Medford Police: Being "Proactive"

[Gunner3456]

Frankly I would find that show of force intimidating as ****! To the point where I'd be worried I wouldn't live through declining their 'requests.'

At which point wouldn't any waiving of rights be under duress?

No. Otherwise every time cops showed up people would just give up their constitutional rights. It doesn't happen that way. Some blabber, and some remain silent.

Some people are acting like this was Waco for pete's sake. No force was used, only negotiators. The guy was treated very well and the outcome was good.

I keep getting the feeling that some here don't like cops no matter what they do. In this case they had a need to know that the community was safe. That's their job and they handled it well and got a good outcome.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Some people are acting like this was Waco for pete's sake. No force was used, only negotiators. The guy was treated very well and the outcome was good.

Sounds to me like they threatened him with a Waco scenario and coerced him into giving up his rights.

That's called intimidation and is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.

 

[Riot]

Sounds to me like they threatened him with a Waco scenario and coerced him into giving up his rights.

That's called intimidation and is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.

You got all that from the article? Sounds more like speculation to me.

 

[Jamie6.5]

No force was used, only negotiators. The guy was treated very well and the outcome was good.

The THREAT of force certainly was used. Unless those SWAT team members were having a squirtgun fight in the street outside his home, which I sincerely doubt.

The threat of force is real. The perception of force is all that is required for intimidation.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: in·tim·i·date
Pronunciation: \in-ˈti-mə-ˌdāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·tim·i·dat·ed; in·tim·i·dat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timid
Date: 1646

: to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats <tried to intimidate a witness>

synonyms intimidate, cow, bulldoze, bully, browbeat mean to frighten into submission. intimidate implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another <intimidated by so many other bright freshmen>. cow implies reduction to a state where the spirit is broken or all courage is lost <not at all cowed by the odds against making it in show business>. bulldoze implies an intimidating or an overcoming of resistance usually by urgings, demands, or threats <bulldozed the city council into approving the plan>. bully implies intimidation through threats, insults, or aggressive behavior <bullied into giving up their lunch money>. browbeat implies a cowing through arrogant, scornful, or contemptuous treatment <browbeat the witness into a contradiction>.

That about sums it up I think!

 

[Jamie6.5]

You got all that from the article? Sounds more like speculation to me.

Yeah okay Riot. You are SUCH a badazz that 12 armed SWAT team personnel can't intimidate you,...

I got the "12 SWAT team members" from the article. What did you get?

 

[Riot]

Yeah okay Riot. You are SUCH a badazz that 12 armed SWAT team personnel can't intimidate you,...

I got the "12 SWAT team members" from the article. What did you get?

I got from the article what I've posted on this thread several times already...there is information missing.

When you purchase a firearm, the dealer picks up the phone and calls someone. Do you know who he calls? I do. It's not the police department, first of all....so how did the cops know about this guy and his guns?

Someone called them...someone picked up the phone and said "disgruntled co-worker is going to kill us all with his AK-47 assault rifle!"

 

[Jamie6.5]

Someone called them...someone picked up the phone and said "disgruntled co-worker is going to kill us all with his AK-47 assault rifle!"

And THAT is speculation on the part of the caller. And that's how the police should have dealt with it.

Okay Mr co-worker, sign this sworn affidavit so we can go to the judge and get a warrant.

Otherwise, 2 uniformed officers and the department shrink could have made a house call on the guy and left the SWAT team home.

 

[durango#95]

When you purchase a firearm, the dealer picks up the phone and calls someone. Do you know who he calls? I do. It's not the police department,

So, enlighten us, who DO they call? Is it the "good gun fairy"?
Or is it the OSP, like all the gun shops I deal with?
I have a CHL, but I still have to do the ista-check every time I buy, why? "Because you could have committed a crime since you got your CHL"
So who else would have that type of instant, up to date info. other than a LE agency?

 

[Ravenous]

And THAT is speculation. And that's how the police should have dealt with it.

Okay Mr co-worker, sign this sworn affidavit so we can go to the judge and get a warrant.

Otherwise, 2 uniformed officers and the department shrink could have made a house call on the guy and left the SWAT team home.

No more speculation than what you're doing. I understand that our rights are the concern but I haven't seen anything but speculation indicating his were abused. I recall back in 98 when Officer Waibel was shot and killed through the door after knocking and saying they were the police. http://www.odmp.org/officer/15041-officer-colleen-ann-waibel. Better safe than sorry... I would think.

 

[Riot]

So, enlighten us, who DO they call? Is it the "good gun fairy"?
Or is it the OSP, like all the gun shops I deal with?
I have a CPP, but I still have to do the ista-check every time I buy, why? "Because you could have committed a crime since you got your CCP"
So who else would have that type of instant, up to date info. other than a LE agency?

The FBI...you may have an FBI POC in the OSP office for NCIS checks that your dealer goes through.

NICS Background Checks

The FFLs have the following three methods of performing background checks depending upon the state in which the FFL is conducting business:

1. In states where the state government has agreed to serve as the POC for the system, the FFLs contact the NICS through the state POC for all firearm transfers. The state POC conducts the NICS check and determines whether or not the transfer would violate state or federal law.

2. In states where the state government has declined to serve as a POC, the FFLs initiate a NICS background check by contacting the NICS Call Centers for all firearm transfers. The FBI conducts the NICS check and determines whether or not the transfer would violate state or federal law.

3. Finally, in states where the state government has agreed to serve as a POC for handgun purchases but not for long gun purchases, the FFLs contact the NICS through the designated state POC for handgun transfers and the NICS Section for long gun transfers.

