• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Pre-Crime Policing: SWAT teams demand innocent man turn himself in, turn over guns!

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Wow. What country are we living in? Oh wait, this is on the Left Coast, I guess its OK there?
Pre-Crime Policing

Allegedly “disgruntled” man has his guns seized, and “voluntarily” surrenders to two SWAT teams and dozens of police officers for a crime that hadn’t been committed


Radley Balko | March 16, 2010

To hear them tell it, the five police agencies who apprehended 39-year-old Oregonian David Pyles early on the morning of March 8 thwarted another lone wolf mass murderer. The police "were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation," announced a press release put out by the Medford, Oregon, police department. The subject had recently been placed on administrative leave from his job, was "very disgruntled," and had recently purchased several firearms. "Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers," the release said. Fortunately, Pyles "voluntarily" turned himself over to police custody, and the legally purchased firearms "were seized for safekeeping."

This voluntary exchange involved two SWAT teams, police officers from Medford and nearby Roseburg, sheriff's deputies from Jackson and Douglas counties, and the Oregon State Police. Oregon State Police Sgt. Jeff Proulx explained to South Oregon's Mail Tribune why the operation was such a success: "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."

There's just one problem: David Pyles hadn't committed any crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.

"They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning," Pyles told me in a phone interview Friday. "I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation."

By noon the same day, Pyles had already been released from the Rogue Valley Medical Center with a clean bill of mental health. Four days later the Medford Police Department returned Pyle’s guns, despite telling him earlier in the week—falsely—that he'd need to undergo a second background check before he could get them back. On Friday the Medford Police Department put out a second press release, this time announcing that the agency had returned the "disgruntled" worker's guns, and "now considers this matter closed.

That seems unlikely. Pyles' case has spurred outrage in the gun rights community. Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation has been advising Pyles, and helped get his guns back. Oregon-based syndicated conservative talk radio host Lars Larson has taken up the story. And Pyles is now attorney shopping for a possible civil rights lawsuit.

At root behind this case and others like it is our naïve, hopeful, and sometimes even dangerous belief that every horrible shooting spree or lone-wolf act of terrorism can be prevented. We seem unable to accept the idea that bad people will occasionally do bad things. Every new mass shooting spurs an urge to assign blame beyond the shooter: What political ideology inspired him? Who missed the “warning signs,” and why wasn't he apprehended ahead of time? Gun retailers are scrutinized and vilified, even when they've complied with the law. In ensuing days and weeks, politicians mull new laws, often both ineffective and constricting on our liberty.

There's nothing wrong with looking for signs that someone is about to snap, and if he's putting up multiple red flags, we'd certainly want law enforcement to investigate, possibly to chat with the person and his friends and family. And obviously if someone has made specific threats, a criminal investigation should follow. But that's a far cry from what happened to Pyles.

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

On March 4, Pyles was placed on administrative leave, which required him to work from home. On March 5, 6, and 7, after getting his income tax refund, he made three purchases of five firearms. Pyles describes himself as a gun enthusiast, who had already owned several weapons. All three new purchases required an Oregon background check, which would have prohibited the transactions had Pyles ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, or been committed by the state to a mental health institution. Pyles says he has no criminal record, and says he never threatened anyone in his office. (A specific threat of violence would have likely brought a criminal charge.) The Oregon State Police, the Medford Police Department, and the Oregon Department of Transportation did not respond to requests for comment.

"In my opinion, the apprehension of David Pyles was a violation of Oregon's kidnapping laws," says James Leuenberger, a criminal defense attorney who is also advising Pyles. "He definitely deserves to be compensated for what they did to him, but even if he wins a civil rights suit, that will just result in the officers' employers paying for their mistakes." That of course means the final tab will be paid by Oregon's taxpayers, not the offending cops. "I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible," Leuenberger says. "I want them criminally charged."

