought the cops to this point is that the person has a problem that can't be solved by a weekend in jail... and arresting him wouldn't be conducive to his rehabilitation.
Cops can’t just run around arresting people and hoping the courts wave their magical “sanity wand” over everyone. It just doesn’t work. A person who needs help, needs help from somewhere the police can’t help.
Maybe this cools him off... maybe he goes ape-shit... who knows. If he does, you can bet your ass it will **** up gun rights for the rest of us.
I could argue many points in your response but coincidentally I'm in the process of writing a care plan for a schizoaffective bipolar patient.
The point is as long as no crime or threat of crime was committed, the police have no buisness in the matter. I have come across many people who I feel aren't mentally stable but I'm not about to call the police and ask them to surround the person's house with SWAT so they can be asked to get mentally evaluated while the police confiscate their weapons because I live in a place called America.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 22:45
Guess what? He wants his guns back.
The guns, along with another handgun and a shotgun the man also owned, were seized for "safekeeping" Monday, police said. The man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.
I retract my statement. Aparently he was a gun owner. I imagine he will get his weapons back in a quicker fashion than the normal process since they are already aware that he purchased said weapons legally.
I had to deal with a similar situation once. My brother was staying with me temporarily. Well he had an arrest warrant related to a drug possession charge that I was unaware of. LE showed up with a warrant to arrest him, because of him being at my house, my house was searched for drugs which were not found, and my firearms confiscated. I had to prove ownership of them (I still have the receipts) and fill out a little paperwork and I had them back in 3 weeks.
crofoot629
03-11-10, 22:55
I retract my statement. Aparently he was a gun owner. I imagine he will get his weapons back in a quicker fashion than the normal process since they are already aware that he purchased said weapons legally.
I had to deal with a similar situation once. My brother was staying with me temporarily. Well he had an arrest warrant related to a drug possession charge that I was unaware of. LE showed up with a warrant to arrest him, because of him being at my house, my house was searched for drugs which were not found, and my firearms confiscated. I had to prove ownership of them (I still have the receipts) and fill out a little paperwork and I had them back in 3 weeks.
Thread drift but WTF?
You had to prove ownership of YOUR guns? They where in your house, that’s in your possession. They were your guns.
They searched your house because they arrested someone there who had a warrant for their arrest, and a prior drug offense? That sounds like an illegal search to me. And you’re happy that it only took you 3 weeks to get the guns back? Wow!
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 23:02
Thread drift but WTF?
You had to prove ownership of YOUR guns? They where in your house, that’s in your possession. They were your guns.
They searched your house because they arrested someone there who had a warrant for their arrest, and a prior drug offense? That sounds like an illegal search to me. And you’re happy that it only took you 3 weeks to get the guns back? Wow!
No my brother had a warrant out for his arrest for a drug charge. He had drugs in his car, and the guns could have easily belonged to him. By the way, these were not misdemeaner drug charges.
And to be clear, I was not "Happy" about any of it, but I understood it. In my case, I would not do harm with them and my brother would not either, but if it was someone else....
When I was in the Corps we had a saying. The idea was there are 10% of every group that **** it up for the rest. So we would say "We all pay the price for the 10%." Do I like it? No. Do I understand the reasons for it? Yes.
I had to deal with a similar situation once. My brother was staying with me temporarily. Well he had an arrest warrant related to a drug possession charge that I was unaware of. LE showed up with a warrant to arrest him, because of him being at my house, my house was searched for drugs which were not found, and my firearms confiscated. I had to prove ownership of them (I still have the receipts) and fill out a little paperwork and I had them back in 3 weeks.
Unclear from your post, you are saying they had a warrant to arrest your brother and you conscented to a search of your property wherein legally owned property that was not on the warrant was seized?
That is totally illeagal in this country, if you didn't conscent. The warrant said they were looking for a person, a person can't hide in most gun safes . . . it is like if they have a warrant for a stolen 50" TV they can't search the silverware drawer or the medicine cabinet. Where were you keeping your guns that they snagged them? When it happened to me they only got about 1/3 of my guns & like I said, I wasn't home when SWAT hit the house.
I am just having a hard time understanding how you've been through something similar and come out supporting people who are wiping thier tailpipes with the Constitution.
im sure the warrant included entering and searching for him, drugs, and guns. otherwise they wouldnt have gotten in period.
They should return his legally purchased firearms NOW!!! This is complete and utter bullshit! What country do we live in?!?!?!
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 23:12
im sure the warrant included entering and searching for him, drugs, and guns. otherwise they wouldnt have gotten in period.
This is correct. It was his household as well as mine. It wasn't like he spent the night, he was my roommate.
SouthWolfGA
03-11-10, 23:21
Unclear from your post, you are saying they had a warrant to arrest your brother and you conscented to a search of your property wherein legally owned property that was not on the warrant was seized?
That is totally illeagal in this country, if you didn't conscent. The warrant said they were looking for a person, a person can't hide in most gun safes . . . it is like if they have a warrant for a stolen 50" TV they can't search the silverware drawer or the medicine cabinet. Where were you keeping your guns that they snagged them? When it happened to me they only got about 1/3 of my guns & like I said, I wasn't home when SWAT hit the house.
I am just having a hard time understanding how you've been through something similar and come out supporting people who are wiping thier tailpipes with the Constitution.
I'm not sure his rights were trampled so much. So far every report we have seen indicates he willing forfeited any rights that may have been violated.
My point in revealing my experience is that obviously it's not comfortable but I understand the reasons and need for these types of actions at times. Again, we all agree there is fine line between when this type of action is warranted and when the government has overstepped it's boundry. My ultimate vote here is that we don't have enough information available to us to know which side of that line this situation falls on.
I could argue many points in your response but coincidentally I'm in the process of writing a care plan for a schizoaffective bipolar patient.
The point is as long as no crime or threat of crime was committed, the police have no buisness in the matter. I have come across many people who I feel aren't mentally stable but I'm not about to call the police and ask them to surround the person's house with SWAT so they can be asked to get mentally evaluated while the police confiscate their weapons because I live in a place called America.
I tend to agree with you. Most people I encounter do not need the police involved in their private medical matter... But here we are.
At the same time, when a person is armed and in crisis... no care provider I know will jump in front of a bullet. "clear to come in..." is a constant refrain I hear.
im sure the warrant included entering and searching for him, drugs, and guns. otherwise they wouldnt have gotten in period.
google "community caretaking"... the "search" probably wasn't evidentiary.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-12-10, 00:00
I've been to more than a few of these simple welfare check type of calls that end up with the crazy guy shooting at cops, neighbors, themselves, etc. Fool me once and all that.
I think this is at the root of all the acrimonious debates here. Cops look at it from the day-in/day-out interactions with scum bags. The rest of us look at the situation and think that there is little that could prevent this happening to us.
