Police act swiftly after gun purchases

reply to post by mryanbrown


They wouldn't take his guns away if they didn't have a reason. We can "IF" all day long, if you like. Point is, they obviously feel they could be saving lives by taking away his power to "go postal." They know much more about the case than we do, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't act in the way did, without good reason. He can get his guns back later. The people he may murder, cannot get their lives back later. You wouldn't defend this man if you worked where he did, so don't pretend that you would.


Cheers,
Strype

reply to post by Strype


Because obviously the last decade in America hasn't provided us ANY evidence that guns are quite often taken away unlawfully.

You're free to have an opinion all you want. Just don't attempt to pass it off as literal truth or fact when there is absolutely nothing supporting it other than. "Well why would they break the law?"

Don't know, don't care.

All I want is to see the proper evidence to warrant their actions and to make sure they are in accordance with the constitution. I think my overall desire to see these things has more merit than you wanting me to simply accept it as is.

EDIT: As to your last statement. I don't live in fear.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown


Early this morning, members of the Hostage Negotiating Team were able to talk the subject into voluntarily surrendering to awaiting SWAT Team members. The subject was transported for treatment at a local hospital.

"voluntarily" so his treatment at a mental health hospital will probly be listed as "voluntarily" also.

Originally posted by Strype
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

They wouldn't take his guns away if they didn't have a reason. We can "IF" all day long, if you like. Point is, they obviously feel they could be saving lives by taking away his power to "go postal." They know much more about the case than we do, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't act in the way did, without good reason. He can get his guns back later. The people he may murder, cannot get their lives back later. You wouldn't defend this man if you worked where he did, so don't pretend that you would.

Cheers,
Strype

Having good reason, is mere speculation. The fact is they did not follow even a semblance of due process.

Citizens don't have to have faith in their good intentions, our liberties are protected by the constitution. I don't even consider the constitution a good represntation of my soveriegnity. It doesnt clip that either, but it sure doesnt put us into allowing arrests without due process.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Unity_99]

reply to post by JBA2848


Theres nothing voluntary about it. There was a SWAT team. Please volunteer or SWAT rushes in. Thanks for volunteering.

Why buy guns unless you plan to use them? I don't own a single gun. Not one.

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
Why buy guns unless you plan to use them? I don't own a single gun. Not one.

Because you have a right to. End of story.

EDIT: No I'm coming back to this. Are you then alleging every police officer plans to use their gun? Is owning a gun now an assumption of use? I'm sure every logical owner will tell you they hope to never have to use them. But deserve the right to if needed.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

You think that's bad? My brother in law was in the military,defusing bombs (Years before I met him, I can't remember whether it was marines, navy or army) and a few years after he got out, he heard about a friend who was in the bomb squad with him who decided to start a landscaping/construction company. Innocent enough, right? He bought 50 cheap phones, many, many bags of fertilizer, and everything else that you would expect from a construction company. ON THE WAY HOME, he was arrested. Simply because he knew about bombs, and he bought items that might have possibly indicated that he was up to something suspicious.

That, my friends, is the state of the government.

Its as simple as this.... He did NOT break the law!!!

The Police did when they falsly IMPRISONED him...

Now could they have seized his weapons for a few days? Sure but even that would be illegal...

The simple fact is that this man HAS The right to buy guns, He HAS a right to be upset, and if he wants to got to work and shoot up the place he has that RIGHT!!! Now if he exercises that right then police have the right to do their jobs and shoot him or whatever they feel needed to stop him... But I bet that ALL they did is upset him more by throwing him in jail...

Bet he goes on a shooting rampage now...

Maybe they should put a minimum on the number of weapons you can purchase every week... I feel for the guy... Bet his boss is freakin out though... hahahaha

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Strype

 

Because obviously the last decade in America hasn't provided us ANY evidence that guns are quite often taken away unlawfully.

