David Pyles Medford Update 4-9-2010

[New York]

Audio recording:

Kevin Starrett was on the Bill Meyer show Friday discussing the latest illegal activity of the OSP. Apparently the cops unlawfully used their database to go after Pyles.

Not surprising.

He also addresses the question (or double-edge sword reasoning/justification) that came up many times when people say "Well, if the SWAT teams did NOT respond the way they did, then we would all come down on them if David Pyles did go berserk".

Go to the Bill Meyer show KMED Medford and you'll see a link that says Bill Meyer Podcast and click on '7AM FRIDAY APRIL 9' or try this link:

<broken link removed>


New York

Read More

 

[Gunner3456]

Oh great. Bill Meyers, the expert who knows nothing more than anyone else, spouting absolutely undocumented rumor, speculation and uninformed opinion.

It's called getting ratings, or in the case of OFF who he mentions, jumping the gun to make money.

There is not one thing new, not one thing substantiated, not one thing which he backs up with evidence to support his wild-eyed rant.

"He heard from an anonymous email or from some guy who worked at ODOT a few years ago that someone said that someone said they had an opinion about something unrelated.

Way to stir the pot again.

Is there no sane person left in this world who will wait for the facts to come out - real admissible facts?

Thread unsubscribed. I ain't doin' this again.

 

[MountainBear]

Criminal Trial= Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil Trial= Preponderance of the Evidence
Court of Public Opinion (where Jury pools are drawn from)= Believe the loudest talker.

No one waits for evidence to come out anymore. A lot of this has to do with the fact that we rarely get access to unbiased facts from a case. But still, most people seem very content to convict people based on the rantings of whoever yells the loudest at them.

I have no opinion on this case. I shouldn't. There's not been enough facts released to really figure out what happened. Until we have access to ALL the facts, we need to withhold judgement...

 

[yubariver]

Criminal Trial= Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil Trial= Preponderance of the Evidence
Court of Public Opinion (where Jury pools are drawn from)= Believe the loudest talker.

No one waits for evidence to come out anymore. A lot of this has to do with the fact that we rarely get access to unbiased facts from a case. But still, most people seem very content to convict people based on the rantings of whoever yells the loudest at them.

I have no opinion on this case. I shouldn't. There's not been enough facts released to really figure out what happened. Until we have access to ALL the facts, we need to withhold judgement...

I agree as long as there is some method for keeping up pressure on the
parties involved to come up with the information we need to know to
insure fair process is being followed.

 

[Gunner3456]

I agree as long as there is some method for keeping up pressure on the
parties involved to come up with the information we need to know to
insure fair process is being followed.

OK, one more time.

"We" not only don't "need to know," it's also none of our flippin' business.

"The rest of the story" is contained in Pyle's confidential personnel files and his confidential psychiatric and psychological medical files. Confidential, as in by law.

It is Pyles who is keeping the exact history of this private. If someone thinks he "needs to know" the details, then I suggest he knock on Pyles' door and demand answers.

If Pyles chooses to file suit, he'll have to disclose every tiny bit of the story in discovery to give the other side a chance to defend itself. He'll have to disclose all of his psychiatric and psychological history, and all of his personnel history not only on this job but on any other jobs if there were any problems.

Pyles alone can decide if he wants all of the details made public. So far he has pretty much been mum.

No one knows what really happened, especially some two-bit ratings-driven radio talk show host, or OFF who he quoted as an authority but which knows nothing either.

Is there no sane person left in this world? No one who can grasp the simple reality that the facts aren't public and they are none of the public's business unless Pyles releases them?

Dang, unsubscribe again...

 

[Stomper]

Thread unsubscribed. I ain't doin' this again.

Dang, unsubscribe again...

LMAO... Gunner, you'll be back... you can't help yourself... its like passing an accident on the side of the highway... you MUST look as you drive by.... you'll be back!

 

[Atroxus]

OK, one more time.

"We" not only don't "need to know," it's also none of our flippin' business.

"The rest of the story" is contained in Pyle's confidential personnel files and his confidential psychiatric and psychological medical files. Confidential, as in by law.

It is Pyles who is keeping the exact history of this private. If someone thinks he "needs to know" the details, then I suggest he knock on Pyles' door and demand answers.