As I said - I live in Medford and interact with ODOT. Last night I found out the name of this person. I think LE gets a pat on the back on this one.
For those that see JBTs here - he was taken in for evaluation at 6am and a free man at 11 am. He will get his guns back in 2 to 4 weeks. IMHO - he could use the cooling off period.
Remember - Words have meaning.
And actions speak louder than words.
Five hours to get his freedom, three weeks to get his guns, and how long to get his dignity?
In and out of the puzzle factory in five hours? You can't get thru an ER that fast.
All I know is that I'm going to convert to Islam. Being a white guy with guns is just too dangerous nowadays. They watch Jihad Jane for months before swooping in and this guy gets pinched for being pissed he got fired.
What's the law regarding confiscation of one's legally purchased firearms and a "cooling off period" in Oregon?
Ha! ha. Get back in your box and stop asking questions!!!
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 00:52
I retired from Klamath Falls Police Department OREGON about 28 months ago. I worked closely with some of those guys and have no problems with their actions.
If they ****ed up there is a remedy, it's called court, that requires accountability for one actions. The thing about being a cop is your held accountable for you actions, or your in-actions. Can't say that for alot of other career fields.
The miss information/second guessing regarding this is simply priceless.
D Williams
google "community caretaking"... the "search" probably wasn't evidentiary.
i was talking about southwolf's case.
So when his place is broken into and he's burglarized, assaulted or possibly murdered due to his inability to defend himself who will accept the blame then? There are multiple cases where women have had this happen due to "cooling off period" waiting times and yet they end up as a corpse.
So when his place is broken into and he's burglarized, assaulted or possibly murdered due to his inability to defend himself who will accept the blame then? There are multiple cases where women have had this happen due to "cooling off period" waiting times and yet they end up as a corpse.
and now everyone knows he's unarmed, for the interim... just as well as having a sign in the front yard that says "this house is a gun-free zone!"
The miss information/second guessing regarding this is simply priceless.
D Williams
So is your spelling.
So is your spelling.
BAM! There it is ladies and gentlemen, page 7 and we have finally reached the ad hominem attack on spelling... one of the last rhetorical refuges of the intellectually impotent (probably soon to be followed by an accusation of someone being a nazi)… and it wasn’t even a troll, it was the OP.
Shit… I usually have to go to ar15.com to get this level of intellectual discourse.
What’s wrong? Didn’t get the answer you were looking for?
BAM! There it is ladies and gentlemen, page 7 and we have finally reached the ad hominem attack on spelling... one of the last rhetorical refuges of the intellectually impotent (probably soon to be followed by an accusation of someone being a nazi)… and it wasn’t even a troll, it was the OP.
Shit… I usually have to go to ar15.com to get this level of intellectual discourse.
What’s wrong? Didn’t get the answer you were looking for?
Grandstanding for attention, "ladies and gentlemen", is also a common way for the intellectually inferior to misdirect the casual reader. When insinuations and sarcasm are used in a demeaning manner that fall in line with your train of thought you don't jump on the "look at me" wagon, why is that? Does it stem from the fact that you got the answer you were looking for? Typical authoritarian, condescending attitude that doesn't like to be questioned if I were to throw out a quick guess.
A small bit of sarcasm and chiding does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Brace yourself for this bit of intellectual discourse. :p
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
Bobert0989
03-12-10, 03:33
Grandstanding for attention, "ladies and gentlemen", is also a common way for the intellectually inferior to misdirect the casual reader. When insinuations and sarcasm are used in a demeaning manner that fall in line with your train of thought you don't jump on the "look at me" wagon, why is that? Does it stem from the fact that you got the answer you were looking for? Typical authoritarian, condescending attitude that doesn't like to be questioned if I were to throw out a quick guess.
A small bit of sarcasm and chiding does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Brace yourself for this bit of intellectual discourse. :p
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
What he said. Lol... :)
My head hurts now, I'm hoping it's just my brain getting bigger, not frying...
Wow, I went to work, I dealt with an entire night of bullsh@t, and I came home to read more idiocy on the part of the people on this forum that think they can defend this!!!
I have read a ton about socialism on this forum and how it relates to some of the changes happening in this country, but what I am seeing in this thread hits it home more then anything I have yet to read about how that is exactly where we are headed.
I worry that the simple fact that we are having this conversation at all means we have already lost.
BAM! There it is ladies and gentlemen, page 7 and we have finally reached the ad hominem attack on spelling... one of the last rhetorical refuges of the intellectually impotent (probably soon to be followed by an accusation of someone being a nazi)… and it wasn’t even a troll, it was the OP.
Shit… I usually have to go to ar15.com to get this level of intellectual discourse.
What’s wrong? Didn’t get the answer you were looking for?
Hey GackMan, I'm going to bed, but before I do that I have to say this:
Your f@cking insane! A designated state official will be coming to your house soon to collect all of your firearms and transport you to an un-disclosed location. It has been determined by the State that according to the amount of time you have spent with this thread, and how you have actually wasted the energy to count the number of pages it took for someone to get frustrated with you, that you are in fact a threat to your neighbors. Your guns no longer belong to you, and we will see you on the morning news.
QuietShootr
03-12-10, 05:54
I retired from Klamath Falls Police Department OREGON about 28 months ago. I worked closely with some of those guys and have no problems with their actions.
If they ****ed up there is a remedy, it's called court, that requires accountability for one actions. The thing about being a cop is your held accountable for you actions, or your in-actions. Can't say that for alot of other career fields.
The miss information/second guessing regarding this is simply priceless.
D Williams
This isn't a "second guess". You don't get to just arrest everyone on a whim and let the courts sort it out. This isn't ****ing East Germany.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 06:25
I just don't get the impression that this guy was an avid gun owner prior to his shopping spree after being placed on administrative leave for unknown reasons.
You're missing my point. My point is that this could happen to anybody and also, I'm not sure how this is legal.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 06:26
The miss information/second guessing regarding this is simply priceless.
We eagerly await your corrections.
I retired from Klamath Falls Police Department OREGON about 28 months ago. I worked closely with some of those guys and have no problems with their actions.
So having worked there with them, I'm sure your opinion is completely unbiased.:rolleyes:
If they ****ed up there is a remedy, it's called court, that requires accountability for one actions. The thing about being a cop is your held accountable for you actions, or your in-actions. Can't say that for alot of other career fields.
Dirk, please explain this to all of us simpletons. I fail to see how police are held accountable for their actions whereas other lines of work are not.
If police act negligently in performing their duties, what is the remedy? Are you familiar with the concept of sovereign immunity? Also, if the police fail to act in a particular instance, what legal duty to a third party have they violated and what is that person's remedy if they claim they are injured by the failure to act? Answer: Zip.
