Got a citation, there, Justice Cardozo?
-
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!
- Thread starter Melensdad
- Start date
Got a citation, there, Justice Cardozo?
Cowboy
Wait for it.
Yes I agree Jimbo , We all agree THEY screwed up if everything posted is what happened .
I just find it odd that so many here it seems would have turned theirselves in , rather then wait it out & see what happened . I may be a lot different then everyone but I will stand up for my rights at any cost .
jimbo
Bronze Member
Sorry, in my last post, I was referring to this post.( 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
You guys are fast
SShepherd
New member
here's another paper:
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2010/03/pre-crime-policing.html
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
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2010/03/pre-crime-policing.html
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
RobsanX
Gods gift to common sense
Yeah, I had to rethink that. He was not arrested, he turned himself in. If you turn yourself in for a mental evaluation, then chances are you will be handcuffed.
Actually he opened his door, was jumped on and forcibly taken for evaluation against his explicit will.
SShepherd
New member
Here's atleast one law that was broken....even if you think this "committment law" is ok
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.
a litle side on the commitment law:
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.
too much doesn't make sence, and the Police definatly overstepped this guys rights.
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.
a litle side on the commitment law:
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.
too much doesn't make sence, and the Police definatly overstepped this guys rights.
RobsanX
Gods gift to common sense
joec
New member
We have a tenant here that was arrested on charges from attempted murder to kidnapping charges with a bunch in between. Detectives showed up here to get access to his space and produced a search warrant as well as a certified copy for our records. I let them in they cut the lock, took a few items, put their lock and a tag on it.
This has always been the procedures in regards to storage facilities. One place in Florida I worked the police would use our property from time to time for their dogs to train always after hours. Now they got a hit on for drugs in a space as was later told to me. 5 days later they made and arrest of the guy who owned the space at which point they came to use with a warrant. We was never asked as to who rented the space or any other information as we knew nothing about it till the warrant was served. Had a similar situation with counterfeiters and an insurance scam with the treasury and FBI.
With that said this poor guy really had no choice unless he wanted to commit suicide by cop. I'm sure had he resisted he probably would of been killed, now though he can go after them through the courts if at all possible.
This has always been the procedures in regards to storage facilities. One place in Florida I worked the police would use our property from time to time for their dogs to train always after hours. Now they got a hit on for drugs in a space as was later told to me. 5 days later they made and arrest of the guy who owned the space at which point they came to use with a warrant. We was never asked as to who rented the space or any other information as we knew nothing about it till the warrant was served. Had a similar situation with counterfeiters and an insurance scam with the treasury and FBI.
With that said this poor guy really had no choice unless he wanted to commit suicide by cop. I'm sure had he resisted he probably would of been killed, now though he can go after them through the courts if at all possible.
Cowboy
Wait for it.
Yes He did have a choice Joe , Without a warrant they were bluffing at best . How can anyone say they would or not have stormed his house & taken him forceably much less kill him . I,m curious as to how quick he gave up & that there was no media present from what I read . Just dont make sense to me .
I would have contacted the Media as well as the district attorney so at least it was a matter of record . I damn sure wouldn,t of opened the door or walked outside Knowing there was no warrant & I had done nothing wrong . But I,m not a sheep
jimbo
Bronze Member
I would guess that this is the rule of unintended consequences. I can see how the police must on occasion make a judgment call based on an individuals actions. For instance, if a person is found wandering down the middle of an interstate, or walking in over their head into a pond, then it would be prudent for the police to have the right to detain the person. This is a far cry from showing up and behaving in the manner indicated in this situation.
Jimbo, I quoted the text and put it in your previous post as you intended.
If that happens to you again you can fix it by going back and pick quote in that thread, when the post window comes up with the quote do a control a to highlight all the text with the quote then use the back button to get back to the thread. Then you might have to refresh the thread to see your post where you forgot the quote ...once you see it edit that post and control c to put the quote you copied into your post ...then save and wa la it's as you originally intended.
I just find it odd that so many here it seems would have turned theirselves in , rather then wait it out & see what happened . I may be a lot different then everyone but I will stand up for my rights at any cost .
I have a feeling most here would stand up for their rights. At this point with this guy was he simply trying to cooperate to get the matter moved along? In the heat of the moment it might have been tough to say no.
Another sticky point to me was that he agreed to come out on 3 conditions ....not being handcuffed and no mental eval. Why would he suspect any of that was going to happen ...and sure nuff after they supposedly agreed to all that they still handcuffed him and had him mentally evaluated.
Maybe I need to rethink ever cooperating to a point. It sure can backfire on you.
joec
New member
Well I had an acquaintance in Florida that was sleeping in his truck before work one morning in Hialeah Florida. A local cop pulled up and tapped on the glass and told him to move along. He started his truck to pull away and the cops that had just pulled up opened fire on him hitting him several times, killing him. So what make you think that police aren't capable of breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold if given the slightest provocation. They later claimed he tried to run them over which was proven to be a lie at their hearing. Meanwhile the guy left a wife and child behind. Being right won't guarantee you won't be shot if a cop wants to be a prick. My advise when dealing with any police to do what they say when they say it, they can call even questioning them a case of resisting arrest.
