The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on March 11, 2010, 04:52:52 PM
-
ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47
March 09, 2010
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.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315/1001/NEWS03
-
But where is the minority report?
-
So now you can be put in 'protective custody' because you've been fired and you buy guns.
"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."
Now it could not have been threats cause you can be arrested for that, so what was it? Maybe some lefty knew he owned guns and was afraid?
-
But where is the minority report?
+1000!!!!
This absolutely crosses the line and gun owners everywhere should be up in arms. (pun intended) The minute you arrest someone (don't give me this protective custody crap) for something that you THINK they MIGHT do, with no evidence, you have just become Stalinist Russia. This sets the precedent now that if I get upset over something and buy a gun, I can be arrested because I MIGHT want revenge? I hope there is a judge left in Oregon with the balls to tear some new a$$ holes. And this guy needs to find a really good attorney, because he has a real case on his hands. There are some serious civil rights violations here. Of course I bet you won't hear a peep from the ACLU. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
No this doesn't piss me off in the least.
-
WHY?! WHY?! WHY?! UGH. I try to defend law enforcement as much as I can. This just makes me beat my head against the wall.
-
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.
Oh, that was nice of them.
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
That's freakin' scary right there...
I think there was a " law enforcement agency" that did the same thing at some point in time, in Germany, during the 30's and 40's,
Hmmmmm,........who could it be,........
There might be more to his "disgruntledness" than the story reads, but as Shakespeare stated:
"Somethings afoot"....
-
It's a no win situation, If they have reasonable (to us ) cause for concern, their choices are to either do nothing, in which case people might die, and they look like they weren't doing their job, on the other hand they can pick the guy up, which makes them look like "Stalinist" thugs, no one gets hurt and they never have to say "We Told you so".
-
We also don't know the eniter story.
For all we know the guy could have said he was going to get a gun and come back to work and kill every single person there. He also could have done things that would make one wonder about his mental state.
Until we get all the facts, lets not pass judgement. This guy could be loony toons.
-
We also don't know the eniter story.
For all we know the guy could have said he was going to get a gun and come back to work and kill every single person there. He also could have done things that would make one wonder about his mental state.
Until we get all the facts, lets not pass judgement. This guy could be loony toons.
Strangely I find myself agreeing with you. He could have verbally threatened his former workplace with violence. Or one of his former coworkers could have lied and exaggerated to the authorities. I find it hard to think that the police were checking in on his gun purchases unless they had a reason. I may not trust the LE's motives but I don't believe they can, or bother, to watch everyone all the time...for now. Unless he said something specifically to the effect of, 'I'm coming back here and killing all you people,' I think this is certainly unwarranted.
-
It's a no win situation, If they have reasonable (to us ) cause for concern, their choices are to either do nothing, in which case people might die, and they look like they weren't doing their job, on the other hand they can pick the guy up, which makes them look like "Stalinist" thugs, no one gets hurt and they never have to say "We Told you so".
+100
They are damed if they do and if they do not they are damed. Pick your poison. Now all they have to do is say sorry to one person and not to widows and orphans.
-
Sorry! IF he had said "I'm gonna kill every one" or some such direct threat then arrest him.
Y'all are startin to sound like gun grabbers! "I don't like guns so I am willing to give up my right and you have to as well". I will NOT give up my 4th amendment right so every one else can feel safe!
If there were direct threats then arrest him. If not I have no problem with keeping an eye on him BUT just cause he buys guns is NO REASON for 'protective custody'. Hell, a lot of us on here have said things that MIGHT warrant observation....so should I be taken into 'protective custody' next time I buy a gun?
I stand for the whole BOR not just the Second.
-
I'd have to side with Haz on this. Not that I DON'T believe Haz should be in protective custody (only for his own good, you understand) but NOT because he decides to buy one or two or a dozen guns). Before you take someone into custody you need to have some sort of probable cause. And in this case, you'd have to use some kind of Jedi Mind Trick to know intent. If the Oregon DOT dude had not threatened verbally, in a written document, or on the Internet, then where is the cause for action? The cause in this case MUST be only that he purchased guns--a perfectly legal thing to do, even in the state of Oregon. How many of us have bought more than one gun in a 24-hour period? It happens when you find particularly good deals, or decide to go in a particular direction, or when you get your tax return. Sometimes it happens because you just want to. But it happens.
