Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal.
- Thread starter harmonic
- Start date
- Status
hankdatank1362
Member
Good points made against my arguement by stating that he already hd enough guns to go postal... Why would he need to buy more? I hadn't considered that.
This thread has given me a good idea for a poll. If I can remember to put it up tonight that is... Right now I'm on my BlackBerry Storm, which is not conducive to fat thumbs.
This thread has given me a good idea for a poll. If I can remember to put it up tonight that is... Right now I'm on my BlackBerry Storm, which is not conducive to fat thumbs.
hankdatank1362
Member
Harmonic, awesome post. I'm right there with ya: psych was my minor too. *quacks like duck*
What is the maximum number of guns you need to "go postal"?
It's an idiotic argument.
And for those questioning probable cause, he hasn't been arrested, nor charged with a crime.
But obviously there must have been enough there for a protective custody order. What he did do to promote that? I dunno. No one here does. But I don't have enough info to say cops abused their authority. Neither does anyone else.
Deanimator
Member
When I was laid off in '94, the first thing I did was buy a friend's stock blued Springfield M1911A1. I wouldn't have a ball gun otherwise. I didn't shoot anybody with it.
If the cops in this case dotted all of their is and crossed all of their ts, and or he made threats that a reasonable person would have perceived as credible, the guy's out of luck.
If this was a CYA by a bedwetting, duplicitous employer or the if the cops thought they'd mess with a guy who just lost his job, people need to be made to suffer. Not having money to pay their mortgages would be a good start.
If the cops in this case dotted all of their is and crossed all of their ts, and or he made threats that a reasonable person would have perceived as credible, the guy's out of luck.
If this was a CYA by a bedwetting, duplicitous employer or the if the cops thought they'd mess with a guy who just lost his job, people need to be made to suffer. Not having money to pay their mortgages would be a good start.
On the contrary. He was released within hours.
Obvious to who? Do you have more information other than the article? Cause it could also be the case that Medford, which has turned into a liberal hole populated by moonbats from California, might just think they have a right to impose their "ideas" upon the peons.
Read my post above. A citizen of Medford said the guy's boss gets paranoid when he fires somebody and thus reported the guy. Then the cops act.
Real tight little corporation they've got going out there.
Is there anyone here who would not agree that a truly psychotic person who is a danger to themselves or others should not be given immediate treatment?
I think you would all agree to that. The remaining question is how to identify those people. It is NOT an exact science. People do not come marked "psychotic" and "non-psychotic".
Psychotic people are not able to interpret reality and separate it from delusion. Truly psychotic people hear voices, etc. I've spoken with a few, and they are truly out there. You have to ask a few questions sometimes to get them to reveal it. One fellow said the (stereo) speakers were telling him what to do. When he walked out of the house, he said everyone on the street was staring at him -- everywhere.
1% of the population is schizophrenic (roughly). There is a genetic part to it. There is also an environmental part. The psychotic "break" may often occur at age 18 or so (when stresses mount) but not always.
So we as a society have to find ways to do the best we can to pick out the people who are "nuts" and protect the rest of us from them. I am not an expert on this, but in my state, a person can be taken for evaluation and treatment for a certain number of hours/days, which allows (but does not guarantee) that we will make the correct decisions. This is human beings trying to make correct decisions; there are going to be errors.
If the actions were unreasonable, then the gentleman will have plenty of attorneys from which to choose to see redress. If they were reasonable, then he will not have a case and other lives may have been protected, and fewer regrettable news stories (useful to anti's) will have been created. I wasn't there. So any guess on my part whether they were reasonable or unreasonable would be speculation. In my city, a graduate student was just wounded by college police after a 1+ hour standoff, when he advanced past tazers and bean bags with a knife and pole. The college media is having a field day. It is not fun to be a policeman, I bet, and I wasn't there. I'm not going to second guess them. There will be plenty of time for that.
