Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal.


PDA






harmonic
March 10, 2010, 12:03 AM
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WestEnd65
March 10, 2010, 12:11 AM
So what exactly was this guy being charged with?

7.62 Nato
March 10, 2010, 12:13 AM
There haven't been any charges. They're just "holding them for him".

harmonic
March 10, 2010, 12:13 AM
So what exactly was this guy being charged with?

Nothing. They just took his guns. So in Oregon cops don't have to have probable cause and don't have to charge you with anything. If they just decide you might do something wrong they can get your guns.

Or else I'm not reading the article right.

acdodd
March 10, 2010, 12:19 AM
Sounds like he could use a GOOD lawyer fast.
I wonder why the cops don't confiscate all the car keys at the bars just to be safe.

paintballdude902
March 10, 2010, 12:20 AM
how is this legal?

Noxx
March 10, 2010, 12:20 AM
Sounds like they pulled a 5150 pysch hold on the guy, where that allows searching his home and confiscating property is beyond me.

rm23
March 10, 2010, 12:24 AM
So what exactly was this guy being charged with?
Future murder 2nd degree. These cops are using the machine from Minority Report.

Zoidberg523
March 10, 2010, 01:15 AM
:barf:

nathan
March 10, 2010, 01:19 AM
Wow , this man must be showing unstable behavior prior to the raid. Tell tale signs of impending doom. Oh well, we hope they are right or else if the guy wins in court he could end up gettng taxpayers money.

glockman19
March 10, 2010, 01:55 AM
A pre-emptive arrest?

Sounds like his rights were violated big time.

ants
March 10, 2010, 02:04 AM
This same thread just got closed on Legal.
Better find a good way to keep it THR related if we want it to stay open.

As with everything in the press, I bet we're not getting the full story (these days it's too hard for me to jump to conclusions after reading just one article). Anyone have more comprehensive information to share?

ants
March 10, 2010, 02:07 AM
Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun
Well, they almost got it right.

The HK USP is the Unversal Self-loading Pistol.

MarineOne
March 10, 2010, 02:15 AM
There has to be more to this story. If he came out peacefully after a simple phone call then I would suspect he's not as "disgruntled" as they were making him out to be. It could be a 5150 call, but theres too much that doesn't make sense.

Either way, he should definately get a lawyer.



Kris

cchris
March 10, 2010, 02:51 AM
I wonder why the cops don't confiscate all the car keys at the bars just to be safe.

DUI = $, otherwise the crooked ones in the city where I grew up wouldn't park a block away from the bar and wait for people to get on the road before stopping them. That's besides the point.

I suppose every time someone is fired, they should prevent them from purchasing a cutlery set from Bed, Bath, and Beyond as well?

N003k
March 10, 2010, 03:06 AM
Alright, I'll grant based on THAT STORY, this sounds real bad, however, I somehow doubt that they fired the guy, and then just randomly called the cops on him.

I have a feeling he was making some type of threats, and, depending on just what those threats WERE, and how they were presented, this might have been a good move.

Also, granted if that's NOT the case, then yea, this is a real bad situation, and hopefully some police learn that you CAN'T make arrests just because you think without any basis someone may at some point commit a crime. I just really don't personally think this move was made without some basis behind it, only time will tell for sure though.

Oregun89
March 10, 2010, 03:20 AM
I used to live there, my uncle is a MPD officer, i'll have to ask his take on the whole thing. Hopefully there's some info missing from this story.

toivo
March 10, 2010, 03:22 AM
I see only a few possibilities here. Either


the guy has a history, either of violent felonies or serious mental illness; or

the guy made explicit threats of violence; or

the guy is going to get a lawyer and sue their asses off.

PTK
March 10, 2010, 03:45 AM
I see only a few possibilities here. Either


the guy has a history, either of violent felonies or serious mental illness; or

the guy made explicit threats of violence; or

the guy is going to get a lawyer and sue their asses off.

Seems about right, yep.

I just cannot bear the thought of the USA turning into a place where one can be arrested "just in case".

RS14
March 10, 2010, 03:47 AM
It seems to me that if he has done nothing wrong, the protective custody is a bit more significant than the confiscation of weapons. Generally police can hold you for some amount of time without filing charges; maybe that amount of time is excessive, but it's not new. At time of printing, he had only been in custody for ~20 hours.

He'll also, presumably, get the benefit of due process. If released, he'll presumably be able to recover his weapons. Save your outrage until he's denied due process, or a speedy trial, or released without his weapons.

For all we know, he made previous violent threats, possibly the cause for his leave. If charges have not yet been fired, the newspaper may be reluctant to print such allegations to avoid libel suits.

35wailen
March 10, 2010, 03:54 AM
I see only a few possibilities here. Either

1. the guy has a history, either of violent felonies or serious mental illness; or
2. the guy made explicit threats of violence; or
3. the guy is going to get a lawyer and sue their asses off.
#1 is not possible because it has already been admitted that the firearms were purchased legally.

#2 is highly unlikely because making explicit threats doesn't get you sent for a mere mental evaluation.

I would probably like to contribute to a fund for #3 once we figure out who this guy is.

MariusDP51
March 10, 2010, 03:56 AM
IMO the law enforcement agency acted correctly and with enough reason to do so. This type of pro-active measures prevent tragedies and saves lives. They acted in this man's best interest as well.

My 2c.

RS14
March 10, 2010, 03:58 AM
#2 is highly unlikely because making explicit threats doesn't get you sent for a mere mental evaluation.


There's not much point in sending a individual to trial if he's assessed as mentally ill. Either he'll end up in jail, only to be released untreated, or he'll end up in a mental institution anyway. Better to save the trouble and have the hospital evaluate him first. If he's not ill, then file charges on the basis of threats, or whatever else caused him to be brought into custody.

35wailen
March 10, 2010, 03:59 AM
Marius it looks like you are just trying to pit yourself against all of us for no good reason (on your 12th post :rolleyes:). If you are sincere (which I doubt), and you are some sort of government agent, you are making your fellow government agents look very very bad by supporting a communist China style kidnapping of a citizen.

wilkersk
March 10, 2010, 04:04 AM
I believe there is a basis in Oregon state law for the action. Although, I suspect that a good laywer could force the issue.

Oregon recognizes, as do most other states I suspect, the "reasonable man" theory when it comes to the perception of an intent to do harm. Under Oregon law, all that is needed is some material evidence beyond just a "feeling" of being threatened that a reasonable man might conclude the threat to be real.

In this case, the fact that ODOT management felt the possibility of violence, and that the person in question did purchase firearms is enough grounds for a legal action. Although, I'd bet the time and scope of that action would be limited by the smart judge granted the neccesary warrants.

