Oregon Cops confiscate man's guns: he wants them back!


PDA






harmonic
March 12, 2010, 09:31 PM
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120326

ODOT worker wants guns; police say they'll comply

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.

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oregon Cops confiscate man's guns: he wants them back!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
harmonic
March 12, 2010, 09:32 PM
The original thread was locked ................

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=510645

............... for whatever reason until new information emerged. This is new information.

harmonic
March 12, 2010, 09:38 PM
sheriff's departments prompted concerns that Pyles could be a threat

That is so bogus. Presumptuous cops. Granted, the guy gave them up willingly. I wish he hadn't. I bloody sure wouldn't.

Gouranga
March 12, 2010, 09:45 PM
With this new info...I am more inclined to believe the police may have acted inappropriately. They state he complied with their instructions fully. never acted aggressive. Purchased his weapons legally. Yet they brought in SWAT, locked down a neighborhood, and confiscated his weapons for days now.

They have not said anything he did that shows he was a danger. I am waiting to hear something compelling that he did to show him as an imminent threat. I have not heard it. Not sounding too good for the police here so far.

TexasRifleman
March 12, 2010, 09:54 PM
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."

Wonder where the anti people from the other thread are with their apologies.

Would it be un-high road of me to go back to the thread and call them out by name? :evil:

As for this one, several said in the other thread that lawyers were likely lined up outside his door for this lottery winner. I suspect that's putting it mildly at this point. When this is over he may be GLAD he lost his job. He can probably retire on the settlement.

Larry Ashcraft
March 12, 2010, 09:55 PM
This is new information.
Indeed it is. Let's try to keep a fact-based conversation going. Conjecture is what got the last threads killed.

harmonic
March 12, 2010, 10:01 PM
Let's try to keep a fact-based conversation going.

Granted. But this statement in the article is very troubling:

when he was taken into protective custody

He never made any threats. He never gave any indication he was going to cause a problem. They didn't "5150" him. But they took him into protective custody.

Can cops actually do that? Or is that an Oregon thing?

ChaoSS
March 12, 2010, 10:02 PM
I want to know what they mean when they say he gave them up voluntarily? Did he say "You can take them", or did he just not shoot back at them? Did showing them where they were constitute giving them up voluntarily in their minds?

KBintheSLC
March 12, 2010, 10:08 PM
This situation is truly unnerving... get laid off, go out and buy some guns = complementary visit from the SWAT team, guns seized, and a visit to the nut house for the record.

I bet that will help him get a job.

... groan

Cosmoline
March 12, 2010, 10:15 PM
The first article referenced a 72 hour hold, which would be the Oregon equivalent of a 5150 psych hold. It's a loophole that permits de facto arrest even if you've broken no law. Apparently, though, the attempt didn't pass the laugh test at the hospital, where:

He was released several hours later.

So whatever they found, it wasn't even enough to try to prolong his psych hold.

And now what have they accomplished, exactly? If he was never going to do anything they've subjected an innocent man to Stalinist psychiatric arrest, seized his arms and humiliated him in front of his neighbors. These kinds of antics also make the entire law enforcement community look like bumbling commissars.


If he really is planning on slaughtering his former bosses, they have completely hosed any case against him with these extrajudicial tactics. And he'll just go do it when they give him his arms back. This is why "pre-crime" doesn't work.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2010, 10:35 PM
i think the key word is voluntarily . you can't call it confiscation.

be interesting to hear what started it all. maybe we will if the guy taken in choses to allow it

TexasRifleman
March 12, 2010, 10:36 PM
i think the key word is voluntarily . you can't call it confiscation.

I dunno... if a SWAT team surrounds my house and asks for my guns, is it really voluntary if I comply?

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.

Gouranga
March 12, 2010, 10:40 PM
if a SWAT team surrounds my house and asks for my guns, is it really voluntary if I comply?

I would call that an act of self preservation.

Mike J
March 12, 2010, 10:42 PM
It would be interesting to know exactly what led the police to take that course of action.

Officers'Wife
March 12, 2010, 10:51 PM
i think the key word is voluntarily . you can't call it confiscation.

Interesting, an armed man with men behind him with weapons at ready asks for a citizen's weapons and it's voluntary? By that criteria armed robbery is persuasive fundraising.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2010, 11:04 PM
its all in the semantics. if they just take em or if they say "mr xxxx we want to make sure we have all the weapons before we take you to the hospital is that ok?" and he shows em where they are its likely gonna be voluntary. and his cooperating is also likely to have played a big role in his being released and getting them back. i know that doesn't play well in some circles here but thats how it works in real life. i've taken some folks to the hotel silly with and without the cops to help and we quite often got them to disarm voluntarily. in the intake exam one of the questions is "do you own any weapons? guns? and if you answer yes the next question is "got any on you?"

Officers'Wife
March 12, 2010, 11:11 PM
its all in the semantics.

When the semantics are backed by hard eyed men with firearms the language is quite clear. What is taken at gunpoint is not voluntary.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2010, 11:23 PM
true most often if you object they will ratchet it up to the next level and do the paperwork to take em. and it will probably not score you any points at the psych eval. obviously this guy isn't a poster here for surely none of them woulda given up so easily. of course they would also probably still be in either the hotel silly or jail and the cops would not be announcing they were giving the guns back. this statist cooperated and now he suffers the fruits of his cooperation. being home and getting his guns back. no revolutionary he.

in this case since he came outa the house voluntarily he got to skip the hole flash bangs flexi cuffs drama . will be nice to stop guessing what he did(or didn't) say or do to ruffle folks

Guns and more
March 12, 2010, 11:49 PM
But they took him into protective custody.
Can cops actually do that? Or is that an Oregon thing?
Police do whatever they feel like doing; it's up to the court to decide if they were right.

harmonic
March 12, 2010, 11:55 PM
By that criteria armed robbery is persuasive fundraising.


I had to laugh out loud at that one.

Kingofthehill
March 13, 2010, 12:07 AM
un-freaking real.

i was holding judgment since this first came out. What I am reading now, This dude better hit them HARD so they think twice before pulling this crap again.

When I went on Unemployment last year, I bought several guns...Its my Hobby and i obviously had a lot of free time to enjoy that hobby.

This whole feeling of the movie "Minority Report" is very creepy and hopefully this case will put a stop to any upcoming "Precog" type arrests.

Sawblade
March 13, 2010, 12:12 AM
So basically, Big Brother sent the thought police to arrest this guy and send him to room 101 to make sure he's a good citizen? Not to derail the thread, but I just had to point that out. :D

Isher
March 13, 2010, 12:26 AM
Doesn't surprise me at all, as a former Medford resident.

What does surprise me is that nothing seems to have changed

Since I left there in 1978.

Go figure.

isher

ants
March 13, 2010, 12:29 AM
So basically, Big Brother sent the thought police to arrest this guy No, SOMEBODY called Big Brother and lied to them, told them that he is dangerous and disgruntled and has guns. Only one out of three turned out to be true. Somebody (maybe with a grudge, or just didn't like him) just ruined his life completely. That SOMEBODY oughta fry in Hell.



Cops and other officials are just too dang busy to drive around looking for people who are recently laid off, and then go investigating to see if they have an attitude and recently bought guns. Way too busy for that crap. Somebody called them and tipped them off. Their over reaction is their fault, and yet will be judged if the victim files an action. I just don't want us to miss the link in the chain that started the cops' unfortunate reaction.

Hardtarget
March 13, 2010, 01:09 AM
He NEEDS to find out who fingered him. That would be the second law suit filed. Then he could buy a range and enjoy his hobby.

Mark

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 01:15 AM
depends on what he did or said to get "fingered" don't get too excited yet. in the other thread where the "poor guy" accidentally shot the baby in the head he went from hero/victim to scumbag dope dealer when reality reared its head

Zoidberg523
March 13, 2010, 01:38 AM
Interesting, an armed man with men behind him with weapons at ready asks for a citizen's weapons and it's voluntary? By that criteria armed robbery is persuasive fundraising.

Well said. :D

NinjaFeint
March 13, 2010, 02:01 AM
Now that we have more information...that sucks.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 02:54 AM
what new info? other than him getting his guns back?

MarineOne
March 13, 2010, 03:02 AM
This guy NEEDS to speak with an attorney, NOW!

Whomever made the call to the police should be charged with slander, and if they made a written statement also libel, because not only has he been embarrassed in his own community ..... he's going to be hard pressed to find work now. A simple Google search will pull a ton of news articles about him, and forum posts like this one. If it was someone from his work (think about it, folks ... someone from his job had to have done this to him) then quite possibly he has a case against his former employer/supervisor as well.

Do I think he needs to sue the local PD? No because they were doing their job, although they were acting on a false tip.

Could they have handled it better? Definately!

Do I think a settlement by the local PD could happen? I can't see why he wouldn't be getting a six figure check from the city for his "troubles" to avoid a lawsuit, and if they didn't come up with some kind of "apology" then they need to be taken to court.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 03:10 AM
is there some news source i'm missing? he may well have been wronged but so far that comes under the heading facts not in evidence

Jefferson Herb
March 13, 2010, 03:20 AM
Volunteer: You call them,Confiscation:They ask you ,refusing the answer no.
WE HAVE OUR FIRST RESIDENTS FOR THE JEFFERSON STATE PRISON!!!

ATBackPackin
March 13, 2010, 05:08 AM
Voluntary

Main Entry: 1vol·un·tary
Pronunciation: \ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French voluntarie, from Latin voluntarius, from voluntas will, from velle to will, wish — more at will
Date: 14th century
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : self-determining
3 : done by design or intention : intentional <voluntary manslaughter>
4 : of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary behavior>
5 : having power of free choice
6 : provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization>
7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation

— vol·un·tar·i·ly adverb

— vol·un·tar·i·ness noun

synonyms voluntary, intentional, deliberate, willing mean done or brought about of one's own will. voluntary implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion <a voluntary confession>. intentional stresses an awareness of an end to be achieved <the intentional concealment of vital information>. deliberate implies full consciousness of the nature of one's act and its consequences <deliberate acts of sabotage>. willing implies a readiness and eagerness to accede to or anticipate the wishes of another <willing obedience>.



With armed swat that doesn't seem to voluntarily to me.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 05:39 AM
as opposed to unarmed swat? what exactly did happen at his house did they go in and jack him up? or call him on the phone and ask him to come out. seems either there is info i can't find or artistic license being used

Shadow 7D
March 13, 2010, 06:06 AM
Yep, and now "Big Brother" will pay the armed citizen for the "harm" inflicted on him in violating his liberties because this is the US of A and not some banana republic....

danez71
March 13, 2010, 09:57 AM
It seems most people are focusing on what the reporter said vs what the police said.

And I quote:
Reporter says in the 1st sentence.... "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."

And I quote again:
The police said.... "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."


There is a difference between the two statements.

Since my tin hat is out for polishing..... I'll take the police's statement as being accurate over the reporters.

wishin
March 13, 2010, 11:07 AM
Interesting, an armed man with men behind him with weapons at ready asks for a citizen's weapons and it's voluntary? By that criteria armed robbery is persuasive fundraising.
LOL. I'm surprised he didn't voluntarily confess to some wrongdoing!

Officers'Wife
March 13, 2010, 11:20 AM
i was holding judgment since this first came out. What I am reading now, This dude better hit them HARD so they think twice before pulling this crap again.

The sad part of it is, should the guy sue them (his only recourse) this will not bother the actual offenders. He will not be awarded the officers money, or for that matter the department's money. The money will come out of the pockets of his friends and neighbors in the state of Oregon and if that department is receiving 'stimulus' funds out of the pocket of every taxpaying citizen of the United States.

