View Full Version : OR - Gun Confiscation Follow Up
Mo_Zam_Beek
04-08-10, 12:54
Some of you may remember this thread that ended up getting closed: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=49225
Early on in that thread I said:
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.
To be clear I knew a little some thing about the man in question, I support LE 100% in this case. The catch - what is the standard by which LE can arbitrarily (and likely illegally) step in like this. I think if Pyles gets a reasonable attorney he is going to get a pay day.
Here is a bit of follow up from this morning's paper:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100408/NEWS/4080312
Unsettling behavior in ODOT guns case detailed
Text Size: A | A | A
Print this ArticlePrint this Article Email this ArticleEmail this Article
ShareThis
April 08, 2010
Anita Burke
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
A pattern of volatile, confrontational behavior, the purchase of five guns over three days, and reports that Oregon Department of Transportation administrators had left their Roseburg homes in fear prompted Oregon State Police to conclude that a suspended ODOT planner could be a danger to himself or others, newly released police reports say.
Less than half an hour after sending out a teletype on March 7 asking law enforcement officers across Southern Oregon to be on the lookout for David J. Pyles, a 39-year-old planner placed on administrative leave March 4, OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx sent out a second teletype reporting that police had a reason to take Pyles into protective custody.
In a report released this week, Proulx lists a dozen items that led him to his decision.
"After reviewing all this information I obtained, I amended the ATL (attempt to locate bulletin) to indicate probable cause existed to detain Mr. Pyles on a police officer's mental hold," Proulx wrote.
That conclusion ultimately launched a Medford police negotiator and SWAT team, who took Pyles into custody at his Effie Street home early on March 8 for a mental health evaluation and took his weapons.
Pyles was released within hours and his six guns were returned to him March 12, after he asked for them back.
However, concerns of gun-rights and civil-liberty advocates continue to echo across talk radio and blogs. Pyles has said he still hopes to hire an attorney, but declined to comment further. He has released statements and parts of a recording he made when he was placed on paid leave March 4 over what he and ODOT officials describe as an ongoing personnel issue.
Transportation department managers called OSP, the agency that provides security for state offices, to stand by at the office at 100 Antelope Road, White City, while administrators from Roseburg notified Pyles about the leave, say reports by OSP Sgts. Tanya Henderson and Steve Mitchell, the two officers who responded. Pyles' supervisor explained to them that Pyles had been confrontational in the past so he wanted police present. The Mail Tribune is not publishing the names of the ODOT managers because of their safety concerns.
When the supervisor called Pyles to come into a conference room, he refused, so the officers and administrators went to his work station, the OSP reports say. He again refused to go to a conference room with them, demanding that a union representative be present if he was going to be questioned. Mitchell's report describes him as "very irrational."
Police and ODOT representatives told him that this wasn't an investigation, so he didn't need a union rep, the reports say. Henderson's report indicates that Pyles was "very upset and sweating" when he was allowed to call a shop steward, who was out of the office for the day.
Pyles recorded the conversation and took photographs of those present. In portions of the recording he released, he claims he doesn't trust management and repeatedly calls the proceedings an unfair labor practice. He sounds increasingly agitated as police and managers calmly repeat requests for him to go to a conference room or accept a letter at his desk.
He read aloud the letter, which explained he was being placed on paid leave pending a fitness for duty examination by a psychiatrist chosen by ODOT.
Police reports indicate that he signed the letter and was given time to pack his personal items.
"During the time Pyles was packing, he had mood swings," Henderson wrote. "He would go from packing his items and being very calm and rational to at times being very vocal and at one point stepping aggressively toward" his manager until Mitchell told him to step back.
Mitchell wrote that Pyles got upset when his manager asked about whether some binders, which Pyles said had personal information in them, had ODOT information in them.
"This conversation upset Mr. Pyles and he became irrational again," Mitchell's report says.
Pyles then asked for more time to collect his things, and, when it was granted, sat down with his back to the people waiting for him and put his feet up on his desk, Mitchell wrote. After about a minute, he resumed packing.
He took more pictures as he was escorted out of the building, then loaded his things into his vehicle and left, reports say.
Pyles called 9-1-1 a short time later to say he had been threatened at work. A deputy called Henderson about the complaint, but didn't make a report on the incident, dispatch records indicate.
On March 5, law enforcement and ODOT officials met at the ODOT offices in White City to discuss concerns about Pyles' behavior. After hearing about verbal outbursts and slipping hygiene, Jackson County sheriff's deputy Phil Cicero asked the OSP division that does background checks for gun purchases to notify him if Pyles underwent a background check to buy firearms.