This police action is a huge warning to us all that the BoR is in serious jeopardy. If and when it comes that we are in individual jeopardy when we have performed a Constitutionally lawful action, then we must stand together to maintain those rights, or we can fully expect to lose them forever.
I continue to weep for my nation.
Thoughtfully submitted,
Crusader
-
I'd have to side with Haz on this. Not that I DON'T believe Haz should be in protective custody (only for his own good, you understand) but NOT because he decides to buy one or two or a dozen guns). Before you take someone into custody you need to have some sort of probable cause. And in this case, you'd have to use some kind of Jedi Mind Trick to know intent. If the Oregon DOT dude had not threatened verbally, in a written document, or on the Internet, then where is the cause for action? The cause in this case MUST be only that he purchased guns--a perfectly legal thing to do, even in the state of Oregon. How many of us have bought more than one gun in a 24-hour period? It happens when you find particularly good deals, or decide to go in a particular direction, or when you get your tax return. Sometimes it happens because you just want to. But it happens.
This police action is a huge warning to us all that the BoR is in serious jeopardy. If and when it comes that we are in individual jeopardy when we have performed a Constitutionally lawful action, then we must stand together to maintain those rights, or we can fully expect to lose them forever.
I continue to weep for my nation.
Thoughtfully submitted,
Crusader
That wasn't enough to put Hassan into "protective custody" and he was spewing radical islamist hatred. Then he opened fire on Ft. Hood. Where was the proactive approach on THAT one.
-
Maybe I've just been a bad mood for the couple of weeks, but I 100% AGREE WITH HAZ. It is starting to sound like the Brady Bunch here. I MAY take my car and go have a drink, so arrest me NOW. I may piss on the side of the road, so arrest me NOW. Come on guys, what happened to freedom? A national ID card is on the horizon. Doesn't any of the stuff that is going on make anybody but me nervous? I really think we are frogs in a pot of water and its starting to get a little warm.
-
I stand for the whole BOR not just the Second.
Nuff said!!
-
We also don't know the eniter story.
For all we know the guy could have said he was going to get a gun and come back to work and kill every single person there. He also could have done things that would make one wonder about his mental state.
Until we get all the facts, lets not pass judgement. This guy could be loony toons.
I disagree. When was the last time you ever recall the cops not saying something like this that would totally justify their heavy-handed approach in this case?
He may well be a "loony toons". Or he may not be and will just be portrayed that way, ala the Stalinist gulags.
-
OK, I had to get up at 4 this AM to go help cook for the men's breakfast, so I went to bed early last night, and this whole thread goes to hell in a hand basket! >:(
I agree with Haz - this whole thing just stinks of police over-reaction.
On another forum, someone posted a thread called "Screw Oregon!", basically relating that the ex-kalifornicators have moved in and total destroyed a beautiful state with a lot of good people. The immigrants have twisted the laws to be anti-corporate on some levels, while enhancing the state's authorities and powers over personal lives.
I'm going with the citizen on this one unless and until there is some real evidence - not the made up crap by the gummint - to say otherwise.
-
And UNTIL he is judged to be loony-tunes, he shouldn't have his rights trampled upon. It was noted above, but us frogs are sitting in rapidly warming water.
-
Also, WHO tipped the LEO off about the gun purchases?? When yer 'being observed' do all yer purchases get reported to the local cops?
-
It's a no win situation, If they have reasonable (to us ) cause for concern, their choices are to either do nothing, in which case people might die, and they look like they weren't doing their job, on the other hand they can pick the guy up, which makes them look like "Stalinist" thugs, no one gets hurt and they never have to say "We Told you so".
I was looking for the smiley face on your post but didn't find one. I really find it hard to believe this is you. Quick, contact Marshal, tell him someone stole Tom's identity! :o
Seriously, since when does the government have the constitutional authority to take preemptive action in this situation given the facts presented?
As TAB, says we probably don't have the entire story. That being said we do have the facts provided in the story. The key for me from the article is this:
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.
THEY SEIZED ALL HIS GUNS! THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES! WTF!!!!!
NEXT THEY MAY COME FOR YOU!!!!
-
I was looking for the smiley face on your post but didn't find one. I really find it hard to believe this is you. Quick, contact Marshal, tell him someone stole Tom's identity! :o
Seriously, since when does the government have the constitutional authority to take preemptive action in this situation given the facts presented?
As TAB, says we probably don't have the entire story. That being said we do have the facts provided in the story. The key for me from the article is this:
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.
