Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by harmonic, Mar 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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:
     
  2. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    a warrant for what? being outside his house?
     
  3. CornCod

    CornCod Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    839
    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.
     
  4. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    i would quote bernard shaw but....
     
  5. ants

    ants Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,710
    Here, I'll quote Shaw for you...

    George Bernard Shaw
     
  6. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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
     
  7. BlisteringSilence

    BlisteringSilence Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    USA
    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.




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



    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.

    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.
     
  8. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away
     
  9. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2010
  10. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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?
     
  11. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     
  12. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,462
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    Hi DaneZ,

    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.
     
  13. BlisteringSilence

    BlisteringSilence Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    USA
    I take umbrage with a few of the points you bring up here:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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?
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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.

    I know, I'm kind of a killjoy. Sorry.
     
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     
  15. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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
     
  16. Guns and more

    Guns and more member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    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.
     
  17. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    That's a warrant. That's how it's supposed to work.

    Woody
     
  18. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    For taking him into custody and confiscation his guns.

    Woody
     
  19. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    LOL

    That's a good one.

    Woody
     
  20. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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?
     
  21. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    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.
     
  22. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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
     
  23. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
  24. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    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
     
  25. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice