Man arrested for suspicion of committing crime in the future.

[rusty_rebar]

What have we come to? So now the police will come to your house with a swat team at 5am and take you into custody because they think that maybe you might commit a crime at some point in the future?

From http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315

"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."

This is truly ridiculous, and I suspect that the city will be footing quite a large legal settlement on this one.

[monmouth]

1. OR, a revenge massacre on the Dept. of Trans. for laying him off was avoided..

Not all of the story is here. The man possibly made threats verbally, etc. He was taken for a mental-health evaluation, sounds like a good thing.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[monmouth]

6. Your use of "Manmouth" negates any future opinion you would have

on anything IMO..

[rusty_rebar]

7. What was wrong with that post?

I see that I must have misspelled your name, I assure you it was not intentional. I did not read it correctly and thought it was a play on Mammoth, a city in California.

[hex29a]

2. There's plenty of precedent...W invaded a sovereign country for the same "reason"

and killed 3000+ American troops and God knows how many Iraqis...

[Poll_Blind]

3. The key here is why the police were contacted and what information was passed onto them.

Which has not been fully disclosed yet. The vagueness of this story (maybe because all of the information is not available to us, yet) makes this story much more incendiary.

But I think that is misleading.

If this is some sort of bullshit then I guarantee the person taken into custody will be able to sue and almost certainly win.

However, the nature of the flags that were raised BEFORE the gun purchases is very important. Because (IIRC) those flags were raised before he purchased the guns and when he did the police felt that they were watching a very deadly situation potentially unfold.

I, BTW, have never heard of a story like this before.

I also have no problem with an American citizen responsibly owning firearms or purchasing 300 firearms in one afternoon. That is our right, IMO.

However there is a lot more to this story which will come out over time.

PB

[sharesunited]

11. 300 firearms in one afternoon would be a MAJOR warning sign.

People stockpiling weapons OUGHT to be under the greatest scrutiny.

This is an example of socially responsible intervention.

[dashrif]

12. you have

no clue what 300 fire arms would cost do you? lets say at 100 bucks each = when pigs fly for most of us :eyes:

[hex29a]

20. $100 guns? That might be a realistic price for a decent 'hot' one on the street but

anything that cheap in a legitimate sale is probably dangerous junk...I mean I agree with your point, just think you were being way too 'conservative'. so to speak
:-)

[oneshooter]

23. How about $494,500 for ONE pistol?

One of three 45acp Lugers built for the 1907 trials.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-luger15-2010mar15,0,7573316.story


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[dashrif]

26. I

was trying to be ridiculous and absurd with the low price point and = when pigs fly was a double entendre for the reason you pointed out:hi:

[hex29a]

47. Aha...okay I got ya. I'm trying to learn the drill here

:D

[dashrif]

49. Welcome

to the DU Hex is that Hex666 :hi:

[hex29a]

50. 666 decimal, yup

:D

[PavePusher]

13. Or someone wealthy buying an historic collection...

or an estate auction...

or... whatever. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[oneshooter]

21. Did you read the OP?

The man bought 3 firearms. Not 300.
Reading is fundemental, if you don't want to sound like a idiot.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Why, how many arms does this guy have?

Some kinda gun porcupine?

Lookit him, he can barely move under the weight of all those guns...

[maxsolomon]

5. Pre Crime!

what was that Tom Cruise movie? Minority Report!

5 a.m. is the best time to take people into protective custody. Especially just after Daylight savings starts.

[ellenfl]

9. minority report . . . my first thought, too. don't really know what

to think.

ellen fl

[proteus_lives]

16. My first thought too.

Gee, no government agency would ever abuse this.....:sarcasm:

[OregonBlue]

8. Let's wait until we know more before we jump to conclusions. Could be some very good reasons they

thought he might be dangerous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. So being pissed off is enough reason to be institutionalized and have private property confiscated?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. The police probably aren't going to discuss any evidence, like blog posting

or specific accusations from other people that he may have made XYZ statement about doing something illegal.

We'll see what comes out, possible this was legal, and just the initial articles are rubbing the wrong way because they don't contain the whole picture.

[OregonBlue]

39. It's possible that he made threats against others. Maybe emailed his intent. You don't really know

so don't jump to conclusions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Of course if he had made threats he could have been charged with a crime.

Then nobody would be having this discussion. It's funny they don't worry about releasing information when they shoot someone who made threats, I wonder why that is?

[doc03]

10. The anti gun crowd presumes all Americans with a gun are

nuts and are potential murders, what's new here.

[shadowrider]

34. I feel I'm letting them down

After owning revolvers and a semi-auto over the past years, I have yet to randomly fire it in a crowded venue, which they say I'm supposed to do by virtue of simply owning it.

[OregonBlue]

40. Do you know whether he had made threats against anyone?

[Euromutt]

14. We did have a thread on this before

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x301004

Turned out the new guns were bought with the guy's tax refund.

As I said there, if someone has reason to fear that the guy might be contemplating a workplace shooting, it's fair enough that somebody take some action to assess the likelihood, and dissuade it from happening. But essentially rousting the guy from his bed under threat of the local SWAT team is over the top as the first measure to take.

[Katya Mullethov]

19. His tax return ? Then it was a premeditated preoffense .

He could have been preplanning this for months .



eta * preforgot a pre

[hex29a]

22. Isn't all planning "pre"?

That is...wouldn't "postplanning" be kinda like impossible?

Reminds me of George Carlin's bit on "preboarding"


:D

[aikoaiko]

15. More information needed about known facts and OR law on committment/evaluation laws

In every state there are mechanisms for detaining and evaluating someone who may be threat, but the criteria is different in a lot of states.

I need more info before I can be outraged.

[SteveM]

17. Don't they have a T.V. show about this kind of future-crap?

[dmallind]

24. Routine for DUI and nobody complains

NEVER tell your doctor if you drink more than a beer or two a day - regardless of whether you think he needs to know or think it will be confidential.

People have been convicted of DUIs just for telling their doctor they drink a six pack a day. Not a six pack a day and then drive to anywhere. Just drinking it.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Source?

[dmallind]

29. Here ya go - now are you going to come up with some "yeah but"

or admit this is a travesty of which you were just unaware? Forgive my doubts but peolpe who cry out "source?" almost always are predisposed to disbelieve and argue even when one is presented. With your name you should be more rational than that so I'll go to the trouble this time....

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_203802.html

[AtheistCrusader]

30. This person was not convicted of a DUI without having gotten behind the wheel

intoxicated.

Do you have a source for that?
For what it's worth, I agree it's a travesty his license was suspended for what he told his doctor, but that's a far cry from an additional DUI conviction. Potentially related to his prior DUI conviction?

[dmallind]

31. His license was revoked due to his being a hazard because of drinking

What's the difference?

Related to a DUI 23 YEARS AGO??? Are you kidding?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. You said

"People have been convicted of DUIs just for telling their doctor they drink a six pack a day. Not a six pack a day and then drive to anywhere. Just drinking it."

Revoked license != Convicted of a DUI.

23 years? Maybe an influence in that state. I don't know that state's laws, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence 23 years ago is a disqualification for firearms ownership. Not even a felony.

[dmallind]

52. OK so if I had said

"It's routine for drinkers to have their driving licenses revoked even without doing anything wrong".

Can we agree THAT is a travesty or is that OK since they are nasty beer-drinking savages?

If you even think for a moment a 23 year old conviction for a victimless crime is relevant to a current driving license I have no possible response but to assume you are simply a neo-prohibitionist who is incapable of rationally discussing the topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. New statement is more accurate.

I would still quibble with your use of 'routine', because you've provided one example, and it's the first I've ever heard of it. But that is a much more acceptable statement than the former. Is it limited to a county? Maybe a state? How many is 'routine' to you? Has he sued over it? Has anyone else?

I agree, with the evidence presented, sounds like a travesty. I am not a prohibitionist, but I am a literalist, so read posts like that exactly as they are written. Your original statement was, to the best of my knowledge, inaccurate. It certainly wasn't supported by the evidence you cited.

[Euromutt]

57. It's a shocking breach of doctor-patient confidentiality if nothing else

And frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that this law has been on the books in Pennsylvania for over forty years without it successfully being challenged and struck down, and even more so that a significant number of MDs in Pennsylvania actually comply with it rather than telling the state DOT "doctor-patient confidentiality, so bite me." And frankly, if my GP pulled that shit on me, I'd a) find myself another GP, and b) report her to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission in short order.

But I have to agree with AtheistCrusader that the way you initially presented it is rather different from the actual state of affairs. For starters, the fact that this happens in Pennsylvania doesn't mean it occurs--let alone is "routine"--in the rest of the country. (In Washington state, for example, your driver's license can be revoked if you're been classed as a drug or alcohol addict or abuser by the Dept. of Social and Health Services, but it requires a court order to authorize the Department to make that assessment, and that generally requires a DUI conviction in the first place. My GP knows I drink more than Mr. Emerich, but I have yet to have the Dept. of Licensing threaten to revoke my license.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. So you would support allowing people convicted of DUIs to carry firearms?