If the state follows the example of the fed the principles involved would receive commendations a few months after the litigation. At worst the offenders will receive a paid vacation (suspended with pay) while being 'investigated' by the minions that ordered the travesty.

Officers'Wife
March 13, 2010, 11:24 AM
Since my tin hat is out for polishing..... I'll take the police's statement as being accurate over the reporters.

Your option, I have to ask myself which of the two is in CYA mode. In today's climate, journalist that criticize the actions of the gov tend to have their ducks in a row. Police statements... the term 'reasonable deception echoes like a 45-70 shot in a steel grain bin.

ants
March 13, 2010, 02:12 PM
cassandra's daddy - Hi, buddy. How's it going? I enjoy your willingness to question things. I always have.


When I read the initial report that he was thought to be a dangerous man with guns, I refused to draw a conclusion because we hardly had any information (go see my post in the other thread). We didn't know if the man was mentally stable, or unstable. We didn't know if this was an unwarranted search and seizure, or if he walked out of the house scratching his head and told them that they could take the weapons for a day of safekeeping. We knew almost nothing about him, nor the incident itself.

The current report states that he was released from the Medical Center in three hours. That information tells us that under Oregon law he was not in bad mental condition (however Oregon law defines it). Futhermore, police are willing to give his guns back immediately; that probably wouldn't be prudent unless their investigation cleared him of any wrong doing.


So what is this "New Info" we have? In my mind, the new information is that the initial report was false. At least in the opinion of the Rogue Valley Medical Center, and the Medford Police Department.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 02:29 PM
thanks i'm glad hes out. and hope i stay that way. and i'm glad he gets his property back subject to the same caveat. what i would love to know is what he said or what it was claimed he said that got him checked out. i've gotten a few folks committed and it was never rubber stamped. in my cases i was subject to almost as much evaluation as the folks i got into treatment. and rightly so. if this guy got loud and proud and made some kinda threat in anger he owns what happened as a result. seen it many times over the years. guy tells the guy firing him "i'm gonna kill you!" they are usually all mouth but nowadays it pays to find out and i believe in holding folks accountable for running their mouth. and then again i remember seeing a scene like this at a hotel i worked at guy came back walked by the security desk and when they tackled him he dropped his uzi. or the 90 pound salad girl who when the chef fired her went out to her car came back pounded on the back door and when the chef hollers "what?" at her through the door she put a bunch of .32 into the steel door. the tin foil folks would do well to get a lil more info before they jump. when they jump and then facts that don't serve the cause/delusion surface they damage le cause and their general credibility. if needed i can go dig up a rouges gallery of overreaction and out and out lunacy just from this site. if i want the hat trick let me go put on boots and a rain coat and wander over to infowars. i hate it when i find info wars "quality " here. rtkba arms doesn't need anymore poster children for better regulated meds

Mad Chemist
March 13, 2010, 02:32 PM
I think this sheds a little more light on the subject.

From the Medford Mail Tribune:

Man, guns held by police spur controversy
Law enforcement officials say he could have been a 'danger to others' and his surrender was voluntary

March 12, 2010
Anita Burke
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune

MEDFORD — A phone call from a police negotiator that jolted David J. Pyles awake in the predawn hours of Monday continues to jangle the nerves of observers monitoring the way authorities took the Medford man into protective custody and seized his firearms.

Pyles came forward Thursday to reclaim his legally purchased weapons, publicly identifying himself in an e-mail sent to Medford police and forwarded to state legislators and selected media outlets.
Related Stories

He also said he has contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation for possible legal assistance. Pyles directed questions to that group and said he would make only limited statements until he had consulted with an attorney.

Kevin Starrett, director of the Canby-based lobbying organization — which also has a foundation for protecting gun rights through court cases — had been monitoring the incident that landed Pyles in the hospital for a mental health evaluation and resulted in five of his guns being held by police for "safekeeping."

"It's chilling," he said.

"I don't know if this is just a gun case," Starrett said. "It's about whether your freedom can be taken away without a criminal case or charges against you."

Starrett recounted the details of the case that Pyles shared with him. The federation had agreed not to identify him, so Starrett didn't use Pyles' name, but in the wake of Pyles' own public statements, the Mail Tribune is naming him.

Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.

The Oregon Department of Transportation confirmed that Pyles has worked there as a planner since February 2004. ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said the department couldn't discuss personnel or security matters.

Pyles told Starrett he initially thought the early morning call must be a prank, but looked out to see his yard surrounded by police.

"They asked him to come out and said they wouldn't handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property," Starrett recounted.

However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.

"Because we had information that he could be a danger to others, we wanted a medical professional to evaluate him," Medford police chief Randy Schoen said.

Police have maintained that Pyles' surrender was voluntary, but Starrett noted that an intimidating presence of officers with rifles and SWAT gear can force people to agree to things they wouldn't normally do.

"The thing that is really troubling to us is that this was not an arrest," he said. "People in protective custody don't even have the rights a person who has been arrested does."

When undergoing a mental health screening, a person doesn't have a guaranteed right to an attorney, for example, he said.

The evaluation took several hours and Pyles was released before noon on Monday.

Starrett expressed concern that police hadn't offered a clear explanation of what prompted their action.

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type, but said Pyles could have a case against police if he were taken into custody improperly.

He noted that police can't take people into custody based only on a concern, but said he understood their worries that someone could be hurt.

Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.

Link to the original article
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120325



It seems that this was a result of a feud with his coworker. Since they both work for a state agency, it seems Mr. Pyle will be enjoying a very lucrative settlement once all the litigation is settled.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 02:49 PM
it still all depends on what was said
i'm sure mr pyles felt he was reasonable. i had a friend who worked for the postal service, at his third location (he had issues at the previous 2 all the other folks fault of course). in this third and final episode before he stomped out he told his boss he was gonna kill him but first kill all those nasty lil children of his. thats a quote from my friend. he got a visit from a couple postal inspectors and retired on mental disability.his union defended him to the end and we pay for his disability. mt pyles might just be angling for a settlement or to force them to take him back or give him a deal through his union. i don't know but there is a much better chance to find out if this moves into court. if his lawyers try to keep it quiet i will assume he showed his butt in some way. if he was truly blameless they will try to push as much info out as they can to pressure management. management and the docs are bound by law and procedure to keep their mouth shut.


oh yea my friend and his union said it was all the other guys fault. in over a dozen incidents with almost 2 dozen people at 3 different locations. a funny twist is that i 6 of the incidents the union also represented the folks he had issues with and they were in the right too according to the union

ants
March 13, 2010, 04:20 PM
if his lawyers try to keep it quiet i will assume he showed his butt in some way. Let's be careful about criticizing other people who jump to an uninformed conclusion. A lawyer who tries to keep a matter quiet may have a hundred different valid reasons, including respect for client confidentiality. That doesn't mean the client 'showed his butt.'

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2010, 04:21 PM
Officers'wife, regarding the awards of money over wrongdoings by the officers, it may not come out of the officer's salary, but other things will result from an award to the victim/plaintiff. ANY money that is awarded to the victim will come from the government or their insurers. This will get attention from the governing parties (councilmen, trustees, commissioners, etc), the ones who appropriate money and oversee the department heads. They WILL evaluate whether agency heads had their brains in use, and might push for disciplinary action towards the abusive officer(s), suspension, or dismissal, especially if it costs them a lot of money. That WILL directly affect the pay of the officers in question. While they might be somewhat protected from the civil process initiated by the complainant, they will still be subject to action from their employer, civil service commission, etc. Personally, if they ever do something like that to me, they would have to wonder if they are now making my "short list". Did they stop a potential armed conflict, or push someone over the edge for the next one?

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2010, 04:28 PM
Question here. What would the Medford police have done if he had yawned and said he was just going to go back to sleep when they first called him?

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 04:35 PM
client confidentiality will be out the door during discovery. a good land sharks job is to win at some level for his client. a win means a check. if they get it as a settlement so much the better. and they will let be known that which will help them achieve that end and try to suppress that which will harm. i hope there is a case made so we get a chance to get past the hippa laws and the confidential personnel matters shield. then MAYBE we learn the truth

Guns and more
March 13, 2010, 06:15 PM
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.
Can someone tell me how the police knew this?
I thought the gun store kept the form in their bound book, and the NCIS check was not public information.
So..............does this mean your police department knows when you buy a gun and what you bought?
"It's about whether your freedom can be taken away without a criminal case or charges against you."
Guess what, they can lock you up. It's called "Baker Act" and they can lock you in a mental ward for 72 hours against your will.

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2010, 06:49 PM
That 72 hours crap is at the will of the mental facility. Apparently, he was "sane" enough to be released in 3-4 hours. I believe the police still need a reasonable "casue" to do that, not just grab anyone and lockemup.

Officers'Wife
March 13, 2010, 07:47 PM
That 72 hours crap is at the will of the mental facility.

Myself, I wonder strongly about what is considered probable cause for such a hold. I've often commented that my brother is going to kill himself with his old car. If such an offhand comment could result in a psych hold Oregon is in trouble plenty.

Cosmoline
March 13, 2010, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure he has any legal recourse outside employment law, but the cops need to think twice about trying to get around Constitutional protections by using the mental health laws. If the guy is a real danger the hold does NOTHING to keep him from coming right back out and shooting down some people. NOTHING. If the guy isn't a danger then you've just put a sane man through hell and possibly created a killer where there wasn't one before. All around, a disgusting performance by the boys in blue.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 08:47 PM
if a psch eval made you a killer then you were a few fries short of a happy meal going in

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 08:51 PM
i don't think there is one proscribed trigger for the psych hold but rather its based on a number of factors. in va at least you get to go before a judge if you fight it. and i think the term "probable cause" belongs to another type of legal event

SharpsDressedMan
March 13, 2010, 10:08 PM
Semantics. If not "probable cause", then one should have SOMETHING, not just conjecture. Put yourself in the victim's place. What would you expect the police to "have" before they lock YOU up?

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 10:18 PM
a credible witness statement from someone without an axe to grind preferably several. some type of evidence/behavior to substantiate the behavior. preferably several of both. even more preferable before anyone gets hurt. i encourage the folks i get involved with to go voluntarily. it works out better for several reasons. not least amongst them the fact that you can truthfully answer no if asked " were you ever involuntarily committed. i appeal to that lil voice that tells em that no they are not crazy. that all they have to do is answer a few questions maybe go back on their meds and they will be home in a jiffy. the ones that delude themselves go willingly secure in their own sanity. someday i'll get a guy like this one . one who gets to go home. hasn't happened yet though. i don't have a vested interest in them being locked up my only interest is protecting them and everyone else. this kinda nonsense is why o got the vest. one time at the hospital a cop noticed my vest and asked me about it. i told him what i was doing his reply was "damn good idea" it might surprise you how squirrely some folks get. and how fast.

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2010, 10:24 PM
oh yea in order to sober/clean me up two young ladies took me to the hotel silly. some kinda fear of me offing myself. had i not agreed to voluntary assistance i would have been held anyway. and i was disarmed as well. so i'm not speculating outa some commitment to an ethereal political dream. i speak from experience both m,ine and a bunch of other folks. not all good experiences. nothin like a guy sweet talking his way past the shrinks and going home to call his mom tell her hes gonna shoot himself and get there with his 80 year old mom in time to hear the shot and watch how it affects her to watch him with the blood pulsing out of him to take it outa some sophmoric political exercise into real life well in that case death

veter308
March 14, 2010, 12:11 AM
The SWAT team left the area after initial contact was made. Plain clothes Detectives then interviewed this guy about the concerns of his behavior during which time he "agreed" to have his guns taken into safe keeping while he was taken in for a quick medical evaluation. He knew he could get his guns back and that they were not seized from him. No SWAT or threatening officers involved in the interview as some have mentioned in this thread. And he got this guns back when he asked.