The background check division reported that Pyles bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber pistol and a Remington 12-gauge shotgun March 5 at Sportsman's Warehouse in Medford, a second H&K pistol at Sportsman's Warehouse on March 6 and a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle at Black Bird Shopping Center on March 7.
At 6 p.m. on March 7, OSP, a dozen officers from the sheriff's department and Medford police met to discuss growing concerns about Pyles and his purchases.
During the final week of February, Pyles had traveled to Roseburg to meet with a manager, Proulx's report says. When the manager refused to meet with him, Pyles went around the building to bang on the manager's window.
Proulx wrote that he was told some of the ODOT employees involved in placing Pyles on leave feared retaliation and the department had hired a security company to monitor offices in White City and Roseburg.
Sheriff's department investigators collected evidence from Pyles' computer and desk at ODOT offices, and Medford police started surveillance at his Effie Street home.
State police in Roseburg were notified to look for Pyles at motels and the home of a coworker and friend.
A teletype was sent out, at 9:24 p.m. March 7, to law enforcement across southwestern Oregon asking officers to be on the lookout for Pyles and warning of potential officer safety issues. It warned that he might be unstable and had made "concerning statements," but said he hadn't made specific threats and police didn't have a reason to arrest him.
Proulx called three ODOT managers directly involved in putting Pyles on leave to tell them about Pyles' weapons purchases and help them make a safety plan if they wanted. The managers already knew about the guns and "left their residences that evening and stayed with friends or family because of the fear for their lives they felt," Proulx wrote.
"Personal interactions with Mr. Pyles" and observations of his "irrational behavior" combined with the knowledge that he had just bought five guns caused them to fear for their safety and even their lives, he wrote.
"All three of these ODOT employees felt the threat to be real," his report states.
Proulx said upon reviewing the details, his training and experience led him to believe Pyles "was a threat to himself and or others." He amended the teletype at 9:50 p.m., sending out a second message that police had a reason to hold Pyles.
At about 12:30 a.m. on March 8, Proulx talked again with Medford police, who were managing surveillance of Pyles' house.
"I confirmed to them that I believed that Mr. Pyles was a threat to himself or others," Proulx wrote in his report.
Medford police sent out the SWAT team and a negotiator just before 6 a.m. Pyles voluntarily came out of his house just before 7 a.m., was handcuffed, and agreed to point out guns and ammunition in his home so police could collect them, Medford police reports say. He was taken for a mental health evaluation at Rogue Valley Medical Center and released about three hours later after being cleared by a psychiatrist.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
First, I don't think he acted any differently than anyone else would had they been dealing with the DOT. As far as the "slipping hygiene" reason goes they've never seen VDOT employees!
Second, he has good taste in guns!
:D
I still didn't see any reason for the neighborhood to be locked down and SWAT and helicopters and stuff.
These kinds of stories make me think...
First of all, the "mood swings" statement is hilarious. Have these people ever been fired? Or had their sanity questioned? Your mind races at a thousand miles an hour. You're pissed, then introspective, then pissed, then you want to cry, then you want to bash someones head in, then you get defiant... that's just normal.
I do have to say this, though... If I had recently lost my job, ESPECIALLY in this economy, I don't think I would be buying a ton of guns. Does it make the seizures right or legal? No, probably not. But, I UNDERSTAND where the cops were coming from. It's a total catch 22... They seize the weapons, violate all kinds of rights, and get sued up the ass. They DON'T seize the weapons, and Mr. Pyles goes in and shoots everyone at the ODOT office. Or, nothing happens and nobody does anything. Those are the only three options. The third option is something that almost no LEO can wrap his/her mind around. It just doesn't work in that kind of world. You almost HAVE to expect the worst.
Does it open a whole can of worms? Yes, it does. It's the classic slippery slope. Hopefully, Mr. Pyles does sue, does win, and sets a standard.
Medford police sent out the SWAT team and a negotiator just before 6 a.m. Pyles voluntarily came out of his house just before 7 a.m., was handcuffed, and agreed to point out guns and ammunition in his home so police could collect them, Medford police reports say. He was taken for a mental health evaluation at Rogue Valley Medical Center and released about three hours later after being cleared by a psychiatrist.
I still want to know what they would have done if he'd just ignored them, or told them he wasn't coming out, and had just sat in his house and watched TV. Seems to me that he was "arrested" in every sense of the word if his house was surrounded by a SWAT team. What if he just walked out, unarmed, to walk his dog or check his mail? What would they have done?