I think you would all agree to that. The remaining question is how to identify those people. It is NOT an exact science. People do not come marked "psychotic" and "non-psychotic".
Psychotic people are not able to interpret reality and separate it from delusion. Truly psychotic people hear voices, etc. I've spoken with a few, and they are truly out there. You have to ask a few questions sometimes to get them to reveal it. One fellow said the (stereo) speakers were telling him what to do. When he walked out of the house, he said everyone on the street was staring at him -- everywhere.
1% of the population is schizophrenic (roughly). There is a genetic part to it. There is also an environmental part. The psychotic "break" may often occur at age 18 or so (when stresses mount) but not always.
So we as a society have to find ways to do the best we can to pick out the people who are "nuts" and protect the rest of us from them. I am not an expert on this, but in my state, a person can be taken for evaluation and treatment for a certain number of hours/days, which allows (but does not guarantee) that we will make the correct decisions. This is human beings trying to make correct decisions; there are going to be errors.
If the actions were unreasonable, then the gentleman will have plenty of attorneys from which to choose to see redress. If they were reasonable, then he will not have a case and other lives may have been protected, and fewer regrettable news stories (useful to anti's) will have been created. I wasn't there. So any guess on my part whether they were reasonable or unreasonable would be speculation. In my city, a graduate student was just wounded by college police after a 1+ hour standoff, when he advanced past tazers and bean bags with a knife and pole. The college media is having a field day. It is not fun to be a policeman, I bet, and I wasn't there. I'm not going to second guess them. There will be plenty of time for that.
Deanimator
Member
Was he free to leave?
No? He was arrested.
When you forcibly deprive somebody of their liberty, you'd BETTER have ALL of your ducks dressed and covered.
Of course I've come across more than a couple of cops who believe that your personal liberty is of no consequence whatever and you've suffered no harm from having it taken from you for a frivolous reason or indeed no reason at all. Civil court is the way to adjust those attitudes.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
You're right about one thing: There is an idiotic question here. There can be no maximum number of arms to go postal, but there is a minimum if you intend to use a gun. You've got to have at least one. He had that.
Woody
Amateur/armchair psychoanalysis aside, the guy wasn't diagnosed of anything. He was taken into custody "for evaluation" and released a few hours later.
Stay focused. The issue is not his mental condition. The issue is what the cops knew of his mental condition prior to his arrest. And the fact the the guy was released w/in hours speaks volumes.
Onward Allusion
Member
Not saying whether the actions by those concern were right or wrong...
The guy was very likely flagged when he purchased multiple handguns in a short time frame. We all know the FFL has to complete form 3310.4 for multiple handgun purchases and send it to the BATFE. I also believe I read somewhere that although NICS data isn't kept for more than 24 hours, multiple checks on it within 24 hours generates a red flag. Remember, this is outside of whatever State laws you might have.
As a side note, I had my house come under survellience 20-something years ago when I start collecting/shooting because I bought 5 handguns in a 1 week period and a multiple-handgun-purchase form was completed (I didn't know any better). Paranoid, no - because they actually talked to my neighbors and had a Crown-Vic parked down the street from me. I guess when they found out I was an accountant and never saw any nefarious activity around the house they wrote it off.
The guy was very likely flagged when he purchased multiple handguns in a short time frame. We all know the FFL has to complete form 3310.4 for multiple handgun purchases and send it to the BATFE. I also believe I read somewhere that although NICS data isn't kept for more than 24 hours, multiple checks on it within 24 hours generates a red flag. Remember, this is outside of whatever State laws you might have.
As a side note, I had my house come under survellience 20-something years ago when I start collecting/shooting because I bought 5 handguns in a 1 week period and a multiple-handgun-purchase form was completed (I didn't know any better). Paranoid, no - because they actually talked to my neighbors and had a Crown-Vic parked down the street from me. I guess when they found out I was an accountant and never saw any nefarious activity around the house they wrote it off.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
If he has been released, did they return his arms to him?
