Oregon Officials Consult Precogs, Arrest Man for Bloody Shooting Spree That Killed Four Next Week

|

Several Oregon government and law enforcement agencies are patting themselves on the back for preventing a possible mass shooting incident by sending a SWAT team to arrest a recently laid-off employee of the state's Department of Transportation. A news release from the Medford, Oregon, police department (yes, they put out a news release announcing their good work) says the man purchased three guns after his dismissal, and that former colleagues described him as "very disgruntled." He was taken to a mental hospital for evaluation.

The problem is that the man doesn't appear to have committed any actual crimes. Authorities have filed no charges against him. He did recently buy three guns, but he purchased all three of them legally. A spokesman for the Oregon State Police told South Oregon's Mail Tribune newspaper, "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."

Now perhaps a recent layoff, the legal purchase of three guns, and concerns from former co-workers are indeed red flags that someone's planning a rampage. And maybe this arrest really did save lives. But there's a phrase we use to describe the sort of society where the police can come into your home, arrest you, commit you to a mental facility, and confiscate your legally-obtained property on no more than a hunch that you might commit some crime in the near future.

The article linked above is short on details. It will be interesting to see what legal authority these law enforcement agencies cited to get a search and/or arrest warrant—assuming they obtained one.

(Thanks to Andre Campos for the tip.)

NEXT: Bruce Ratner: "Building the community from the ground-up" by Bulldozing Homes and Businesses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Even if this guy was possibly planning something, these pigs need to be slapped down for this, and hard, because if they set a precedent, this will happen everywhere.

    However, I’m pretty certain that our legal system, while extremely fucked up, still has enough protections in it to fix this.

    1. However, I’m pretty certain that our legal system, while extremely fucked up, still has enough protections in it to fix this.

      And if it doesn’t?

      1. See my first sentence. Particularly the end.

    2. these pigs need to be slapped down for this, and hard…

      Sounds like you’re hatching some sort of devious plan, and you’re a known rabble-rouser. I suspect you’re disgruntled.

      Have you lately purchased fluids, gels or aerosols in quantities over two ounces?

      1. Does Astroglide count?

        1. Yes it does. Bring that with you to jail.

          1. You’ll need it.

      2. if it wasnt so scary, it would be funny… Im surprised I havent been targeted, I was laid off, bought some weapons..I wasnt NEAR as disgruntled over that, as I am over this.

    3. word up!

    4. If he had killed anyone, you would be blaming “the pigs” for that too.

      1. Yes, because it’s the Police’s fault that they can’t predict crimes.

        1. predicting crime is not part of their job. preventing it by patroling may be, but not going into someone’s house…

      2. guilty until proven innocent? don`t live up to your nickname….

      3. This is a constitutional issue. Whether you agree or disagree,Several Oregon government and law enforcement agencies enforcement broke the law, and needs punishment. Their commanders need a firing, and then see who is disgruntled.

    5. Episiarh, This is happening everywhere. When the “jackbooted thugs” are allowed to operate above the law, they become the law. Don’t count on the legal system. When the courts fail to get laws they want from the lawmakers (legislative) they make up their own. Researching this subject will scare the hell out of you.

  2. This would be a good application of the aforementioned blinking neon WTF sign.

  3. If this guy wasn’t disgruntled before, he sure will be now!

  4. If I were laid off, I might also buy some new guns to enjoy shooting in my newly available free time. Also, that jerk in accounting might finally get what’s been coming to….just kidding

    1. Don’t forget those punks in HR.

  5. Sounds like they put him under emergency mental health detention. Under Texas law (I dunno Oregon law), I don’t see how this would stand up.

    Let’s see the ACLU show up on this one. If they don’t, then what are they good for?

    1. He had 3 guns, so I’d be shocked if they show up.

    2. He must have made threats because people are laid-off everyday and the cops are not showing up at their residences. The guy would have had to say he was a danger to himself or others to have been put on a mental heath hold. It could be his co-workers had a legitimate fear but personally, I’d take a vacation that week.

      1. Presupposes that the cops know what they’re doing, aren’t jerks, and actually are the good guys.

        1. I have totally bought the libertarian line all cops are bad.

    3. “””I don’t see how this would stand up.””

      Stand up against what? No charges have been filed.

      1. They dragged him out of his home against his will under no charges… Isn’t that worse? Where’s the due process in that?

  6. Hey, shit head, think about it: proactive=active.

    Fuck you Stephen Covey for bringing a 1930’s psychological term to modern usage as an antonym of “reactive.”

