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

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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,

Click to expand...

"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.

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

was only held a couple hours

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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?

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

he assessed the situation dealt with it went to see the docs was home before lunch

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

A soldier is barred from such action under posse comitatus.

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)?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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

SharpsDressedMan said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Cosmoline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cosmoline said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Cosmoline said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

you are always entitled to be represented.

Click to expand...

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.

Officers'Wife said:

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?

Click to expand...

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/

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Officers'Wife said:

In that circumstance, asking for a lawyer would be interpreted as a form of paranoia

Click to expand...

Not so much.

Officers'Wife said:

and possibly combative.

Click to expand...

Again, not so much.

Officers'Wife said:

At best it would be considered uncooperative.

Click to expand...

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.

Officers'Wife said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

You are attempting to paint all mental diseases with the same paintbrush.

Click to expand...

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.