Medford Police: Being "Proactive"

[durango#95]

OK, lets look at just what we do know about this:
1 man, alone in his house @ 5:45AM (LE knew this, they were there from 9:00PM the night before) who had committed no crime YET. 3 homes evacuated, the street closed off, members of SWAT, members of 2 different county's Serif's Dep., and MPD officers all there surrounding the house, and a hostage negotiator (it did say that he was alone). And admittedly all there for a pre-crime action. OSP monitoring this mans LEAGLE gun purchases. The seizure of all his guns, without an arrest.

This alone, without the need of any other facts is VERY alarming!! Unless you have your head way down in the sand. Regardless of the rest of the details, this will set a new precedent to all LEO's involved as to what is within their rights to do to a civilian. Even if it is brought to light that this was over stepping there (LE) bounds, the worst that will happen will be a stern scolding by a judge. Where as, if a civilian over stepped there bounds this far with LE, regardless of what the details were, the consequences could range as high as death on the spot.

 

[Ravenous]

What law have they violated? The state agency called law enforcement because they had serious concerns about the employee. This was after they had put him on administrative leave for some reason which probably was based on some other issue... Possibly mental instability? Threatning behavior? I don't know since we haven't been told. We have been told that due to certain administrative and personnel issues they aren't currently able to discuss it further(probably a cover up but it seems like anti-sue happy legal speak to me). Why would they send a negotiator with the swat team if he was alone? It couldn't possibly be because they thought this man who was resonably armed may be willing to take his own life and maybe the attending LEO's with him? Maybe they got this info about his state of mind from a son/daughter/friend/neighbor who was concerned about him. Maybe all of this and they pulled his records and found he recently purchased an assault rifle and 2 handguns so they raise the caution flag. Maybe it is all bullbubblegum and and they trounced this man's rights and illegally seized his weapons, it could be. I realize that there is an undercurrent of discontent towards law enforcement on these boards and others like it. However it is hypocritical to denounce the LEO's actions based on half a story. You guys are "proactively" bashing them instead of "reacting" to the facts which will come to light soon.

 

[tionico]

Well, on the face of it this looks like a whole bunch of not right. Heavy handed, many agencies involved....... stealth, early hour, taking all his guns yet not arresting him.....


BUT, as has been said, we don't know enough of the story at this point. Maybe he was talking to someone, family or co-worker, and said he was so mad he was going to blow some heads off. Maybe he was showing off his guns to someone and made such a comment. Maybe he'd been getting physically aggressive with one or more co-workers, leading to his leave..... maybe his boss didn't like him for some OTHER reason, took unjustified action, and things went from there.

I do know the local sheriff/police chief gets a copy of the handgun purchase form. State police keep a record of all gun purchases, and maybe that, coupled with the "alert" from work initiated the close scrutiny.

I live in Washingotn, and on more than one occasion I've purchased three guns the same day, on the same FBI form. Once it was three handguns. The sheriff and department of licensing get that form... showing that lil ol ME bought three handguns today. Some of these happened BEFORE I even applied for my CPL. So far, I've never heard a word about it. Oh wait, what was that noise outside, behind the house? Look, there's a dim light... maybe they're watching me.......
Nah. Never happen. I'm a law abiding citizen, no reason to come under suspicion.

Now, if a guy had been buying up multiple guns for weeks, or months, and has record of, say, fifty AK's in the past year, maybe someone WOULD notice..... but then, maybe the guy's just taken a wild hare for building up an AK collection for posterity....... so far, they're legal, and there is no limit to the number or frequency of purchases. Not like some states back east..... sheesh, can't even buy a matched pair of antique revolvers without extrra paperwork, permit fees, waiting, pyschological examinations, and a good explanation as to WHY I want to buy the rare matched pair.....

I suppose, sooner or later, we'll learn more of this story. If the guy's got a problem and really IS a threat, we'll at least hear their public explanation. If the cops got hyperphobic and went playing cops and robbers, I do hope there will be a humongous lawsuit, and he cleans a few clocks... and bank accounts. I am fairly certain LEO involved have considered this aspect of the case...... and took care to either BE right, based on the evidence they'd gathered, or to have things arranged to cover their backsides if they weren't.

its still pretty scary to read this story....... Medford ain't Chicago or Los Angeles. Yet....

 

[Gunner3456]

The police are between the rock and the hard place. The article clearly says that personnel matters can't be released to the public, and that's true. Therefore we don't know what he may have done or said. We don't know why he's on administrative leave.

We don't know why he bought the guns and we don't know what his employer or the police knew.

It has always been incumbent on police to take anyone who has erratic behavior to the hospital's psych ward for evaluation as a civil matter if the person's behavior indicates that he might be a danger to himself or the community. Let's not get sidetracked on the 2A issue here. The public has always had the right to lock up the mentally ill.

He did something or things that alerted his employer and concerned them enough to contact the police. The police agreed and took lawful action. They can't tell us what the underlying concerns were.

About the swat vehicle. In Jackson County, Swat is a joint effort with local city depts, the sheriff's dept and the State Police. I find it hard in a county with a population of 200,000 people and a city with a population of 100,000 to criticize them for having good swat equipment. We do have a regular need for that team and equipment, whether we like it or not.

