Medford Police: Being "Proactive"

[Ray_L7]

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

assumption? did u read the article? thats what it says.

 

[Ravenous]

Scenario:

Guy calls his friend over to have a couple beers on the back porch and look at his new toys. Friend gets there and the guy is a little intoxicated. The go out to the back porch and kick their feet up and pop open a brewski. Guy tells friend about being put on leave. Friend consoles guy and asks him what happened. Guy being intoxicated gets a little emotional and makes the statement that his career is over and exaggerates that his life is over and he might as well blow his own brains out.... and while he is at it kill the bubblegumer who was trying to get rid of him. Friend doesn't believe guy would kill anybody but is worried about what he may do to himself. Friend consoles guy and heads home.

While sitting at home friend is concerned that guy may hurt himself. Friend calls non-emergency number and tells the operator that he is worried that guy just lost his job, is depressed, and might hurt himself and would like the police to check on him. Operator asks if guy is armed. Friend states that he just purchased an assault rifle and a couple guns. Operator asks if guy is alone or threatened anybody. Friend says that he said something but that he was just upset and is not the type of person to ever do that. Operator tells guy that she will have somebody check in on him. Police run background check and find guy had indeed legally purchased 3 guns. They also check with employer/manager to check on reason for leave and if the subject was unstable at all. They conclude that guy is most likely not a threat but could be. Guy is however heavily armed and currently not himself. Guy could be very dangerous and an indirect threat on his own life and possibly others was made casually to friend. Police weight options of sending a squad car to check on guy but deem it to risky because they do not know guy's state of mind. They send SWAT in case things go poorly and a negotiator to argue for the potentially suicidal man's life. Bases are covered.

I am going to kill them all-Threat
Sometimes I just wish I could go in there and wipe them all out-Not Threat

Very fine line.
I think they did a good job. Nobody is hurt, nobody is arrested, and a potentially volatile and deadly situation is subverted... Protecting the man's rights are obviously a priority as we don't have any information to identify the man or what he did. Would you guys rather know everything and actually strip this guy of some of his basic rights or would you rather not know and preserve his rights?

 

[Ravenous]

Just realized why so many topics use the phrase bubblegum

 

[Ray_L7]

If the friend was any kind of friend he would have stayed with the person the whole night and or call someone to help support his friend in his time of need. Or maybe even get the person away from his weapons and home. Not run home and call the police to come detain the person. Someone in that situation would act more irrationally with law enforcement than with caring family and friends.

 

[Ray_L7]

Ive had enough of this topic. you all have a good and safe one.

 

[SSG]

So I guess a good friend is a RAT now?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Now they are saying it may take weeks to get Mr. Pyles' guns back to him. He was out of the Psych-eval in a matter of hours, and now wants his property returned. BUt apparently the police are saying they have a right to put Mr. Pyles through the background check again, along with the guns.

Does a psych-eval qualify as "treatment for a mental condition/illness?" If so, he may never get them back.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS07/3110334

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.

Good grief. Man, did this guy ever get the shaft.

 

[slideglider]

"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."


1) confirm that the item is no longer needed for the investigation : Is there an investigation? It was a Psych exam. He passed in a couple hours. Done.

2)Property control specialists confirm the owner's identity: He was detained and examined. I think it's safe to say they know who he is.

3)send information to Oregon State Police to determine if the person can legally have the weapon: Was already done initially when items were purchased from the store.

4)Authorities also check to make sure the gun isn't reported stolen or linked to other crimes: Already dome initially. Items are NIB from FFL. Redundant.

5)OSP checks criminal records and looks for medical holds that might block gun ownership, Hansen said. Local police check additional municipal court records.

And number 5 is the winner! This is what it was all about. Setting precedent with a court case, for increased weapon restrictions based on health records. As was described in before on Alex Jones. Also submitted and passed here:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB44hst.html

Basically it boils down to the saying: YOUR SAYING NOTHIN, BUT TELLING ME EVERYTHING.

 

[eriknemily]

Does a psych-eval qualify as "treatment for a mental condition/illness?" If so, he may never get them back.

Sounds like that could very well be the outcome. I'd sure as heck like to know the whole story on this. Something is amiss!!!

 

[Father of four]

He's free to go? Passed the evaluation? Sound like he is indeed getting the shaft! A couple weeks? I'm sure they could get whatever kind of information about this fellow and his guns that they didnt already have in a mater of hours..maybe a few days. Weeks? Pure shafted!

 

[gunnails]

Untill I here Mr pyles side of the story I am going to assume the Law did the right thing.

 

[Father of four]

I assume the Law may be doing everything by the Law. But if he is free to go home and about his business, he did pass the evaluation, the guns that he did purchase was already checked and cleared, his criminal history was checked and cleared.. so check out his previously acquired guns and maybe a National criminal check. Weeks?

 

[gunnails]

Waiting weeks to reclaim seized property is standard, sucks but it is what it is.

He could always buy some new guns face to face.

 

[Father of four]

Yeah that would probably upset the 5 0 alittle if they found that out.

 

[durango#95]

If the friend was any kind of friend he would have stayed with the person the whole night and or call someone to help support his friend in his time of need. Or maybe even get the person away from his weapons and home. Not run home and call the police to come detain the person. Someone in that situation would act more irrationally with law enforcement than with caring family and friends.