Now take a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, a truck driver, etc. All of them are liable for simple negligence in their work whereas police generally are not. If the doctor or lawyer violates an incredibly complex standard of care in his work, he is liable for malpractice. That can be an error of commission or omission. If a truck driver screws up on the job and hits somebody with his truck while hauling a load, he is on the hook. If a cop is rushing to a call with lights and siren and hits somebody ... oh well, governmental act, sovereign immunity. So sorry.
You have unions and internal checks and appeals on discipline. Everybody else just gets fired. When you go into court, in uniform of course, you are almost automatically assumed to be credible and courts bend over backwards to help you justify your actions. Everybody else has to convince the court.
So please spare us the "cops are held more accountable" bullshit. I hear it quite often on these boards and I'm not sure what is more annoying and concerning - the fact that people keep parroting it, or the fact that some of you actually seem to think it's true.
The miss information/second guessing regarding this is simply priceless.
Again, please enlighten us uninformed rubes.
Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.
Hansen declined to discuss Pyles' request, but described the department's process, which can take several weeks. Processing weapons takes longer than other items, he said.
Yeah, they need to return his stolen weapons. Notice how they can show up and take them at the drop of a hat - and there still isn't a whiff of magistrate/court approval on any of this - but it takes weeks of bureaucracy to get them returned.
Sounds totally fair and reasonable to me. :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
03-12-10, 09:45
It appears the man was released, and is now trying to get his guns back. He sent an email to the PD which was CC'd to some media folks, and now the police are saying its a several week process to get his guns back.
So he was found to be competant, and now the PD is going to hold is property for weeks? They were sure quick to go place him in custody with a SWAT team based on some allegations, and take his property for the same....but not so quick it seems to return his rightful property.
^^^^^ And yes the SCOTUS has already ruled LE have no obligation to protect the individual.
LE are also given a pass on crimes they commit if they were doing their job in good faith.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 09:57
Can someone post the email he sent? (Never mind, found it).
MEDFORD — A phone call from a police negotiator that jolted David J. Pyles awake in the predawn hours of Monday continues to jangle the nerves of observers monitoring the way authorities took the Medford man into protective custody and seized his firearms.
Pyles came forward Thursday to reclaim his legally purchased weapons, publicly identifying himself in an e-mail sent to Medford police and forwarded to state legislators and selected media outlets.
He also said he has contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation for possible legal assistance. Pyles directed questions to that group and said he would make only limited statements until he had consulted with an attorney.
Kevin Starrett, director of the Canby-based lobbying organization — which also has a foundation for protecting gun rights through court cases — had been monitoring the incident that landed Pyles in the hospital for a mental health evaluation and resulted in five of his guns being held by police for "safekeeping."
"It's chilling," he said.
"I don't know if this is just a gun case," Starrett said. "It's about whether your freedom can be taken away without a criminal case or charges against you."
Starrett recounted the details of the case that Pyles shared with him. The federation had agreed not to identify him, so Starrett didn't use Pyles' name, but in the wake of Pyles' own public statements, the Mail Tribune is naming him.
Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.
The Oregon Department of Transportation confirmed that Pyles has worked there as a planner since February 2004. ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said the department couldn't discuss personnel or security matters.
Pyles told Starrett he initially thought the early morning call must be a prank, but looked out to see his yard surrounded by police.
"They asked him to come out and said they wouldn't handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property," Starrett recounted.
However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.
"Because we had information that he could be a danger to others, we wanted a medical professional to evaluate him," Medford police chief Randy Schoen said.
Police have maintained that Pyles' surrender was voluntary, but Starrett noted that an intimidating presence of officers with rifles and SWAT gear can force people to agree to things they wouldn't normally do.
"The thing that is really troubling to us is that this was not an arrest," he said. "People in protective custody don't even have the rights a person who has been arrested does."
When undergoing a mental health screening, a person doesn't have a guaranteed right to an attorney, for example, he said.
The evaluation took several hours and Pyles was released before noon on Monday.
Starrett expressed concern that police hadn't offered a clear explanation of what prompted their action.
David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type, but said Pyles could have a case against police if he were taken into custody improperly.
He noted that police can't take people into custody based only on a concern, but said he understood their worries that someone could be hurt.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-12-10, 10:01
What if he had just said "talk to my lawyer"?
What if he had slept thru the phone call? My wife hears about half the calls that come in during the night, and I know some people who program their ringers to turn off at night.
Time to get up and prove you are sane! I thought sleep deprivation was a torture tactic?
E-mail sent by Mr. Pyle:
Dear Detective Sergeant Clauson & Detective Ford:
I am writing to respectfully request and demand the immediate return of the personal property I understand and allege was taken from my residence on Monday, March 8, 2010 by the Medford Police Department. I would appreciate the Meford PD's returning my personal property to me today at my home at your earliest convenience. If it is more convenient for you and the public tax payer's dime, I am also available after 5 p.m. today, to come down to the Medford Police Station to acquire my personal property.
I appreciate the Medford Police Department's immediate attention to this request. Please reply by a written statement to this correspondence, if you have questions regarding this e-mail. Thank you.
Respectfully,
David J. Pyle
He was a lot more polite that I would have been, though I suppose it makes sense to be diplomatic when you just got "voluntarily surrendered" out of your house by a SWAT team claiming you were unstable.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 10:05
To the folks supporting the police actions in this thread. Do you actually not see the problem here? Seriously?
MEDFORD — The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return and police say they will comply with the request.
David J. Pyles sent an e-mail to police Thursday, asking them to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He forwarded copies to legislators and media outlets.
RELATED STORIES
Man, guns held by police spur controversy
Medford Police Chief Randy Schoen said the department plans to return the seized weapons today.
"He gave them up voluntarily and we don't have a court order to hold them," Schoen said. "We will give them back to him."
The seizure of Pyles' weapons prompted a debate among gun rights advocates and those who said police acted appropriately after being informed of a potentially threatening situation.
Medford police said they started watching the Effie Street home Sunday night in response to law enforcement concerns about the resident — later identified as Pyles — after he was placed on administrative leave from his job on Thursday.
The Oregon Department of Transportation said Pyles is a development planner who started working there in February 2004.
Medford police described him in a news release as disgruntled and said police knew he had legally purchased a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle since being placed on leave.
Information compiled by Oregon State Police, Medford and Roseburg police, and Jackson and Douglas county sheriff's departments prompted concerns that Pyles could be a threat. The news release noted that police were "extremely concerned" that he might retaliate against his employer.
"We wanted to make sure nothing bad happened," Schoen said.
In an effort to defuse the situation before people started their daily routines on Monday, a SWAT team and negotiators moved in during the pre-dawn hours.
"He came out voluntarily," Schoen said, noting that he then directed police to the recently purchased weapons, as well as another handgun and a shotgun he owned.
All the firearms were seized for "safekeeping" and the man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.
Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police generally try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so, to ensure that there are not ownership or legal issues. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 10:09
What if he had just said "talk to my lawyer"?
