Pre-Crime Policing Disgruntled Man Update

[Stomper]

Hmmm.... maybe go ahead and just shoot your jerk-weed boss at the onset since you're going to get arrested for it regardless if you were REALLY going to do it? (JUST KIDDING!!!)

 

[deen_ad]

Its about guns.

Mr Pyles bought 3 guns. 1 of which was an assualt rifle. That is what caused all this.

The full story has yet to be told.

quote the LEGAL definition of an "assault weapon" under Oregon law.

 

[tionico]

here's an interesting article, well researched, concerning situations exactly parallel to that of Mr. Pyles..... except HE was smart, and sane, enough to best the goon squad came round to "do" him. It could very easily have gone the way of these situations, detailed here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w139.html

these are all cases of police attempting to take someone who was "troubled" into "protective custody".

It is precisely THIS SORT OF THING that has me concerned about putting restrictions and requirements, and accountability, on the laws relating to "protective custody". If this is the "new normal", I'd live a lot longer and happier if those guys never decided to come round to "help" me... or anyone I know. Chilling.....

 

[tionico]

Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
Its about guns.

Mr Pyles bought 3 guns. 1 of which was an assualt rifle. That is what caused all this.

The full story has yet to be told.


sorry, its NOT about guns at all, at least, not JUST about the guns in Mr. Pyles' legal possession. It DOES get somewhat about the guns, in large numbers and of types Mr. Pyles could NOT legally own, in the hands of the SWAT and other LEO who appeared on his doorstep early 8th March.

No, what caused this whole business is an informant with either poor judgement or a personal agenda contacting police and expressing "concern", making false accusations against a person..... then LEO taking that seriously (in and of itself, not a bad thing...), getting more information, then jumping to confusions putting thing A and thing B into association, and drawing an erroneous conclusion about Mr/ Pyles..... then invoking a state law designed to give police special powers to deal with dangerous individuals by taking them into "protective custody" and misusing it. No checks, no outside consult, and going for "worst case scenario", pulling out all the big boys with the big toys and staging a situation that could VERY EASILY have killed an innocent man and possibly others as well.

Once more, before using this law (protective custody) the LEO involved should be required to get a close review by an independent agency, such as a judge, who would be required to examine the evidence, the person making the accusations, and perhaps the individual under evaluation before the cops getting out the guns and handcuffs.
it was misuse of police power and an unconsitutional state law led to this. And lack of due process of law, guaranteed to every person physically within the USA prior to having his security in person, papers, effects, home, compromised. This law may be on the books... but it is clearly unconstitutional. And I hope it gets pushed to reveal just what it is, and its possible abuses and illegal consequences.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

One correction.. if Mr Pyles passed the NICS check to buy his guns then he likely could own the same weapons the SWAT team had.. Oregon is a full class 3 state

 

[Riot]

here's an interesting article, well researched, concerning situations exactly parallel to that of Mr. Pyles..... except HE was smart, and sane, enough to best the goon squad came round to "do" him. It could very easily have gone the way of these situations, detailed here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w139.html

these are all cases of police attempting to take someone who was "troubled" into "protective custody".

It is precisely THIS SORT OF THING that has me concerned about putting restrictions and requirements, and accountability, on the laws relating to "protective custody". If this is the "new normal", I'd live a lot longer and happier if those guys never decided to come round to "help" me... or anyone I know. Chilling.....

First of all, thank you for posting something against what the officer's did instead of just a blanket anti-LEO comment.

Secondly, I agree with you...it is very alarming how much of a "Police State" we have become in the sense of "we know what is best for you" kind of mentality. Currenlty, I'm having trouble with the new Washington state laws for cell phone usage...mainly because it excludes LEOs while they are in the performance of their duties. Then they ticket you for pulling over on the side of the road to use your phone because they say "that's just as dangerous".

Frankly, I see it as I'm being punished for what other people do (drive recklessly) and being fined for an accident I may be involved in...nothing about what I did or didn't do.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I came across this, which may have some bearing on Mr. Pyles' case.

<broken link removed>

It appears that there may be legal precedent in his favor.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from San Carlos, Calif., police officers Armand Bonvicino and David Buelow.

They want the court to throw out the lawsuit filed by Bruce Hopkins accusing them of excessive force, and arresting him and entering his house without a warrant.

A woman had accused Hopkins of drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

The lower courts said the officers did not have immunity against Hopkins' lawsuit. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the officers did not have evidence that Hopkins was ill or had done anything illegal when they entered his home without a warrant. The appeals court also says the officers can be sued for pointing their guns at a noncombative Hopkins.

So if two cops pointing guns at you is worthy of a successful lawsuit, how about a whole SWAT team and maybe more?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I came across this, which may have some bearing on Mr. Pyles' case.

<broken link removed>

It appears that there may be legal precedent in his favor.


So if two cops pointing guns at you is worthy of a successful lawsuit, how about a whole SWAT team and maybe more?

Like being sent to a mental ward for evaluation without orders from a judge?

 

[gunnails]

quote the LEGAL definition of an "assault weapon" under Oregon law.

Good point, still the overwhelming majority are conditioned to call it an assault rifle, and in terms on how LE viewd the rifle.

Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
Its about guns.

Mr Pyles bought 3 guns. 1 of which was an assualt rifle. That is what caused all this.