I don't see much of any substance in this article that differs from or adds to the original articles at the time of the incident. He got fired (or placed on leave), was understandably not himself about that, and then went and bought some guns (which is admittedly odd for somebody who presumably just lost his income). No reports of even vague threats of violence or suicide, no history of the same reported.
People like him you leave alone. If he ends up doing something awful, yes, people will say "why didn't the authorities DO something?" The answer is "because he hadn't crossed any lines yet." The police/government are not liable to anyone because they made a judgment and did not take action in a case like this. They can, however, be sued when they take illegally excessive action against somebody. Seems like an easy call to make.
Cascades236
04-08-10, 16:42
I still want to know what they would have done if he'd just ignored them, or told them he wasn't coming out, and had just sat in his house and watched TV. Seems to me that he was "arrested" in every sense of the word if his house was surrounded by a SWAT team. What if he just walked out, unarmed, to walk his dog or check his mail? What would they have done?
I don't see much of any substance in this article that differs from or adds to the original articles at the time of the incident. He got fired (or placed on leave), was understandably not himself about that, and then went and bought some guns (which is admittedly odd for somebody who presumably just lost his income). No reports of even vague threats of violence or suicide, no history of the same reported.
People like him you leave alone. If he ends up doing something awful, yes, people will say "why didn't the authorities DO something?" The answer is "because he hadn't crossed any lines yet." The police/government are not liable to anyone because they made a judgment and did not take action in a case like this. They can, however, be sued when they take illegally excessive action against somebody. Seems like an easy call to make.
I'm not up to speed on Oregon's law but Washington for example has an involuntary treatment act in which under specific circumstances an officer or cdmhp can develope probable cause to take you into custody against your will for an involuntary mental health evaluation. For all intents and purposes, you're under arrest and as such subject to whatever force necessary to be taken into custody.
Belmont31R
04-08-10, 16:49
I don't like the idea of fellow (government) employees being able to make an accusation, and that leads to someone being detained by SWAT, and hauled off to the looney bin.
Well, I'm an Oregonian and have followed this closely. I'd probably say it's a matter of presentation. Certainly other articles and organizations have presented it a little differently than the article quoted by the OP.
I'm not cop bashing. Heck I work on cops guns regularly for free as an armorer.
That being said, the guy did not break any laws. He was detained, forced to go through psych eval. He was not given access to an attorney, as he wasn't arrested.
Being an aggressive asshole, or having moodswings is not a crime.
Let's try to think where else that could be used against us as citizens. It's pretty easy: Jeez, all these guys over on M4C and Lightfighter are clearly politically disgruntled, clearly own firearms, and could be a threat. Maybe they we should be able to "hold" them for up to 180 days without consent, medicate them without consent, and confiscate their firearms.
Leaving it too open to interpretation is a little to dangerous to liberty to me. Remember who might be doing the interpretation.
reminding me of that movie with tom cruise about future crimes that have not happened yet but they arrest on that !!!!!!
bizarre stuff seems to be happening more and more these days and that REM song "its the end of the world as we know it" keeps playing in my head !!!!!
AlohaChris
04-08-10, 18:32
Notice that all of the "evidence" of 'mood swings', 'irrational behavior' and being 'confrontational' all come from biased sources. The bottom line here is that mere accusations from dubious sources led to an arrest & mental health evaluation.
This man's reputation & future employment prospects are destroyed. Because of his 'superiors' opinions. A SWAT team was used to accomplish what a simple phone call could do. A little respect and discretion could have gone a long way here.
I've never been to Medford, OR. Don't know if it's a big place but I am troubled that every small town police department in America has a hard on to have a SWAT team decked out in the latest 511/Blackhawk catalog.
I grew up in a big city and cops walked the neighborhood wearing shirts with a collar & tie and polished shoes. Nowadays you see a cop and the officer looks like a commando in a 'tactical' jumpsuit, combat boots, and battle gloves. I don't like the growing 'militarization' of America.
Here is my take on it.
The guy is a smelly pain in the ass at work with a history of flipping out, and everyone thinks he is a psyco.
He acts the same way while the police are there.
He calls 911 and lies about being threatened.
He brought it all on himself.
GermanSynergy
04-08-10, 19:07
I don't like the idea of fellow (government) employees being able to make an accusation, and that leads to someone being detained by SWAT, and hauled off to the looney bin.
Precisely. Slippery slope this is......
QuietShootr
04-08-10, 19:11
Here is my take on it.
The guy is a smelly pain in the ass at work with a history of flipping out, and everyone thinks he is a psyco.
