Minority Report (Police act swiftly after gun purchases)

[ardowling]

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

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.
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.
"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.
Douglas and Jackson County sheriff's departments, OSP officers based in both counties and police in Medford and Roseburg collaborated, he said.
Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.
Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.
Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.
After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.
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.


WTF, this sounds illegal as hell, what law did he violate? How do they know his intentions, can they see into his heart and read his mind? He " passed the required background checks and purchased the weapons legally". How did they know what he purchased? The background check should only check NICS and not maintain a record of weapons purchased.
This is thought crime, pure and simple. The founding fathers detested thought crime and we should all well know that, I fear for our Republic:mad:

[Thiebear]

I'm of two minds here:

My little l libertarian self says OMFG! Give him 2million and fire the person that approved this.

My common sense feelings self says we might have saved 6 lives....

will check back in 72 hours and see which one won.

[frostyj]

I'm not sure on this on, but I think I favor it.
Most people do not go buy 3 weapons in a 2day period and his work had reported that he may not be stable. No charges have been filed and none probably will be, as mentioned he commited no crime. He is getting some help if needed. It sure beats picking up bodies.

edit - now if they picked him up for only buying the weapons I would be having a lot of issues with this.
But since authorities were notified of a possible problem I do not have an issue of them looking into it.

[ardowling]

So you think you can read his intentions? Oh and as some of our Legal Eagles say there is that pesky little thing called the Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Guard the building if your scared

[frostyj]

First there is no crime. They took him to a mental facility to see if he is ok, for his safety and that of others due to persons calling the authorities with reason to believe he may harm himself or others. Taking him to the mental facility is part of the process.

Like I said, this is a non issue if the company did not call the authorities because people that are around him daily had concern.

We will find out if it was the right call in a few days, I think it was.
In no way would I want my weapon purcases tracked and cops come to my house if I buy 3 or 4 in a matter of days. Now if someone calls the cops and says I have a screw loose and might do something stupid, different story.

It's better to be proactive and say sorry, than it is to be reactive and be picking up bodies and calling the loved ones of the dead.
I believe most people would understand the concern.

[ardowling]

I could not disagree more, so just because I not happy with the reasons I now have time on my hands and decide that maybe I'll purchase some weapons and maybe spend some time doing target practice its a reason to have SWAT show up at 3:00 am and take my property, and compel me to undergo mental observation??? This is not a violation of my civil rights? Let alone they were tracking my purchases??
If you fear that something might happen ask the Police to provide protection for the office I'm sure that would not cost more than a middle of the night SWAT raid and a mental evaluation.

[Madison Redskin]

I'm of two minds here:

My little l libertarian self says OMFG! Give him 2million and fire the person that approved this.

My common sense feelings self says we might have saved 6 lives....

will check back in 72 hours and see which one won.

That sums up my feelings.

[Teller]

That sums up my feelings.


Mine too.

[mbws]

"The Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." --Spock

[ardowling]

"The Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." --Spock
What needs? He didn't make a threat to anyone if he did he would have been arrested for it, he is pissed because he got fired so this is a reason to take away his legally purchased weapons and compel him to a mental exam. Based on the logic of some of the folks in this thread we should round up all sex offenders and lock them up because of the rate they re-offend. Oh wait that would violate their rights, things that make you go Hmmm, slippery slope:mad:

[Corcaigh]

Seems like a reasonable precaution to me given the concerns his employer had followed by multiple gun purchases.

[frostyj]

Based on the logic of some of the folks in this thread we should round up all sex offenders and lock them up because of the rate they re-offend.

They should have never gotten out in the first place. :D

[ardowling]

Seems like a reasonable precaution to me given the concerns his employer had followed by multiple gun purchases.
How would anyone know of his gun purchases? NCIS doesn't track that

[Corcaigh]

How would anyone know of his gun purchases? NCIS doesn't track that

The police said they were watching him.

[ardowling]

The police said they were watching him.
Why? Because he was pissed because he got fired? Bet that happens 100 times a day. If he made threats he would have been arrested for them, weak excuse I guess we'll see how it shakes out

[mojo]

Given we don't know the details of what was reported to the authorities, I'm erring on the side of caution on this one. It must have been pretty serious for the agency to call the cops.

Just think, if this guy told them "I'm gonna kill everybody in this building!" and then came back and did it, we'd all be saying how crazy it was that he wasn't stopped before hand.

[Corcaigh]

Why? Because he was pissed because he got fired? Bet that happens 100 times a day.

Do you think employers report their employees to the police 100 times a day? Whatever his actions were, the police felt they were sufficient for them to track his behavior. This suggests that it was a little more than being "pissed".

[PokerPacker]

If you're worried about someone who hasn't broken any laws, perhaps you should put a tail on him or something, rather going outside of the law. Our country was founded by the likes of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty or give me Death") and Benjamin Franklin ("Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither")

It does seem like he was someone who could use a watchin', but still, he didn't break any laws.

[ardowling]

If you're worried about someone who hasn't broken any laws, perhaps you should put a tail on him or something, rather going outside of the law. Our country was founded by the likes of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty or give me Death") and Benjamin Franklin ("Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither")

It does seem like he was someone who could use a watchin', but still, he didn't break any laws.
Thanks someone gets it:D

[Hubbs]

I think I'd like to know exactly what was reported to the cops before passing judgment.

[frostyj]

If you're worried about someone who hasn't broken any laws, perhaps you should put a tail on him or something, rather going outside of the law. Our country was founded by the likes of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty or give me Death") and Benjamin Franklin ("Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither")

It does seem like he was someone who could use a watchin', but still, he didn't break any laws.

No one has said he broke any laws.
As mentiond, we do not know what was reported, from the story it seems a bit more than just a person who was pissed at being fired. It also mentioned personal reasons. We don't know.

If a loved one or someone you cared about mentioned something you percieved to be dangerous to themselves or the public would you notify someone to try and talk to that person if you were not in the position to do so? That is what I think has happend with what little info we have. Someone was worried he might harm himself or others. Nothing wrong with being a step ahead and protecting the community. Even if it turns out wrong. Like previously said, if he did do something people would be screaming he was saying this and that, something is not right with him, we told you. Why did you do nothing?

[fullnelson9999]

What needs? He didn't make a threat to anyone if he did he would have been arrested for it, he is pissed because he got fired so this is a reason to take away his legally purchased weapons and compel him to a mental exam. Based on the logic of some of the folks in this thread we should round up all sex offenders and lock them up because of the rate they re-offend. Oh wait that would violate their rights, things that make you go Hmmm, slippery slope:mad:

You really need to start thinking outside the box on this one.

Remember Virginia Tech? Yeah that guy had a few screw loose, people knew it, and did nothing. You know what happened.

Also, can you elaborate on your usage of "slippery slope"?

[twa]

I think I'd like to know exactly what was reported to the cops before passing judgment.

I agree, but from what was reported it falls short of justification for SWAT.

Either important facts are left out or the police overstepped.

[frostyj]

I agree, but from what was reported it falls short of justification for SWAT.

Either important facts are left out or the police overstepped.

Not really. It is mainly a show of force. One person, police bring 5. Two people you bring ten or twelve and so on. Guy with a bunch of weapons who may or may not be stable bring it. Causion on the side of safety.

[twa]

Not really. It is mainly a show of force. One person, police bring 5. Two people you bring ten or twelve and so on. Guy with a bunch of weapons who may or may not be stable bring it. Causion on the side of safety.

Not w/o a law being broken or a criminal complaint you don't.

I'm fairly well aware of the tactics;)

[frostyj]

I'm fairly well aware of the tactics;)

Never too sure on the internets these days! You know believe anything in an email, etc...:silly:

Like fullnelson9999 said, things were known in that situation, no one did anything.
There was a huge backlash.
Now with what LITTLE we know something may have been averted.

I'm not sure any laws were broken with a report being filed witht the police about him possibly being unstable. It is a precausion. Need more info.

[twa]

I'm not sure any laws were broken with a report being filed witht the police about him possibly being unstable. It is a precausion. Need more info.

I agree we need more info,but making the paranoid more so is a bad idea.

Which is what this does w/o a public explanation.
Preemptive justice will not go down well.

[Ryman of the North]

In Canada we have whats called a form 10, if you genuinely believe that a person is a threat to themselves or others then the police can put you in custody pending a psyche eval. Its saved a lot of lives. I would like to hear what the police heard, I dont believe that the police would waste time or resources unless this was serious.

[SnyderShrugged]

I believe this is an abuse of his rights, but maybe not for the same reason as others.

Why, if he was such a threat, was he allowed to walk the streets and even enter the gun shop to begin with?

If he was OK enough to remain outside of an institution and well enough to make it past the fairly rigorous Oregon laws to purchase multiple guns at all, then he is OK enough to keep his property freely.

Here he was treated as if the act of the gun purchase was the issue, when apparently it was worry over his mental state.

remember, it doesnt take a gun for someone with a mental problem to cause harm

[fullnelson9999]

I believe this is an abuse of his rights, but maybe not for the same reason as others.

Why, if he was such a threat, was he allowed to walk the streets and even enter the gun shop to begin with?

If he was OK enough to remain outside of an institution and well enough to make it past the fairly rigorous Oregon laws to purchase multiple guns at all, then he is OK enough to keep his property freely.

Here he was treated as if the act of the gun purchase was the issue, when apparently it was worry over his mental state.

remember, it doesnt take a gun for someone with a mental problem to cause harm

Well, do you think maybe someone said "Angry man+gun=problem"?

Did you read the article?

[twa]

Well, do you think maybe someone said "Angry man+gun=problem"?

Did you read the article?

In his own home at 3AM?

He committed no crime,they don't even detail a real threat, just some concerns.

Angry man+gun= protected rights w/o more info

[mbws]

What needs? He didn't make a threat to anyone if he did he would have been arrested for it, he is pissed because he got fired so this is a reason to take away his legally purchased weapons and compel him to a mental exam. Based on the logic of some of the folks in this thread we should round up all sex offenders and lock them up because of the rate they re-offend. Oh wait that would violate their rights, things that make you go Hmmm, slippery slope:mad:



This is quoted from the end of the article posted:

"After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

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."




No rights were violated.

[twa]

No rights were violated.

Voluntary psych evaluation at gun point...Gee no problem there

[Popeman38]

Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.
After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.
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.Let me get this straight. Most on this board see no issue with what happened here? I know, guns were involved! Yet these same people want to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists captured overseas? Completely contradictory viewpoints. Polar opposites.

[Skin'Em84]

If it wasn't for the fact that this could greatly affect his job and social life, I'd be all for it. But the effect this could have on this man in the community really sucks.

[THEREALTOR1]

Here he was treated as if the act of the gun purchase was the issue, when apparently it was worry over his mental state.

remember, it doesnt take a gun for someone with a mental problem to cause harm

Good point. What if he went down to the local feed store and purchased 500 lbs. of fertilizer and 100 gallons of diesel fuel. Would we have gotten the same response from the police.


This is quoted from the end of the article posted:

"After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

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."

No rights were violated.

I'm not sure they can legally seize his firearms, can they?
EDIT: I just reread that they are holding them for "safekeeping". Not sure they should have used the word "seized", and/or I wonder what is going to be required for said firearms to be returned to their rightful owner?


If it wasn't for the fact that this could greatly affect his job and social life, I'd be all for it. But the effect this could have on this man in the community really sucks.

That's a good point.

This entire thing doesn't quite pass the smell test. Either an attorney will get ahold of this, and this guy will get paid big time (see Skin'Em's post above), or we're going to need some more details.

I'm in the process of researching shotguns for home defense, and by next week, i'll probably own one. I was just recently laid off (my company shut down in January), and i'm disgruntled (primarily at the constant JC -vs- CB5 argument in the Stadium, but there's other stuff that pisses me off too :)

Should I expect the police prowling around my house sometime in the next week or so? :paranoid:

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, do you think maybe some
one said "Angry man+gun=problem"?

Did you read the article?
Umm yes I read the article. Did you read my post? Aparently not.

One can be both angry and a gun owner and not be a criminal.