    “I will proactively find investors for your business.”
    “I will actively find investors for your business.”

    IT’S THE SAME THING!

    People tend to think it means something akin to anticipating [blank] but come fucking on. It is a goddamned buzz word that should fucking die already.

    /rant

    1. Isn’t proactive an acne cream that all the hot celebs have been shilling for on daytime TV?

  7. What you don’t get is that our governments at all levels is run by people who think Brave New World was a utopian book and Big Brother was the good guy in 1984.

  8. My crystal ball shows Presidential Medals of Freedom all around for these tireless protectors of the public.

    1. I was gonna say “they acted stupidly.”

  9. Some quotes left out of the summary:

    “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”

    “After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man ? who was alone in the home ? agreed to come out, Hansen said.”

    “Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

    To me, it seems like the man consensually agreed to an evaluation, or was referred because he may have expressed the intent to harm himself or others. Such involuntary mental health committments are normal and legal, and often made by doctors or therapists without police intervention.

    1. “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”

      The summary mentioned he bought 3 guns. Their type is irrelevant. And by the way, there’s no way in hell he bought an AK-47; reporters don’t know shit about guns.

      “After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man ? who was alone in the home ? agreed to come out, Hansen said.”

      Yeah, I’m sure there was no pressure to agree. Nope, none whatsoever. If he had disagreed they would have just called it a day, right?

      1. To a certain extent, you’re right that the type of guns don’t matter. But if he’d bought a single-shot .410, it would not lend support to the idea that he’s considering a rampage. If you’re planning a rampage, you could do a lot worse than getting two semi-automatics and an AK-47.

        I don’t understand why you’re so convinced that he didn’t get an AK-47. They can be legally purchased provided that they are semi-automatic or were grandfathered in prior to 1986.

        1. A semi-auto is not an AK-47. Hunting rifles are more deadly than semi-auto AK variants.

          1. So what do you call a gun that is exactly the same as an AK-47 in every respect except that it lacks the fully-auto capacity?

            1. Well, maybe you do call them AK-47s, but you know what you don’t call them? An assault rifle. Which is what the reporter called it.

              1. What makes a semi-auto AK-47 not an “assault rifle?”

                I realize that some people don’t like the term because it’s used by anti-gunners as a scare tactic, but if that’s your only objection, I can’t say the reporter fucked up.

                1. A rifle must be select-fire (capable of semi or auto) to be classified as an assault rifle. Being scary looking and/or black is not sufficient.

                  1. An M16 is semi (one shot) or burst (3 shots) fire. No full auto capability. Under your definition it’s not an assault rifle?

                    1. I was being sloppy. All that matters is it’s select-fire. Although, I believe burst fire is considered to be automatic fire which is why what most people think of as automatic is called full-auto.

                    2. Anyway, it’s not my definition, it’s the definition. From wikipedia:

                      In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

                      It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
                      It must be capable of selective fire;
                      It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
                      Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine.
                      Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

                      The term “assault rifle” is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

                      The US Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

                    3. A 3-round burst is fully automatic operation, if only for those three rounds. Check your definitions.

                      So yes, an M-16 absolutely has full auto capability – it can fire three rounds with one pull of the trigger.

                    4. An M16A4 is classified as a battle rifle, as it is capable of three round burst and semi fire, an M4 is classified as a battle carbine, because there is no difference in firing operation. An M4A1 (used by SOC forces) is classified as an assualt carbine because it in fact is capable of fully automatic fire. Not directly quoting, but check out any JANE’S book of modern small arms for correct classification. In the military, calling a weapon by an incorrect term is a practically a sin, and calling an M16A4 an assault rifle would be akin to calling a Mk. 19 a fully autmatic, belt-fed bazooka. It doesn’t work that way.

            2. Q-ball, “So what do you call a gun that is exactly the same as an AK-47 in every respect except that it lacks the fully-auto capacity?” You call it a gun that requires reloading before you kill more people.

          2. What? A semi-auto is not an AK-47? That’s confusing. You can get AK-47s with select-fire (machine guns) and with semi-auto (1 shot per trigger). They are both AK-47. My friends have AK-47’s that are semi-auto.

            1. See above.

              1. I find it useful to refer to weapons like this as assault rifle look-alikes. It emphasizes that they aren’t really assault rifles and trivializes hysteria about them.