He acts the same way while the police are there.
He calls 911 and lies about being threatened.
He brought it all on himself.
And what department do you work for, officer?
And what department do you work for, officer?
Try not to go down this road otherwise the thread will be closed like the last one. Besides, why insult police officers? :D
QuietShootr
04-08-10, 19:18
Try not to go down this road otherwise the thread will be closed like the last one. Besides, why insult police officers? :D
Just wondering. I'll repair to friendlier environs now, since my presence seems to guarantee a lock lately.
Yeah, stay on topic. This isn't even about cops. This is about the criminalization of things in our society, and our immediate knee jerk responses that cause these things. Political correctness, fear, and trampling the constitution by using fear. The cops will work within the framework of the law. The real problem is that the law may have allowed what happened. WE let that happen. And if it turns out it wasn't legal there's a whole host of people whose bad judgement should have them paying for this one.
This is a societal issue of which the cops are a small part.
Noops
Paid leave? SEE YA! I'll try my darndest to get in touch with the psych boss, till then you can catch me fishing out on the lake around the point just on the left by the water. Personally I think this guy missed out on a chance for a week off.
Cascades236
04-08-10, 20:47
Have any of us seen the affidavit for his involuntary hold? I haven't, but it takes an act of god to get most SWAT teams mobilized...a simple invol isn't going to do it. I don't think it's fair to cry foul either way...yet.
What if SWAT wasnt used and the dude ducked out the back and wacked his neighbor. What if what if? Then we would all be crying about their lack of response. People assume things about what SWAT team does, when in reality they bring a lot of resource to bring critical situations to favorable resolutions for all. They contained the situation and it was resolved easily, had it spun sideways they were ready.
Presumably we're all gun owners on this board and we're bitching about being too safe with resources? There's nothing wrong with being ready for a fight right? Most of us carry concealed everywhere we go..just in case.
If anything this dude needs to see what "witness" statements were made and go after them in civil court if they were wrong or blown out of proportion.
Dirk Williams
04-08-10, 20:59
So what if we the cops did nothing and the guy went postal.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions. I can't speak for the rest of the police on here but based on what is written, I believe the right choice was made.
The citizen has a built in remedy called civil court.
FWIW Trooper Jeff Proiux is a good man not prone to over reaction. I knew him when he was stationed here in Klamath Falls. He recently lost a very close friend in an IED bombing up in the Portland Oregon area at a bank, where OSP and a PD LT got trashed by some solid ****ing citizen, and his father who were anti establishment.
D Williams
I'm not up to speed on Oregon's law but Washington for example has an involuntary treatment act in which under specific circumstances an officer or cdmhp can develope probable cause to take you into custody against your will for an involuntary mental health evaluation. For all intents and purposes, you're under arrest and as such subject to whatever force necessary to be taken into custody.
Right, what I thought was weird was no police officers or other forum members from Oregon were coming up with ORS citations for how this guy could have been legally detained for a mental evaluation and explaining the authority to seize the weapons in the meantime, etc.
Some posters from Oregon were saying there was no authority to do this, and nobody from Oregon challenged this assertion.
Have any of us seen the affidavit for his involuntary hold?
AFAIK He voluntarily went to the evaluation and his guns voluntarily surrendered, given back once he asked for them.
So what if we the cops did nothing and the guy went postal.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions. I can't speak for the rest of the police on here but based on what is written, I believe the right choice was made.
The citizen has a built in remedy called civil court.
FWIW Trooper Jeff Proiux is a good man not prone to over reaction. I knew him when he was stationed here in Klamath Falls. He recently lost a very close friend in an IED bombing up in the Portland Oregon area at a bank, where OSP and a PD LT got trashed by some solid ****ing citizen, and his father who were anti establishment.
D Williams
I'm not necessarily disputing the right or wrong of THIS action, but some of what you've written is really not true. Castle Rock v Gonzales showed that the police can not be held accountable for failing to protect people (the element of the case would be your hypothetical of "going postal"). And that was likely a stronger case because the plaintiff had what the courts deemed to be a prior active relationship with the police. Scalia found that there was no individual entitlement despite a restraining order taken out by the victim.
It's a little different fro the entitlement issue, but there are other precedents on that issue. Your department or local jurisdictional issues might be different.
But again, you can not arrest people for. What ifs. That has been a strong tenet of our laws for a while now.
