Pre-Crime Policing Disgruntled Man Update

[zeezee]

Well, I respect your feelings but that's what they are - your feelings.

The points you are making have to do with criminal law. This was a civil matter. The man was never charged with a crime and criminal laws don't apply.

Under Oregon law the police have not only the right but a responsibility to take action when mental issues are suspected. They don't have to be violent mental issues. It's called protective custody in most cases.

Since the police went to his home with information, and it appears the intent to take him into custody, his rights to not come outside or ignore the police didn't hold. He could remain silent, but it appears that they were still taking him. They would have taken him by force under the law.

As I said, if we don't like that law, then it's a matter for the legislature, not the police. It's actually the police's responsibility to take someone in for a mental health exam especially if they have reason to believe the person might be a danger to himself or others.

I'm unsure what's so hard to understand here...

Ahh yes, the socialistic state of oregon. Why you people allow them to do this to you I'll never understand?
Had it been me, I would have gladly rode down to the police station, the perfect imitation of a clam asking only for an attorney. And then I would have started the biggest lawsuit the state of oregon has ever seen. It comes back to who is to determine his mental health and who has been monitoring him. Heck gunner, I guess I could call the cops on you for some of your comments as you'd have the right to call them on me. Heck, lets tie the cops and the courts up for years with this asinine BS law. 50% of the state call in the other 50% and fill the jails to overflowing.
Socialism and oregon thought police are beyond stupid. I'd like to see this brought up in a court room because IMHO it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

[Father of four]

Zeezee...

 

[TAT2D]

I say he'd sue if all that is true. But, maybe not.

I thought at first you were agreeing with me. Had me going there...

I can assure you, from my own experience, that people like that do exist. Sometimes it's *not* all about the money, and raising a stink won't undo the hurt.

MrB

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Zeezee...

+1

 

[tionico]

the one thing that keeps escaping notice here is this: IF, as indicated, the original source of "concern" was someone within Mr. Pyles' place of employment, ODOT, that called to the police, that report needs to be addressed at some point. WE can't do that here, as we don't know WHO spoke up, what their position of authority/knowledge might be, or what was said. What we have here is the fact that statements by SOMEONE, who thus far has been unaccountable at law, resulted in someone else's apprehension, and the illegal taking of their goods (no warrant to enter the residence, or to seize any specified property). The Constitution guarantees each individual the right to be confronted by witnesses against them. Here, he was not accused of a "crime" but was accused of the INTENT of a crime... nevertheless he was forcibly detained (I will defer to the previous conclusions that anyone confronted with the level of force in this chap's front yard in the dark of a morning is certainly detained under force-- or the threat thereof, the same in the eyes of most sane men). It seems to me the Oregon laws on police protective custody in similar cases could be construed as violating one's Constitutional right against detainment withoud due process and witnesses to be confronted. Thus the law itself could be tossed on a Constitutional challenge... which would be a fun case to watch).

So, he was taken into custody.... it is abundantly obvious he was NOT a risk, else it is certain he'd not have been released fully a mere four hours later. Nor were his firearms an issue, as those were restored in a manner, and rapidity, unprecedented, perhaps indicative of how wrong the conclusions the LEA made really were.

So, now, what, if anything, have the various five LEA done to deal with their "informant" within ODOT? Is this perhaps the guy who really needs a psych evaluation, making unsubstantiated (and likely false) claims about an employee in that department? If I were in charge of any of those LEA, I think I'd be wanting some answers along these lines.... how many OTHER employees in those two ODOT offices would be needlessly, and at such great expense and cost to our reputations, be likely to take into custody in future? Seems the "source of information" LEA based their actions upon is misleading.... or perhaps has unreliable judgement, or perhaps foul motives?

In any case, it would seem, based on what we DO know, there was serious over-reaction to misleading information. No question, if the psych evaluation turned up ANY hint of something out of place, that man would NOT have been released and his arms restored so quickly. The professional conclusion is "no risk".

Is this "source" playing their position in a vindictive manner? THIS should be looked into carefully.

Back to Mr; Pyles... taking him into "protective custody" on such a show of force is one thing, perhaps even done under the shadow of law.... which is of questionable constitutional validity and could possibly be rendered of no force under close scrutiny.