Eagles6
March 14, 2010, 01:55 AM
Very scary. What's going to happen once the federal gubmint has all of your medical records?
Jimmy was treated for depression after a divorce or death of a loved one or a job loss.
Bobby has "anger" issues.
Tommy takes medication that might cause issues.
Sally is paranoid because she fears for her safety.
It ain't that far fetched folks, just ask a Vet that's had any counseling for PTSD or some such.

Guns and more
March 14, 2010, 10:40 AM
So how did the police know he had just purchased firearms and what kind?

danez71
March 14, 2010, 10:49 AM
Your option, I have to ask myself which of the two is in CYA mode. In today's climate, journalist that criticize the actions of the gov tend to have their ducks in a row. Police statements... the term 'reasonable deception echoes like a 45-70 shot in a steel grain bin.

I tend to think the journalists nowadays are more concerned with putting out a story 1st and accuracy 2nd. They dont have much to loose.... or tend to loose nothing when they inaccuratly report.

Police, on the other hand, have to worry about making false reports/statements.

I dont mean this to say reporters are all dishonest etc. Just saying I generally take the police's side of the story on something like this when there is little specific info given.

I know of no back ground checks, lie detector tests, character checks etc for reporters as there is with cops to get hired. While not fool proof, something is better than nothing.

Bubbles
March 14, 2010, 11:26 AM
So how did the police know he had just purchased firearms and what kind?

In Oregon FFL's have to report all firearm sales to their local and state PD.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/ORSL.pdf

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.

Mike J
March 14, 2010, 11:58 AM
I am interested to see if more information becomes available. We just don't know enough to make a judgement.
danez-I don't believe the police are any more credible than reporters or anyone else. I have known of enough corrupt & incompetent policemen to be as distrustful of them as I am of the general poplulation. Also before anyone says I am slamming the police, I do know there are some good people there trying to do a difficult job. But to think that someone is telling the truth just because they wear a badge is foolish.

Ruggles
March 14, 2010, 12:02 PM
"I am interested to see if more information becomes available. We just don't know enough to make a judgement. "

Truest thing said so far. No way we have all the facts yet thru the first wave of media stories.

Guns and more
March 14, 2010, 01:56 PM
In Oregon FFL's have to report all firearm sales to their local and state PD.

Thank you.
Here in Florida, I believe that information is not shared. The FFL keeps it in his bound book, and the NCIS check only wants to know if it is a long gun or handgun. That's enough.

jaholder1971
March 14, 2010, 04:12 PM
I'm less inclined to believe he has a case against the cops as opposed to his employer.

It's obvious that someone told the cops some real whoppers to get this type of response and since his employer's the only ones who have an interest in making him out to be deranged this trail won't be very long.

3-4 hours for a psyche evaluation? Considering it probably took the facility an hour to check him in and 2 hours to do the discharge, the mental health experts figured out his detention was BS in an hour or less. Give them credit for seeing this for what it was and getting him out of there quickly.

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2010, 08:17 PM
It's obvious that someone told the cops some real whoppers to get this type of response and since his employer's the only ones who have an interest in making him out to be deranged this trail won't be very long.


depends on what he said or did at work he wouldn't be the first person i've seen run mouth faster than brain while getting in trouble at work. as of yet we are working on imagination rather than facts and typically one imagines that which best fits his own preconceptions and agenda

Cosmoline
March 14, 2010, 08:48 PM
i encourage the folks i get involved with to go voluntarily

Of course. Otherwise you're left in the uncomfortable position of hauling someone away under force of arms without ever reading them their rights, charging them with a crime or having them appear before a magistrate. If they come quietly you can pretend it isn't a gross violation of the Constitution.

sophmoric political exercise

Unless attempted suicide is illegal, then no officer has any business doing anything to stop it. If it's illegal, then due process and a proper arrest is the course to take. To bypass all of that and arrest people without charge is a gross violation of the oath. It's not the job of LEO's to "help people out" or to "make people better."

In this case, the only question they should have been asking is did he do anything illegal. If some source gave them sufficient evidence to arrest him and obtain a warrant, then they should have done that. If not, then there's no justification to act. Instead we find the LEO's scanning the man's arms purchases and misusing the psych hold procedure to get around their lack of a warrant for arrest or search.

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2010, 09:32 PM
Of course. Otherwise you're left in the uncomfortable position of hauling someone away under force of arms without ever reading them their rights, charging them with a crime or having them appear before a magistrate. If they come quietly you can pretend it isn't a gross violation of the Constitution.


um i don't carry arms when i go talk to these folks nor do i have any kind of governmental shield or immunity. and i can only force them to go if they are WAY out there. and that means calling the cops which is my last resort

Unless attempted suicide is illegal, then no officer has any business doing anything to stop it. If it's illegal, then due process and a proper arrest is the course to take. To bypass all of that and arrest people without charge is a gross violation of the oath. It's not the job of LEO's to "help people out" or to "make people better."


actually where i live a great deal of time and effort is spent to help folks. especially since the ones who let folks know usually don't really wanna die. they just feel trapped and are using a permanant solution to a temporary problem. a truly determined person just does it and we find the corpse or usually the wife and kids do. and they aren't real concerned about someone's "sophmoric political exercise " they just get to deal with finding mommy/daddy/child . reality is harsh especially on the kids but even moreso on the parents for some reason.

misusing the psych hold procedure
how so? in this case it worked just as its supposed to. (assuming he doesn't go postal) he went peacefully was released and got his guns back.its set up to provide some checks and balances in the arena of balancing safety and rights

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2010, 09:35 PM
and generally the last thing you want to do to someone in a desperate position is arrest em. often even when that becomes required the charges are dropped or reduced if the person makes an effort to get help or even sometimes where the court decides they really can't get help.. or at least thats been my experience ymmv

zootsuit002
March 14, 2010, 10:47 PM
"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"

I was recently stationed out in OR and found a North American Arms Mini revolver, to make a long story short I turned it in to the police hoping that they would run the # and return it to its rightful owner. The furthest that they went was to check the # against stolen and send it off to be destroyed. If I had any inclination of the immorality with which the police department would handle the situation I would have checked the # against stolen myself and dropped it into my own safe. Here again the short version, THIS STATEMENT WAS A BLATANT LIE they make no attempt what so ever to return property to its rightful owners.

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2010, 10:59 PM
is oregon or medford one of thoses areas that mandates guns be destroyed?

Cosmoline
March 14, 2010, 11:01 PM
generally the last thing you want to do to someone in a desperate position is arrest em.

Why not just leave people alone?

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2010, 11:27 PM
you know i'm inclined to go that way. but there is a school of thought that says folks in a mental illness crisis deserve a second shot. there is a study of folks who survived serious suicide attempts, iirc they were survivors of the goldengate bridge. their thoughts and lives after elevate this debate from a student union debate over latte and beer to some pretty serious stuff for them and their families

Deltaboy
March 14, 2010, 11:37 PM
I hope this man lawyers up and winds up owning the City and fires the PD.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 14, 2010, 11:47 PM
I'd still like to know if the SWAT team had a warrant.

Woody

SharpsDressedMan
March 14, 2010, 11:53 PM
20 years ago Medford Police Department reminded me of the Beverly Hill Police as portrayed in "Beverly Hills Cop". Very hip, groomed, very professional/full of themselves (somewhere in between), and, well, almost Aryan-like. Haven't been there since, so don't know what their game is now. There are many down-to-earth, blue collar police dpeartments in the West, but I didn't take Medford to be one of them. This departmental demeanor-philosophy might have contributed to the situation, if I get it correctly. They probably "knew" what was best for this situation.:rolleyes:

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:00 AM
a warrant for what? being outside his house?

CornCod
March 15, 2010, 12:17 AM
Writing as someone with over 20 years of working in the criminal justice system and as an instructor of criminal justice, I can say with confidence that if the police had ANY REAL EVIDENCE at all that this man was going to harm his ex-employers he would have been arrested. They could have made an arrest even for something lame like "terroristic threat" or harassment. The police obviously didn't have anything but speculation. I suspect we might see more of this kind of thing in the future.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:23 AM
i would quote bernard shaw but....

ants
March 15, 2010, 12:34 AM
The one thing we learn from history, is that man can never learn anything from history.George Bernard Shaw

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:42 AM
good one i had another one in mind though


and its not the one about celibacy though in light of the source its probably his strangest one


ooops it might have been oscar wilde for that one

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:59 AM
1. I don't live in Oregon. I haven't since I was 2 years old.

2. I don't know the specifics of how the legal system in Oregon works.

3. I do know how it works in Arkansas. And we, at the Sheriff's office, do this kind of thing all the time. They're called commitment orders, and they're signed by a judge.

The process works like this: A concerned person (mother, brother, doctor, coworker, boss, preacher, etc.) goes to either the sheriff's office or the prosecutors office. He or she shares the concern (99% of the time it's a mental patient that has gone off his or her meds, an alcoholic or drug addict, or someone with SI/HI) and swears out an affidavit. From there, the judge issues a commitment order, and a deputy goes out to the home of the person with the order, and brings him/her before the judge. From there, the judge can strongly suggest that the patient follow a suggested course of action. If the patient refuses, the judge can order it.




Of course. Otherwise you're left in the uncomfortable position of hauling someone away under force of arms without ever reading them their rights, charging them with a crime or having them appear before a magistrate. If they come quietly you can pretend it isn't a gross violation of the Constitution.

Where's the Gross Violation? It's no deprivation without due process. Due process is in place.



Unless attempted suicide is illegal, then no officer has any business doing anything to stop it. If it's illegal, then due process and a proper arrest is the course to take. To bypass all of that and arrest people without charge is a gross violation of the oath. It's not the job of LEO's to "help people out" or to "make people better."

Bullcrap, sir. It is absolutely my job to help people out. Most of the time, I do that by ensuring that criminals that might otherwise affect their lives are in, headed to, or contemplating jail.

In this case, the only question they should have been asking is did he do anything illegal. If some source gave them sufficient evidence to arrest him and obtain a warrant, then they should have done that. If not, then there's no justification to act. Instead we find the LEO's scanning the man's arms purchases and misusing the psych hold procedure to get around their lack of a warrant for arrest or search.

This might be true if law enforcement officers only dealt with criminal law. However, as we deal with civil law as well, there are other procedures than misdemeanor/felony arrest. Civil commitment, short term psych holds, there are all kinds of options.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:28 AM
don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 04:39 AM
Civil commitment, short term psych holds, there are all kinds of options.

I know there are, I despise them and the people who use them. No matter how it's dressed up, it still amounts to armed officers taking citizens into custody with no reasonable suspicion of any crime being committed. They don't take them to jail, but they still take them to be locked up. And the stigma of a psych hold is considerably GREATER than merely spending a night in jail. All without any aspect of the penal code being violated. And since it's classed as "civil" the officers are freed from the Constitutional restraints which would otherwise limit their actions.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse. As we see in this case, a man who has done nothing illegal is subject to threat of death, public humiliation and has his arms seized. Yet you see nothing wrong with that.

Due process is in place.