What if SWAT wasnt used and the dude ducked out the back and wacked his neighbor. What if what if? Then we would all be crying about their lack of response. People assume things about what SWAT team does, when in reality they bring a lot of resource to bring critical situations to favorable resolutions for all. They contained the situation and it was resolved easily, had it spun sideways they were ready.
instead of playing what ifs why not go by the facts ! the guy was taken in on just the fact some others at work reported him !!
you want to play what if ? what if the people at work just did not like he was a gun guy and are lefties and decided to make this up ?
you can play what if all day long but here we have facts or some of them and so far its not looking so good for our freedoms :)
Dirk Williams
04-08-10, 22:25
Noops, ive been gone a couple of years but I seem to remember "Whitecastle being out of Washington state. Im not sure what it says. There are many ways to take someone off the streets.
ORS is clear on taking someone who is a danger to themselves or others off the street, out of their homes and detaining them for a mental or medical review. Most writs are reviewed and signed by a judge kinda like a search warrant.
However if it a chance encounter on the street and it's obvious someone is in jeprody they go no questions asked.
In fact it's also possible in Oregon for a thing called a "Two Doctor Hold". It simply means that two doctors can sign documentation if based on the facts presented they believe a person is a danger to themselves or others.
It's legal its real and it's done often in Oregon.
If you really need the ORS sections I can call myold partners and hve them provide them. Won't be till tomorrow, theres a sniper show on im watching.
D Williams
AlohaChris
04-08-10, 22:42
Here is my take on it.
The guy is a smelly pain in the ass at work with a history of flipping out, and everyone thinks he is a psyco.
He acts the same way while the police are there.
He calls 911 and lies about being threatened.
He brought it all on himself.
It's all fun & games until YOU'RE the "pain in the ass" whose "difficult". When an organization/system turn on you for legitimate gripes, take comfort in the fact that you "brought it all on yourself."
I guess MG Anthony Taguba "brought it all on himself" with his report.
takes an act of god to get most SWAT teams mobilized
Apparently not. In this case all it required was some accusations & assumptions.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions.
Yeah, all those poor officers on the unemployment line or wasting away in prison for failing to stop crimes. :rolleyes:
This wasnt just him having a bad day at work, police getting called, guns being taken.
He has a government job, not some job where if he mouthed off to his boss he would be instantly fired. There are so many steps involved, and many people in different departments involved with disciplinary actions at a government job it isnt funny. For it to get to the point where they are sending him to be mentally evaluated, this has gone on for a long time.
Just be cause he wasnt charged with threatening people doesnt mean he wasnt. It isnt that difficult to hint or to do things that are threatening and it not be enough to be arrested. Im sure there was enough evidence in his personnel file and on his computer that made the police believe what his employer was saying. I really doubt it was just a random thought by the police to check if he was buying guns.
Like I said the guy brought this on himself. Maybe next time he wouldnt act crazy when the police escort him out of his next job.
Dirk Williams
04-08-10, 22:52
Noops Just got a call from a friend the Mental Hold section in Oregon is ORS 426.228. Police Mental Hold.
It's actually more of a civil hold. In fact the Deputy who called was in route with one for ?. Yup a police Mental hold on a person.
Hope this helps,
D Williams
Dirk Williams
04-08-10, 23:00
AlohaChris, sounds like you didn't get your hug today. I'd be the first to say our system sucks. What do you think happens in say the USSR Or Africa or South america or S/E asia.
No hearing, no rights, no courts, no civil remedy. WE as citizens are blessed to be in a country as great as the United States. It ain't perfect but its home.
DWilliams
Mo_Zam_Beek
04-08-10, 23:29
Anybody notice the part of the story where Pyles says he does not have an attorney at this time?
Common sense time:
- Pyles has been the subject of a lot of media attention
- If Pyles is stable, there is likely a pay day in this if the cards are played correctly by even semi qualified counsel
- ODOT is releasing enough information to give a flavor of what they have, but more than likely have additional fodder in the event of a trial
Now... why is it Pyles doesn't have an attorney at this time? It is a contingent fee case. Maybe he has them 10 deep to pick from and he is going through a selection process. Then again..... maybe not.
Good luck
How could he lose, he took all those pics and recorded them handing him a letter. :rolleyes:
So what if we the cops did nothing and the guy went postal.
I already addressed that. The answer is "nothing" if you're talking about repercussions for you or your employer.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions. I can't speak for the rest of the police on here but based on what is written, I believe the right choice was made.
