'|
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
  
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | rose - 3/11/2010 10:47 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 9:29 AM BarOFarm - 3/11/2010 11:03 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 10:41 AM I have an outstanding plan that will make every one of us on this board some extra money. The only thing you need to do is send me $1,000. I give you my word that I'll do all of the work and you will make money.
Who's in?
Nope, I need more details.
Exactly!!
Nobody in their right mind would jump into a business transaction based on the information I have given here without knowing more about me and my proposal.
So why jump to conclusions based on so few facts?
There is not enough information being given to say that this man has a civil rights case or that the LEO's acted too early. Maybe they did or maybe they had enough information to act. Until more information is released, it's a little premature to be jumping on infringement of Constitutional Rights bandwagon.
No! I am still investing in lotto tickets, my plan is more reliable than yours.
BTW: You all left out the plain view clause in dealing with search of vehicles. Also left out several supreme court cases that clarify when searches cannot be conducted or do give police the right to conduct a search of certain parts of your vehicle, containers therein and people, under probable cause without a warrant. If your going to split hairs on when they can and cannot search you, you might want to include all the hairs, because I promise they will.
NO kidding! Lol! A few yrs back during the big manhunt here...the FBI had road blocks up...man, was that scary! Trigger happy, nervous...they'd point guns at you while they searched...my dad had one open his glove box!!! He asked if he thought a man could be hiding in there? Jeez.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | Rose, I still want in on your Lottery Ticket venture!
MM, thanks. I appreciate your trust! 
| |
| | |
Extreme Road Warrior
Posts: 514
Location: Michigan | RQH - 3/11/2010 12:59 PM PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man. | |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE | paracadista - 3/11/2010 9:59 AM Sheepdog - 3/11/2010 9:26 AM It is my understanding that a patrolman cannot search a vehicle based on probable cause. He can ask for permission to search and the occupant can deny....this is where the probable cause serves as a justification for aquiring a search warrant that obviously supercedes the permission of the individual and does NOT violate the 4th Amendment. Now, many hoping to not agitate the officer will give permission but probable cause is never a justification for an unauthorized search as that would most certainly violate the 4th. This is a cloudy subject as most don't realize that they can deny a search or think it's a "bad idea" and might aggravate the cop......guess what, if you're being asked for a search, you're going to get charged with something....probable cause is a joke anymore with all of the qualifications and sub qualifications. This is also an example of people unknowingly giving away their liberty when it isn't necessary.
If a search is denied then the onus is on the officer to produce probable cause and make his case to his superior or judge to obtain the search warrant. It is often recommended to NEVER consent to a search and record this conversation whenever possible. When asked, respond by saying under no circumstances do I give you permission to search my vehicle.
Police are taught to take advantage of the fact that "we the people" are predominantly ignorant of our rights. We give away much more than we should and essentially incriminate ourselves with petty and unconstitutional laws more than we should.
I was just told this info a few months ago by some "oath keeper" police officers who were more than happy to tell everyone around how they are taught to utilize our ignorance.
You shouldn't and don't even have to answer the questions the officer has for you. He/she has already made his case by pulling you over and through questioning is simply probing for more evidence to embolden his case. You don't even have to give them your registration and license....hold it for them at the window, it's your property and you don't need to relinquish it. They can't restrain you for more than a "reasonable time" without arrest and that is commonly known as 30 minutes. They must make their case within 30 minutes based on information YOU give them or based on the reason they initially pulled you over......why help them fish for revenue? Talking ONLY serves to further THEIR case.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/122213
I know that in my state it is required that you produce identification to any LEO who is conducting an investigation of a criminal offense, simply stated that you must show your license. No, you are not required, and shouldn't, answer questions but you must identify yourself.
I never said to not produce ID, I said that you don't have to hand it over to them. Produce it, let them look at it and do what they want but it is YOUR property and you DO NOT have to relinquish it.
I also do not think that we must have an ID with us at all times...just when driving, and that's when the driver versus traveler discussion gets fun. Drivers technically are paid for driving and must produce ID, travelers technically don't have to produce ID.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm
| |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE | BarOFarm - 3/11/2010 11:37 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 12:59 PM PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man.
Based on what do you come to this conclusion? The same that the SWAT team used I suspect? I've bought multiple guns in a few days before and am more than displeased with the overstepped boundaries of the government....am I about to commit a crime? I've even expressed that I believe that the current government needs to be removed from duty and Jefferson's criminal statements about the need for a revolution every generation are very much in order. I even support the declaration of Independence saying that when the form of government becomes destructive that we have the right and duty to throw off such government and despotism. Is that criminal? According to HSA, that makes me a domestic terrorist for saying those exact things. Do they have a right to stop me, search myself and my home/auto because they suspect me of a crime?
Those few little words you highlighted are intentionally in their undefined ambiguity. Thus, probable cause has become a joke of magnificent proportions that will ALWAYS work against "we the people".
Slippery slope and unfortunately all too many are willing to err on the side of government/tyranny/despotism instead of god given liberty these days.
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| BarOFarm - 3/11/2010 10:37 AM
RQH - 3/11/2010 12:59 PM PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man.
"Reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".
The police flat out said they were being "proactive"...acting before the crime was committed. I am still going to stick with "not ok" for right now.
What I am finding really strange is that there has been zero follow up with this in the paper or on the news. Nothing. There are over 200 comments to the story on our paper's website demanding answers. We are getting none and the guy who was taken into custody has not been arrested as of yet...... | |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| NeNe - 3/11/2010 2:26 PM
BarOFarm - 3/11/2010 10:37 AM
RQH - 3/11/2010 12:59 PM PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man.
"Reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime". This guy was home in bed. He was calling 911 when SWAT surrounded his house asking what was going on (per witnesses ) and when he was told it was about him, he walked outside.
The police flat out said they were being "proactive"...acting before the crime was committed. I am still going to stick with "not ok" for right now.
What I am finding really strange is that there has been zero follow up with this in the paper or on the news. Nothing. There are over 200 comments to the story on our paper's website demanding answers. We are getting none and the guy who was taken into custody has not been arrested as of yet......
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | Sheepdog - 3/11/2010 1:51 PM
paracadista - 3/11/2010 9:59 AM Sheepdog - 3/11/2010 9:26 AM It is my understanding that a patrolman cannot search a vehicle based on probable cause. He can ask for permission to search and the occupant can deny....this is where the probable cause serves as a justification for aquiring a search warrant that obviously supercedes the permission of the individual and does NOT violate the 4th Amendment. Now, many hoping to not agitate the officer will give permission but probable cause is never a justification for an unauthorized search as that would most certainly violate the 4th. This is a cloudy subject as most don't realize that they can deny a search or think it's a "bad idea" and might aggravate the cop......guess what, if you're being asked for a search, you're going to get charged with something....probable cause is a joke anymore with all of the qualifications and sub qualifications. This is also an example of people unknowingly giving away their liberty when it isn't necessary.
If a search is denied then the onus is on the officer to produce probable cause and make his case to his superior or judge to obtain the search warrant. It is often recommended to NEVER consent to a search and record this conversation whenever possible. When asked, respond by saying under no circumstances do I give you permission to search my vehicle.
Police are taught to take advantage of the fact that "we the people" are predominantly ignorant of our rights. We give away much more than we should and essentially incriminate ourselves with petty and unconstitutional laws more than we should.
I was just told this info a few months ago by some "oath keeper" police officers who were more than happy to tell everyone around how they are taught to utilize our ignorance.
You shouldn't and don't even have to answer the questions the officer has for you. He/she has already made his case by pulling you over and through questioning is simply probing for more evidence to embolden his case. You don't even have to give them your registration and license....hold it for them at the window, it's your property and you don't need to relinquish it. They can't restrain you for more than a "reasonable time" without arrest and that is commonly known as 30 minutes. They must make their case within 30 minutes based on information YOU give them or based on the reason they initially pulled you over......why help them fish for revenue? Talking ONLY serves to further THEIR case.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/122213
I know that in my state it is required that you produce identification to any LEO who is conducting an investigation of a criminal offense, simply stated that you must show your license. No, you are not required, and shouldn't, answer questions but you must identify yourself.
I never said to not produce ID, I said that you don't have to hand it over to them. Produce it, let them look at it and do what they want but it is YOUR property and you DO NOT have to relinquish it.
I also do not think that we must have an ID with us at all times...just when driving, and that's when the driver versus traveler discussion gets fun. Drivers technically are paid for driving and must produce ID, travelers technically don't have to produce ID.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm
Knock "yer"self out! | |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| Update as of this afternoon.....
Medford man whose guns were taken by police wants them backText Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
ShareThisMarch 11, 2010
The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police for safekeeping Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return.
David J. Pyles has asked police to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He sent an e-mailed request today, forwarding copies to legislators and media outlets.
Medford police said they were watching the Effie Street home starting Sunday night in response to law enforcement concerns about the man after he was placed on administrative leave from his job on Thursday.
A Medford police news release described him as disgruntled and said police knew he had legally purchased several firearms over two days. Police identified the guns as a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle.
In what police described as a "proactive" move, they wanted to defuse the situation before people started their daily routines on Monday.
The guns, along with another handgun and a shotgun the man also owned, were seized for "safekeeping" Monday, police said. The man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.
Now, Pyles wants his property returned.
Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.
Hansen declined to discuss Pyles' request, but described the department's process, which can take several weeks. Processing weapons takes longer than other items, he said.
When a person requests the release of property held by police, first the officer handling the case confirms that the item is no longer needed for the investigation, he said. Property control specialists confirm the owner's identity, then, for weapons, send information to Oregon State Police to determine if the person can legally have the weapon. OSP checks criminal records and looks for medical holds that might block gun ownership, Hansen said. Local police check additional municipal court records.
Authorities also check to make sure the gun isn't reported stolen or linked to other crimes. After a final review to ensure all records are in order, the owner is notified to come claim the item.
— Anita Burke
Something tells me this guy is not going to take this sitting down.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | Sheepdog - 3/11/2010 12:58 PM BarOFarm - 3/11/2010 11:37 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 12:59 PM PROBABLE CAUSEA reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992). It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)). When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man.
Based on what do you come to this conclusion? The same that the SWAT team used I suspect?
I realize that you directed this question to BarOFarm, but I'd like to step in here for a second SD, if you do not mind?
I would base that conclusion (from the extremely limited info in the article) on numerous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld 'probable cause'. And giving a LEO the authority to search or detain w/out a warrant.
I've bought multiple guns in a few days before and am more than displeased with the overstepped boundaries of the government....am I about to commit a crime?
You neglect to ask one extremely important question concerning this man and him being taken into custody by the police. What did he do or say at his workplace that initially triggered the administrative leave of absence and made his employers feel the need to contact the authorities?
Do you remember John Adams in that movie you loaned me saying, while he was defending the British soldiers who fired upon the crowd, "Facts are stubborn things...."?