            2. We’re getting deep in the semantical weeds.

              Depends on whose definition of “assault rifle” you’re using. Jordan, above, quoted the Clinton AWB’s definition – which is not the definition anyone knowledgeable of the implements of war would have used. The Clinton AWB defined certain firearms as “assault rifles” because they looked scary and had certain features that were the same types of features that military firearms have.

          3. Hunting rifles are not usually available with 90 round magazines, why don’t you put some effort into learning something about a subject before declaring yourself an expert

    2. Or possibly, he got a severance and/or unused vacation check and thought he’d buy some guns with it.

    3. “an AK-47 –>> assault rifle <<–

      FTFY

  10. Why do people think they don’t have to interact with each other anymore? The way a situation like this would have been handled throughout the rest of history is that the people around the guy, who allegedly care about him and are concerned for his safety, would actually confront him and try to prevent any potential disasters by giving him emotional support and a way to cope.

    In a situation like this, I suppose I can understand why people might be reticent to confront the guy. But this is a problem with all sorts of issues.

    Don’t like your neighbor’s dog? Call the police. Think your neighbor’s wife might be abusing alcohol? Call the police. Does your neighbor’s kid cross over into your lawn a lot? Call the police. Did your neighbor throw a really loud party? Call the police.

    Why can’t people just interact with their neighbors, try to remedy the situations that arise civilly, and then learn to deal with it when things don’t go their way? It’s not rocket science.

    1. “Cuz teh guns are scary and I just wet my pants.”

    2. I’ll tell you why, racism. I live in a predominately black neighborhood. Last summer a white neighbor was out in her yard with her two-year-old daughter. Her black next door neighbors were having a bar-b-que. Everother word out of their mouths was motherfucker and n*gger. They were very loud, so the woman politely asked them to stop swearing in front of her daughter. They went ape shit on her ass about how fucked up whitey is and goddamn whitey, etc. Next time? I suspect she’ll just call the cops.

      1. Ape shit? Now that’s racist shit.

        But seriously, she’s going to call the cops to report what crime exactly?

        1. Bar-b-q without a license

        2. Disturbing the peace?

          1. BWB–Bar-B-Queing while Black

            1. Harassment?

    3. This presumes that he was doing ANYTHING wrong. What about that story would lead you to believe that someone should have been concerned about his safety (other than the SWAT team outside his door). What leads you to believe he needed confronting or needed emotional support? You PRESUME that he wasn’t coping. You have convicted him just like the police without any evidence of wrong-doing.

      1. Exactly, maybe like some people who buy junk food or clothes when they have a certain level of depression, he buys guns. Doesn’t mean he’s going to use them. Maybe he will. If he does, there should be an armed populace there to put him down.

        Oh, crap.

  11. Sounds like it could be bad, but if he wasn’t arrested, the police did not enter his home, and there was a voluntary component to this then this may be over blown. There are very real abuses of police power out there, but there’s also a legitimate function to law enforcement and if some guy starts buying loads of guns while making threatening statements, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale for the police to follow up.

    1. I say we just start following up on everyone that buys a gun. That way we cover all the bases. Follow up and detention are slightly different in my world.

      1. I agree, I’m just not sure that this qualifies as detention, and it certainly isn’t an arrest. There’s precious little actual information in the article regarding what was actually reported this guy said or did, which is a little disturbing in and of itself. If it was “I’m really bummed I got canned” then this was a massive overreaction. If this guy was calling up screaming “You fuckers are all gonna die!” in between his trips to the gun shop, I’m OK with sending him to the psych ward for evaluation whether he wants to go or not, and this would qualify as a fairly measured response.

        1. So they surrounded his house with SWAT teams and had a negotiator call his house at 6 in the morning.

          I fucking GUARANTEE you if he had said, “I refuse to come out unless you produce an arrest warrant. I will not speak to you further under any circumstances. Get off my property immediately,” they would have shot the place up and killed him.

          1. Now who’s pre-cognitive? Fluffy knows what happened to this guy in an alternate universe.

            1. Or has read enough Balko.

            2. Please provide links to stories where SWAT teams surrounded buildings, hostage negotiators called in to the armed occupants of those buildings, the armed occupants said, “Go the fuck away!” and the police…did.

              Please. Give me some links.

              Or even just ONE.

              1. First, you did not predict that the police would do nothing. You predicted “they would have shot the place up and killed him.” But maybe you’re predictive ability causes amnesia.

