[restoring]

Has anyone heard anything about this???

I've read a little on the 'pre-crime' style predictive analysis programs and thought it was a little over blown, but this is stepping beyond the pale.

I'm sure there is much that is not mentioned in the article, but I figure if this guy had actually threatened anyone it would be mentioned.

The second to last paragraph is a wee bit upsetting. I have to agree with it - he hadn';t made any threats, had used his tax refund to buy a few firearms (anyone here who hasn't done that???) and as far as I know, if he secured his home as he stepped outside, then they didn't have the legal right to enter his home, MUCH LESS confiscate anything inside it that was his legal property and was not involved in a crime.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/p ... singlepage

Pre-Crime Policing
Allegedly “disgruntledâ€

 

[ShootingSight]

It's an interesting situation, because I understand both sides of the argument. Obviously, this didn't happen out of the blue - someone, possibly at his work place, felt spooked, knew he had bought guns, and called the cops out of concern.

There is not an established way to handle this, though there are enough cases of workplace shootings to know the consequences of not handling it, leaving the cops with a dilema. I applaud them for trying to proactively take action to avert a tragedy of mass murder, though I agree they did it wrong.

Now, in retrospect, the guy does not look lke he was planning to commit murder, and their actions were over the top for the situation, and they likely violated his civil rights.

The police captain was faced with some difficult choices, and took the one that seemed safest for the community over the one that was fair for the individual. If the guy had been going to kill people at work, the police chief would have been a hero.

Hopefully, what will come out of this is an established procedure on how to manage this situation without violating someone's civil rights. We do have too many cases of workplace shootings, and after every one, the press plays Monday quarterback and says the warning signs were there, but were ignored, so here is a case where someone tried to act on those signs.

Face it, if you look at workplace shootings, most of the guys had not committed a crime before they went on a shooting spree, most of them bought their guns legally, so if these cops had stopped someone intending to shoot people at work, they would still be holding a guy who had not committed a crime.

Indeed, how do we know this guy was not planning to kill co-workers? I'm not convinced that just because he passed a mental health check means he is not whacko.

Art

Art

 

[rob_92183]

Pyles' problems began last June after a series of grievances with his employer, the Oregon Department of Transportation. "This was always a professional thing for me," he says. "It was never personal. We were handling the grievances through the process stipulated in the union contract." Pyles declined to discuss the nature of the complaints, citing stipulations in his contract.

I get the feeling the guy made a few complaints at work and the state took offense and found a way to embarrass the guy publicly.

 

[Trey73]

I don't see enough information here to make my own determination. How did the police become aware of his presence and gun purchases? It does sound like someone at his place of employment directly contacted Law Enforcement, which means one of two things. Either the guy acted overtly menacingly in some way, or someone at Oregon DOT is a real dick head of a weasel. How did he know to ask that he not be taken to a psychiatric evaluation? It sounds like there are big pieces of the puzzle not included in the story here. If the guy is legitimately innocent of making any threats, I would start from there with attorneys. I would attempt to sue every single person involved, the PD, the DOT, etc...........if he was in the right. People should not get away with abusing positions of power, or else we will end up like Mexico, too corrupt to function. How can a SWAT team apprehending someone not be a criminal matter?

 

[Clyde]

If the intent was to civilly commit the individual to a pysch evaluation, and they used a SWAT team because of awareness the individual may be armed, or may be dangerous, or both, this might be permissible. What the media failed to report was: what legal authority did the police officers possess when they went to the person's home? There had to be a discussion about a mental evaluation at some point, because the guy agreed to this as a condition of self-surrender. If they had an order from a judge, or if state laws allow them to detain a person who may be a danger to himself or to others, allowing the police to arrest and to commit this person to a mental institution (in some states you can be locked up for up to 72 hours for a pysch evaluation), all these actions may have been legal. Securing and "safeguarding" weapons that may not otherwise be secure would also be permissible - no different than locking up a handgun or a knife when someone is taken into custody -- so that no children, etc., can get their hands on a weapon that could injure them or others....

 

[SWJewellTN]

Speaking as a former policeman, if you all don't have a problem with this you need to read The Bill of Rights.

 

[Clyde]

You have to read this carefully - the media usually slants the story. As I mentioned, the real issue is what legal authority did the police act under -- here, apparently, it was state law.

Carefully read the bold and underlined sections below, quoted from this article, as to how Oregon law "...likely..." applies to these particular facts:

Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University and a specialist in civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles were likely acting under the cover of Oregon law. Bloom says the police are permitted to make a determination on their own to take someone in for a mental health evaluation—there's no requirement that they first consult with a judge or mental health professional. Bloom believes this is a wise policy. "It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."

It is a civil commitment - the police can "detain" [hint: key word] people who are considered, within the discretion of the supervisorial officer in charge of the responding police officers, a danger to themselves or others, and [lawfully] have them committed for a psychiatric evaluation. Happens every day...and under the right circumstances these types of laws can be applied.

 

[SWJewellTN]

You have to read this carefully - the media usually slants the story. As I mentioned, the real issue is what legal authority did the police act under -- here, apparently, it was state law.

Carefully read the bold and underlined sections below, quoted from this article, as to how Oregon law "...likely..." applies to these particular facts:

Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University and a specialist in civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles were likely acting under the cover of Oregon law. Bloom says the police are permitted to make a determination on their own to take someone in for a mental health evaluation—there's no requirement that they first consult with a judge or mental health professional. Bloom believes this is a wise policy. "It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."

It is a civil commitment - the police can "detain" [hint: key word] people who are considered, within the discretion of the supervisorial officer in charge of the responding police officers, a danger to themselves or others, and [lawfully] have them committed for a psychiatric evaluation. Happens every day...and under the right circumstances these types of laws can be applied.

Good point on a lame law: however, they just didn't escort him for an evaluation. They took him to the ground, handcuffed him, seized his weapons, and dragged him off. Unless they can point to threats of violence against his self or others they have no leg to stand on. They are in deep poo-poo.

 

[tacman605]

Different states have differnet laws but there is generalized criteria that must be met. It is known as an involuntary commitment.
The use of a tactical team to take a person for a mental health evaluation is in every sense of the word overkill. Yes as a police officer I could take a person for a mental health eval after determining there is cause. like talking to the person first, Is he naked covered in vaseline? Is he making overt threats?.
The officers in question made there determination without an interview acting I guess on hearsay of someone, somewhere.
If this guy was standing on his porch with a tinfoil hat with an AK threatening to shoot the space aliens yeah call SWAT but to call him on the phone telling him to give himself up is just plain stupid. And I ask the question also suppose he said no is SWAT making a forced entry?
The seizure of the firearms even for safekeeping is an unlawful seizure. There is no provision in the constitution or in any state criminal codes I have had to deal with have a provision for safekeeping whether it makes sense or not it is illegal.
I was a cop for a long time but I must say whomever made the decision to do this screwed the pooch and deserves what they get. The reeks of the movie "Minority Report" where people were arrested for crimes they were going to commit which was supposed to be science fiction.