I was looking for something to back up this assertion online, and came accross this interesting piece:

http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2010/01/26/what-the-pacifica-forum-issue-is-really-about/

What this all boils down to is that, given a reason, it is legal for the gub'ment to come into your home and sieze your weapons if they believe you're about to go postal. If its all just an unhappy coincidence, feel free to get a laywer to go after 'em to restore your property, your rights, and recoup your expenses. And, good luck!

Better off just to cultivate your rep for a "cool head" and stay off their radar altoghether.

RS14
March 10, 2010, 04:05 AM
Marius it looks like you are just trying to pit yourself against all of us for no good reason (on your 12th post :rolleyes:). If you are sincere (which I doubt), and you are some sort of government agent, you are making your fellow government agents look very very bad by supporting a communist China style kidnapping of a citizen.

Hey now, nothing wrong with being new. We were all new here once.

The police have admitted they have him, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he'll be denied due process. Do you care to submit evidence to that effect?

35wailen
March 10, 2010, 04:18 AM
I would say he was denied "due process" by being arrested for the POSSIBILITY of doing something illegal. I would say he was denied "due process" by having legally owned property seized, which was not used in any illegal activity.

It is possible that I could speed tomorrow. Do they have a right to confiscate my car now?

denfoote
March 10, 2010, 04:23 AM
Sue the city into bankruptcy.

GojuBrian
March 10, 2010, 05:01 AM
I have called the police a few times in my life with some concerns. They ALWAYS tell me, "sir, we can't do anything unless there has been a law broken."

Anyone ever get a spanking for what they were thinking? :D

35wailen
March 10, 2010, 05:05 AM
Nicely email the "journalist" for her behavior of praising the communist chinese style of "policing" all through her "reporting." aburke@mailtribune.com

Since this was mostly a state "operation," the excuse for a governor needs to hear from many thousands: http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/contact_us.shtml

sonick808
March 10, 2010, 05:20 AM
SUE. sue NOW

MariusDP51
March 10, 2010, 06:30 AM
#1 is not possible because it has already been admitted that the firearms were purchased legally.

#2 is highly unlikely because making explicit threats doesn't get you sent for a mere mental evaluation.

I would probably like to contribute to a fund for #3 once we figure out who this guy is.
I suspect you are (rightly) concerned about your own rights more than you are with the facts of this particular case/incident.

I stated my opinion, and in doing so did not attack anyone else's. Yet, it seems to be acceptable on this forum for people like yourself to launch personal attacks.

Incidents of acts of terror with firearms in the US (whether in schools or otherwise) are regularly reported in our media in SA. The next time something like that happens, you can go and explain your version of proper preventative measures to the families of the victims.

rattletrap1970
March 10, 2010, 06:45 AM
MariusDP51,
Look man. Unless he made threats (which we are not privy to as it was not stated in the article), or, he has no history of violence or mental "defect" (which the article also did not state). Then what they did is illegal, plain and simple. You can claim all you want that this was done to prevent some crime. That is not what this country is about; arresting people because they MIGHT do something. Now I say this based on the letter of the article. If there is additional information that was not in the article that justifies their actions, well, then this would be a different case wouldn't it?
Based on your statement. You could be a forum contributor here when you are at work, most likely the IT department knows where you frequent online. Now you quit your job. They see where you go online and make a comment to law enforcement because they know you are a shooter and that "freaks them out". A couple hours later some guys show up to take all your stuff because they got a call. You think that is fair? You think that can't happen the way things are written?
That said, if you are indeed an LEO and you truly believe it's cool to deny someone their rights because they MIGHT do something, then you have absolutely no place being one. And it makes me sleep a little less soundly.

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 07:07 AM
Do not criticize the comrade police, they were acting in the best interests of the state. People are notorious for over reaching the use of the privileges granted to them by a benevolent government and often must be refrained for their own good.

After re-education this person may rejoin the glorious society and will be kept under constant supervision to prevent his falling back into habits detrimental to the state. The comrade police should be praised for their brave and compassionate act.

cassandrasdaddy
March 10, 2010, 07:18 AM
Marius it looks like you are just trying to pit yourself against all of us for no good reason (on your 12th post ). If you are sincere (which I doubt), and you are some sort of government agent, you are making your fellow government agents look very very bad by supporting a communist China style kidnapping of a citizen.

ironically from the guy here 2 weeks who has the gall to speak for ALL OF US.

everallm
March 10, 2010, 07:24 AM
Leave the man be, he made a comment, got it rebutted and there it should lie, moving past that gets us into Troll land, adds no value others than to ratchet up the noise to signal level.

MariusDP51
March 10, 2010, 07:28 AM
Rattle, I understand the concerns voiced here about the apparent infringment of rights. I don't disagree with the principle.

But surely it is easy enough to understand that all the facts are not reported in this article, and therefore taking such an extremely critical standpoint might not be the best approach.

Please, don't lose any sleep over my comments.

Ben86
March 10, 2010, 07:33 AM
Officer's Wife, sounds like you've read "1984!" Nice one.

Based on the poorly written news article alone I do not see how this could be legal. However, I have a hard time believing that's all there is to it.

rattletrap1970
March 10, 2010, 07:35 AM
I agree. All that can be construed is that it's "Apparent". I'm merely stating that, commenting on the article "As it's written", those would be my opinions. Now, if it comes out that he was exhibiting threatening behavior and had darn good proof, then maybe they did the right thing. So long as the law was followed in doing what they did. I have to remember to be a bit less POINTY when my caffeine levels are low.

Sav .250
March 10, 2010, 07:37 AM
Could have been a good prevention or an over zealous prevention. Who knows ? Could happen to anyone for what ever reason though...

beatcop
March 10, 2010, 07:43 AM
Example of a State statute covering this "type" of situation.

The law allows police, the state's attorney, and the assistant state's attorney, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else. They must file

a sworn complaint with a Superior Court judge alleging probable cause to believe that the person poses an imminent risk of harming himself or others and has a gun or guns. They may file the complaint only after conducting an independent investigation and determining that probable cause exists and that no reasonable alternative exists to avert the risk of harm.

In determining whether grounds or probable cause for a search warrant exists, the judge must consider if the person recently threatened himself or anyone else with violence or was recently cruel to any animal. In evaluating whether these threats or acts constitute probable cause to believe risk of injury is imminent, he may consider, among other things, if the person (1) recklessly used, displayed, or brandished a gun; (2) has a history of using, attempting, or threatening to use physical force against people; (3) was ever confined involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital; and (4) abused alcohol or illegally used controlled substances. If satisfied that grounds or probable cause exists, the judge must issue the warrant (1) stating the grounds or probable cause; (2) describing the person, place, or thing to be searched; and (3) directing an officer to conduct the search in a reasonable time.

