<<Did it never occur to you that the man may not have been disgruntled at all? Probably annoyed with being put on administrative leave and trying to look for work elsewhere in this economy, but very probably not disgruntled, angry, or harboring the slightest bit of murderous intent? Did that ever occur to you? Even fleetingly?>>
Yeah, it did, which is why I said that it would have been helpful to know what exactly the guy said or did
<<No, a person killed him. Your attempt to connect the action of one person with a firearm to all individuals who privately own firearms is indeed silly, fear-mongering nonsense.>>
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.
<<[The cops] took a man into custody and forced him to submit to a mental evaluation, based on little more than hearsay. That isn't common sense, Michael. That's stupidity. They did not know what the situation actually was. They made assumptions and overreacted. Nothing about that reveals common sense. Just the opposite in fact.>>
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. It's possible they did overreact, it's possible they saved lives by acting as they did. Neither one of us knows what the officers were told, but the basic facts - - put on admin leave, disgruntled, recent firearms purchase - - certainly have the potential to put out some red flags. 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. I'm sure as hell not looking for any Darwin awards. As far as "doing a little investigation," they already did, and what THAT turned up was, "admin leave, disgruntled, recent firearms purchase." Maybe at that point - - and we don't know how much accompanying detail fleshed out that investigation - - the police officers felt they had enough to justify acting before further investigation. Their lives, their call. Within reason, of course.
<<They did not talk him into giving up his weapons. They talked him into exiting his house. The police entered his house without a warrant and confiscated the weapons without his consent.>>
Tough shit. No hurt no foul. A guy who is disgruntled AND goes out and buys firearms should expect some quick police response, depending on the degree of disgruntlement, which of course neither one of us knows. I'm sure there are laws permitting police to seize weapons without a warrant and even enter homes without a warrant when time constraints make it impractical to get one, in certain emergency situations. Depending on what the police heard, they may very well have legitimately invoked the emergency provisions. Sure it disturbs me that they entered the home without a warrant - - it remains to be seen if that was justified or not. But I don't automatically condemn it without all the facts.
<<No, it's still just you. To say the SWAT team was there ready to fire weapons is not nonsense or silly. That is what they were there for. The SWAT team wasn't there for tea and biscuits, Michael. They didn't stop by to watch while they knocked back a few beers. They were there for the use of violent force. That is what a SWAT team does, Michael.>>
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.