I've even expressed that I believe that the current government needs to be removed from duty and Jefferson's criminal statements about the need for a revolution every generation are very much in order. I even support the declaration of Independence saying that when the form of government becomes destructive that we have the right and duty to throw off such government and despotism. Is that criminal?
No, not yet at any rate, but then this is only March. However, in having known you for a couple of years now, I've not once heard you specifically threatening anyone or plotting the specific destruction of any kind to a facility. Big difference of utilizing your 1A to speak out against what is happening to this nation and specifically threatening a person(s) life.
According to HSA, that makes me a domestic terrorist for saying those exact things.
No, not exactly. It said in that memo that you have the 'potential' to be one, not that it automatically made you one, and that LEO's should be on their guard.
Do they have a right to stop me, search myself and my home/auto because they suspect me of a crime?
Solely based on comments you've made here and other forums? No. I would say that there is no probable cause to make such an arrest.
Those few little words you highlighted are intentionally in their undefined ambiguity. Thus, probable cause has become a joke of magnificent proportions that will ALWAYS work against "we the people".
This undefined ambiguity has been both upheld and tossed out of courts across this nation (and by the Supreme Court as well), since the inception of the Bill of Rights and the 4th Amendment containing those words.
Slippery slope and unfortunately all too many are willing to err on the side of government/tyranny/despotism instead of god given liberty these days.
It always has been a slippery slope and not just over instances regarding the purchase of firearms. But I do not believe I am willing to err on anything by saying that we should wait to hang somebody until the whole story comes out. I am not willing to hang this police force out to dry for what they did, simply because an article made the assumption that this man was simply arrested for buying three guns in two days and that this nation finds itself distrusful of all things authoritarian.
Besides, you posted an article not so long ago describing how the local sheriff is the law of the land and has the power to enforce or not to enforce law or to tell the Federal Government to go fly a kite. Well, from what I read in that article, it would appear that the sheriff made the call. Not Federal agents.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | The Coroner actually has more power than a sheriff...as he can pronounce death. Just an interesting 'tid-bit'.
One reason that the sheriff has more power than the fed is that he is an elected official, answerable to the people.
I actually do understand the proactive stance due to the many similar circumstances, but, it's very scary when people can be 'profiled' in such a way...of course, we don't know all the story... it still scares me. There is such an abuse of authority from the lowliest position to the highest...you have to ask who would even be interested in wielding any kind of power. I know too many cops, some relatives, that are so full of themselves...they've honestly told me how they could & would take people like me down. Believe it. The division starts right there.
| |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE |
So thereby reading this, the police were fully within Constitutional rights to arrest this man.
Based on what do you come to this conclusion? The same that the SWAT team used I suspect?
I realize that you directed this question to BarOFarm, but I'd like to step in here for a second SD, if you do not mind?
I would base that conclusion (from the extremely limited info in the article) on numerous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld 'probable cause'. And giving a LEO the authority to search or detain w/out a warrant.
**************Actually, I see little to constitutionally support the idea of a search based solely on probably cause without consent. That's not to say the intent hasn't been molested.....there is plenty of precedent to support that. Not to mention the constitutional abortion we call the "Patriot Act" that turns the 4th into toilet paper trailing the heel of the .gov jack booted thugs.
I've bought multiple guns in a few days before and am more than displeased with the overstepped boundaries of the government....am I about to commit a crime?
You neglect to ask one extremely important question concerning this man and him being taken into custody by the police. What did he do or say at his workplace that initially triggered the administrative leave of absence and made his employers feel the need to contact the authorities?
Do you remember John Adams in that movie you loaned me saying, while he was defending the British soldiers who fired upon the crowd, "Facts are stubborn things...."?
********************Oh no, I don't neglect this question. I've seen nothing indicating anything of the sort was said. I am not assuming anything in regards to his leave of absence other than any of the thousands of reasons that could cause this. Facts are stubborn things, I am assuming him innocent until proven guilty and not the converse.
I've even expressed that I believe that the current government needs to be removed from duty and Jefferson's criminal statements about the need for a revolution every generation are very much in order. I even support the declaration of Independence saying that when the form of government becomes destructive that we have the right and duty to throw off such government and despotism. Is that criminal?
No, not yet at any rate, but then this is only March. However, in having known you for a couple of years now, I've not once heard you specifically threatening anyone or plotting the specific destruction of any kind to a facility. Big difference of utilizing your 1A to speak out against what is happening to this nation and specifically threatening a person(s) life.
**********But those specifics are NOT enumerated by our wonderful HS chief as they outlined what is considered to be a "domestic terrorist" or an "enemy belligerent".....the latter is amusingly vague and ambiguous and one section is entirely open ended and up to the President to determine the extent. Specific threats are not only addressed by either of the above, supporting certain candidates, teaching or professing what I just professed above is essentially incriminating to both the HSA and has been passed around by the Missouri LE agencies supported by the Southern Poverty Law something or other
According to HSA, that makes me a domestic terrorist for saying those exact things.
No, not exactly. It said in that memo that you have the 'potential' to be one, not that it automatically made you one, and that LEO's should be on their guard.
**********Would not the very "potential" as you said be grounds for probable cause by the definition you posted? Wouldn't the LEO's and SWAT members that did the raid on the man in question say they were doing exactly what you just said by taking this man into custody, WITHOUT ARREST, and searching and seizing his property?
Do they have a right to stop me, search myself and my home/auto because they suspect me of a crime?