As long as the conviction was at least 23 years old.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. My dad had his license revoked when he had a stroke. You think that the same as getting a DUI.

:eyes:

[dmallind]

51. But the stroke was relevant to his driving

How was this man's drinking?

OK tell you what - how about I say "It's routine for drinkers to have their driving licenses revoked even without doing anything wrong".

Can we agree THAT is a travesty or is that OK since they are nasty beer-drinking savages?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. I didn't say it was right. I said it wasn't a conviction for DUI.

[dmallind]

55. And the effective difference?

He can't drive. When he gets the right back his insurance will be massively increased because of a suspension. He will need an ignition interlock and alcohol counselling. What's in a name?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Who in this case would mandate an ignition interlock and counseling?

My father's insurance didn't go up when he was eventually cleared to drive again. Revealing the cause of the revocation might be a violation of HIPAA. The man in this case has good cause to sue and in my opinion would win easily.

[dmallind]

58. Gotcha - but I meant the difference between his punishment and that of a DUI is what? NT

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Jail time for one.

You can get your license suspended for a moving violation like going 20mph over the speed limit. It's a fairly trivial thing. DUI conviction carries, in most states, certain minimum punishments, including jail time, detox/recovery, interlock, probation, etc.

[dmallind]

61. Jasil time is very very rare for first time DUI (or 2nd in 23 years)

This guy gets the interlock and the alcohol counselling/recovery remember!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. You still haven't provided any evidence of the interlock and rehab!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. So you are saying my dad was punished for having a stroke?

[dmallind]

62. Why is this about your dad? I'm talking about the guy banned for drinking at home. NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. His license was revoked. You seem to think that is a punishment.

That was the extent of the man in your stories "punishment". So should we be "punishing" stroke victims?

[dmallind]

66. Well that;'s NOT the extent and the difference is obvious

He also had to agree to alcohol counselling and an interlock (typical aspects of DUI punishments) to get his license back.

A stroke victim is likely (I have no idea of your dad's specifics) to be physically unable to drive safely at all.

A guy who drinks at home after he's parked the car is not in any way limited in the ability to drive safely when he is stone sober.

We punish people for, say, rape, by keeping them shut up in small rooms out of the general public. That's also true of people in comas or with serious injuries. Doing the same thing for different reasons does not mean we are punishing people in comas for rape. The same difference applies here. That's easy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. I'm still waiting for the link to a story about the interlock and alcohol counseling.

The doctor is the one at fault here. He used his power as a physician to have the man's license revoked for a "medical" reason, just like he would for someone who had a stroke. It is wrong as I have already stated.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. So again where is the link to the ignition lock, rehab concoction, I mean story.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Again can you provide a link to the ignition interlock and alcohol counselling story?

Or did you just get caught making something up?

[gorfle]

32. If you READ THE ARTICLE...

If you read the article, you will see that this, at face value, sounds quite warranted in this case.

The man was not arrested simply for buying or owning firearms.

He was arrested because he was "highly disgruntled" after loosing his job and then going out and buying a handgun and an assault rifle:

"The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release 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.

Even only given the information provided in the story, I'd say that this was a responsible action on the part of the police.

You can bet your ass that if nobody did anything, and this guy went on a shooting spree, and then it came out that all this was known ahead of time, people would be calling for blood.

I don't fault the authorities in this case.

[Euromutt]

44. It's not so much *that* the police intervened, it's *how*

I don't object to the idea of law enforcement trying to forestall a potential (mass) shooting, but besieging his house and practically lifting him from his bed, well, doesn't that seem over the top as the first step? If anything, that kind of treatment really gives him something to be disgruntled about.

[Glassunion]

33. Not so sure I see an issue here. From what I read in the article.

At first this story pissed me off. Then I really, really read into it.

"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."

The police were not triggered to look into this situation by the purchase of the firearms. They were notified by that guy's employer before the purchase. My best guess is that the police reacted to the purchase due to the concerns that they already been made aware of by his employer.

No crime has been committed, and no charges were filed. He is in "protective custody". I'm not sure of their state laws, but law enforcement sometimes uses protective custody in stalking cases, where there are no stalking laws.

Again, I'm not sure of the local laws, but if a restraining order was issued against this guy, he would have been ineligible to purchase firearms in some states. From the little that I read in the article I don't really see any abuses of power.