[Bang]

Obviously this guy sent up more than a few red flags for this sort of action to have taken place.
i understand where the OP is coming from, and I'd be much more concerned if they were profiling everyone or otherwise restricting people.
But apparently they aren't, and they started to observe this guy after he set off the common sense alarms.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Obviously this guy sent up more than a few red flags for this sort of action to have taken place.
i understand where the OP is coming from, and I'd be much more concerned if they were profiling everyone or otherwise restricting people.
But apparently they aren't, and they started to observe this guy after he set off the common sense alarms.

~BangSo you are OK with closing down a street, surrounding the guys house with SWAT and police, and using a hostage negotiator to compel the guy to submit to a "voluntary" mental evaluation? Could they not have simply kept tabs on the guy with 2 cops, and stopped him from getting inside the office?

This sets the precedent that thinking a guy with a gun is gonna commit a crime is sufficient evidence to seize his weapons and forcibly commit to a mental evaluation.

So instead of trying to legally take away 2nd Amend rights, the govt will make it societal suicide to purchase a gun. get a speeding ticket and buy a gun, mental eval. Divorced? Mental eval. Fired? Mental eval. Ever seen a therapist? mental eval. Loved one died? Mental eval......

[10fttall]

"After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you are arguing that they did not force him out of his home. Do you really think they casually made a polite little phone call in the wee hours of the morning asking him to pretty please come out, due to the fact they have his house and whole BLOCK surrounded. Of course then he was glad and eager to come along, so he could be forcibly evaluated to find out what was behind his sick compulsion to follow laws and not just go to the black market.

[Bang]

So you are OK with closing down a street, surrounding the guys house with SWAT and police, and using a hostage negotiator to compel the guy to submit to a "voluntary" mental evaluation? Could they not have simply kept tabs on the guy with 2 cops, and stopped him from getting inside the office?

This sets the precedent that thinking a guy with a gun is gonna commit a crime is sufficient evidence to seize his weapons and forcibly commit to a mental evaluation.

So instead of trying to legally take away 2nd Amend rights, the govt will make it societal suicide to purchase a gun. get a speeding ticket and buy a gun, mental eval. Divorced? Mental eval. Fired? Mental eval. Ever seen a therapist? mental eval. Loved one died? Mental eval......

They may have gone over the top, but overall i don't have a problem with it. Like I said, if this was happening more than once, I'd be more concerned, but obviously this guy set off some serious enough alarms that they felt it was warranted.
As the gun crowd points out, it's only the one screw loose that makes all responsible gun owners look bad. In this case they may have been looking for the loose screw before he once again put us in the usual debates over gun control.

Show me this happening again, and you can bet I'll get more concerned.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

They may have gone over the top, but overall i don't have a problem with it. Like I said, if this was happening more than once, I'd be more concerned, but obviously this guy set off some serious enough alarms that they felt it was warranted.
As the gun crowd points out, it's only the one screw loose that makes all responsible gun owners look bad. In this case they may have been looking for the loose screw before he once again put us in the usual debates over gun control.

Show me this happening again, and you can bet I'll get more concerned.

~BangHave you ever known the govt to something only once?

[10fttall]

Show me this happening again, and you can bet I'll get more concerned.

That is a good point, but just looking at this particular case, there are a lot of things very wrong, or something that was not reported. It seems as if anyone you have a beef with, could be reported to the cops if you express enough "concern." Then they will go through all kinds of hassle even if they are completely innocent; just because you had a problem with them...and maybe you were the one who was wrong.

[LaxBuddy21]

Umm yes I read the article. Did you read my post? Aparently not.

One can be both angry and a gun owner and not be a criminal.

If he already owned the guns, no one would have thought twice about him owning them. Its the fact that he lost his job, concerned people enough to involve the police, then went and bought 3 new guns. How can you not see a potential correlation and a cause for concern? Someone running at you with a baseball bat swinging it wildly might not hit you either but I bet you are going to move out of the way anyway.

[sleazye]

Let me get this straight. Most on this board see no issue with what happened here? I know, guns were involved! Yet these same people want to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists captured overseas? Completely contradictory viewpoints. Polar opposites.

Couple things.

1. The terrorist captured overseas is accused of planning a mass murder that took place against American civilians on American soil. By law, he should be tried in American court- something that the Bush administration had shown support for.

2. No one is talking about trying this guy in a military style closed door tribunal. Let me present a hypothetical situation. You and your next door neighbor shout at each other on your front lawns for 30 minutes, it's a pretty serious argument. Your neighbor then goes to his car and gets 3 guns. You would probably want the police to intervene at that point although your neighbor had broken no laws.

There is a reason for our constitutional rights, but common sense tells us that waiting until after a crime has been committed to say something is usually too late. And I'm not advocating "precrime" like in minority report, just common sense.

Your constitutional right to wave your arm ends at my face.

[SnyderShrugged]

If he already owned the guns, no one would have thought twice about him owning them. Its the fact that he lost his job, concerned people enough to involve the police, then went and bought 3 new guns. How can you not see a potential correlation and a cause for concern? Someone running at you with a baseball bat swinging it wildly might not hit you either but I bet you are going to move out of the way anyway.

As I stated before, if he was seen as a significant enough risk to do this then he should have been aprehended long before he purchased the guns and he neve
r should have been allowed to buy them in the first place.

again, violence comes from the person not their tools.

[THEREALTOR1]

again, violence comes from the person not their tools.

A sig from another message board I belong to (btw its a gun forum :) )

"if guns can kill people, then i can blame misspelled words on my pencil"

[PeterMP]

I'm not pro-gun, but I agree this was over kill. Follow him. Sure. Send some police to talk to him (at a reasonable time of day). Sure.

Surround his house in the middle of the night and "ask" him to hand himself over "voluntarily". Over kill.

One of the drawbacks from our approach is sometimes people are going to do bad/stupid things and other people are going to die. It is unfortunate and sad, but also the way it is.

[Destino]

ardowling you found one doozy of a story here. My pro-gun side agrees with you and I'd like to know more about how the police know he purchased some firearms. Having said that their reasoning appears to be sound and frankly you don't drop that much cash on those weapons to do a little plinking after getting laid off.

[twa]

One of the drawbacks from our approach is sometimes people are going to do bad/stupid things and other people are going to die. It is unfortunate and sad, but also the way it is.

Yep
That whole innocent until proven guilty thing is kinda important as is being secure in your home and person....Freedom is messy

I really hope they just neglected to mention a better justification.

Destino, probably a tip from our domestic watchdog unit,which I have no objection to.(nor surveillance on him)

[HSW]

I see absolutely no problem with what happened. Actually I applaud the
police.

[KingGibbs]

Clearly the guy bought the AK-47 for sport.:rolleyes: I like the "proactive" approach they took. Especially with the rise in workplace violence.

I'm guessing those that are opposed to the way this was handled are members of the NRA?

[Popeman38]

Clearly the guy bought the AK-47 for sport.:rolleyes: I like the "proactive" approach they took. Especially with the rise in workplace violence.

I'm guessing those that are opposed to the way this was handled are members of the NRA?
You know what they say about assuming?

My best friend has an SKS, guess he is intent on killing his coworkers.

Proactive law enforcement, is about a big oxymoron you can have. You can't be arrested until you break a law, which this guy did not do. Did the police have a reason to enter his house? Nope, so they did the next best thing and surrounded his house at night, closed the street, and voluntold him to submit to mental eval.

What if he had refused? Would SWAT have stormed his house? If so, he would have been legally allowed to defend his property, as he had not committed any crime and there was no warrant. He could have defended his house, killed a SWAT officer, and been killed himself. Over what? Suspicion of a chance of possible violence?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

The guy gets fired, acts disgruntled enough to have complaints called in to the police, and purchases three firearms a very short time later. I don't see a problem with this. If the police were doing this every time someone got fired and happened to own guns, I'd have a problem.

[twa]

Clearly the guy bought the AK-47 for sport.:rolleyes: I like the "proactive" approach they took. Especially with the rise in workplace violence.

I'm guessing those that are opposed to the way this was handled are members of the NRA?

Does it matter why he bought a legal weapon in the legally prescribed manner?
A AK47 is just another damn gun w/o mods

Divining intentions is best left w/o going after a law abiding guy in his home.
I could understand if they did many things,but that is too far

[Mad Mike]

As I stated before, if he was seen as a significant enough risk to do this then he should have been aprehended long before he purchased the guns and he never should have been allowed to buy them in the first place.

again, violence comes from the person not their tools.

So in your mind, it's not possible that the police felt that he might be a threat to the lives of others BEFORE he purchased the guns, but did not feel he was a serious enough threat to act until after he purchased an assault rifle. :doh:

A few notes:

A) We aren't getting the whole story from a simple news piece. Assuming that what was written is all there is to the case is silly.


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.

So we don't know what triggered the concerns but they must have been bad. I think it's safe to guess that veiled threats were involved. He probably said things that would be difficult to prove were direct threats legally, while making his intentions clear. I don't know how many here have had occasion to contact the police over a workplace nut job but I can tell you, it takes a LOT to get them to take it seriously. For them to keep this guy under observation, they must have been VERY concerned.

B) There are legal standards that must be met before denying a gun purchase. Usually this means a criminal record or something of the sort. So the police can't just say "no, you cant buy a gun" because they are concerned. Other agencies must agree and comply. So they probably couldn't stop the purchase no matter how much they wanted too.

But in the end, the combination of very serious concerns, coupled with a large gun purchase which included an ASSAULT RIFLE was apparently enough to trigger a drastic pro-active action.

Should such actions become commonplace? Clearly not. But that doesn't mean that we must stand idly by as giant red flags go up that indicate other peoples RIGHT TO LIFE may be in danger from an angry nutcase who is purchasing assault weapons.

[Popeman38]

But that doesn't mean that we must stand idly by as giant red flags go up that indicate other peoples RIGHT TO LIFE may be in danger from an angry nutcase who is purchasing assault weapons.Ok. But why is it ok to do this, but the ACLU has an issue with the FBI/LEO searching peoples backpacks when under heightened security/threat of terrorist acts?

I do not have an issue with your opinion. I take issue with those that deem this action necessary while at the same time decrying the Patriot Act as an affront on civil liberties. This was more an affront to civil liberties than anything the Patriot Act does.

[Mad Mike]

Ok. But why is it ok to do this, but the ACLU has an issue with the FBI/LEO searching peoples backpacks when under heightened security/threat of terrorist acts?

I do not have an issue with your opinion. I take issue with those that deem this action necessary while at the same time decrying the Patriot Act as an affront on civil liberties. This was more an affront to civil liberties than anything the Patriot Act does.

I cant answer that question because I don't have any serious issues with the patriot act when properly enforced. (Meaning that I do have an issue with the abuse of the patriot act or any other law.)

[Predicto]

I think I'd like to know exactly what was reported to the cops before passing judgment.

Why? It takes all the fun out of it.

[Bang]

Have you ever known the govt to something only once?

I'm not exactly expecting this only once, either. Considering the numbers of nutjobs who do not get hauled out of bed before they go on their rampage, i expect there will be others who set off the red flags and perhaps receive a similar response.

I should clarify. If they start doing this sort of thing to anyone other than angry recently fired people who buy three assault weapons in two days then I'll be more concerned.

The other option when someone so sungly fits the profile is to allow him to buy the weapons and follow him with a force sufficient enough to take him down when he loads up and heads for his target.

Or option 3, which is hope that a guy who so snugly fits the profile doesn't do what the profile suggests he's going to do.

~Bang

[Braxford]

I'm not pro-gun, but I agree this was over kill. Follow him. Sure. Send some police to talk to him (at a reasonable time of day). Sure.

Surround his house in the middle of the night and "ask" him to hand himself over "voluntarily". Over kill.

One of the drawbacks from our approach is sometimes people are going to do bad/stupid things and other people are going to die. It is unfortunate and sad, but also the way it is.

