Police act swiftly after gun purchases

[oandapartycock]

Because of FDR's "dithering," Hitler was able to take out 10 million Russkies and 6 million Jews. Just sayin'

[THE FEZ MAN]

im kind of shocked they gave them back with out a fight.

[Sam_Adams]

Originally Posted by THE FEZ MAN

im kind of shocked they gave them back with out a fight.

They didn't have much of a choice. Even though they live in a digustingly liberal place they knew they REALLY fucked up.

I'm really hoping this dude cashes out and retires on the Police Lottery.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Plus, the alleged 'tipster' should be given some time at pound-you-in-the-ass-prison and lose all of what they have.

[kidconnor]

MEDFORD — A phone call from a police negotiator that jolted David J. Pyles awake in the predawn hours of Monday continues to jangle the nerves of observers monitoring the way authorities took the Medford man into protective custody and seized his firearms.

Pyles came forward Thursday to reclaim his legally purchased weapons, publicly identifying himself in an e-mail sent to Medford police and forwarded to state legislators and selected media outlets.

He also said he has contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation for possible legal assistance. Pyles directed questions to that group and said he would make only limited statements until he had consulted with an attorney.

Kevin Starrett, director of the Canby-based lobbying organization — which also has a foundation for protecting gun rights through court cases — had been monitoring the incident that landed Pyles in the hospital for a mental health evaluation and resulted in five of his guns being held by police for "safekeeping."

"It's chilling," he said.

"I don't know if this is just a gun case," Starrett said. "It's about whether your freedom can be taken away without a criminal case or charges against you."

Starrett recounted the details of the case that Pyles shared with him. The federation had agreed not to identify him, so Starrett didn't use Pyles' name, but in the wake of Pyles' own public statements, the Mail Tribune is naming him.

Pyles told Starrett that he had a conflict with a superior at work, but was working to resolve it through union processes.

The Oregon Department of Transportation confirmed that Pyles has worked there as a planner since February 2004. ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said the department couldn't discuss personnel or security matters.

Pyles told Starrett he initially thought the early morning call must be a prank, but looked out to see his yard surrounded by police.

"They asked him to come out and said they wouldn't handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property," Starrett recounted.

However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.

"Because we had information that he could be a danger to others, we wanted a medical professional to evaluate him," Medford police chief Randy Schoen said.

Police have maintained that Pyles' surrender was voluntary, but Starrett noted that an intimidating presence of officers with rifles and SWAT gear can force people to agree to things they wouldn't normally do.

"The thing that is really troubling to us is that this was not an arrest," he said. "People in protective custody don't even have the rights a person who has been arrested does."

When undergoing a mental health screening, a person doesn't have a guaranteed right to an attorney, for example, he said.

The evaluation took several hours and Pyles was released before noon on Monday.

Starrett expressed concern that police hadn't offered a clear explanation of what prompted their action.

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type, but said Pyles could have a case against police if he were taken into custody improperly.

He noted that police can't take people into custody based only on a concern, but said he understood their worries that someone could be hurt.

Sam.. They didn't REALLY fuck up. The truth is no one knows much abut this except the first article. The only statement is that they had information he may be a danger to others. It doesn't say how they became aware of his situation. He passed the pysch eval and was let go.

Here in ultra liberal NY a person is FORCED to go to a hospital when there is evidence he may be a danger to himself or others. That 'evidence' may be something he said to others, mental history, violent behavior, or actually trying to hurt himself. I've taken many a person to the hospital in cuffs, chained them to a hospital bed and had to sit there with them until a doctor could eval them.

Like I said in another thread if he DOES flip and the police did nothing they lose. If he doesn't flip and he sues them MAYBE they lose. They erred on the side of caution. If they give any payout at all it will probably be done as an alternative to a court case. Just cheaper.

Too bad because the details of this incident would be very interesting.

Ultimately, as the police chief, the responsibility is on him. In a case where if you do nothing and people might die, I would have made the same choice. I know the fear is if they did it here then how easy would it be for them to do to ANYBODY based on some allegation. But couple that with the purchase of 3 firearms in such a short amount of time, plus whatever the initial information they got I can understand their actions.

[Sam_Adams]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

I know the fear is if they did it here then how easy would it be for them to do to ANYBODY based on some allegation. But couple that with the purchase of 3 firearms in such a short amount of time, plus whatever the initial information they got I can understand their actions.

That IS the problem. Some faggot can be afraid about anything and lie to police and have people taken into custody in the middle of the night over nothing.

You can have someone say something while irritated like "I want to fuck you up" and then the police could interpret that anyway they want. When they do that they will call the SWAT team like with this fella.