[X_Digger]

36. Kind of a double standard though..

If you've known someone who expressed concerns about someone potentially harming them, you've probably heard the "we can't do anything until a crime has been committed or a specific threat uttered" line.

So which is it? Does a full-fledged investigation and surveillance only count for "dangerous" DOT employees? Or only when someone's worried about a workplace shooting rather than a girlfriend/wife afraid of getting the shit beat out of her or her kid?

[Glassunion]

38. Not so much.

It does depend on the level of the threat, state laws, etc...

The problem in one state may not exist in another state due to stalking laws or lack of. There are some states that also have laws on the books about workplace violence allowing the police to react to situations.

Double standard? Yes I think so. But in this case, from the small amount of information that we have I do not feel the police did anything wrong. But those are just feelings.

[yay]

41. I have to agree

"we can't do anything until a crime has been committed"

My girlfriend and I have been told this several times. Her mother is a schizophrenic and abuses her prescription meds. She has gone off the deep end several times threatening physical harm. I've had to stop her myself from hurting my gf and her sister.

Go to CPS, "we can't do anything until she has physically abused her"
Department of mental health "We can't do anything until she does something again"
Police "we can't do anything without evidence proving she abuses her meds"

All this after we had to dial 911 because she tried to drag my gf's sister out of the bed and beat her because she was high and paranoid.

I find it deeply disturbing that police will intervene in some situations but not others.

[Callisto32]

42. I'd bet if you told them she was abusing NON-prescription meds (you know the kind),

they would be there before you could turn around.

I'm not suggesting you do that, but yeah. Sorry, man that really, really stinks. I had a similar situation with a stepfather when I was younger (but his problem was coke), you have my sympathy.

[yay]

45. We have and she does(or did)

She also abuses benidril nyquill. Her doctor recently took her off all narcotic perscription meds because they found marijuana in her system.(and we have told police/CPS/ect. about this)

Her teachers and friends have made multipul reports to CPS about their living condtions. Since my GF would come to school in tears on the verge of mental breakdown.

Piles of garbage and soda can's, spilled cat food, It's easily the most discusting place I've ever had the misfortune to live in.(and police have been to and in the house after a 911 call)

But apparently her privacy rights are more important than her childrens physical and mental well-being. I have ZERO faith in the governent to protect me or anyone anymore.

[Callisto32]

46. I'm sorry you had to come to this realization this way.

The supreme court has ruled on multiple occasions that the police/government have no obligation to protect you, in particular. They have some nebulous obligation to protect society. Since society is made up of individuals, how this works is beyond me. But what do you expect from a group that says things like to be under the open field doctrine it is not necessary for a place to be either open or a field...

I know you didn't ask for it, but here is my advise from one person who lived a bad life to another who is doing it now. Get out, if you have to. I know you said your girlfriend was involved, and her little sister, I believe. Take them with you, if you have to. Living like that is not worth it. If you are under the age of legal majority, try to find a lawyer that will help you with emancipation proceedings pro bono (that means for free).

Sorry if I insulted your intelligence above with that explanation of pro bono, but I get the distinct impression you are on the young side of things

Best of luck. I know you don't know me, and I don't know you, but I'm around this board a lot, and if you ever need to "talk" feel free to send me a PM. I may be a little slow getting back to you, but that's because I'm a busy law student and sometimes I don't get in for a day or two.

Again, best wishes.

[yay]

48. They cherry pick

They would rather pick on the guy with a steady life who happens to enjoy smoking a little weed rather than get people in a real dangorus situation out.(cause that's extra paper work)

We are(or were) working on it. Litterally maybe a week away from being able to move out when I lost my car(temperarily anyhow) due to an accident. And lost my job as a result of that accident.

[Jdub4abluenc]

65. After he was laid off; he simply had some extra time on his hands.

What is it with all the over reaction. Sounds reasonable to me; he just needed a hobby. If I got laid off; i would have time to improve my shooting skills.

Oh, BTW the AK probably wasn't an assault rifle; it was more likely a semi-auto sporting rifle (DU'rs have been over this point a million times). It also sounds like he made a couple of sold purchasing choices as well - he couldn't have been too crazy IMHO. The H&K .45ACP made me jealous.

[iverglas]

68. poster laughed at for typing really dumb shit on a discussion board

Man arrested for suspicion of committing crime in the future.

Hey -- that'll be you!

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Imagine that you a stauch opponent of civil rights. Shocker!