The court in the geographical area where the person named in the warrant lives must hold a hearing within 14 days after its execution to determine if the state should continue to hold the guns or return them. The state must prove all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds that the person poses an imminent risk to himself or others, it (1) may order the state to continue to hold the guns for up to one year and (2) must notify the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, which may take appropriate action allowed by laws establishing its jurisdiction over people with mental illnesses. Otherwise, the court must order the guns returned.

Anyone whose guns have been seized, or his legal representative, may transfer them, as allowed by law, to any person eligible to possess them.

MariusDP51
March 10, 2010, 07:45 AM
Someone please get the man an esspresso, pronto!:)

cassandrasdaddy
March 10, 2010, 07:45 AM
SPOILSPORT!
Why you gotta interject facts into a perfectly good thread? how are my kids gonna go to college if my alcoa stock doesn't do well?

rha600
March 10, 2010, 07:51 AM
No one noticed that it took SWAT 3 hours to get there? HAHA. Good thing he wasn't a threat.


real organized setup they have there.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 08:16 AM
IMO the law enforcement agency acted correctly and with enough reason to do so. This type of pro-active measures prevent tragedies and saves lives. They acted in this man's best interest as well.

My 2c.
Try a different bait.

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 08:48 AM
Amazing how people are willing to post that the guy was denied his rights etc etc without knowing the whole story.
I tend to think police have better things to do than detain honest citizens and take their possessions. I don't know what the guy did to warrant that kind of response. No one else here does either.
But, just like the Cav arms raid, I'm betting there's a lot more here than we're being told.

Impureclient
March 10, 2010, 09:04 AM
I have a interesting story that relates to this, sort of.
Abridged version: I worked at Home Depot a few years ago. People were dying(4-5)from the paint department all within a year or two. Rest of us paint employees got scared. The began testing air samples and whatnot, very official people coming in and asking questions. I wanted out of the paint and they moved me to lumber. There was talk of a law suit and they were denying the "live" paint employees any testing to see if we were being poisoned also. Fast forward couple months later. All leftover paint employees almost gone for one reason or another, how convenient. Well after that move to another department I had been late for work by a couple minutes(4-5?) a few times. After being there for 5 years and always getting good reviews and honestly being one of the best employees in the store I am "let go" because I was late a couple times. So on my way out I took off my pants and handed them to my department manager. I had been griping about having to wear pants due to a new policy of no shorts(Florida weather is not kind to pants) that took effect after I moved to the lumber dept. I walked out of there in my boxer shorts. While cleaning out my locker I was joking with a few women, who I was friends with/or so I thought, who were eating lunch. I mentioned something about going postal and coming back to get revenge. I joked a lot with co-workers and there I was laughing, they were laughing, no problem right. I was happy to be leaving as I had another full time job and thought this just made my life easier. Well a couple hours later 4 cop cars show up at my house asking questions about my plans of coming back to the store and going bonkers. I was laughing telling the cops as I was joking but, I guess having them sent to the house helped Home Depot's case against all the dying people by making me look like a looney? Maybe this guy just is going through this sort of situation.

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 09:06 AM
But, just like the Cav arms raid, I'm betting there's a lot more here than we're being told.

Perhaps, but that kind of secrecy is an indicator that the people involved have something to hide. All for the good of the case, off course.

Geno
March 10, 2010, 09:08 AM
MariusDP51:

You are one of the slickest trolls I have witnessed at THR. Understand that the words express only one half of intent. There are predicating assumptions to all words, and your predicating assumptions seem to express all hail big brother, He who knows best. :rolleyes: So, while your words are slick, your predicating assumptions are as-old-as trolldom itself. Tell me, where were the police and SWAT when Cain killed Able?! :scrutiny:

Geno

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2010, 09:12 AM
Incidents of acts of terror with firearms in the US (whether in schools or otherwise) are regularly reported in our media in SA

The "Sun" regularly reports that aliens have landed in Prime Minister Brown's back yard, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 09:20 AM
When I'm looking for guidance on human rights and the rule of law, I sure know the first place I go is South Africa...

hankdatank1362
March 10, 2010, 09:23 AM
If anyone bothered to notice, beatcop posted a typical state statute allowing for just such a case, sort of an involuntary psych-eval, under a very limited set of circumstances.

More than likely...no, actually, without a doubt, local law enforcement on the scene had a better idea of what's going on with this guy than ANY OF YOU DO.

I'm all for RKBA just as much as the next guy, and would die to defend it, however... at what point do you pull your head from your self-righeous bum and say "hmmm... disgruntled public employee, fired two days ago, purchasing expensive weaponry (HK) like he doesn't plan to need the money to last him to another job.... let's at least check him out and take it from there."

If I got fired, I wouldn't go out and buy several guns the next day, even if I felt I would find a job soon and the money wouldn't matter. That part alone strikes me as kinda fishy. But who cares? Its not up to what we think of the guy; it's up to the first responders.

I know someone here is waiting for anyone to say it, so I will: BETTER THAT THEY ARRESTED THIS GUY AND PUT HIM THROUGH A RELATIVELY MINOR INCONVENIENCE THAN THEY WERE WRONG AND HE GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE. And no matter how you cloud the issue with your blanket hatred for law enforcement and strawman arguements about civil liberties, you know that IN THIS SCENARIO it is the right thing to do.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 09:40 AM
strawman arguements about civil liberties
Clearly, some people have a "blanket hatred" for civil liberties.

NinjaFeint
March 10, 2010, 09:42 AM
MariusDP51:

Tell me, where were the police and SWAT when Cain killed Able?! :scrutiny:

Geno

What? I don't know what fairy tales have to due with this article. Also, is troll what we are supposed to call anyone who disagree's with us?

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2010, 09:43 AM
at what point do you pull your head from your self-righeous bum and say "hmmm... disgruntled public employee, fired two days ago, purchasing expensive weaponry (HK) like he doesn't plan to need the money to last him to another job.... let's at least check him out and take it from there."

I once lost my job and I bought a boat with my severance check. I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck and I had a plan, so I wanted to spend some time on the water.

According to this logic the Coast Guard should have confiscated the boat because I might try to run over someone with it.

It's simply part of being a free nation that there are times you have to let potentially wacky people be potentially wacky until proven otherwise.

It's also why people should be responsible for their OWN safety rather than depending on the dot gov to do it for them.

BETTER THAT THEY ARRESTED THIS GUY AND PUT HIM THROUGH A RELATIVELY MINOR INCONVENIENCE THAN THEY WERE WRONG AND HE GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE.

Yes, they should probably arrest everyone who buys a gun really, just to be safe.

I mean, you never know right?

We'd all sleep better at night I'm sure.

MariusDP51
March 10, 2010, 09:47 AM
Explain the term "trolldom" to me, Geno. Educate me.

eye5600
March 10, 2010, 09:48 AM
how is this legal?