Really? Who holds you accountable for inactions, and how? What if any consequence actually happens to you other than the usual whiners writing letters to the newspaper? Maybe you get a mean memo in your personnel file about doing things differently in the future - which I'll go out on a limb and say is better than months or years of litigation because you went overboard and ruined somebody's life and career by arresting him with a SWAT team in front of all his neighbors and a slew of reporters. The people harmed by a psycho who goes "postal" have no chance if they sue you or your department, for many reasons (such as sovereign immunity, intervening criminal act, lack of proximate cause, etc.).
There seems to be an attitude amongst some in law enforcement that the "safer" route is to act, to take somebody into custody, to deprive somebody of their liberty or property, so that they can say they "did something." The problem is that this isn't the safer route, it's the route that's more likely to result in a meritorious lawsuit.
The citizen has a built in remedy called civil court.
Exactly - in the scenario where you DO take action in a questionable situation, you expose yourself to liability. If you leave the guy alone, you don't get sued (or at least you don't get a lawsuit that has any real merit).
Dirk Williams
04-09-10, 10:21
Good morning Mr. Brown. I provided the Statute section regarding the "HOW, WHY". for Oregons police mental hold. I don't write the rules. It's clear to me that no answer will fit your need, except your own.
I get it, your pissed because your ex had a restraining order placed on you and those ****ing police followed the law written by your elected officials and siezed your guns.
I'd be pissed to. Good luck to you in the future.
D Williams
Dirk,
I'm not disputing the "mental hold" legality, although I certainly question its morality as it's too open to interpretation. What Castle Rock basically held is what others have described:
The liability was created through positive action. No liability would have attached to the police had they "failed to protect" someone.
So you can argue that liability attached though that, but it's basically not legally enforceable. The DOT, police, whoever created the liability. And in this case, it seems not unlikely that there will be an enforceable liability, but who knows.
As for mental hold, I know it's legal, although somewhat untested. But it seems to me like an end run on the Fifth Amendment. And this is the perfect test case for that.
Good morning Mr. Brown. I provided the Statute section regarding the "HOW, WHY". for Oregons police mental hold. I don't write the rules.
Yes, I saw that a long time ago. Pointing to a statute that allows you to do something does not answer my questions, however. The question is - what would be the consequences to you or your agency if you did not take somebody like this guy in Oregon into custody, and then he did something bad?
That is the question. Not "what statute do I put on my report to explain why I took him into custody."
You have claimed that you would be held accountable if you failed to act in a situation such as this, and then the subject went on to commit some criminal act. Tell me how you would be held accountable and what negative consequences would befall you.
It's clear to me that no answer will fit your need, except your own.
It's clear to me that you are frustrated because you don't have any answer, other than making false and defamatory statements about me like the one below.
I get it, your pissed because your ex had a restraining order placed on you and those ****ing police followed the law written by your elected officials and siezed your guns.
Never had that happen to me, but thanks for your profanity-laden, libelous strawman accusation.
Dirk Williams
04-09-10, 11:45
Mr. Brown I must be confusing you with another M4 member whom I exchanged posts with earlier in this exchange.
I apologize sir. I was not trying to be mean spirited regarding a Restraining Order. I thought it was you I had exchanged posts. During that first exchange I stated I understood the frustration level, and have EX police officer friends who fell victim to those same laws thus costing them their jobs. Again my apology to you sir.
How about this scene.
I let a drunk driver go on a traffic stop and he crashs and kills or badly injures someone, you don't think Im ****ed. Get real man. OR I have information that a bank robbery is going to happen at a specific bank at a specific time and I blow it off, The bank gets robbed, you don't think there's not going to be accountabilty on my part.
I would hope these small examples will help you understand how it really works.
Thank you for your time.
D Williams.
How about this scene.
I let a drunk driver go on a traffic stop and he crashs and kills or badly injures someone, you don't think Im ****ed. Get real man. OR I have information that a bank robbery is going to happen at a specific bank at a specific time and I blow it off, The bank gets robbed, you don't think there's not going to be accountabilty on my part.
Those are egregious examples that are not "close calls." I would think you'd be disciplined or fired, but who can sue you?
So again, in exactly what sense are you "****ed" if you fail to act in a situation where you are making a judgment call, a discretionary decision, as a government agent? The only people who can second guess you are your supervisors and their options are limited.
Why does every "consequence" have to be criminal/civil for it to be a consequence?
Inaction can do a lot of things. First, public perception is a huge deal to police departments. If the public hates you, funding gets stripped, people get fired, and everyone suffers. Everyone.
Let's face it. MOST people who have read this story, who do not give a rip about guns, who don't know the legal aspects, who don't care one way or another, and who don't KNOW better, THINK the police in this matter did the right thing. By that logic, the police did exactly what the majority of the public thought was the right thing to do.