                Here’s a link where SWAT was called about an armed intruder and didn’t shoot the place up and kill anyone.
                http://articles.latimes.com/20…..e-hacker17

                Summary: hacker/prankster tells police that he is armed and dangerous and in some random family’s home on multiple occasions. In one case, the victim was armed with a steak knife when he met the SWAT team. SWAT handcuffed and investigated the victim until they determined it was a hoax. On none of the occassions were the prankster’s victims shot and killed.

                1. There is no middle ground here on H&R, q ball. Either you assume that all cops everywhere are out to kill you, your family and your pets in the middle of the night, or you are guilty of fellating authority.

                2. That’s not what I asked for.

                  That article says they STORMED THE FUCKING HOUSE and subdued these people.

                  I was disputing the claim that his surrender could be considered “voluntary”.

                  I offered the common-sense prediction that had he refused to come out, the police would have assaulted the house.

                  You claimed that I was claiming to know the future by making this prediction.

                  I demanded that you provide me a link where the police LEFT when in a similar situation the subject of their investigation refused to talk to them and demanded they leave.

                  You then provided me with a link to an incident where the police STORMED THE HOUSE.

                  Here’s a tip: for his surrender to be “voluntary”, we need evidence of situations where the police DID NOT STORM THE HOUSE. We need evidence of similar situations where the subject said, “Go away, you have no grounds to be here unless you have an arrest warrant” and the police DID AS THEY WERE INSTRUCTED.

                  1. You “fucking GUARANTEEd” that the cops would have shot him. Then you back-pedaled to asking me to prove a negative.

                    I provided a link that shows that SWAT’s less trigger-happy than you “fucking GUARANTEEd.”

                    Now you show me a link proving that you don’t do furry porn for a living.

                    1. Yes, they would have.

                      If they already had called him, they couldn’t do a sneak attack on the house and subdue him, now could they?

                      If he refused them entry at that point, they could do two things:

                      1. Leave.
                      2. Violently assault the house.

                      Which would they have done?

                      All I’m asking for is evidence that the police have ever left a house after setting up containment of this kind simply because they were told to. That’s not asking you to prove a negative at all. Because you can use ANY incident to prove it to me. But you can’t, because in all cases once the police deploy like this there’s ZERO chance of them backing down, whether they’ve got an arrest warrant or not. So that means that anyone in this thread posting some variant of, “How bad can it be? The guy voluntarily agreed to be evaluated!” is a douche.

                    2. How’s the pay in furry porn?

                    3. I’m with Fluffy on this one. Once called in, there’s no way a simple “produce a warrant or leave” would get them to leave. They’re going to either get you to let them in, or they are coming in because you have “barricaded yourself in” and are “behaving bizarrely”.

                      On the positive side of the ledger, since no drugs were alleged they didn’t storm the house unannounced and have a paranoid citizen grab a gun and get himself shot (in the name of protecting him from himself). At least they sensibly negotiated a surrender.

                      I wonder if Maryland ever considered taking this approach for picking up parole violators and parking ticket bench warrants.

                    4. Once called in, there’s no way a simple “produce a warrant or leave” would get them to leave. They’re going to either get you to let them in, or they are coming in because you have “barricaded yourself in” and are “behaving bizarrely”.

                      You know this how? Did you learn it at the same site that proves Fluffy does not work in furry porn?

              2. They didn’t even call this guy..
                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02935.html

          2. would they have killed his dog?

  12. I hope they shot his dog for good measure. Rover might become disgruntled that they tossed his master in the can.

  13. they buried the lede: the State managed to lay off an employee!

    1. That was probably the root cause for the cops’ action. The guy was evidently so mentally disturbed that even the State could lay him off. He made other agents of the State uncomfortable, so the State had to neutralize him. It’s fortunate in this case that the State did not have to resort to dynamic entry. Rather than killing this poor soul, he can be reformed in Room 101.

      Yes, this type of State is more precisely described by the modifier referenced in the article’s link.

      1. Project much?

        1. “”Rather than killing this poor soul, he can be reformed in Room 101.””

          Ah, disregard my previous post.

  14. To me, it seems like the man consensually agreed to an evaluation,

    Agreeing with SWAT negotiators while surrounded by a tactical entry team and in the cross hairs of a sniper.
    What could be more consensual?

    1. That’s what she said

      1. He was not unresponsive.

        1. Nick, you’re a pig

    2. There’s nothing in the story about a sniper for God’s sake. This is the problem I have with the comments of Radley’s posts sometimes — when he posts a story that has few details but sounds bad, you guys fill in the blanks with the wildest fancies of your imaginations.