It does seem likely, and worthy of trial at law, that LEO entered his home and seized personal property without due cause. If HE was in protective custody, he obviously was not free to return home and get his HK and go on a spree..... so WHAT was the point of seizing his lawfully possessed arms? NONE!!! That alone is cause for legal action. Of course, local small town courts will find for LE, and against plaintiff. Take it up higher, though, where the local politics and finances are no longer such influences, and it is likely to come down on the other side.

SO-- unless there was a warrant (and we've been given otherwise), there is grounds for legal action. Violation of his security in personal effects, property, residence.... civil rights tossed out unlawfully. This has the elements of a big legal action, and has strong underlying principles that perhaps ought to be sorted out in the courts.
Can ANYONE make such statements to LE resulting in the taking into custody of another, and do so without consequences or accountability? If so, this is wrong, and MUST be changed. Else anyone can make a report about anyone, and anyone can be taken in. Where will this madness end? Obviously the ODOT informant had wrongly assessed the situation...... Mr. Pyles was free in a few hours, had his weapons returned in a few days. THIS IS WRONG... that he even went through this. What about our constitutional security in our persons, effects, papers, homes? On the trashheap of political correctness.

So, the ODOT voice felt threatened? Fine..... stakeout THAT person's residence, the office Mr. Pyles was no longer going to daily, watch for Mr. Pyles to DO something dangerous. But have him in custody on someone else's say so, his property and home violated? No, read the Constitution. Can't happen. the fact it did means lesser jurisdictions (State of Oregin, OSP, MEdford Police (or whoever is meant by that name), two SO's....) have it wrong. Mr. Pyles SHOULD sue, as his civil rights were violated on a rather flimsy set of "evidence" since proven so weak as to be of no significance. Else he'd yet be in custody.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The points you are making have to do with criminal law. This was a civil matter. The man was never charged with a crime and criminal laws don't apply.

Well now there's a load of BS. Taken into police custody by threat of force is an arrest. The problem lies in the fact that police didn't get a warrant for it. A civil matter would be between 2 citizens in no official capacity. Clearly that is not the case here, as you point out in you statements to follow.

The police agencies can sugar coat it all they want and continue to obfuscate what happened. Even when they are lying, and using tools like gunner as de-facto PR reps.

Since the police went to his home with information, and it appears the intent to take him into custody, his rights to not come outside or ignore the police didn't hold. He could remain silent, but it appears that they were still taking him. They would have taken him by force under the law.

Well at least you have finally admitted they were out to arrest him!

It's actually the police's responsibility to take someone in for a mental health exam especially if they have reason to believe the person might be a danger to himself or others.

We agree. But when the degree of "threat of force" used in this situation is used, it becomes an arrest.

I'm unsure what's so hard to understand here...

That's the whole point gunner. No one else here can figure out why you continue to defend their actions.
You can defend the personnel involved all you want and few here will object.
But when the operative action by the police is considered, your arguments make no sense.

 

[Gunner3456]

Ahh yes, the socialistic state of oregon.

I'll bet Washington has a civil protective custody law. Maybe not...

Why you people allow them to do this to you I'll never understand?

Because the law says they can. I'll bet your law does too. Maybe not.

Had it been me, I would have gladly rode down to the police station,

Pay attention. He wasn't taken to the police station.

the perfect imitation of a clam asking only for an attorney.

You don't get an attorney. You get a hospital psych ward. This is a civil action. You can have your attorney after you have your evaluation.

And then I would have started the biggest lawsuit the state of oregon has ever seen.

Go for it. Maybe he will.

It comes back to who is to determine his mental health and who has been monitoring him.

He gets a mental health professional.

Do you know what it is that happened that caused the concern in the first place?

Heck gunner, I guess I could call the cops on you for some of your comments as you'd have the right to call them on me.

You could, but I don't know what for, and you aren't as credible as ODOT, on the face of it. We simply don't know what all happened.

Heck, lets tie the cops and the courts up for years with this asinine BS law. 50% of the state call in the other 50% and fill the jails to overflowing.

That would be the crazy people ratting on the sane people.

Socialism

Do you know the definition of socialism? This ain't it.

and oregon thought police are beyond stupid.