THEY SEIZED ALL HIS GUNS! THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES! WTF!!!!!
NEXT THEY MAY COME FOR YOU!!!!
If no criminal charges have been filed then clearly this action is unwarranted and I hope he can sue the LE office that arranged this nonsense. If he did threaten his former work place they would have threw the book at him.
-
I was looking for the smiley face on your post but didn't find one. I really find it hard to believe this is you. Quick, contact Marshal, tell him someone stole Tom's identity! :o
Seriously, since when does the government have the constitutional authority to take preemptive action in this situation given the facts presented?
As TAB, says we probably don't have the entire story. That being said we do have the facts provided in the story. The key for me from the article is this:
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.
THEY SEIZED ALL HIS GUNS! THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES! WTF!!!!!
NEXT THEY will COME FOR YOU!!!!
-
Ok...say there was no threat or expressed intent to do violence, but it was noted that he was very disgruntled.
The police are watching him and he purchases several weapons and ammunition. Still no laws broken.
So, being reasonable, the police decide to continue surveillance of the fellow.
The next day he loads the car with his new weapons and ammo and heads off towards his former place of employment. Still no laws broken.
The police, being suspicious have officers on hand a the employer's place waiting.
The guy arrives, takes a few deep breaths and gets out of the car, grabs the weapons and fills his pockets with ammo and heads towards the front door. It is likely there are still no laws being broken.
He won't be breaking any laws unless someone tells him to get off the property.
At some point before he draws down on someone, it might be wise to stop him.
At what point are the police not going to violate his rights by detaining him?
-
Many questions in all of your 'maybes'.
Does he have a CCW? Is it legal to carry in his workplace? Has he been told not to return to the property?
Assuming the answers are 'yes, yes, and no' then it is still not reasonable to stop him.
Living in a free country can be dangerous...but it sure beats the alternative.
-
Yes...lots of maybies....
But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.
The questing I posed is At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.
The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.
In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy. If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.
-
Yes...lots of maybies....
But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.
The questing I posed is At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.
The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.
In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy. If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.
Answered yer own question.
-
Ok...say there was no threat or expressed intent to do violence, but it was noted that he was very disgruntled.
The police are watching him and he purchases several weapons and ammunition. Still no laws broken.
So, being reasonable, the police decide to continue surveillance of the fellow.
The next day he loads the car with his new weapons and ammo and heads off towards his former place of employment. Still no laws broken.
The police, being suspicious have officers on hand a the employer's place waiting.
The guy arrives, takes a few deep breaths and gets out of the car, grabs the weapons and fills his pockets with ammo and heads towards the front door. It is likely there are still no laws being broken.
He won't be breaking any laws unless someone tells him to get off the property.
At some point before he draws down on someone, it might be wise to stop him.
At what point are the police not going to violate his rights by detaining him?
Isn't this the point of having rights in the first place? We have our rights as protection from the government - unless I do something wrong - get out of my way.
That being said, the police have any number of laws they can use to stop a person or vehicle. Seat belt laws, vehicle maintenance laws (burnt out lights), littering, spitting on the sidewalk (in some places) and list goes on. If they want to stop someone and check them out they can do it quite simply without violating his rights.
-
Answered yer own question.
Yes =)..
The answer is less important than having thought through the question with as many of the consequences in mind as possible.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you Haz, the thing is, based on the article we don't know that he DIDN'T leave screaming "I'll get you all !!!"
As to the sales, if the cops are watching you they can track your bank account and credit card transactions. If this comes to trial I would bet money it will mention that he paid either by card or check.
Like I posted before, based on the info there is no "right" answer, would you rather know you let people be murdered , or look like a fascist a hole ? :-\
-
if you buy more then on ehand gun in a 10 day period, there is a form that the ffl must send out and fax to the ATF.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you Haz, the thing is, based on the article we don't know that he DIDN'T leave screaming "I'll get you all !!!"As to the sales, if the cops are watching you they can track your bank account and credit card transactions. If this comes to trial I would bet money it will mention that he paid either by card or check.
Like I posted before, based on the info there is no "right" answer, would you rather know you let people be murdered , or look like a fascist a hole ? :-\
Not to be argumentative just for the sake of obstreporousness, but we kinda do know he didn't leave screaming. How do we know? Because that is too big an element to leave out of the story IF IT HAPPENED. That would justify the entire police action. That would reinforce the anti's rant about ease of purchase. And, again to differ with you, there is a right answer: Leave the guy alone until and unless he violates the law. Watch him, sure. But, leave him alone.