      1. There’s nothing in the story about a sniper for God’s sake but he did his best to allude to it. This is the problem I have with the comments of Radley’s posts every time — when he purposefully posts a story that deliberately omits details to make it sound worse, he knows you guys will fill in the blanks with the wildest fancies of your aberrant imaginations.

  15. The problem once again is that this policy, if broadly pursued, would create more mass shootings than it would solve.

    As Playa Manhattan implicitly notes.

    I can definitely see someone who otherwise was not planning to take any action becoming so enraged when the police show up that they take shots at the police.

    “It’s not enough that you fire me, you want to send me to the nuthouse too?!!!” BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM.

    And that goes about 100x for people committed to a mental hospital for starting a gun collection at a time someone else found appropriate. They might “reasonable” my way out of the evaluation, and then want to play a few rounds of “I’ll give you something to cry about”.

  16. Dionne Warwick warned them about the shooting.

  17. I have to agree with the posters who pointed out that the man is simply getting a psych evaluation. There have been a number of cases where the person who went on a shooting rampage, had told others that he planned to commit acts of violence.

    The other fact was that his HR department contacted the police. In other words, his actions prior to this scared the snot out of them. The police did a little background investigation and found out the guy had bought a bunch of guns. So lets look at the facts:

    1: White guy is a disgruntled employee.
    2. White guy makes a bunch of threats.
    3. White guy buy an AK-47
    4. After he shoots up the place people wonder why nobody did anything.

    What is not the case is a person goes out an buys a gun or guns and the police show up the next day and arrest him for a future crime.

    Regards

    Joe Dokes

    1. Who are you calling white? And, what exactly is the relevance of whiteness versus non-whiteness?

      1. Whites are statistically more likely to go on a shooting rampage (fabricated statistic, but probably right) and whites are MUCH more likely to be serial killers than blacks. If you go to some of the progressive black discussion boards/blogs, alot of the posters will be talking about how whites are nuttin’ but serial killers, etc.

        It’s quite horrifying actually.

        1. The progressive discussion boards? Agreed.

    2. Story after story tells of people who reached out showing that they were disturbed and we get things like Columbine and Virginia Tech.

      There was no reported evidence that this guy had any problems and they storm his house, detain him for mental evaluation, and confiscate his property.

      He had weapons before he bought those weapons,but they weren’t a problem? They waited for him to buy more and SUDDENLY this guy is going to kill everyone.

    3. Hold on, why jump from 3 to 4? Where is the step where his intended victim shoots back in self defense and kills his attacker?

    4. What the hell does being white have to do with it?

  18. Please provide evidence that threats were made.

    If threats were made, then the police could have simply have arrested him for making those threats.

    The fact that there was no arrest warrant leads me to conclude that no threats were made.

    The article says he was considered “disgruntled”. I’ll tell you this right now: I could convince you to describe me as “disgruntled” without making a single actionable threat. I would burn your ears off with the most disgusting and demeaning insults you’ve ever heard spoken aloud, and you’d have no doubt that I was “disgruntled”, believe me, and no threats would be necessary.

  19. Well if threats were made then this action is sensible. Otherwise, they should have just warned employees at his workplace to be alert for him, and maybe increased security at those places just in case. There was absolutely no justification for surrounding his house unless he made threats.

    1. +1. But since we don’t know that, this thread is just a lot of people getting their Jump To Conclusions mats out.

      1. If there was a threat it’s pretty safe to conclude there would have been an arrest.

    2. “Otherwise, they should have just warned employees at his workplace to be alert for him” or to take reallllly lonnnnnggg lunchesssssss

  20. There is no claim that threats were made. So I feel pretty safe in saying that no threats were made.

    There is no claim that he broke any law. So I feel pretty safe in saying he didn’t break any laws.

    He was grumpy about being laid off, and bought three guns (showing very mixed taste – mad props on the HK, the Walther is a serviceable carry gun, but .380?, and as for the AK knockoff – please).

    So what on earth justifies SWATting this guy? Because somebody else, somewhere else, generated bad publicity for the local PD when they weren’t preemptively detained?

    What the fuck is wrong with people?

    1. His confession will be made public soon.

  21. I live in Medford. Everyone reading this must understand what a complete violation of civil liberties this would have been IF they had arrested him. Being concerned they can ask you to do a psych eval…hell they can ask you to sing “I’m a Little Teapot” but that doesn’t mean you have to do it. Bottom line he freaked a bunch of people out and went in to get checked out. Cops around here are pretty respectful of civil liberties so i don’t believe this was a case of Police State actions as the author claims.

