| 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. [...] 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." |
Can you say Minority Report (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/)?
What the hell reason does a "very disgruntled" individual suddenly decide to buy "several firearms" for?
It is troubling whenever someone is arrested when no crime has yet been committed. And yet . . .
given the guy's mental state at the time - - "very disgruntled" - - the recent purchase of "several firearms" is much more troubling. What the hell reason does a "very disgruntled" individual suddenly decide to buy "several firearms" for?
Also, I have no problem with the SWAT team approach either.
Just a few weeks ago, we lost a fine young Ontario Provincial Police officer and the father of three boys after he made a routine traffic stop and approached the 70-year-old driver, who just happened to be armed and "disgruntled" at the time. I wonder if anyone has figured it out yet, that the more "freedom" we allow to gun owners, the more precautions the police are going to have to take?
Prince, your detachment from reality is absolutely mind-boggling. Did it never cross your mind that a laid-off "disgruntled" 39-year-old man who goes out and acquires several firearms might have something other than quick re-sale profits or fun in mind?
Incidentally, the incredibly petty nit-picking between "laid off" and "administrative leave" is just another illustration of time-wasting bullshit in here.
Prince, your detachment from reality is absolutely mind-boggling.
Did it never cross your mind that a laid-off "disgruntled" 39-year-old man who goes out and acquires several firearms might have something other than quick re-sale profits or fun in mind?
<<You promote silly yet fear-mongering nonsense.>>
Yep, that's what killed that OPP constable last month, silly fear-mongering nonsense.
Thank God the cops have a little more common sense than you, Prince. They saw the warning signs, they interpreted them accordingly, and they defused a potentially dangerous situation without harming anyone.
Good thing nobody put you in charge of the station house - - "Hey, cool, call us again if he shoots anyone. Thanks for calling."
Nobody was hurt when the SWAT team surrounded the guy's house and talked him into giving up his weapons.
Despite their "readiness to fire bullets into the man's home." I'm glad to see you're not above a little "silly yet fear-mongering nonsense" yourself.
Pyle was reportedly placed on administrative leave from his position at the Oregon Department of Transportation, and has been working from home. Law enforcement officials had expressed concerns regarding his mental state after the work action, and that he had purchased a number of handguns shortly thereafter.Article (http://www.kmed.com/pages/landing?3-11-10-ODOT-WORKER-ASKS-POLICE-FOR-RETU=1&blockID=195693&feedID=133)
Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation tells KMED news that Pyle explained to him that he had received a tax refund, and had been in the market for the firearms for some time.
That's modestly helpful in evaluating the situation, but we still don't know what he said or did to make his boss fearful enough to call the police.
I'd also like to know the type of weapons that he purchased, esp. if any were fully automatic or could fire grenades. Also whether any of his previous weapons purchases were as lethal as the ones that he most recently acquired.
Sounds to me like a definite upgrade in firepower. From single pulls to semi-automatic. Uh-oh.
My intention was to indicate that the shotgun would have required re-loading with every shot fired but with a semi-automatic rifle, he could keep pulling the trigger and firing without reloading, the point being that he could kill more people in a shorter time with his latest acquisitions than he could with his old arsenal.
I don't believe I ever claimed any great familiarity with firearms.
You "break" the gun and manually insert a shell into each barrel.
It was, as I said, a disgruntled firearm owner who killed the OPP constable. The combination of disgruntlement with firearms possession is not a particularly healthy combination. Most people can see this clearly, but I suppose if you are blessed with a Polyanna-ish outlook on the world, you probably can't. C'est la vie.
Incredible. Having no idea whatsoever what the hearsay was, you are nevertheless certain that it contained nothing alarming, nothing to indicate any immediate danger, and that professional police officers, unable to evaluate hearsay, made a decision based on it that YOU characterize as overreaction, stupidity or whatever.
Ever hear the phrase, "better safe than sorry?"
<<How about the police try a little thing like investigation. Maybe send someone by to talk to the guy, find out if the guy was really "disgruntled" before showing up with a SWAT team? Or is that asking too much?>>
Yeah, when their lives are on the line, it IS asking too much.
Laid off, disgruntled, recent firearms purchases - - I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the cop that walks up to the guy's front door for a friendly chat.
But I don't automatically condemn it without all the facts.
The violent force is the SWAT team's last response, not their first. It's silly fear-mongering to pretend that every time a SWAT team shows up that the most probable outcome is violence.
I don't have any recollection of you proving any of my claims false.
