'|
|
Well Duh
Posts: 189
 
| Police act swiftly after gun purchases
ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47
Text Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
ShareThisMarch 09, 2010
By Anita Burke
Mail Tribune
Concerns about an Oregon Department of Transportation employee who purchased several guns after being placed on leave prompted law enforcement across Southern Oregon to step in.
Negotiators and a SWAT team from Medford police safely took a man — whose name wasn't released — into protective custody Monday morning in the 500 block of Effie Street, Medford police said in a news release.
He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.
The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.
ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
In two days, the man bought a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen said. All of those firearms were purchased legally, with required record checks by the Oregon State Police.
Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.
"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.
Douglas and Jackson County sheriff's departments, OSP officers based in both counties and police in Medford and Roseburg collaborated, he said.
Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.
Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.
Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.
After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.
Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed
Ok so technically this guy didn't do anything wrong and yet he gets put on surveilance and SWAT called on him. Then he is taken into custody and his guns are taken as well.
So now police can just "think" someone may be a threat and treat them as if they have already done something wrong.
I see this as an extremely slippery slope and obviously take issue with what happened.
Am I overreacting? Opinions? | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
 
Location: Iowa | I don't know NeNe, they left out some fairly important information.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
If he was making threats to co-workers or administrative staff, well, that would probably warrant the actions that the sheriff took.
If he was just complaining like everyone does and we do on here about TPTB, that would be a horse of another color. But I'm betting that he made some actual remarks to the affect that somebody wouldn't be around much longer. And w/ the gun laws the way they are right now, it would have shown up pretty quick on what he had just purchased.
I would say that there isn't enough information given to form a complete opinion on it yet.
| |
| | |
Darwin Award Winner
| I think this guy has a HUGE constitutional rights case. Preemptive arrest for any reason is wrong on so many levels.....heck with the violation of his search and seizure rights. I like to think that the purchases alone didn't trigger the SWAT raid....if that's the case then the background check privacy BS that they spout at the time of purchase is revealed to be a lie. I like to think that some over zealous asshat relative or friend called in as a "concerned citizen" and they obliterated his rights for that reason. Either way...he did nothing wrong and they stomped a mudhole in his essential liberties. Slippery slope doesn't cover the precedent this display presents.
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | RQH - 3/9/2010 4:08 PM
I don't know NeNe, they left out some fairly important information.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
If he was making threats to co-workers or administrative staff, well, that would probably warrant the actions that the sheriff took.
If he was just complaining like everyone does and we do on here about TPTB, that would be a horse of another color. But I'm betting that he made some actual remarks to the affect that somebody wouldn't be around much longer. And w/ the gun laws the way they are right now, it would have shown up pretty quick on what he had just purchased.
I would say that there isn't enough information given to form a complete opinion on it yet.
I am with you, there is not enough info released. For instsance, why he was suspended and if it had to do with a condition that he would have to lie on the FFL form to purchase the weapons. | |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| There are a lot of variables that have yet to surface, I agree. It still doesn't answer the question of how it was justified. He had done nothing wrong yet. Bought the guns legally and was in his own home. By all means if the police watch the guy load the guns in his car and head to the ODOT office, arrest him before he gets in the door. Absolutely.
The police are usually the first people to tell you they can't do anything until a crime has been committed. There are times I go off at the mouth but that is freedom of speech. I just don't think I like where this is all going. There is no going back now that that line has been crossed.
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| paracadista - 3/9/2010 3:59 PM
RQH - 3/9/2010 4:08 PM
I don't know NeNe, they left out some fairly important information.
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
If he was making threats to co-workers or administrative staff, well, that would probably warrant the actions that the sheriff took.
If he was just complaining like everyone does and we do on here about TPTB, that would be a horse of another color. But I'm betting that he made some actual remarks to the affect that somebody wouldn't be around much longer. And w/ the gun laws the way they are right now, it would have shown up pretty quick on what he had just purchased.
I would say that there isn't enough information given to form a complete opinion on it yet.
I am with you, there is not enough info released. For instsance, why he was suspended and if it had to do with a condition that he would have to lie on the FFL form to purchase the weapons.
But that would be an illegal purchase. The article says the guns were purchased legally. | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | NeNe - 3/10/2010 12:27 AM There are a lot of variables that have yet to surface, I agree. It still doesn't answer the question of how it was justified. He had done nothing wrong yet. Bought the guns legally and was in his own home. By all means if the police watch the guy load the guns in his car and head to the ODOT office, arrest him before he gets in the door. Absolutely. The police are usually the first people to tell you they can't do anything until a crime has been committed. There are times I go off at the mouth but that is freedom of speech. I just don't think I like where this is all going. There is no going back now that that line has been crossed.
You say that he hadn't done anything wrong yet, which is true enough according to the article. But again, the article does not shed light on why he was put on admin leave, other than being very disgruntled. And, it does not say that he has been charged w/ anything either.