What if he had slept thru the phone call?
They'd come crashing through his door and he'd be dead if he did what any of us would do which is pick up his home defense firearm. And they'd be calling themselves heroes.
I would still like to know whether they had any court order at all, for anything.
I'd also like to know what they would have done if he hadn't come out "voluntarily." What if he just sat inside and watched TV and ignored them?
If they did not have any court order to take him in for mental evaluation, supported by sworn and credible evidence that it was necessary, this should send chills down the spines of anyone. This incident, if allowed to pass without heads rolling, basically proves that any one of us is now one annoyed boss or one pissed-off ex-spouse away from being railroaded.
And yes, I see that the ORS allows them to do this when they have probable cause to believe the person is a danger to self or others - which is also a ridiculously flimsy and easily abused provision. It also doesn't provide for seizure of firearms, or anything for that matter, as part of the custody.
David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type,
i'm not the least surprised, but isn't it a bit ironic?
I retired from Klamath Falls Police Department OREGON about 28 months ago. I worked closely with some of those guys and have no problems with their actions.
If they ****ed up there is a remedy, it's called court, that requires accountability for one actions. The thing about being a cop is your held accountable for you actions, or your in-actions. Can't say that for alot of other career fields.
What ORS section gives them the authority to seize firearms from a person who hasn't been arrested, convicted or involuntarily committed?
Can anyone who thinks the police acted properly here show me what statute gives them the right to do this? I found a statute (ORS 166.279) specifically saying that criminal forfeiture laws (layed out in ORS 131.550 to 131.600) don't apply to firearms and other deadly weapons except under very specific circumstances, again having to do with being arrested, convicted, etc., but nothing giving the police carte blanche to seize firearms.
What ORS section gives them the authority to seize firearms from a person who hasn't been arrested, convicted or involuntarily committed?
Can anyone who thinks the police acted properly here show me what statute gives them the right to do this? I found a statute specifically saying that criminal forfeiture laws don't apply to firearms and other deadly weapons except under very specific circumstances, again having to do with being arrested, convicted, etc., but nothing giving the police carte blanche to seize peoples firearms.
there is no ORS that gives police the authority to seize firearms. unfortunately, there's also no ORS prohibiting it. in the absence of a specific law prohibiting the police from doing something, they have absolutely no problem walking all over your rights.
4th amendment? only if there's additional laws or clear case-law with jurisdiction. why would the 2nd be any different?
They'd come crashing through his door and he'd be dead if he did what any of us would do which is pick up his home defense firearm. And they'd be calling themselves heroes.
Absolutely, they stopped the crazy guy from killing a cop!
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 10:48
Absolutely, they stopped the crazy guy from killing a cop!
If he had a dog, said dog would also be stopped from killing a cop.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 10:49
A negotiator talked him out of the house, the presence of the SWAT team is immaterial. Who said he lost his firearms forever? No one did. You are reading way too much into what happened. dissect the facts presented, nothing more. As this is a "medical issue" the police cannot release much more information then they have, privacy laws guide that. A threat of some sort was articulated. The police acted on that information out of an abundance of caution and with remarkable restraint. How long should they have waited and what should have been their trigger point, when he walked into his former place of employment, the court house, the public school down the street? Some of you guys spend way too much time staring at the sky looking for nonexistent black helicopters from the U.N.
Makes perfect sense. Any gun owner who has a bad day should have his guns confiscated and have a mental evaluation.
Grandstanding for attention, "ladies and gentlemen", is also a common way for the intellectually inferior to misdirect the casual reader. When insinuations and sarcasm are used in a demeaning manner that fall in line with your train of thought you don't jump on the "look at me" wagon, why is that? Does it stem from the fact that you got the answer you were looking for? Typical authoritarian, condescending attitude that doesn't like to be questioned if I were to throw out a quick guess.
A small bit of sarcasm and chiding does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Brace yourself for this bit of intellectual discourse. :p
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
Gackman, you threw down the intellectual discourse gauntlet and all I hear are crickets...
there is no ORS that gives police the authority to seize firearms.
If that is the case this guy will be shortly getting his guns back and I hope the people responsible for this get spanked, but won't hold my breath.
I wonder if this guy will sue or just let them off the hook?
he'll get his guns back- no doubt about that. i seriously doubt anyone with MPD will get their well-deserved "spanking," though.
law enforcement agencies all across America walk all over people rights on a daily basis. sometimes someone sues, but not usually. the assumption is always that police follow the laws, and any time they've stepped outside their bounds, it's simply, innocently, attributed to a misinterpretation of the law.. all in good faith, right? no harm, no foul.
if you gathered up everyone in this country whose got clear standing for section-1983, you'd have a very large room and a bankrupted government.
he'll get his guns back- no doubt about that.
Yeah, after "several weeks" of bureaucratic bullshit and after they've been handled and stored in God knows what sort of conditions.
People get POHed every day... This one just made the news. Hell, one of the local PDs POHed one of their own dispatchers. Usually it is for suicidal behavior but threats to others certainly comes into play as well.
I guess that is a surprise to many people in this thread since it seems to be unusual to hear about.
The guy got evaluated, released, and he should absolutly be getting his property back.
I'd like to know how credible the threats he made were that got to this point.
I'm still going on the assumption that his behavior warranted the attention he got. His actions and words probably got him to this point but that information won't be shared by the police or his employer so we're left with only one side of the story.
His e-mail is interesting. I wonder if he made any attempt to contact the PD and get his weapons before sending that e-mail to the press. Or if it was an attempt to bring more attention to himself.
Grandstanding for attention, "ladies and gentlemen", is also a common way for the intellectually inferior to misdirect the casual reader. When insinuations and sarcasm are used in a demeaning manner that fall in line with your train of thought you don't jump on the "look at me" wagon, why is that? Does it stem from the fact that you got the answer you were looking for? Typical authoritarian, condescending attitude that doesn't like to be questioned if I were to throw out a quick guess.
A small bit of sarcasm and chiding does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Brace yourself for this bit of intellectual discourse. :p
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.
Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
LOL nice one! Not your words, but funny.
Gackman, you threw down the intellectual discourse gauntlet and all I hear are crickets...
That may be... but at least I'm not a plagarist.
Those paragraphs seem to be a direct copy and paste of a statement that appears all over the internet. I’m sure you can plagiarize something else from the internet and present it as your own words if you want to continue to discuss your rhetorical methods… It would be nice if you had some original thoughts on the topic.
Ad hominem – against the man. You didn’t like his opinion so you attacked his spelling.
Quite incongruent compared to your "I'll reserve my opinion" statement when you posted this. You obviously had an opinion and were looking for validation of that opinion and don’t seem to be very happy about people not agreeing with you.
I was just pointing out that someone who's familiar with the team/dep said that they didn’t have a problem with their actions and your response was to attack his spelling rather than object to the propriety of their actions or even consider that they might not be a bunch of JBTs acting extra judiciously.