If Pyles chooses to file suit, he'll have to disclose every tiny bit of the story in discovery to give the other side a chance to defend itself. He'll have to disclose all of his psychiatric and psychological history, and all of his personnel history not only on this job but on any other jobs if there were any problems.

Pyles alone can decide if he wants all of the details made public. So far he has pretty much been mum.

No one knows what really happened, especially some two-bit ratings-driven radio talk show host, or OFF who he quoted as an authority but which knows nothing either.

Is there no sane person left in this world? No one who can grasp the simple reality that the facts aren't public and they are none of the public's business unless Pyles releases them?

Dang, unsubscribe again...

Actually what our LEOs and elected officials do should be EVERYONE's business. IF the police did not have solid evidence to justify their actions that information should be made public and whoever is responsible for those actions should be fired and possibly prosecuted.

IF on the other hand they did have justification for those actions, then that should be public information as well, so that we the people can see that they are doing the jobs properly.

 

[Redcap]

Actually what our LEOs and elected officials do should be EVERYONE's business. IF the police did not have solid evidence to justify their actions that information should be made public and whoever is responsible for those actions should be fired and possibly prosecuted.

IF on the other hand they did have justification for those actions, then that should be public information as well, so that we the people can see that they are doing the jobs properly.

Agreed.

 

[Father of four]

2nd that agreement Redcap.

 

[ZachS]

Just posting to let you all know that I am going to immediately unsubscribe from this thread.

 

[New York]

Here is the correspondence between Kevin Starrett and the OSP.

New York


> >>> Oregon Firearms Federation <[email protected]> 3/28/2010
> 12:25 PM >>>
> Dave and Tricia,
>
> I think I am fairly familiar with your policies dealing with
> background checks for gun purchases.
>
> I know you can approve, deny or "pend," but do you have any policy
> that would allow a purchase, but then contact local law enforcement
> that the purchase had been made?
>
> Is there any way a person can be "flagged" so that if that person
> successfully and lawfully purchased a firearm, any agency (including
> your own law enforcement folks) would be notified?
>
> I know of nothing in the law that would allow this, but I wanted to
> check with you to be sure.
>
> Thanks for your help as always,
>
> Kevin Starrett



> From: "David C Yandell" <[email protected]>
> Date: April 8, 2010 3:25:47 PM PDT
> To: "Oregon Firearms Federation" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Patricia Whitfield" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Policy
>
> Kevin,
>
> Several months ago, we began a review of the legal authority for
> allowing law enforcement access to firearms purchase information
> maintained by the Oregon State Police Firearm Instant Check System
> (FICS) unit. That review involved the process of law enforcement
> agencies returning firearms, which have been held in evidence, to
> their lawful owners. In the past, law enforcement agencies have
> routinely utilized the services of the FICS unit to make sure the
> firearm isn't stolen, and that the owner isn't prohibited from
> possessing the firearm under state and federal law.
>
> While we were in the process of conducting that review, the March
> 8th incident in Medford involving Mr. David Pyles occurred, which
> suggested that the FICS unit also was supporting law enforcement
> agencies in the manner you describe.
>
> Subsequent to the incident involving Mr. Pyles, the FICS unit
> suspended the use of the firearms transaction database for law
> enforcement purposes. The FICS unit is committed to utilizing the
> firearms transaction database and transaction records for the
> prompt research required to expedite the completion of a "pending"
> firearms transaction.
>
> Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
>
> DCY
>

 

[Stomper]

Just posting to let you all know that I am going to immediately unsubscribe from this thread.

Need to have another "ammo dump"?

 

[pokerace]

> Several months ago, we began a review of the legal authority for
> allowing law enforcement access to firearms purchase information
> maintained by the Oregon State Police Firearm Instant Check System
> (FICS) unit. That review involved the process of law enforcement
> agencies returning firearms, which have been held in evidence, to
> their lawful owners. In the past, law enforcement agencies have
> routinely utilized the services of the FICS unit to make sure the
> firearm isn't stolen, and that the owner isn't prohibited from
> possessing the firearm under state and federal law.
>
> While we were in the process of conducting that review, the March
> 8th incident in Medford involving Mr. David Pyles occurred, which
> suggested that the FICS unit also was supporting law enforcement
> agencies in the manner you describe.
>
> Subsequent to the incident involving Mr. Pyles, the FICS unit
> suspended the use of the firearms transaction database for law
> enforcement purposes. The FICS unit is committed to utilizing the
> firearms transaction database and transaction records for the
> prompt research required to expedite the completion of a "pending"
> firearms transaction.
>

SAY WHAT

 

[Stomper]

Well now.... ain't THAT going to be possibly SPESHUL!!