When a state patrolman sees a vehicle driving somewhat eratic, but yet staying w/in the confines of the speed limit, that officer still has the legal authority to pull the driver over if he suspects alcohol is involved and that the driver presents a threat to other motorists. He also has the authority to search the vehicle based on probable cause.
Now (and this is purely hypothetical, because no facts are given in the article) if this man was threatening to kill individuals at his workplace because he didn't agree w/ something that either happened to him personally or was taking place at his place of employment this would definitely raise some concerns. And as a general rule of thumb, employees are given a verbal or written reprimand before being placed on admin leave. It would have to be something concerning enough for this to happen. Now if he was making convincing enough threats that the business felt people were in danger, all that they had to do was notify the authority (which appears they did) and the authorities can run a simple background check. That check would have brought up the fact that he had just purchased two pistols and a rifle w/in two days. That H&K .45 that he bought goes anywhere from (pending on the model) $500 to $900. The Walther .380 (pending on the model) goes anywhere from $200 to $500. The AK (again pending on the model) sells in the neighborhood of $400 to $800. That's a fair amount of money to drop in two days for somebody just starting to build his gun collection, especially given the fact that he may or may not have just lost his job. Now given events starting w/ postal workers in the 80's, Columbine in the 90's, the Va Tech shootings, and several more, not to mention Mr. Stack's recent encounter w/ an IRS building because he was fed up, would this constitute as reasonable suspicion or probable cause? Or was this man's Constitutional rights to bear arms and right to privacy violated by an over zealous sheriff and employer?
But, until what he said or did at his workplace is revealed, all I can do is speculate.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | It just dawned on me where you're from and what ODOT stands for. Given that information, I'd say that any government entity is going to be looking pretty hard at any individual making threats of any kind. Especially in this current environment.
Don't get me wrong here NeNe, I'm not defending what the sheriff and the S.W.A.T. did and I'm not defending this man either. There's just not enough information being released yet.
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | RQH - 3/10/2010 9:15 AM
NeNe - 3/10/2010 12:27 AM There are a lot of variables that have yet to surface, I agree. It still doesn't answer the question of how it was justified. He had done nothing wrong yet. Bought the guns legally and was in his own home. By all means if the police watch the guy load the guns in his car and head to the ODOT office, arrest him before he gets in the door. Absolutely. The police are usually the first people to tell you they can't do anything until a crime has been committed. There are times I go off at the mouth but that is freedom of speech. I just don't think I like where this is all going. There is no going back now that that line has been crossed.
You say that he hadn't done anything wrong yet, which is true enough according to the article. But again, the article does not shed light on why he was put on admin leave, other than being very disgruntled. And, it does not say that he has been charged w/ anything either.
When a state patrolman sees a vehicle driving somewhat eratic, but yet staying w/in the confines of the speed limit, that officer still has the legal authority to pull the driver over if he suspects alcohol is involved and that the driver presents a threat to other motorists. He also has the authority to search the vehicle based on probable cause.
Now (and this is purely hypothetical, because no facts are given in the article) if this man was threatening to kill individuals at his workplace because he didn't agree w/ something that either happened to him personally or was taking place at his place of employment this would definitely raise some concerns. And as a general rule of thumb, employees are given a verbal or written reprimand before being placed on admin leave. It would have to be something concerning enough for this to happen. Now if he was making convincing enough threats that the business felt people were in danger, all that they had to do was notify the authority (which appears they did) and the authorities can run a simple background check. That check would have brought up the fact that he had just purchased two pistols and a rifle w/in two days. That H&K .45 that he bought goes anywhere from (pending on the model) $500 to $900. The Walther .380 (pending on the model) goes anywhere from $200 to $500. The AK (again pending on the model) sells in the neighborhood of $400 to $800. That's a fair amount of money to drop in two days for somebody just starting to build his gun collection, especially given the fact that he may or may not have just lost his job. Now given events starting w/ postal workers in the 80's, Columbine in the 90's, the Va Tech shootings, and several more, not to mention Mr. Stack's recent encounter w/ an IRS building because he was fed up, would this constitute as reasonable suspicion or probable cause? Or was this man's Constitutional rights to bear arms and right to privacy violated by an over zealous sheriff and employer?
But, until what he said or did at his workplace is revealed, all I can do is speculate.
RHQ
As for your first example, No a patrolman does not have the authority to search unless he either 1) places the suspect in custody and conducts an "inventory", 2) the driver gives consent for the officer to search or 3) the officer convinces a judge to sign a search warrant.