I hope you aren't disgruntled about it. :eek:
What if he had just said "talk to my lawyer"?
What if he had slept thru the phone call? My wife hears about half the calls that come in during the night, and I know some people who program their ringers to turn off at night.
Time to get up and prove you are sane! I thought sleep deprivation was a torture tactic?
Actually - "talk to my lawyer" would be a great answer. It would indicate he was sane, thinking cogently, etc. If he said, talk to me lawyer who's voice is in my head, it would be a little different.
I went to a similar thing like this. Guy had lost his job, was a little "down" and was drinking and playing with his gun. Wanted to be alone and told everyone to get out of his house, they wouldn't leave, so fired off a shot into the ceiling. The family un-asses the house and calls the cops.
We come running with all our stuff and start calling into the guy. He's 3-sheets to the wind and doesn't really want to talk to us. Just says he's fine, drunk, pissed about losing his job, his family is pissing him off, he's just blowing off steam and wants to be left alone.
Interviewing the family reveals that he never pointed the gun at anyone, never made any direct threats either verbally or by pointing the weapon at anyone. never made any threats to himself. He was just angry and depressed and wanted to be alone. He lives out in the country so there isn't a crime for shooting a hole in your own double-wide... eventually, the dude passed out on the phone and we could hear him snoring. So we packed up and went home after about 8 hours out there.
The family was pissed. They insisted that we go in there and 'save' him... after explaining it to them about 20 different ways that we weren't going to enter someone's house who hadn't committed a crime and wasn't a danger to anyone and force an armed confrontation that would probably end up with the situation worse than better. Eventually they got the message that creating a situation where we end up shooting the guy would be a bad way to end everyone's evening and would not be promoting the safety of the community... particularly for drunk guy in the house.
They went to a hotel for the night, someone contacted the guy the next day just to follow-up with him and the family.
So yeah, I don't think that him telling the police to pound sand would have ended the way you might think. If he spoke to the cops and wasn't crazy, didn't have plans to go to the office Monday morning and shoot a bunch of people, etc. I think there is a good chance the cops would have called it a day.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 11:50
If he spoke to the cops and wasn't crazy, didn't have plans to go to the office Monday morning and shoot a bunch of people, etc. I think there is a good chance the cops would have called it a day.
You just don't get it. His house was surrounded, he was "voluntarily" trundled off to a mental hospital, and his weapons were confiscated, all because he was "disgruntled (accusation from his employer, he apparently did not make a threat).
I am asking you point blank; do you not understand how this is wrong? Are we from different countries or do you just interpret certain rights a different way?
QuietShootr
03-12-10, 12:05
You just don't get it. His house was surrounded, he was "voluntarily" trundled off to a mental hospital, and his weapons were confiscated, all because he was "disgruntled (accusation from his employer, he apparently did not make a threat).
I am asking you point blank; do you not understand how this is wrong? Are we from different countries or do you just interpret certain rights a different way?
#2 would be a yes. You have the right to do what the **** you're told to do, and be snappy about it, unless you want your dog shot and your balls tasered.
I'm so over this shit.
If they HAD decided to press the issue, half the posters in this thread would be calling the guy a 'wack-job who got what he deserved'.
You people disgust me.
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 12:08
Sorry my opinion and my spelling didn't fit in with your opinions or approval.
Some of you guys amaze me, in one breath its God speed Officer Billy, may his killer rot in hell, in the next breath its hang em all, "THEY" took poor Eddie the disgruntled employee's gun for a few weeks.
I have this vision of some of you sitting over your computers, for days, no sleep, delivery pizza box's stacked in the corner, crumbs and pizza crusts everywhere,
Savage Nation on one radio, and Rush on an onother radio with the military channel on your big screens with the surround sound set on WFO so you don't miss the next conspiracy theroy.
Good luck saving the world, or figuring out who the **** shot JFK.
When one of you learns the facts behind this gig let us all know so we can make informed oppinions not some rant on half truths and innuendo's.
Irish Id like to appoligise for my mis spelling up front. Sorry brother.LOL
D Williams.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 12:13
#2 would be a yes. You have the right to do what the **** you're told to do, and be snappy about it, unless you want your dog shot and your balls tasered.
I'm so over this shit.
If they HAD decided to press the issue, half the posters in this thread would be calling the guy a 'wack-job who got what he deserved'.
You people disgust me.
Notice that QuietShooter is advocating a man that committed no crime (outside of thought crimes) and says "You have the right to do what the **** you're told to do, and be snappy about it, unless you want your dog shot and your balls tasered."
What a shame you weren't born in a different time and place. Just think of how far you could have gone in the Gestapo!
I swore an oath when I enlisted. I knew what I was getting into. I don't think you have that attitude.
#2 would be a yes. You have the right to do what the **** you're told to do, and be snappy about it, unless you want your dog shot and your balls tasered.
I'm so over this shit.
If they HAD decided to press the issue, half the posters in this thread would be calling the guy a 'wack-job who got what he deserved'.
You people disgust me.
As the recipient of 3 bogus, short-lived restraining orders (all inflicted by my son's ultra-bitter mother) that caused me to have my firearms confiscated more than once, some never to have been seen again after 4 years, I can relate to the red flags raised by this incident.
I never did a damn thing to deserve one bit of that hell, and the expensive bureaucratic mess I went through after to get some of my weapons back was like something out of a bad movie. It was like common sense no longer applied to my world, thanks to the state. Every single item should have been returned IMMEDIATELY after it was determined the first TRO was falsely based, but they were not.
Once your in the system, your in and you are also screwed. You are failing to see this because you are on the other side.
When one of you learns the facts behind this gig let us all know so we can make informed oppinions not some rant on half truths and innuendo's.
You posted before that we were relying on misinformation - and now you post this. Do you know something about this incident that we don't? If so, please share.
As the recipient of 3 bogus, short-lived restraining orders that caused me to have my firearms confiscated more than once, some never to have been seen again after 4 years, I can relate to the red flags raised by this incident.
I never did a damn thing to deserve one bit of that hell, and the expensive bureaucratic mess I went through after to get some of my weapons back was like something out of a bad movie. It was like common sense no longer applied to my world, thanks to the state. Every single item should have been returned IMMEDIATELY after it was determined the first TRO was falsely based, but they were not.
Once your in the system, your in and you are also screwed. You are failing to see this because you are on the other side.
Like I said before, and in the other thread about the "no contact" order now being a firearms DQ in IA - every one of us is now one lying, psychotic, pissed off ex away from getting railroaded if this is truly how business is now done by law enforcement.
This is why you have due process and a neutral, detached magistrate who doesn't have any skin in the game, to review and weigh the credibility of the people involved, before you go seizing people and their property just because somebody else says you should.