Cityboy
Banned
I do believe making verbal threats can rise to the criminal level. Our resident lawyer can correct me if I am mistaken. Now, That said and assumed correct, what criticism would you have for the police if they had ignored the coworkers reports and fears and the guy actually showed up and slaughtered his coworkers?
I have not yet read the actual police report, only the media reports. Maybe the police had knowledge this guy threatened to kill his coworkers. Has anyone seen the actual complaint that led to the police action?
On edit: Not sure what you mean by your last line, BD, but if being prepared meant armed employees; most employers forbid weapon posession on their premisis. This was a governmemt employer, so we can be certain firearms are prohibited in their workplace
Cowboy
Wait for it.
I never said it couldn,t happen Joe . But thats a far different case then being in your own house on your own property IMO . IF it would have happened to Me as I said I would have at least tried to contact anyone I could , as well as 911 to report what was happening .
Would I have armed myself or made any threats to them & give them a reason Probablly not . But they damn sure would have to taken me by force , If I would have been killed , so be it , I,d rather be dead then loose any more rights then I have allready . Yes I,m different then most folks here , Sue Me .
Shame on the proprietor for allowing his premises to be used as a training ground ............ I have issue with that unless it's in the agreement and the tenant is aware this takes place!
I stand firm, he did nothing wrong ........... I never said they can't approach but what they did after is wrong and he don't need to say od do anything.
I'll use this relationship of child welfare in the reverse, how many times have we heard of regular visits by CW and all is good, nothing wrong until they find starving kids in the closet.
Then it's the companies liability for not maintaining a safe work place.
I can play the words game as long as you choose to continue. You can't defend what they did as legal, check the 4th and 5th.
jimbo
Bronze Member
I think you are missing a couple of points. First, the police seem to be using the fact that this was not a criminal action as their justification for acting without a warrant. If the police had knowledge of a threat, then it would have been a criminal matter.
As to criticizing the police for acting within the law, nothing to criticize.
joec
New member
It was a Public Storage and I just managed it at the time which means we rent spaces and collect money little else in the way of making decisions on it. Now I am the owner and wouldn't allow it here as I set the rules. Extra Space also had the same policies as Public Storage did in regards to access by police after hours. Now I do have a few LEO's that rent from me but none with any official business here simply private storage they rent for their personal needs. I always figured the dog thing would be a case of entrapment or illegal search at the least, but I not a lawyer but any stretch.
I'll get my legal opinions from a lawyer, not a psychiatrist, thank you. This "specialist" also opined that Mr. Pyles was not arrested. The SCOTUS would disagree with that.
If he threatened his coworkers, do you really think he'd get his guns back in 4 days? As for your "either or" hypothetical, you're presuming that there were only 2 options: nothing, or; send law enforcement from SEVEN different agencies (including 2 SWAT teams) to arrest, confiscate and subject to mental assessment, all without warrants. How about option 3? Investigate.
And the 2nd, 6th and 14th, too.
It was NEVER stated that he threatened anyone. It was NEVER stated that he acted in a threatening way. It said he had a couple OUTBURSTS.
Well I've spilled coffee on my desk and had an outburst, but that does not constitute any sort of violent threat. We need to be very clear that there are ZERO reports of any threats.
Well I've spilled coffee on my desk and had an outburst, but that does not constitute any sort of violent threat. We need to be very clear that there are ZERO reports of any threats.
SShepherd
New member
easy easy...your use of caps can be construed as an outburst. Come out with your hands up
LOL Too funny Shep!!!!!
Cityboy
Banned
True there are bad workplace situations. True, there is always more than one side to the story. Most here are taking Pyles side without fully understanding the coworkers side of the story. The SWAT Team's actions may have been a little much, that is not in dispute here. The issue, as I see it, is whether Pyles actually threatened his coworkers, and if so, should the police simply ignore those threats?
FYI for every person here, I am a life NRA member have been an NRA member for 24 years. Even so, I want to know the whole story and the whole truth before I pass judgement. It is not always wise to take an alleged innocent gun owners side without first acquiring all the facts. One of two things has happened here:
1. Pyles is a loudmouthed nut that went off and frightened his coworkers more than once over a 6 month period. Who knows what he actually said and did to people on a day to day basis. Does anyone here actually have personal knowledge ao Pyles?
-or-
2. Pyles coworkers are just pissed off at him and conspired together to lie against the man and get him fired from his job.
Bottom line, most here are taking Pyles side without all the facts in the case.
I'll ask again: Who here has seen the actual police report with witness statements?
Last edited:
Cityboy
Banned
Yes! This is what many here are overlooking. Pyles bears some responsibility here. His behavior was obviously cause for concern for more than one coworker.
No doubt the police went overboard, but that is not the issue. That is an after-the-fact issue. The issue is what Pyles did originally to cause the police this kind of concern. Sure, they should have gotten a warrant and maybe gone and at least questioned him first. But, OTOH, should the police take the chance on getting shot by someone who is apparently thought of as having mental issues by his employer and coworkers?
Surely there is more to this story than we know presently.
Cityboy
Banned
I see and understand your logic. At the same time, it is compelling to me that Pyles was placed on administrative leave pending investigation by his employer for his behavior on the job, and that his coworkers were so afraid of him that they left their own homes because the believed Pyles to be a threat.
Apparently, the police didn't feel that the fears of Mr. Pyle's co-workers were reasonable.