Solely based on comments you've made here and other forums? No. I would say that there is no probable cause to make such an arrest.
*************But you just stated above that I have the "potential" and that LEO should be on their guard....the very basis for the probable cause that got this man in the spot he's in.
Those few little words you highlighted are intentionally in their undefined ambiguity. Thus, probable cause has become a joke of magnificent proportions that will ALWAYS work against "we the people".
This undefined ambiguity has been both upheld and tossed out of courts across this nation (and by the Supreme Court as well), since the inception of the Bill of Rights and the 4th Amendment containing those words.
Slippery slope and unfortunately all too many are willing to err on the side of government/tyranny/despotism instead of god given liberty these days.
It always has been a slippery slope and not just over instances regarding the purchase of firearms. But I do not believe I am willing to err on anything by saying that we should wait to hang somebody until the whole story comes out. I am not willing to hang this police force out to dry for what they did, simply because an article made the assumption that this man was simply arrested for buying three guns in two days and that this nation finds itself distrusful of all things authoritarian.
Besides, you posted an article not so long ago describing how the local sheriff is the law of the land and has the power to enforce or not to enforce law or to tell the Federal Government to go fly a kite. Well, from what I read in that article, it would appear that the sheriff made the call. Not Federal agents.
Yes, the sheriff made the call and I did post the article you stated but what does that have to do with the price of fish in China? A Sheriff can have the last word in his county but that does not make him above the law and there is most certainly precedent to support Sheriffs that have overstepped their bounds. The Sheriff is to uphold and protect the Constitution as per his/her oath....not trample the rights or make them up as they go. Preemptive arrest is the slipperiest of the slippery and they had better have firm footing....it doesn't appear they had that footing in this case. If someone says you said something does that mean you can be arrested or detained for the alleged statement?........I certainly hope not.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | Boy you weren't joking about the rainbow effect. I'll go w/ green on this one. RQH
**************Actually, I see little to constitutionally support the idea of a search based solely on probably cause without consent. That's not to say the intent hasn't been molested.....there is plenty of precedent to support that. Not to mention the constitutional abortion we call the "Patriot Act" that turns the 4th into toilet paper trailing the heel of the .gov jack booted thugs. Sheepdog
But see, that's just the point, none of us can see anything to support what was done, legally or illegally. There is not enough information given to say the authorities had probable cause or didn't. It does not say if they visited w/ the DA or a judge before doing what they did and obtain a warrant. Did the man make death threats convincing enough that when the authorities ran the check, they discovered he had just purchased the inventory he had, and it warrant enough of a probable cause to make a proactive arrest?
Not knowing what was said or done at the DOT, it could only lead me to assume the LEO's had Columbine, Va Tech, Ft. Hood, Oakview Mall in Omaha, and several others that slip my mind here, dancing through their heads.
Did they have enough reasonable evidence to protect others from a very disgruntled employee? Nobody knows yet.
But can an individual be arrested for threatening the lives of other individuals? Most certainly. It can come under verbal assault or communicating a threat, w/out ever using the Patriot Act. The majority of the time I believe it would be called a misdemeanor, however, the way the article appears, he purchased the guns after being placed on leave. Big red flag!
And I wholeheartedly agree w/ your opinion of the Patriot Act. Pure bullchit from word one! RQH
********************Oh no, I don't neglect this question. I've seen nothing indicating anything of the sort was said. I am not assuming anything in regards to his leave of absence other than any of the thousands of reasons that could cause this. Facts are stubborn things, I am assuming him innocent until proven guilty and not the converse. Sheepdog
But you do assume. You make the assumption that this man's civil rights were trampled to hell and back, while ignoring what could have possibly triggered a sheriff to call in a SWAT team in at 3 a.m. and arrest this man, based on the DHS's memo last year, the current political environment, the Patriot Act, and the most recent legislation introduced by Mr. McCain.
Until we all know what that specific catylist was that warranted the actions of the authorities, the only thing we can do is assume and speculate. The only thing that I am cautioning, is not to jump to conclusions. RQH
**********But those specifics are NOT enumerated by our wonderful HS chief as they outlined what is considered to be a "domestic terrorist" or an "enemy belligerent".....the latter is amusingly vague and ambiguous and one section is entirely open ended and up to the President to determine the extent. Specific threats are not only addressed by either of the above, supporting certain candidates, teaching or professing what I just professed above is essentially incriminating to both the HSA and has been passed around by the Missouri LE agencies supported by the Southern Poverty Law something or other. Sheepdog
To my understanding, this legislation was just recently introduced by Mr. McCain and has not yet been passed into law. Scary??? Oh holy crap, yes indeed. DHS is terrifying enough w/out adding this pile of refuse to it. I believe no president should have the sole authority to do what this piece of garbage legislation outlines.
But like I said, you, me, or whoever is still safe (for the time being) to rant and rave all we wish. So long as we are not specifically targeting or planning to target individuals or structures. There is a huge difference between actually threatening someone and what we are doing here. At least for now. RQH
**********Would not the very "potential" as you said be grounds for probable cause by the definition you posted? Wouldn't the LEO's and SWAT members that did the raid on the man in question say they were doing exactly what you just said by taking this man into custody, WITHOUT ARREST, and searching and seizing his property? Sheepdog
No. You have not yet made specific threats to somebody's life or well being. So there is no probable cause. RQH
*************But you just stated above that I have the "potential" and that LEO should be on their guard....the very basis for the probable cause that got this man in the spot he's in. Sheepdog
According to the DHS, yes we all here have the 'potential', so according to that memo, she warned LEO's to be alert at the commencement of the tea parties. But does that give them probable cause to do to you or me what happened to this man? No. At least not under any laws that I am familiar w/.