Starting to re-think my position on Tom and TT in 2012. :P
-
Like I posted before, based on the info there is no "right" answer, would you rather know you let people be murdered , or look like a fascist a hole ? :-\
Tom, this could be you. Aren't you or haven't you recently been unemployed? Don't you own guns? Perhaps you have purchased a gun and/or ammunition over the past few months. Haven't you posted on this forum a call for violence against elected officials? Perhaps the government sees you as a threat. Perhaps you are under surveillance. Is that a knock on your door?
I'm just sayin' if it can happen to him...
If more information comes to light I reserve the right to reconsider my post.
-
Tom, this could be you. Aren't you or haven't you recently been unemployed? Don't you own guns? Perhaps you have purchased a gun and/or ammunition over the past few months. Haven't you posted on this forum a call for violence against elected officials? Perhaps the government sees you as a threat. Perhaps you are under surveillance. Is that a knock on your door?
I'm just sayin' if it can happen to him...
If more information comes to light I reserve the right to reconsider my post.
I hear what you are saying, and I am not real happy with the idea of "preventive actions".
There is one major difference between he and I, I was laid off due to the economy, beyond seniority my relationship with the company was not a factor, I left on good terms feeling I had been treated fairly. (As a matter of fact, I DID buy a couple guns afterward )
He on the other hand was Fired which indicates hard feeling to begin with, He was "disgruntled", this also indicates hostility.
So comparing him to me is apples and oranges.
Let me try it this way, If you had known Cho's mental records, and found out he had bought a couple guns (Legally ) would you have taken him off the street before he could violate the law with the Virginia Tech Shooting ?
when would be the time, safest for all concerned, to take him ? at home at 6AM when he is alone but has not yet actually committed a crime, or wait until he actually draws in a crowded office and is all psyched for the conflict ?
We don't have enough information to know whether the cops prevented a shooting when they violated his rights.
I will also point out that performing other wise legal actions to further a criminal plan is in it's self illegal
-
fi they had known chos mental records, he would not have been able to buy guns legally.
-
I hear what you are saying, and I am not real happy with the idea of "preventive actions".
There is one major difference between he and I, I was laid off due to the economy, beyond seniority my relationship with the company was not a factor, I left on good terms feeling I had been treated fairly. (As a matter of fact, I DID buy a couple guns afterward )
He on the other hand was Fired which indicates hard feeling to begin with, He was "disgruntled", this also indicates hostility.
So comparing him to me is apples and oranges.
Let me try it this way, If you had known Cho's mental records, and found out he had bought a couple guns (Legally ) would you have taken him off the street before he could violate the law with the Virginia Tech Shooting ?
That's a tough call, but at the same time not so tough. You simply cannot take someone off the street for something you think they might do. You and I both have made some pretty inflamitory comments here, but are those grounds for being arrested? Granted that some may argue yes, but still we live in a free society where unless you make a direct threat against someone, you have committed no crime. Hell even those that have are very hard to go after. How many times have we heard of women being killed by some deranged ex boyfriend, even after pleading with the courts for a restraining order. (That was never granted even with qualifying evidence)
And as for Virgina Tech. We all know that a change in the CCW policy would put an end to these mass shootings.
Not that I don't see the merit in your argument, I just think that it's a very slippery slope. Because where do you draw the line?
-
I haven't actually stated whether I approve or disapprove of what they did, they were presented with the above question , and they chose to err on the side of caution.
-
I hear what you are saying, and I am not real happy with the idea of "preventive actions".
There is one major difference between he and I, I was laid off due to the economy, beyond seniority my relationship with the company was not a factor, I left on good terms feeling I had been treated fairly. (As a matter of fact, I DID buy a couple guns afterward )
He on the other hand was Fired which indicates hard feeling to begin with, He was "disgruntled", this also indicates hostility.
So comparing him to me is apples and oranges.
Let me try it this way, If you had known Cho's mental records, and found out he had bought a couple guns (Legally ) would you have taken him off the street before he could violate the law with the Virginia Tech Shooting ?
when would be the time, safest for all concerned, to take him ? at home at 6AM when he is alone but has not yet actually committed a crime, or wait until he actually draws in a crowded office and is all psyched for the conflict ?
We don't have enough information to know whether the cops prevented a shooting when they violated his rights.