Now you're just being ridiculous. Of course the semi-automatic is more threatening than the revolver. The magazine holds more bullets, so the shooter can kill more people before re-loading. Also if he carries several pre-loaded magazines with him he can re-load faster than he could re-load the revolver. Assuming the guy will be stopped or quit before he runs out of victims, he'd be able to hit more victims in the time that he has with a semi-automatic than with a revolver.
Cut the crap, Ami. The magazine for the Beretta PX4 Storm carries 20 rounds.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.
Looked up the magazine capacities for the handguns he purchased after he went on administrative leave.
Walther .380 PPK/S - 7 round magazine
H&K .45ACP - 8 round magazine
Guess that eliminates the mighty 20 round monsters.
Furthermore, the handgun magazines are more compact and less bulky than speed-loaders and look like faster re-loads. Press button, old clip drops out, new clip in, lock and you're ready for business. Speed loader looks like more steps, unlock, shake out cylinder, remove shell casings, insert speed loader, flip cylinder back in place, lock and shoot. Fuck dat. Obviously faster re-loads with the semi-automatic.
And we still don't know what the guy said or did to earn the description "very disgruntled." But of course the police did.
I still don't buy the idea that the guy didn't become a more efficient killing machine with his new acquisitions. He tripled his handgun arsenal. He doubled his long-gun arsenal. As far as I can see, the semi-automatic rifle probably fires more rounds without re-loading than the shotgun, although we don't seem to have any relevant specs for either one of them, and the semi-automatic hand-gun magazines carry more rounds than the speed-loaders if the guy's old revolver was a typical 6-rounds capacity.
come on AMI...sure it's possible a revolver could be reloaded almost as fast
BUT
pretty much all semi-autos fire fast...no extra stuff needed
typical semi-auto vs typical revolver
in most cases the semi will be better at firing more and faster
you pull in some random woman out of walmart
give her a 5 minute instruction
hand her the guns ready to fire
and let her fire a semi and then a revolver
it's not gonna be even close....the speed and the amount of bullets
that guy in the video is some freak.....
but I do not agree that the average joe public
can shoot a revolver nearly as fast as a semi-automatic
We're not talking about "Joe Public" - we're talking about someone who wants to commit
mass deaths. That someone would have practiced.
We are?
I would think things like road rage and/or someone losing their temper and killing people
at work
You're assuming the guy would have the same appreciation of the value of practice as you do. It's an invalid assumption, considering that if he were inclined to commit mass murder, he would not necessarily be functioning with a full deck and might figure all he needs to do is to upgrade the arsenal.
Because the military and police are legally allowed to purchase and carry pistols with high capacity magazines. Not to mention the automatic weapons they're also outfitted to carry
Yes, we are.
Not to mention the automatic weapons they're also outfitted to carry
Prince's idea that the cops "talk to" the man to find out more before deploying is kind of disingenuous. "Sure, officer, come on over. Do you fellas prefer tea or coffee?" does not exactly provide the assurance one needs when one's life is at stake.
The SWAT team dropped in with the usual precautions, no shots were fired into the guy's home (indicating that SWAT teams are capable of a lot more self-restraint than Prince would like to give them credit for - - Prince seems to see a visit by the SWAT team as synonymous with calling down a napalm strike on the guy's home; maybe he's been watching too many late-night movies)
- - they were doing exactly what Prince suggested they do - - talk to the guy and investigate.
You and Prince can second-guess them with your silly nit-picking till the cows come home, but I'm reasonably certain they did the right thing and there's a reasonably good possibility that they are all (including the subject of the investigation) alive today because of it.
What's amazing to me is not that you can make such vapid speculations based on his profession, which is something we've all done at one time or another, but that you and Prince expect police officers to stake their lives on them.
The SWAT team dropped in with the usual precautions, no shots were fired into the guy's home (indicating that SWAT teams are capable of a lot more self-restraint than Prince would like to give them credit for - - Prince seems to see a visit by the SWAT team as synonymous with calling down a napalm strike on the guy's home; maybe he's been watching too many late-night movies)
Now you're making up stuff and ascribing it to me. In other words, you're lying.
The most pertinent investigation they could undertake at that time AND be safe as well was to go see and talk to the man himself, in a way that doesn't leave them open to a hail of gunfire. Which they did.
They conducted some more investigation, and mirabile dictu, found that the guy was not a threat, gave back his guns etc. The risk to the public had been minimized. The risk to the very disgruntled employee had been minimized. The risk to the police themselves had been minimized. Nobody got hurt, even by accident and everybody was safe. Where do you see a problem?
<<Now you're making up stuff ["Prince seems to see a visit by the SWAT team as synonymous with calling down a napalm strike on the guy's home"] and ascribing it to me. In other words, you're lying.>>
Oh please. You're starting to sound like sirs. I am merely showing you the reductio ad absurdum of your fears. [...] I made up nothing and I understood perfectly.