I don't know about OR, but there is a (somewhat controversial) law in Connecticut that allows police to confiscate guns from someone who they think is likely to harm himself or others. (Not sure of the exact wording.) The law has provisions for hearings, and whatever.

If two people had been involved, then there would be a conspiracy charge. In the case of one person, I bet there is some sort of clause about actions taken in contemplation of a crime, sort of a conspiracy of one.

I remember a case where some idiot author thought he would rob a couple banks in order create some material for a first-person book. He put on a mask in the parking lot of his first target and got shot to death before he got inside (as I best I remember). At that point, he really had not done anything illegal.

NinjaFeint
March 10, 2010, 09:50 AM
I once lost my job and I bought a boat with my severance check. I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck and I had a plan, so I wanted to spend some time on the water.

According to this logic the Coast Guard should have confiscated the boat because I might try to run over someone with it.

It's simply part of being a free nation that there are times you have to let potentially wacky people be potentially wacky until proven otherwise.

It's also why people should be responsible for their OWN safety rather than depending on the dot gov to do it for them.



Yes, they should probably arrest everyone who buys a gun really, just to be safe.

I mean, you never know right?

We'd all sleep better at night I'm sure.
Wow, these are awesome arguments... Using a personal experience and then some general exaggeration to prove your point is weak. Neither of which applies to the article because we don't have all the information.

Guns and more
March 10, 2010, 09:51 AM
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
Will they do that for everyone? Including women who get a restraining order on ex's?
Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.
Wink, wink, nod, nod. "Whatever happened to those nice guns we took from that crazy guy?"

Maybe they did the right thing, but it sure is a slippery slope that the police should not be going down.
Can I have a police car watch my house when I'm gone because someone might break in? I'd like that.

Gouranga
March 10, 2010, 09:51 AM
I would say the whole strength in this action lies in the information NOT contained in the article. I mean WHAT did he say? What actions did he take that brought on enough suspicion for the state to take his weapons and hold him for evaluation?

He may very well have given them more than just cause for the action. He may have just farted in their direction and told them to take the job and shove it. The point is we do not know.

If I accepted the information in the article as the FULL set of evidence with nothing else, I would definitely feel the police overstepped authority and stomped this mans rights. However, (I may be completely naive in this belief) I have to believe that he gave them reasonable suspicion with the items not reported in the article. Exactly what he said, his mannerism, other actions, etc. Cause if they did not, and they moved on such flimsy material as is in this article, well they may have done him a favor cause he will have grounds to sue them into bankruptcy and he won't have to work again for a long time.

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 09:52 AM
Perhaps, but that kind of secrecy is an indicator that the people involved have something to hide. All for the good of the case, off course.
No, that kind of secrecy is standard operating procedure for PD's in ongoing cases.

Also, is troll what we are supposed to call anyone who disagree's with us?
That seems to be SOP on most gun boards.

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 09:57 AM
If anyone bothered to notice, beatcop posted a typical state statute allowing for just such a case, sort of an involuntary psych-eval, under a very limited set of circumstances.

Yes, the boiler plate 'mental hygiene' statutes cover a multitude of sins. I'm reminded of the old Soviet Union where dissidents where routinely put into mental hospitals as they had to be mentally ill to find fault in the workers' paradise.

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 09:59 AM
No, that kind of secrecy is standard operating procedure for PD's in ongoing cases.

Which tells us PD's must operate in secrecy, perhaps they should rename themselves the 'secrecy police' to better describe their function.

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 10:00 AM
I'm reminded of the old Soviet Union where dissidents where routinely put into mental hospitals as they had to be mentally ill to find fault in the workers' paradise.
Yes, they are exactly comparable:rolleyes:

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 10:03 AM
I find it interesting (but not surprising) that there are those who say that it shouldn't be assumed that the police were in the wrong with "insufficient information"... while assuming that they were 100% in the right with... the same "insufficient information".

But remember, don't bring up "strawmen" about civil liberties...

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 10:06 AM
No, that kind of secrecy is standard operating procedure for PD's in ongoing cases.
It's also SOP for PDs when they know they've committed an intentional tort and are trying to avoid incriminating admissions... kind of interesting when you consider how often citizens are told that if they have "nothing to hide" they have no need to "lawyer up".

Some animals are more equal than the others...

NinjaFeint
March 10, 2010, 10:13 AM
I find it interesting (but not surprising) that there are those who say that it shouldn't be assumed that the police were in the wrong with "insufficient information"... while assuming that they were 100% in the right with... the same "insufficient information".

But remember, don't bring up "strawmen" about civil liberties...
I'm only assuming we don't have all the information. Nice try.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 10:18 AM
I'm only assuming we don't have all the information. Nice try.
Some are assuming that we don't NEED all the information.

MachIVshooter
March 10, 2010, 10:44 AM
IMO the law enforcement agency acted correctly and with enough reason to do so. This type of pro-active measures prevent tragedies and saves lives. They acted in this man's best interest as well.

You'd be singing a very different tune if it were you. I agree that there's probably alot about this incident that we aren't privy to, but based on the information we do have, there is a clear violation of constitutional and civil rights. The entire premise behind our bill of rights and justice system in this "free" republic is that men cannot be prosecuted for crimes they might commit.

If it turns out the guy told people he was gonna go buy weapons then come back and kill everyone, then the police acted in the right. But given that the guy has no history of violence or mental illness that precluded his purchasing of firearms, short of an explicit threat of violence, I see no excuse for the actions of the LEA, and he should rightfully sue for every penny he can. I would.

If you've never been the victim of a false accusation that could have or did cost you your gun rights, you cannot possibly understand how scary this precident is.

Scrapperz
March 10, 2010, 10:51 AM
We should never take a Media Story for the whole truth, but it's scary, the fact that if you screw up and say bad things in a heat of a moment you could end up in a mental institution. Be Good People it's your only Saving Grace.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 10:58 AM
purchasing expensive weaponry (HK) like he doesn't plan to need the money to last him to another job....

You've accused folks of forming an opinion without all the facts and in the next breath make an assumption.

As long as we're assuming (does that make us all a$$es?), maybe the guy is wealthy and, when fired, decided to retire and take up target shooting.

I agree, we don't know all the facts. Guy sounds suspicious, but I've long passed the point where I take the .gov "at their word." I look forward to hearing the rest of the story. I hope there was probable cause.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 11:00 AM
You'd be singing a very different tune if it were you.
Funny story:

I used to be active on the "Fullbore" mailing list where people from around the world discuss long range (600 yards and beyond) rifle shooting.