Woody
Woody
Deanimator
Member
Of course not! Now he's "disgruntled" because he was FALSELY accused of planning to commit a violent crime!
rm23
Member
§1983 Title 42 USC
hankdatank1362
Member
Hahahaha!
Gouranga
Member
How many guns to go postal?
Easy question...1 well maintained firearm and lots of ammo. You only got so many hands after all.
I stated before how this could have been legit, might not be, we need more info to know. I would like to think his lawyer would see to the details and go after the gov't if the facts just do not support this.
Not only were his arms taken (2nd Amendment) but he was deprived of his freedom. His property was searched and seized. If they did not have their ducks in a row, some heads will seriously roll.
The cops are bound to not release details. For all we know they could have done a "knock and talk" after the complaint and he answered the door in a pink tutu telling them he was Joan of Arc and he was going to use his weapons to spring Manson out of jail. Or he could have said "Good evening officers. How can I help you?" I agree though the details would be very nice. I would like to know that threshhold needs to be met to lose these rights.
Easy question...1 well maintained firearm and lots of ammo. You only got so many hands after all.
I stated before how this could have been legit, might not be, we need more info to know. I would like to think his lawyer would see to the details and go after the gov't if the facts just do not support this.
Not only were his arms taken (2nd Amendment) but he was deprived of his freedom. His property was searched and seized. If they did not have their ducks in a row, some heads will seriously roll.
The cops are bound to not release details. For all we know they could have done a "knock and talk" after the complaint and he answered the door in a pink tutu telling them he was Joan of Arc and he was going to use his weapons to spring Manson out of jail. Or he could have said "Good evening officers. How can I help you?" I agree though the details would be very nice. I would like to know that threshhold needs to be met to lose these rights.
rm23
Member
Always nice to see the statists come out when a thread like this pops up.
You never know what the guy could've done to get his boss to freak out. Maybe he was on THR once and his boss is a major anti.
I hope this guy isn't crazy and I hope he never has to work another day for the rest of his life because of this.
You never know what the guy could've done to get his boss to freak out. Maybe he was on THR once and his boss is a major anti.
I hope this guy isn't crazy and I hope he never has to work another day for the rest of his life because of this.
Originally posted by rm23
Yep, they got a red ball on this one.
WTH,most people are disgruntled if they are fired or placed on "administrative leave".
No probable cause whatsoever, I own guns and am VERY disgruntled with a former employer. Still not gonna go spray the place down with an AK.
Oops ,I hope the Oregon Police aren't watching, they'll go and tell my local dept.
I suppose it's a good thing, my police dept's response would be "and...."
Yep, they got a red ball on this one.
WTH,most people are disgruntled if they are fired or placed on "administrative leave".
No probable cause whatsoever, I own guns and am VERY disgruntled with a former employer. Still not gonna go spray the place down with an AK.
Oops ,I hope the Oregon Police aren't watching, they'll go and tell my local dept.
I suppose it's a good thing, my police dept's response would be "and...."
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
Ha, ha, ha. Good one.
You do realize that not being free to leave does not always equate to being arrested? Right?
Maybe he had a screaming fit in the office?
Maybe he posted somewhere how he was plotting his revenge?
I dunno. No one does. If he brings suit and is successful, then the cops were wrong. If not, they were probably right.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Or he cant' afford a lawyer. Or he doesn't even realize he needs one.
Lack of a lawsuit isn't really a good indicator of guilt.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Or perhaps he was let go due to a known history of anger problems, making threats of violence against co-workers, and other behavior that would indicate he was prone to acting out in a violent fashion.
None of us were party to the situation, and we have obviously imperfect information. The result is that these sorts of news stories are nothing more than an overly-complicated rorschach test wherein you see what you want to see.
Deanimator
Member
No, and in this context, neither does the law.
If by the totality of their actions, the police conveyed to him that he was not free to leave, he was arrested, ESPECIALLY for the purposes of false arrest and whether he was properly mirandized.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