You're complaining about Oregon law. That's an issue for the legislature if we don't like the law. The job of the police is to enforce the law.

I'd like to see this brought up in a court room because IMHO it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

That would be for a court to decide if Mr. Pyles chooses to sue.

 

[Gunner3456]

the one thing that keeps escaping notice here is this: IF, as indicated, the original source of "concern" was someone within Mr. Pyles' place of employment, ODOT, that called to the police, that report needs to be addressed at some point. WE can't do that here, as we don't know WHO spoke up, what their position of authority/knowledge might be, or what was said. What we have here is the fact that statements by SOMEONE, who thus far has been unaccountable at law, resulted in someone else's apprehension, and the illegal taking of their goods (no warrant to enter the residence, or to seize any specified property). The Constitution guarantees each individual the right to be confronted by witnesses against them. Here, he was not accused of a "crime" but was accused of the INTENT of a crime... nevertheless he was forcibly detained (I will defer to the previous conclusions that anyone confronted with the level of force in this chap's front yard in the dark of a morning is certainly detained under force-- or the threat thereof, the same in the eyes of most sane men). It seems to me the Oregon laws on police protective custody in similar cases could be construed as violating one's Constitutional right against detainment withoud due process and witnesses to be confronted. Thus the law itself could be tossed on a Constitutional challenge... which would be a fun case to watch).

So, he was taken into custody.... it is abundantly obvious he was NOT a risk, else it is certain he'd not have been released fully a mere four hours later. Nor were his firearms an issue, as those were restored in a manner, and rapidity, unprecedented, perhaps indicative of how wrong the conclusions the LEA made really were.

So, now, what, if anything, have the various five LEA done to deal with their "informant" within ODOT? Is this perhaps the guy who really needs a psych evaluation, making unsubstantiated (and likely false) claims about an employee in that department? If I were in charge of any of those LEA, I think I'd be wanting some answers along these lines.... how many OTHER employees in those two ODOT offices would be needlessly, and at such great expense and cost to our reputations, be likely to take into custody in future? Seems the "source of information" LEA based their actions upon is misleading.... or perhaps has unreliable judgement, or perhaps foul motives?

In any case, it would seem, based on what we DO know, there was serious over-reaction to misleading information. No question, if the psych evaluation turned up ANY hint of something out of place, that man would NOT have been released and his arms restored so quickly. The professional conclusion is "no risk".

Is this "source" playing their position in a vindictive manner? THIS should be looked into carefully.

Back to Mr; Pyles... taking him into "protective custody" on such a show of force is one thing, perhaps even done under the shadow of law.... which is of questionable constitutional validity and could possibly be rendered of no force under close scrutiny.

It does seem likely, and worthy of trial at law, that LEO entered his home and seized personal property without due cause. If HE was in protective custody, he obviously was not free to return home and get his HK and go on a spree..... so WHAT was the point of seizing his lawfully possessed arms? NONE!!! That alone is cause for legal action. Of course, local small town courts will find for LE, and against plaintiff. Take it up higher, though, where the local politics and finances are no longer such influences, and it is likely to come down on the other side.

SO-- unless there was a warrant (and we've been given otherwise), there is grounds for legal action. Violation of his security in personal effects, property, residence.... civil rights tossed out unlawfully. This has the elements of a big legal action, and has strong underlying principles that perhaps ought to be sorted out in the courts.
Can ANYONE make such statements to LE resulting in the taking into custody of another, and do so without consequences or accountability? If so, this is wrong, and MUST be changed. Else anyone can make a report about anyone, and anyone can be taken in. Where will this madness end? Obviously the ODOT informant had wrongly assessed the situation...... Mr. Pyles was free in a few hours, had his weapons returned in a few days. THIS IS WRONG... that he even went through this. What about our constitutional security in our persons, effects, papers, homes? On the trashheap of political correctness.

So, the ODOT voice felt threatened? Fine..... stakeout THAT person's residence, the office Mr. Pyles was no longer going to daily, watch for Mr. Pyles to DO something dangerous. But have him in custody on someone else's say so, his property and home violated? No, read the Constitution. Can't happen. the fact it did means lesser jurisdictions (State of Oregin, OSP, MEdford Police (or whoever is meant by that name), two SO's....) have it wrong. Mr. Pyles SHOULD sue, as his civil rights were violated on a rather flimsy set of "evidence" since proven so weak as to be of no significance. Else he'd yet be in custody.