  22. Shit son, the mother fucking thought police are here. 1984 anyone?

    1. lol they don’t even care what you think, just what someone else says you think

  23. Proactive means doing what has worked in the past, not preemptive arrest!

  24. Wow this was interesting – all sorts of conclusions being jumped to by everyone on both sides of the issue, based on a very brief and largely fact-devoid news article. And we all know how accurate your average journo is in reporting anything at all – especially when it involves guns. And then they have to edit it down to fit in whatever the assigned space is.

    But let’s not let that get in our way of arguing about what might have happened or what could have happened or what would have happened or what actually did happen, even though none of us really know any of that.

    Maybe he should have bought his guns at a gun show and taken advantage of that notorious “gun show loophole” that allows nutbags and gang bangers to buy bazookas and LAAWS rockets.

  25. What do social workers do these days? That’s who should have been sent to the door. Give them a little backup if the story really warrants it.

  26. Didn’t I see this in a movie with Tom Cruise…Minority Report. This is the US we are guilty before proven innocent or is that the other way around?

  27. maybe he will get angry at the cops and when they let him out, use his 3 guns to go on a rampage against the police. that would be AWESOME!

  28. I live in Medford. First, the man has not even sued the Medford police. He has asked that procedures be evaluated. He was NOT arrested, nor was he incarcerated. His mental health evaluation took only a few hours then he was back home. All his guns were returned to him. It has been decided here in Medford that the supervisor who called the police was very much in the wrong as he has done this before to other employees. The guy is just paranoid about people he has to lay off. Most of us down here are glad our police did not wait to see if the guy was going to go “postal” and start shooting. Actually no harm was done. The police did not release his name; he was the one who “outed” himself as the “victim.” It was not a case of a police state. I would think the guy might have a civil case against the supervisor who started the whole thing, but I’m sure his attorney told him he really doesn’t have a case against anyone!

  29. Rather than get bogged down with lots of emotional rhetoric, how about we simply look at the available facts:
    An individual was laid-off and (understandably) ‘disgruntled’;
    This individual (apparently) made no threats of violence toward (former) staff or management;
    This individual made a legal purchase of materials;
    Based upon apparently false information, the Police removed said individual from his residence, committing him to a Mental Evaluation Facility where he could be held devoid of his Constitutional Rights as well as Personal Protection under Law for as much as 180 days (half a year);
    This individual’s personal property was confiscated, apparently either without warrant or by warrant based upon false information;
    The individual was not charged with any crime;
    The individual was released and was able to force a return of his property.

    Well, GaiaGirl, ‘Actually, no harm was done’?
    You might want to reconsider. This gentleman was awakened by Police Swat Teams at 6:00 AM. and “convinced” to be taken into custody. (Lets see, ‘come out or have them destroy my home and possible kill me,???, come out or have them destroy my home and possibly kill me??? I guess I’ll come out!!’) If that happened to me, I’d be traumatized, and respond positively to this duress. The Swat Teams have this as a standard practice to control a situation.
    He was then taken into custody and incarcerated. (Regardless of the type of ‘holding’ he was deprived of his freedom by Police). His property was taken. He was forced to prove his innocence (show he was “sane and no harm to himself or other”). Was charged with NO crimes, either Criminal or Civil. Upon his release, he had to force the recovery of his property by the Police.

    No harm to the gentleman in being traumatized and having his Rights under Law and the Constitution being violated?

    No harm to the Community in having this level of Police activity occur apparently based upon some one’s “guess”, “hunch” or emotion-based rationalization, rather than an application of Law?

    Tell me, please, what liberties are you ready and willing to give up so some one’s emotional state will be used to dictate your safety or future?

    Remember Franklyn’s words:
    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    Police have no more of a right to have done this (by all available information at this time) than they have the right to take someone into custody for looking like a gang member, a ‘biker’, because he/she has green and pink hair, powdered sugar or coffee spilled on the shirt, a driver was rude during a traffic stop or because it is a Thursday at 6:27PM and they just ‘felt like it’.

    Law and the Constitutional Rights are to protect us from not only Criminals, but inappropriate actions by Government. They are not based upon some one’s emotional state at the time, and no one, who has considered the unintended consequences of permitting this kind of activity can possibly condone what went on.

    (And, yeah, there is plenty of legal recourse to be had,…)

    Just my .02 worth,…

    Doc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.