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

[BlisteringSilence]

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:

1. acute schizophrenic break
2. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Wait . . . What?

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]

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]

...don't muddy the waters with facts and experience.... it kills a good rant straight away

Apparently not...

 

[BlisteringSilence]

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]

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

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

 

[DETROIT]

Wow talk about a civil rights violation.

 

[Officers'Wife]

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]

how many folks responded to run the tab up to 100 k?

 

[BlisteringSilence]

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]

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.