OFF Alert Re: Medford Outrage

[BDA.45]

I know I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. No one in this forum who is sticking up for the horrible conduct of the police in this unnecessary incident would like to be treated the way Mr. Pyle was. That's all I really need to know to see that the people who made the decisions to inflict it on him need to go to jail, for a long time.

The reason to help Mr. Pyle is not to make him rich, it's so that police departments will know that the citizens of this land will not stand for this kind of thing! If Mr. Pyle walks away with a few million tax dollars for having guns pointed at him when he hasn't done anything wrong well, in my book that's fair.
The people who did this outrage should be the ones responsible for explaining to the taxpayers why they just lost 5 million dollars, and the taxpayers should at the very least demand that some people lose their jobs.
That is not enough however, in my opinion. Jail time would make many police shudder next time some idiot tries to get consensus to perpetrate any unconstitutional operations. Gunner says it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal, well even if the law has some weird loophole that allows police to act like this then we need to cause them to fear the people, should they think about using it! We are their bosses, they are not our bosses!

 

[Ravenous]

I know I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. No one in this forum who is sticking up for the horrible conduct of the police in this unnecessary incident would like to be treated the way Mr. Pyle was. That's all I really need to know to see that the people who made the decisions to inflict it on him need to go to jail, for a long time.

The reason to help Mr. Pyle is not to make him rich, it's so that police departments will know that the citizens of this land will not stand for this kind of thing! If Mr. Pyle walks away with a few million tax dollars for having guns pointed at him when he hasn't done anything wrong well, in my book that's fair.
The people who did this outrage should be the ones responsible for explaining to the taxpayers why they just lost 5 million dollars, and the taxpayers should at the very least demand that some people lose their jobs.
That is not enough however, in my opinion. Jail time would make many police shudder next time some idiot tries to get consensus to perpetrate any unconstitutional operations. Gunner says it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal, well even if the law has some weird loophole that allows police to act like this then we need to cause them to fear the people, should they think about using it! We are their bosses, they are not our bosses!

We are all just repeating ourselves at this point. The law states what they did wasn't illegal and in my opinion a few thousand dollars is more than he should get in a lawsuit. Bogus lawsuits are a much larger problem in my eyes than this is. Really he was without his guns for a few days and taken into custody and released the same day...not worth millions in the grand scheme of things. I like the whole make them tremble in fear until it is changed idea. However the reality of it is that isn't how the system works. Somebody needs to introduce an amendment to the legislature to get this changed. Round about tactics don't change things, direct tactics do. Jail time for the people responsible only works if their actions were illegal. Make this illegal so the next time it happens then we can all get upset and cry foul. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, if every one of the members here wrote their representative about their disgust of the situation that could bring change. I have said it before, but any lawyer who thinks Mr. Pyles has a leg to stand on would work his case for a percentage of the award. There is absolutely no reason for us to give him any money. If he were tried for this it would be different because then he would need to hire a defense attorney. In all reality if he had been wrongfully charged with a crime it would of made it much easier to get this changed because an innocent verdict would set precedence.

 

[dobeman]

just wondering if Mr. Pyles will pass future background checks when/if he goes to buy another gun.

 

[ZachS]

just wondering if Mr. Pyles will pass future background checks when/if he goes to buy another gun.

This shouldn't affect his background checks. In Oregon mental illness is only relevant to your ability to purchase firearms insofar as a judge rules you insane.

 

[Jamie6.5]

We are all just repeating ourselves at this point. The law states what they did wasn't illegal and in my opinion a few thousand dollars is more than he should get in a lawsuit. Bogus lawsuits are a much larger problem in my eyes than this is.

I disagree wholeheartedly. From the standpoint of:
I can no longer feel secure in my own home.
I have no freedom of speech to say what I think about my workplace superiors without the police waking me up with multiple phone calls.
(getting fired is one thing, this is entirely over the top)
To not being able to trust the police and no longer take them at their word.

You aren't paranoid if someone IS out to get you.
They need to pay. The city, county(ies) and OSP. Then I'll go after the libelous bastard that circulated the memo implying that I was a danger to my co-workers.
IOW, I hope he gets the creep(s) at ODOT too!
And when the various government entities realize how much these hand-wringing idiots that they put in charge cost them,...
They fire the lot of them.
Then we'll see who is "disgruntled" enough to go buy guns for the WRONG reasons.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

NIce post, partsproduction. It's time for some accountability from the cops as they re-assume their correct role as peace officers, and not thought police/jack booted thugs

 

[tionico]

I've worked too hard on this. All of the needed info about "reasonable suspicion" and protective custody or mental health holds is already here.

All of the objections I'm seeing now are just repeats which have already been answered.

If someone still doesn't understand how this case differs from an arrest under probable cause and the rights someone has, I suggest he read the threads again or google.