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

So SWAT teams, guns, and handcuffs...but not a criminal action? And what if Pyles had refused to "voluntarily" surrender to the police? "Well, yes," Bloom says. "I guess then it would become a criminal matter."

If what happened to Pyles is legal, in Oregon or elsewhere, we need to take a second look at the civil commitment power. Even setting aside the SWAT team overkill in Medford, there's something awfully discomfiting about granting government authorities the power to yank someone from their home and drag them in for a mental health evaluation based on a series of actions that were perfectly legal, especially with no prior oversight from a judge, or guidance from a psychiatrist.

"The idea that Pyles turned himself in voluntarily is ridiculous," says Starrett, the gun rights activist. "There's nothing voluntary about waking up to a SWAT team outside your home, then having a police negotiator call and suggest you surrender. They had no arrest warrant. But Pyles only had one option. If he didn't come out on his own, they were going to come in to get him."

Even if the apprehension of Pyles was legal, the seizure of his guns wasn't. Because civil commitment laws aren't criminal in nature, they don't carry authorization for the police to search a private residence. According to Pyles, he closed the door behind him as he left his home. Because the police didn't have a search warrant, they had no right to even enter Pyles' home, much less seize guns inside that he bought and possessed legally.

For a potential mass murderer, Pyles is remarkably placid and big-picture about what happened to him. "I've been looking for a new job for months," he says. "But given the economy, I'm pretty lucky to be getting a paycheck, even given all of this. For me, this is about civil rights. This seems like something the NRA and the ACLU can agree on. South Oregon is big gun country. If something like this can happen here, where just about everyone owns a gun, it can happen anywhere."

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNarrestfornocrime.html
 

Cityboy

Banned
The other side of the story:

http://kdrv.com/page/167475

Police report released in Medford gun seizure case

March 24, 2010
KDRV Staff

March 24, 2010

MEDFORD, Ore. -- Police have released more details in the case of a Medford man who's firearms were confiscated earlier this month.

A 20-page police report released Wednesday afternoon details why five firearms were taken from David Pyles when a SWAT team and negotiators descended on his home on Effie Street on March 8th and he was taken into custody.

On March 4th, Pyles was placed on administrative leave from the Oregon Department of Transportation and escorted by police out of the office building. After being placed on leave, police say Pyles purchased a Heckler & Koch .45-caliber handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 rifle.

The report reveals that Pyles had been disgrunted in his workplace for six months, and co-workers had reported frequent outbursts by Pyles. It goes on to say that after learning of Pyles gun purchases, several ODOT employees left their homes and went to motels.

After a mental evaluation, Pyles was released from custody, and his guns were eventually returned.

Police consider the case closed. Pyles is considering hiring a lawyer, but has not done so yet.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yup, CB, I saw a couple versions of the police side of things.

This guy never threatened anyone, ever. This guy never got into a fight with anyone at work. This guy was never accused of being hostile, aggressive, threatening to any of his co-workers in any way. The outbursts in his job files were not described by any media source I could find as violent and were not directed at anyone of the co-workers as that would have been grounds for dismissal and potentially even grounds to deny a gun purchase under Oregon laws.

Now that they did this to him, publicly humiliated him in his home, on his lawn, in his neighborhood, maybe now those people have some pause for concern.

The mental health check up showed that there was nothing wrong, that he was stable, that he was not unreasonable. The police released him and closed the case. They had nothing because this guy is not a problem.

The idiotic actions of the co-workers is not his problem. The guy had guns already. He admits he is a 'gun enthusiast' and these guns were purchased at this time because he had just gotten his tax return and had the money to buy them. The idiotic co-workers who moved to hotels because of these gun purchases were apparently not afraid of the guns he already owned???

If I carry a gun legally and some bed wetter objects that is not my problem. This guy in Oregon's bet wetting co-workers problems are not his problem. That they have an irrational fear is not his problem. Perhaps they need the mental evaluations?
 

