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

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

do you have some experience you would like to share that would alter what happened to chris?

Click to expand...

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?

Cosmoline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Officers'Wife said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Officers'Wife said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

But we don't.

Officers'Wife said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

That in itself smacks of paranoia.

one persons paranoia is anothers experience.... sometimes

one persons paranoia is anothers experience.... sometimes

Click to expand...

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?

Officers'Wife said:

me said:

But I can reasonably assure you that SWAT's deployment objective was not to cause duress to the subject.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Officers'Wife said:

me said:

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

Click to expand...

That in itself smacks of paranoia.

Click to expand...

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:

1. The citizens that live around said subject.
2. The officers involved.
3. 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.

he assessed the situation dealt with it went to see the docs was home before lunch and got his guns delivered back to him.

Click to expand...

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.

* 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

its a standing joke that if i'm completely candid on the intake questions i get an instant 3 day weekend.

Click to expand...

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.

why do folks think its the "lower" segment thats lawless?(how does one define lower?)

Click to expand...

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".

you just topped it what was his crime? and how long was he in the drawer? bet jail was looking good after that

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

why do folks think its the "lower" segment thats lawless?(how does one define lower?)

Click to expand...

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.

you just topped it what was his crime? and how long was he in the drawer?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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....

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?

Click to expand...

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.