Gunner, all your rhetoric falls flat on ONE little detail..... the Constitution makes NO DISTINCTION whether a person is being detained/arrested/restrained under civil or criminal law. It plainly states, with NO qualifiers, that we are all to be secure in our persons, homes, papers, effects, and property, unless due process of law detarmines otherwise. You make an issue of the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" and stressting that time was at issue, they needed to act quickly to forestall what they thought MIGHT happen...... sorry, that doesn't float. When a cop has even probable cause that a guy is up to something nefarious, putting himself or others at risk, he can, on sufficient evidence, get a judge off the golf course, out of his bed, away from his dinnner table, to sign a warrant. It happens all the time. They apparently waited most of the night before moving....

what I keep trying to get into your head is that those gathering the "information" leading to 'reasonable suspicion" FAILED utterly to vet that information sufficiently. Thus my point that, even with protective custody issues, the information on which the proposed action will rely needs to be examined more closely.

In this case, it appears the "informant" used his position, and his pre-emptive call to the police, to perpetrate a heinous experience and clear violation of Mr. Pyles' rights as a citizen, without anything resembling DUE PROCESS OF LAW. My contention is that, even in such cases, a judge ought to be brought in to the matter..... perhaps question himself the "source" of "information", and investigate a bit further than "his boss at work said so", or whoever it was spoke up. THIS person is taking advantage of a questionable law to carry out a personal vendetta. The proof is, after the fact, Mr. Pyles was released in a few hours.... and his arms restored in a couple of days. In other words, ne NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED, and the process of bringing in a judge to weigh the "evidence" that this guy is a threat would most likely have prevented the whole thing.

As said, the Constitution makes no restrictions or distinctions as to "class" of action. NO detainments, NO searches, NO seizure of personal property without DUE PROCESS.... and a person's right (even by proxy, as in the case of a judge reviewing the "evidence" being presented as the basis for his detainment) to examine witnesses and testimony against him.

Here, one man''s say so put another into restrictive custody... an "arrest" (in the broader meaning of the term, to stop or apprehend someone, detain, limit, restrict, hold, take into custody of any sort.... the man's liberty to go where he wishes is curtained. THAT constitutes an "arrest" under the meaning of the Constitution. Put whatever current legalese term on it you want, the man WAS ARRESTED. His freedom to stay in bed, hop in his car and drive to the taqueria for breakfast, take his new HK off to the range for some practice, was denied him. THIS constitutes an arrest, and, under the COnstitution, canNOT take place without due process.


tionico said:
Good cause could be made that the very fact he agreed to come along quietly signified he was mentally stable...... it would take a real nutcase to face down those odds and turn to go back into his house, telling them to pound sand... in someone ELSE"s yard.

and Gunner responded:
That's not the point. That's after the fact quarterbacking. The police acted on what information they had before they went to Pyle's house. Many a really bad guy has surrendered before an overwhelming force.

"after the fact quarterbacking" is something the cops should be doing in spades.... they took their "informant's" word at face value, failed to sufficiently vet it, took a man into custody (arrested him... see above definition) against his will, and in the face of promises to the contrary, (cops have no more right to lie than you or I do) who was, in a matter of a few hours, proven as sane as anyone else they saw that day. Maybe more so, as he didn't "go postal" after such foul abuse. Once more, the police "acted on what information they had"..... MY point, they did not examine that information sufficiently. They did not gather enough "information" to accurately assess Mr. Pyles' condition. They acted in haste, arresting a man for what seems obviously (after the fact) no grounds.

Now i wonder... have they gone back to their "informant" and had words with HIM? Questioning HIS motives, the veracity of his statements? Seems there may be a stinky rat there... but are they going after it? How many MORE employees at ODOT will this guy rat out on trumped up "information"? Will anyone leaving that department face arrest, a psych evaluation, illegal search and seizure of his personal property?

I've read the ORS under which Mr' Pyles was supposedly arrested. It treats ONLY with taking a PERSON into protective custody. NOWHERE does it include the person's property or possessions. NOWHERE. Your analogy of temporarily disarming someone at a traffic stop falls flat... because THEY had Mr. Pyles in custody... thus he could not gain access to his firearms while THEY had him. NO criminal charges were ever filed, thus they had NO GROUNDS to seize his weapons. what you contend, then, is that the cops, while one of them has ME at the side of the road in a traffic stop, could lawfully send another to my house, enter, and seize ALL my weapons to "disarm" me until I'm released. It is precisely THIS sort of TYRANNY the Founders intended to guard against in the Bill of Rights. These cops were WAY out of line.

 

[Ravenous]

Somebody had posted this in the other thread: <broken link removed>

You guys can think what you want, but based on the depth they went into investigating this before acting on it I have to admit I think they did the right thing. I am sure that I am probably going to be one of the few that think this way.