I agree with you. I have no problem with the police or mental health people checking into this guy to make sure he was okay. There were reports of him having problems which lead to all of this. I don't even have a problem with him volunteering to hand himself over. The problem is the way it was done, surrounding his house and blocking off the street with SWAT?? To me that is coercion of the highest degree which is probably why he "voluntairly" gave up even though he had done nothing wrong.

[Predicto]

Ok. But why is it ok to do this, but the ACLU has an issue with the FBI/LEO searching peoples backpacks when under heightened security/threat of terrorist acts?



Because in this case, the police appear to have a legitimate and particularized suspicion about this individual.

In the other case, they are just searching whoever they want to search, without any reason to think that the particular individual might be a problem.

You don't have to agree with this distinction, but that is the distinction that the ACLU is trying to make.

[KingGibbs]

You know what they say about assuming?

My best friend has an SKS, guess he is intent on killing his coworkers.

Proactive law enforcement, is about a big oxymoron you can have. You can't be arrested until you break a law, which this guy did not do. Did the police have a reason to enter his house? Nope, so they did the next best thing and surrounded his house at night, closed the street, and voluntold him to submit to mental eval.

What if he had refused? Would SWAT have stormed his house? If so, he would have been legally allowed to defend his property, as he had not committed any crime and there was no warrant. He could have defended his house, killed a SWAT officer, and been killed himself. Over what? Suspicion of a chance of possible violence?

That part of your post I hi-lighted is such a ridiculous statement. Are you telling me that once they identified themselves as law enforcement officers that he still would've been "legally allowed" to "defend his property" and 'kill a SWAT officer?" I don't think so pal.

They took the precautioinary measures they needed to avoid such a tragedy. Like others have said, had something happened, questions would've been raised as to what could've been done to avoid it.

They used reasonable suspicion and I am going to follow this story to see what the outcome is. If the guy had no intentions of carrying out what his co-workers and law enforcement officials suspected or feared might happen? We'll soon find out.

BTW. Why does your friend need an SKS? Are the Russians coming?

[Predicto]

I agree with you. I have no problem with the police or mental health people checking into this guy to make sure he was okay. There were reports of him having problems which lead to all of this. I don't even have a problem with him volunteering to hand himself over. The problem is the way it was done, surrounding his house and blocking off the street with SWAT?? To me that is coercion of the highest degree which is probably why he "voluntairly" gave up even though he had done nothing wrong.

Well, having reason to think that he is unstable, combined with knowing for sure that he now has an AK-47 in his possession... stull like that tends to make law enforcement a little nervous for their own safety.

[Madison Redskin]

Ok. But why is it ok to do this, but the ACLU has an issue with the FBI/LEO searching peoples backpacks when under heightened security/threat of terrorist acts?

I do not have an issue with your opinion. I take issue with those that deem this action necessary while at the same time decrying the Patriot Act as an affront on civil liberties. This was more an affront to civil liberties than anything the Patriot Act does.

Let me turn the tables. Do you take issue with police searching backpacks in subways etc. to prevent terrorism?

[Popeman38]

Let me turn the tables. Do you take issue with police searching backpacks in subways etc. to prevent terrorism?No, I do not. The subway is not private property and therefore I do not think it is protected. If you don't want to be searched, don't use public trans.

However, I do have an issue with the way this was handled. I have no issue with that fact the police were brought in, and that they tracked his movements/purchases. I take issue with the fact that they shut down his street, evacuated his neighbors, and basically ruined this guys life (in relation to the neighborhood, try convincing your neighbors you did nothing wrong after this) without him having done anything illegal.

[Destino]

BTW. Why does your friend need an SKS? Are the Russians coming?Why do suburban house wives drive hummers? Because they want it and can afford it. There need be no reason greater than that when it comes to legal items.

[Destino]

No, I do not. The subway is not private property and therefore I do not think it is protected. If you don't want to be searched, don't use public trans.
The side walk isn't private property and neither are public roads.

[KingGibbs]

Why do suburban house wives drive hummers? Because they want it and can afford it. There need be no reason greater than that when it comes to legal items.


Hummers and SKS'? Apple and oranges my friend.

[Popeman38]

That part of your post I hi-lighted is such a ridiculous statement. Are you telling me that once they identified themselves as law enforcement officers that he still would've been "legally allowed" to "defend his property" and 'kill a SWAT officer?" I don't think so pal.So, the police have a right to break your door down? Nope, not without a warrant. Without a law being broken, they had no right to enter, which is why they chose the route they took. Had they attempted to enter, even after they identified themselves as the police, he has a legal right to defend himself and his property against them. The very reason the founding fathers protected the right to bear arms, to protect oneself from an overreaching, armed government. If they are acting outside the law, they are no longer law enforcement.
They took the precautioinary measures they needed to avoid such a tragedy. Like others have said, had something happened, questions would've been raised as to what could've been done to avoid it.Yep. Sure would have. Just like every other crime that takes place around the country on a daily basis.

They used reasonable suspicion and I am going to follow this story to see what the outcome is. If the guy had no intentions of carrying out what his co-workers and law enforcement officials suspected or feared might happen? We'll soon find out.Who decides the reasonable suspicion level?
BTW. Why does your friend need an SKS? Are the Russians coming?Some people collect guns, with no intention of ever firing them.

[Popeman38]

Hummers and SKS'? Apple and oranges my friend.
You are right. Automobiles kill WAY more people in America each year.

[PokerPacker]

Hummers and SKS'? Apple and oranges my friend.

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet Hummers kill many more people per year than SKS'.

[Popeman38]

The side walk isn't private property and neither are public roads.You are right. But the vehicle you are driving in is, and the police can not enter your vehicle without permission or a warrant, unless you break the law.

[Predicto]

Who decides the reasonable suspicion level?


The police do, with the oversight of the courts.



Some people collect guns, with no intention of ever firing them.

Yes. And some people go crazy and kill a lot of other people. They appear to have had some reason to think that this was one of those guys. We will see.

You seem to be writing your posts as though the police just went to a gun dealer out of the blue and went after the first guy they saw buying some guns. That isn't what happened.

[Skin'Em84]

This thread is going downhill fast.

[Popeman38]

The police do, with the oversight of the courts.Did the guy break a law?
Yes. And some people go crazy and kill a lot of other people. They appear to have had some reason to think that this was one of those guys. We will see.

You seem to be writing your posts as though the police just went to a gun dealer out of the blue and went after the first guy they saw buying some guns. That isn't what happened.Read my posts. What I take issue with is the way the situation was handled. He hadn't broken any laws which is why they could not get a warrant to enter his house. So the close the street, evacuate his neighbors, bring in SWAT, bring in a police negotiator, and harass the man until he "volunteers" to undergo a mental eval. Wanna guess whether this will be flagged as a reason to prevent any future gun purchases?

[Predicto]

Did the guy break a law?



I don't know. Do you?

It appears that he did something to make his employer alert the police that he might be unhinged. Do you know what that was?

Neither do I.

I do know that the standard for being taken in for psychological evaluation is not "do we know he has commited a crime." That is different.




Read my posts. What I take issue with is the way the situation was handled. He hadn't broken any laws which is why they could not get a warrant to enter his house. So the close the street, evacuate his neighbors, bring in SWAT, bring in a police negotiator, and harass the man until he "volunteers" to undergo a mental eval. Wanna guess whether this will be flagged as a reason to prevent any future gun purchases?

I read your posts. How do you know they didn't have a warrant? Do you even know what it takes to get a warrant?

What do you propose that the police do when they have reason to think that someone is crazy AND they are absolutely sure that he has several guns on him, including a recently purchased AK-47?

"Knock Knock.. Excuse me sir, I was wonderin..... *POW* *POW* *POW*"

Oops.

Basically, it appears to me that you don't know what happened, and you have filled in all the blanks that you don't know in such a way as to maximize your outrage.

[ardowling]

Clearly the guy bought the AK-47 for sport.:rolleyes: I like the "proactive" approach they took. Especially with the rise in workplace violence.

I'm guessing those that are opposed to the way this was handled are members of the NRA?

I own an AK47 (MAK 90), I also own an M4 and I use both for sport, not to shoot up a workplace, I don't belong to the NRA but I have a real problem with what I perceive a violation of this mans civil rights, and when I refered to the slippery slope, this is the kind of B.S. that leads to the erosion(sp) of our civil rights because of someone thinks this guy might lose it and can "proactive" action such as this. Also the red flags from Va Tech should been caught with that subjects history of mental illness, there appears to be no such issue here.

[Predicto]

I own an AK47 (MAK 90), I also own an M4 and I use both for sport, not to shoot up a workplace, I don't belong to the NRA but I have a real problem with what I perceive a violation of this mans civil rights, and when I refered to the slippery slope, this is the kind of B.S. that leads to the erosion(sp) of our civil rights because of someone thinks this guy might lose it and can "proactive" action such as this. Also the red flags from Va Tech should been caught with that subjects history of mental illness, there appears to be no such issue here.

You have absolutely no idea whether or not this is the case, do you? You don't know a thing about this guy.

I don't care about YOUR guns. No one took away your guns. No one threatened to take away your guns.

They took away this other guy's guns, and they may (or may not) have had reason to do so.

[ardowling]

You have absolutely no idea whether or not this is the case, do you? You don't know a thing about this guy.

I don't care about YOUR guns. No one took away your guns. No one threatened to take away your guns.

They took away this other guy's guns, and they may (or may not) have had reason to do so.

You do understand that I was replying to the poster who used the rolled eyes icon about AK47s for sport so I think you a little off base. Do you some problem with me?

[Predicto]

You do understand that I was replying to the poster who used the rolled eyes icon about AK47s for sport so I think you a little off base. Do you some problem with me?

Not at all.

I just see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions on this thread. You don't know that this guy is any different from the VA Tech guy, you just assume he is, then talk about the slippery slope.

[twa]

What does the standard for being taken in for psychological evaluation have to do with him doing so voluntarily?(if ya want to call it that:silly:)

There has been no charges,no mention of warrants,and no mention of involuntary commitment proceedings.
Either they are being less forthcoming than usual,or they reached

Hmm a report you might be unbalanced is all it takes now?






Are some of ya'll listed in the phone book?:silly::evilg:

[Predicto]

What does the standard for being taken in for psychological evaluation have to do with him doing so voluntarily?(if ya want to call it that:silly:)

There has been no charges,no mention of warrants,and no mention of involuntary commitment proceedings.
Either they are being less forthcoming than usual,or they reached

Hmm a report you might be unbalanced is all it takes now?

Are some of ya'll listed in the phone book?:silly::evilg:

There has also been no mention of Borneo, the Battle of Agincourt or the growth rate of turnips. :pfft:

I suspect that we will find out more soon.

[ardowling]

Not at all.

I just see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions on this thread. You don't know that this guy is any different from the VA Tech guy, you just assume he is, then talk about the slippery slope.

The Va Tech guy had a history of mental health issues and never ever should have been allowed to own a gun ie...he didn't purchase it legally. The article states that this guy purchased the weapons legally, not much of a leap if ask me. Now let me ask you a question, put on your lawyer hat and with the information you know and if you represented this guy you would'nt have a problem with what went down?

[Predicto]

The Va Tech guy had a history of mental health issues and never ever should have been allowed to own a gun ie...he didn't purchase it legally. The article states that this guy purchased the weapons legally, not much of a leap if ask me. Now let me ask you a question, put on your lawyer hat and with the information you know and if you represented this guy you would'nt have a problem with what went down?

As a lawyer, I would need more facts to issue an informed opinion.

The main fact being what exactly prompted the employer to contact the police.

[ardowling]

So what crime did this man commit and why was his property seized? Bold is my emphsis(sp) and I really love the ACLU response. Thoughts?


http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS07/3110334
March 11, 2010
The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police for safekeeping Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return.

David J. Pyles has asked police to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He sent an e-mailed request today, forwarding copies to legislators and media outlets.

Medford police said they were watching the Effie Street home starting Sunday night in response to law enforcement concerns about the man after he was placed on administrative leave from his job on Thursday.

A Medford police news release described him as disgruntled and said police knew he had legally purchased several firearms over two days. Police identified the guns as a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle.