I will also point out that performing other wise legal actions to further a criminal plan is in it's self illegal
You are interpreting your situation through your eyes - how would an aggressive police department view you? Are you sure you weren't disgruntled? Surely you were not happy about it. Can you be sure they would see it the same way as you? Isn't this why we have protections?
-
TOMBOGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell have you been smoking!
Let me try it this way, If you had known Cho's mental records, and found out he had bought a couple guns (Legally ) would you have taken him off the street before he could violate the law with the Virginia Tech Shooting ?
when would be the time, safest for all concerned, to take him ? at home at 6AM when he is alone but has not yet actually committed a crime,
NOT YET COMMITTED A CRIME! Your words!
or wait until he actually draws in a crowded office and is all psyched for the conflict ?
Now he has committed a crime and can be dealt with accordingly. As I stated before "Living free can be dangerous but it sure beats the alternative!"
I will also point out that performing other wise legal actions to further a criminal plan is in it's self illeg
al
And we have the ability to know his intentions how?
TOM! get yer head out of yer butt or I'll start calling ya FQ/TAB Jr!
-
I haven't actually stated whether I approve or disapprove of what they did, they were presented with the above question , and they chose to err on the side of caution.
In this situation there is no 'err on the side of caution'. There is only uphold the law or violate his rights!
-
So they violated his rights. But I guarantee you, the lawyer for the police dept will use exactly those words in court.
-
TOMBOGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell have you been smoking!
TOM! get yer head out of yer butt or I'll start calling ya FQ/TAB Jr!
Screw that! I agree with you! Since when did we start arresting people on suspscion? Oh, wait we did that in the 1790s, the Civil War, WWI, both Red Scares, and now with the "Patriot Act" (not withstanding the fact a real patriot would shoot you twice in face for half of what's in there). ::)
FQ13 who will remind you again that he is a Libertarian
-
Yes...lots of maybies....
But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.
The questing I posed is At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.
The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.
In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy. If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.
I have not read the whole thread, but I had to respond to this. Justified? ? ? ?
The police are not obligated - legally or morally - ever to intervene in any criminal action before or during, or even after (although it's usually safer for them if the BG has left the scene of the crime). This is an established fact, based on court rulings going all the way to the SCOTUS. Remember the cops standing around while the anarchists basically trashed downtown Seattle. No obligation to intervene.
So are they "justified"? I think they have some serious 'splaining to do in light of the case law.
-
Not that I don't see the merit in your argument, I just think that it's a very slippery slope. Because where do you draw the line?
A very slippery slope indeed......and the very reason I could never be a LEO.
Think about it for a minute.....as a cop, do you choose to violate a person's rights, and break the very laws you swore an oath to uphold, to potentially save a life or lives because you think someone might break the law?
Or, do you wait and mop up after the fact?
Hope I never have to flip that coin.
My personal opinion?
I (and you) have the right to my freedom until I do something to warrant that it be taken away. Until then leave me be. If you suspect me of wrong-doing, investigate for proof. Then act.
I hate the unnecessary loss of life, but like others have said, it's a dangerous world...you pays your money and you takes your chances.
-
I am my own "preventive measure" and so are many of you. We carry in case someone does snap, rob or attack us. And that's the way it should be.
In a free society, we should be frowning heavily on government doing things "preemptively". It's far too easy to for someone to make false accusations that could end up with you being denied your freedom, let alone your possessions.
If they thought this guy might be a threat, they simply could have put him under surveillance - serves the purpose of preserving his rights while determining if the info they received was credible or just vindictive. If he made threats, he should have been arrested and charged. Seems simple enough, even w/o all the information, all bases are covered.
Am I missing something? ???
-
Just re-read the whole thread. First off, CR is never allowed to use: "obstreporousness" in a post again.... ;)
Second, unless there is probable cause, that we are yet not privy to, other than here say, getting a warrant, signed by a judge, is the system we have.
Perfect? Certainly not, but what laws did this man break? Maybe he was planning to change careers and become the next IDPA champion, maybe he has long wanted to get into shooting, SD, and competitive sports.
Point being, if he bought golf clubs, (which can be lethal also), no red flag would have been raised.... What triggered it? Another employee that was "concerned"? Granted, but the investigation coincidentally included recent gun purchases? I'll ask again, what law was broken. (and what did he do to get labeled so "disgruntled")
Too many things unknown.....and By The Grace Of God, and our Founding Fathers, we are innocent until proven guilty.