Your problem is that you have absolutely no idea of what gave rise to the report of a very disgruntled individual - - what specific actions the guy took, what specific threats he may have made, what the officers knew of his character and past history, etc. - - and you're second-guessing experienced police officers whose lives were on the line as to what degree of threat they reasonably believed they were confronting. If they guessed wrong, their lives and not yours would have been toast. The citizens of their town and not yours would have been killed or injured. Given the stakes, if they erred on the side of caution, that is actually laudable.
Your views on SWAT teams are grounded in irrational hysterical fears based on isolated incidents and of no general application. [...] but you don't seem to realize how little of the relevant facts you actually know, because if you did, you couldn't possibly make such asinine judgments.
One of your problems, Prince, is that you can't recall the words of your own posts. Let me help you out here:
"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. ThThe 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.
I suppose this was a telepathic telephone conversation, a meeting of minds and exchange of thoughts without the crude resort to auditory signals relied upon by the rest of the human race. No, on second thought, I believe this was an actual TALKING kind of telephone conversation.
I don't accuse "those who privately own guns" as murderers and killing machines.
I still don't buy the idea that the guy didn't become a more efficient killing machine with his new acquisitions.
I suppose I should have inserted the word "potential" in there to indicate the guy was POTENTIALLY a more efficient killing machine, but I think most sane and normal people would have perceived the general intention of my remarks.
Because the military and police are legally allowed to purchase and carry pistols with high capacity magazines. Not to mention the automatic weapons they're also outfitted to carry
Can you provide a link that shows most police use magazines that are higher capacity than the public can buy? I know several policeman that use standard 9MM magazines.
Not to mention the automatic weapons they're also outfitted to carry
I am presuming we'll soon hear that the revolver is "just as fast" as a fully automatic too!
It is that some people looking to nit-pick when they run out of substantive arguments try to twist or misinterpret my words by reading more into them than was intended, and I then have to waste my time by adding unnecessary clarifications. It's a game I'm running out of patience for.
<<No. They did not. They did not talk to him.>>
One of your problems, Prince, is that you can't recall the words of your own posts. Let me help you out here:
"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. ThThe 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.
Try this: When charged with the safety of your community and after receiving the kind of reports the police did of a certain individual, try sending one of your brother or sister officers to walk, in full uniform or in plainclothes, up to the guy's front door one morning to ring his bell. Are you fucking nuts??? Or maybe try tipping him off with a friendly series of telephone inquiries before surrounding his home, and then try to catch up with him afterwards if you're not exactly reassured by the conversation. Try discretely following him around and if he suddenly starts firing at the passersby, try to stop him before he hits any . . . or any more.
That's their call and it's easy to see circumstances where it's riskier to check out the first reports than to assume the worst. Again, serve and protect.
<<There is a reason why one of the foundational principles of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty.>>
You are definitely a very confused little puppy. That's the foundational principle of one particular part of our justice system, the criminal courts. It is certainly NOT a foundational principle of good police work, which is a totally different part of our justice system.
<<What you said is certainly absurd, however it has nothing to do with what I actually said.>>
Prince, for once, just use your fucking brain. There is nobody in this group and probably no sane person in the world, who would believe that the calling in of a SWAT team is the literal equivalent of calling down a napalm strike.
That was a rhetorical exaggeration of what you said, meant as such, perceived by any reasonable reader as such, the precise designation for which is a reductio ad absurdum. If you want to persist in calling it a lie, that is your call, just as it's my call to decide if I want to continue "debating" with such a fucking idiot.
<<What do you know of my views on SWAT teams? Have you asked me? Or have you taken a handful (at best) of statements about the use of a SWAT team in one situation then leaped to an irrational, illogical and nonfactual assumption about what my views on SWAT teams are? Let's see... no, you certainly did not ask me. Hm.>>
Very simply, I saw the way that you (over)reacted to the calling in of the SWAT team and I came to the obvious conclusion.
<<Michael, you and I both know the SWAT team was used as a threat of force.>>
It was used to PREVENT an outbreak of violence, part of which prevention certainly involves making the individual they were protecting the community (and themselves) against aware of the existence of a lethal counter-force to any violence that he MIGHT be contemplating himself, and yes, Prince, that is a threat of force. Comes in handy, sometimes, the threat of force. That's why we have armed our police. It's hard to see where threat of force leaves off and self-defence comes in, but the general perception seems to be that an armed police force will reduce the general level of violence. Of course, in any community foolish enough to put YOU in charge of their police services, you could persuade the force to give up its guns and thereby eliminate one "threat of force" from your unfortunate community's streets.
