Police act swiftly after gun purchases

Originally posted by brainwrek
From the article:

"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

Translation: "He didnt commit a single crime, but we took him into custody anyways because we dont give a rats ass about the 2nd or 5th Amendment. "


Each and every officer involved in detaining this man should be fired and prosecuted for deprivation of his Constitutionally protected rights.

Clearly the author of the article doesnt know anything about guns, as she refers to an AK as an "assault rifle"

[edit on 9-3-2010 by brainwrek]

First off, I am all for upholding the constitution and the preservation of our rights. Also, I do not know all the facts of this particular situation, so i will hold off my judgement of whether what the state did was warranted or not. However, since you (and many others) have taken such a strong stance on this, calling for any and every officer involved to be "fired and prosecuted", could you please fill us in a little bit more on this particular case?

They said that he was taken for MENTAL EVALUATION... I'd assume that they are acting on more information than was presented. Maybe they have good reason to believe he is mentally unstable, perhaps that's why he was fired in the first place. Maybe he made some threats, those threats got reported, and then they noticed he bought some guns, perhaps to act on those threats.

Of course, i am just speculating, but i have a good feeling there is more too this than him merely getting fired and then buying some guns and getting detained by the police because they happen to suspect that he might shoot someone.

All i'm saying is, let's get the full story here before we go calling for people to get fired and prosecuted. Maybe they trampled over his personal rights and ought to be punished for doing so.... but then again, maybe they acted quickly to prevent a deranged shooter from mowing down his previous boss and coworkers.

Before you complain about the police seizing guns from this gentleman (and who's to say that he won't get them back one he's cleared in good mental health) ask yourselves one question.

How would everyone have reacted had this person gone and shot up his workplace?

All the cries would have been "why didn't the police step in and stop this weapons purchase".

A man owning 5 guns might be legal, but if he was a disgruntled employee,while they might not have had just cause for the seizure, they certainly had just cause for the investigation.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by babybunnies]

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?

I'm weighing in on the side that says the man's Constitutional rights were violated with extreme prejudice - in the most BASIC sense of the term "prejudice" - To Pre-judge guilt or innocence with no evidence whatsoever. In this case no evidence that a crime had even been committed at all.

There has not even been an ALLEGATION that a crime was committed.

He ought by rights to sue every officer and every governmental entity (municipality, county, etc) involved for the violation. He should make enough money off of that to be set for life, and not have to worry about the job he was alleged to be "disgruntled" about.

In this case, if they THINK a crime MAY be committed at some point in the future, the proper thing to do is set up an ambush - harden up the point where they believe the attack will occur, and wait for it to materialize. THEN they effect an arrest, not BEFORE a crime is even committed. Under the model used, anyone can accuse anyone else of a FUTURE crime that hasn't yet been committed, and may never be, and have them "put away for the good of society", for having done NOTHING.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Before I get blasted for not knowing what I'm talking about, setting up the "ambushes" I mentioned above, specifically for disgruntled employees that MAY come back with mayhem in mind, was among my primary duties for about 12 years. Sometimes it involved going wherever the primary went, and sometimes it only involved hardening a facility just a bit - putting extra asses in the grass to watch for trouble.

Sometimes actual threats were made (in which case a crime had been committed - the misdemeanor of "communicating a threat"), and sometimes folks that were just too fearful and skittish, or possibly may have had a guilty conscience, THOUGHT it might be coming.

95% of those setups were unnecessary in that the imagined threat never materialized, and the ones that did were dealt with promptly and safely. No criminals were harmed in the execution of these bushwhackings, and none of my primaries ever met with harm from these alleged threats.

Yeah, these RamboCops "took a bite out of..." this citizen's Constitutional Rights.

[edit on 2010/3/9 by nenothtu]

Yes,

A completely rational person loads up on three different expensive weapons right after being laid off from work. He does this for RATIONAL reasons such as recreation. All I know is that whenever I've lost a job, the first thing I've done is buy expensive jewelry. It's the smart thing! I'm actually not surprised which side of the crowd isn't using their thinking caps on this one.

well, the guy is fired and buy a lot of guns

man, I think they did the right thing

you just need to use your freaking brain to realize the guy wasnt at a stable mental state

freedom? well, since us gov controls everything, I thought it was a good thing for them to talk to this guy before he did something stupid

Involuntary Commitment

Oregon law allows a person to be treated for a mental illness against their will if they are experiencing an emotional disturbance and are imminently dangerous to themselves or others or are unable to care for their basic needs. To be committed, a person must meet the above standards in a court hearing where critical information is presented in the form of testimony in front of a judge and the person considered for commitment.

www.co.linn.or.us...

Any two people in the community who are concerned about a person's safety due to serious, dangerous mental health or emotional problems can petition for involuntary commitment.

So don't piss off more than one person at a time if you can help it.

Unless I'm missing something here...if an act is "legal", then there is no justification for an investigation, let alone seizing property. Isn't that the definition of "legal"? Something you can do without repercussions?

If they want to make it illegal to buy more than one gun a week...make it a law. Otherwise, stay out of it. Again...if the act is legal, by definition it is not illegal. God forbid the police (or anyone) is permitted to investigate and seize property based upon their guess of what you may be thinking.

I own a car and buy liquor = Intent to drive drunk???
I loose my job and buy a bottle of Advil = Intent to commit suicide???
My wife leaves me and I buy a chainsaw = Intent to commit murder???

reply to post by PsykoOps


Solution: If they really felt that he was a threat, just arm all of the employees where he worked and when he showed up with his guns, they could defend themselves...

