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

[Deanimator]

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.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT assuming that this was NOT justified. I'm just not assuming that it WAS.

If he DIDN'T do anything to justify this, what would you have him do instead of suing everybody within 16" naval rifle range? He was harmed. He was both deprived of his liberty and made to look mentally unstable. If he didn't do anything wrong, what recourse do you offer him, or is he entitled to no recourse at all? An "apology" is utterly worthless in such a case, and no doubt completely insincere. Of course he probably wouldn't get one any way, because it could be considered an admission.

If it's NOT his fault, why should HE suffer the consequences of somebody ELSE'S actions?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i want a suit so that what transpired becomes public record we'll see if he wants that

 

[Deanimator]

i want a suit so that what transpired becomes public record we'll see if he wants that

If he doesn't want a suit, it may because he precipitated the whole thing.

Of course it's pretty much SOP for PDs to resist releasing videotapes, 911 recordings, etc. which show incompetence or criminal acts by their personnel. The Chicago PD fought tooth and nail to keep from having the videos from the shooting of Michael Pleasance released to the public.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

"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.

True, but it's not their money they are wasting with their poor judgment.

Is it better to expend money than human lives? Human blood? We've now left the realm of the physical and entered that of the philosophical.

I would argue that it's better to "waste" (and really waste doesn't apply here, as the exercise was excellent training, and there are lessons to be learned and applied) the money and the time than to run the chance, however small you may perceive it to be, that someone be hurt or killed, especially when your department obviously has the means and equipment necessary to prevent said injuries or death(s).

You still haven't answered any of my question(s):

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?

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.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

BlisteringSilence, you keep referring to a court order as solid basis for committment, etc. We understand that. So far, there has been no mention of that with this case. You also mention the many times you have coaxed the party into voluntarily going along with a mental appraisal, temporary custody, etc. The question remains regarding what is legal, and what is proper, when there is NO court order, and no trickery, and the subject is NOT going to voluntarily go into mental assessment at the request of the police. I am sometimes unclear as to who is or was a police officer here, or what point of view they are coming from. I used to be a cop, and my rule was golden. I tried very hard not to do to anyone what I would not want done to me. This situation would have been easy from the start. No validated complaint, no court order (so far), and no call for tactical response: no reason to deprive anyone of liberty or demean them by infering mental incompetence. If I really felt like a threat from an armed crazy was possible, it would have been better to conduct a stakeout on the guy, monitor his actions like a drug surveillance, and intercept when it started to look bad. Going to a drug dealers house and asking him if he's thinking about selling drugs (about as successful as asking this guy to take a mental eval) isn't as effective as watching, recording, and catching him in the act, or gathering intel and getting a warrant. I've brought it up before. If two officers get into a fight, or even an argument in the locker room, should the supervisor place them into protective custody, relieve them of their weapons, and call for a psych eval on both of them? It could easily be done, but wouldn't look too good in their files. Where do we draw the line? Now this guy has a police incident report on him and he hasn't done anything..yet...

 

[Justin]

Sorry folks, but at this point this one's generating a lot more heat than light.