I know you're a cop and that is cool.

But I don't subscribe to the thought that police need to act independently to do what is "best" for our interest.

Cops are now used for all sort of lefty excuses. "We need to ban guns because cops get shot." It is unfortunate but that isn't something you can use as a reason to restrict or prohibit the rights of the people.

If you're too worried to go to work for fear of being shot then find another profession.

I plan to have my own gun shop in the near future here in my city and I will give cops discounts on purchases. But I will tell you if I find out that any of the cops are the type that think only cops should have guns then they will no longer be welcome in my business and asked to never come back.

[kidconnor]

Originally Posted by Sam_Adams

That IS the problem. Some faggot can be afraid about anything and lie to police and have people taken into custody in the middle of the night over nothing.

You can have someone say something while irritated like "I want to fuck you up" and then the police could interpret that anyway they want. When they do that they will call the SWAT team like with this fella.

I know you're a cop and that is cool.

But I don't subscribe to the thought that police need to act independently to do what is "best" for our interest.

Cops are now used for all sort of lefty excuses. "We need to ban guns because cops get shot." It is unfortunate but that isn't something you can use as a reason to restrict or prohibit the rights of the people.

If you're too worried to go to work for fear of being shot then find another profession.

I plan to have my own gun shop in the near future here in my city and I will give cops discounts on purchases. But I will tell you if I find out that any of the cops are the type that think only cops should have guns then they will no longer be welcome in my business and asked to never come back.

I am actually on the fence with the second amendment. I am fine the way it is now and I am fine if they allow all to carry. Thats a different thread and I type too much..

THIS situation I agree with the actions of the cops. An ounce of precaution kind of thing. And it ties in to what you said here

But I don't subscribe to the thought that police need to act independently to do what is "best" for our interest.

But the responsibility is not on your shoulders.

You can't subscribe to that thought process and then file suit against the city and police when you feel they fail to act. Not you specifically but people in general. If courts are going to allow lawsuits against the city and police where they have to pay out large sums of money and spend large sums of money to fight the lawsuits then the police have to act to protect themselves against those lawsuits. Like taking this mans guns and bringing him in for evaluation before giving them back. Using ALL the circumstances that went into their decision, one of which we don't know (the person who alerted them), I agree with their choice. They were fucked either way. It is their responsibility and they acted.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

I am actually on the fence with the second amendment. I am fine the way it is now and I am fine if they allow all to carry. Thats a different thread and I type too much..

THIS situation I agree with the actions of the cops. An ounce of precaution kind of thing. And it ties in to what you said here





But the responsibility is not on your shoulders.

You can't subscribe to that thought process and then file suit against the city and police when you feel they fail to act. Not you specifically but people in general. If courts are going to allow lawsuits against the city and police where they have to pay out large sums of money and spend large sums of money to fight the lawsuits then the police have to act to protect themselves against those lawsuits. Like taking this mans guns and bringing him in for evaluation before giving them back. Using ALL the circumstances that went into their decision, one of which we don't know (the person who alerted them), I agree with their choice. They were fucked either way. It is their responsibility and they acted.

you're a cop? let me ask you a question. Im pissed off at Sam_Adams, lets say..

Could I go down to headquarters and report that he is manufacturing methamphetamine in his basement? Could I get the police to rip apart his home, based on my false statement? Obviously I would guess in this situation, I would get in trouble for providing false info, but technically, would you guys HAVE to respond, and fuck over Sam_adams?

[Sam_Adams]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

You can't subscribe to that thought process and then file suit against the city and police when you feel they fail to act. Not you specifically but people in general. If courts are going to allow lawsuits against the city and police where they have to pay out large sums of money and spend large sums of money to fight the lawsuits then the police have to act to protect themselves against those lawsuits.

The Supreme Court already gave a ruling in the 1980s determining that police are not obligated to go out of their way protect people. Their job is to enforce the laws as prescribed by the Fed and by the State.

Their job isn't to be thought police and protecting people from intentions. Protecting people is the action of the court. That is why they have orders or protection issued through a judge, not cops.

Why? Because it's up to the judge to determine what is within the law in order to suspend rights. It's not a police job.

I don't expect police to protect me. If I need them I will call them. The job to protect ME is mine and mine alone. That is why I have heavy metal for unwanted individuals.

[MrBogey]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

Sam.. They didn't REALLY fuck up. The truth is no one knows much abut this except the first article. The only statement is that they had information he may be a danger to others. It doesn't say how they became aware of his situation. He passed the pysch eval and was let go.

