The Thought Police at work!!!!

[oneshooter]

Forget the BOR, the Thought Police don't need no paper!!!

Concerns about an Oregon Department of Transportation employee who purchased several guns after being placed on leave prompted law enforcement across Southern Oregon to step in.
Negotiators and a SWAT team from Medford police safely took a man — whose name wasn't released — into protective custody Monday morning in the 500 block of Effie Street, Medford police said in a news release.

He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.
The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.

In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.

Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.

"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

More at: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315/1001/NEWS03


Don't worry, you are all safe, the Thought Police are here!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TPaine7]

1. Now he doesn't need to work there. Problem solved!

[napi21]

2. I know most of you think the police were nuts for doing that, but

there really have been quite a few incidents where a former employee went back to his old workplace and wounded or killed the people he was angry with. I'm having a hard time answwering how I really feel about this. Did they go too far, maybe, but how would I feel if he had shot & maybe killed his former bosses? I haven't been able to answer myself yet.

[Bold Lib]

9. I don't think the cops were "nuts" for doing this. I think they were CRIMINALS!

[Callisto32]

30. But he didn't hurt anybody.

How can he be punished before the fact when you don't even know if something is actually going to happen.

[tazkcmo]

3. Thus the price of freedom.

Right now we speak up for our civil liberties and against the thought police. IF (Mighty big "if", we don't know) he had gone "postal" we would have asked, "Why wasn't more done to prevent this? He was mad, purchased a small arsenal...wasn't it obvious what was going on?"

Both valid questions in my opinion. I guess the real question is which one would you rather be asking?

[TPaine7]

4. No, at least not IMO.

The better question is what kind of society would you prefer to live in?

I would far rather wonder why police tortured a confession out of a mass murderer (complete with corroborrating details like body locations) than wonder why they let him go due to lack of evidence. At least if that was the end of it.

But I don't want to live in a society where police can torture people based on their hunches.

[tazkcmo]

5. You made me re-read the article.

Still haven't found the part about a mass murderer or torture or anything. But never mind that. I think we are saying the same thing. I put it differently. It's a matter of what you value more. The liberty to be free from the thought police and having folks going "postal" or POSSIBLY preventing a shooting spree and the killing of people.


Edited to add that I botched that horribly.

[TPaine7]

16. Sorry for the confusion

That was just another example.

[Euromutt]

27. There has to be some middle ground, though

There have to be more options than, on the one hand, doing nothing until the guy starts shooting up his workplace and, on the other, having the guy practically lifted off his bed by the SWAT team in a pre-dawn raid and hauled off to the shrink at gunpoint. There's a good argument to be made for taking "a proactive approach" (as Sergeant Proulx of the OSP put it) in this kind of situation, but this is extreme, and hardly likely to improve the subject's state of mind.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. He already had a .45 and a shotgun

According to the story:

Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

If he intended to 'go postal' he had no need to buy anything.

Also, according to the story:

ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.

However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.

There is nothing there to indicate what prompted the ODOT's concern except to intimate he'd been fired and he didn't like it.

To evacuate a neighborhood at "oh-dark thirty" in the morning, there better be more to this than a vindictive supervisor saying, "I know how to get that son-of-a-bitch outta here for good, fuck the grievance."

Right now, there are insufficient facts to determine if the case presented to the police warranted their response. Someplace at the bottom of all this, some judge had better have signed off on some kind of warrant or there are some serious 4th, 5th and 6th amendment questions needing answers.

[X_Digger]

6. What I want to know..

.. is how they found out that he'd made the purchases.

Oregon doesn't have 'registration'..

[tazkcmo]

7. Maybe his credit card company?

Or someone who knows him well? Possibly the purchasing of fire arms was not something this person did so it aroused suspicion. Inquiring minds...

[X_Digger]

10. If there was a tip-off, this story would make more sense..

.. because otherwise, I have to wonder if there's some firearms purchase surveillance system in place that's not widely known.

[napi21]

11. Background checks I would think. If he didn't buy all 3 guns at the

same time, perhapse 3 baund checks being processed very close to one another triggered a flag?

[X_Digger]

14. There is one report to ATF for multiple handgun purchases

.. at the same time from the same dealer. If he purchased the handguns from the same dealer at the same time, that would explain it.

[Bold Lib]

8. A police state coming to a neighborhood near you. SOON

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. can you be detained for this?

