Medford Police: Being "Proactive"

[supergenius]

You still don't know what really happened in this case though.

I feel sorry for you and all others here for forming conclusions about this case without facts.

I agree.


I cant believe that so many can be so obtuse.... Its entertaining though.. Im not a big fan of the police, but in this instance IN MY OPINION, nothing more.... I think they done good. DEFINATELY better than the outcome could have been... Especially with how the vultures are out on their which hunt in regards to gun "control", the proactive approach was far more friendly to "us" and "our" cause than some jackass on a rampage with black guns.

Conspiracy theory clowns make me walk the other way. Im not a sheep one way or the other... But from what Ive gathered the situation worked itself out just as it should have (they usually do), you dont need to be rocket scientist to figure it out.

Id like to go in depth as to why and what experiences ive had PERSONALLY with very similar situations, but wont.

However in those experiences... They worked out to everyones advantage in the long run... Including mine, hard to see it in the short range though...

(eagerly awaits flaming for laughter)

 

[TILLER182]

I didn't see it mentioned in previous posts. This is likely the statute used to take the subject into custody. It is based on probable cause, it is not a crime. They did not arrest him for a crime he did not yet commit. They made good use of an existing statute to step in and prevent a potentially terrible outcome.

426.228 Custody; authority of peace officers and other persons; transporting to facility; reports; examination of person. (1) A peace officer may take into custody a person who the officer has probable cause to believe is dangerous to self or to any other person and is in need of immediate care, custody or treatment for mental illness.

(4) When a peace officer or other authorized person, acting under this section, delivers a person to a hospital or nonhospital facility, a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board shall examine the person immediately. If the physician finds the person to be in need of emergency care or treatment for mental illness, the physician shall proceed under ORS 426.232, otherwise the person shall not be retained in custody.

 

[supergenius]

I didn't see it mentioned in previous posts. This is likely the statute used to take the subject into custody. It is based on probable cause, it is not a crime. They did not arrest him for a crime he did not yet commit. They made good use of an existing statute to step in and prevent a potentially terrible outcome.

426.228 Custody; authority of peace officers and other persons; transporting to facility; reports; examination of person. (1) A peace officer may take into custody a person who the officer has probable cause to believe is dangerous to self or to any other person and is in need of immediate care, custody or treatment for mental illness.

(4) When a peace officer or other authorized person, acting under this section, delivers a person to a hospital or nonhospital facility, a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board shall examine the person immediately. If the physician finds the person to be in need of emergency care or treatment for mental illness, the physician shall proceed under ORS 426.232, otherwise the person shall not be retained in custody.

All it takes is someone to even SAY that the person hreatened to harm himself or another... TRUST ME.

 

[Father of four]

I do not know the whole story like our privileged Gunner does. I think that maybe the information that is being withheld should maybe be given to us who want to know. If perhaps we (who want to know the facts) would call the local Medford police and or the other agencies involved they might be willing to shed some light on a few questions we have. With out giving us any personal information that would harm the suspect. If they would chose not to then maybe that would just fuel the fire of distrust a little more. Seems to me a statement from the Medford Police Chief may be in order to diffuse the public. I know there are Laws that prevent the police from sharing information....Blah Blah!
But how about giving a bone to us unknowing citizens. Just my opinion..Father of four eace:

 

[eriknemily]

This is entertaining.

I have a great idea though.
How about all of you repeat the exact same argument over and over again....oh wait....nevermind...

Poor Horse

 

[supergenius]

This is entertaining.

I have a great idea though.
How about all of you repeat the exact same argument over and over again....oh wait....nevermind...

Poor Horse

That and its really NONE of anyone elses business at this point anyways. Hes not talking for a reason... Jesus I thought people were a tad more intelligent on this site.

 

[Father of four]

We need answers my man! We need answers!

 

[Father of four]

Not all of us are a supergenius..Some are ignorant like myself..Don't we get to voice our opinion also. Or is this site just for the smart people like yourself?

 

[eriknemily]

I just like using as many emoticons as I can.ffwall:

 

[Father of four]

People like myself join this site to learn and to be heard. I have learned alot about firearms, firearm laws, survival and much more. But I think that there are people on here who think that belittling someone who isn't grammatically correct or doesnt see it there way is better then conversation. This site is about conversation..even for us DUMB ones. Right?

 

[supergenius]

Not all of us are a supergenius..Some are ignorant like myself..Don't we get to voice our opinion also. Or is this site just for the smart people like yourself?

OT:

"Supergenius" is actually a poke at myself... Im not that brilliant either...

Like this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns

Which is where i took the name from.

 

[Father of four]

It may be beating a dead horse... But I myself , without knowing what apparently Gunner does, feel like the thought or intention police could show up at my door for some of my posted opinions I have posted on here. And that is disheartening to me.

 

[slingshot1943]

How do you use a swat team to take someone into " protective" custody? I'm glad they didn't have the third army! Maybe he can get a hearing at a millitary tribunal.

 

[Ray_L7]

I agree.


I cant believe that so many can be so obtuse.... Its entertaining though.. Im not a big fan of the police, but in this instance IN MY OPINION, nothing more.... I think they done good. DEFINATELY better than the outcome could have been... Especially with how the vultures are out on their which hunt in regards to gun "control", the proactive approach was far more friendly to "us" and "our" cause than some jackass on a rampage with black guns.

