- Messages
- 1,254
- Reactions
- 187
Remember in the very first article, someone mentioned (they had information not in the original article) that this man's supervisor had been in similar disturbances on at least two other occasions...... my guess, and it is purely a hunch, is that this supe is a strange piece of work, and has a hard time working together with his underlings..... possibly overbearing, disrespectful, power wielding, etc. If this guy Pyles is indeed the third such case with this same supervisor, there may well be some underlying issues that need addressed at the ODOT regional office.
It will likely come to light, as well, just WHO made the claim that this guy was "very disgruntled" and "a threat". If this info comes from the aforementioned supe, and it comes out in open court (as seems likely) it could go down VERY bad for someone.... making false allegations about the intent of another is not right... and in this case seems to have led to a rather serious incident.
My guess is that the "inside information" from "the source" within ODOT made the claims, sounded the warning, and got the attention of the local LEA directed toward Pyles..... at which point the "fresh" firearms acquisitions came to light (Medford Police and/or Jackson County Sheriff) will have got the report of the handfun sales, as per standard proceedures, the name "rang a bell", conclusions were jumped at.... and this scenario was played out.
I do hope some official heads roll, starting with the original "informer", using his position as a means of "payback" or domination games. Next should come the lead investigators in this thing, the guys who put the "complaint" together with the legal firearms purchases, and came to the conclusion that two plus two equals seventeen.
Taking him into protective custody is possibly defensible, depending upon their sources of information and what steps they took to corroborate it with other individuals "in the know". If it was merely the word of one person, they are standing on very unstable ground.
It seems, from what we have seen thus far, that entering his home with no warrant, and seizing his firearms, again with no warrant, were highly illegal. Taking a man into protective custody does NOT involve taking any of his property into protective custody. There appears to be a total lack of grounds for this seizure. And I rather suspect they know it, else they never would have returned them so quickly and with such little fuss. Hand delivered back to the guy's house, no new "background checks", no waiting the several weeks first stated...... smells like the boys in blue got caught with their hands in the bickie bin..... and made nice as quickly as they could to try and stave off heavy retaliation.
It is highly interesting this chap got his tax return and went out buying what he's likely wanted for a long time but could not due to lack of ready cash. He WAS working from home, this was not without income.
I hope some attorneys can get to the bottom of this whole thing, and a civil matter opened up,...... but more importantly a criminal matter opened for the gross violation of the man's Fourth Ammendment protected rights. Castro's Cube, Chavez' Venezuela, this ain't.
It will likely come to light, as well, just WHO made the claim that this guy was "very disgruntled" and "a threat". If this info comes from the aforementioned supe, and it comes out in open court (as seems likely) it could go down VERY bad for someone.... making false allegations about the intent of another is not right... and in this case seems to have led to a rather serious incident.
My guess is that the "inside information" from "the source" within ODOT made the claims, sounded the warning, and got the attention of the local LEA directed toward Pyles..... at which point the "fresh" firearms acquisitions came to light (Medford Police and/or Jackson County Sheriff) will have got the report of the handfun sales, as per standard proceedures, the name "rang a bell", conclusions were jumped at.... and this scenario was played out.
I do hope some official heads roll, starting with the original "informer", using his position as a means of "payback" or domination games. Next should come the lead investigators in this thing, the guys who put the "complaint" together with the legal firearms purchases, and came to the conclusion that two plus two equals seventeen.
Taking him into protective custody is possibly defensible, depending upon their sources of information and what steps they took to corroborate it with other individuals "in the know". If it was merely the word of one person, they are standing on very unstable ground.
It seems, from what we have seen thus far, that entering his home with no warrant, and seizing his firearms, again with no warrant, were highly illegal. Taking a man into protective custody does NOT involve taking any of his property into protective custody. There appears to be a total lack of grounds for this seizure. And I rather suspect they know it, else they never would have returned them so quickly and with such little fuss. Hand delivered back to the guy's house, no new "background checks", no waiting the several weeks first stated...... smells like the boys in blue got caught with their hands in the bickie bin..... and made nice as quickly as they could to try and stave off heavy retaliation.
It is highly interesting this chap got his tax return and went out buying what he's likely wanted for a long time but could not due to lack of ready cash. He WAS working from home, this was not without income.
I hope some attorneys can get to the bottom of this whole thing, and a civil matter opened up,...... but more importantly a criminal matter opened for the gross violation of the man's Fourth Ammendment protected rights. Castro's Cube, Chavez' Venezuela, this ain't.