In what police described as a "proactive" move, they wanted to defuse the situation before people started their daily routines on Monday.

The guns, along with another handgun and a shotgun the man also owned, were seized for "safekeeping" Monday, police said. The man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.

Now, Pyles wants his property returned.

Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.

Hansen declined to discuss Pyles' request, but described the department's process, which can take several weeks. Processing weapons takes longer than other items, he said.

When a person requests the release of property held by police, first the officer handling the case confirms that the item is no longer needed for the investigation, he said. Property control specialists confirm the owner's identity, then, for weapons, send information to Oregon State Police to determine if the person can legally have the weapon. OSP checks criminal records and looks for medical holds that might block gun ownership, Hansen said. Local police check additional municipal court records.

Authorities also check to make sure the gun isn't reported stolen or linked to other crimes. After a final review to ensure all records are in order, the owner is notified to come claim the item.

— Anita Burke

MEDFORD — A phone call from a police negotiator that jolted David J. Pyles awake in the predawn hours of Monday continues to jangle the nerves of observers monitoring the way authorities took the Medford man into protective custody and seized his firearms.

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.

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."

Starrett recounted the details of the case that Pyles shared with him. The federation had agreed not to identify him, so Starrett didn't use Pyles' name, but in the wake of Pyles' own public statements, the Mail Tribune is naming him.

Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.

The Oregon Department of Transportation confirmed that Pyles has worked there as a planner since February 2004. ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said the department couldn't discuss personnel or security matters.

Pyles told Starrett he initially thought the early morning call must be a prank, but looked out to see his yard surrounded by police.

"They asked him to come out and said they wouldn't handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property," Starrett recounted.

However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.

"Because we had information that he could be a danger to others, we wanted a medical professional to evaluate him," Medford police chief Randy Schoen said.

Police have maintained that Pyles' surrender was voluntary, but Starrett noted that an intimidating presence of officers with rifles and SWAT gear can force people to agree to things they wouldn't normally do.

"The thing that is really troubling to us is that this was not an arrest," he said. "People in protective custody don't even have the rights a person who has been arrested does."

When undergoing a mental health screening, a person doesn't have a guaranteed right to an attorney, for example, he said.

The evaluation took several hours and Pyles was released before noon on Monday.

Starrett expressed concern that police hadn't offered a clear explanation of what prompted their action.

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type, but said Pyles could have a case against police if he were taken into custody improperly.(thanks for the help ACLU)

He noted that police can't take people into custody based only on a concern, but said he understood their worries that someone could be hurt.

Email to the PD:Dear Detective Sergeant Clauson & Detective Ford:

I am writing to respectfully request and demand the immediate return of the personal property I understand and allege was taken from my residence on Monday, March 8, 2010 by the Medford Police Department. I would appreciate the Meford PD's returning my personal property to me today at my home at your earliest convenience. If it is more convenient for you and the public tax payer's dime, I am also available after 5 p.m. today, to come down to the Medford Police Station to acquire my personal property.

I appreciate the Medford Police Department's immediate attention to this request. Please reply by a written statement to this correspondence, if you have questions regarding this e-mail. Thank you.

Respectfully,

David J. Pyle

[Predicto]

So what crime did this man commit and why was his property seized? Bold is my emphsis(sp) and I really love the ACLU response. Thoughts?



1) I still don't know what happened between this guy and his employer.

2) You know exactly why his property was seized. They were afraid he was about to kill some people. They may have been wrong about that, but there isn't any question that this was the reason for the action.

3) The reason the ACLU isn't likely to get involved is threefold. First, they generally take only pure pro bono cases, where there is a legal right involved but no damages that would interest a regular plaintiffs' attorney.

Second, there are many other public interest organizations that defend gun rights - the ACLU usually expends its limited resources in cases where there isn't any other organization willing to step up to the place.

Third, the ACLU does not view the Second Amendment the same way as you do.

All are legitimate reasons.

[ardowling]

I don't see it that way, this mans property was taken because someone was afraid of him, correct me if I'm wrong but if he made a threat he would have been arrested, but it sure don't seem that way and he should get his property back ASAP. As for as the ACLU I guess they can pick which rights they decide to defend but thats pretty hypocritcal(sp), I guess the 2A is not a right who would have thunk it huh:cool: I'm sure there will be more to follow and I will update as necessary.

[THEREALTOR1]

3) The reason the ACLU isn't likely to get involved is threefold. First, they generally take only pure pro bono cases, where there is a legal right involved but no damages that would interest a regular plaintiffs' attorney.

Second, there are many other public interest organizations that defend gun rights - the ACLU usually expends its limited resources in cases where there isn't any other organization willing to step up to the place.

Third, the ACLU does not view the Second Amendment the same way as you do.

All are legitimate reasons.

Are you affiliated with the ACLU Predicto?

Serious question, not trying to bull**** or anything, just curious.

[Predicto]

Are you affiliated with the ACLU Predicto?

Serious question, not trying to bull**** or anything, just curious.

I have been in the past. Now that I work for the government, I am not allowed to do any outside work.

[ardowling]

Well as the article stated Plye's side of the story second hand is as follows:Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.

Can't wait to hear the other side, but if he made a threat would that not be a crime?I bet the city settles out of court:evilg:

[Predicto]

I don't see it that way, this mans property was taken because someone was afraid of him, correct me if I'm wrong but if he made a threat he would have been arrested, but it sure don't seem that way and he should get his property back ASAP.



Or they investigated based on a tip that turned out to be exaggerated, and then decided that he was not a problem, just like they are supposed to.




As for as the ACLU I guess they can pick which rights they decide to defend but thats pretty hypocritcal(sp), I guess the 2A is not a right who would have thunk it huh:cool:

Nothing hypocritical about it at all.

Is it really a surprise to you that not every legal scholar and organization views the scope of the Second Amendment the same way you do? The issue has been controversial for decades. You have "molon labe" in your signature for a reason. I know what that means, and why you chose to put it there. I'm pretty sure you must be versed in all of the arguments on both sides, even though you agree with one side and not the other.

So how is it hypocritical for the ACLU not to jump up to defend a right that the ACLU doesn't believe individuals actually possess under the constitution?

[THEREALTOR1]

I have been in the past. Now that I work for the government, I am not allowed to do any outside work.

OK. Thats fair enough. Although I believe we probably see this from a different standpoint, i'm in no way trying to give you a hard time, I just want to be able to look at this situation from all points of view, and was just curious. Thanks for being honest and upfront with me. :thumbsup: :)

[Predicto]

Well as the article stated Plye's side of the story second hand is as follows:Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.

Can't wait to hear the other side, but if he made a threat would that not be a crime?I bet the city settles out of court:evilg:

Yes. We have just heard Pyle's side of the story. It may or may not be accurate.

Even if it is, here's the real question: What makes you think that the police officers were not acting in good faith concern about the public safety? What makes you think that they KNEW Pyle was not unhinged?

[Predicto]

OK. Thats fair enough. Although I believe we probably see this from a different standpoint, i'm in no way trying to give you a hard time, I just want to be able to look at this situation from all points of view, and was just curious. Thanks for being honest and upfront with me. :thumbsup: :)

FYI, I was never employed by the ACLU. They have very few employees and a very small budget. They are organized into individual chapters in each state that don't really coordinate with each other much. Almost all of their work is done by volunteer attorneys, and they only take a case if they can find someone interested in doing the work for free.

I did a small amount of work for them on one case. I was also the University of Michigan representative to the state ACLU while in Law School.

[THEREALTOR1]

I understand there's a possible concern for "public safety". But what would of happened if pyles didn't agree to come out peacefully. What if, and this a "what if" circumstance obviously, but what if it ended up being some sort of standoff, and while the cops were in the process of taking him into protective custody for mental evaluation, they accidentally shot and killed him. It could've been a simple mistake, he might of been reaching for his jacket, they thought he was reaching for one of his recently purchased firearms, and accidentally shot him. Because i'm presuming the SWAT team isn't standing around his house with their firearms unloaded in the safety position, i'm presuming they're there prepared to use any/all necessary force if required.

If, and again, this is a big "IF", but would the ACLU still take the same position if that occurred? <again, honest question, just curious>

[Predicto]

I understand there's a possible concern for "public safety". But what would of happened if pyles didn't agree to come out peacefully. What if, and this a "what if" circumstance obviously, but what if it ended up being some sort of standoff, and while the cops were in the process of taking him into protective custody for mental evaluation, they accidentally shot and killed him. It could've been a simple mistake, he might of been reaching for his jacket, they thought he was reaching for one of his recently purchased firearms, and accidentally shot him. Because i'm presuming the SWAT team isn't standing around his house with their firearms unloaded in the safety position, i'm presuming they're there prepared to use any/all necessary force if required.

If, and again, this is a big "IF", but would the ACLU still take the same position if that occurred? <again, honest question, just curious>


Again, I don't think that would be an ACLU case. The ACLU doesn't take every case where something bad happens. They aren't that big. They take very few cases, most of them involving abstract rights that don't involve damages.

Meanwhile, there are a million plaintiff's attorneys who would take that case, because the damages could be huge.

Let me add - you say you see how there is a "possible" concern about publis safety. Since you get to do a hypothetical, let me ask one.

What if this guy said to his boss and co-workers: "I'm going to go out and buy some guns tomorrow, then I'm going to come in here and kill every single one of you in cold blood." And the employer reports this to the police, and the police investigate and the first thing they find out is that the guy just went out and bought an AK-47?

Should the police do anything in that situation?

If so, what should they do (taking into account that they don't want to get shot themselves)?

[THEREALTOR1]

Let me add - you say you see how there is a "possible" concern about publis safety. Since you get to do a hypothetical, let me ask one.

What if this guy said to his boss and co-workers: "I'm going to go out and buy some guns tomorrow, then I'm going to come in here and kill every single one of you in cold blood." And the employer reports this to the police, and the police investigate and the first thing they find out is that the guy just went out and bought an AK-47?

Should the police do anything in that situation?

If so, what should they do (taking into account that they don't want to get shot themselves)?

Well that's a pretty big hypothetical, however probably no worse than mine. :D Why would he say that, would be my first question? From what I understand, he already possessed enough firearms in his house, that if he was really going to come back and "kill every single of them in cold blood", why didn't he just go home, get his shotgun, and I believe another .45 pistol that he already owned, and go back and shoot everybody?

[THEREALTOR1]

I guess I kinda got around that question Predicto :), but my point being, why wasn't he deemed an immediate threat? He owned guns, thats probably not hard to find out through record keeping, (there's never been any mention that any of the guns he owned were obtained illegally). So if a complaint was conveyed to the police about this guy, knowing that he already has the means to do something about a threat, yet he's not acted on that threat, where does that leave us. People make threats everyday, have the means to act on them, and yet the SWAT team doesn't show up at their house in the middle of the night.

[ardowling]

If he was unhinged wouldn't he still be in the looney bin or jail? Help me out but since when do coulda, woulda, shoulda trump someones rights?

[ardowling]

Again, I don't think that would be an ACLU case. The ACLU doesn't take every case where something bad happens. They aren't that big. They take very few cases, most of them involving abstract rights that don't involve damages.

Meanwhile, there are a million plaintiff's attorneys who would take that case, because the damages could be huge.

Let me add - you say you see how there is a "possible" concern about publis safety. Since you get to do a hypothetical, let me ask one.

What if this guy said to his boss and co-workers: "I'm going to go out and buy some guns tomorrow, then I'm going to come in here and kill every single one of you in cold blood." And the employer reports this to the police, and the police investigate and the first thing they find out is that the guy just went out and bought an AK-47?

Should the police do anything in that situation?

If so, what should they do (taking into account that they don't want to get shot themselves)?

Would that not be considered a threat and therefore a crime?

[stevenaa]

BTW. Why does your friend need an SKS? Are the Russians coming?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of firearms. I own an SKS. I hunt with it and shoot it for sport. Great shooting gun. Very Accurate. Inexpensive ammo so plinking is affordable. Little to no recoil. Yet it is no more effective or capable as a rifle then any number of semi automatic hunting rifles. There are far more powerful semi-auto rifles available.