Cityboy

Banned
The idiotic actions of the co-workers is not his problem. The guy had guns already. He admits he is a 'gun enthusiast' and these guns were purchased at this time because he had just gotten his tax return and had the money to buy them. The idiotic co-workers who moved to hotels because of these gun purchases were apparently not afraid of the guns he already owned???

If I carry a gun legally and some bed wetter objects that is not my problem. This guy in Oregon's bet wetting co-workers problems are not his problem. That they have an irrational fear is not his problem. Perhaps they need the mental evaluations?

How can you come to the conclusion that these coworkers are "irrational idiots"? You are in Indiana and they are in Oregon. They work with this man, we do not. Is it not reasonable to assume that his coworkers have a better sense of this mans behavior than we would?

Pyles reportedly had frequent outbursts at work witnessed by his coworkers. Should the police have waited until Pyles actually showed up at work with a couple of pistols, an AK-47 and several magazines, killing several coworkers before taking action?

If your wife or daughter were coworkers of Pyles, would you feel the same?
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
The other side of the story:

Horse hockey.

If this is the other side of the story, there is no other side. And if this is the case, this is indeed a "Jack-booted thug" type of incident. Well maybe just short of: I guess they did not bust in the door and tase him in his bed.

Hopefully the officer who made the call to perpertrate this act idiocy will feel
the maximum pain available. The subordinates who followed the order should also suffer. We are not at war; are we?

It goes on to say that after learning of Pyles gun purchases, several ODOT employees left their homes and went to motels.


So should all gun owners expect to be raided by swat when their neighbors go on vacation?


Actually this is the kind of crap where a legal fund should set up to help the guy.
 
Last edited:

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
How can you come to the conclusion that these coworkers are "irrational idiots"? You are in Indiana and they are in Oregon. They work with this man, we do not. Is it not reasonable to assume that his coworkers have a better sense of this mans behavior than we would?

Pyles reportedly had frequent outbursts at work witnessed by his coworkers. Should the police have waited until Pyles actually showed up at work with a couple of pistols, an AK-47 and several magazines, killing several coworkers before taking action?

If your wife or daughter were coworkers of Pyles, would you feel the same?
I have been in workplace environments where a group of employees will ostracize a fellow employee (reasons are myriad), and make that person's life miserable at work. Sometimes even supervision is in on this mischief, especially if they are trying to get someone to quit so a friend or relative can get a job with the organization.

Remember, there is always more than one side to a story, so don't be too quick to judge someone or side with someone else. People are not always nice, and some are downright antagonistic ass holes who are relentless in their attacks on other people.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
This whole ordeal reinforces the belief that the police are there for investigating after the crime and bringing criminals to justice. Not to preempt actions by those who might be a threat.

There is a lot of gaps in the story that leave me wondering. How did the co workers know Pyles had purchased more guns? Was that the only reason they went to a motel or was there something else that they considered a threat ...but it was not enough to be a threat in the eyes of the police.

It sounds like Pyles was playing mind games with the folks he worked with. Something made the police act as they did. I have a feeling we do not yet know the whole story at this point.

Since Pyles had not committed a crime it does appear the authorities went overboard on him. No crime yet they had SWAT at this house and handcuffed him and took him away?
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
No crime yet they had SWAT at this house and handcuffed him and took him away?

I am not a lawyer but I bet this is not found to be a problem. You are compelled to follow legal officer instructions; and I believe you can be held for some period of time for questioning without being charged. The forced mental exam thing is a new twist.

This issue is them breaking into his house and seizing his property without a warrant I think. They had no warrant and evidently did not take a position that they had established probable cause via actually seeing him commit a crime.

Maybe Obamma will invite him over for a beer.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
I think he'll get a cash payout at the taxpayers expense. :rolleyes:

Hopefully, he goes out and buys some new guns with it! ;)
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
How can you come to the conclusion that these coworkers are "irrational idiots"? You are in Indiana and they are in Oregon. They work with this man, we do not. Is it not reasonable to assume that his coworkers have a better sense of this mans behavior than we would?