Now we have laws and LE practices that just take that out of the equation and people can just be hauled off for a few hours on the flimsiest of reasons, and - evidently - have their guns seized and not returned for weeks.
I'm sure that these practices developed because of rare, high profile incidents where people complained that "the police should have DONE something!" You know what? I don't want to hear about isolated incidents. Those incidents, and yes - peoples' lives - are not as important as fundamental rights and due process. That's sort of the whole point of this country. Certain things are more important than safety and hypothetical scenarios that get delivered half-baked by people who are scared of their own shadows.
Like I said before, and in the other thread about the "no contact" order now being a firearms DQ in IA - every one us is now one lying, psychotic, pissed off ex away from getting railroaded if this is truly how business is now done by law enforcement.
Truer words were never spoken.
And I will tell you, watching the police leave with your child and weapons, in front of all your neighbors, is like a rape of the soul. I will never forget that feeling for as long as I live. I walked inside my empty home and cried for hours on the floor. I even shorted out my cell phone with tears and had to replace it.
Actually the first (and worst) was 3/6/06, and I swear to you just the weather brings it back when I walk outside. It hurt bad.
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 12:33
D Brown nobody here wants to hear the truth. At this point of the rant the truth is mote.
These guy's Perception is their truth. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant or government ass kicking.
Im truly amused at some of this, Maddogs and Englishman shit. So fella's drink another 24 oz ROCK STAR or two and getter done.
Irish sorry for the spelling brother. I wish THEY would hook spell check up to this thing, that would keep you guys off my ass Ill bet.
D Williams
Belmont31R
03-12-10, 12:39
Again....if he had made serious threats against someones life they could attempt to charge him with terroristic threats.
Now they are saying he was disgruntled. So as a gun owner NONE of us can get disgruntled or we are going to get surveiled, have the SWAT team show up, and taken off to the loony bin for a few days where our gun rights may be taken away for life. Hope you don't get a man hating anti-gun shrink.....
And yes it happens a lot with bitter ex's especially when there are kids involved. The ex makes claims, and her word is taken as the truth. Men are less than garbage in family court, and LE generally side with women.
Amazing how unsubstantiated allegations are enough to ruin your life just for being a gun owning male. Even in this case his entire neighborhood and community is going to know him as the "crazy guy who got taken away by SWAT".
D Brown nobody here wants to hear the truth. At this point of the rant the truth is mote.
Way to dodge my question. Do you know more than what is being reported, or not?
The way it looks right now based on what was reported is that this guy got royally railroaded, at the very least with regard to the gun seizure and the SWAT team business, and perhaps in more ways as well depending on exactly what was relied upon to come to his house in the first place.
Since you claim to be a retired cop from that neck of the woods and have implied that you know more than we do about this situation, please enlighten us.
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 12:44
Saftey I feel your pain. It's important to understand that the police don't write the rules, they simply have to enforce them.
Seems to me that your beef is with your elected officials who don't understand the pratical application or the pain and emberessment accociated with their legislative actions.
Irish, sorry for the spelling brother.
D Williams
D Brown nobody here wants to hear the truth. At this point of the rant the truth is mote.
These guy's Perception is their truth. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant or government ass kicking.
Im truly amused at some of this, Maddogs and Englishman shit. So fella's drink another 24 oz ROCK STAR or two and getter done.
Irish sorry for the spelling brother. I wish THEY would hook spell check up to this thing, that would keep you guys off my ass Ill bet.
D Williams
I am here for the truth and only the truth. And I could not care less about your spelling (though I believe there is a spell-check option, I use it all the time ;)).
Saftey I feel your pain. It's important to understand that the police don't write the rules, they simply have to enforce them.
Seems to me that your beef is with your elected officials who don't understand the practical application or the pain and embarrassment associated with their legislative actions.
My beef is with a woman who can be the devil incarnate. The problem is that the state enables her.
Thee separate times she did it, the last time this fall. Why? To keep my son from starting Kindergarten here, at his own home, so she could get him last minute and enroll him there, where he does not legally reside. Think I am kidding, think no one would be so diabolical and manipulative?
But there is never any recourse, no punishment. I go in and prove she is lying ( I have obtained operator status at doing this now, thankfully), the order is dismissed and we go home. I win in court, but where is the justice? What is her deterrent from doing it again, other than a loss of credibility perhaps?
The system needs to learn how to fix it's mistakes more proactively and give just a tiny bit of a shit about the people it steps on. Then maybe there will be less angst among those here.
My beef is with a woman who can be the devil incarnate. The problem is that the state enables her.
Thee separate times she did it, the last time this fall. Why? To keep my son from starting Kindergarten here, at his own home, so she could get him last minute and enroll him there, where he does not legally reside. Think I am kidding, think no one would be so diabolical and manipulative?
But there is never any recourse, no punishment. I go in and prove she is lying ( I have obtained operator status at doing this now, thankfully), the order is dismissed and we go home. I win in court, but where is the justice? What is her deterrent from doing it again, other than a loss of credibility perhaps?
The system needs to learn how to fix it's mistakes more proactively and give just a tiny bit of a shit about the people it steps on. Then maybe there will be less angst among those here.
Hire an attorney. Look at causes of action that might include defamation and abuse of process. If you can demonstrate that she is filing or swearing out pleadings for the purpose of harassing you and not for their intended purpose then you may be able to hammer her.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
But the fact that he was investigated or being watched and raised alarms when he bought close to $1500 worth of firearms with his financial future uncertain is not such a heinous idea.
Not such a heinous idea!?!?!?!?! Holy shit dude. They must be waiting outside my place right now!!!!
I cannot believe that someone on a pro-gun/pro personal liberty site would be that completely ass backwards from my ideas. Buying $1500 of guns should raise alarms, because his financial future was uncertain WTF?!?! Maybe the guy actually did something really weird, like saved some of his pay checks over the last few years.
I can't believe that the progressives have actually had so much influence over people.
Cameron
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 13:21
dBrown No I really don't know the answer you all seek. I do know that the truth will come out in time, and then and only then will informed choices be able to be made.
So until then Ill wait and make an informed choice when the facts are on the table.
Im retired from Oregon, and a resident deputy back in California for another 10 years if I can put up with the bullshit. I don't like alot of what is going on any better then you guys.
That's why I read this shit, I sometimes learn, I sometimes laugh with the crap that shoveled around here. Frankly after reading some of my own posts all I can do is laugh.
We are human, we know mistakes are made, most of us try really really hard to get it right for the sake of us all.
D Williams
Hire an attorney. Look at causes of action that might include defamation and abuse of process. If you can demonstrate that she is filing or swearing out pleadings for the purpose of harassing you and not for their intended purpose then you may be able to hammer her.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
I had an attorney, now I go it alone. In fact I may even be more effective than him at this point. ;)
Between my efforts and her repeated shots to her own foot, justice has essentially prevailed for me. Obtaining recourse for the TRO's would be very difficult, but possible I know.
