Police act swiftly after (LEGAL) gun purchases

[tombogan03884]

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 ? 

[garand4life]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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 ?

[Pathfinder]

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.

[tombogan03884]

Would you feel the same if your daughter worked there ?

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

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.  

 

[garand4life]

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.

[Solus]

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

[Fatman]

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.

[WatchManUSA]

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.