Sure, you can convince a panel of psychs not to try to keep ahold of you. And after 72 hours they have to hold a hearing. Call that due process, cause I sure don't. I know the courts have been unwilling to overturn this nonsense, but that doesn't make it right or Constitutional.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 09:47 AM
Sure, you can convince a panel of psychs not to try to keep ahold of you. And after 72 hours they have to hold a hearing. Call that due process, cause I sure don't.


um no actually. if you're not frothing at the mouth and screaming "WOLVERINES!" you usually talk to one case worker. most likely a shrink and if in their opinion you are not a danger to anyone(as opposed to them thinking you are "fine" or "normal". they will cut you loose. you can have someone with you if you like when you talk to them or you can be alone. they prefer alone but its no deal breaker. if that caseworker thinks you are at risk or a risk to others then they still need at least one other confirming pro and you have the right to challenge that call in your own doc. as a matter of fact folks will often get their regular shrink involved. and then there is the appeal before a judge.


looking at the real world case before us the gentleman was only held a couple hours and as someone observed it takes an hour to process in and another to process out. so it would seem that the due process worked as intended.
maybe we need mental health living wills? kinda a do not resucitate for folks who go off their meds or wanna commit suicide by cop. well there is the unfortunate fact that they often don't do it without hurting others. they lose sight of their true libertarian principles when they stop taking their prozac and hurt others.
oh yea in va you can get to see a judge way faster than 72 hours and in my experience (as opposed to an imaginary exercise) a great deal of care is taken to not trample the patients rights


And the stigma of a psych hold is considerably GREATER than merely spending a night in jail.

really? what would make you imagine that? i've had both and yet again my experience has apparently been different than that of yours. what happened that makes you believe that?

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 10:02 AM
really? what would make you imagine that? i've had both and yet again my experience has apparently been different than that of yours. what happened that makes you believe that?
Do I need to remind you yet again that your attitude appears to be colored by your self-admitted escapades?

Some of us have worked very hard to stay OUT of "the system". When somebody drags us into it against our wishes, we take it personally. If somebody does it to me, I guarantee you 100% that they'll wish they hadn't.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 10:10 AM
Hi DaneZ,

I tend to think the journalists nowadays are more concerned with putting out a story 1st and accuracy 2nd. They dont have much to loose.... or tend to loose nothing when they inaccuratly report.

Police, on the other hand, have to worry about making false reports/statements.

Again, your choice. As for the latter I still recall the 'officer' in Rensselaer IN In that fired 8 rounds into his patrol car then claimed he was shot at by 'suspects.' Three days later when the truth was found out said officer was put on 'paid suspension' during the investigation in which time he was given employment in another county and the investigation was declared a moot point as he no longer was an LEO for the city. Much in the same line as the mother Church moving priests to avoid molestation investigations.

As for reporters, you are correct on story first and they are not covered by 'reasonable deception.' However, printing false statements about the gov tends to rob them of sources within the gov making their future stories harder to obtain. Therefore journalists tend to be very careful of printing the truth of gov excesses. In Lafayette IN, at least one has admitted (in a state of intoxication) he pads his facts to the benefit of LEO to protect his job.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 10:48 AM
I know there are, I despise them and the people who use them. No matter how it's dressed up, it still amounts to armed officers taking citizens into custody with no reasonable suspicion of any crime being committed. They don't take them to jail, but they still take them to be locked up. And the stigma of a psych hold is considerably GREATER than merely spending a night in jail. All without any aspect of the penal code being violated. And since it's classed as "civil" the officers are freed from the Constitutional restraints which would otherwise limit their actions.
I take umbrage with a few of the points you bring up here:

Why would you despise those who are acting lawfully, within the constraints of established written and case law, in the performance of their duties? That's the EXACT same logic as those who spit on soldiers returning home from war because they disagree with some aspect of said war. While I agree that you have the right to do it, and I will do what is necessary to uphold that right, I also find it repugnant, childish, and moronic.
The protection of the public at large is one of my primary duties. The sheriff gets mad at me all the time because I do almost no traffic stops (I hate tickets). Why do we do traffic stops? It's not because I don't think you, sir, in your Aston Martin doing 114 down this public highway are a danger to yourself. You have the right to make bad decisions all on your own. I am, however, concerned about you plowing into someone else and depriving them of the same right to life and love you have callously tossed away.
When I take someone to jail for a criminal matter, there is a specific defined process in place for what will happen next. The same is true with a Civil Commitment. Also, may I use this opportunity to point out that EVERY civil commitment I have ever served has been filed by a family member or loved one?
The armed officer thing exists for a reason. In 2006, we had a FTO and a probie serve a civil commitment order on a gentleman on the outskirts of the biggest city in our county. Long story short, the probie froze, and the FTO was stabbed 27 times. The FTO is still with us, the probie not so much. Those with mental diseases and defects are a danger to the public.
The classification of "civil" in no way, shape or form removes constitutional protections.The EXACT same protections are in place. The PROCESS is different, but the protections and guarantees are identical. You're just wrong on that.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse. As we see in this case, a man who has done nothing illegal is subject to threat of death, public humiliation and has his arms seized. Yet you see nothing wrong with that.

Sure, you can convince a panel of psychs not to try to keep ahold of you. And after 72 hours they have to hold a hearing. Call that due process, cause I sure don't. I know the courts have been unwilling to overturn this nonsense, but that doesn't make it right or Constitutional.
I respectfully submit that there is not a process in existence with regards to the deprivation of liberty that is not "rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse."

Moreover, I would argue that in this case, the process worked. Let's examine the timeline:

Man does something to get a civil commitment order filed (we don't know what).
Because the state police have access to firearm purchase data, they know that man has purchased several new weapons in the period since he has been furloughed.
Because of this, and previous experience serving civil commitment orders, the department decides to use their SWAT team in the service of this order.
Man gives up willingly, and volunteers to surrender his firearms.
Man goes to hospital, is judged not nuts, is sent home.
Man asks for his guns back.
Police say they're going to give his guns back.


I would argue that this case is the PERFECT example of how the system works. If you want to find something to get upset about, find a case where this didn't wasn't the process.

don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away
I know, I'm kind of a killjoy. Sorry.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 11:02 AM
Moreover, I would argue that in this case, the process worked. Let's examine the timeline:
I would argue that barring further facts not in evidence, you don't have any basis not just to say whether the process "worked", but whether the "process" was even JUSTIFIED.

If the subject made statements or took actions that a REASONABLE person would find immediately threatening, it probably was. If NOT, a great injustice was committed against the subject. It that was the case and it was me, I'd be out for blood and I wouldn't be inclined to accept any excuses.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 11:13 AM
its a good point about who generally asks for these types of interventions. i checked with the guys and our best guess is i've done more than 50 in the last 20 years (including 2 on one of the guys i asked). most cases it was after their mom/wife/kid asked me too. there exists in society a type of individual who perfects the tantrum as they grow older. they dress it up and refine it a bit but the basic concept is to be such an ass when their getting their way, excuse me i meant liberty, is threatened. they often get away with it by various forms of intimidation that skirt the edge of legal but stay on the safe side of that line for the most part. the other mo is to be "nice" no one wants to do anything to old charlie hes so "nice". you can cover up a host of bad behavior issues with either technique. i get called because i am of the belief that i don't really care if i piss someone off. i am willing to take the chance on that and saying i'm sorry later. as opposed to not doing anything and going to a funeral(s). looking back over the years there are none of those times when i regret taking steps. in fact with perfect hindsight i would have done it more. and some folks might still be breathing. i'm not anti suicide in fact they used to call me dr jack . i gave one sob detailed instructions at 3 am one morning on where how and why he should commit suicide while my life listened in horror. and i would do the same today with him heck i'd loan him the money for a gun and drive him to the woods . but i long out grew any confusion i had about pontificating about some lofty principle that gives me the tingles and letting some poor soul die to show my heart is pure for le cause. one of my guys didn't pull the mental health trigger on his wife because he was a true believer. i think burying his daughter was a turning point in thinking that kinda juvenile nonsense was a flawed belief system. today he compares it to the "no snitching" mindset we see. calls it just a different demographic and a higher spf number

Guns and more
March 15, 2010, 12:10 PM
Bullcrap, sir. It is absolutely my job to help people out. Most of the time, I do that by ensuring that criminals that might otherwise affect their lives are in, headed to, or contemplating jail.
So how many times do we hear about a woman getting a restraining order against an ex. Then the ex kills her. We always hear the police say (rightfully), "He hadn't committed any crime, so we had no reason to lock him up." Suddenly in this case, the police decide to intervene, I think we're not getting all the story.

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2010, 12:14 PM
3. I do know how it works in Arkansas. And we, at the Sheriff's office, do this kind of thing all the time. They're called commitment orders, and they're signed by a judge.

That's a warrant. That's how it's supposed to work.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2010, 12:15 PM
a warrant for what? being outside his house?

For taking him into custody and confiscation his guns.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2010, 12:18 PM
don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away

LOL

That's a good one.

Woody

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:20 PM
if the ex could demonstrate the former s/o was off their rocker she could get them evaluated. and in real life about 1/3 the time its an exwife or ex girlfriend who starts the ball rolling in the cases i deal with. the breakup is the trigger for the irrational behavior and i'm reluctant to let folks get killed over something like that. statist of me i know. but i've learned that the guilt from failure to posture is less than that i get from funerals and prison visits


That's how it's supposed to work.


why do you imagine its not how it worked this time? based on evidence as opposed to a predisposition/commitment to a certain mindset?

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 12:23 PM
why do you imagine its not how it worked this time? based on evidence as opposed to a predisposition/commitment to a certain mindset?
You seem to have a "predisposition" yourself.

We STILL lack appropriate information to know if the action was justified or not. You ASSUME it was.

I lack that trust in both the criminal justice and mental "health" industries.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:25 PM
For taking him into custody and confiscation his guns.

Woody

well since the original post asked if swat had a warrant and swat did not take him into custody or take his guns i'll ask again why would swat need a warrant to be outside his house? and since he came outside and apparently voluntarily allowed the evaluation and the removal of the guns what do you imagine they needed a warrant for in a general sense? as to being cuffed the generally cuff everyone around here unless its a pure aid call. the real litmus test for me for this man would be cuffs in front or in back. and sometimes whether you ride up front or in the back though nowadays they carry so much gear the front seat gets crowded. i wish there was video available so we could better evaluate how he was treated. i suspect there is some somewhere

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2010, 12:31 PM
Man does something to get a civil commitment order filed (we don't know what).

Therein lies the crux of the matter. Until we find out if there was a warrant of some kind, either it was a good "arrest" and confiscation(why take his arms if he himself has been "confiscated"?), or it was bogus and there will be a new burden on the town's budget.

Woody

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:33 PM
You seem to have a "predisposition" yourself.


i do its a shame but i am limited to those experiences i have actually been a part of. i lack the ability drive and imagination some have to make the intuitive leaps from an article sparse on facts to the fully fleshed out scenarios of jbt /brownshirt/kittenstomping the way some folks can. its a failing i know. i am often envious of those of you have that ability and i can assure you it makes reading those posts much more interesting/amusing. though it only further reinforces my feelings of inadequacy as a revolutionary it does have its pluses though

ConstitutionCowboy
March 15, 2010, 12:36 PM
i wish there was video available so we could better evaluate how he was treated. i suspect there is some somewhere

If it was a warranted search and seizure, you'll most likely get to see it. If not, you won't... Until it gets released after the court case.

Woody

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 12:40 PM
well since the original post asked if swat had a warrant and swat did not take him into custody or take his guns i'll ask again why would swat need a warrant to be outside his house? and since he came outside and apparently voluntarily allowed the evaluation and the removal of the guns what do you imagine they needed a warrant for in a general sense?
And what would have happened if he HADN'T "consented"?

You portray his choice to NOT shoot it out with the police as "voluntary". WHAT exactly was the alternative? That sounds about as "voluntary" as when the Japanese Army "invited" the defenders of Corregidor to "voluntarily" exit the Malinta Tunnel. Or are you saying their SHOW OF FORCE was NOT intended to intimidate?