Oregon is a gun loving state. But... The problem with our skewed and biased perception on this board, as well as many others that match our interests, is that we only see one side. I'm sure there are MANY more boards/blogs who are looking at the same situation and saying "Good job! That bastard could have, and probably would have, killed a bunch of people."
Again, public perception is everything.
We need not get our panties in a wad. Dirk, I appreciate your candor and agree with you, in principle.
Everyone screaming "Conspiracy!"... It just makes us sound like nutjobs. Have you noticed the more "level-headed" of our SMEs, Mods, regulars stay OUT of this sort of thread? This may be flame bait, and I don't give a shit.
The tin-foil hat, they're-gonna-take-our-guns-rights-women-and-kids mentality just makes us look childish, and spreads the classic "crazy asshole with a gun" stereotype.
I read a great quote the other day on LF.net that went something like this:
"If you're sick and tired of the way things are going, and you just can't take it anymore, grab your guns, run out into the street, and join the fray. If you're the only one out there screaming with a gun in your hand, go back inside. It is not yet time."
That's what it comes down to. If these sorts of things ruffle your feathers, write your congressmen. Write the Oregon State Board of of Police. Whatever. But coming to an internet message board and ranting and raving solves nothing, and makes us look slightly stupid.
Let's face it. MOST people who have read this story, who do not give a rip about guns, who don't know the legal aspects, who don't care one way or another, and who don't KNOW better, THINK the police in this matter did the right thing. By that logic, the police did exactly what the majority of the public thought was the right thing to do.
So in other words, you're saying that the decision-making process for a LEO or LE agency in situations like this should be governed by the whims and soundbite opinions of people who are ignorant about the law and the subject matter? That is a truly frightening standard. "Well, we decided to do this because we figured it's what the fast-food eating morons out there would want, and they'd be mad if we didn't." Way to have a backbone.
Again, public perception is everything.
Public perception is 0% of the equation in terms of whether you should deprive a person of his liberty and/or property. Lets turn that around for a moment. What if an enormously popular figure is accused of a horrible crime, and arresting him would result in unrest, protests, and people being pissed at your agency for a long time? Do you just let that person slide because of public opinion?
Everyone screaming "Conspiracy!"... It just makes us sound like nutjobs.
...
The tin-foil hat, they're-gonna-take-our-guns-rights-women-and-kids mentality just makes us look childish, and spreads the classic "crazy asshole with a gun" stereotype.
Classically weak argument - paint the people with whom you disagree as tin-foil hat-wearing nutjobs.
I have news for you - not everyone who sees this differently than you is a nutjob.
Who is screaming about a "conspiracy?" I don't think anybody is saying that there was some sinister plot hatched by ODOT and the police to screw this guy over. The facts and conduct of the police standing alone are problematic - no conspiracy needed. My main concern is this idea that LE will somehow be "held accountable" if they make a discretionary decision to not act in a situation like this - when in fact that just isn't what the law says.
So in other words, you're saying that the decision-making process for a LEO or LE agency in situations like this should be governed by the whims and soundbite opinions of people who are ignorant about the law and the subject matter? That is a truly frightening standard. "Well, we decided to do this because we figured it's what the fast-food eating morons out there would want, and they'd be mad if we didn't." Way to have a backbone.
In a world more perfect than the one we live in, it would not be the case. But let's look at the facts. Sheriff's and Chiefs are elected/appointed officials. There is a chess game being played on all cases. Some are cut and dry A+B=C cases, and those are the easy ones. This case doesn't SEEM easy. Someone calls and reports the dude is acting crazy (I understand "crazy" is subjective). The police witness the man acting irrational (Again, subjective... read my first post) The cops go back to the station. They say "Boss, the dude was acting a little nuts. Just thought I'd pass it up." A few days later, the SAME department starts getting calls from a few gun stores asking for background checks (I have no idea if this is how it works... I THINK, in Washington, when with transfer is filled out, the investigating agency also notifies your local LEO, but I'm not 100% sure) on this SAME GUY. What would YOU do?
Public perception is 0% of the equation in terms of whether you should deprive a person of his liberty and/or property. Lets turn that around for a moment. What if an enormously popular figure is accused of a horrible crime, and arresting him would result in unrest, protests, and people being pissed at your agency for a long time? Do you just let that person slide because of public opinion?