We do not yet know if they are the same potential threats. It hasn't been released yet as to the specific reason they arrested him. Meaning, did he make death threats, then get placed on leave, and then buy the guns? Or did somebody at work take something he said out of context and the police jump to unwarranted conclusions by looking at his recent purchase?
We don't know yet. RQH
*******Yes, the sheriff made the call and I did post the article you stated but what does that have to do with the price of fish in China? A Sheriff can have the last word in his county but that does not make him above the law and there is most certainly precedent to support Sheriffs that have overstepped their bounds. The Sheriff is to uphold and protect the Constitution as per his/her oath....not trample the rights or make them up as they go. Preemptive arrest is the slipperiest of the slippery and they had better have firm footing....it doesn't appear they had that footing in this case. If someone says you said something does that mean you can be arrested or detained for the alleged statement?........I certainly hope not. Sheepdog
What does it have to do w/the price of tea in China? Well, not much at all, besides, given the exchange rate right now, I probably couldn't afford it anyway.
But as for the relevance to the current topic, it has everything to do w/ it. The arrest was made by local authorities, according to that article that NeNe posted. The sheriff was notified of the situation. The sheriff's office is the one that took a look at this fella's background. The sheriff is the one that saw the purchase. The sheriff's department is the one that made the arrest. Not the DHS. Not the FBI. Not the NSA. Not the SS. Nor any other alphabet team. This was a local action, initiated and performed by a local sheriff. The chief law enforcer of this nation. But yet the DHS keeps getting brought up. You just mentioned Mr. McCain's recent bullchit. Civil Rights being trampled. Did this man, who is expected to enforce his community's laws and protect that community, have reasonable enough justification to arrest this man? To protect innocent lives and keep his community from being plastered all over the 6 o'clock news for some gun toting freak going postal at his workplace because he didn't like the pay? And again, we don't know yet.
As for your last question, if there is more than one credible witness who will testify that death threats were indeed made, then yes. And it would indeed be admisable testimony in a courtroom.
I am just not willing to start jumping up and down screaming how Big Brother is now arresting people just for buying guns, IF this man was threatening to kill people at the DOT. Because IF this is what happened, then I have no problem w/ this arrest, because I look at it from the perspective that I have a wife who teaches, a daughter who attends the same school, and will soon have a little boy also attending that very same school, and if a student or faculty member started threatening to specifically kill students or teachers or blow the school to kingdom come, I pray that that is sufficient enough probable cause to be proactive. Instead of waiting to look into the situation after the threats have been carried out, the actual 'crime' committed, and I have to attend a funeral......... or three!
This is why I reserve myself from making an opinion on the article until ALL of the facts are presented.
If this sheriff's office did jump to conclusions and arrest this man w/out sufficient probable cause and/or evidence to support the arrest, then I'll gladly join you, NeNe, and MM denouncing what they did. BUT, if this man did threaten to kill people at his workplace, well then, we disagree on probable cause. RQH
| |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE | *******My turn, and I choose obnoxious blue prefaced by a clown emoticon(  ) just to throw you. I reject your "Georgia" font and will use Book Antigua.
But see, that's just the point, none of us can see anything to support what was done, legally or illegally. There is not enough information given to say the authorities had probable cause or didn't. It does not say if they visited w/ the DA or a judge before doing what they did and obtain a warrant. Did the man make death threats convincing enough that when the authorities ran the check, they discovered he had just purchased the inventory he had, and it warrant enough of a probable cause to make a proactive arrest?
**********You're right, we don't know enough but we can go from what was said. "Protective custody", his guns were taken for "safekeeping". The way the last story reads, I gleen that they think they're protecting him from...him. He was NEVER arrested, he was never charged. This blood thirsty possible murderer is already released after his mental evaluation at a hospital and his stay at the jail with no charge and no arrest. I've never even read anything about death threats, "they" aren't supposed to be able to track down his recent purchases, and this idea of "proactive arrest" is one that I'll never really get comfortable with.
Not knowing what was said or done at the DOT, it could only lead me to assume the LEO's had Columbine, Va Tech, Ft. Hood, Oakview Mall in Omaha, and several others that slip my mind here, dancing through their heads.
What is dancing through their heads ought not be an issue.....evidence, rule of law, unmolested probable cause.
Did they have enough reasonable evidence to protect others from a very disgruntled employee? Nobody knows yet.
But can an individual be arrested for threatening the lives of other individuals? Most certainly. It can come under verbal assault or communicating a threat, w/out ever using the Patriot Act. The majority of the time I believe it would be called a misdemeanor, however, the way the article appears, he purchased the guns after being placed on leave. Big red flag!
And I wholeheartedly agree w/ your opinion of the Patriot Act. Pure bullchit from word one! RQH
But.......can an individual be legally arrested for someone 'saying' that he threatened them? Sure gives fussy, belligerent ex-girlfriends/boyfriends some awesome revenge power. Yes, he purchased guns after being put on leave....legally, so what? If he went and purchased a car would they confiscate that for fear that he will go crash up derby crazy and run down a bunch of workers in the parking lot? What appears clear as mud is that someone tipped off the police, they stomped a mud hole in his civil liberties, never charged him with anything, detained him without charge and now he's going to fight to get his own property back that ought not have been taken. Want to play a game assuming what this tipster said to the po-po to trigger a SWAT raid and search and seizure carnivals?