[ardowling]

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of firearms. I own an SKS. I hunt with it and shoot it for sport. Great shooting gun. Very Accurate. Inexpensive ammo so plinking is affordable. Little to no recoil. Yet it is no more effective or capable as a rifle then any number of semi automatic hunting rifles. There are far more powerful semi-auto rifles available.

QFT, most people who talk about "Assault Rifles" have no clue what there talking about I am still waiting on someone from this site to tell me a "Assault Rifle" is, must be the EBR Syndrome (Evil Black Rifle).

[Perky72]

Even if it is, here's the real question: What makes you think that the police officers were not acting in good faith concern about the public safety? What makes you think that they KNEW Pyle was not unhinged?

That seems an easy question to answer. "Good faith" doesn't give police the right to seize a person and property, except for assesment of an immediate risk of a crime about to occur. Not an existential risk.

Without a warrant or any other paper stating they have the legal authority to do so it's a violation of fundamental civil rights. The most they could've done without any such authority is follow the guy around. If they saw he was carrying a gun could arrest him if he has no conceal-carry; or if they saw him enter his former business with a gun only then would the immediacy allow for intervention.

At least that's my lay take on this. If the state wants to detain and institutionalize people or take their property they need legal justification, either as an immediate crisis intervention, or a signed paper by a prosecutor/judge. Didn't seem like either was the case here, they just winged it and went beyond their authority. And beyond the Consititution.

[ardowling]

1) I still don't know what happened between this guy and his employer.

2) You know exactly why his property was seized. They were afraid he was about to kill some people. They may have been wrong about that, but there isn't any question that this was the reason for the action.

3) The reason the ACLU isn't likely to get involved is threefold. First, they generally take only pure pro bono cases, where there is a legal right involved but no damages that would interest a regular plaintiffs' attorney.

Second, there are many other public interest organizations that defend gun rights - the ACLU usually expends its limited resources in cases where there isn't any other organization willing to step up to the place.

Third, the ACLU does not view the Second Amendment the same way as you do.

All are legitimate reasons.
Sorry I just got to thinking about it, if the ACLU doesn't view our rights in the same view as the consitiution(sp), should they be renamed to "The American Whatever Liberties I Agree With Union"? Just a question?:cool:

[DeanCollins]

I agree, but from what was reported it falls short of justification for SWAT.

Either important facts are left out or the police overstepped.

the unstable disgruntled x-employee buys an assualt rifle the day after he gets fired and you think that they should just go up and ring his doorbell? :ols:

If you got fired, in this economy, would you go out and blow several thousand dollars on guns the next day? hey I understand the OP's, who sounds like a gun advocating anti-government milita hillbilly, point on this but I believe that there was cause to investigate. The facts aren't in yet and maybe the guy realized he was out of control and agreed to go for a check up from the neck up. But by all means let's protect lunatics rights to bear arms, because those nice people on faux news said that the dems are going to take them away. :silly:

[Perky72]

hey I understand the OP's, who sounds like a gun advocating anti-government milita hillbilly, point on this but I believe that there was cause to investigate.

Since when is SWAT an investigation unit?


The facts aren't in yet and maybe the guy realized he was out of control and agreed to go for a check up from the neck up.

Or maybe he's perfectly non-violent about this whole thing and there was no reason for him to get checked out. No matter which, the case hadn't (as far as we know) been made to someone who could legally authorize what the police did.


But by all means let's protect lunatics rights to bear arms, because those nice people on faux news said that the dems are going to take them away. :silly:

If he'd made a threat of violence (an actual crime) this wouldn't be an issue, or if he'd tossed the guns into a trunk, driven to the workplace, got them out and then SWAT had swooped on him (exigency). The issue is the preemption and utter lack of legal justification (thus far with what we know--no warrants or threats or anything).

[DeanCollins]

Pesky, I noticed you ignored he bought an assault rifle and few handguns, the day after making it obvious about his discontent over losing his job, but no cause for alarm right.

[Perky72]

Pesky, I noticed you ignored he bought an assault rifle and few handguns, the day after making it obvious about his discontent over losing his job, but no cause for alarm right.

Alarm? Sure. But the reactions have to be legal. Get a search warrant or phone tap if it's signed off on, follow him around, stop him if he appears to be carrying without a permit, station officers at the place of business if the business allows it.

I'm not ignoring the law or the situation, the cops aren't ignoring the situation but they are ignoring the law. At least based on what's come out so far. All they had was weak suspicion, and that's not enough.

My concern is consistency in law and abiding by the Constitution. If Congress or states want to write a new "VA Tech shooter law" that gives cops/DAs the right to seize weapons and send people to mental institutions based on "alarm" and without warrants or arrests or any crime committed, they're free to make that law and see if it passes judicial scrutiny. Until that happens they have to act within their power limits, which are restricted by things up to and including the Constitution. Ignore it for this guy, and you can ignore it for every situation and we may as well burn it.

[twa]

the unstable disgruntled x-employee buys an assualt rifle the day after he gets fired and you think that they should just go up and ring his doorbell? :ols:

If you got fired, in this economy, would you go out and blow several thousand dollars on guns the next day? hey I understand the OP's, who sounds like a gun advocating anti-government milita hillbilly, point on this but I believe that there was cause to investigate. The facts aren't in yet and maybe the guy realized he was out of control and agreed to go for a check up from the neck up. But by all means let's protect lunatics rights to bear arms, because those nice people on faux news said that the dems are going to take them away. :silly:

What would be so difficult?...are cops there that scared?

If I got fired;) buying some guns is certainly within reason,of course that's like asking me if it's time for a drink:pfft:
The dude is a union worker and probably not hurting for cash.

I wonder which of your actions over the last month might justify a Swat visit to your home at 3am?
I mean we got all these really neat toys and even military training,be a shame not to use it to prevent you from hurting yourself or others.

What's the harm?
You could probably use a psych eval anyway,right?:silly:

How about we simply enforce the law

This don't appear to be it


"To justify my being taken away in handcuffs, forced off my property, my real property as a Medford resident, as a citizen of Jackson County and a United States citizen, legal and all respect, it is most troubling what happened to me on Monday," Pyles said.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100313/NEWS/3130306

DEAR GOD.. they gave this lunatic his weapons back,even the ASSAULT WEAPON:yikes::movefast::nana:

Still think they did not screw up?

[THEREALTOR1]

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100313/NEWS/3130306

DEAR GOD.. they gave this lunatic his weapons back,even the ASSAULT WEAPON:yikes::movefast::nana:

Still think they did not screw up?

Oh snap! Still, what a week.

David Pyles - Things to do list:

Monday - Have swat team over for breakfast, give them guns.
Tuesday - Get psych evaluation.
Wednesday - Finalize paperwork for release from mental ward.
Thursday - CONTACT ATTORNEY! Check on guns.
Friday - Get guns back.

:bunny:

[Bang]

I bet the city settles out of court:evilg:

I would not take that bet in a million years, because if they don't they'd be fools. He's definitely got grounds for a whopper of a lawsuit, and it does not look like the police have a leg to stand on.
I still don't necessarily disagree with their concern,, their approach was over the top, but at the same time what they did is pretty clearly a violation of his rights.
Maybe he was 'scared straight', especially knowing how much money he stands to receive in a suit.

~Bang

[THEREALTOR1]

Here's a silly little side note, I just noticed after looking back through the several different articles posted on this by the Mail Tribune <linked in this thread> that they've always referred to his firearms as "guns" in the article titles', however in this last article title that twa linked in his post above, they referred to them as "weapons". I wonder why the change of reference by the Mail Tribune all of a sudden?

[SnyderShrugged]

I would not take that bet in a million years, because if they don't they'd be fools. He's definitely got grounds for a whopper of a lawsuit, and it does not look like the police have a leg to stand on.
I still don't necessarily disagree with their concern,, their approach was over the top, but at the same time what they did is pretty clearly a violation of his rights.
Maybe he was 'scared straight', especially knowing how much money he stands to receive in a suit.

~Bang


agree completely. I'm also refreshed to see others understand that rights were in fact violated and the man in question was severely wronged in this instance.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't know. Do you?

It appears that he did something to make his employer alert the police that he might be unhinged. Do you know what that was?

Neither do I.

I do know that the standard for being taken in for psychological evaluation is not "do we know he has commited a crime." That is different.



I read your posts. How do you know they didn't have a warrant? Do you even know what it takes to get a warrant?

What do you propose that the police do when they have reason to think that someone is crazy AND they are absolutely sure that he has several guns on him, including a recently purchased AK-47?

"Knock Knock.. Excuse me sir, I was wonderin..... *POW* *POW* *POW*"

Oops.

Basically, it appears to me that you don't know what happened, and you have filled in all the blanks that you don't know in such a way as to maximize your outrage.

seems as though the maximized outrage was totally legitimate in hindsight.:evilg:

[DeanCollins]

agree completely. I'm also refreshed to see others understand that rights were in fact violated and the man in question was severely wronged in this instance.

How was the man "severely wronged"? He was unemployed and spent a day or two being evaluated. Awards are for damages, did they hurt wittle feelings? Is that why he talked smack at work and bought an assault rifle, because his feelings were hurt? Poor little redneck, I feel really sorry for him. :ols:

[SnyderShrugged]

How was the man "severely wronged"? He was unemployed and spent a day or two being evaluated. Awards are for damages, did they hurt wittle feelings? Is that why he talked smack at work and bought an assault rifle, because his feelings were hurt? Poor little redneck, I feel really sorry for him. :ols:


wow, cant say much if you feel that way. I'm sure if the same happened to you or a family member, you would simply chalk it up to "hurt feelings" too?

[Bang]

agree completely. I'm also refreshed to see others understand that rights were in fact violated and the man in question was severely wronged in this instance.

I think everyone recognizes his rights were violated.
However, speaking only for myself, I'm OK with it. The guy sent out all the danger signs and obviously enough red flags to make people very concerned. As I said before, if they start following every gun owner around and doing this sort of thing, then I have a problem. But when a guy exhibits everything in the profile, I think that has to be considered.
Hypothetically, if he was not detained, and he DID follow the profile he fit and go in and kill a bunch of people .. what about their rights?
Remember, part of the police motto is to protect as well as serve.

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

I think everyone recognizes his rights were violated.
However, speaking only for myself, I'm OK with it. The guy sent out all the danger signs and obviously enough red flags to make people very concerned. As I said before, if they start following every gun owner around and doing this sort of thing, then I have a problem. But when a guy exhibits everything in the profile, I think that has to be considered.
Hypothetically, if he was not detained, and he DID follow the profile he fit and go in and kill a bunch of people .. what about their rights?
Remember, part of the police motto is to protect as well as serve.

~Bang


protect and serve....everyone, even someone wrongly accused of mental disorder. (and apparently, not "everyone" agrees after reading a recent post just above ours;))

[DeanCollins]

Alarm? Sure. But the reactions have to be legal. Get a search warrant or phone tap if it's signed off on, follow him around, stop him if he appears to be carrying without a permit, station officers at the place of business if the business allows it.

I'm not ignoring the law or the situation, the cops aren't ignoring the situation but they are ignoring the law. At least based on what's come out so far. All they had was weak suspicion, and that's not enough.

My concern is consistency in law and abiding by the Constitution. If Congress or states want to write a new "VA Tech shooter law" that gives cops/DAs the right to seize weapons and send people to mental institutions based on "alarm" and without warrants or arrests or any crime committed, they're free to make that law and see if it passes judicial scrutiny. Until that happens they have to act within their power limits, which are restricted by things up to and including the Constitution. Ignore it for this guy, and you can ignore it for every situation and we may as well burn it.

Takes a lot of the polices resources to do all that, it was much cheaper to pick him up. And if it saved lives, while mildly violating his rights, well that was a good choice. Whether the swat team shows up or they just arrested him with one officer really doesn't make a difference, other than adding drama.