I hope this guy sues thier asses off and makes it VERY public.
If he broke no laws he should not be arrested. Period.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

15. The question is, Were civil rights violated? I believe so.

[sharesunited]

17. You are making a mistake by mixing up gun ownership with civil rights.

Other than the risk to civil rights from bullets unjustly entering bodies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Nope, gun ownership is an individual right according to even the liberal members of SCOTUS.

[sharesunited]

20. Nothing more than an NRA talking point wearing lipstick.

[X_Digger]

21. Have you actually read the dissent in Heller?

Do your homework, then come back and talk.

[sharesunited]

22. Yes and it is like health care reform without a public option. To wit, A Sell Out.

[X_Digger]

23. So you admit that the dissent also stipulated an individual right?

And if so, how is that 'an nra talking point wearing lipstick'?

I'm sure Justice Ginsburg wears lipstick, perhaps you can take it up with her.

[sharesunited]

25. Hey, the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson was 7 to 1. And it too is now obsolete.

Interestingly, the lone dissenter was a former slave owner. So it is possible for thought to progress even among the most backward thinking people.

[X_Digger]

32. It took 58 years to overturn Plessy..

.. perhaps you might still be alive to see Heller overturned. I know I'll be long in the grave. :)

[sharesunited]

37. I don't think Heller needs to be overturned to shut down the gun trade.

[X_Digger]

38. You'd need to overturn Heller, McDonald, and state constitutions in 41 states. n/t

[sharesunited]

39. A constitutional right to manufacture, distribute and sell? Um, no.

[X_Digger]

40. Try outlawing paper and printing presses..

.. the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional to even tax printer's ink.

So good luck with that, LOL!!

[PavePusher]

41. You seem to have a very difficult time with understanding...

the concept of "Rights".


I wonder why that is?

[PavePusher]

46. Never mind, I just learned the answer to my own question...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=301410&mesg_id=301483

'Nuff said.

[burrfoot]

43. Shares-

Honestly. If someone is being assaulted, do you believe that they should submit to having the shit kicked out of them rather than defend themselves with a gun?

If someone pulls out a gun in a public (or private, for that matter) place and starts shooting, do you believe that they should not be stopped with a firearm?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. So now the facts are NRA talking points?

[Bold Lib]

19. Sorry, the right to keep and bear arms IS a civil right. Also the right

be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. . .

Take your pick on which one you value more but both were violated here.

[pipoman]

26. You can't think of any other civil rights which may have ben violated in the story?

[Bold Lib]

36. This is about evil guns. Civil rights be damned.

:sarcasm:

[shadowrider]

28. Alrighty then

Maybe they should arrest people for having knives, after all, they just might go nuts and stab someone

Or cars, someone may flip and start running people down.

IF this guy was some kind of nuts, he should have been watched, closely, but hauled off because of what he MIGHT do?

I don't think so

[Callisto32]

29. It seems like there must be a rule. Something like:

"Never miss an opportunity to mention teh EEEVILLLL AK-47, even though it will almost never be an actual AK....

[SteveM]

31. I would like to see what justified detention under "protective custody."

Overt threats made against individuals and their property? If so, these are "terroristic threats," and arrests can be made under these laws. Why bother with "protective custody" when you can arrest on a criminal charge? Unless there were no criminal acts committed.

[Glassunion]

34. I'm not so upset at this...

After reading and re-reading the article I am left with the following opinion. I do not think that law enforcement did anything wrong.

In the article is:
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.

I am left to speculate that the DOT had reported their concerns to LE before the individual purchased the firearms. I am speculating, but perhaps the employee made threats when he was placed on administrative leave.

Of course if he had made threats, the DOT could have filed a restraining order on him, thus making him unable to pass the background checks and purchase a firearm.

[burrfoot]

35. What a mess.

Should the cops be lauded for being proactive, rather than reactive? Yes, in theory.

Should the cops have the ability to break out a SWAT team, arrest and detain an individual, and confiscate his legally purchased firearms, when he has not committed a crime? Not so much, I think.

Unless there is (and I admit that we don't know right now either way) specific information that threats were made or that his behavior was overtly hostile, I think the police were WAY out of bounds on this.

I think that this situation certainly warranted attention, even up to bringing the guy in for questioning. But are we really ok with the degree to which this was taken?

I think this brings up some interesting questions- if you get pissed at your boss and lose it, and say "I'm gonna get you back for this!" or "You're gonna pay for that!", and then you gather your wits and calm yourself down over the next hours/days....how long do you have to wait before it's acceptable for you to purchase a firearm? Are you forever banned if you once made a threat to someone who was in a position to report it?