Just like the last decade in America hasn't seen hundreds (if not thousands) of deaths that could have been prevented using the same measures implicated in this situation?

You're free to have an opinion all you want. Just don't attempt to pass it off as literal truth or fact when there is absolutely nothing supporting it other than. "Well why would they break the law?"

Posting my opinion in the form of a statement is not passing anything off as factual. You already knew that. Nor am I condoning the breaking of the law, by any means. I'm not familiar with Oregon state law, but it doesn't take much more than common sense to realize they're just providing security.

Don't know, don't care.

All I want is to see the proper evidence to warrant their actions and to make sure they are in accordance with the constitution. I think my overall desire to see these things has more merit than you wanting me to simply accept it as is.

The last thing I'd want to hear on the news is, "Another Employee Goes Ballistic After Being Fired: 16 Dead, including himself. Police were contemplating the confiscation of his firearms after he made a large purchase immediately following his termination." I'm just as much in favor of the constitution as you are, but at the same time, I think life is more important than law. They wouldn't act upon this situation the way they did, unless they felt lives were at stake.

I've seen so many cases regarding the unlawful repossession of firearms that it sickens me. I don't disagree with you on that point one bit. I just don't feel this case falls into that category. I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

EDIT: As to your last statement. I don't live in fear.

Good answer. Dumb assumption on my part anyhow. Appreciate the civilized argument.

Cheers myryanbrown,
Strype

reply to post by Strype


You can not impose precrime as a measure against what ifs. There will always be what ifs. I know you would hate to face the reality of someone being killed because a measure wasn't taken.

But to accomplish that measure, rights and liberties must always suffer. And despite their suffering, what ifs will still continue. The less control you leave a creature, the more it lashes out.

You can never prevent it, never. It's wishful thinking. Because people have choice.

And you did allege there was evidence that he must have done something. The real lawful evidence would be the warrant and the oaths or affirmations. Not the word of on/off(?) duty officers lending opinion to an on going investigation. Not your belief that he did something wrong simply because he was arrested.

How can we not all agree that being arrested does not indicate guilt? Countless innocent people are often arrested. Why do you presume guilt from the mere act of being arrested. Because to be arrested you must have done a crime. I see no crime mentioned.

Edit: thumbs up back at ya.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by Pontius

 

Rational does not even factor into it. What he did was legal, there was no legal justification, based on the info that was presented in the article, to do anything excapt maybe keep an eye on the situation. Another point I would like to add...in most states (if not all, not sure) is you are held in a mental health facility, you forfiet your 2nd amendment rights, can not purchase anymore guns, ever. So, they violate his rights with an unlawful search and siezure, false imprisonment, ruin this man's reputation (presuming he has a good one in the community), then they set it up so he can not regain possesion of the property they take from him unlawfully.
All of this based on some pencil pusher making a phone call and some no neck adrenalin junkie type cops have a feeling there is a slight chance that he may have the intent of possibly doing something that could possibly, just maybe be illegal? All of this and most of you see nothign wrong with this?

I'm for determining their course of action based on evidence. The only evidence we have is that he bought three expensive weapons just after getting laid off; his workplace notified authorities because he gave them reason to believe he was disgruntled;police monitored him(doesn't mean physically),most likely through gun purchase reports; and he was detained after police officers were able to get him to commit himself peaceably.

I venture that it's too early to speculate whether or not his rights have been trampled on. A lot of you are called truthers for a reason. I've read way too much speculation today.

Originally posted by Pontius
A lot of you are called truthers for a reason.

Viva la Truth!
xD

Originally posted by mecheng
reply to post by rainfall

 

GUILTY!
Until proven innocent.

 

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Tue Mar 9 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

INNOCENT!

Until 25 people are dead because another lunatic showed all the signs of going troppo but no one acted.

Come one, if mr joe teatowell went and bought a large number of guns, legally, do you not think there is a reason why it was sudden?