 

[supergenius]

OK, lets look at just what we do know about this:
1 man, alone in his house @ 5:45AM (LE knew this, they were there from 9:00PM the night before) who had committed no crime YET. 3 homes evacuated, the street closed off, members of SWAT, members of 2 different county's Serif's Dep., and MPD officers all there surrounding the house, and a hostage negotiator (it did say that he was alone). And admittedly all there for a pre-crime action. OSP monitoring this mans LEAGLE gun purchases. The seizure of all his guns, without an arrest.

This alone, without the need of any other facts is VERY alarming!! Unless you have your head way down in the sand. Regardless of the rest of the details, this will set a new precedent to all LEO's involved as to what is within their rights to do to a civilian. Even if it is brought to light that this was over stepping there (LE) bounds, the worst that will happen will be a stern scolding by a judge. Where as, if a civilian over stepped there bounds this far with LE, regardless of what the details were, the consequences could range as high as death on the spot.

I dont trust anyone whom cant spell legal J/P

 

[Gunner3456]

-snip-

This alone, without the need of any other facts is VERY alarming!! Unless you have your head way down in the sand. Regardless of the rest of the details, this will set a new precedent to all LEO's involved as to what is within their rights to do to a civilian. -snip-

This new "precedent" idea just isn't so. The police have always had a right to take someone into "protective custody" if his actions are erratic. They have always had the right to take someone to the hospital psych ward for evaluation if they fear he's a danger to himself or anyone else. This is nothing new at all.

I think we're getting sidetracked on the 2A issue, but what if the guy didn't buy any guns but rather was known to already have guns? They still would have taken him if his statements or other actions caused public concern.

We simply don't know what caused the concern, but something he said or did caused it. He is under civil protective custody for psychological evaluation in a hospital. If he's found to not be a danger he'll be released. If he's found to be a danger he will go before a judge for commitment to a mental facility.

There's nothing new here.

 

[no time]

Everyone seems to be taking the story the newspaper published as gospel. The newspaper will take what little information they have and write a story that will try to entice you to buy the newspaper. It's obvious that they know none of the pertinent facts. The story as they published it makes no sense.

I wonder if everyone involved in the guys problems would have been as excited if the feller had went out and picked up a "Ducks Unlimited" 12 Gauge over the weekend instead of an "evil" AK?

 

[ZachS]

This new "precedent" idea just isn't so. The police have always had a right to take someone into "protective custody" if his actions are erratic. They have always had the right to take someone to the hospital psych ward for evaluation if they fear he's a danger to himself or anyone else. This is nothing new at all.

I think we're getting sidetracked on the 2A issue, but what if the guy didn't buy any guns but rather was known to already have guns? They still would have taken him if his statements or other actions caused public concern.

We simply don't know what caused the concern, but something he said or did caused it. He is under civil protective custody for psychological evaluation in a hospital. If he's found to not be a danger he'll be released. If he's found to be a danger he will go before a judge for commitment to a mental facility.

There's nothing new here.

Yep... it wouldn't surprise me if the police had him under surveillance and went into the gun shop after he left to ask what he bought.


It's good for all of us to be vigilant and suspicious in circumstances like this, but it's also important to be reasonable.

 

[Devryn]

Again guys, there is info in the article that is missing.

How did the police know he was buying weapons? Police officers don't have some majic computer that looks people up to tell them what weapons you've purchased (unless you're the Feds). <-Before anyone comments on this, yes they can look up serial numbers and check to see if a gun was stollen and it will link it back to the last registered owner. Nevertheless, it has to be reported stollen for it to be in this system.

Something led to the police to be interested in this guy and his collection. So, he either threatened to come in shooting the place or opened his suck about getting even with his co-workers. Either way THE POLICE WERE DOING THEIR JOBS. If you guys can't see past your own personal biasness against police, there is nothing I can do for you. This closed-minded approach is what seperates us as American citizens...in my eyes, you're no better than the people rooting for a guy beating up a police officer on the street.

It's called "Group Think", and you should seek out the truth in any situation by asking more questions than just simply going down the path that suits your own.

When you purchase a firearm in Oregon, before you can leave the establishment selling the firearm, the dealer gets on the phone and talks to someone for a pretty good length of time - who do you think they are talking to? The good gun fairy? No, they are talking to Oregon State Police. So yes, they do have a "magic" computer that tells them what weapons you purchase. In point of fact, it is not a personal bias against police, it is a matter of protecting our individual rights that are continually being quashed. Our freedoms are slowly but surely being erradicated under the guise of public safety. Look at seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, rights to privacy under the Patriot Act. If I want to do something that may jeopardize my safety, that should be my choice. If this man wants to purchase firearms, he should be able to do so legally without repurcussions. He did not break any laws. When someone stalked me and made threats to do me and my child physical harm I was told by these same police officers that there was nothing they could do about it until the guy actually caused me harm-actually physically did something to me. This is just another example of presumptive intervention.

