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

[Amianthus]

More info from another source:

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.

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.

Article

From a number of other articles I read about this case, apparently he had a disagreement with his boss (which was being handled through his union) and his boss later called the police.

[Michael Tee]

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.

Anyone put on admin leave, whether working from home or not, has suffered a set-back in his career and is not going to treat it as a compliment.  You'd have to be really naive to think that there's little to no chance of the guy being majorly put off by this.

[Amianthus]

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.

Having worked for the type before, I bet it was a fairly mild disagreement. I had a boss who tried to blackball me with many of the local businesses after he fired me for basically saying "I told you so" in front of other employees when he tried to blame a problem on me. He had countermanded my recommendation and it caused problems, but didn't like it when I pointed out that I said his decision would cause problems at the time he countermanded me.

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.

He bought two semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. His previous purchases were a revolver and a shotgun. Pretty much normal firearms that most people have around the house. Fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers require special permits in the US.

[Michael Tee]

<<Having worked for the type before, I bet it was a fairly mild disagreement. I had a boss who tried to blackball me with many of the local businesses after he fired me for basically saying "I told you so" in front of other employees when he tried to blame a problem on me. He had countermanded my recommendation and it caused problems, but didn't like it when I pointed out that I said his decision would cause problems at the time he countermanded me.>>

Did I get that right?  Because YOU once worked for an ass-hole, this guy must also be working for an ass-hole?  Now THAT'S what I call working-class solidarity.  Right on, Ami!  Eat the bosses!

<<He bought two semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. His previous purchases were a revolver and a shotgun. Pretty much normal firearms that most people have around the house.>>

Sounds to me like a definite upgrade in firepower.  From single pulls to semi-automatic.  Uh-oh.

[Amianthus]

Sounds to me like a definite upgrade in firepower.  From single pulls to semi-automatic.  Uh-oh.

"single pulls" - one shot per trigger pull
"semi-automatic" - one shot per trigger pull

Didn't you say you were familiar with firearms?

[sirs]

It would appear, not

[Michael Tee]

<<Didn't you say you were familiar with firearms?>>

Never claimed to be familiar with semi-automatic, but I did know enough not to have made the error that I did.  I knew that you had to pull the trigger for each shot fired with a semi-automatic.  

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.

[Plane]

Studys reveil that 95% of serious crimes are comitted by persons who wear shoes while they comitt the crime.

Shoes facilitate transport to the crime sciene , escape from the crime and sometimes increase the power of kicks (kicks being a common feature of crimes).

By confiscation of ther shoes, Persons with a high probability of crime comission would become much less dangerous.

For example, anyone who has a disagreement with his boss....
                                                                                 wife...
                                                                              neighbor...


Heck anyone who ever has a disagreement with anyone should be barefoot !

[Amianthus]

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.

Err, what century old shotgun are you familiar with?

http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_autoshotguns.htm

He had the Remington.

[Michael Tee]

Russian "Bear" brand double-barreled.  Never fired one, but I've taken one apart and put it together a few times.  You "break" the gun and manually insert a shell into each barrel.  And a Spanish Llama .38 calibre revolver, six shots IIRC.  The only firearms I've actually fired are only .22 calibre rifles, which is what my dad taught me to shoot with.  I don't believe I ever claimed any great familiarity with firearms.  My dad was a shooter and a gun owner, but I've never owned a gun in my life.  What I inherited, I sold.

[Amianthus]

I don't believe I ever claimed any great familiarity with firearms.

You sure seem to make claims that imply you are an expert (even though most of your claims are easily proven false).

[Amianthus]

You "break" the gun and manually insert a shell into each barrel.

Over/under or side by side? I don't think I've ever seen one of those (the "bear" model, I've seen lots of old shotguns).

I'm looking for a nice over/under, but mostly for display purposes.

[Universe Prince]

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.

I would hope most people know that 'disgruntled' does not mean 'inclined to murder'. 'Disgruntled' basically means dissatisfied and/or discontented. Were I a betting man, I'd bet the vast majority of people who own firearms still manage to not pull out their weapons to try to kill anyone on the occasions, which I would also bet most other people experience from time to time, when they feel dissatisfied and/or discontented.

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.

Not quite what I said. I am sure the hearsay was alarming. Yet clearly, no one making the decisions to send police to his house bothered to try to talk to the man or find out if he really was disgruntled. I am sure the police evaluated the hearsay in some fashion, but that fashion apparently did not include finding out what the man actually felt.

Ever hear the phrase, "better safe than sorry?"

Ever hear the phrase, "look before you leap"?

<<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.

Nonsense. Sort of like one should know if the WMD are really there before ending in the troops, one should find out if the man really is that angry before sending in the SWAT team. It's about knowing the actual nature of the situation, rather than running off half-cocked into a situation. I suppose next you're going to tell me shoot first and ask questions later is an appropriate attitude for law enforcement.

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.

So you ask around first. There is a reason it is called 'investigation' and not 'assumption'.

But I don't automatically condemn it without all the facts.

No, you just condemn the man the police went after.

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.

Heh. And you were trying to accuse me of being Pollyanna-ish?  You don't send the SWAT team unless you expect violence. Do you understand what a SWAT team is?

[Michael Tee]

<<You sure seem to make claims that imply you are an expert (even though most of your claims are easily proven false).>>

I do know a hell of lot about a lot of things, and I don't apologize for it either. 

I don't have any recollection of you proving any of my claims false.  You're full of shit and I do call you on it sometimes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get involved in another one of those endless  ad hominem shitstorms which you and a few others in this forum love to provoke.  I will be using my time more productively.  Go troll for your flame wars with some other sucker.

[Amianthus]

I don't have any recollection of you proving any of my claims false.

Well, there is the shotgun thing in this very thread. The guy can fire his shotgun just as fast as his rifle, yet you claim that his shotgun is somehow less threatening than his rifle. Ditto with the revolver - it fires just as fast as the .380 semi-automatic handgun he purchased, yet it's also supposed to be less threatening.

Goes all the way back to my debunking your claims that the RAF never made bombing runs during the day, long about 1995.