So true! You hit the nail on the head there

"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."


1) confirm that the item is no longer needed for the investigation : Is there an investigation? It was a Psych exam. He passed in a couple hours. Done.

2)Property control specialists confirm the owner's identity: He was detained and examined. I think it's safe to say they know who he is.

3)send information to Oregon State Police to determine if the person can legally have the weapon: Was already done initially when items were purchased from the store.

4)Authorities also check to make sure the gun isn't reported stolen or linked to other crimes: Already dome initially. Items are NIB from FFL. Redundant.

5)OSP checks criminal records and looks for medical holds that might block gun ownership, Hansen said. Local police check additional municipal court records.

And number 5 is the winner! This is what it was all about. Setting precedent with a court case, for increased weapon restrictions based on health records. As was described in before on Alex Jones. Also submitted and passed here:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB44hst.html

Basically it boils down to the saying: YOUR SAYING NOTHIN, BUT TELLING ME EVERYTHING.

Ding ding ding! I think we have winner here
IMHO, I think THIS was quite possibly the goal of the whole operation.

I respect all opinions voiced here. I may not agree with them, but I do respect them. This thread has been enlightening to me about how the "other half" lives

 

[chicobravo]

lesson learned... always buy from a private party, and hide them.

 

[Just Jim]

Does anyone here, with what information is public, really believe that

1. The sheriff of Jackson County,

2. The sheriff of Josephine County,

3. The head of the district State Police office,

4. The chiefs of three city police departments,

5. And the head of the Psych ward for a local hospital

All unanimously decided to do something illegal or patently stupid, and without good cause?

All of those departments participated. Don't you think they had a lawful and good reason?

C'mon, guys.

Gees Gunner, how many groups got together to burn down Waco

jj

 

[pokerace]

[/Don't you think they had a lawful and good reason?QUOTE]

NO NO AND NO

 

[shibbershabber]

No, he agreed to go. You don't know the whole story. He had the option to get arrested. He was actually handled more than fairly.

He agreed, but was coerced. If someone called him and said that they were concerned and he should voluntarily go see s shrink, what do you think he would have done? He was coerced buy an overwhelming armed police presence... Probably facing arrest is he did not comply "willingly"

You do not have the whole story either. We are making opinions based on what information is available in the article posted, so stop acting like the entire story is over, cut and dried. NOBODY here knows the whole story.

We are having a discussion, you are assuming one set of facts, and I am assuming another.

No, socialism is a type of government where the government owns the means of production (businesses.) Nazism on the other hand is where the private sector owns the businesses but the government controls them.

Okay, so we agree that Socialism relates only to economic matters.

What you call Nazism is actually FASCISM, Nazism would be a form of authoritarian fascism.

You don't know what he did. I do. I'm appalled by how many people have an opinion but no knowledge. Must be nice to make up your own facts about what happened.

Again, you do not know what happened either. I am appalled by, given the lack of information so far, YOU are give your OPINION as FACT.

I am not making up facts, I am making assumptions based on information provided. So, please tell me what "facts" I have "made up"

Again, if you knew what really happened - if you were dealing with any facts - your opinion might just hold some water.

Then enlighten us all with your wealth of knowledge. Please fill us in so we can end this 18 page discussion! If you have something to add that was not in the OP, please post it along with a source

This was a joint effort by the sheriffs' depts. of two counties, the Medford Police and the State Police. All had to approve it. They had the facts and you don't, but yet you know better than they. Must be nice.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the Police are never wrong and never violate peoples' rights, thats right, I almost forgot. Thanks for the reminder.

So then, you are saying that you dont have the facts, but they did? Okay, whew, you had me going there for a minute.

SO, if he had actually violated a law, why was he not charged? Why were no specific crimes listed in the article? Because it seems to me that they sent a SWAT team to escort him to a psych ward based on a hunch...

OR maybe it what just that liberal press leaving info out of the article to make it look like the police railroaded this guy?

and BTW... it is nice

You don't know their reasons but you seem to think they are all idiots and don't know the law or the constitution. You also seem to think they would all unanimously act without lawful cause.

1. I never said they were idiots.
2. I am sure they know the constitution, but may simply be overlooking it.
3. If there were a lawful cause, why has it not been made public?

Don't ever let a lack of facts slow you down.

None of the naysayers on here have any facts about the background of this event, but we sure have a lot of assumptions and resulting opinions.

I see that a lack of facts hasnt slowed you down... I just dont want to be left behind.

I might add that YOU dont have any facts about the background of this event either... yet you seem to have an equal amount of assumptions and resulting opinions too. Hmm, go figure.

Maybe we should just shut down all local LEO departments to keep everyone safe.

Overreact much?

 

[shibbershabber]

I have a little piece of news for you. It's none of your business.

My only point is that I know, and I approve. I believe you would too.

Why not just quit with the "neener neener" stuff already, huh?

If you know something that we do not, and cannot share it... then leave the thread alone instead of calling us all out as ignorant cop-haters and playing games.

You, of all people, must know that we are basing our opinions on the information given. And based on what is available in the article, this is bad.

So if you have nothing to add besides "I know something you dont know" why not leave us to our discussion?