But she still has no DL after 3 years (2 DWI's) and also has another son that I care about. If I hurt her I hurt him and my son to an extent. I can't intentionally do that despite everything, as the better the state of her feeble mind the better for the kids. My son is with me legally and very happy, so we are good for now.
But I am still out a Colt MT6400 and a beautifully customized 870.
I'd like to know how credible the threats he made were that got to this point.
I'm still going on the assumption that his behavior warranted the attention he got. His actions and words probably got him to this point but that information won't be shared by the police or his employer so we're left with only one side of the story.
His e-mail is interesting. I wonder if he made any attempt to contact the PD and get his weapons before sending that e-mail to the press. Or if it was an attempt to bring more attention to himself.
I know a little water has gone under the bridge since this quote was in a post but . . . .
If there was a credible threat, the charge of terroristic threats would have been made. Seriously, I have heard of that felony (you are no longer able to own guns for life) charge being applied to a teenager (who owned no guns) who said "If you beat my mother again I'll kill you" to a stepfather in the midst of a domestic assault where the stepfather was actively beating the teen after the teen got between the step father and the mother whose teeth had just been spread across the kitchen. Seriously. If there was a credible threat, there would have been charges.
The assumption that Pyle earned the attention he got is based a a presumption that citizens are always guilty until proven innocent . . . or the assumption that there were threats that warrant a SWAT response but somehow magically don't warrant a "terroristic threats" charge. Bear in mind the police loose no points if the charges get dropped. Charging him even if they knew there was no way to make the charges stick would have made the PD look better & if they get any points, it should be for not doing that to this citizen.
Ya know, on the email thing. Pyle, having experienced what he just did, is probably PAINFULLY aware of what can happen if you have communication with someone & no witnesses. . .. things you said can be taken out of context, words you never said can be added, or the communication can get "lost" and the claim can be made that it was never recieved. He probably was just using a little caution, forwarding his communications to media and political types. . . . makes it really hard to arrest the guy for sending a threatening letter to the PD, like making believe there was a bomb threat in there. I didn't read a bomb threat in that email & neither did you, the reason we didn't is because it wasn't there & it was released to the media. I am sure attention is the last thing this guy wants. There is a measure of shame & pain you can't perhaps understand until it happens to you. I am quite certain he just wants his lawfully owned and not rightly siezed property returned (hopefully they will be returned without having been bounced around uncased in a squad car's trunk for who knows how long & with sights intact.
Sidebar: Anybody know where I can get a rear sight for a Remington 582? Speaking from experience here & all the usual suspects, Brownells, Midway and the like don't seem to have 'em. When I got my 582 back, the rear sight didn't come with it.
Littlelebowski
03-12-10, 13:34
Not such a heinous idea!?!?!?!?! Holy shit dude. They must be waiting outside my place right now!!!!
I cannot believe that someone on a pro-gun/pro personal liberty site would be that completely ass backwards from my ideas. Buying $1500 of guns should raise alarms, because his financial future was uncertain WTF?!?! Maybe the guy actually did something really weird, like saved some of his pay checks over the last few years.
I can't believe that the progressives have actually had so much influence over people.
Cameron
I'm afraid it's not the progressive's fault in this case.
I am asking you point blank; do you not understand how this is wrong? Are we from different countries or do you just interpret certain rights a different way?
And I'm telling you point blank, I absolutly agree that if all they had was a vague "we suspended a guy at work and he was mad and he owns guns." statement from ODOT, then this situation is a bunch of bullshit and the PD should get hosed.
He'll sue, they'll settle out of court for an undisclosed sum of money, and they'll change the way they approach these situations in the future - if they don't they're fools.
On the other hand, if it turns out that this guy did make credible threats and then took steps to implement those plans... I'd be careful about holding the guy up as a 2nd amendment poster child.
However, I believe the cops had to have more information that just "he was mad". It just doesn't make sense otherwise. That's the part that I can't get my head around. It just doesn't make sense they'd get to that point w/ out something credible.
The police seemed to have a very specific concern that this was happening on a Monday at the start of the work week. That points to the time and nature of the threat they perceived Mr Pyle was posing. I don't have to read too much into it to think that whatever information they had, that detail was important and related to why they were there at that time and date.
From my perspective and experience, it takes a lot more than a baseless accusation of generic "disgruntledness" to get the cops to come to your house.
Would he have been taken by force, against his will? I can't imagine he would. I certainly wouldn't go get him. Why make the situation worse by forcing an armed confrontation? That's just shitty risk management... "Hmmm... let's shoot the guy we were here to help and maybe get one of us killed in the process. "good plan on 3"."
Even if he is a threat, worse than they could ever imagine - even if the first thing he said to the negotiator was "**** ODOT, I'm going to drive down there and kill all of them and you can't stop me" it makes no sense to go in after the guy.
The goal was to stop him from hurting anyone. He's in his house. Contained. Safe. He's talking, he's not doing anything like shooting out of the house, etc.
Next step, get him out without harm to himself, the police, or any other member of the community. If that means you let the guy voluntarily go to the hospital and not arrest him, that's a good ending. The goal isn't to arrest him. The goal is to provide safety. If the negotiator makes a deal that he don't need to be arrested, they're worried about the situation and they want to see him come out safely and nobody gets hurt, they need to stick to that agreement.
Worst case, start making smores and plan on camping there for a while and talk him out. There is no reason to start risking people's lives (including Mr Pyle's) by letting someone's ego get in the way or by sticking to some make or make believe break time schedule for getting him out.
Anyway - that's what I think. I don't think anyone in this thread is going to convince anyone else of anything at this point so I'm looking for more info to come from the cops or the court to shed more light on this.
Dirk Williams
03-12-10, 13:36
Saftey the system is broke, no doubt, and it is likely that we are in fact a nation in decline. Understand this that the police have to live by the rules aswell. I guess when you work within the rules it makes it easier to understand how it works.
I have several ex cop friends who have been hosed by their ex wifes. They lost their rights to carry via those same rules thus they lost their ability to be a cop.
Are they bitter, **** yea, do they have a right to be bitter **** yea,
What's reasonable is the real question that needs to be asked and legislativly applied. Good luck to you sir.
Irish sorry for the spelling brother.
D Williams
Irish sorry for the spelling brother.
Will you stop apologizing for the spelling error already? We have seen much worse here, no big deal.
Irish is just mad because he doesn't have an updated photo of his girl to use as a new avatar today.
:D
John_Wayne777
03-12-10, 13:50
This nonsense has gone on long enough.