But you do assume. You make the assumption that this man's civil rights were trampled to hell and back, while ignoring what could have possibly triggered a sheriff to call in a SWAT team in at 3 a.m. and arrest this man, based on the DHS's memo last year, the current political environment, the Patriot Act, and the most recent legislation introduced by Mr. McCain.
That's just it. I'm not. I see that he was detained, never charged, taken for psych evaluation and released. Now they aren't giving his property back and say it may take weeks. An arrest was never mentioned in the first article....an arrest was assumed. To trample this mans rights the way they were he dang sure SHOULD have been arrested.......but they COULDN'T charge him, he did nothing wrong but be disgruntled(he was put on leave....that happens) He was taken into the wonderfully ambiguous "protective custody" and no criminal charges were, or have been, filed.
Until we all know what that specific catylist was that warranted the actions of the authorities, the only thing we can do is assume and speculate. The only thing that I am cautioning, is not to jump to conclusions. RQH
No conclusion jumping here. Disgruntled from being fired or put on "administrative leave", some amount of hearsay tiggered the LE to go into JBT mode, taken into "protective custody", search and seizure ended up with his property being confiscated for "safekeeping", he was never charged but detained for a couple days?, taken for psych evaluation for apparently being disgruntled after being fired, released and now can't get his property back for weeks.....which will probably make him disgruntled again and trigger a massive repeat and force the LEO's to put back on their SWAT gear and robocop their way back over to his house tonight at 3AM where they'll hopefully explain to him that he should be happy it'll take weeks to get his own property that was unlawfully seized back. ;)
To my understanding, this legislation was just recently introduced by Mr. McCain and has not yet been passed into law. Scary??? Oh holy crap, yes indeed. DHS is terrifying enough w/out adding this pile of refuse to it. I believe no president should have the sole authority to do what this piece of garbage legislation outlines.
But like I said, you, me, or whoever is still safe (for the time being) to rant and rave all we wish. So long as we are not specifically targeting or planning to target individuals or structures. There is a huge difference between actually threatening someone and what we are doing here. At least for now. RQH
The big difference is actually only in the ambiguity. I've actually said multiple times that the scumbags in DC need to be run out and beaten in every district until they get back to their own home district....tar and feathering isn't such a bad idea either. They most certainly won't give up the "untouchable" status peaceably and drift back into citizen obscurity without some forcible action.
No. You have not yet made specific threats to somebody's life or well being. So there is no probable cause. RQH
And you're assuming this guy in question did. Him being "disgruntled" is what triggered this whole mess.
According to the DHS, yes we all here have the 'potential', so according to that memo, she warned LEO's to be alert at the commencement of the tea parties. But does that give them probable cause to do to you or me what happened to this man? No. At least not under any laws that I am familiar w/.
There is nothing different about what this man did and what we do here every day. The public case they made was that his fellow workers from where he was just canned said he was "very disgruntled". If your buddies ;) over at DU would pop on here and see how "disgruntled" I or anyone else on here is at the way our government is going then by this precedent we can all be taken into "protective custody" and our teeth of liberty be seized for "safekeeping". They said nothing of threats...those are assumed. They said much of disgruntlement and the dreaded purchase of firearms....that they're not even supposed to be able to track.
We do not yet know if they are the same potential threats. It hasn't been released yet as to the specific reason they arrested him.
They NEVER did arrest him. Never. Detained, protective custody, psych eval, release....not one charge of criminal activity and no arrest.
Meaning, did he make death threats, then get placed on leave, and then buy the guns? Or did somebody at work take something he said out of context and the police jump to unwarranted conclusions by looking at his recent purchase?
We don't know yet. RQH
The case made was that he was disgruntled and bought guns....not one mention of threats. The police are not supposed to be able to look at those purchases.
What does it have to do w/the price of tea in China? Well, not much at all, besides, given the exchange rate right now, I probably couldn't afford it anyway.
But as for the relevance to the current topic, it has everything to do w/ it. The arrest was made by local authorities, according to that article that NeNe posted.
No, the arrest was never made and no charges were ever filed as per that article.
The sheriff was notified of the situation. The sheriff's office is the one that took a look at this fella's background. The sheriff is the one that saw the purchase. The sheriff's department is the one that made the arrest. Not the DHS. Not the FBI. Not the NSA. Not the SS. Nor any other alphabet team. This was a local action, initiated and performed by a local sheriff. The chief law enforcer of this nation. But yet the DHS keeps getting brought up. You just mentioned Mr. McCain's recent bullchit. Civil Rights being trampled. Did this man, who is expected to enforce his community's laws and protect that community, have reasonable enough justification to arrest this man? No arrest, no criminal charges filed!!
To protect innocent lives and keep his community from being plastered all over the 6 o'clock news for some gun toting freak going postal at his workplace because he didn't like the pay? And again, we don't know yet.
As for your last question, if there is more than one credible witness who will testify that death threats were indeed made, then yes. And it would indeed be admisable testimony in a courtroom.
I am just not willing to start jumping up and down screaming how Big Brother is now arresting people just for buying guns, IF this man was threatening to kill people at the DOT. Because IF this is what happened, then I have no problem w/ this arrest He was not arrested and not charged with ANYTHING , because I look at it from the perspective that I have a wife who teaches, a daughter who attends the same school, and will soon have a little boy also attending that very same school, and if a student or faculty member started threatening to specifically kill students or teachers or blow the school to kingdom come, I pray that that is sufficient enough probable cause to be proactive. Instead of waiting to look into the situation after the threats have been carried out, the actual 'crime' committed, and I have to attend a funeral......... or three!