I don't accuse "those who privately own guns" as murderers and killing machines.
You are wrong and that is the end of it.
I'll put it in a non-omniscient form: I think you're wrong but it isn't worth another minute of my time even if you're right. This is one of the most insignificant topics for a debate that I can imagine.
...an armed police force will reduce the general level of violence.
It was clearly not a conversation that you know anything about. You don't know how long it was, you don't know what was discussed, you don't know how many cops were listening in to the original or a playback, you don't know what discussions later followed between the officers regarding the conversation and what could be gleaned from it. So please don't hand me this bullshit about what kind of conversation it clearly was not. You don't know the first thing about it.
| "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." |
Look, Mr. Moving-the-Goalposts, the first person to mention having a conversation was YOU. You first tried to convince me, despite what you yourself had posted, that they had never even TALKED to the guy. It was only when that nonsense was exploded, that you began whining that they never had a conversation with the guy, when actually you don't know anything about what they talked about on the phone.
Well, congratulations, Prince, I think you've discovered the rationale behind the modern police force , and probably while still in the prime of your life. Why that's amazing. Yes, Prince, the police, among their other functions, are the enforcement arm of the state, any state. Very good. They are there to keep the peace, and they try to do it with calming words, suggestions diplomatically phrased ("Sir, I need for you to keep your hands where I can see them . . .") but backed nevertheless by the threat of violence. That is just what policing is - - it is not a symposium for the discussion of the conduct of the ideal citizen in an ideal society. The degree of the police threat is more or less at the discretion of the officer, depending on the perceived degree of the citizen threat. While they always keep their weapons holstered when dealing with a friendly, polite guy such as myself, I'm usually sufficiently aware of their potential for violence that, for example, I don't drive off at high speed when one of them says he wants to talk to me about something after a roadside stop. When they're dealing with a "very disgruntled" individual just put on admin leave, who owns a sizeable and very recently augmented little arsenal of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, shotgun and semi-auto-rifle, I think it's only prudent for them to have a little more firepower out, in view of some of the mishaps that have occurred when very similar aberrant behaviour was reported but treated somewhat more casually by the authorities.
They probably felt that they had done all the background investigation they needed to do or had the time to do when they showed up at his house.
At that point the investigation proceeded in a way that THEY felt would best assure the safety of all concerned, not the way that Prince felt would best assure the safety of all concerned. But as you can see, the investigation DID continue. They talked to the guy, they had him examined by a shrink and when the threat was fully and finally assessed, they sent the guy on his way. No harm, no foul.
I didn't forget anything, but there's a hierarchy here - - life and limb of the citizens over Second Amendment rights of gun nuts.
Use a LITTLE common sense, or try to.
In the case of a crime about to go down
The notion of innocent until proven guilty is NOT the reason for investigations or warrants, obviously, since warrants and investigations are used on the guilty and the innocent alike.
Strawman my ass. You seized on my rhetorical remarks about your beliefs supposedly equating SWAT teams with napalm and tried to portray me as seriously misrepresentating your views, lying about them in fact. Now the best evidence against your absurd accusation suddenly is a strawman. Right.
My statement that you equated SWAT teams with a napalm strike was an obvious rhetorical exaggeration or reductio ad absurdum. If you're too fucking stupid or obstinate to understand that, it is not my problem,
You are wrong and that is the end of it.
<<Heh. I know what the man said about it.>>
Bullshit. What you know is how the man summarized it.
It's pretty obvious from your blather about being innocent until proven guilty that you are confusing the functions of police (investigate, keep the peace) with the functions of the criminal courts.
Well, notwithstanding your little snit over the sheer silliness of your argument being exposed,
<<The did not, as your version of events implies, show up and talk to the man about his state of mind and then politely escort him to a mental evaluation. >>
More or less yes, that's what they did.
What's laughable is your idea of the police having to exhaust every possibility, seek out every fact and prepare a virtual brief for the DA before they can conclude that there's enough of a danger here to take preventative action under the law.
Don't hold your breath, it won't be as absurd as your above response to my point that you don't know the whole conversation, but only one participant's summary of it.
<<'cause the police just treat everyone as guilty of criminal behavior and just arrest people as they feel like it, and let the courts decide later whether someone is innocent or not. Oh wait... no, they don't.>>
Gee, now YOU are lying about what I said. Oh, no, that can't be right. YOU don't lie. You must be engaging in the well-known rhetorical device of the reductio ad absurdum.
Well, guess what, Prince? sirs is right - - I don't have to choose between getting down to your level or absorbing your insult any more than I had to make that choice with sirs.