I don't see this as setting a precedent as it wasn't a legal decision by a court, no more than Rodney King getting his @$$ beat was. It was just a case of overzealous police work, which is pretty common. I've been on the other end of it and didn't receive any compensation for it. Moral of the story, is don't be a stupid redneck, run your mouth at work, and then go buy assault rifles. I'd like to know how he lost his job. If it was for cause (his fault) and his actions that made that separation necessary Don't happen, neither does the rest of this story.

[Bang]

protect and serve....everyone, even someone wrongly accused of mental disorder. (and apparently, not "everyone" agrees after reading a recent post just above ours;))

Agreed, and I'm sure he will be handsomely compensated for his trouble ;)
This looks like an ACLU case, no?

~Bang

[DeanCollins]

wow, cant say much if you feel that way. I'm sure if the same happened to you or a family member, you would simply chalk it up to "hurt feelings" too?

That about sums it up. Think about it, if a wrongly imprisoned man only gets so much money per day (a small amount), what's this guy going to get for 2 days, that he wasn't even in Jail? And if it's his reputation that he's concerned about, what's the reputation of an unemployed man worth? It's not like you ruined his business or professional practice. Now if it happened to me, it'd be a different story as my circumstances are different than his. :pfft:

[SnyderShrugged]

Agreed, and I'm sure he will be handsomely compensated for his trouble ;)
This looks like an ACLU case, no?

~Bang

If it isnt it sure should be! Has the ACLU taken up cases like these in the past? I remember they surprised me when they defended Rush Limbaugh, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did support in this case.

I've learned that the ACLU isnt the demon spawn I was taught by my previous neo-con mentors!:ols:

[SnyderShrugged]

That about sums it up. Think about it, if a wrongly imprisoned man only gets so much money per day (a small amount), what's this guy going to get for 2 days, that he wasn't even in Jail? And if it's his reputation that he's concerned about, what's the reputation of an unemployed man worth? It's not like you ruined his business or professional practice.


still can only say....wow:doh: I'm rather stunned because you have traditionally come across as more reasonable. must be a bad day

[DeanCollins]

still can only say....wow:doh: I'm rather stunned because you have traditionally come across as more reasonable. must be a bad day

I usually take the side of what's best for the greater number of people, that's what makes me a moderate independent. :) I appreciate the general principals point of view on this matter but I'll trade saving lives at the expense of general principals any day. Put yourself in the place of the guy's x-boss (who it appears that he threatened) and his co-workers, who are sitting ducks at work fearing what this (probably angry vengeful disgruntled) guy was going to do with an assault rifle and military issue handguns. Too many of these mass murders have occurred.

[SnyderShrugged]

I usually take the side of what's best for the greater number of people, that's what makes me a moderate independent. :) I appreciate the general principals point of view on this matter but I'll trade saving lives at the expense of general principals any day. Put yourself in the place of the guy's x-boss (who it appears that he threatened) and his co-workers, who are sitting ducks at work fearing what this (probably angry vengeful disgruntled) guy was going to do with an assault rifle and military issue handguns. Too many of these mass murders have occurred.

no lives were saved, they were wrong, completely and utterly. Not a soul was in danger.

[twa]

Takes a lot of the polices resources to do all that, it was much cheaper to pick him up. And if it saved lives, while mildly violating his rights, well that was a good choice. Whether the swat team shows up or they just arrested him with one officer really doesn't make a difference, other than adding drama.

I don't see this as setting a precedent as it wasn't a legal decision by a court, no more than Rodney King getting his @$$ beat was. It was just a case of overzealous police work, which is pretty common. I've been on the other end of it and didn't receive any compensation for it. Moral of the story, is don't be a stupid redneck, run your mouth at work, and then go buy assault rifles. I'd like to know how he lost his job. If it was for cause (his fault) and his actions that made that separation necessary Don't happen, neither does the rest of this story.

If it saved lives appears rather questionable.

You have in your possession a number of deadly weapons,should we take you in for 'voluntary' psych evaluation?..there has been a report you are ornery and difficult :pfft:
Or is it simply the job issue?...which I believe was administrative leave ,not termination
Of course that might be union speak for we can't fire you ass.:silly:

[Corcaigh]

I think everyone recognizes his rights were violated.
However, speaking only for myself, I'm OK with it. The guy sent out all the danger signs and obviously enough red flags to make people very concerned. As I said before, if they start following every gun owner around and doing this sort of thing, then I have a problem. But when a guy exhibits everything in the profile, I think that has to be considered.
Hypothetically, if he was not detained, and he DID follow the profile he fit and go in and kill a bunch of people .. what about their rights?
Remember, part of the police motto is to protect as well as serve.

~Bang

Agreed. Here's a tip ... if you are concerned about your rights being violated by heavy handed law enforcement, don't threaten and intimidate those at your workplace to the point where they need to call the police.

I think it's reasonable that the police took the action they did when they had the chance. If they had been observing him and he got away and committed murder we would have been highly critical of the police for letting someone they new to be threatening and heavily armed commit assault.

[SnyderShrugged]

Agreed. Here's a tip ... if you are concerned about your rights being violated by heavy handed law enforcement, don't threaten and intimidate those at your workplace to the point where they need to call the police.

I think it's reasonable that the police took the action they did when they had the chance. If they had been observing him and he got away and committed murder we would have been highly critical of the police for letting someone they new to be threatening and heavily armed commit assault.

I must have missed where it is fact that he "threatened or intimidated" anyone. Link?

[DeanCollins]

I must have missed where it is fact that he "threatened or intimidated" anyone. Link?

That's where the rub is or isn't. None of us were there, but it's apparent that he ran his mouth enough for the boss, who would otherwise have no reason to know about his gun purchases, to call the police and report his aggressive behavior. Saying that no lives were saved shows prejudice because the facts are not all in. It adds up though, He presumably threatens boss and perhaps co-workers, goes and buys guns, why wait for the conclusion? Just to assert your second amendment rights, over some dead bodies, like usual?

[DeanCollins]

If it saved lives appears rather questionable.

You have in your possession a number of deadly weapons,should we take you in for 'voluntary' psych evaluation?..there has been a report you are ornery and difficult :pfft:
Or is it simply the job issue?...which I believe was administrative leave ,not termination
Of course that might be union speak for we can't fire you ass.:silly:

No, you threaten your boss and cowarker, THEN go and immediately buy an assault rifle and a couple of military issue handguns. Big difference from just owning them previously. It shows intent in combination with the apparent threats made. It's so obvious even a caveman could understand it. :pfft:



http://pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/images/2007/05/15/geico_caveman.jpg

[twa]

That's were the rub is or isn't. None of us were there, but it's apparent that he ran his mouth enough for the boss, who would otherwise have no reason to know about his gun purchases, to call the police and report his aggressive behavior. Saying that no lives were saved shows prejudice because the facts are no all in.

He bought the guns after administrative leave.
If he made a threat there are laws against that and he would be in jail and facing charges,the fact they used protective custody seems to indicate concern for his mental status ...which is a dangerous road w/o a crime

video of the psycho
http://kdrv.com/page/166035

[Corcaigh]

I must have missed where it is fact that he "threatened or intimidated" anyone. Link?

Here's the situation:

(1) dude acts in a way that his employers feel the need to call the authorities

(2) police agree that it merits checking out

(3) dude suddenly buys three weapons

(4) authorities approach his home and say, "we are concerned and would like you to submit for mental evaluation"

(5) dude agrees

(6) dude is evaluated and released

(7) authorities agree to give him his weapons back.

What's the problem here? If authorities are aware of someone who is showing evidence of being mentally unstable and is buying multiple weapons, shouldn't they investigate?

[stevenaa]

That's where the rub is or isn't. None of us were there, but it's apparent that he ran his mouth enough for the boss, who would otherwise have no reason to know about his gun purchases, to call the police and report his aggressive behavior. Saying that no lives were saved shows prejudice because the facts are not all in. It adds up though, He presumably threatens boss and perhaps co-workers, goes and buys guns, why wait for the conclusion? Just to assert your second amendment rights, over some dead bodies, like usual?

Except if he did threaten his boss there likely would have been charges. Maybe he was known to be a hunter and have guns and his boss overreacted after the guy got pissed and cussed him out or something. We don't know. But what we do know is that he was taken in to custody and his property siezed without due process. I think there are all kind of rights violations here that have nothing to do with the second ammendment. Though that is a protected right no less important than any others.

Freedom is a risky business, but it is a far greater risk to yield our freedoms. Government entities are not fond of yielding back.

[stevenaa]

Agreed. Here's a tip ... if you are concerned about your rights being violated by heavy handed law enforcement, don't threaten and intimidate those at your workplace to the point where they need to call the police.

I think it's reasonable that the police took the action they did when they had the chance. If they had been observing him and he got away and committed murder we would have been highly critical of the police for letting someone they new to be threatening and heavily armed commit assault.

Yes. We would be critical of them failing to do their job in the legal manner to which they are expected.

[Corcaigh]

We would be critical of them failing to do their job in the legal manner to which they are expected.

If the employee had a Muslim name I wonder if all the outrage about his rights would be the same. :)

[twa]

Here's the situation:

(1) dude acts in a way that his employers feel the need to call the authorities

(2) police agree that it merits checking out

(3) dude suddenly buys three weapons

(4) authorities approach his home and say, "we are concerned and would like you to submit for mental evaluation"

(5) dude agrees

(6) dude is evaluated and released

(7) authorities agree to give him his weapons back.

What's the problem here? If authorities are aware of someone who is showing evidence of being mentally unstable and is buying multiple weapons, shouldn't they investigate?

There is a proper procedure for that:), simply sending in the SWAT team and taking a man from his home in cuffs is not proper procedure,NOR is it 'investigation,NOR even legal from what I've seen.

[twa]

If the employee had a Muslim name I wonder if all the outrage about his rights would be the same. :)

Does this mean you will endorse rousting and mentally evaluating any Muslims I feel are a threat?

How about environmental activists?

Even better how about politicians?:D

[DeanCollins]

He bought the guns after administrative leave.
If he made a threat there are laws against that and he would be in jail and facing charges,the fact they used protective custody seems to indicate concern for his mental status ...which is a dangerous road w/o a crime

video of the psycho
http://kdrv.com/page/166035

IF he made threats then you admit they'd have the right to arrest him. You can be arrested and held for a day or two without being charged. If the man agreed to a psych eval, "After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out", he technically wasn't arrested, where's the beef?

[DeanCollins]

Except if he did threaten his boss there likely would have been charges. Maybe he was known to be a hunter and have guns and his boss overreacted after the guy got pissed and cussed him out or something. We don't know. But what we do know is that he was taken in to custody and his property siezed without due process.


You're conveniently leaving out the buying an assault rifle and several military issue type handguns, the day after presumably threatening the boss. Then your blaming the boss by saying he "overreacted"? How did he overreact? By telling the cops the guy threatened him with bodily harm or murder? And if the guy agreed to psych eval, how is that "taken into custody"? The cops have the right to take you in without charging you with a crime, you know that right? Wasn't his property returned to him? How was he damaged by not having his assault rifle while he was being evaluated voluntarily? How do you know that he didn't voluntarily allow the police to hold onto his weapons for him?

[twa]

IF he made threats then you admit they'd have the right to arrest him. You can be arrested and held for a day or two without being charged. If the man agreed to a psych eval, he technically wasn't arrested, where's the beef?

That's a big IF :silly:

As is the method of taking him from his home,where there exists more rights than in public.
You are creating a provocation by such actions w/o a warrant or demonstrable cause for public safety.

added
I would not have near the objection if he was stopped and questioned while in his vehicle after the weapons purchase.
I don't like the violation of the home w/o warrants or demonstrable threat of harm at all.
The police have the right to detain anyone,but to remove you from your residence requires a higher burden.
Which is why they always ask ya to step outside:evilg:

[No_Pressure]

I find it disgusting that people are in favor of this obvious breech of privacy and freedom. Are we guilty until proven innocent? Because apparently this man has been placed under arrest and had his firearms confiscated for a crime he has never shown any indications of committing according to the report. Coworkers were "concerned" he may be quite disgruntled...most employees that are placed on leave are. Had he bought a car would they have arrested him because they were sure he was going to rig it with C4 and drive it through the wall of his office building? If he bought a hunting knife I'm sure he was going to gut his coworkers, and had he bought a pack of peanuts, he was planning on poisoning anyone he works with who has a peanut allergy.