This is why I reserve myself from making an opinion on the article until ALL of the facts are presented.
but plenty of facts HAVE been given. No arrest, not even a charge...just "protective custody", search and seizure for "safekeeping".....all based on a co-worker saying he was very disgruntled after being fired...and he bought guns. I really think all the info is there especially when you see that no charges were filed and he was actually never arrested for anything. IF he made threats then he would have been charged with something.
If this sheriff's office did jump to conclusions and arrest this man w/out sufficient probable cause and/or evidence to support the arrest NO ARREST, NO CHARGES FILED , then I'll gladly join you, NeNe, and MM denouncing what they did. BUT, if this man did threaten to kill people at his workplace, well then, we disagree on probable cause. RQH
IF he made verifiable death threats he would have been charged and arrested........he wasn't, he was "disgruntled".
Note to self, if I get fired, be happy about it and don't buy guns right away.
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| Morning update:
Man, guns held by police spur controversyLaw enforcement officials say he could have been a 'danger to others' and his surrender was voluntary
Text Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
March 12, 2010
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
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.
Related Stories
Former ODOT worker wants guns returned; police say they'll comply 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.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
| |
| | |
Sweetpea
Posts: 281
Location: Central Texas | What would everyone be saying if the police had good information that this man intended on doing someone harm and they did nothing? Nobody knows right now because it is too early to jump to conclusions. But if they did step over the line you better believe we will hear about it! The media loves a good or a bad police story! I just don't know because it is TOO EARLY to make judgements!
What I do know is this: my husband puts on a gun and a bullet proof (depending on the ammo) vest day in and day out! He does this for not a lot of money and a WHOLE LOT of b&^$*ing from the public and from within!
I also know that he is not on a power trip because I know the man behind the badge! He has been a police officer for over 20 years and I have often asked him why he does it! It is certainly not because he gets such a warm fuzzy feeling from most of the public!
I also know that you are going to get two kinds of people with the pay and stress that comes with being a police officer. I am proud to say that my husband is one of the ones that does this job because he loves it!
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| Former ODOT worker wants guns returned; police say they'll complyText Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
March 12, 2010
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
MEDFORD — The Medford man whose firearms were seized by police Monday when he was taken into protective custody has asked for their return and police say they will comply with the request.
David J. Pyles sent an e-mail to police Thursday, asking them to return the items taken from him when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his Effie Street home early Monday. He forwarded copies to legislators and media outlets.
Related Stories
Man, guns held by police spur controversy Medford Police Chief Randy Schoen said the department plans to return the seized weapons today.
"He gave them up voluntarily and we don't have a court order to hold them," Schoen said. "We will give them back to him."
The seizure of Pyles' weapons prompted a debate among gun rights advocates and those who said police acted appropriately after being informed of a potentially threatening situation.
Medford police said they started watching the Effie Street home Sunday night in response to law enforcement concerns about the resident — later identified as Pyles — after he was placed on administrative leave from his job on Thursday.
The Oregon Department of Transportation said Pyles is a development planner who started working there in February 2004.
Medford police described him in a news release as disgruntled and said police knew he had legally purchased a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle since being placed on leave.
Information compiled by Oregon State Police, Medford and Roseburg police, and Jackson and Douglas county sheriff's departments prompted concerns that Pyles could be a threat. The news release noted that police were "extremely concerned" that he might retaliate against his employer.
"We wanted to make sure nothing bad happened," Schoen said.
In an effort to defuse the situation before people started their daily routines on Monday, a SWAT team and negotiators moved in during the pre-dawn hours.
"He came out voluntarily," Schoen said, noting that he then directed police to the recently purchased weapons, as well as another handgun and a shotgun he owned.
All the firearms were seized for "safekeeping" and the man was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation, police said. He was released several hours later.
Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said police generally try to return found, stolen or seized property to its rightful owner as soon as possible and have a procedure for doing so, to ensure that there are not ownership or legal issues. If the property was seized as evidence, courts have the final say on when it can be returned.
Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.
| |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE | flossie - 3/12/2010 11:30 AM What would everyone be saying if the police had good information that this man intended on doing someone harm and they did nothing? Nobody knows right now because it is too early to jump to conclusions.
!!!!!!That's the point. It is NOT too early to jump to any conclusions. The first, second and third story tell all that is needed. He was detained, had a search and seizure performed and was NOT CHARGE WITH ANYTHING. He wasn't even arrested. He was held in "protective custody" and his belongings were taken and held in "safekeeping". They say he "volunteered" to come in at 3AM while negotiators called and SWAT with weapons drawn waited outside. That's like the idea that the politicrats love to tell us that paying the IRS is a voluntary tax.....voluntary until you decide not to pay them and then you go to jail........forced volunteerism.
But if they did step over the line you better believe we will hear about it! The media loves a good or a bad police story! I just don't know because it is TOO EARLY to make judgements!
What I do know is this: my husband puts on a gun and a bullet proof (depending on the ammo) vest day in and day out! He does this for not a lot of money and a WHOLE LOT of b&^$*ing from the public and from within!
I also know that he is not on a power trip because I know the man behind the badge! He has been a police officer for over 20 years and I have often asked him why he does it! It is certainly not because he gets such a warm fuzzy feeling from most of the public!