The report of erratic driving itself is questionable and usually backed up by the officer following the "suspected" vehicle for a period of time to witness probable cause to make the stop. (It doesn't take very long for them to touch a line, especially with law enforcement behind them)
My judgment is still out on the OP. Need more info. | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | paracadista - 3/10/2010 8:56 AM RQH - 3/10/2010 9:15 AM NeNe - 3/10/2010 12:27 AM RHQ As for your first example, No a patrolman does not have the authority to search unless he either 1) places the suspect in custody and conducts an "inventory", 2) the driver gives consent for the officer to search or 3) the officer convinces a judge to sign a search warrant. The report of erratic driving itself is questionable and usually backed up by the officer following the "suspected" vehicle for a period of time to witness probable cause to make the stop. (It doesn't take very long for them to touch a line, especially with law enforcement behind them) My judgment is still out on the OP. Need more info.[/QUOTE]
Kind of splitting hairs on this one aren't you?
Yes, the trooper does have the authority to pull a vehicle over. Does he need probable cause to do so and follow the vehicle to insure the traffic stop is legal, yes. Is there a protocol that must be followed in order to make a search and seizure legal in all 50 states, yes. If consent is given by the operator he can perform the search. If the operator does not give consent and the trooper has reasonable reason to suspect alcohol or even drugs, the trooper can detain the individual while awaiting the a warrant.
So, does the trooper have authority to make a traffic stop based on probable cause, yes. Is there a SOP for such instances, yes. Can a trooper perform a search of the vehicle, yes. Again, as long as, the protocol is followed that will stand up in court.
Am suggesting that a trooper can take the law into his own hands and illegally search a vehicle? No. I was attempting to make a point in regards to the op, that if there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause, LEO's can 'prevent' instead of 'react'. Like what appears to have happened w/ the man mentioned in the article. I highly doubt that a judge was not notified of this event before it took place.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | We've gotten exactly what we've asked for...gastapo type tactics against law abiding citizens. Until a real crime is actually commited we are considered (supposedly) Innocent Until Proven Guilty. When we allow the law to be 'proactive' instead of 'reactive' we are giving the authority the benefit of an opinion & a lot of potential for abuse. Police aren't supposed to take the first shot. They don't have the right to be the judge, jury or executioner any more than an ordinary citizen...even less!
Tell me...if you knew that driving drunk (tired, reckless...) & being the CAUSE of an accident involving the death of others was an automatic death sentence, would that more or less of a deterint than it hitting your pocket book?
The revenuers have got us by the short hairs. They've made the possibility of a crime a crime...how dumbed down we are.
Unconstitutional? Hmmm....
| |
| | |
Well Duh
Posts: 189
| Nothing in today's paper about this guy. I am really curious for more details.
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | "He also has the authority to search the vehicle based on probable cause."
Just trying to help calirify a statment made in a very contintious debate. It is very crucial that the procedure ( and it differs in print and in practice, by juisdiction,yadda yadda yadda) be discussed and followed so that people better understand their rights. I get disgusted regularly when people get taken advantage of because they assume they are obligated to concent.
I am not at all disagreeing with your opinion here. I am of the opinion that instances of mass gun violence do more harm to the second amendment than an illegal search that can be thrown out of court does to the fourth.
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | paracadista - 3/10/2010 7:09 PM "He also has the authority to search the vehicle based on probable cause." Just trying to help calirify a statment made in a very contintious debate. It is very crucial that the procedure ( and it differs in print and in practice, by juisdiction,yadda yadda yadda) be discussed and followed so that people better understand their rights. I get disgusted regularly when people get taken advantage of because they assume they are obligated to concent. I am not at all disagreeing with your opinion here. I am of the opinion that instances like this do more harm to the second amendment than an illegal search that can be thrown out of court does to the fourth.
No problem.
Btw, my father was a Nebraska State Trooper for quite some time.
| |
| | |
Kinda Bitey
Location: MOLON LABE | 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
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | That was perfectly well said SD! One should keep their mouth shut at all times..."What you say can & WILL be held against you in a court of law..."
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | 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?
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | RQH - 3/11/2010 8:41 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?
Is this a test?
| |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | musikmaker - 3/11/2010 9:57 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 8:41 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?
Is this a test?
Yep. Are you in MM?
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | RQH - 3/11/2010 8:59 AM musikmaker - 3/11/2010 9:57 AM RQH - 3/11/2010 8:41 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?
Is this a test?
Yep. Are you in MM?
I think I better go do some laundry (as in clothes!).
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | 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.
| |
| | |
Extreme Road Warrior
Posts: 514
Location: Michigan | 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. | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | 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.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 976
Location: Utah is a 4 letter word | RQH - 3/11/2010 10:29 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.
I find it very interesting that so many of us have so little trust in every aspect of our gov't...from police, to the courts to politicians. Our first impulse is to doubt authority! What does that say?
btw: here I was counting my pennies...I trusted you man!  | |
| | |
| 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. | |
| |
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
|
Police Act Swiftly After Gun Purchase.....Update