Don't take up the practice of law, OK?

 

[Gunner3456]

Well now there's a load of BS. Taken into police custody by threat of force is an arrest. The problem lies in the fact that police didn't get a warrant for it. A civil matter would be between 2 citizens in no official capacity. Clearly that is not the case here, as you point out in you statements to follow.

No, taking someone into protective custody is a civil action, not a criminal arrest. Your issue is that you just don't know what you're talking about.

The police agencies can sugar coat it all they want and continue to obfuscate what happened. Even when they are lying, and using tools like gunner as de-facto PR reps.

I thought we had a rule against name calling?

You don't know they are lying because they haven't spoken out.

Well at least you have finally admitted they were out to arrest him!

I have agreed that they went to take him into protective custody for a mental health exam. That what they did, too.

We agree. But when the degree of "threat of force" used in this situation is used, it becomes an arrest.

So if just one LEO in uniform had taken him, then it wouldn't be an arrest?

That's the whole point gunner. No one else here can figure out why you continue to defend their actions.

Because I'm right!!!

You can defend the personnel involved all you want and few here will object.

Oh yes they do!!!

But when the operative actions by the police is considered, your arguments make no sense.

Well, I can't help you if you don't understand what I'm saying.

I feel as if a bunch of guys showed up here with their minds made up, and no amount of truth or logic will change their minds.

 

[Partsproduction]

I'm unsure what's so hard to understand here...
Gunner3456 is offline Report Post Reply With Quote

I suggest it's easy for you to understand because you have no empathy for a fellow citizen who has been treated with contempt, all your empathy is for the thugs.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Well, I can't help you if you don't understand what I'm saying.

Nobody here understands what you are saying, or why you continue to say it!
Only because you refuse to admit what happened?

Let me reiterate.
The police took someone into custody using an extreme threat of force, and without a warrant. Then they entered his house and took his guns without a warrant. That is at least trespassing, possibly B&E, and theft.

That is unconstitutional whether your buds at the MPD say so or not. The police were there in an official capacity as law enforcement. That precludes any thought of it being a "civil matter."
Kind of like your version of "voluntary."
Bwahahahaha,...
You lose again!

 

[zeezee]

Nobody here understands what you are saying, or why you continue to say it!
Only because you refuse to admit what happened?

Let me reiterate.
The police took someone into custody using an extreme threat of force, and without a warrant. Then they entered his house and took his guns without a warrant. That is at least trespassing, possibly B&E, and theft.

That is unconstitutional whether your buds at the MPD say so or not. The police were there in an official capacity as law enforcement. That precludes any thought of it being a "civil matter."
Kind of like your version of "voluntary."
Bwahahahaha,...
You lose again!

Can you say lawsuit? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[zeezee]

As was so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Maybe it's time WE THE PEOPLE followed the United States Constitution, OUR Constitution and abolished this corrupt Government? It is OUR RIGHT as United States citizens to rid our selves of the government "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it". Now tell me this is what our brave forefathers would have wanted us to do. Maybe we should start with two states, anyone want to second me on oregon & washington?
Our problem here is that the mojo our forfathers had has been bread out of us. We've become a bunch of handwringing cradle to the grave depend on the government sheeple to do EVERYTHING for us. We've been so dumbed down, so pussified and so ignorant that we will gladly allow the police to come to our door and haul us away because someone is scared we will go postal. Gladly, no, gleefully we will march hand in hand to the prison camps because it is the law and we are too stupid to say no. The first sob who breaks down my door is going to be hit with 00 buck and I really don't care if he's wearing a badge or not.
Gentlemen, find your webos, pull them out of your old ladies purse and do something besides wring your hands and cry "it's the law".
Nuff said!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I'm ready to rock and roll, zeezee. When enough of us have had enough, I'll be right there with ya.. it's way overdue, IMO

 

[zeezee]

I'm ready to rock and roll, zeezee. When enough of us have had enough, I'll be right there with ya.. it's way overdue, IMO

Yeah, like 100 years over due! And when will we know when enough is enough? This little incident in oregon seems to set the stage for more BS like this to happen.