I also know that you are going to get two kinds of people with the pay and stress that comes with being a police officer. I am proud to say that my husband is one of the ones that does this job because he loves it!
My hat is seriously off to your husband. I am all for law abiding law enforcement and law upholding LEO's. This story reeks of violations. It is their words that prove my point and the fact that they are backpeddling now and making the asinine claim he volunteered to come in at 3AM with SWAT outside.
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| Police return guns taken in Medford SWAT incidentText Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
March 12, 2010
Medford police have returned five firearms taken for "safekeeping" Monday morning when their owner was placed in protective custody.
David Pyles, who identified himself as the Oregon Department of Transportation worker taken in for a mental health evaluation Monday, asked for the return of his weapons Thursday.
Three handguns, a AK-47 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun were delivered back to his home at about 11 a.m. today, he and police said in separate statements.
Pyles said in an e-mail that his guns were returned to him in a professional manner. He thanked to police for returning his legally owned personal property and said he also appreciated the media's interest in the matter.
Police negotiators and a SWAT team descended on his Effie Street home early Monday after police had watched the home overnight, a police news release said. Law enforcement officers across Southern Oregon had become concerned that he might plan to retaliate against his employer after he was placed on administrative leave, then bought two handguns and the AK-47.
Pyles surrendered voluntarily and was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation that lasted several hours
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | Sheepdog, that was hitting below the belt and you know it!!!! I HATE those stupid clowns! Polterqeist called and demanded that you send them back poste haste
And I will now concede and form the opinion based on NeNe's recent posts that it appears the LEO's did over step their authority and acted in a manner that would appear to be a violation of this man's Constitutional Rights. Now that more light has been shed on the matter.
Flossie, please tell your husband thank you for what he does. I can remember quite a few instances where my mother sat up at night worrying about my dad when some riots broke out and he was called in. Or the time when there was an individual targeting state patrolmen in Nebraska in the late 70's. Again, please thank him and thank you for your support of him. I know it's not easy.
| |
| | |
| There were clowns in Poltergeist?  Why don't I remember this. I know I saw the movie, thought it was kind of dumb actually... Hey RQH, I have been cleaning and thinning the bookshelves and I haave a present for you! Your very own copy of IT because I know how much you liked that book. Shall I send it?  | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | rose - 3/12/2010 8:36 PM There were clowns in Poltergeist? Why don't I remember this. I know I saw the movie, thought it was kind of dumb actually... Hey RQH, I have been cleaning and thinning the bookshelves and I haave a present for you! Your very own copy of IT because I know how much you liked that book. Shall I send it?
Nope! I'm good. 
Yes, there was one clown and he left an impression on me to say the least. He was sitting on the boy's chair, he shoots him w/ an imaginary gun, closes his eyes, re-opens them and the clown is still staring at him. The boy then throws his Star Wars jacket over him. But the next time the boy opens his eyes, the stupid clown is gone!!!! The boy looks under the bed and that stinkin' clown pulls him under it! Yes, there was a clown in Poltergeist.
Now here's the ironic part. Guess what my wife has a significant sized collection of???
| |
| | |
| RQH - 3/12/2010 7:09 PM rose - 3/12/2010 8:36 PM There were clowns in Poltergeist? Why don't I remember this. I know I saw the movie, thought it was kind of dumb actually... Hey RQH, I have been cleaning and thinning the bookshelves and I haave a present for you! Your very own copy of IT because I know how much you liked that book. Shall I send it?
Nope! I'm good.
Yes, there was one clown and he left an impression on me to say the least. He was sitting on the boy's chair, he shoots him w/ an imaginary gun, closes his eyes, re-opens them and the clown is still staring at him. The boy then throws his Star Wars jacket over him. But the next time the boy opens his eyes, the stupid clown is gone!!!! The boy looks under the bed and that stinkin' clown pulls him under it! Yes, there was a clown in Poltergeist.
Now here's the ironic part. Guess what my wife has a significant sized collection of???
Oh yeah, I remember that scene now.
Are you sure that is irony and not something more along the line of torment... | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | rose - 3/12/2010 9:17 PM RQH - 3/12/2010 7:09 PM rose - 3/12/2010 8:36 PM There were clowns in Poltergeist? Why don't I remember this. I know I saw the movie, thought it was kind of dumb actually... Hey RQH, I have been cleaning and thinning the bookshelves and I haave a present for you! Your very own copy of IT because I know how much you liked that book. Shall I send it?
Nope! I'm good.
Yes, there was one clown and he left an impression on me to say the least. He was sitting on the boy's chair, he shoots him w/ an imaginary gun, closes his eyes, re-opens them and the clown is still staring at him. The boy then throws his Star Wars jacket over him. But the next time the boy opens his eyes, the stupid clown is gone!!!! The boy looks under the bed and that stinkin' clown pulls him under it! Yes, there was a clown in Poltergeist.
Now here's the ironic part. Guess what my wife has a significant sized collection of???
Oh yeah, I remember that scene now.
Are you sure that is irony and not something more along the line of torment...
I would agree. I just avoid that room as much as possible. She has one that laughs when you wind it up. Well, sometimes it doesn't unwind completely (at least I assume that's the case) and when you walk across the room, the vibration from the floor will cause it to finish unwinding. Mildly disconcerting when you are going into that room to get something and attempting to ignore all of the clowns staring at you and that ignorant piece of plastic and metal starts laughing for no conceivable reason! I hate that clown.
| |
| |
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] | |
|
Police Act Swiftly After Gun Purchase.....Update