No doubt, IF this turns out to have been completely unjustified and the police failed to properly investigate beforehand, you will roundly condemn the victim for going after the instigator(s) and the police who enabled them.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:50 PM
it might seem odd but if they were able to talk him into going voluntarily they might not have needed a warrant. again they call em aid calls around here and usually the cops don't start it. its a bit time consuming and not for everyone but actually in a voluntary situation , presuming there isn't an overwhelming alcohol/drug issue, its best to lay it on the table tell em what you and others think listen to what he says and barring some change in your perspective explain why a voluntary move to straighten this nonsense out is preferable to any other method. i try to stress that whoever started it didn't do it outa spite. if that doesn't work i shift to well then lets go down let the docs tell the ex that shes the crazy one and then you'll have some ammo to make her leave you alone. i also point out that voluntary keeps everything under hippa. a case in point was a gov employee who was concerned about his clearance. get cuffed hauled out and a judicial hearing can definitely impact his job. a voluntary medical treatment is like a mini vacation. it can take a long time particularly if they are drunk/high. its taken up to 16 hours from call to getting the guy in the facility and its all local. mine usually have to go through the er to get medically cleared before i can get intake done. and i love two of the intake questions. got any guns weapons? yea? got any on you right now? when chris laughed the intake counsuellor laughed too and said "we gotta ask!" and inspite of this instance as well as a suicide call chris still has all his guns. go involuntary? likely not so. i know it rocks some folks imaginary world but side from being very wary about the patient not hurting anyone the cops i've dealt with are generally concerned about the patient. in fact they call them patient or subject and are often very good at helping make it easier on them. when someones in crisis no one benefits from getting hardass on em. i've seen cops lie in court about how a guy behaved towards em because they understood how stressed the guy was and they didn't take it personal. i will say i encourage my guys to apologize if they were fools towards the cops and it doesn't hurt em in court. the cops i have met in real life like to have a few cases turn out with a good result. they get it rare enough. how the imaginary cops are i can't say

Noxx
March 15, 2010, 12:57 PM
Could we close the book on the argument over the term "voluntary" already? Any lawyer fresh and wet from the bar will explain to you that the mere presence of an armed team of men is coercive in an of itself. The man in question *submitted*, he did not *volunteer*.

That being said, I found this snippet incredibly annoying.

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type,

"Of this type", right. Once again, the ACLU shows their preference to pick and choose which civil liberties are worth defending. Just when I think it's possible for my disdain for that organization to increase, there it goes.

I really would like to see what the precedent is here. It's been long established that an anonymous tip is not probable cause, so the question at hand now that the police are no longer concerned with the man shooting up his workplace, is where did the information come from, and to what degree is that party civilly and or legally responsible for the embarrassing and public disruption of Pyle's life?

One thing is certain. this guys employment prospects, in an already FUBAR job market, just dropped to 0.0. It's a damn shame, and he ought to be compensated, by his employer first, if there's any justice in this world, for raising the false alarm.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 12:58 PM
You portray his choice to NOT shoot it out with the police as "voluntary". WHAT exactly was the alternative? That sounds about as "voluntary" as when the Japanese Army "invited" the defenders of Corregidor to "voluntarily" exit the Malinta Tunnel. Or are you saying their SHOW OF FORCE was NOT intended to intimidate?



how "unfortunate" that you are unable/unwilling to see any alternative to "shooting it out" once again you drive home my limitations as a revolutionary.
in my limited real life i've seen folks refuse. then they either get a warrant, unless they feel there is a immediate danger to either the subject or others then they take em into custody right away. then they get an evaluation and all the same protections and procedures as before. i will note that refusing will likely affect the perception of those evaluating you and i've never seen that happen without the patient staying at least 72 hours and usually much longer. i know this will not fit in your world view well but the length of their stay in the hospital seems to be more related to their relative mental health than predicated upon their refusal to cooperate. in other words the refusal is a symptom of whats wrong and whats wrong keeps em confined longer. has your experience been different? or how do you imagine it works?

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 01:16 PM
how "unfortunate" that you are unable/unwilling to see any alternative to "shooting it out" once again you drive home my limitations as a revolutionary.
He exercised the "alternative" to shooting it out. That doesn't make it voluntary, nor does it mean he had ANY choice in the matter, BUT to SURRENDER or resist with force.

If somebody walks up to you, pulls up his shirt to reveal a handgun in his waistband, and says, "Can I borrow your wallet?" That's "voluntary" and if you do it, you've "consented", RIGHT?

The subject did the PRUDENT thing. That doesn't in ANY way mean it was VOLUNTARY or that he CONSENTED. You yourself have presented alternatives to his SUBMISSION, NONE of which involves his being left in peace. They ALL involved the use of FORCE, potentially DEADLY force against him. Or was the SWAT team there to protect him from someone ELSE, so far unnamed?

As I said, we don't know yet if ANY of this was justified. If it was, I'll gladly admit it. As I said, I highly suspect that if it wasn't, you'll blame the victim, especially if he chooses to go after the parties involved. But you've repeatedly indicated that YOUR past record of misbehavior affects your opinions of how others should feel about involuntary interactions with the police. Just because you have a "history" doesn't mean that others should show any pity to somebody who unlawfully mistreats them.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 01:21 PM
in my limited real life i've seen folks refuse. then they either get a warrant, unless they feel there is a immediate danger to either the subject or others then they take em into custody right away.

There see? The SWAT team wasn't there to coerce but to react to an immediate danger to the LEO asking politely. After all, the perp may have decided to scratch his nose or even more dangerous go for a recorder and thereby having evidence of misconduct. The officers were only protecting their constitutional right of reasonable deception.

Isn't it amazing how the gov expects the citizen to live under one set of rules and themselves one quite different?

Earth to LEO- any choice made at the gunpoint is not voluntary. You can call a spade a tulip until the cows come home but it's still a damn shovel.

SharpsDressedMan
March 15, 2010, 01:23 PM
I'm going to ask it again, but what if the fella who was the object of all this attention had told them first off that he was just going to go back to sleep (from what I gather, they went to his house early in the morning and called him on the phone while they were prepared outside)? The gathering of armed men in the name of the state are calling on a citizen, and he is now NOT acting against them, he is just going back to bed. Are they empowered by law to kick in his door and press the issue, with only curiosity and concern to back them up?

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 01:24 PM
was only held a couple hours

So if I approach you backed by a dozen armed men and tell you that it's in your best interest to come voluntarily, and you're "only" held for a couple of hours, that's OK with you? You've broken no law. None. Yet you find yourself hauled away by armed officers and held. The fact that it's "only" for a few hours and if you answer the psych's nice questions you may "get" to leave does not console me.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 01:27 PM
again your experience may differ from mine. if so please share. this guy illustrates the difference perfectly. he assessed the situation dealt with it went to see the docs was home before lunch and got his guns delivered back to him. i know hes a statist and hes gotta give back both his red dawn dvds but it was a calculated sacrifice. i look forward to finding what he said/was accused of saying as well as to whom he said it. though it will take a lot of the fun outa this thread

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 01:31 PM
So if I approach you backed by a dozen armed men and tell you that it's in your best interest to come voluntarily, and you're "only" held for a couple of hours, that's OK with you?

if you manage to get yourself certified and a badge yea i'd go.

heck when they came to get me it was two pretty girls they said get in the car we're taking you someplace and i just nodded and followed like a puppy. i spent 34 days away but it was all voluntary i coulda left at anytime. thats another nice thing about going without being charged or committed but then again ymmv

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 01:35 PM
Why would you despise those who are acting lawfully, within the constraints of established written and case law, in the performance of their duties? That's the EXACT same logic as those who spit on soldiers returning home from war because they disagree with some aspect of said war.

A soldier serving his country is not hauling American citizens off to the psych wards who have broken no law. If our soldiers start doing that, then I'm going to have a major problem with their behavior.

I respectfully submit that there is not a process in existence with regards to the deprivation of liberty that is not "rife with opportunities for misuse and abuse."

The ordinary criminal justice system--the one these Medford cops were trying to get around--has significant procedures and Constitutional requirements in place to limit the opportunities for abuse.

In the case of mental health commitments, the safeguards are much less stringent in many states. So we see the abuse--a man hauled off and his property seized though he BROKE NO LAW. Not one. Now he not only got to have his liberty taken, he gets the stigma of being "crazy."

You try to get around the fact that you're essentially arresting people who've broken no law by claiming to be working in their best interest. Am I permitted to seize people under force of arms because I think it's "in their best interest" or "I'm trying to help"? No, I am not. So why are you?

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 01:37 PM
noxx i'm no fan of the aclu but it might surprise you what cases they take. they defended a mans right to burn a cross in virginia. it was his cross on his own property. they have a sense of humor though. they sent a very good black lawyer down who successfully beat the rap for the guy charged. if they passed it might just be, horror of horrors, cause there was no civil rights violation. he MAY have a civil case against whoever started the ball rolling but there is lil evidence one way or the other that i've seen. well real evidence i mean

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 01:39 PM
he assessed the situation dealt with it went to see the docs was home before lunch

More 'reasonable deception?"

He saw he was in the sights of armed men of dubious intent and followed the path ensuring survival. That he was back before lunch was more a matter of luck then the benevolent intent of his attackers.

It's your job friend, you follow the orders of the state in protection of the state. If you can't be honest with the the public at large it appears you are either hiding something or consider said public fools. Neither suits your purpose.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 01:41 PM
A soldier serving his country is not hauling American citizens off to the psych wards who have broken no law. If our soldiers start doing that, then I'm going to have a major problem with their behavior.

A soldier is barred from such action under posse comitatus.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 01:55 PM
Hi SharpsDressedMan

I'm going to ask it again, but what if the fella who was the object of all this attention had told them first off that he was just going to go back to sleep (from what I gather, they went to his house early in the morning and called him on the phone while they were prepared outside)?

Or an equally interesting question: After voluntarily being hauled into 'assessment' at gunpoint if he had told the agent of the state that he refused to speak without advice from a lawyer and for said lawyer to be present?

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 01:59 PM
you are always entitled to be represented. you can get your own doc for the eval. and often , surprise, the folks have their own shrink. using their shrink is preferable and often leads to a quick release.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 02:02 PM
More 'reasonable deception?"

ones persons deception is another's reality


its my job? are you confused? or is this something like all the other "facts" extrapolated by those of a certain political/social devotion

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:06 PM
I'm going to ask it again, but what if the fella who was the object of all this attention had told them first off that he was just going to go back to sleep (from what I gather, they went to his house early in the morning and called him on the phone while they were prepared outside)? The gathering of armed men in the name of the state are calling on a citizen, and he is now NOT acting against them, he is just going back to bed. Are they empowered by law to kick in his door and press the issue, with only curiosity and concern to back them up?

Depends. A signed and sworn affidavit followed on by a commitment order is enough to go in and place him into custody. For a welfare check, that's not so much the case. BUT, if the officer(s) have RAS that something is awry within the home, then yes, they could go in.

The ordinary criminal justice system--the one these Medford cops were trying to get around--has significant procedures and Constitutional requirements in place to limit the opportunities for abuse.

Constitutional requirements are applicable to both the civil and criminal systems. I think the issue you have is that the civil system is DIFFERENT. That concern may be valid. That being said, to imply that it is without constitutional protection is invalid.

In the case of mental health commitments, the safeguards are much less stringent in many states. So we see the abuse--a man hauled off and his property seized though he BROKE NO LAW. Not one. Now he not only got to have his liberty taken, he gets the stigma of being "crazy."

I can't speak to the safeguards in many states. I can only speak to the safeguards in Arkansas, and to a lesser in-depth knowlegde, Missouri. That being said, the process of deprivation of liberty within the civil system is generally limited to mental health issues (we don't have debtors prisons), and the system by and large works. Those who require help, for the benefit of society at large, are compelled to get said help. Whether that compliance is by force of arms, or voluntary, is entirely up to the subject.