In other countries, maybe they just would have tortured him, and made him "disappear"...raped his wife, and orphaned his children.
Like Haz posted, it beats the alternative.
-
Just re-read the whole thread. First off, CR is never allowed to use: "obstreporousness" in a post again.... ;)
Second, unless there is probable cause, that we are yet not privy to, other than here say, getting a warrant, signed by a judge, is the system we have.
Perfect? Certainly not, but what laws did this man break? Maybe he was planning to change careers and become the next IDPA champion, maybe he has long wanted to get into shooting, SD, and competitive sports.
Point being, if he bought golf clubs, (which can be lethal also), no red flag would have been raised.... What triggered it? Another employee that was "concerned"? Granted, but the investigation coincidentally included recent gun purchases? I'll ask again, what law was broken. (and what did he do to get labeled so "disgruntled")
Too many things unknown.....and By The Grace Of God, and our Founding Fathers, we are innocent until proven guilty.
In other countries, maybe they just would have tortured him, and made him "disappear"...raped his wife, and orphaned his children.
Like Haz posted, it beats the alternative.
I SOOOO agree. I for one, find vociferous to be much more concise not to mention it is spelled obstreperousness.
;D
-
Ok...the "Dream" solution to this situation.
The company makes an announcement.
We have reason to believe a disgruntled ex-employee is armed and may intend violence at our location.
Until further notice, in addition to your side arms, please bring a long gun to assist in our defense if needed. The Designated Marksman for the shift in each department should bring a rifle. All others may choose between a rifle or shotgun.
The area surrounding the parking lot will be scanned, but you may want to be sure to leave in groups to provide cover fire if necessary.
The company pistol range will be open during all shifts. Two extra 30 minute breaks per shift will be provided so we may hone our shooting skills. 9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP ammo will be provided. Please bring your range bag with hearing/eye protection and cleaning equipment.
We thank you for your assistance in this possible crisis.
-
Yeah, that's a dream! (nice one though ;) )
-
Haz said:"I SOOOO agree. I for one, find vociferous to be much more concise not to mention it is spelled obstreperousness."
Another fine argument for a spel chequer on this syght.
;)
Crusader
-
I haven't actually stated whether I approve or disapprove of what they did, they were presented with the above question , and they chose to err on the side of caution.
Actually, they chose to give him and his lawyer a big payday.
-
Ok...the "Dream" solution to this situation.
The company makes an announcement.
We have reason to believe a disgruntled ex-employee is armed and may intend violence at our location.
Until further notice, in addition to your side arms, please bring a long gun to assist in our defense if needed. The Designated Marksman for the shift in each department should bring a rifle. All others may choose between a rifle or shotgun.
The area surrounding the parking lot will be scanned, but you may want to be sure to leave in groups to provide cover fire if necessary.
The company pistol range will be open during all shifts. Two extra 30 minute breaks per shift will be provided so we may hone our shooting skills. 9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP ammo will be provided. Please bring your range bag with hearing/eye protection and cleaning equipment.
We thank you for your assistance in this possible crisis.
Are they hiring ? Where do I apply ? ;D
-
Ok...say there was no threat or expressed intent to do violence, but it was noted that he was very disgruntled.
The police are watching him and he purchases several weapons and ammunition. Still no laws broken.
So, being reasonable, the police decide to continue surveillance of the fellow.
The next day he loads the car with his new weapons and ammo and heads off towards his former place of employment. Still no laws broken.
The police, being suspicious have officers on hand a the employer's place waiting.
The guy arrives, takes a few deep breaths and gets out of the car, grabs the weapons and fills his pockets with ammo and heads towards the front door. It is likely there are still no laws being broken.
He won't be breaking any laws unless someone tells him to get off the property.
At some point before he draws down on someone, it might be wise to stop him.
At what point are the police not going to violate his rights by detaining him?
Instead of all this what if stuff, let's just look at this with common sense. You see the guy load his car with a bunch of guns and ammo and drive to his former workplace. At the point he goes on the property and begins to remove the weapons from the vehicle I am going to detain him (if I were a LEO). There is enough to have a reasonable belief that he intends immanent harm. I would have him detained. You don't just take a rifle into a workplace with pockets of ammo. Reasonable suspicion. I'm not trampling his rights any more than I would be the rights of those around him by not acting.
-
All this talk of Surveillance is BS. How many PD's have enough people to assign some to watch one guy round the clock indefinitely ?