I honestly don't know how to answer this one, because I don't know. I can't think of an instance where it has happened. I still stand by my statement. Again, read my earlier post. There are only 2 options the police had, with three different consequences; A) Do nothing B)Psych Hold/Arrest/Seizure of weapons.
If they do nothing, and the dude does nothing, problem solved. Non- issue. If they do nothing and the guy goes and kills 10 people, and it gets out the cops knew... can you imagine the shitstorm? THEN we get BAD reform. Then it becomes law. I can call the cops and say "You know, my neighbor talks to his dog. I think he's crazy. He has guns." The U.K lost their gun rights because of ONE school massacre. The PUBLIC made that decision. See where I'm going with this?
The third consequence is exactly what we see now.
Classically weak argument - paint the people with whom you disagree as tin-foil hat-wearing nutjobs.
I have news for you - not everyone who sees this differently than you is a nutjob.
I hate that argument too, and I wasn't trying to use a broad brush in my painting. I was, again, speaking about perception. I wrote that statement as a Devils Advocate. If text could have a "slightly hysteric" lilt in my voice, I would have added it. Or maybe the appropriate smiley. Again, I don't disagree with anything said or done or posted.
I originally started the post just wanting to slightly defend Dirk's statement of accountability, as I understand where he is coming from. My first statement was "Why does a consequence always have to be civil/criminal?" It all circles back to perception, which we do fundamentally disagree with.
Who is screaming about a "conspiracy?" I don't think anybody is saying that there was some sinister plot hatched by ODOT and the police to screw this guy over. The facts and conduct of the police standing alone are problematic - no conspiracy needed. My main concern is this idea that LE will somehow be "held accountable" if they make a discretionary decision to not act in a situation like this - when in fact that just isn't what the law says.
Again, I should have used the proper smiley. That was mainly a comment on basic thread-drift in these sort of discussions.
It isn't ALWAYS about the law. I THINK it has been pointed out that what the police did was all potentially legal. If we take that fact, and then look at the other possibilities, I don't know whether I agree or disagree with the actions taken. I DO on the other hand, understand what was going through the minds of the officers involved when they did it. Look, I am as much about protecting what few rights we have left as the next guy, and I'm pretty anti-Police-State as most people here, and I think Mr. Williams (the only police officer in this particular thread, I believe) will agree wityh us that the system is broken. We know this, and we understand it, and I'm sure most of us wish everyone saw it the same way. But when you get down to brass tacks, sometimes the law doesn't have an answer, and people have to think. Sometimes policy doesn't have an answer. Every job has these equations that don't have answers. Unfortunately, more and more, police departments have to look at the overall picture. In this case, while maybe LAWFUL, it was the wrong decision TO US, and, again, we are the public.
I realize this is a long post with only half-formed thoughts and probably a metric shit ton of typos, but I hope we can at least agree to disagree. I would never call someone out for an opinion, and I don't disagree with anything said here (accept for the accountability part).
This is interesting. I wonder what they found?
Sheriff's department investigators collected evidence from Pyles' computer and desk at ODOT offices...
Assuming that what was written in the article is accurate, that guy had enough red flags on him to be seen from space. It seems to me that what happened was exactly what needed happen.
Here is a bit of follow up from this morning's paper:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20100408/NEWS/4080312
On March 5, law enforcement and ODOT officials met at the ODOT offices in White City to discuss concerns about Pyles' behavior. After hearing about verbal outbursts and slipping hygiene, Jackson County sheriff's deputy Phil Cicero asked the OSP division that does background checks for gun purchases to notify him if Pyles underwent a background check to buy firearms.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
I'm curious about the legality of this step. What kind of privacy protection is on these background checks? Did they have a warrant for this information?
I'm curious about the legality of this step. What kind of privacy protection is on these background checks? Did they have a warrant for this information?
I actually don't know about the protection part, but I seriously doubt you need a warrant to get information from an agency to which the buyer is knowingly and voluntarily submitting to the state.
On the other hand, I don't believe that a mental hold (which is certainly less compelling than legal adjudication) should be possible based on the exercise of an enumerated right (currently, ironically, incorporated in the circuit under Nordyke).
Noops
On the other hand, I don't believe that a mental hold (which is certainly less compelling than legal adjudication) should be possible based on the exercise of an enumerated right (currently, ironically, incorporated in the circuit under Nordyke).
I am still under the impression that the police basically surrounded his house and asked him nicely if he would agree to have a mental evaluation and he voluntarily submitted to this.
Now if after the fact he wants to say he felt compelled by the Police under the circumstances he probably has a point, but had he not agreed to the mental evaluation the police probably had what they needed to make him.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.