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating threatening anyone, nor am I suggesting that this guy should have been left alone if he did make a serious threat.

I've got an AR-15ish rifle, several pistols, and several shotguns. If I lose or leave my job after arguing with my boss and I'm pissed off for a few days about it, is that enough reason for the SPD to come confiscate my firearms? Is it only worrying if the guns are bought after the argument? What if I leave/lose the job and then buy a rifle and a couple of pistols while I still have a little money coming in from my next paycheck? What's the line for when it's ok and when it's threatening?

:shrug:

[spin]

42. I remember an incident at work ...

We had a big layoff. It wasn't a big surprise, the rumor mill had predicted it for months. It wasn't that the company was dumping useless employees, a downturn in business was at fault.

One fellow in my department was really pissed when the boss gave him the word. The worker told my boss off in no uncertain terms and plenty of obscene language was involved on his part. I didn't witness the event as I was out of the room at the time. (My boss was pissed at me for that as he wanted me as a backup). I mentioned that he might have waited a few minutes until I returned and I would have been glad to support him.) My boss called security and a guard escorted the man out.

My boss was scared half to death. The employee was a regular shooter with a concealed carry permit. I often went to the range with him and he was a damn good shooter, fast and VERY accurate with his compact .45 auto. He had numerous other firearms. If I remember correctly, he had at least one rifle that some would call an "assault weapon".

After the altercation my boss wouldn't leave work and walk into the parking lot without someone with him. He even checked under his car looking for a bomb. I should note that my boss was also a firearms owner but not a regular shooter. We had only been at the range one time and I would describe him as a newbie.

But nothing happened. Later that day I walked into the parking lot on lunch break and the fired employee drove up to me and we talked for a while. By that time he had calmed down.

During that layoff, many of the people who were booted out the door had firearms and enjoyed shooting. Several, such as the fellow I described were very upset at losing their jobs. Other workers were concerned that at least one would lose it and "go postal". In fact, I was a little concerned about an employee in another department that appeared a little irrational to me. I wasn't all that familiar with the individual but several people I did know were very worried.

But not one of the laid off employees came back to shoot up the workplace.

I can't say f the police acted correctly in the situation in the OP, as I don't know all the details. I would say from my own experiences that the mere fact that a person that owns firearms and has a aggressive personality and blows up when he is fired is not enough reason to call in a swat team to disarm him. Each situation needs to be evaluated separately.

Many people have lost their jobs in the current recession. Many of those people have little chance of getting an equivalent job. Some of those people are very angry and own firearms. Still, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in workplace shootings. I believe that a severe underlying mental problem is necessary before someone decides to start murdering people. The problem is how to detect it.

[Bold Lib]

44. I was fired from my last job and had .45 in an IWB holster under my suit jacket.

I didn't shoot anybody over it.

[X_Digger]

45. UPDATES

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120326

MEDFORD — The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return and police say they will comply with the request.

David J. Pyles sent an e-mail to police Thursday, asking them to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He forwarded copies to legislators and media outlets.
Related Stories

Medford Police Chief Randy Schoen said the department plans to return the seized weapons today.

"He gave them up voluntarily and we don't have a court order to hold them," Schoen said. "We will give them back to him."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120325

Pyles came forward Thursday to reclaim his legally purchased weapons, publicly identifying himself in an e-mail sent to Medford police and forwarded to state legislators and selected media outlets.
Related Stories

He also said he has contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation for possible legal assistance. Pyles directed questions to that group and said he would make only limited statements until he had consulted with an attorney.

Kevin Starrett, director of the Canby-based lobbying organization — which also has a foundation for protecting gun rights through court cases — had been monitoring the incident that landed Pyles in the hospital for a mental health evaluation and resulted in five of his guns being held by police for "safekeeping."

"It's chilling," he said.

"I don't know if this is just a gun case," Starrett said. "It's about whether your freedom can be taken away without a criminal case or charges against you."

eta: He bought the guns with his tax return..

http://www.kmed.com/pages/landing?3-11-10-ODOT-WORKER-ASKS-POLICE-FOR-RETU=1&blockID=195693&feedID=133

[Spoonman]

47. Hopefully he will sue the SHIT out of them,

get enough money that he never has to work again, and then go buy 50 more "evil" guns!