Here in ultra liberal NY a person is FORCED to go to a hospital when there is evidence he may be a danger to himself or others. That 'evidence' may be something he said to others, mental history, violent behavior, or actually trying to hurt himself. I've taken many a person to the hospital in cuffs, chained them to a hospital bed and had to sit there with them until a doctor could eval them.

Like I said in another thread if he DOES flip and the police did nothing they lose. If he doesn't flip and he sues them MAYBE they lose. They erred on the side of caution. If they give any payout at all it will probably be done as an alternative to a court case. Just cheaper.

Too bad because the details of this incident would be very interesting.

Ultimately, as the police chief, the responsibility is on him. In a case where if you do nothing and people might die, I would have made the same choice. I know the fear is if they did it here then how easy would it be for them to do to ANYBODY based on some allegation. But couple that with the purchase of 3 firearms in such a short amount of time, plus whatever the initial information they got I can understand their actions.

Ok, so when a cop says something that I perceive as threatening, he should be dismissed from the force pending review, right.

I mean, we wouldn't want a lunatic to run around as a cop so it's only fair that all officers accused of being unhinged get dismissed and stripped of rank till they're cleared.

Fair is fair.

[kidconnor]

Originally Posted by JordanSRT10

you're a cop? let me ask you a question. Im pissed off at Sam_Adams, lets say..

Could I go down to headquarters and report that he is manufacturing methamphetamine in his basement? Could I get the police to rip apart his home, based on my false statement? Obviously I would guess in this situation, I would get in trouble for providing false info, but technically, would you guys HAVE to respond, and fuck over Sam_adams?

No. It would be looked into, but there isn't a case of imminent or immediate danger here (if you are comparing the 2).

If you called on Sam they would look into it but it would take a hell of alot more before they are breaking down doors.

And you probably wouldn't get in trouble because then it would deter people from calling. Now if you went in front of a judge and swore to him and the courts that he is doing it then yep.. probably be some repercussions.

[kidconnor]

Originally Posted by MrBogey

Ok, so when a cop says something that I perceive as threatening, he should be dismissed from the force pending review, right.

I mean, we wouldn't want a lunatic to run around as a cop so it's only fair that all officers accused of being unhinged get dismissed and stripped of rank till they're cleared.

Fair is fair.

You would probably need a little more than .. he said this. If your comparing it to this case then its a poor comparison because there was a lot more factors here. If your referring to the example I gave about taking people in cuffs then you need more than just a he said this too. I've decided people aren't a danger to anybody at all when I get there and will not force them to do anything. Having an argument where you tell each other I'll punch you or i'm gonna kick your ass does not equal automatic ride to hospital. It is what it is.. an argument.

I will say it will probably be investigated a lot more thoroughly than if you called and said the same as your neighbor. And if it does merit an bigger investigation then he WILL have his guns taken away and put on modified duty or suspended. I've seen it happen.. and when it turned out to be false NOTHING happened to the guy that made the complaint.

[MrBogey]

You would probably need a little more than .. he said this.

But that's all it took in this case for this guy to be "held for observation" and his property seized.

[LBF]

Originally Posted by ACLU mouthpiece

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization wasn't likely to get involved in an incident of this type...

If the circumstances were exactly the same, except the guy's name was Jamaal, the ACLU would be frothing at the mouth to get involved in this. Not saying the ACLU needs to get involved in this one, just pointing out the inconsistency with its practices.

[kidconnor]

Originally Posted by MrBogey

But that's all it took in this case for this guy to be "held for observation" and his property seized.

not really. It was the purchase of the 3 firearms in 2 days that added to it.


If me and my wife were arguing and she said 'I am leaving' I might take that as an empty statement. If she says that and purchases a couple of suitcases the next day THEN I go buy some champagne and put it on ice..

[Jsnhnsly]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

If me and my wife were arguing and she said 'I am leaving' I might take that as an empty statement. If she says that and purchases a couple of suitcases the next day THEN I go buy some champagne and put it on ice..

To celebrate the destruction of your credit and your bank account?

[MrBogey]

Originally Posted by kidconnor

not really. It was the purchase of the 3 firearms in 2 days that added to it.


If me and my wife were arguing and she said 'I am leaving' I might take that as an empty statement. If she says that and purchases a couple of suitcases the next day THEN I go buy some champagne and put it on ice..

Cops already have guns. Why would they need to go buy more?

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Originally Posted by MrBogey

Cops already have guns. Why would they need to go buy more?

In the old days, some cops would even carry a thrown down piece (usually taken off a prep, stolen, no numbers, etc...) to alter the scene to a 'clean' shoot.

Of course, that doesn't happen anymore...