CarlosDJackal
06-22-10, 10:07
Wasn't there a tom cruise movie about this? I hope this guys sues the pants off all involved and wins big!! :mad:
From: Original Article (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-policing)
Pre-Crime Policing
Allegedly “disgruntled” man has his guns seized, and “voluntarily” surrenders to two SWAT teams and dozens of police officers for a crime that hadn’t been committed
Radley Balko | March 16, 2010
To hear them tell it, the five police agencies who apprehended 39-year-old Oregonian David Pyles early on the morning of March 8 thwarted another lone wolf mass murderer. The police "were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation," announced a press release put out by the Medford, Oregon, police department. The subject had recently been placed on administrative leave from his job, was "very disgruntled," and had recently purchased several firearms. "Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers," the release said. Fortunately, Pyles "voluntarily" turned himself over to police custody, and the legally purchased firearms "were seized for safekeeping."
This voluntary exchange involved two SWAT teams, police officers from Medford and nearby Roseburg, sheriff's deputies from Jackson and Douglas counties, and the Oregon State Police. Oregon State Police Sgt. Jeff Proulx explained to South Oregon's Mail Tribune why the operation was such a success: "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."
There's just one problem: David Pyles hadn't committed any crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.
"They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning," Pyles told me in a phone interview Friday. "I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation."
By noon the same day, Pyles had already been released from the Rogue Valley Medical Center with a clean bill of mental health. Four days later the Medford Police Department returned Pyle’s guns, despite telling him earlier in the week—falsely—that he'd need to undergo a second background check before he could get them back. On Friday the Medford Police Department put out a second press release, this time announcing that the agency had returned the "disgruntled" worker's guns, and "now considers this matter closed.
That seems unlikely. Pyles' case has spurred outrage in the gun rights community. Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation has been advising Pyles, and helped get his guns back. Oregon-based syndicated conservative talk radio host Lars Larson has taken up the story. And Pyles is now attorney shopping for a possible civil rights lawsuit.
At root behind this case and others like it is our naïve, hopeful, and sometimes even dangerous belief that every horrible shooting spree or lone-wolf act of terrorism can be prevented. We seem unable to accept the idea that bad people will occasionally do bad things. Every new mass shooting spurs an urge to assign blame beyond the shooter: What political ideology inspired him? Who missed the “warning signs,” and why wasn't he apprehended ahead of time? Gun retailers are scrutinized and vilified, even when they've complied with the law. In ensuing days and weeks, politicians mull new laws, often both ineffective and constricting on our liberty.
There's nothing wrong with looking for signs that someone is about to snap, and if he's putting up multiple red flags, we'd certainly want law enforcement to investigate, possibly to chat with the person and his friends and family. And obviously if someone has made specific threats, a criminal investigation should follow. But that's a far cry from what happened to Pyles.
Pyles' problems began last June after a series of grievances with his employer, the Oregon Department of Transportation. "This was always a professional thing for me," he says. "It was never personal. We were handling the grievances through the process stipulated in the union contract." Pyles declined to discuss the nature of the complaints, citing stipulations in his contract.
On March 4, Pyles was placed on administrative leave, which required him to work from home. On March 5, 6, and 7, after getting his income tax refund, he made three purchases of five firearms. Pyles describes himself as a gun enthusiast, who had already owned several weapons. All three new purchases required an Oregon background check, which would have prohibited the transactions had Pyles ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, or been committed by the state to a mental health institution. Pyles says he has no criminal record, and says he never threatened anyone in his office. (A specific threat of violence would have likely brought a criminal charge.) The Oregon State Police, the Medford Police Department, and the Oregon Department of Transportation did not respond to requests for comment.
"In my opinion, the apprehension of David Pyles was a violation of Oregon's kidnapping laws," says James Leuenberger, a criminal defense attorney who is also advising Pyles. "He definitely deserves to be compensated for what they did to him, but even if he wins a civil rights suit, that will just result in the officers' employers paying for their mistakes." That of course means the final tab will be paid by Oregon's taxpayers, not the offending cops. "I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible," Leuenberger says. "I want them criminally charged."
It's hard to see that happening. Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University and a specialist in civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles were likely acting under the cover of Oregon law. Bloom says the police are permitted to make a determination on their own to take someone in for a mental health evaluation—there's no requirement that they first consult with a judge or mental health professional. Bloom believes this is a wise policy. "It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."
So SWAT teams, guns, and handcuffs...but not a criminal action? And what if Pyles had refused to "voluntarily" surrender to the police? "Well, yes," Bloom says. "I guess then it would become a criminal matter."
If what happened to Pyles is legal, in Oregon or elsewhere, we need to take a second look at the civil commitment power. Even setting aside the SWAT team overkill in Medford, there's something awfully discomfiting about granting government authorities the power to yank someone from their home and drag them in for a mental health evaluation based on a series of actions that were perfectly legal, especially with no prior oversight from a judge, or guidance from a psychiatrist.
"The idea that Pyles turned himself in voluntarily is ridiculous," says Starrett, the gun rights activist. "There's nothing voluntary about waking up to a SWAT team outside your home, then having a police negotiator call and suggest you surrender. They had no arrest warrant. But Pyles only had one option. If he didn't come out on his own, they were going to come in to get him."
Even if the apprehension of Pyles was legal, the seizure of his guns wasn't. Because civil commitment laws aren't criminal in nature, they don't carry authorization for the police to search a private residence. According to Pyles, he closed the door behind him as he left his home. Because the police didn't have a search warrant, they had no right to even enter Pyles' home, much less seize guns inside that he bought and possessed legally.
For a potential mass murderer, Pyles is remarkably placid and big-picture about what happened to him. "I've been looking for a new job for months," he says. "But given the economy, I'm pretty lucky to be getting a paycheck, even given all of this. For me, this is about civil rights. This seems like something the NRA and the ACLU can agree on. South Oregon is big gun country. If something like this can happen here, where just about everyone owns a gun, it can happen anywhere."
Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
CarlosDJackal
06-22-10, 10:10
Dammit. I thought this was in GD. Mods, please move this thread accordingly. Sorry about that.
Truly orwellian times we live in these days. Pre-crime interventions? Absoutely rediculous...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=49225
Minority Report Much? [Thats the name of the Tom Cruise movie...]
Thats freakin' redonculous!
But what could he have done, could he have told them GTFO without a warrent? They would have breached the door, thrown in a flashbang and dragged him out buond and gagged... maybe then he could have sued them for more money but is if worth it?
Serriosly, what could he have done?
My mom always jokes that because I have 5 weapons registered to me in NJ that the local PD is watching me lol. Shit, she might be right! They might be! Luckaly I like the place I work in otherwise I too may be labled as "disgruntled" or a "lown wolf mass murderer"
Crazy!
Serriosly, what could he have done?
Sat inside, watched TV, and ignored them. Seriously.
And given this:
"They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning," Pyles told me in a phone interview Friday. "I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation."
I think "sit in my house, have a cup of coffee, and ignore them" is exactly what I would do under these circumstances. What are THEY going to do is the question at that point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.