There was a retired Canadian cop who anticipated AHSA by a good fifteen years. He was gungho gun control all the way, to the point of wanting to ban "sniper rifles"... which he couldn't coherently differentiate from a 1,000 yard target rifle. Furthermore, he was so blindly submissive to authority that he actually said that you had a DUTY to go into a concentration camp if the government ordered you there, and had NO right to forcibly resist, since you could always take it to court. He couldn't explain why Anne Frank didn't follow the latter course.

Then he got into a dispute with a couple of Canadian cops and the Canadian firearms registration bureaucracy. Apparently the "Feds" were sharing his private emails with the cops who were yanking his chain, HARD.

Suddenly, Dudley Do Right went from Koolaid drinking true believer to a hero of the revolution. In reply I posted:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

He responded, "What's that supposed to mean?"

Your point is well taken.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
March 10, 2010, 11:12 AM
On the face of it with info here:

He won't be needing to find a job because he'll be getting a huge payday at taxpayer expense. You still actually have to do something wrong first in this country before the power of the state can come down on you---pre crime doesn't exist.

Geno
March 10, 2010, 11:23 AM
MariusDP51 asked:

Explain the term "trolldom" to me, Geno. Educate me.

Gladly. We see some new folks stop here at THR from time to time, who speak in nice enough words, but who always find a way to rationalize progressively deteriorating our Constitutional rights. The rationalization typically takes the form of, it's for the safety of the individual, or it's for the safety of the children, or it's for the safety of some other individual or group. In any case, it is to the potential. Problem is, our Constitutional rights are not to be taken away but per adjudicated process.

Tell me, just how much of the Constitution are we willing to shave off before we have none remaining? And if it's proactive security, let's arrest all the poultry farmers, whose chickens lay the deadly eggs that cause heart attacks and strokes. The Constitution is, what the Constitution is. I am more than willing to have folks disagree with me. That too is your right, but I don't have to agree, or keep my mouth shut about it. That is my right. In the end folks agree to disagree.

Geno

LaEscopeta
March 10, 2010, 11:28 AM
On the face of it with info here…I have not read everything above, so here I go leaping without looking...

On the face of it with the info here, we don't know. It is possible there is no more info then in the original article, in which case there IS a miss-carriage of justice and there should be a law suit coming.

It is also possible there is additional info we don't know. Additional info could show the authorities had probable cause, plus they are (correctly) not talking about the subject’s personal info to the press. Or maybe the additional info shows a conspiracy by the authorities to lie about what the subject did and said, just to (wrongly) justify detaining the subject and seizing his property.

Speculation about what additional info there may or may not does not tell us anything about the reality of the situation. Not that that is going to stop anyone.

Ben86
March 10, 2010, 11:32 AM
It's also why people should be responsible for their OWN safety rather than depending on the dot gov to do it for them.


I could not agree more. Now if only there was more freedom with which to safeguard our safety.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 11:34 AM
I could not agree more. Now if only there was more freedom with which to safeguard our safety.
It should come as no surprise that it's those places where your personal safety is most at risk, where you're least likely to be "protected" by police, that the greatest effort is exerted to insure that you can't protect yourself.

"We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."

LaEscopeta
March 10, 2010, 11:36 AM
I'm reminded of the old Soviet Union where dissidents where routinely put into mental hospitals as they had to be mentally ill to find fault in the workers' paradise. What makes you think the person in the original news story is a dissident?

mcdonl
March 10, 2010, 11:38 AM
I guess the question is HOW did people know he made these purchases? Unlikely they witnessed the sale, so in all likelihood he told people he purchased them. Did he say something like "Sucks I lost my job, I think I will buy the gun I never really had the funds to get before... sort of like a consolation prize..."

OR

I am going to buy all the guns and ammo I can get my hands on.

Could matter. Who knows. I know though that when it comes to guns and the public opinion those tyrant sonsabitches can pretty much get away with whatever they want.

Buckeye
March 10, 2010, 11:40 AM
We had a disgruntled employee at Ohio State yesterday that walked in and killed a supervisor and wounded another before killing himself. He was going to be fired after a bad evaluation. Apprearantly he had made treats at past jobs before. Mental health is a wonderful thing, wish there was more of it. More people are getting closer to the edge as times get worse. I think the police did the prudent thing to get him checked out. If there was no problems, return his guns, no harm no foul. They may have saved some lives.

HexHead
March 10, 2010, 11:44 AM
BS. If the police come and confiscate your guns in light of "no problems", there's plenty of harm and foul to go around. It's inexcusable and shouldn't be accepted.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 11:46 AM
If there was no problems, return his guns, no harm no foul. They may have saved some lives.

Even if he is completely exonerated the "harm" will follow him for years, if not the rest of his life. He will remembered as the "guy who went nuts." I'd give even odds he would have problems trying to purchase another firearm.

Occam's Razor
March 10, 2010, 11:48 AM
This is a tough call. Based on information they had they hauled him off and confiscated his guns. If they had done nothing despite the information they had and the guy went and murdered several people the cops would be getting crucified in a whole other discussion for not preventing it when they could have. Tough call. Tough job.

Bubbles
March 10, 2010, 11:49 AM
I guess the question is HOW did people know he made these purchases?

FFL's in Oregon have to report firearm purchases to the state. Info from NRA on state OR state law:

All dealers, pawnbrokers or otherwise must keep a record of
every handgun sold. This record shall contain the time, date and place
of the sale or trade, the name of the salesperson making the sale or
trade, the make, model and manufacturer's number on the handgun.
The purchaser must sign his name and affix his address to the register.
Thumbprints are taken. The purchaser must present clear evidence of
his identity.

A copy of the record must be mailed to the local police and state
police on the day of the sale for a record check.

A gun dealer shall request by telephone that the Dept. of State
Police conduct a criminal history record check on the purchaser. The
Dept. of State Police shall immediately or by return call determine
whether the purchaser is qualified to complete the purchase. The
fee for the criminal history record check may not exceed $10. The
handgun must be unloaded when delivered.

What I find most interesting is that if the guy were a threat, he already had the hardware available at home (HK .45 and shotgun) for plenty of mayhem had he chosen to act.

Geno
March 10, 2010, 12:07 PM
Occam's Razor said:

This is a tough call. Based on information they had they hauled him off and confiscated his guns. If they had done nothing despite the information they had and the guy went and murdered several people the cops would be getting crucified in a whole other discussion for not preventing it when they could have. Tough call. Tough job.

What's tough about it? He did nothing. The Founding Father said, and wrote... What did the man do?! Nothing at all.

EddieNFL said:

Even if he is completely exonerated the "harm" will follow him for years, if not the rest of his life. He will remembered as the "guy who went nuts." I'd give even odds he would have problems trying to purchase another firearm.