The full story has yet to be told.


sorry, its NOT about guns at all, at least, not JUST about the guns in Mr. Pyles' legal possession. It DOES get somewhat about the guns, in large numbers and of types Mr. Pyles could NOT legally own, in the hands of the SWAT and other LEO who appeared on his doorstep early 8th March.

No, what caused this whole business is an informant with either poor judgement or a personal agenda contacting police and expressing "concern", making false accusations against a person..... then LEO taking that seriously (in and of itself, not a bad thing...), getting more information, then jumping to confusions putting thing A and thing B into association, and drawing an erroneous conclusion about Mr/ Pyles..... then invoking a state law designed to give police special powers to deal with dangerous individuals by taking them into "protective custody" and misusing it. No checks, no outside consult, and going for "worst case scenario", pulling out all the big boys with the big toys and staging a situation that could VERY EASILY have killed an innocent man and possibly others as well.

Once more, before using this law (protective custody) the LEO involved should be required to get a close review by an independent agency, such as a judge, who would be required to examine the evidence, the person making the accusations, and perhaps the individual under evaluation before the cops getting out the guns and handcuffs.
it was misuse of police power and an unconsitutional state law led to this. And lack of due process of law, guaranteed to every person physically within the USA prior to having his security in person, papers, effects, home, compromised. This law may be on the books... but it is clearly unconstitutional. And I hope it gets pushed to reveal just what it is, and its possible abuses and illegal consequences.

=================================================

My thought is if he had not purchased any guns in between the time he was accused of being dangerous by ODOT and the time he was put into protective custody are at least near about that time, he would of never been a target for Help from the swat team.

If not for being a gun owner Mr Pyles would of never been put through this. IMHO.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

First of all, thank you for posting something against what the officer's did instead of just a blanket anti-LEO comment.

Secondly, I agree with you...it is very alarming how much of a "Police State" we have become in the sense of "we know what is best for you" kind of mentality. Currenlty, I'm having trouble with the new Washington state laws for cell phone usage...mainly because it excludes LEOs while they are in the performance of their duties. Then they ticket you for pulling over on the side of the road to use your phone because they say "that's just as dangerous".

Frankly, I see it as I'm being punished for what other people do (drive recklessly) and being fined for an accident I may be involved in...nothing about what I did or didn't do.

Some animals are more equal than others

 

[tionico]

Nice work, Jamie.... and that from the Ninth Circuit Court, arguably the most far left liberal court in the nation. And THEY say the cops were wrong..... if it goes to the Supreme Court, it will almost certainly be upheld.... the wrongdoing of the cops, that is.


As to the nonsense about cell phone laws in Washington and Oregon (oh, and California now, too). This is really stupid..... some can use the phone just fine whilst driving. Some can't even carry on a conversation with someone in the other front seat whilst driving. I've watched kids driving while texting, I was never so scared in my life whils in a car on the road. I know others can text at lightning speed and never look at the phone. What this is, is accusing ALL of us of being as incompetent as the worst. The dumbing down of America... started in the schools, now its everywhere. There are laws providing penalties for negligent driving. For those whom handheld cell phone use constitutes negligence, if they are involved in an accident due to being distracted, they are being negligent, and should be held responsible. If another can drive all day long talking on their phone and keep sufficient attention on the road, why should he be penalised, charged with a crime he didn't commit, or might commit? Sounds like Mr. Pyles, being taken into custody for crimes he never committed... but someone suspected him of committing... in the future.

Interesting, in the San Carlos case, the man was not armed and was non-combative. Yet the officers used a show of deadly force, which the court says was wrong, and is holding them responsible for it. Mr. Pyles was certainly cooperative, came out of his house unarmed, did not resist..... and was faced down with an incredible show of force. One sneeze, and some of those guys could have opened fire..... and we'd be reading a twisted and spun version of "cops had to shoot deranged man". Yeah, right.....

 

[parallax]

just an after thought, after watching this chain of events unfold,maybe we should all think twice about posting on the thread...."show your guns"

 

[AKMark]

to the hospital which held Pyles for 4 hours, and make your "demands."

To me, a four hour hold speaks volumes. If the hospital had 72 hours to hold and evaluate and needed only FOUR hours to satisfy themselves and their legal/risk management group that Pyle wasn't a threat, that tells me that it was a waste of time and an abuse by whoever started this brown-snowball.

I'd love to know if this was official or back-channel reporting.

BTW, I had guessed that the 'pre-crime' was from Minority Report.

mp

 

[tionico]

just an after thought, after watching this chain of events unfold,maybe we should all think twice about posting on the thread...."show your guns"

Hey, I'm already there. What little I did post was pretty vague....

I know there are some LEO on here, though I'm not worried about the ones I KNOW are.... but who knows how many other 'lurkers" there might be.... even not signed up. Even if there are no nefarious intentions at this point, who knows what could change a few weeks, months, years, down the road.... with the current regime holding the strings. And since the posts don't go anywhere........

of course, there's always that "boating accident" we keep hearing about, and all those nasty private face to face sales we all are so actively involved in..... who knows whether something I'm showing off this week mightn't be in someone else's safe next week...... and, since we're not REQUIRED to keep records......

still, the less specific information publically available, the safer. Now and later.