 

[chris61182]

Somebody had posted this in the other thread: <broken link removed>

You guys can think what you want, but based on the depth they went into investigating this before acting on it I have to admit I think they did the right thing. I am sure that I am probably going to be one of the few that think this way.

I actually find the lack of depth to their investigation worrying, but on that I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree .

But to me it seemed like a phone call to Mr. Pyles during that 6pm meeting the night before the raid could have prevented this whole thing, and if that wasn't performed then there was no depth to the investigation at all.

 

[Trlsmn]

Somebody had posted this in the other thread: <broken link removed>

You guys can think what you want, but based on the depth they went into investigating this before acting on it I have to admit I think they did the right thing. I am sure that I am probably going to be one of the few that think this way.

I see the guy was the union Shop Steward which is the union rep for the location. The shop steward and management traditionally are very much at odds and Shop Stewards tend to be under the microscope and are targets for management as they are the ones that hold managements feet to the fire in all union matters so the bad blood and paybacks from management is guaranteed.

I honestly see no smoking gun in that last link to make me go one way or the other on this issue.

 

[Ravenous]

I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree .

Agreed

 

[Jamie6.5]

The sad part is two signatures would/could have prevented ALL of this.
One on a complaint sworn out by the ODOT supervisor.
And a judges, on a warrant.

 

[ZachS]

The sad part is two signatures would/could have prevented ALL of this.
One on a complaint sworn out by the ODOT supervisor.
And a judges, on a warrant.

That would be true if it was against the law to be a scary creep. It's not. It would have been impossible to get a warrant, because Pyles committed no crime.

That's why this alternate set of laws exists to allow the police to protect society from certain potentially dangerous people.

Time will tell if the police actually followed those laws in this case. But I think they're good ones to keep around just in case, as long as they're used sparingly.

 

[Partsproduction]

alternate set of laws

What? Maybe the police need an alternate constitution too?

 

[ZachS]

What? Maybe the police need an alternate constitution too?

Here's the law:

ORS 426.228 Authority of Police Officers
(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. As directed by the community mental health program director, a peace officer shall remove a person taken into custody under this section to the nearest hospital or nonhospital facility approved by the Oregon Health Authority....

This, or something similar, is the law in probably every state in the country. No court in this jurisdiction has found it unconstitutional. No court is ever likely to find it unconstitutional. I suspect that these laws have ancient common-law antecedents that predate our Constitution by centuries, but I really don't want to spend a Friday afternoon in the library digging up the few books that even cover this particular issue. Even legal scholars who promote the rights of the mentally ill do not focus their complaints on this aspect of the commitment/assessment process. It is settled, uncontroversial law.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

 

[chris61182]

ORS 426.228 Authority of Police Officers
(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. As directed by the community mental health program director, a peace officer shall remove a person taken into custody under this section to the nearest hospital or nonhospital facility approved by the Oregon Health Authority....

So it looks like some of us (and OSP) were correct in the use of the phrase probable cause? And if that's the case that raises the bar of evidence needed?

 

[chris61182]

ORS 426.228 Authority of Police Officers
(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. As directed by the community mental health program director, a peace officer shall remove a person taken into custody under this section to the nearest hospital or nonhospital facility approved by the Oregon Health Authority....

Another interesting part; I wonder how waiting seven hours after determining that they have probable cause is immediate care?

 

[ZachS]

So it looks like some of us (and OSP) were correct in the use of the phrase probable cause? And if that's the case that raises the bar of evidence needed?

Raises the bar above what?

The exact phrase in the statute is less relevant than it seems on the surface. What matters is how the facts of this case can be compared to those of dozens of other similar (and dissimilar) cases that appellate courts have already decided. That's a process that would take us at least a couple of days of solid research, after which we'd be left with no clear answer: we still don't have all of the facts.

 

[chris61182]

Raises the bar above what?

The reasonable suspicion drivel that had no relevance to this law.

The exact phrase in the statute is less relevant than it seems on the surface. What matters is how the facts of this case can be compared to those of dozens of other similar (and dissimilar) cases that appellate courts have already decided. That's a process that would take us at least a couple of days of solid research, after which we'd be left with no clear answer: we still don't have all of the facts.

I'm assuming you've given some of the prior cases a light skimming at least, have any of them involved no threats, the source of complaint having personal issues with the person (outside the complaint), and the target of the complaint being "disheveled"?

Or in other words, from what has been provided by the police does this fit the mold?

 

[ZachS]

Another interesting part; I wonder how waiting seven hours after determining that they have probable cause is immediate care?

Lawyers and judges wouldn't generally understand that phrase to limit the power this statute grants officers, but that's also something that would be argued with case law.