Conspiracy theory clowns make me walk the other way. Im not a sheep one way or the other... But from what Ive gathered the situation worked itself out just as it should have (they usually do), you dont need to be rocket scientist to figure it out.

Id like to go in depth as to why and what experiences ive had PERSONALLY with very similar situations, but wont.

However in those experiences... They worked out to everyones advantage in the long run... Including mine, hard to see it in the short range though...

(eagerly awaits flaming for laughter)

No flaming here just think you also need to educate yourself on a few things. To make a blanket statement that all people who talk about conspiracies are clowns. Thats an ignorant stereotyping statement. Some have been proven to be true. And once a theory is backed by facts its no longer a theory. Also for you to say "DEFINATELY better than the outcome could have been..." is ridiculous. Who is anyone to say what someone is going to do? Also to say "some jackass on a rampage with black guns" is also an odd statement. To me a persons gun color has no more significance than the color of their skin or eyes. A gun is a gun and can be just as lethal weather its black, purple, pink, camo, or black. And I for one dont think "they done good" in this situation. It was a violation of a citizens rights plain and simple.

 

[supergenius]

No flaming here just think you also need to educate yourself on a few things. To make a blanket statement that all people who talk about conspiracies are clowns. Thats an ignorant stereotyping statement. Some have been proven to be true. And once a theory is backed by facts its no longer a theory. Also for you to say "DEFINATELY better than the outcome could have been..." is ridiculous. Who is anyone to say what someone is going to do? Also to say "some jackass on a rampage with black guns" is also an odd statement. To me a persons gun color has no more significance than the color of their skin or eyes. A gun is a gun and can be just as lethal weather its black, purple, pink, camo, or black. And I for one dont think "they done good" in this situation. It was a violation of a citizens rights plain and simple.

All your opinion. I can deal with it. If you cant see how it could have been much much worse. well, I dont think I even have to say it.


If you dont understand the "black gun" statement, thats fine too... Seems anything that holds more than 1 round and is capable of firing in a semi automatic fashion and has anything other than a wood stock is labeled an "assualt rifle" these days... GET IT????

 

[ZachS]

It may be beating a dead horse... But I myself , without knowing what apparently Gunner does, feel like the thought or intention police could show up at my door for some of my posted opinions I have posted on here. And that is disheartening to me.

I've looked through your past posts, and you haven't said anything on here that would even come remotely near giving an officer probable cause to believe that you might present a danger to yourself or somebody else.

The standard for taking a someone into protective custody has nothing to do with their opinions. In these cases, an officer's probable cause has to come from stated intentions and actions. It sounds like this particular person's intentions were stated and actions were taken in a context where privacy laws prevented information about them from being released to the public.

I know if I went off my rocker and wound up in a situation like this I'd want as much privacy as possible.

 

[supergenius]

I know if I went off my rocker and wound up in a situation like this I'd want as much privacy as possible.

Been there. Thankfull in the end "they" did what they did. In fact my father and sister were there and BEGGING the cops to do something, I resisted, but in the end saw that it was probably the right thing to do...

NONE of ANY of us knows what this dude was going through in his head... But as it sounds thus far... The outcome was far better than it could have been without some sort of intervention (The fact anyone cant see that is astounding)... Call me a hippie..... But, Some seem so hung up on this individuals rights and are overlooking EVERYONE AROUND THIS GUYS RIGHTS to be safe, and the POSSIBILITY of "violating" his was a viable decision when contrasted to the rights and saftey of numerous others... Im sure they were more concerned about his and others safety, and not blatantly thumbing their nose up at the individuals rights...


ITS PRETTY DAMN OBVIOUS HE DID SOMETHING TO GET THE ATTENTION HE DID.... I cant see how anyone could overlook it.

I guess some just dont get it... Its OBVIOUSLY been alluded to by people here (that KNOW of the situation) that it was indeed a GOOD decision... Weather or not any armchair activists think so or not..


As mentioned earlier, its really none of your (or any of our) business....

 

[Ray_L7]

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

If this guy was such a threat and so disgruntled it would have taken more than "After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out"

I think people are getting a little to caught up in the minor details of this and not the bigger picture. Our rights are slowly and subtly turning into not our rights.

And to supergenius it is our bussiness. We the people own the law enforcement and public services. its our right to know what our employees do and how they do it.

 

[chris61182]

NONE of ANY of us knows what this dude was going through in his head... But as it sounds thus far... The outcome was far better than it could have been without some sort of intervention (The fact anyone cant see that is astounding)... Call me a hippie..... But, Some seem so hung up on this individuals rights and are overlooking EVERYONE AROUND THIS GUYS RIGHTS to be safe, and the POSSIBILITY of "violating" his was a viable decision when contrasted to the rights and saftey of numerous others...

Call me crazy but isn't that the exact argument that anti-gunners make? We could cause harm to someone else?

As mentioned earlier, its really none of your (or any of our) business....

I don't think anyone is talking about getting his hospital admission and discharge records. What they want to know is whether he made any statements to the affect of intent to harm anyone, himself included. We don't need or want to know who, just that it actually occurred. Rather than someone felt threatened by his odd behavior of buying guns.

 

[ZachS]

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

If this guy was such a threat and so disgruntled it would have taken more than "After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out"
.

That's an interesting assumption. Can you tell me why you think that's true?