 

[zeezee]

Pyles is just a continuation of how our government and law enforcement continue to treat the citizens it swore to protect and serve.

April 8th, 1996
FBI Raid on Leonard & Dorothy Saye

http://ladyliberty-2000.tripod.com/index19.html

 

[New York]

Pyles is just a continuation of how our government and law enforcement continue to treat the citizens it swore to protect and serve.

April 8th, 1996
FBI Raid on Leonard & Dorothy Saye

http://ladyliberty-2000.tripod.com/index19.html

That's exactly right, zeezee. And you can download a further in-depth analysis of the horror and dangers of these kinds of raids here (which happen thousands of times a year):

OVERKILL: The Rise of Parliamentary Police Raids in America
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

 

[ZachS]

OVERKILL: The Rise of Parliamentary Police Raids in America
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

Parliamentary police raids are clearly illegal! Our Constitution calls for a bicameral legislature, with a separate executive ultimately in charge of police raids!

(Kidding aside, though I didn't read the linked article, I suspect I'd agree with its conclusions.)

 

[jimwsea]

Pyles is just a continuation of how our government and law enforcement continue to treat the citizens it swore to protect and serve.

April 8th, 1996
FBI Raid on Leonard & Dorothy Saye

http://ladyliberty-2000.tripod.com/index19.html

They used to be called "Peace Officers", and were civil servants to keep the peace. My dad was one. Now they are "Law Enforcement Officers". Some of them are bad apples who misinterpret the law and don't keep the peace - the servant part has been thrown under the bus. I've been around long enough to see the change.

 

[Partsproduction]

Thread unsubscribed. I ain't doin' this again.

If you don't see the police coming out as perfect knights in shining armor you will never like how this comes out. They are just human beings, they actually do make mistakes, as far as I can see they made a huge one in this case.

If we don't speak up, demand that police not overstep their bounds, this stuff will continue and grow into the normal way things are done. You're right, nothing has changed, you are still wrong.

 

[tionico]

I just posted a new thread concerning a man, still in custody in NewEngland, under circumstances very similar to Mr. Pyles.... and using similar "basis" for the arrest. Its in this section, something about man in custody for protection....

Atroxus, above, and those who agreed just after, have the right of this situation. It NEEDS to be resolved, it IS our business. A man's rights and liberty were compromised seeminly without due process of law. The Oregon laws on "protective custody" are defective, allowing far too much police custody. I suspect under hard scrutiny at the Federal Court leve, they'd not pass Constitutional muster, and be tossed. There NEEDS to be an impartitial judge involved, who will review the evidence, questioning sources if need be, and issuing a warrant to arrest and/or sieze property. In Mr. Pyles' case, there was none.... and, from all I've read, the LEO came in overcooked, and with far too little of substance to support their case, over-reacted. This seems to be a trend of late... witness the case I mentioned in New England..... the man was taken into custody, arrested, his private and legal gun collection seized..... WHY? Someone made some allegations about the man...... NOTHING he's done has been declared illegal, NO criminal charges filed (they've nothing on which to convict....), NO basis at law for seizing and retaining his weapons..... and they will NOT release him. Its all on the cops. THEY are accusers, judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner. NO accountability, NO recourse.

Franz Kafka wrote about precisely this sort of situation, set in France in the 1920's..... the Trial is the name of his short story. Mr. K was a fictitious character. He could well be Mr. Pyles, or the chap in Connecticut, or wherever back there it is. I tought there were LAWS to protect citizens from precisely this sort of treatment. Oh, come to think of it, there ARE such laws. Too bad they get tossed under the bus as often as they do.

No, Oregon's law on protective custody needs to change.