Now, as to property seizure, that is wholly defined within the civil system. There are multiple reasons you can have your property seized, and in some cases, never returned, that have nothing to do with either criminal acts or mental health issues. And again, these reasons are subject to both legal and constitutional regulation.

You try to get around the fact that you're essentially arresting people who've broken no law by claiming to be working in their best interest. Am I permitted to seize people under force of arms because I think it's "in their best interest" or "I'm trying to help"? No, I am not. So why are you?

Why am I? Because the legislature of the State of Arkansas has decided that it is in the best interests of society at large to compel certain persons to have treatment for their mental diseases or defects. And let's be honest here... it is in the best interests of both the subject and society.

Moreover, when I am issued an order by a Judge, I comply with it. If I have an issue with said order, I appeal it. Refusal to comply would be both a violation of my oath, and detrimental to the part time job that I genuinely enjoy.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:06 PM
you are always entitled to be represented.

In that circumstance, asking for a lawyer would be interpreted as a form of paranoia and possibly combative. At best it would be considered uncooperative.

Admitting you are under psychiatric care after buying firearms? Good advice comrade.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:10 PM
Or an equally interesting question: After voluntarily being hauled into 'assessment' at gunpoint if he had told the agent of the state that he refused to speak without advice from a lawyer and for said lawyer to be present?

Then he gets a lawyer that he gets to pay for. Currently, there is no constitutional provision that allows for the state to pay for a lawyer on the behalf of an indigent defendant in a civil proceeding.

That being said, that may soon change....

http://www.civilrighttocounsel.org/

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 02:15 PM
Moreover, when I am issued an order by a Judge, I comply with it. If I have an issue with said order, I appeal it. Refusal to comply would be both a violation of my oath, and detrimental to the part time job that I genuinely enjoy.

If your law requires a formal civil commitment order, signed by an actual judge or magistrate, before anyone shows up with guns, then I have much less of an issue with it. What I'm talking about are the statutes, like California's and Oregon's, which permit a "mere" 72 hour detention at a psych ward before ANY judge looks at the case.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:15 PM
Hi BlisteringSilence

Moreover, when I am issued an order by a Judge, I comply with it. If I have an issue with said order, I appeal it. Refusal to comply would be both a violation of my oath, and detrimental to the part time job that I genuinely enjoy.

Thank you for your honesty and candor. Diogenes would be proud. :)

Whether that compliance is by force of arms, or voluntary, is entirely up to the subject

Just for the sake of accuracy could you agree that the word 'peacefully' would be better than 'voluntary?' I don't know about Arkansas but in Indiana when there is even the hint of coercion a person is under duress and by definition cannot volunteer.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
In that circumstance, asking for a lawyer would be interpreted as a form of paranoia

Not so much.

and possibly combative.

Again, not so much.

At best it would be considered uncooperative.

I'm with you here. But your requesting representation counsel is well within your legal rights, and no reputable courts system would interpret that action as anything other than it's primae facia appearance.

Admitting you are under psychiatric care after buying firearms? Good advice comrade.

There are, literally, tens of millions of people currently under psychiatric care in this country, and many of them are firearms owners. Is this concerning? I would argue that it depends on the nature of the issue they are working through.

An uncontrolled paranoid schizophrenic with homicidal ideations? Yeah, I'd be concerned about that.

Someone in treatment for alcohol abuse? Not so much.

You are attempting to paint all mental diseases with the same paintbrush. I refuse to do so.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 02:19 PM
Admitting you are under psychiatric care after buying firearms? Good advice comrade.

do you have some experience you would like to share that would alter what happened to chris? or a couple others? the magic words are involuntary commitment. as to the lawyer demonstrating paranoia? do you have some reference where that happened? hopefully not infowars? apropos to nothin general but their own particular cases both the guys i dealt with who got lawyers were and still are diagnosed as paranoid the one girl has not been. only one was either combative or uncooperative. again ymmv but we won't know unless you tell us.
i don't usually deal with women i pass them on to some ladies i know

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:23 PM
You are attempting to paint all mental diseases with the same paintbrush.

Actually no, I'm talking about the tenor of a state appointed social worker in the process of a mental hygiene assessment. Again, my experience with this sort of thing is Ohio where the social worker is not necessarily a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist. Usually a ASW in the employ of the state.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 02:29 PM
What I'm talking about are the statutes, like California's and Oregon's, which permit a "mere" 72 hour detention at a psych ward before ANY judge looks at the case.


72 hours is barely enough time to settle a disturbed person down and quite often a severely disturbed person will run through a number of the 72 hour holds and releases before a judge can be persuaded that there is a real issue that warrants a longer stay. of course if they hurt someone bad or do something truly criminal that gets em in faster

the average stay for the guys i bring in is 5 days and its usualy that short cause their insurance won't pay for more

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:30 PM
do you have some experience you would like to share that would alter what happened to chris?

Six months employment/internship at a West Lafayette mental hospital. One year employment as an RN at a hospital at Hopkinsville KY as well as another hospital in Columbus Ohio.

Since we are asking for quals now... do you have an experience that shows a reasonable person facing a SWAT team is not under significant duress to make a voluntary decision to comply?

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:33 PM
If your law requires a formal civil commitment order, signed by an actual judge or magistrate, before anyone shows up with guns, then I have much less of an issue with it. What I'm talking about are the statutes, like California's and Oregon's, which permit a "mere" 72 hour detention at a psych ward before ANY judge looks at the case.

For a case where I KNOW I am taking someone from their home for civil commitment, that is the case.

Now, if I go out to a home pursuant to a welfare check (common call: 911 gets a call from the daughter stating that Mom called her to say goodbye and that Mom is going to kill herself), I have to let the circumstances of each individual call guide my actions. If I have RAS that Mom is going to be violent, against herself or others, then I can place her into custody and deliver her for an evaluation and the potential of up to 72 hours observation before she goes before a judge. This 72 hours is actual clock hours, and it exists so that if she is taken into custody on Saturday at 0100, she can meet with the judge first thing in the morning on Monday.

Moreover, if a physician finds that Mom is not a danger to herself or others, he can release her at any time.

That's what happened to the guy in the OP.

Just for the sake of accuracy could you agree that the word 'peacefully' would be better than 'voluntary?' I don't know about Arkansas but in Indiana when there is even the hint of coercion a person is under duress and by definition cannot volunteer.

Peacefully and voluntarily are two different things. For example:

If I have a valid commitment order, all it states is that the subject must appear before the issuing judge at a stated place and time. It's the mental health version of a subpoena. My job is to get the person there. From there, the subject can volunteer to enter treatment, resulting in the voiding of the commitment order, or he can refuse, at which point in time he is committed against his will.

So, I would agree that the subject's agreement to accept my free ride to meet with the judge is not voluntary any more than agreeing to follow a subpoena.

That being said, I prepare for every service of a commitment order to be aggressive, and am pleased when they go peacefully. The day I start looking at their service as routine is the day that something will go very, very badly. And I need look no further than one of my fellow officers to see how badly. The scars will always be there.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:35 PM
Hi BlisteringSilence.

There are, literally, tens of millions of people currently under psychiatric care in this country, and many of them are firearms owners. Is this concerning? I would argue that it depends on the nature of the issue they are working through.

I agree, but in the situation under discussion. The person involved has been put under watch because of possible death threats made. While the person under care for depression over divorce/death in the family or substance abuse would not raise eyebrows a possible serial killer with previous psych care would be of a concern.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 02:36 PM
http://olrs.ohio.gov/other/ohio-involuntary-civil-commit-process.pdf


so what did you see experience that would lead you to make the statement about seeking mental health care and firearms?

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 02:38 PM
Actually no, I'm talking about the tenor of a state appointed social worker in the process of a mental hygiene assessment. Again, my experience with this sort of thing is Ohio where the social worker is not necessarily a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist. Usually a ASW in the employ of the state.

I wish like hell we had enough social workers that they would accompany us on the service of these orders.

But we don't.

do you have an experience that shows a reasonable person facing a SWAT team is not under significant duress to make a voluntary decision to comply?

Said person is absolutely under duress to comply. But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject. Rather, they had an order to take a subject in for a mental evaluation, and the subject was known to be armed. If they had no call history with the subject, you go with the worst case scenario, and are pleased as punch when things go swimmingly. The ultimate goal of the officers involved is to go home safely.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:43 PM
If I have a valid commitment order, all it states is that the subject must appear before the issuing judge at a stated place and time. It's the mental health version of a subpoena. My job is to get the person there. From there, the subject can volunteer to enter treatment, resulting in the voiding of the commitment order, or he can refuse, at which point in time he is committed against his will.

Again, the bone of contention, or at least mine, happens at the person's home. The person goes to his door to find an LEO backed up by SWAT. This person did not go with officer friendly voluntarily but under duress. The idea that either police or police apologist could describe such as a voluntary act smacks far too close to Orwell to suit my sensitivities.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 02:50 PM
But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Or if you prefer, when the reasonable person looks out his door and sees men with automatic weapons and SWAT gear the reasonable assumption is that they intend you severe bodily harm if you sneeze unexpectedly.

If they had no call history with the subject, you go with the worst case scenario

That in itself smacks of paranoia.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 02:58 PM
one persons paranoia is anothers experience.... sometimes

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:05 PM
one persons paranoia is anothers experience.... sometimes

Be careful, that blade cuts both ways. In most states the murder of a citizen is not a capital offense. In all states killing a state employee on the job is a capital offense. A citizen killed by a state employee very rarely sees the inside of a courtroom.

A SWAT team and an officer at the door v. a citizen. Who has the lesser consequence if they start shooting?

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 03:06 PM
But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Or if you prefer, when the reasonable person looks out his door and sees men with automatic weapons and SWAT gear the reasonable assumption is that they intend you severe bodily harm if you sneeze unexpectedly.

It may not make a difference to the subject, but it sure as hell makes a difference to the officers. It's all a matter of perspective.

If they had no call history with the subject, you go with the worst case scenario That in itself smacks of paranoia.

Here I totally disagree. Prudence != paranoia.

I know this is difficult, as you have no law enforcement experience (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic or offensive way, simply a practical one), but try to look at it from the police department's point of view:

These are the facts that you have been provided. You have no way to judge the accuracy, you must take them on face value.


There is a male subject in the home.
Said male subject is out of work to do some sort of conflict.
Said male subject has had an affiant file an affidavit that he is a danger to either himself or others.
Said male subject is armed, and has purchased several weapons in the preceding several weeks.
You have an order to present said subject for evaluation at your local hospital.


Of course you're going to deploy SWAT. There is no way to know what kind of mental state the subject is in. You DO know that he's armed. Your goal is to get him in for evaluation, as safely as possible for the following people in the following order:

The citizens that live around said subject.
The officers involved.
The subject himself.


You can call it paranoid, that's your right. But until you've been shot at by an armed subject with mental disease upon whom you are trying to serve paperwork (in my case, a child support order), I would argue that it's somewhat presumptive to criticize the actions of the officers involved in this situation.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 03:14 PM
he assessed the situation dealt with it went to see the docs was home before lunch and got his guns delivered back to him.
He did what the defenders of Corregidor did. He surrendered in the face of overwhelming force. Does that mean they WANTED to go on the Bataan Death March? Does that mean that what he did was any more voluntary?