Some of you may so "OH COME ON, put two and two together! An angry employee goes out and buys guns!" Well it looks to me like he already had guns in his possession: a shotgun, and a handgun. I don't know how long he has possessed those firearms, but I'm guessing that he hasn't murdered anybody in a shooting spree with them yet.

The cops say they took a "proactive approach" well thats all fine and good when you're actually sure that somebody is about to do something illegal. If the guy made multiple threats such as "you'll all be sorry about this!!!" as he left his office or something, then sure see whats happening when he buys new guns, or if the guy in question was under legal surveillance and they saw him take all of his guns to his car at 3:00 AM, or they saw him sitting around loading them up, and preparing extra clips, or if while on leave he started heading toward his work location in spite of the fact that he wasn't supposed to be there. Then you can arrest him BEFORE he commits a crime. You can't just come to the conclusion that somebody is going to commit a crime and arrest them for it when they haven't done a single thing wrong.

[THEREALTOR1]

You're conveniently leaving out the buying an assault rifle and several military issue type handguns, the day after presumably threatening the boss.

How do we know that he hadn't ordered the guns several days/weeks prior, and they had just come in and were available for pickup?

[THEREALTOR1]

Well it looks to me like he already had guns in his possession: a shotgun, and a handgun. I don't know how long he has possessed those firearms, but I'm guessing that he hasn't murdered anybody in a shooting spree with them yet.

I referenced this same point last night. Haven't gotten that answer back yet though.

[SnyderShrugged]

Here's the situation:

(1) dude acts in a way that his employers feel the need to call the authorities

Nothing I have seen has claimed he threatened his employer, and he wasnt arrested, which he would have been if he issued a threat of tat nature. This is the original false premise you are working from and it causes a failure of the remainder of your argument

(2) police agree that it merits checking out

police can be wrong, which obviously they were in this instance.



(3) dude suddenly buys three weapons

Has no bearing, he already owned weapons and buying weapons is not a crime if done legally, which it was


(4) authorities approach his home and say, "we are concerned and would like you to submit for mental evaluation"

With no real life justification beyond a fearful word of an apparently paranoid boss

(5) dude agrees

at the point of a gun at 3 AM, despite offering no threat to anyone, seems pretty rational for a so called "nut case, doesnt it?

(6) dude is evaluated and released

which proves everyone but him were in the wrong and is a stong case for the simple fact that his rights were infringed upon unjustifiably

(7) authorities agree to give him his weapons back.

They were his, they had to. They cant simply take someones property with no legal justification, which there wasnt

What's the problem here? If authorities are aware of someone who is showing evidence of being mentally unstable and is buying multiple weapons, shouldn't they investigate?

The problem is that they were not "aware" of anyone showing anything of the sort. people get pissed off, they get real pissed off at their employers, and people often own and buy guns as is their second amendment right. There was never anything wrong done by the man. No, if there was enough of a threat, they didnt need to wait until he bought more guns. They treated his gun purchase as a crime and the loony anti-gun crown overreacted....again.

[DeanCollins]

How do we know that he hadn't ordered the guns several days/weeks prior, and they had just come in and were available for pickup?

because his back round check would've been done several days/weeks prior, instead he picked his guns up 48 hours later per the Fed requirement, which means he went directly to the gun store the same day he was put on leave, and presumably threatened someone. People don't call the police for no reason.
And by the way, when someone threatened me, in FL, I reported it to the Police, who told me that it's not crime to verbally threaten someone, and this person (a neighborhood drunk) said that they were going to kill me. He is dead now and I would've dropped him myself. I just wanted there to be a record of his behavior before I gave him a case lead poisoning. Laws vary from state to state, so don't assume that threatening someone is a crime in that state, to make an argument that "he would've been arrested" he had made threats, that's probably not accurate.

[DeanCollins]

That's a big IF :silly:

As is the method of taking him from his home,where there exists more rights than in public.
You are creating a provocation by such actions w/o a warrant or demonstrable cause for public safety.

added
I would not have near the objection if he was stopped and questioned while in his vehicle after the weapons purchase.
I don't like the violation of the home w/o warrants or demonstrable threat of harm at all.
The police have the right to detain anyone,but to remove you from your residence requires a higher burden.
Which is why they always ask ya to step outside:evilg:

And he did step outside- "After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, " So they did not "Violate the home", he came out and agreed to get a psych exam and probably gave consent for his guns to be held for him. Now they've been returned. Save the drama for your momma. :pfft:

[Destino]

Does this mean you will endorse rousting and mentally evaluating any Muslims I feel are a threat?

How about environmental activists?

Even better how about politicians?:D

I think the key here is that they felt he was potentially an imminent threat. Having said that I tend to side with you on this issue. It seems a strange leap to go from looking into something to sending the SWAT team in on a hunch and shipping the man off to the funny farm.

[DeanCollins]

I think the key here is that they felt he was potentially an imminent threat. Having said that I tend to side with you on this issue. It seems a strange leap to go from looking into something to sending the SWAT team in on a hunch and shipping the man off to the funny farm.

About the same leap as labeling volunteering (to go for a psych exam) as "shipping". IF the guy said that he was going to off his boss and goes directly to the gun store and purchases an assault rifle and 2 or 3 military issue (H&K self loading) handguns, that's way more than coincidental. And yes it nuts to follow through on crazy thoughts like that. The MF'er probably is a nutcase.

[stevenaa]

You're conveniently leaving out the buying an assault rifle and several military issue type handguns, the day after presumably threatening the boss. Then your blaming the boss by saying he "overreacted"? How did he overreact? By telling the cops the guy threatened him with bodily harm or murder? And if the guy agreed to psych eval, how is that "taken into custody"? The cops have the right to take you in without charging you with a crime, you know that right? Wasn't his property returned to him? How was he damaged by not having his assault rifle while he was being evaluated voluntarily? How do you know that he didn't voluntarily allow the police to hold onto his weapons for him?

I stated we don't know what happened, and both sides are throwing out lot's of what if's. I didn't blame anyone. I haven't defended anyone. I made up a plausible reason for why the boss could be conerned even absent any direct threat.



The cops can show up at my door and insist I go with them. I can refuse. They do not have the right to take me. They can't accost you or intimidate you into giving yourself up to them "voluntarily". They can't force me to go with them unless they want to arrest me.

He may well have purchased those weapons with the intent of doing something bad. Maybe not. My brother is a gun nut. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he got fired, and then went and bought some guns to go shoot off some frustration on his property or at a range. Shooting for some is a hobby and a stress relief, wether you agree with it or not. Shooting is fun.

If a direct threat of any kind was made, he should have been arrested before even having a chance to buy the weapons.

You are letting a perceived end, justify the means. I don't want my rights compromised in that fashion.

[Popeman38]

Here's the situation:

(1) dude acts in a way that his employers feel the need to call the authoritiesHe was placed on administrative leave, meaning he is still being payed. Originally, it was a fired employee. Now it is a disgruntled suspended employee. I thought if people were willing to give up freedom for safety, they deserve neither? At least that was the argument when the Patriot Act was being debated. Of course, since guns are involved it all goes out the window.

(2) police agree that it merits checking outSame thing cops determined with Sean Bell, he tried to run them over and died. All of a sudden cops are evil.

(3) dude suddenly buys three weaponsHow do we know that he hadn't planned on buying them all along? He purchased them legally, and did nothing to indicate he was gonna kill anyone after he bought them.

(4) authorities approach his home and say, "we are concerned and would like you to submit for mental evaluation"You mean police close his street, evacuate neighbors, surround house with fully armed SWAT, used a police negotiator, and forced the guy to submit to mental eval and confiscate his personal property for no reason. They took him away, what were the guns going to do on their own?

(5) dude agreesHe had no choice, told by the cops he was leaving one way or another.

(6) dude is evaluated and releasedMeaning he passed his eval, posed no threat, yet property still possessed by police.

(7) authorities agree to give him his weapons back.

What's the problem here? If authorities are aware of someone who is showing evidence of being mentally unstable and is buying multiple weapons, shouldn't they investigate?Investigate? Yes. What happened? Hell no. This would never happen anywhere but on the west coast. There would be a march on city hall if it happened anywhere in the midwest/south/mid atlantic. They were wrong, pay the piper now.

[Destino]

About the same leap as labeling volunteering (to go for a psych exam) as "shipping". IF the guy said that he was going to off his boss and goes directly to the gun store and purchases an assault rifle and 2 or 3 military issue (H&K self loading) handguns, that's way more than coincidental. And yes it nuts to follow through on crazy thoughts like that. The MF'er probably is a nutcase.

Perhaps you're underestimating the convincing nature of a SWAT team arriving at your house in the wee hours of the night. If I were to ask you to volunteer for a pysch eval you'd waste no time in telling me where I can stick that idea. If a SWAT team shows up at 3am you'd start thinking it might be in your best interest to be more agreeable.

[twa]

Perhaps you're underestimating the convincing nature of a SWAT team arriving at your house in the wee hours of the night. If I were to ask you to volunteer for a pysch eval you'd waste no time in telling me where I can stick that idea. If a SWAT team shows up at 3am you'd start thinking it might be in your best interest to be more agreeable.

Yes... they have 'real' assault weapons and the will and training to use them:)

[ardowling]

the unstable disgruntled x-employee buys an assualt rifle the day after he gets fired and you think that they should just go up and ring his doorbell? :ols:

If you got fired, in this economy, would you go out and blow several thousand dollars on guns the next day? hey I understand the OP's, who sounds like a gun advocating anti-government milita hillbilly, point on this but I believe that there was cause to investigate. The facts aren't in yet and maybe the guy realized he was out of control and agreed to go for a check up from the neck up. But by all means let's protect lunatics rights to bear arms, because those nice people on faux news said that the dems are going to take them away. :silly:
Not sure if your refering to me as the anti-govt hillbilly, if so I'd be willing to bet that I have traveled more than you could ever dream of, I grew up in Wheaton MD and served this country for over 25 years, I don't get my news from Fox or any of the other MSM outlets because they all spin. What you fail to realize or maybe you do and are to dense to figure it out is that this man's rights were violated and it could happen to anyone of us, if you don't care about this I really have nothing more to say to you as you just don't get and never will.

[DeanCollins]

Ardowling, I just don't have any sympathy for people that buy assault rifles and run their mouth. If you have guns then you need to have self control. Hot headed plus high powered weapons = menace to society. Personally I'd been happier if the guy took a shot at the swat team and they took him out.

[DeanCollins]

Perhaps you're underestimating the convincing nature of a SWAT team arriving at your house in the wee hours of the night. If I were to ask you to volunteer for a pysch eval you'd waste no time in telling me where I can stick that idea. If a SWAT team shows up at 3am you'd start thinking it might be in your best interest to be more agreeable.

They didn't talk to the guy till 5:30 am. They talked to him on the telephone and he agreed to come out. They gave him a choice and he took the easier softer way, good for him. If he doesn't run his mouth at work none of this happens. The police were in a no win situation, damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Nobody died, win/win as far as I'm concerned. I'm not worried about my rights. I don't have a job (self employed 22 years), or a boss, don't own assault rifles and self loading military handguns, and do threaten people. I think I'll be ok. ;)

[ardowling]

Ardowling, I just don't have any sympathy for people that buy assault rifles and run their mouth. If you have guns then you need to have self control. Hot headed plus high powered weapons = menace to society. Personally I'd been happier if the guy took a shot at the swat team and they took him out.
Help me out here, whats an "Assault Weapon"? Now remember I was in the military and we never had an "Assault Weapon" so please fill me in on what makes a weapon one. Thanks;)

[SnyderShrugged]

They didn't talk to the guy till 5:30 am. They talked to him on the telephone and he agreed to come out. They gave him a choice and he took the easier softer way, good for him. If he doesn't run his mouth at work none of this happens. The police were in a no win situation, damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Nobody died, win/win as far as I'm concerned. I'm not worried about my rights. I don't have a job (self employed 22 years), or a boss, don't own assault rifles and self loading military handguns, and do threaten people. I think I'll be ok. ;)


where is the link that verifies he threatened anyone again?