Pyles reportedly had frequent outbursts at work witnessed by his coworkers. Should the police have waited until Pyles actually showed up at work with a couple of pistols, an AK-47 and several magazines, killing several coworkers before taking action?

If your wife or daughter were coworkers of Pyles, would you feel the same?

So much about this is all wrong ..... you can not be allowed to act on what YOU may think HE may do unless of course we can read minds now. He did nothing wrong and had no RAS a crime was or is going to be committed, end of story. If I buy a guillotine, does it say to YOU that I'm going to use it in some sick way and need a mental eval? If I yell out "I HATE THIS COMPANY" for all to hear, does it mean I'm gonna come shoot all co-workers? IF you hadn't figured it out the answer is NO!

BTW, yes and tell them to be prepared which frankly all of us should be as ready as possible ............ this is a lamb attitude.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
Per the article in the op, no warrant was obtained for search, seizure or arrest. This police department is gonna get hosed.
 

RobsanX

Gods gift to common sense
SUPER Site Supporter
The police have an obligation to investigate someone who might be a threat to the community. They received warnings from the public, so they had to do something.

The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.
 

SShepherd

New member
Hosed indeed, and the person who allowed this to happen, probably the cheif , should be fired for allowing this to happen.:hammer:
When they led him away from his house in cuffs, she should have kept repeating, " I just won the lotto!"
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
This kind of reminds me of the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise. It was the one where the had people that could tell the future and Cruise would go out putting them down before they could. A really strange movie in my opinion.
 

SShepherd

New member
The police have an obligation to investigate someone who might be a threat to the community. They received warnings from the public, so they had to do something.

The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.

WRONG !

Police have no obligation to "protect" JOhn Q Public from anything, period !
Courts have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.) So, Maryland law enforcement can release violent people back into society (see Pinder vs. Johnson for another case of gross failure of law enforcement that resulted in the deaths of three children) and Maryland officials have no responsibility for that negligence.

Moreover, other jurisdictions have held similarly:
". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)


further reading:

http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/%E2%80%A2-police-no-obligation-to-protect/

http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp

Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.
First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.

What was the citizen's obligation? :confused:

I suspect that since he was innocent of any crime he was simply cooperating as many of us might have. I would hate to always have to think of the police as a bad guy and fight them every step of the way. In general we are a polite society. In general: innocent people usually cooperate; guilty folks put up as many road blocks as they can. Maybe it should be only a fool cooperates ...
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The police have an obligation to investigate someone who might be a threat to the community. They received warnings from the public, so they had to do something.

The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.

Yeah just like a MWAG (Man with a gun call in an open carry state). They can investigate, approach and ask questions. That said the "victim" has no obligation to say a damn thing. It gives them no reason to detain or take it any further unless they have RAS.

Some people need to study their rights!
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
The police have an obligation to investigate someone who might be a threat to the community. They received warnings from the public, so they had to do something.

The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.


As much as I hate to , I have to agree Rob :biggrin: . If they would have Broke in or charged the house They would be Screwed without a warrant . But He did get a phone call & fell for their bluff . I aint sayin it was right or wrong , cuz I wasn,t there & just reading it on the internet :w00t2:. Just my opinion . Bob
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
The police have an obligation to investigate someone who might be a threat to the community. They received warnings from the public, so they had to do something.

The citizen has an obligation too. He surrendered instead of demanding a warrant. He should have called the local TV news, and waited it out until there was a warrant for his arrest. He was too worried about his second amendment rights that he forgot about his first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.
There is a difference between investigating a reported problem and showing up with a SWAT team, pointing firearms at a home early in the AM and ordering a homeowner out of his home or else.
I doubt that his second amendment rights were on his mind at this point. More likely his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, do I understand that under these circumstances you would have called the media, demanded a warrant, and waited it out? Methinks not.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
You wonder if the costs of the swat team and all the overhead would have been better spent doing some investigative work and maybe having a detective do surveillance on the guy for a few days. Less aggressive but probably just as effective.
 