 

[durango#95]

My ex-wife let her self into my house (still had a key at that time of our separation), trashed the place, left a big pile of prescription pills on my kitchen counter where my 4yr old daughter could get to them, a suicide note, red wine poured all over the place, ect. ect............ I called MPD, showed them the place, the note, and some of my belongings in the driveway destroyed by her, and asked what could/should be done. "Well, she had a key, so it's not B&E. She has not harmed you, or your little girl yet. We can't really do anything at this point" "Give us a call if it happens again, or if she escalates." :huh:
Oh, wait! I get it, I'm not a state agency calling in a concern
I'm just a private citizen with a nut job threatening me and my 4yr old girl. I was told that they could not even charge her with trespassing, even tho she was no longer on the lease.

 

[Devryn]

OK, lets look at just what we do know about this:
1 man, alone in his house @ 5:45AM (LE knew this, they were there from 9:00PM the night before) who had committed no crime YET. 3 homes evacuated, the street closed off, members of SWAT, members of 2 different county's Serif's Dep., and MPD officers all there surrounding the house, and a hostage negotiator (it did say that he was alone). And admittedly all there for a pre-crime action. OSP monitoring this mans LEAGLE gun purchases. The seizure of all his guns, without an arrest.

This alone, without the need of any other facts is VERY alarming!! Unless you have your head way down in the sand. Regardless of the rest of the details, this will set a new precedent to all LEO's involved as to what is within their rights to do to a civilian. Even if it is brought to light that this was over stepping there (LE) bounds, the worst that will happen will be a stern scolding by a judge. Where as, if a civilian over stepped there bounds this far with LE, regardless of what the details were, the consequences could range as high as death on the spot.

That is absolutely correct. What warranted this type of overkill? Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) states "probable cause is less than either preponderance of the evidence or prima facia showing. The court has said that probable cause... exists when there is 'fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place'." By their own admission, LEO's state he was not under arrest, had he committed a crime he would have been. Very simple. In Terry v. Ohio 321 U.S. 1 (1968) "any interference with property, liberty, or privacy interests on less than probable cause is in violation of the Fourth Amendment".

That said, with the facts the media has given us, there is a whole lot of bad stuff happening here. When these are the only facts given, it stands to reason that the amount of upheaval will be substantial.

 

[Gunner3456]

Because of personnel privacy laws, and now at the hospital the HIPAA laws, we aren't being allowed to know anything about what this guy did to set off the alarms. We are completely in the dark.

I'd suggest withholding judgment unless we learn more about what actually went down.

 

[durango#95]

OK, the guy was back home before the day was over yesterday. Passed the S.E. and was released. Still sound like they needed SWAT there? Still sound like LE was acting in HIS best interest?

 

[Ravenous]

OK, the guy was back home before the day was over yesterday. Passed the S.E. and was released. Still sound like they needed SWAT there? Still sound like LE was acting in HIS best interest?

Can't say, I still don't know the circumstances. I can hypothesize both sides but I won't know until I get some more detailed info. If they indeed did "over react" I am sure heads will roll, but I am not going to assume they did without more info.

 

[Gunner3456]

Let's not forget that this man didn't get arrested. He came out and went voluntarily after negotiators talked him into it. <broken link removed>

No heads are going to roll. This is nothing new. It's been happening for decades at least.

I can't say how I know what I know, but the police did the right thing in making sure he was cooled off.

 

[durango#95]

David Piles (SP?) has not been charged with ANY crime, has not been arrested, and never threatened any one at ODOT. He is on paid administrative leave, and he is the 3rd employee to be escorted out of the ODOT office by OSP at the bidding of the same manager for all 3.
He passed the back ground check for the purchases of all 3 guns. So we know that he is not a felon, has never been convicted of a violent crime, and has never been deemed mentally unfit.
I know 1 thing I am learning as more facts come out: do NOT piss off ODOT managers!

 

[durango#95]

Let's not forget that this man didn't get arrested. He came out and went voluntarily after negotiators talked him into it.

What choice would you have with THAT much force surrounding you?

If he did not CHOOSE to go with them peaceably, what would have been LE's next move? Against a man who has committed no crime.

 

[supergenius]

LOL thread of the day

 

[Gunner3456]

What choice would you have with THAT much force surrounding you?

If he did not CHOOSE to go with them peaceably, what would have been LE's next move? Against a man who has committed no crime.

Now you're borrowing trouble, guessing about "what if." This thread long ago stopped being about guns and started being about LEO bashing.

To answer your question, in his case I would have voluntarily gone with them. However had I done nothing of concern, I would have stayed put and waited to see if they could get a warrant. In my case I'm betting they couldn't get a warrant and would have to leave. In his case I'm betting they could have gotten a warrant, but still I can't tell you how I know.

 

[durango#95]

You have a point there. I am very seldom the one to be looking for fault with LEO's. They are just people, like you and I, and they are doing a tough and usually thankless job. But in this case, with all the facts available, it is looking like over kill AT BEST.
I get that you have some insight on this case, and it seems to make you feel better about what happened.
My self, as a private citizen, with only the facts that I have, I am very concerned about what has happened so close to my home. Perhaps things like this happen all the time, and I am just now having my eyes opened to it.