Let this poor fella try to get a CCW now! One question is, have you ever been involuntarily committed? Here is it, quoted from Michigan's application:

7. Have you ever been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness?

Geno pours a tall glass o' Kool-Aide...anyone thirsty? Don't worry, we ain't gonna run out! Big Brother is fixin' to mix up another pitcher full, and another, and another. We're supposed to drink 8 glasses of Kool-Aide per day...it's for the children.

Geno

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 12:11 PM
We had a disgruntled employee at Ohio State yesterday that walked in and killed a supervisor and wounded another before killing himself.

Yet the state of Ohio also has a mental hygiene statute that is (if I recall correctly) even more 'caring' than Oregon. Perhaps the benevolent state should request and require psychiatric evaluation of each subject when they get out of bed each morning with emergency eval's after stressful incidents.

Geno
March 10, 2010, 12:20 PM
Officers'Wife:

In Chile, where my wife was born and held captive under military rule, one has to get a psychological before s/he can study martial arts.

Geno pauses to listen to one of the voices in his head retoring to him, "Good thing we (the collective voices) weren't born in Chile. We'd never become a Taekwondo instructors". :D

Any of you all seen my cute little jacket with the long sleeves?! Oh, never mind...the guys in little white suits are knocking on my door. Sheesh. Must be my neighbors think I'm dangerous.

Geno

ConstitutionCowboy
March 10, 2010, 12:21 PM
... They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.

'Remove/prevent witnesses' I think would be more accurate.

This guy should have been followed, not taken in custody like a scene from "Minority Report".

I wonder what the judge who signed the warrant accepted as probable cause and who supplied the oath or affirmation. There had to be something there; some crime that had been committed.

By the time a good team of lawyers gets through with this, they'll need to divide Oregon in half. One half will be renamed to what the lawyers wish to call their new state, and the other half belonging to the John Doe who was arrested will most likely be renamed "The State of John Doe".

Woody

cambeul41
March 10, 2010, 12:24 PM
I don't have enough information. What behavior were the police acting on?

If he did start shooting, the police would be castigated. Sometimes it is "Damned if you do; damned if you don't."

He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.

I do not think this constitutes "commitment."

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 12:31 PM
I do not think this constitutes "commitment."
It doesn't matter what you think.

What matters is relevant federal, state and local law. If there was no basis for what was done and the person's ability to purchase a firearm is materially impaired, he's suffered an actionable tort.

If that's the case, over and above any other damages, if his purchase is delayed because of this, the state should have to eat the cost of the firearm being purchase. And they should have to EVERY time it happens.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 10, 2010, 12:34 PM
And another thing: This guy already had a 45 and a shotgun. Why buy more if all you want to do is go postal?

Woody

NG VI
March 10, 2010, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun

Well, they almost got it right.

The HK USP is the Unversal Self-loading Pistol.


Ants that's what I thought as well, that it was unsual for them to even name it in the first place, and that they didn't quite get it right, but closer than usual.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 12:44 PM
Ants that's what I thought as well, that it was unsual for them to even name it in the first place, and that they didn't quite get it right, but closer than usual.
Media people are often spoon fed "facts" by anti-gun organizations, which they NEVER question.

lanternlad1
March 10, 2010, 12:47 PM
I thought you had to actually DO something wrong before you got arrested...

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 12:51 PM
I thought you had to actually DO something wrong before you got arrested...
Richard Jewell and the Duke lacross team thought the same thing...

jdh
March 10, 2010, 12:51 PM
Precrime

Here all this time I though Minority Report was just a work of fiction.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2010, 12:53 PM
Wow, these are awesome arguments... Using a personal experience and then some general exaggeration to prove your point is weak. Neither of which applies to the article because we don't have all the information.

Of course it's silly.

As silly as some posting that this was a "good thing" without knowing all the facts.

Thanks for sort of making the point for me.

Of course, one fact we DO know is that he already owned guns so the fact that he bought another one shouldn't really matter at all should it?

But as you say, we're ignoring facts here.... especially the really important ones.

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.

Officers'Wife
March 10, 2010, 12:54 PM
I thought you had to actually DO something wrong before you got arrested...

Not since the formation of FBI in the 1920's. The quip of the day from Will Rogers was that Al Capone would never be shot provided he didn't mingle with innocent bystanders. In those days the ROE was shoot them all and let God sort them out. Today it's arrest them all, they are all guilty of something anyway.

Geno
March 10, 2010, 12:54 PM
Here's the easy part. The LEOs, since 1986??, can "spy" in on you if they simply are "investigating a crime". It's happening all over the USA where law enforcement agencies are tracking people on their cellular phones, listening in on conversations, etc. All they had to do was get themselves the low-octane warrant and listen-in on the poor fella. If he set out to do harm then act. If he had done nothing wrong, then they would have done him less harm. Harm all the same, but less. I still disagree even with that practice.

You know, right now millions of Americans are losing their jobs. Is this how we will be disarmed? A few here, a few there? It isn't my problem, it happened out-of-state. It isn't my problem, it happened in the next county. It isn't my problem, it happened in the next town. It isn't my problem, it happened across town, ya know...other side of the tracks. It isn't my problem, it happened to my neighbor.

Get my point?! If it happened to an American, it is all of our problems!!!

Geno

harmonic
March 10, 2010, 01:14 PM
I don't have enough information. What behavior were the police acting on

I got the following quote off the comments section of the article.

It is my understanding that this employees ODOT boss has "concerns" on several people he has dismissed in the past. Lars Larson spoke of it this morning. and...on top of that...the guy was home hours after being "arrested or detained or proactively held'.....

So this boss, just some dude, is paranoid that some employee he fires is gonna whack him. The boss calls the cops and the rest is on the 11 o'clock news.

That's crap.

And as far as an unemployed man spending money which, is a flag? That's crap, too.

I was between jobs years ago and just to treat myself, went out and bought a new shotgun. It was a treat and something I wanted.

So far that's all we know about the guy. Maybe he was feeling blue and decided to treat himself.

And who does the psych evaluation? Let me tell you something folks, I minored in psych for my first bachelors and was positively amazed at how unscientific and bogus that profession is. It's completely fluid and yesterday's mental illness is today's norm.

When they leave our 2nd amendment rights up to a bunch of quacks who couldn't handle real science, we're all in trouble.

RebelRed
March 10, 2010, 01:22 PM
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

Um, Minority Report anyone?

Wow.

Hey, you look like you might do something bad at some point in your life. We're going to lock you up "for now" to ensure this doesn't happen. Say hi to Fidel Castro for us.

hankdatank1362
March 10, 2010, 01:23 PM
Good points made against my arguement by stating that he already hd enough guns to go postal... Why would he need to buy more? I hadn't considered that.