RobsanX

Gods gift to common sense
SUPER Site Supporter
What was the citizen's obligation? :confused:

I suspect that since he was innocent of any crime he was simply cooperating as many of us might have. I would hate to always have to think of the police as a bad guy and fight them every step of the way. In general we are a polite society. In general: innocent people usually cooperate; guilty folks put up as many road blocks as they can. Maybe it should be only a fool cooperates ...

I don't think that all cops are bad, but my home is my castle. It's their job to get a warrant. If they have time to put on their boots, and get all strapped up, then they have time to call the judge.

The cops didn't do anything lawfully wrong, but they definitely pushed up to the edge of what they are allowed to do.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
There is a difference between investigating a reported problem and showing up with a SWAT team, pointing firearms at a home early in the AM and ordering a homeowner out of his home or else.
I doubt that his second amendment rights were on his mind at this point. More likely his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, do I understand that under these circumstances you would have called the media, demanded a warrant, and waited it out? Methinks not.

( Methinks not ) are the key words . How many here would have turned themselves in in the same situation without a warrant . I sure as hell of wouldn,t of :hammer:
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
I don't think that all cops are bad, but my home is my castle. It's their job to get a warrant. If they have time to put on their boots, and get all strapped up, then they have time to call the judge.

The cops didn't do anything lawfully wrong, but they definitely pushed up to the edge of what they are allowed to do.

They arrested him without a warrant, crime in progress or exigent circumstances. They most certainly did do something against the law.
 

RobsanX

Gods gift to common sense
SUPER Site Supporter
They arrested him without a warrant, crime in progress or exigent circumstances. They most certainly did do something against the law.

The arrest was legal according to state commitment laws.
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
Legally and financially the guy made the right call. Though he may not have known it at the time. He complied with the officer's request and did not resist.

He has the legal high ground from here on out.

The cops F'd this one up bad; and their community is going to pay out large most likely.
 

SShepherd

New member
I thought you were an engineer....you're a lawyer also?

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

A police officer may only arrest a person if the officer believes a criminal offense has been committed. If a person is suspected of committing a misdemeanor or other minor infraction of the law, the officer cannot arrest or detain the person past identifying who they are and giving them some ticket or court appearance summons.

False Arrest Lawyers

If a person has been arrested falsely the first and best course of action would be to contact an experienced false arrest legal team for a free consultation. Only law firms with years of false arrest expertise can effectively and aggressively pursue and recoup damages from false arrests.
Damages that are incurred can be extensive and may include a variety of losses including emotional damage, which can last for years, and any physical damage and its resulting medical bills.
In addition, false arrests have been known to cause wage losses and prevent people from taking care of and tending to others under their care.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
They arrested him without a warrant, crime in progress or exigent circumstances. They most certainly did do something against the law.

Strikes me they gave the man 2 choices. 1 was surrender peacefully, despite the fact he did nothing wrong. 2 was surrender after being stormed by the SWAT team despite the fact that he did nothing wrong. He could not go to the store for groceries, he could not go to the garden to tend his flowers, he could not take his dog out for a walk. He was a prisoner in his home.

IF the police can lawfully do that without any warrant then all liberty is indeed lost.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The arrest was legal according to state commitment laws.
No actually they claimed he was never arrested. He was tackled and hogtied and hauled off to a mental evaluation against his will. That may be kidnapping but it is not technically an arrest.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
( Methinks not ) are the key words . How many here would have turned themselves in in the same situation without a warrant . I sure as hell of wouldn,t of :hammer:

I would. IF the situation was as described, all this guy knew is that a bunch of SWAT team members had guns pointed at a home and he had been ordered to come out. My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that if he hadn't complied, SWAT would have broken into the home with weapons drawn and prepared to shoot. The fact that they had no problem breaking in without a warrant and confiscating legal private property shows me their mindset.
 
Top