Sure, people have a right to own guns. But you also have a right to purchase medicine, so you go try and by 1000 packets of cold medicine and see where that gets you.

So if it is then discovered that joe was placed on leave from work, and has suddenly found an interest in purchasing large numbers of guns, do you would not want to have him checked out?

Even the most staunch gun advocate MUST see there is a need for some checks...

Or should guns just be handed out like lollypops from a vending machine?

I just hope that the same people who state that this guy has the right to buy a load of guns after being put on leave are no the same people who justify mad people shooting innocent people just because they happen to work in the government. Everyone knows a government worker is responsible for everything...

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


Do you know the conditions regarding him being suspended?
Maybe he was buying them for protection.

If pigs could fly! Bacon on the moon!

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

Did they have any, any at all, to believe he was going to do any such thing? Somehow, I doubt it.

Gonna swoop down on every disgruntled ex-employee who's a legal gun owner? Because they might...might? go postal? Not the way it's supposed to work...

As for coming down on the police for not doing this, if the guy actually did go postal...

Nope. That's a bit more hypocritical then I'm comfortable with.

But the thread is titled "After gun purchases" and the news item itself lists a number of guns purchased, after the guy was put on leave, and states WHY he was intercepted.

This is not a "Oh lets crack down on guns owners" thing.

Usually the Mods are the ones with level heads...

weird.

I guess if the signs are there, we best ignore them from now on.. Worked so well in the past.

Never mind the guy who is pissed off he just lost his job, his wife is screwing the plumber, his kids are all into hippy crap, and he just got cut off in traffic driving home - it's his right to buy 4 or 5 guns and go sit at the bar till 2am.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

 

Do you know the conditions regarding him being suspended?
Maybe he was buying them for protection.

If pigs could fly! Bacon on the moon!

No. Only from the article. And that goes both ways.

Protection huh... well I'll let you keep your straws. I'm just stating an opinion.

Originally posted by rainfall

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
Let us theorize momentarily ...

If the guy had gone back to his job where he had been laid off and shot the place up and killed some people, hell even if he just killed one person, and then the story came out the the local law enforcement had records of his multi-gun purchase just days before he went on a shooting spree ....

How many of you would be blaming the police force for not acting on their information and stepping in to intervene to stop this mans plans of recourse?

Police step in and stop this man from possibly killing people -
"The police don't care about us, they're out to take away our constitutional rights!"

Police do nothing about the info they have and this man kills people -
"The police don't care about us. They're out to kill us!"


So, which side of the arguement are you going to fall in to?

So are you saying the 'thought police' are a good idea...??...

Oh for gods sake...

thats it with this thread, too many blatant ignorant people frothing at their mouth, incapable of seeing sanity.

Go. Go play with your guns... I mean, only someone wearing a "I KILL PEOPLE" hat would ever commit a crime with a gun. But hey, thats not a crime is it.. Well we're stuffed.

I've lost a fair bit of respect for the gun advocates due to this thread - I used to be right there with ya... but this attitude makes my skin crawl.

When you cannot even see there MUST be a modicum of sanity in who is buying a gun and why, then you are no better than the sods who shoot you in the head after asking you if you believe in god.

bleh... /thread

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


lol that's just it though? What signs?

He was suspended, not fired from what I read. So he hasn't lost his job. He was disgruntled according to ??? and bought 3 weapons.

Classic signs right?

You won't know until the end after it's all been swept away whether he was innocent or guilty of anything. I doubt it will be reported on either way. As long as they got the point across that it's okay to justify violating peoples rights for precrime. Just focus on that.

Because if it was so simple. It would be easy to see the warrant and testimony. And if there was any journalistic integrity there would be better quotes than 'someone said "disgruntled"'.

If disarming the public isn't alarming enough, imagine all the creative ways there are to kill people. So the way I see it, take away the guns and those with vendettas find another way to kill. Soon the government steps in to regulate and control whatever means this person used. Before you know it they come and replace all your silverware with sporks.