This thread has given me a good idea for a poll. If I can remember to put it up tonight that is... Right now I'm on my BlackBerry Storm, which is not conducive to fat thumbs.

hankdatank1362
March 10, 2010, 01:29 PM
Harmonic, awesome post. I'm right there with ya: psych was my minor too. *quacks like duck*

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 01:30 PM
Good points made against my arguement by stating that he already hd enough guns to go postal... Why would he need to buy more? I hadn't considered that.
What is the maximum number of guns you need to "go postal"?
It's an idiotic argument.
And for those questioning probable cause, he hasn't been arrested, nor charged with a crime.
But obviously there must have been enough there for a protective custody order. What he did do to promote that? I dunno. No one here does. But I don't have enough info to say cops abused their authority. Neither does anyone else.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 01:37 PM
When I was laid off in '94, the first thing I did was buy a friend's stock blued Springfield M1911A1. I wouldn't have a ball gun otherwise. I didn't shoot anybody with it.

If the cops in this case dotted all of their is and crossed all of their ts, and or he made threats that a reasonable person would have perceived as credible, the guy's out of luck.

If this was a CYA by a bedwetting, duplicitous employer or the if the cops thought they'd mess with a guy who just lost his job, people need to be made to suffer. Not having money to pay their mortgages would be a good start.

harmonic
March 10, 2010, 01:39 PM
he hasn't been arrested, nor charged with a crime.

On the contrary. He was released within hours.


But obviously there must have been enough there for a protective custody order

Obvious to who? Do you have more information other than the article? Cause it could also be the case that Medford, which has turned into a liberal hole populated by moonbats from **********, might just think they have a right to impose their "ideas" upon the peons.

Read my post above. A citizen of Medford said the guy's boss gets paranoid when he fires somebody and thus reported the guy. Then the cops act.

Real tight little corporation they've got going out there.

docsleepy
March 10, 2010, 01:40 PM
Is there anyone here who would not agree that a truly psychotic person who is a danger to themselves or others should not be given immediate treatment?

I think you would all agree to that. The remaining question is how to identify those people. It is NOT an exact science. People do not come marked "psychotic" and "non-psychotic".

Psychotic people are not able to interpret reality and separate it from delusion. Truly psychotic people hear voices, etc. I've spoken with a few, and they are truly out there. You have to ask a few questions sometimes to get them to reveal it. One fellow said the (stereo) speakers were telling him what to do. When he walked out of the house, he said everyone on the street was staring at him -- everywhere.

1% of the population is schizophrenic (roughly). There is a genetic part to it. There is also an environmental part. The psychotic "break" may often occur at age 18 or so (when stresses mount) but not always.

So we as a society have to find ways to do the best we can to pick out the people who are "nuts" and protect the rest of us from them. I am not an expert on this, but in my state, a person can be taken for evaluation and treatment for a certain number of hours/days, which allows (but does not guarantee) that we will make the correct decisions. This is human beings trying to make correct decisions; there are going to be errors.

If the actions were unreasonable, then the gentleman will have plenty of attorneys from which to choose to see redress. If they were reasonable, then he will not have a case and other lives may have been protected, and fewer regrettable news stories (useful to anti's) will have been created. I wasn't there. So any guess on my part whether they were reasonable or unreasonable would be speculation. In my city, a graduate student was just wounded by college police after a 1+ hour standoff, when he advanced past tazers and bean bags with a knife and pole. The college media is having a field day. It is not fun to be a policeman, I bet, and I wasn't there. I'm not going to second guess them. There will be plenty of time for that.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 01:42 PM
And for those questioning probable cause, he hasn't been arrested, nor charged with a crime.
Was he free to leave?

No? He was arrested.

When you forcibly deprive somebody of their liberty, you'd BETTER have ALL of your ducks dressed and covered.

Of course I've come across more than a couple of cops who believe that your personal liberty is of no consequence whatever and you've suffered no harm from having it taken from you for a frivolous reason or indeed no reason at all. Civil court is the way to adjust those attitudes.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 10, 2010, 01:44 PM
What is the maximum number of guns you need to "go postal"?
It's an idiotic argument.

You're right about one thing: There is an idiotic question here. There can be no maximum number of arms to go postal, but there is a minimum if you intend to use a gun. You've got to have at least one. He had that.

Woody

harmonic
March 10, 2010, 01:46 PM
Is there anyone here who would not agree that a truly psychotic person who is a danger to themselves or others should not be given immediate treatment?


Amateur/armchair psychoanalysis aside, the guy wasn't diagnosed of anything. He was taken into custody "for evaluation" and released a few hours later.

Stay focused. The issue is not his mental condition. The issue is what the cops knew of his mental condition prior to his arrest. And the fact the the guy was released w/in hours speaks volumes.

Onward Allusion
March 10, 2010, 01:47 PM
Not saying whether the actions by those concern were right or wrong...

The guy was very likely flagged when he purchased multiple handguns in a short time frame. We all know the FFL has to complete form 3310.4 for multiple handgun purchases and send it to the BATFE. I also believe I read somewhere that although NICS data isn't kept for more than 24 hours, multiple checks on it within 24 hours generates a red flag. Remember, this is outside of whatever State laws you might have.

As a side note, I had my house come under survellience 20-something years ago when I start collecting/shooting because I bought 5 handguns in a 1 week period and a multiple-handgun-purchase form was completed (I didn't know any better). Paranoid, no - because they actually talked to my neighbors and had a Crown-Vic parked down the street from me. I guess when they found out I was an accountant and never saw any nefarious activity around the house they wrote it off.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 01:49 PM
If the actions were unreasonable, then the gentleman will have plenty of attorneys from which to choose to see redress.

If he was indeed released after a few hours, I'm betting the lawyers are lining up.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 10, 2010, 01:49 PM
If he has been released, did they return his arms to him?

Woody

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 01:53 PM
If he has been released, did they return his arms to him?
Of course not! Now he's "disgruntled" because he was FALSELY accused of planning to commit a violent crime!

rm23
March 10, 2010, 01:55 PM
§1983 Title 42 USC
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

hankdatank1362
March 10, 2010, 01:56 PM
Of course not! Now he's "disgruntled" because he was FALSELY accused of planning to commit a violent crime!
Hahahaha!

Gouranga
March 10, 2010, 01:58 PM
How many guns to go postal?
Easy question...1 well maintained firearm and lots of ammo. You only got so many hands after all.

I stated before how this could have been legit, might not be, we need more info to know. I would like to think his lawyer would see to the details and go after the gov't if the facts just do not support this.

Not only were his arms taken (2nd Amendment) but he was deprived of his freedom. His property was searched and seized. If they did not have their ducks in a row, some heads will seriously roll.

The cops are bound to not release details. For all we know they could have done a "knock and talk" after the complaint and he answered the door in a pink tutu telling them he was Joan of Arc and he was going to use his weapons to spring Manson out of jail. Or he could have said "Good evening officers. How can I help you?" I agree though the details would be very nice. I would like to know that threshhold needs to be met to lose these rights.

rm23
March 10, 2010, 01:59 PM
Always nice to see the statists come out when a thread like this pops up.