Does Oregon allow concealed carry? Can a OR state employee carry while working at ODOT. If so, gear up. I can only image the same scenario in somewhere like Texas.
"hey Joe, they fired Jim-bob"
"thats not not good, whatcha gonna be packing tomorrow, I'll bring somethin thats shoots the same ammo in case Jim-bob brings out his M1 with a couple of banana clips"
"thats good thinkin, I think I'll bring the .357 revolver and lever action rifle. Joe, do you think we should call the cops?"
"Heck no, this is what the 2nd is all about, being able to defend ourselves"

Come on Oregon, sack up and defend yourself

edit. custom2006 you stole my punch line. dang it. we posted at the same time

[edit on 9-3-2010 by jacksmoke]

reply to post by jacksmoke


....LOL

reply to post by Faiol


3 guns is not alot of guns...I have 3 testicles and that is not alot...just an extra...



[edit on 9-3-2010 by custom2006]

Originally posted by babybunnies
Before you complain about the police seizing guns from this gentleman (and who's to say that he won't get them back one he's cleared in good mental health) ask yourselves one question.

How would everyone have reacted had this person gone and shot up his workplace?

All the cries would have been "why didn't the police step in and stop this weapons purchase".

A man owning 5 guns might be legal, but if he was a disgruntled employee,while they might not have had just cause for the seizure, they certainly had just cause for the investigation.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by babybunnies]

Listen...the US is supposed to be a FREE society! Do you realize that in a free society, you are at risk that a nutcase may snap? That is one of the risk that you have in living in a free society! That is one of the reasons thousands of American soldiers have died for this country - to protect our freedoms, our rights, our constitution!

Donkeys kill more people per year then guns in the work place, (look it up)...so, should we outlaw donkeys or maybe put them all in a zoo? You probably dont know this, but donkeys, like guns, have a purpose = defense! Yea, when your driving down the road and you see 20-30 cows in a pasture and 1 donkey...the reason that donkey is there, is to fend off coyotes from killing the cows...

BTW...I would hardly call that an investigation???

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?

reply to post by custom2006


www.lovelongears.com...

"I saw this statement on the internet that "More People are killed by donkeys that in airline crashes each year. Now my spouse doesn't want me to get a donkey! Is this true? Help!"

NO, this statement has been plagueing us for several years now. It first appeared somewhere as a "factoid", but it, along with several others on that list, is TOTALLY FALSE. (We now hear that the National Geographic channel is using it in a commercial!) Until recently, we had absolutely NO IDEA where they got the so -called fact to base this rumor on. We have now found out that it was spawned due to the numbers of auto accidents caused by loose donkeys in Mexico and the Middle East! We often hear of people being INJURED by their donkeys, but can't yet name one case where someone in the USA was killed by a donkey-and there have certainly been hundreds of people killed each year in plane crashes. You'd think that several hundred people killed by donkeys each year would be publicized better somewhere OTHER than a "factoid sheet". People contact the ADMS for all sorts of reasons, but having searched the archives, we cannot find any notices of members or people killed by a donkey. (In Nov 2005 we found one headline of a man in Egypt being killed by his donkey - he had beaten the animal and it savaged him.) In truth more people are bitten by their family dog! Being killed in an auto collision with a loose donkey is not being killed by a donkey - it's being killed in an auto collision, which happened to involve a donkey. Help us to dispell this awful rumor-mill factoid - it's not true, it's bunk, treat it as such. Please don't let this statement stop you from getting a donkey or any other animal if you wish to own one!

If they ever tried to take the guns of the people of the US most of them will take the "from my cold dead hands" or "Molon Labe (come and get them)" stance.

The government knows this and the AWB of '94 was extremely unpopular.

I think they would crack down on ammo and reloading before they try to take the guns.

Even then, alot of gun enthusiast love to reload and is their hobby.

From a conspiricist POV I can see that they are setting up a possible "false flag" as another poster suggested but who knows? they probably figured out his employment status AFTER he was flagged for buying 2 guns lol

had this guy not been put on notice and managed to do what it appeared he planned to do, what would people be saying instead?>

innocent people dead... wah wah wah... world's smallest violin
or
he's a hero fighting for the constitution. yay for him?

in my opinion the situation was handled effectively. if its proven he wasn't going to shoot people then i'm sure he will get his guns back... not that he needs them.

[edit on 9/3/10 by spearhead]

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?

Its sad to hear this side of the argument because its very easy to get polarized on this issue, but...It has merit. And you've definitely presented a valid point. One that many probably don't want to entertain.

I can see both sides quite easily, but, the preemptive nature of this whole thing is reminding me of the movie "Minority Report."

How far do we allow this sort of thing to go before it completely encroaches on our god given "free will." Not to mention it contradicts our legally protected and constitutionally founded rights.

So...you're right. Either way, the cops lose on this one. But, there is the third option. That he was merely buying guns for his own personal reasons and those reasons may have not had anything to do with revenge. But, it certainly looks that way.

I also wonder...how much of the media story that we just consumed is even accurate.

So many things to actually ponder on this one.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


The report is on the Medford police website.

www.ci.medford.or.us...

Disgruntled Employee to be Evaluated

MEDIA RELEASE

Medford Police Department

411 W 8th Street

Medford, OR 97501

Date: March 8, 2010

Contact:
Lt. Bob Hansen
Public Information Officer
541-774-2217
Type of Incident: Disgruntled Employee to be Evaluated

Date and time of incident: 03/08/10 at 2100 hours

Location of incident: 500 block of Effie Street, Medford

On 030810, the Medford Police Department SWAT Team and the Hostage Negotiating Team were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation.

The subject had been recently placed on administrative leave from his place of employment and was very disgruntled. The subject had legally purchased several firearms within the last of couple of days.

Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers. 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. The firearms were seized for safekeeping.

Media Release prepared by: Lt. Bob Hansen Date: 3/8/2010 Time: 10:03 AM

(After business hours and weekends, contact Watch Commander at 541-774-2290)