-
Instead of all this what if stuff, let's just look at this with common sense. You see the guy load his car with a bunch of guns and ammo and drive to his former workplace. At the point he goes on the property and begins to remove the weapons from the vehicle I am going to detain him (if I were a LEO). There is enough to have a reasonable belief that he intends immanent harm. I would have him detained. You don't just take a rifle into a workplace with pockets of ammo. Reasonable suspicion. I'm not trampling his rights any more than I would be the rights of those around him by not acting.
If he hauls the open rifle out of his car at his workplace, that may be brandishing (depending on state and local laws) and sufficient grounds to intervene.
However, they did not do that. They went to his home, took him into "protective custody" and confiscated his weapons.
Wrong. They went with SWAT. If they wanted to talk, 2 detectives, maybe.
Wrong. Whose protection?
And wrong.
-
Would you feel the same if your daughter worked there ?
-
Instead of all this what if stuff, let's just look at this with common sense. You see the guy load his car with a bunch of guns and ammo and drive to his former workplace. At the point he goes on the property and begins to remove the weapons from the vehicle I am going to detain him (if I were a LEO). There is enough to have a reasonable belief that he intends immanent harm. I would have him detained. You don't just take a rifle into a workplace with pockets of ammo. Reasonable suspicion. I'm not trampling his rights any more than I would be the rights of those around him by not acting.
Correct. And we should keep in mind that this is not likely to be a "casual" stop. If the intent is to carry out a bloodbath, the guy probably does not intend to walk away from this one. The cop approaching him will be a good place to start...or to have it end.
And still no crime has been committed.
-
I hear ya Path. I was really responding to the hypothetical that was posted. The mere fact that these blowhards when in sirens blazing and all SWATed up is enough to guarantee this guy won't have to find a job for a while... with all that city money he's about to come into. No warrant, no probable cause, no laws he violated, this guy has it made in the shade. Hell I lost my job in August and went out and bought a pair of HKs shortly after, man I don't remember being told I broke any laws that would require me to be put in protective custody. I felt well protected by those HKs enough to not need any help from SWAT thank you.
-
All this talk of Surveillance is BS. How many PD's have enough people to assign some to watch one guy round the clock indefinitely ?
Correct
-
Two things - I didn't say indefinite surveillance, just until they could sort things out; and an update. I have a problem with any 'preemptive' anything by the government w/o credible, actionable evidence. Seems this guy passed his forced eval and will get his seized weapons back. My big issue is because I see firearms seized around here because a jilted gf, pissed off wife, etc. simply makes a claim of a threat by the bf / husband. People ARE vindictive and self righteous.
ODOT worker wants guns; police say they'll comply
March 12, 2010
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
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
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.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
-
Would you feel the same if your daughter worked there ?
YES - The man didn't do anything wrong! Tom, I maintain that the poilice had to had another alternative solutions to this issue other than do nothing or putting the guy in custody and confiscating his legally obtained property.
In the follow-up article: "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. "
There is a world of difference between "could be" and "is" a threat.
I will grant you that one thing we don't know is how the police determined this guy COULD be a treat. We do know that neither of the two articles said he made any threats. Could it have been a former colleague who does not like guns or people who own guns knew this guy liked guns and owned guns?
Perhaps the thought process went something like this: Man owns guns. Guns are bad. Man who owns gun is let go. Man must be disgruntled. Disgruntled employees can go postal. I am a good and concerned citizen. I must call police in an effort to prevent a massacre.
-
I have been playing Devils advocate here, but now that it seems to have been resolved I will say that I do not agree with what was done.
But neither you or I were the ones required to make the decision.
-
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
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."
***
Thank you, Elvis has left the building.....
-
This thread brings to mind the issue one on this board found himself dealing with a while back, wherein a disgruntled business associate made unfounded accusations prompting LE to pay the man a visit and leave with his weapons in their possession. (leaving a large caliber skylight in his living room, if memory serves). Did this individual commit a crime? Hell no!! Were his rights violated? You damn betcha!! Other examples abound. Someone else mentioned the PO'd wife or girlfriend that makes an allegation of abuse, whether unfounded or not, the accused's weapons are confiscated.
To quote the Owner's Manual for the United States, ".....shall not be infringed". Nothing is said about, "unless we think you MAY commit a crime."
When did they start teaching mind-reading in the police academy? It was obviously sometime after I attended.