You never know what the guy could've done to get his boss to freak out. Maybe he was on THR once and his boss is a major anti.

I hope this guy isn't crazy and I hope he never has to work another day for the rest of his life because of this.

Warhawk83
March 10, 2010, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by rm23 Future murder 2nd degree. These cops are using the machine from Minority Report.
__________________

Yep, they got a red ball on this one.:scrutiny:

WTH,most people are disgruntled if they are fired or placed on "administrative leave".

No probable cause whatsoever, I own guns and am VERY disgruntled with a former employer. Still not gonna go spray the place down with an AK.

:mad:

Oops ,I hope the Oregon Police aren't watching, they'll go and tell my local dept.

I suppose it's a good thing, my police dept's response would be "and...."

Guns and more
March 10, 2010, 02:04 PM
I find it utterly amazing the number of ignorant statements posted here. I question whether some folks here shouldn't have their guns confiscated.
Ha, ha, ha. Good one.

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 02:20 PM
Was he free to leave?

No? He was arrested.

When you forcibly deprive somebody of their liberty, you'd BETTER have ALL of your ducks dressed and covered.

You do realize that not being free to leave does not always equate to being arrested? Right?

Maybe he had a screaming fit in the office?
Maybe he posted somewhere how he was plotting his revenge?
I dunno. No one does. If he brings suit and is successful, then the cops were wrong. If not, they were probably right.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2010, 02:25 PM
If he brings suit and is successful, then the cops were wrong. If not, they were probably right.

Or he cant' afford a lawyer. Or he doesn't even realize he needs one.

Lack of a lawsuit isn't really a good indicator of guilt.

Justin
March 10, 2010, 02:26 PM
You never know what the guy could've done to get his boss to freak out. Maybe he was on THR once and his boss is a major anti.

Or perhaps he was let go due to a known history of anger problems, making threats of violence against co-workers, and other behavior that would indicate he was prone to acting out in a violent fashion.

None of us were party to the situation, and we have obviously imperfect information. The result is that these sorts of news stories are nothing more than an overly-complicated rorschach test wherein you see what you want to see.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 02:36 PM
You do realize that not being free to leave does not always equate to being arrested? Right?
No, and in this context, neither does the law.

If by the totality of their actions, the police conveyed to him that he was not free to leave, he was arrested, ESPECIALLY for the purposes of false arrest and whether he was properly mirandized.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 02:46 PM
One definition:

An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the investigation and prevention of crime. The term is Anglo-Norman in origin and is related to the French word arrêt, meaning "stop".

The word "Arrest" is derived from the French word 'Arreter' meaning 'to stop or stay' and signifies a restraint of a person.

toivo
March 10, 2010, 03:18 PM
This is a classic case of NEI: Not Enough Information. Had he made threats? We don't know. IMO, the gun purchases alone do not justify the reaction.

A few years ago there was an incident in the town where I work. A retired state trooper was going through a messy divorce, and his wife got a restraining order on him based on threats he had made. The court sent deputies to his house, and they confiscated all his firearms. So he went and got a shotgun that he had stashed, and drove to her house and blew her away. Then he drove to a convenience store and blew his own head off in the parking lot.

What's the right course of action? There might not be one. One thing is clear: when faced with a tough call between civil liberties and security, we in this country are erring on the side of security much more than we used to.

bikerdoc
March 10, 2010, 03:43 PM
This is a classic case of NEI: Not Enough Information.

5 pages worth.

RS14
March 10, 2010, 03:59 PM
A few random remarks.

Buying guns immediately after going on administrative leave isn't necessarily unreasonable. It may be paid leave. Maybe he figures he'll have plenty of time to shoot while on leave.

It occurs to me that making violent threats won't necessarily result in an arrest. I recall some months ago reading here of an individual who was murdered after failing to obtain even a restraining order or somesuch. Perhaps the police concluded that he was simply very upset at the time of making the threat, he didn't really mean anything, and there's no need to arrest him. But they might have kept an eye on him. When he made gun purchases, they decided to arrest him, with those threats alone being sufficient reason.

Which is more likely? That the individual made threats which were not reported because the journalist didn't dig deeply, the police declined to comment due to policy, the employer declined to comment due to policy, and the editor didn't care because digging deep requires a large investment of time, and it's a minor local story mostly read online by people who aren't paying for the news? Or that the police decided to arrest somebody without probable cause, and have no intention of charging him with anything, and are exposing themselves to substantial risk of a lawsuit on the basis of a denial of due process?
As I said, save your outrage until more information comes to light.

RebelRed
March 10, 2010, 04:25 PM
How many guns does it take to be a threat and "go postal"?

Answer: Zero.

See Oklahoma City.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 04:31 PM
It occurs to me that making violent threats won't necessarily result in an arrest.
I guarantee you that it often doesn't.

When I was in college, the dope dealer who lived across the hall from me and his dimwitted wannabe "hitman" buddy (along with some fraternity pledges with whom they'd been in a botched dope deal) got expelled. In the MISTAKEN belief that a group of us in the dorm had turned them in, the "hitman" threatened to have us killed. We went straight to the Fulton, MO PD who told us that they'd leap right into action... as soon as one of us were killed or injured, and not a second sooner. On that date died any illusions I had about the police "protecting" me from anything or anyone as an individual.

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 04:32 PM
See Oklahoma City.
See the "Happyland Social Club" arson.

See 9/11.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2010, 04:33 PM
See the "Happyland Social Club" arson.

See 9/11.

You mean guns don't have to be involved for a crime to exist?

You MUST be making that up.

Next you will be telling me that guns don't make people commit crimes, that criminals behave they way they do regardless of the tool they decide to use.

You lunatics can't go around spreading stories like this........

Deanimator
March 10, 2010, 04:40 PM
You lunatics can't go around spreading stories like this........
No doubt AHSA and its ilk would like a law to prevent that sort of thing.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 10, 2010, 05:09 PM
DUI = $, otherwise the crooked ones in the city where I grew up wouldn't park a block away from the bar and wait for people to get on the road before stopping them. That's besides the point.

Knowing where crimes will probably occur and posting up near that location to catch the criminals is crooked??

Bubba613
March 10, 2010, 05:14 PM
Or he cant' afford a lawyer. Or he doesn't even realize he needs one.
Well, given the story has been published and widely disseminated I would bet there are plenty of lawyers out there who would love to inform him of his rights and take the case on contingency. So your argument isn't sound.

hso
March 10, 2010, 05:17 PM
5+ pages worth of not enough info.

We should therefore wait for more information before we continue speculating wildly or counseling against wild speculation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!