 

[eriknemily]

Well, I respect your feelings but that's what they are - your feelings.

The points you are making have to do with criminal law. This was a civil matter. The man was never charged with a crime and criminal laws don't apply.

Under Oregon law the police have not only the right but a responsibility to take action when mental issues are suspected. They don't have to be violent mental issues. It's called protective custody in most cases.

Since the police went to his home with information, and it appears the intent to take him into custody, his rights to not come outside or ignore the police didn't hold. He could remain silent, but it appears that they were still taking him. They would have taken him by force under the law.

As I said, if we don't like that law, then it's a matter for the legislature, not the police. It's actually the police's responsibility to take someone in for a mental health exam especially if they have reason to believe the person might be a danger to himself or others.

I'm unsure what's so hard to understand here...

So, do I rightly understand that currently, under Oregon and federal laws and any other laws that might exist, if an LE agency believes they have enough information that a person may be a danger to himself or others these civil laws can be used? Do these civil laws negate the right a person has under criminal law? Does a person have the right to remain silent and other such rights?

I guess I have a hard time seeing the difference between being arrested and being taken into 'protective custody' short of legal technicalities. The subject still gets handcuffed, whether by 'volunteering' or by force, still gets his property confiscated, seized, stolen, etc.

Can somebody help me out here without being condescending, sarcastic or belittling? I know that's asking a lot given the testosterone fights that have been going on over this incident

Erik

 

[zeezee]

So, do I rightly understand that currently, under Oregon and federal laws and any other laws that might exist, if an LE agency believes they have enough information that a person may be a danger to himself or others these civil laws can be used? Do these civil laws negate the right a person has under criminal law? Does a person have the right to remain silent and other such rights?

I guess I have a hard time seeing the difference between being arrested and being taken into 'protective custody' short of legal technicalities. The subject still gets handcuffed, whether by 'volunteering' or by force, still gets his property confiscated, seized, stolen, etc.

Can somebody help me out here without being condescending, sarcastic or belittling? I know that's asking a lot given the testosterone fights that have been going on over this incident

Erik

Erik, lets see if gunner has an answer . . . .

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Yeah, like 100 years over due! And when will we know when enough is enough? This little incident in oregon seems to set the stage for more BS like this to happen.

It was time to rise up when the federal reserve private banking scam began in 1913

Andrew Jackson's campaign slogan was "I killed the bank", well they just waited till the time was right and undid all that

 

[SSG]

Let me guess a lawyer or a cop is chiming in here...

Fact...most peeps think a traffic ticket is a civil matter.....oh really? Then when you don't pay the fine or show up...it becomes a criminal charge...why is that? ALL matters prosecuted, and enforced by LEO are criminal matters...even a speeding ticket...and if you appeal a speeding ticket high enough you will be talking to the DA.

Fact: When a SWAT team stacks up in front of your door...does it matter if it's 'civil or criminal', whether you have a warrant, whether they think your nuts, whether they got a hot tip that you got fired, and flipped off the boss on the way out, that your neighbor 'thinks' your a 'trouble maker with guns about to flip out' ?

The only thing that matters, is someone told the SWAT team to suit up and kick the door down...and you can scream bloody murder that it's a civil matter, that your sane, that you didn't mean to call your boss a bozo...when the flash bangs and gas get thrown in...None of this 'civil/criminal' legalese means anything...

The issue here is whether LEOs should take 'preventative measures' to basically 'research' whether a person, 'might or might not' be a threat to himself or others, or is or not 'going to' commit a crime.

SWAT get's called to the house, rather then a psychologist because 'officer safety' is more important then civil rights...overwhelming force, victory by any and all means, control the situation hard and fast, cuff everyone up...haul them away first....

Then probe, drug test, evaluate, blood test, research, grill/interview...then decide if that person should be released...

They will decide this for you...safety first.

 

[zeezee]

It was time to rise up when the federal reserve private banking scam began in 1913

Andrew Jackson's campaign slogan was "I killed the bank", well they just waited till the time was right and undid all that

Hey, I said 100 years, so I was three short. But in all honesty we need to rein in our government.