Just because you've misbehaved and become used to the treatment that elicits from the authorities doesn't mean that anyone else has a positive view of that experience, especially if they did nothing to warrant it. And so far you've shown NOTHING to demonstrate that it was warranted in this case.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:17 PM
* There is a male subject in the home.
* Said male subject is out of work to do some sort of conflict.
* Said male subject has had an affiant file an affidavit that he is a danger to either himself or others.
* Said male subject is armed, and has purchased several weapons in the preceding several weeks.
* You have an order to present said subject for evaluation at your local hospital.


OK, an armed male is a concern, including those on the SWAT team and the guy at the front door.
The duress of his unemployment is at best hearsay. Should a civilian react with threats of armed force with even twice the reason given s/he would in trouble plenty. People do not suddenly become violent. I've worked enough emergency rooms to have learned to sense who will react badly and who is going to take treatment without causing problems. And in Kentucky I saw far more of the lower/lawless segment of society in a week than the average LEO in a month. Yet with such people involved under the stresses they were suffering in the year there was only one violent incident and it was quickly and easily pacified without the use of automatic weapons.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:19 PM
my best call was at 3 am he called to tell me he had just attacked his wife and had stopped taking his meds 2 weeks ago been drinking and taking pills about a week. my wife was 3 weeks from giving birth. he did not get invited over i met him at waffle house and took hinm to er then treatment. they can be tricky he tried to tell the security guard i was the patient he was visiting and to be careful i was paranoid liable to say anything. thankfully he forgot which of us had the wrist band on or i mighta got a vacation. its a standing joke that if i'm completely candid on the intake questions i get an instant 3 day weekend.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 03:22 PM
Said person is absolutely under duress to comply. But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject.
Did he have the right to say "no" and remain, unmolested?

If not, the encounter was "duress" personified.

The man was "coerced".
The man was subject to "duress"

Anything else is dishonest.

If he in fact made credible, immediate threats to others or himself, or he acted in some way which indicated TO A REASONABLE PERSON that he was a danger to himself or others, the actions taken were likely reasonable.

If neither of those things were true, he was deprived of his liberty and threatened with deadly force to no purpose and he has every reason to go after everyone involved. No doubt, some will dismiss what was done to him and his reputation because only "a little" of his liberty and dignity were taken away. They're the same sort who defend the Japanese internment.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:23 PM
why do folks think its the "lower" segment thats lawless?(how does one define lower?)
the guy i mentioned above has a phd a ts clearance and a 160 plus iq hes the one i advised how to kill himself a few months later.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:24 PM
its a standing joke that if i'm completely candid on the intake questions i get an instant 3 day weekend.
OK, I cannot top that.

There was a prisoner that slipped his cuff, sneaked passed his guard and the only place he could find to hide was a drawer in the morgue not realizing the drawers locked.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 03:25 PM
why do folks think its the "lower" segment thats lawless?(how does one define lower?)
Why do you think that the erroneous (and or malicious) deprivation of someone's liberty and the impugning of their mental status are inconsequential? Remember again, there are people who work hard to AVOID being "in the system".

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:26 PM
you just topped it what was his crime? and how long was he in the drawer? bet jail was looking good after that

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:29 PM
Remember again, there are people who work hard to AVOID being "in the system".

there are others who do just the opposite they push their luck in real life as well as the net try to force the edge of the envelope. new a wannabe like that would always mutter threats when he was denied his way. he ended up on his back with a gun pressed to his forehead by a coworker who took threats seriously. he blubbered about he was sorry he didn't mean it but i was pretty sure the old man was gonna kill him

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:37 PM
why do folks think its the "lower" segment thats lawless?(how does one define lower?)

I do not make such assumptions, statistically more crime occurs in lower income areas with a large percentage of drug users. Every statistical set will have it's 'blips.' For example, a certain Senator from Mass put his car in a river while driving intoxicated then attempted to cover up the fact even though a death was involved. This is not to say every Senator, drives drunk and drowns his girlfriend. The Indiana officer I mentioned earlier got bored one night and shot up his patrol car then attempted to blame 'roving kids.' This is not to say I believe every bored LEO is going to take it out on an innocent automobile.

However, when you work in an area that tends to have a high crime rate. It's reasonable to assume there are criminals in the area. When that area has a high rate of drug use, it's reasonable to assume there will be patients suffering from HIV and hepatitis.

However, assuming a person that has never resorted to violence before is suddenly going to start shooting LEO's for knocking on the door it is not reasonable to assume he is going to start.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:41 PM
you just topped it what was his crime? and how long was he in the drawer?

IIRC rape. Since we don't really know when he escaped it's hard to say exactly how long. Security and the Corrections guy searched for him about four hours. He was missing long enough that the local LEO's were called out.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 03:42 PM
here are others who do just the opposite they push their luck in real life as well as the net try to force the edge of the envelope.
And is it appropriate to treat EVERYONE that way?

And what do you think somebody who DOESN'T do that and is treated that way should do?

Again, we don't REALLY know what the subject did or didn't do, but we've seen repeated assertions that what was done to him was "voluntary", etc. even if he DIDN'T do anything to warrant it.

If he DIDN'T do anything to justify what was done to him, should he NOT take great exception to it and take appropriate retaliatory action in the courts? Or should he just "let it go" because only "a little" of his liberty and dignity were taken from him?

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 03:48 PM
assuming he did it 4 hours was not long enough. i'd wanna figure how long he could survive take em out 15 mins early . be better if he hid in a creamatory....

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:51 PM
If he DIDN'T do anything to justify what was done to him, should he NOT take great exception to it and take appropriate retaliatory action in the courts? Or should he just "let it go" because only "a little" of his liberty and dignity were taken from him?

Such a thing would be a personal choice, don't you think? Even the reactions here are varied. You are indignant and rightly so. I see it as a sick joke and example of how our culture tends to over react then justify the overreaction. Others, of course, see it as a necessary means of providing a peaceful society. In a way I hope the victim chooses not to sue as it's going to effect his neighbors more than the ones that inflicted the atrocity on his person and property.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 03:53 PM
OK, an armed male is a concern, including those on the SWAT team and the guy at the front door.
The duress of his unemployment is at best hearsay.
Doesn't matter. While hearsay has no place in the courtroom, any intel one acquires before entering a potential armed confrontation is holy writ.
Should a civilian react with threats of armed force with even twice the reason given s/he would in trouble plenty.
Agreed.
People do not suddenly become violent. I've worked enough emergency rooms to have learned to sense who will react badly and who is going to take treatment without causing problems.
Two issues with this:

acute schizophrenic break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia)
An ER is (despite the exterior appearances) a nice, controlled environment. A person's home is anything but.

And in Kentucky I saw far more of the lower/lawless segment of society in a week than the average LEO in a month. Yet with such people involved under the stresses they were suffering in the year there was only one violent incident and it was quickly and easily pacified without the use of automatic weapons.
I have worked in both Emergency Departments and in Law Enforcement, and I heartily disagree with your assertion about the lawless segment of society. In general, 90% of my calls deal with that segment. In the ER, that is nowhere near the same.

Also, the ER in which I worked required everyone who came in under their own power to go through a metal detector, and we still managed to have three or four patients/family members threaten staff with weapons (mostly knives with a few guns thrown in for good measure) every year.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 03:57 PM
4 hours was not long enough.

Considering the hospital was locked down for those four hours and patient care was compromised I have to say it was far too long. I'm just thankful we didn't have any deaths during that period and one of the attendants used that particular drawer. Although I'm told he was making enough noise it was obvious it was occupied.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:05 PM
acute schizophrenic break

While it's true I slept though most of abnormal Psych I recall that such a break without prior symptoms is so rare to be nearly unheard of.

While I agree a hospital is a controlled environment, you can only take the incidental weapons. One thing my small experience has taught me is the person that intends to do violence is quite inventive finding the means to do so.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 04:06 PM
dealing with someone having any form of psychotic break is interesting.schizophrenic keeps you on your toes. there are lots of sarcastic remarks made vis a vis why i get the crazy ones. one thing its done is make me believe in proper medications and i stress proper

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:09 PM
dealing with someone having any form of psychotic break

Again, such things (thankfully) are beyond both my experience and training. Can you agree that such a break will have warning signs beforehand? I seem to recall such things tend to run in families but not whether it's nature or nurture. In which case I'm in trouble as my Grandfather, father, uncle and brother were all Airborne. There has to be something seriously wrong with people that jump out of airplanes.

Hokkmike
March 15, 2010, 04:13 PM
"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.

I don't see any legal justification for this.

opr1945
March 15, 2010, 04:14 PM
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you.


Another view point " I get laid off from my job, unfairly I think. I decide to buy a gun or two to add to my collection. I go home and at 5 am on my way to the bathroom I look out my window and see the street blocked off, police cars everywhere, police in swat gear, automatic weapons pointed in my direction. I am told I can volunteer to come out or they will come in to get me. My reaction is........."

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 04:17 PM
i think some folks learn to hide symptoms. and there is always the fun that comes when they decide to stop taking their meds. i went to court last year with one who tried to go over the whitehouse fence from the treasury dept side. walked past the lil guard both at treas and told the guard he was gonna set bush straight. he met a couple very nice secret service guys when he went over. got the commitment and when he was a good boy all the charges went away. they aren't looking to jack up someone with problems they just want em to get help

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:20 PM
Hi Hokkmike

I don't see any legal justification for this.

To give the devil his due, they had a situation covered by the state code. Performing that duty at a time when the streets were empty and the victim would be groggy from sleep was as close to responsible as anything in the entire situation.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:22 PM
there is always the fun that comes when they decide to stop taking their meds.

Would it be reasonable to assume that not taking the meds would be a sign predicting the break?

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:26 PM
Doesn't matter. While hearsay has no place in the courtroom, any intel one acquires before entering a potential armed confrontation is holy writ.

So, if there was a rumor the guy had hand grenades ROE would be siege mentality? Common sense tells us that people react to danger with fight or flight. Taking rumor as gospel gives you a 50/50 chance of making it a self fulfilling fantasy.

JohnBT
March 15, 2010, 04:27 PM
"This 72 hours is actual clock hours, and it exists so that if she is taken into custody on Saturday at 0100, she can meet with the judge first thing in the morning on Monday."

It also gives them time to sober them up and flush the drugs out their system. A lot of folks self medicate with drugs and alcohol and you can't evaluate their mental health status until they straighten up a little. :)


- 35 years in the business of working with folks with severe disabilities since finishing grad school in 1973.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 04:37 PM
Would it be reasonable to assume that not taking the meds would be a sign predicting the break?

A break is just that, an immediate descent from reality to delusions. While there may be symptoms beforehand, one cannot count on their appearance. However, one of the common stressors for said break is the loss of a job.

Also, when I refer to the break, that's the initial onset of the disease. Those who are known schizophrenics are more often than not known to local law enforcement.

Another view point " I get laid off from my job, unfairly I think. I decide to buy a gun or two to add to my collection. I go home and at 5 am on my way to the bathroom I look out my window and see the street blocked off, police cars everywhere, police in swat gear, automatic weapons pointed in my direction. I am told I can volunteer to come out or they will come in to get me. My reaction is........."

Me personally? I would slowly exit my home with my hands as high as they go, and comply with every shouted order. The place to dispute that kind of action is NOT my front yard with firearms pointed in my direction.

I don't see any legal justification for this.
Legal justification for what? The use of the SWAT team? Legally speaking, there is no distinction whatsoever between the deployment of a SWAT team and the dispatch of a single officer. Their tactics and training, as well as mode of action might be different, but in the eyes of the law, they are identical.

So, if there was a rumor the guy had hand grenades ROE would be siege mentality? Common sense tells us that people react to danger with fight or flight. Taking rumor as gospel gives you a 50/50 chance of making it a self fulfilling fantasy.