Each state decides whether the FFLs in its state call a state POC or the FBI to initiate firearm background checks.

<broken link removed>

 

[shibbershabber]

I say its totally uncalled for.

Taking someone to a psych ward against their wishes to be evaluated because he was upset about losing his job and bought some guns?

Just an FYI to some posters... Socialism is an economic model and isnt synonymous with authoritarianism.


This is unconstitutional in my opinion, if he made threats then you arrest him and charge him accordingly, otherwise you have violated his rights. But to simply send a SWAT team to take him in for an evaluation based on being upset about being laid off buying guns?

I cant believe some of you actually agree with this! Slowly but surely we are all getting used to the police state...

 

[durango#95]

"The FBI...you may have an FBI POC in the OSP office for NCIS checks that your dealer goes through."

Here in Medford, all 5 of the gun dealers I have dealt with call OSP. I have been told, by the dealers, and OSP, that they check your record them selves while they are doing the NCIS. I have seen, 1st hand, some one get turned down for a recent problem that the FBI would have no info on yet. So I tend to believe what I have been told by the dealers and OSP.
I had a dealer ask me once, wile on the phone with OSP, "What gun did you get at Good Guy's Guns this morning" So the OSP felt like mentioning that I had purchased at Good Guys already that day.

This is why I have no questions as to why/how LE knew about the gun purchase's.

 

[Hawaiian]

Lively thread. If it was your wife that fired the guy and he told a coworker that "I am going to blow that 'lady' away" and then went out and bought three guns the next day and the threat was reported to the police and they did nothing. You would be singing a different tune after your wife's funeral. You would then be screaming, "f-ing cops did not do their job. The knew of the threat and let that ahole kill my wife. :winkkiss:

 

[Jamie6.5]

If someone made that threat I would have filed a complaint/restraining order etc. I am sure the police take these things seriously and should.
Then they should take all appropriate action within the law. If that requires me as a witness to him saying "I am going to blow that 'lady' away," then I swear out a complaint against him for threatening me/mine.
Simple enough. Then the police have legal grounds to take action.


Too many here are arguing in favor of unwarranted police intimidation, because of what might have happened because someone lost their job and bought guns shortly thereafter.

That is like a woman saying she is afraid you will rape her because you are pissed at her and you have a penis.

Get real!

 

[chris61182]

I keep getting the feeling that some here don't like cops no matter what they do.

You keep saying that like you're trying to add something to the conversation. It's not, and while some people here may not like cops, it's certainly not coming through in this conversation.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but if the information they had was what I quoted from Riot below, they wouldn't really be asking for his permission now would they? They'd have acted decisively, authoritatively, and rightfully so!

Someone called them...someone picked up the phone and said "disgruntled co-worker is going to kill us all with his AK-47 assault rifle!"

With out that the response should have looked like Jamie's scenario below, except I would have added the condition that they do it during normal day time hours, not at 5:45am, unless of course that was during the time of his normal shift and he's up and doing his thing.

Otherwise, 2 uniformed officers and the department shrink could have made a house call on the guy and left the SWAT team home.

They had the guy under surveillance since 9pm the prior day, they were in a position to stop anything from happening, all with out trampling on his rights.


I suppose you'll just reiterate that anyone who disagrees with you is a cop hater but that couldn't be further from the truth. Some of us just don't like the concept of our public servants 'requesting' we do something at the end of a couple of real assault rifle barrels. That to me isn't cop hating or bashing.

 

[Father of four]

You will be forgiven Gunner3456 if you invite us all over for some of your tasty looking brisket! :yes:

 

[chris61182]

Some people are acting like this was Waco for pete's sake. No force was used, only negotiators. The guy was treated very well and the outcome was good.

I'll be fair and say that I doubt this is how it actually went down, but from the mindset of someone who just woke up with the police surrounding his house I imagine it's how the conversation sounded...

"Howdy, Mr. Recently-Fired. How are you doing this morning?
Anyways getting to the point we hear you just bought a bunch of guns, that's not against the law but;
it's 5:45am
we've evacuated your neighbors
closed your street
there's no one here but you, me, and a dozen guys with real assault rifles. Who you kindly..."

Again, this is just my take/assumption on what someone in that situation likely would have heard from the negotiator.

 

[durango#95]

Hawaiian,

I have thought about this very question long and hard, before you posted it.
I can say that I have dealt with situations similar to this in the past, and have been told time and time again "Until they commit a crime, there is nothing we can do" So I'm afraid that my opinion of turning to the police for help with anything before a serious crime has been committed is a little jaded.
That, IMO, is just the price you pay for living in a free society. Does it always work in my favor, or how I would like? NO! Is that the way I think it should be? YES! In this country, my word, or complaint, against another, in and of it's self should not be reason enough for this type of action. I could be wrong, I could have my own agenda against the person that I am complaining about. I might be bias and not even know it. It's good to know that the system is suppose to protect them from me, as well as me from them. If that makes sense (might be a little to circular when expressed that way)

 

[Redcap]

They had no reason to arrest if no crime had been committed.

Exactly.

/thread

 

[Just Jim]

That is an entirely different subject...one that I agree with.



You other post is just unneccessary because I happen to agree with what the officers did. If you don't have anything else to banter back with then I guess I'm done with this thread.

Just one last question....how old are you?

Don't be so sensetive. I am old enough to remember Waco and the cops doing a little proactive thing in Texas. Lots of people believed the BS back then and supported the death of over 80 men women and childeren by our police.

Your support of our government breaking the laws is no supprise, people will choose freedom or tyrany and you made your choice.

jj