"Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."

[Universe Prince]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-policing/singlepage

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."

Consider that for a moment. Even if we accept that the police version is true, they "proactively" arrested a man, confiscated his legally owned property, and forced him to submit to a mental health evaluation even though he had not committed a crime, and beyond a notion that he was "very disgruntled" there was no evidence he was planning to commit a crime. And the police were pleased with themselves for having done a good job. Do you think they did a good job? Did they do the right thing?

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."

And yet people wonder why I say while I respect law enforcement I do not trust law enforcement. The reasons seem pretty obvious to me.

[sirs]

Can you say Minority Report? 

[Plane]

I know someone who has had this experience.


For him the cause was an ex-wife who exaggerated a bit when she told the police about his Marijuana and arsenal.

The police had to take her story seriously , so pretty soon he is sitting on his own lawn while dozens of police search his house.

What an experience!

But as far as I know , there was no penalty for the ex.

[Universe Prince]

Can you say Minority Report? 

Well, in this case there were not even any psychics or precogs involved. Just police who were more focused on catching bad guys than they were on protecting individual rights.

[Michael Tee]

<<Consider that for a moment. Even if we accept that the police version is true, they "proactively" arrested a man, confiscated his legally owned property, and forced him to submit to a mental health evaluation even though he had not committed a crime, and beyond a notion that he was "very disgruntled" there was no evidence he was planning to commit a crime. And the police were pleased with themselves for having done a good job. Do you think they did a good job? Did they do the right thing?>>

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?  

What's REALLY troubling to me is that this unfortunate man was ALLOWED to purchase "several firearms" in the first place, and that the cops actually returned the guy's weapons to him later.  Let's just hope and pray this was the last we hear of  him, his disgruntlement and his "several firearms."  I'd say the odds are about 50/50.

BTW, nice reporting bias there.  If instead of "very disgruntled," we'd heard exactly what the guy really said or did to express his disgruntlement, a lot of people might have a different view of the whole affair.  Similarly a more detailed description of the "several firearms" could have had a similar effect.

There's also something disturbing about him being "in a place like this, where everyone owns a gun."  No problem per se, and depending on location, I can see the need for a gun, but any way you look at it, it's not good - - were these the first guns the guy had bought in 39 years?  If he was already a gun-owner, when were the last purchases before these "recent" purchases made, and was there any difference between what he already had and what he was buying?  Were the most recent purchases the first fully-automatic weapons in his little arsenal, for example?

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?

[Amianthus]

What the hell reason does a "very disgruntled" individual suddenly decide to buy "several firearms" for?  

Sale?

[Universe Prince]

It is troubling whenever someone is arrested when no crime has yet been committed.  And yet . . .

I should have known you'd find find a way to justify it.

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?

Fun? Profit? Maybe someone made him a good deal on firearms he wanted to purchase. The way you jump to assume he must have had ill intentions because firearms were involved is at once humorously predictable, and quite sad.

Also, I have no problem with the SWAT team approach either.

Of course you don't. Police operating on rumor and without a warrant, ready to fire bullets into a man's home despite the fact that the man had had not committed a crime nor given actual indication of planning one, I have no doubt that seems perfectly reasonable to you.

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?

Also predictable, the scare quotes and the attempt to link murder and gun owners. You promote silly yet fear-mongering nonsense.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Amianthus]

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?

Administrative leave is not "laid off" and there is no indication that the firearms were purchased AFTER he was placed on leave - the way the article is written, he could have purchased them before he went on leave. And there is still no indication how they knew he was "disgruntled". Obviously, if it was egregious statements, those statements would have been published by now?

[Christians4LessGvt]

i've always found it puzzling when you terminate
a contractor that is not making any money a few of them get furious

why would you be super pissed getting terminated  from a place where you aren't making any money?

wouldn't that be a blessing?

i try to treat them very respectfully......tell them they will be much better
off because obviously this is not their "niche"
and that they are going to excel doing something else.

usually it's guys that dont show up for work...get customer complaints...
are always complaining...DUH.....of course they dont make any money!

but then they're pissed when you terminate....
if it's so bad...not making any money...then why are you pissed?

never had to use it...but i got my "insurance" under my desk.

[Michael Tee]

<<The subject had recently been placed on administrative leave from his job, was "very disgruntled," and had recently purchased several firearms.>>

I took that as a chronological narrative of the guy's life, as I think most people would.  Most narratives ARE sequenced chronologically.  If there had been any reason to narrate the story out of chronological sequence, I think the writer would have been obliged to explain for his or her readers that the guns were purchased before the guy was laid off.

Incidentally, the incredibly petty nit-picking between "laid off" and "administrative leave" is just another illustration of time-wasting bullshit in here.  If I were to correct every error of terminology that I found in this NG, I'd have nothing else to do all day long.  Either being laid off or being put on administrative leave would be likely to piss the guy off and explain the nature of the "threat" as perceived by law enforcement.  For the purposes of the argument it makes no God-damn difference whatsoever what employment-related problem pissed the guy off, the point is that he was pissed off at his employers and bought guns.

I also had complained about the lack of information in the article, and had made the same point that Ami did, that knowing how he had manifested his pissed-off state would be an important factor in assessing how much of a threat he really presented, but in the absence of further information, I have to assume that the cops are rational and the guy DID say something to indicate that he was more than disappointed with the situation at work.

As for CU4's observation that he can't understand why bad workers get pissed off at being laid off or facing other forms of work-place discipline or penalties, the guys get pissed off because they are NOT rational, not functioning with a full deck any more than a serial killer is, so that was a partial explanation for the police department's concern.

[Amianthus]

Incidentally, the incredibly petty nit-picking between "laid off" and "administrative leave" is just another illustration of time-wasting bullshit in here.

Not nit picky for those who earn a living rather being self employed or live on trust funds.

Laid off - no more pay
Administrative leave - continue to be paid

I'd prefer the latter any day.

[Michael Tee]

<<I'd prefer the latter any day.>>

That's not the point.  The point is that the guy was pissed off over a problem with his job and he bought guns.  WHAT in particular pissed him off is immaterial.  Either one of them is a slap in the face which any worker would resent and the weekly paycheque is just a sop to the guy's pride, which in this case was apparently not very effective.

[Universe Prince]

Prince, your detachment from reality is absolutely mind-boggling.

I refer you to the signature below this post.

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?

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?

<<You promote silly yet fear-mongering nonsense.>>

Yep, that's what killed that OPP constable last month, silly fear-mongering nonsense.

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.

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.

They 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.

Good thing nobody put you in charge of the station house - - "Hey, cool, call us again if he shoots anyone.  Thanks for calling."

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?

Nobody was hurt when the SWAT team surrounded the guy's house and talked him into giving up his weapons.

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.

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.

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.