Rumor and intel are two different things. If I had a report from a CI or another agency that someone had purchased hand grenades, we would approach his house with a plan for everything going as badly as possible, ie he starts lobbing live grenades at our personnel.

If he doesn't, that's great, and everyone goes home safely. If he does, we have prepared for that eventuality, and are able to respond appropriately.

In this case, they had intel that he had purchased several new firearms. Regardless of his INTENT with the purchase, it is only reasonable and prudent to assume while worse-casing the scenario that he would use them to attack you. Then, should he comply peacefully, everyone gets to go home safely. Should he attack, you have prepared a plan, and can execute it.

It also gives them time to sober them up and flush the drugs out their system. A lot of folks self medicate with drugs and alcohol and you can't evaluate their mental health status until they straighten up a little.

- 35 years in the business of working with folks with severe disabilities since finishing grad school in 1973.

Very, very true sir.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 04:44 PM
If I had a report from a CI or another agency that someone had purchased hand grenades,

And the White County Indiana sheriff took the rumor of hand grenades and surrounded an empty house for six hours. Calling in Tippecanoe county's 'bomb robot.' The county sheriff has yet to disclose the cost of that exercise to the taxpayers of that county. The person they were looking for was talked into being taken to the jail by an (unarmed) off-duty environmental officer six hours later.

All the tear gas and cop mentality in the world cannot out do a man with a modicum of common sense.

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 04:49 PM
Thinking back on the last time I got laid off, in 2005, one of the first things I did was buy a firearm. Bad financial decision, I know, but it was something to take my mind off my troubles. I'm laid off with limited savings but hey, new gun and lots of free time! The antis, and apparently a lot of cops, view such decisions as preparation for mass murder or suicide, but for the true gun nut it's just the opposite. New guns cheer us up! And heck if I want to kill myself all I have to do is walk a few miles in any direction and Alaska will be happy to oblige me. Waters so cold they kill faster than an acid bath and cliffs more than high enough to end a man. If I want revenge on the boss, I just invite him fishing and sink the skiff. At least we get to die fishing. Why ruin a perfectly good gun?

To find myself surrounded by SWAT and forced off to the psychs because of the irrational fears of the authorities would really ruin the mood.

ArfinGreebly
March 15, 2010, 04:51 PM
Now, as to property seizure, that is wholly defined within the civil system. There are multiple reasons you can have your property seized, and in some cases, never returned, that have nothing to do with either criminal acts or mental health issues. And again, these reasons are subject to both legal and constitutional regulation.

I find myself unable to process this.

Unless we're talking about "eminent domain" procedures.

And, no, I don't want to engage in an extended discussion of it. I'm just looking for clarification.

Cosmoline
March 15, 2010, 04:55 PM
The authorities can confine you if you're a "danger to yourself or others" without trial or charges. They can also sue your stuff in rem and seize it. The intended targets are drug dealers, but corrupt departments have long used these methods to just take people's loose cash even on traffic stops.

rainbowbob
March 15, 2010, 05:17 PM
...don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away


Apparently not...

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 05:22 PM
And the White County Indiana sheriff took the rumor of hand grenades and surrounded an empty house for six hours. Calling in Tippecanoe county's 'bomb robot.' The county sheriff has yet to disclose the cost of that exercise to the taxpayers of that county. The person they were looking for was talked into being taken to the jail by an (unarmed) off-duty environmental officer six hours later.

All the tear gas and cop mentality in the world cannot out do a man with a modicum of common sense.

OK, how about a couple of other hypothetical outcomes:

The man with the grenades is preparing a terrorist attack against his fellow citizens. He goes to a shopping mall or large sporting event and starts lobbing them into crowds, killing hundreds.
The man with the grenades is convinced that the government is out to get him, and uses them against a courthouse or government office building.
The man with the grenades is frustrated with a bank about to foreclose on his property, so he attacks a branch of said bank with said grenades.
The man with the grenades is a drug dealer, and is using them to booby trap a section of national forest where he grows pot. Hikers stumble on his patch and get blown up.
You send a pair of officers to said grenade-owner's home, and he lobs grenades at them, killing them.
You send a pair of officers to said grenade-owner's home, and he's not there, but has booby-trapped the home, and the entry team gets blown up.


These are the kinds of things that go through the minds of law enforcement when you hear that someone has grenades. You plan for the worst, and hope for the best. If it's a dry hole, you count it as good training.

I find myself unable to process this.

Unless we're talking about "eminent domain" procedures.

And, no, I don't want to engage in an extended discussion of it. I'm just looking for clarification.


Eminent domain, seizure pursuant to a civil action requiring repayment, seizure of goods purchased through ill-gotten gains, seizure of property pursuant to tax or other liens, foreclosure, seizure of property in lieu of restitution, etc. There are actually all kinds of ways that one can legally seize the goods of another, they're just exceptionally rare here in the United States. However, remember that our legal system (with the exception of Louisiana) is based on English common law, and unless overruled through legislation or a court case here, the good Judge Black's book is law.

That being said, due process is still necessary. Which is the primary reason the above cases are still so rare.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 05:25 PM
Unless we're talking about "eminent domain" procedures.

With all due respect sir, such language is not necessary.

DETROIT
March 15, 2010, 05:30 PM
Wow talk about a civil rights violation.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 05:34 PM
The man with the grenades is preparing a terrorist attack against his fellow citizens. He goes to a shopping mall or large sporting event and starts lobbing them into crowds, killing hundreds.

Had there been evidence of grenades that might be a consideration. All they had was an unsubstantiated rumor by a known gossip. Again, if this grenade intel had been so convincing, why does that sheriff's office refuse to discuss the cost of the exercise. Several of the property owners (You remember them, your toys come out of their property taxes) have estimated it to be in the range of $100K. All because of the remote chance of the possibility the suspect might have the items and be of the mindset to use them.

Since my family corporation owns land in that particular county and the property tax is being raised, partially for the sheriff's office 'caution.' We have the right to know just what criteria was used to sanction that expense. "Just wanting to get home that night", don't cut when it comes out of our bottom line needlessly.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 06:05 PM
how many folks responded to run the tab up to 100 k?

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 06:20 PM
Had there been evidence of grenades that might be a consideration. All they had was an unsubstantiated rumor by a known gossip.

Based on? Sources of intel are closely guarded secrets.

Again, if this grenade intel had been so convincing, why does that sheriff's office refuse to discuss the cost of the exercise.

Dunno. Ask them. All of our financial records are subject to open records and FOIA.

Several of the property owners (You remember them, your toys come out of their property taxes) have estimated it to be in the range of $100K.

Again, based on what? If they already had the equipment, or borrowed it, or got it through mutual aid, I'd guess that estimate is pretty high. Like, $95K to $98K high.

All because of the remote chance of the possibility the suspect might have the items and be of the mindset to use them.

And what would your reaction have been if said subject had the grenades and the will to use them, and your sheriff's office declined to investigate the situation because the intel wasn't good enough? What kind of unholy fit would you have thrown if it had been your kid that got killed?

Not to hold your feet to the fire or anything, but you can't have it both ways. Hindsight is 20/20, and you're playing an excellent armchair quarterback. Want to make the tough decisions? Run for Sheriff. It's a really, really crappy job.

Since my family corporation owns land in that particular county and the property tax is being raised, partially for the sheriff's office 'caution.' We have the right to know just what criteria was used to sanction that expense.

You probably can FOIA your department's policy and procedure manual. But, if what you're looking for is the actual intel, good luck. We don't release it in any sort of meaningful form until someone goes to trial. That's the confidential part of confidential informant.

"Just wanting to get home that night", don't cut when it comes out of our bottom line needlessly.

To you, maybe. I will submit that the officers involved take a somewhat different view.

Officers'Wife
March 15, 2010, 06:26 PM
To you, maybe. I will submit that the officers involved take a somewhat different view.

True, but it's not their money they are wasting with their poor judgment.

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 06:28 PM
In a way I hope the victim chooses not to sue as it's going to effect his neighbors more than the ones that inflicted the atrocity on his person and property.
Keep in mind that I'm NOT assuming that this was NOT justified. I'm just not assuming that it WAS.

If he DIDN'T do anything to justify this, what would you have him do instead of suing everybody within 16" naval rifle range? He was harmed. He was both deprived of his liberty and made to look mentally unstable. If he didn't do anything wrong, what recourse do you offer him, or is he entitled to no recourse at all? An "apology" is utterly worthless in such a case, and no doubt completely insincere. Of course he probably wouldn't get one any way, because it could be considered an admission.

If it's NOT his fault, why should HE suffer the consequences of somebody ELSE'S actions?

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2010, 06:37 PM
i want a suit so that what transpired becomes public record we'll see if he wants that

Deanimator
March 15, 2010, 06:44 PM
i want a suit so that what transpired becomes public record we'll see if he wants that
If he doesn't want a suit, it may because he precipitated the whole thing.

Of course it's pretty much SOP for PDs to resist releasing videotapes, 911 recordings, etc. which show incompetence or criminal acts by their personnel. The Chicago PD fought tooth and nail to keep from having the videos from the shooting of Michael Pleasance released to the public.

BlisteringSilence
March 15, 2010, 06:45 PM
"Just wanting to get home that night", don't cut when it comes out of our bottom line needlessly.To you, maybe. I will submit that the officers involved take a somewhat different view.
True, but it's not their money they are wasting with their poor judgment.


Is it better to expend money than human lives? Human blood? We've now left the realm of the physical and entered that of the philosophical.

I would argue that it's better to "waste" (and really waste doesn't apply here, as the exercise was excellent training, and there are lessons to be learned and applied) the money and the time than to run the chance, however small you may perceive it to be, that someone be hurt or killed, especially when your department obviously has the means and equipment necessary to prevent said injuries or death(s).

You still haven't answered any of my question(s):

And what would your reaction have been if said subject had the grenades and the will to use them, and your sheriff's office declined to investigate the situation because the intel wasn't good enough? What kind of unholy fit would you have thrown if it had been your kid that got killed?
Again, based on what? If they already had the equipment, or borrowed it, or got it through mutual aid, I'd guess that estimate is pretty high. Like, $95K to $98K high.

SharpsDressedMan
March 15, 2010, 07:06 PM
BlisteringSilence, you keep referring to a court order as solid basis for committment, etc. We understand that. So far, there has been no mention of that with this case. You also mention the many times you have coaxed the party into voluntarily going along with a mental appraisal, temporary custody, etc. The question remains regarding what is legal, and what is proper, when there is NO court order, and no trickery, and the subject is NOT going to voluntarily go into mental assessment at the request of the police. I am sometimes unclear as to who is or was a police officer here, or what point of view they are coming from. I used to be a cop, and my rule was golden. I tried very hard not to do to anyone what I would not want done to me. This situation would have been easy from the start. No validated complaint, no court order (so far), and no call for tactical response: no reason to deprive anyone of liberty or demean them by infering mental incompetence. If I really felt like a threat from an armed crazy was possible, it would have been better to conduct a stakeout on the guy, monitor his actions like a drug surveillance, and intercept when it started to look bad. Going to a drug dealers house and asking him if he's thinking about selling drugs (about as successful as asking this guy to take a mental eval) isn't as effective as watching, recording, and catching him in the act, or gathering intel and getting a warrant. I've brought it up before. If two officers get into a fight, or even an argument in the locker room, should the supervisor place them into protective custody, relieve them of their weapons, and call for a psych eval on both of them? It could easily be done, but wouldn't look too good in their files. Where do we draw the line? Now this guy has a police incident report on him and he hasn't done anything..yet...

Justin
March 15, 2010, 07:13 PM
Sorry folks, but at this point this one's generating a lot more heat than light.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oregon Cops confiscate man's guns: he wants them back!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!