[ardowling]

Oh and Bang and some others asked about the ACLU, it seems they only defend the rights they think you should have, no ****, really:mad:

[DeanCollins]

Help me out here, whats an "Assault Weapon"? Now remember I was in the military and we never had an "Assault Weapon" so please fill me in on what makes a weapon one. Thanks;)

I appreciate that you served honestly. The article says he bought a ak47 and a couple H&K self loader (whatever that means) handguns, and a walther .45?

[DeanCollins]

where is the link that verifies he threatened anyone again?

Why else would his place of work, a State run agency, feel the need to call the police with concerns that he wasn't taking it to well? He went directly to the gun store and bought military type weapons. Why don't you just come out and say that you're an NRA member and care more about your fear of gun laws then a few dead bodies. It's ok, I'm already assuming it. :ols:

[ardowling]

But Dean, why is a Semi auto AK47 an "Assault Rifle"? And if they're so good why doesn't our military have "Assault Rifles"? Hint (I know the answer)

[DeanCollins]

But Dean, why is a Semi auto AK47 an "Assault Rifle"? And if they're so good why doesn't our military have "Assault Rifles"? Hint (I know the answer)

as long as we're playing "how do you know" game, how do you know that he didn't modify the trigger assembly (or buy one black market) to convert it to full auto? ;)

from wiki, "An assault rifle is loosely defined as a selective fire rifle designed for combat that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle, AK family, G36, FN FNC, and the Steyr AUG." It's not my term.

[Corcaigh]

Regarding a 'proven threat', the State Agency isn't disclosing details to the public because it's a personnel disciplinary action, but from the original article ...

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

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

The police do not usually harass people who buy guns, and so I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of doubt that they felt there was threat that merited their response.

I'm not arguing that it merited SWAT because I don't know all the facts, and neither does anyone else here. But I think the police were right to investigate what they felt was a very serious threat.

[ardowling]

Because its not quite that easy, I own an AK (please don't call the police) and you would have to do major mods to the receiver as in get one that would allow full auto (not avaliable sp), its much easier to mod an AR however if you have any experience with weapons spray and pray don't get it done, aimed fire to the CNS does. You do know wiki is just what some dumbass puts in thier right?

[ThinSkin]

Oh and Bang and some others asked about the ACLU, it seems they only defend the rights they think you should have, no ****, really:mad:

They definitely think NAMBLA's right should be defended. ( North American Man Boy Love Association).

[SnyderShrugged]

Why else would his place of work, a State run agency, feel the need to call the police with concerns that he wasn't taking it to well? He went directly to the gun store and bought military type weapons. Why don't you just come out and say that you're an NRA member and care more about your fear of gun laws then a few dead bodies. It's ok, I'm already assuming it. :ols:


I'm not an NRA member, cancelled it about 4 yars ago when I realized they werent for my best interests, but that has no bearing anyway.

Your entire argument has already fallen apart. He was released and his weapons returned. Obviously there was no threat or that wouldnt have occurred.

[Corcaigh]

He was released and his weapons returned. Obviously there was no threat or that wouldnt have occurred.

There's nothing "obvious" about it. By that argument, any police investigation that doesn't result in charges being filed is without merit.

[SnyderShrugged]

There's nothing "obvious" about it. By that argument, any police investigation that doesn't result in charges being filed is without merit.

No, its not even close

The police certainly wouldnt release someone who was a threat back into the public, with his guns. Please be realistic.

You guys are sounding foolish.

[ardowling]

There's nothing "obvious" about it. By that argument, any police investigation that doesn't result in charges being filed is without merit.
But there was no threat made if so show me a link so why is there an investigation? Correct me if I'm wrong but arn't you from England where you have to be 21 to buy a butter knife?

[DeanCollins]

Because its not quite that easy, I own an AK (please don't call the police) and you would have to do major mods to the receiver as in get one that would allow full auto (not avaliable sp), its much easier to mod an AR however if you have any experience with weapons spray and pray don't get it done, aimed fire to the CNS does. You do know wiki is just what some dumbass puts in thier right?

I had the chance to buy a full auto H&K G3 (.308) that was belt fed, in '87 for $1800. It was right around the time the Brady bill was about to be in affect of voted on. I was discouraged by the requirements of the Fed license and having to notify them every time you moved it and having to have a vault for it. Damned thing would be worth a fortune now. I'm not against guns, I'm against morons with guns. lol

[ardowling]

I had the chance to buy a full auto H&K G3 (.308) that was belt fed, in '87 for $1800. It was right around the time the Brady bill was about to be in affect of voted on. I was discouraged by the requirements of the Fed license and having to notify them every time you moved it and having to have a vault for it. Damned thing would be worth a fortune now.
Yes it would and you would go broke paying for the ammo:D The fact is the regs governing full auto weapons are pretty strict and while its fun to burn through a magazine( try 200 rounds of .50 ball:laugh:) Its just not very effective for not sure how to put this??? Engaging targets effectively.

[Corcaigh]

But there was no threat made if so show me a link so why is there an investigation?

Ask the police. Neither you nor I have all the facts, but the police felt there was a threat to public safety.


Correct me if I'm wrong but arn't you from England where you have to be 21 to buy a butter knife?

No. I'm from Ireland where people have a history of massacring each other using garden fertilizer and simple hardware like nails and ball bearings.

[Corcaigh]

No, its not even close

The police certainly wouldnt release someone who was a threat back into the public, with his guns. Please be realistic.



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

Now you can argue with hindsight that the police concerns didn't warrant any action, or that the action was illegal, but the police felt it warranted investigation, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[ardowling]

Ask the police. Neither you nor I have all the facts, but the police felt there was a threat to public safety.



No. I'm from Ireland where people have a history of massacring each other using garden fertilizer and simple hardware like nails and ball bearings.
Sorry for putting you in England, nails and ball bearings are pretty effective just ask that Ayers guy who hangs out with the Pres I think some of his buddies were blown to **** with some nails and ball bearings, anyhow if a valid threat was made the subject would have been arrested, in this case he was not, just asked (compelled) to have a mental exam.

[SnyderShrugged]

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

Now you can argue with hindsight that the police concerns didn't warrant any action, or that the action was illegal, but the police felt it warranted investigation, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.


Thats fine if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure they were doing what they thought best.

Still doesnt change the stark and simple fact that they were wrong.

[stevenaa]

If the employee had a Muslim name I wonder if all the outrage about his rights would be the same. :)

Really? This is the reply you want to go with to a statement suggesting the law be followed?

[Perky72]

They definitely think NAMBLA's right should be defended. ( North American Man Boy Love Association).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." They're more objective than most think. One example (that subjective conservatives might approve of) from a quick google search where they defend an anti-gay student's right to free speech:

http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2008/02/aclu_defends_antigay_student.html

I've been thinking of joining the ACLU and this thread is a good example why, though it's not their main area of interest.

This isn't a 2nd Amendment issue, my thoughts on gun rights are irrelevant. The guy could've ordered katana swords or fertilizer and the issue would be the exact same. Or the cops could've been "alarmed" that he'd bought ten dozen eggs and was going to commit vandalism by egging his boss's house. Doesn't matter, the raid, seizure, virtual forcing him to get evaluated was premature. The issue is the 14th Amendment and its case law:


The right of the people to 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There didn't seem (with what we know so far) to be probable cause for the seizures of the weapons, and of the person himself. An employee feeling the need to call the police about someone is only cause to investigate, not to do what they did. Nor is "extreme concern" without any strong evidence.

As to the argument that he "voluntarily" agreed to go with the cops and get a mental evaluation, as has been pointed out a 3am SWAT team and negotiator is pretty serious duress. Not to mention the illegal seizure of the weapons being a sort of extortion against him to comply with the mental exam if he ever wanted them returned.

[Popeman38]

Nice to see the consistency of opinions here. Taking away rights is bad when speech or expression, or unlawful searches are involved. But it is ok when guns are involved.

And when you address "assault weapons", liberals try to define any gun that can fire 9 rounds or more from a single clip as an assault weapon. Yep, a standard glock 9 mm is an assault weapon.

And if we are so concerned with protecting people from disgruntled Americans, why don't we start detaining all the gang members we see walking down the street in LA/DC/Chicago? Oh wait, the ACLU would be all over the "racial profiling" and stripping of rights.

[ardowling]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." They're more objective than most think. One example (that subjective conservatives might approve of) from a quick google search where they defend an anti-gay student's right to free speech:

http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2008/02/aclu_defends_antigay_student.html

I've been thinking of joining the ACLU and this thread is a good example why, though it's not their main area of interest.

This isn't a 2nd Amendment issue, my thoughts on gun rights are irrelevant. The guy could've ordered katana swords or fertilizer and the issue would be the exact same. Or the cops could've been "alarmed" that he'd bought ten dozen eggs and was going to commit vandalism by egging his boss's house. Doesn't matter, the raid, seizure, virtual forcing him to get evaluated was premature. The issue is the 14th Amendment and its case law:



There didn't seem (with what we know so far) to be probable cause for the seizures of the weapons, and of the person himself. An employee feeling the need to call the police about someone is only cause to investigate, not to do what they did. Nor is "extreme concern" without any strong evidence.

As to the argument that he "voluntarily" agreed to go with the cops and get a mental evaluation, as has been pointed out a 3am SWAT team and negotiator is pretty serious duress. Not to mention the illegal seizure of the weapons being a sort of extortion against him to comply with the mental exam if he ever wanted them returned.
Can I ask you a question? And this not a shot at you, by why would you you want to join an organization that picks and chooses what rights it wants to defend?

[Corcaigh]

Nice to see the consistency of opinions here. Taking away rights is bad when speech or expression, or unlawful searches are involved. But it is ok when guns are involved.

And if we are so concerned with protecting people from disgruntled Americans, why don't we start detaining all the gang members we see walking down the street in LA/DC/Chicago? Oh wait, the ACLU would be all over the "racial profiling" and stripping of rights.

Sticks and stones etc.

And no I don't give a damn about gang members. I'd be happy if every gang member was shot on sight. :)

[Perky72]

Can I ask you a question? And this not a shot at you, by why would you you want to join an organization that picks and chooses what rights it wants to defend?

Mainly because the rights are crucial, and there don't seem to be many others who will defend them "to the death". Most politicians of all parties would rather quash civil rights to win votes than make an unpopular stand in defense of them. If rights a, b, c, d are crucial and the ACLU only vigorously defends rights a and b, that's still two more than when would be defended without them. If there's a vaccuum others tend to fill it, such as the NRA, which I've also thought of joining.

And I respect their decisions to defend the Nazis in Skokie and the Phelps, and NAMBLA, etc., or recently an anti-gay schoolkid as well as a gay schoolkid. Any organization more interested in consistent values than membership or $$$ or popularity earns some respect. Ideally they defend personal freedom and free speech when the government tries to supress it, even though, or especially when they don't agree with the ideas themselves.

As a social libertarian, atheist, and mostly liberal, it may be more odd that I haven't joined them yet. But I'm also a Constitutionalist and have been undecided as to whether they're mainly defending it or too much trying to rewrite it. Plus I hadn't paid them much mind until this decade. But lately (as in post-Patriot Act) I think they either are objective enough, or it's worth supporting them even if they are biased in some areas like the 2nd Amendment, or creationism in schools.

That was kind of long and might not even be a good answer!

[twa]

as long as we're playing "how do you know" game, how do you know that he didn't modify the trigger assembly (or buy one black market) to convert it to full auto? ;)



Because he is not in jail and the legally owned and purchased weapons were returned to him.:)

[SnyderShrugged]

Because he is not in jail and the legally owned and purchased weapons were returned to him.:)

Thats a really pesky fact many seem to conveniently overlook