(image courtesy of Robb Allen)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.
You're kidding me.
Because he'd been fired from his job, they sent a SWAT team to his house to arrest him??? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? (I would like to take a moment to note that this did NOT happen in the Volksrepublik, BTW)
I hope he gets a lawyer, a good one, and sues everyone involved for as much as he possibly can. The last time I checked, we had laws against this sort of thing, you know, like that you have to actually be doing something wrong before you can be arrested?
Would they have sent a SWAT team if he'd bought a bunch of fertilizer? Diesel fuel? At what point does "might do something" turn into "send in the SWAT team"? I mean, I would understand putting him under surveillance - that would be smart and prudent - but just kicking his door in and hauling him off to jail? I hope he makes a fortune in the lawsuit.
I'm sorry, I had the mistaken notion that we lived in the United States of America...
That is all.
Link from FarmDad in Gunblogger conspiracy. Thanks for the spike in my blood pressure...
30 comments:
What is on my mind cannot be said in polite company.
Yeah, that's why this entry is as short as it is.
Otherwise I *would* be the canary...
You know, it is crap like this that precipitates the crap that they were afraid of happening...
As if I didn't have enough news articles to raise my BP today...thanks Jay 'preciate it bud.
Actually, it's worse than that, guys. He wasn't even fired, he'd been placed on leave. You know, where you may or may not be keeping your job?
What's unbelievable to me is that I've seen some gun owners defending this, saying that by acting to prevent an incident, the police have kept the antis from having another shooting to hold against us.
I'm gonna chime in as Devil's advocate....( don't hurt me :) )
I'm sure there is more to the story than just that article, did he threaten retaliation? Did he say he would come back? With the workplace shootings that have gone on at the hands of disgruntled employees, its a touchy situation. I think the timing of the whole situation is what prompted the response.
From the story:
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.
Again..i agree it is unconstitutional and the precedent being set is scary..BUT.. put yourself in this scenario.. mean angry co-worker, threatens fellow employees, they finally terminate him and he goes to buy all those weapons??
I remember the woburn shooting, as well as many others.
I think this is a damned if you do or damned if you don't situaiton with no winners.
All this is my humble opinion so don't ban me Jay!! hahahhahha
PISSED, that's why I advocated putting him under surveillance.
Sure, keep an eye on him. That's still within the realm of the constitution. Barely.
But to arrest him *JUST* because he was put on leave (not fired) and bought a couple new guns? That's nuts.
Sure, they might have stopped a mass shooting (And I think you mean Wakefield, the Edgewater Technologies shooting by Michael "Mucko" McDermott).
Or they just ruined a guy's life over some recreational target shooting...
They took the easy way out. Unfortunately, it ran roughshod over someone's rights.
Pissed,
I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.
very disgruntled does not equal mean angry co-worker
Making threats is against the law, if he had made threats, why didn't they report that to the police?
This is outrageous and very scary.
Discussed this with a younger (mid 30s) co-worker and he was approving of it!!!!
We have people out there that think it is okay to deprive a person of their rights for being gruntled. Incredible
Oh, and one last thing:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
That's one of my very favorite sayings.
Jay.. i agree.. I think the pendulum is swinging the other way and law enforcement as well as fellow employees are jumpy.
Its a slippery slope either way, they let the guy have his rights and he goes to the office and kills innocents OR they take him in for a crime he didnt commit.
I doubt they have the resources to watch every disgruntled employee that is let go.
THERE is no positive outcome to either scenario that could have played out.
I can see the fallout... someone gets laid off or is pissed at work and gets terminated and someone makes a call and next thing you know you're arrested and your arms are confiscated with no due process.
Lose -Lose all the way around.
and yes.. it was Wakefield, sorry.
Minority Report. Dumb movie, but scary ideas.
Hi Bob S.
I think there is more to the story than what we are being told. I think as time goes by more info might come out. Either way they saved some lives OR this guy will BE VERY RICH ..with the right lawyer.
:)
Its a slippery slope either way, they let the guy have his rights and he goes to the office and kills innocents OR they take him in for a crime he didnt commit.
The slippery slope only goes one way. Liberty is inherently risky, but I'd rather they let the guy go and he ends up shooting up his office than have the .Gov arresting people for non-crimes.
Jay I cant agree with you that survalling him is reasonable with the known facts . Now if they want to post an officer or two to guard his workplace , that is reasonable, and does not unduely trample on his right to be free of government preemption as surveillance would .
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But upon probable cause… this could be the defining 4 words.
There must and probably is more to the story than what we are told. I don’t believe or want to believe that this was done without a lot of forethought by the authorities.
From the article:
The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.
However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.
It looks like they were watching him for a few days.
The last line:
but no criminal charges have been filed.
Mike W. with all due respect.. I think you would feel differently if it was your Father/Mother/Brother/Sister/Wife/Offspring that was on the receiving end of a disgruntled employee that was at least not checked into, with regards to the story we are commenting on.
Sadly, you aren't mistaken. This is what America is. It's also why I'm in law school now and not back in the Corps. Duty is a bitch. Keep up the good work.
PISSED - Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a blatant violation of his rights.
Some folks are OK with the trampling of individual rights because of what someone *might* do. I am not, and I will not ever support the wholesale violation of rights because of what *might* happen. That's something anti-gunners do.
Why would they have "concerns about him" and describe him as "very disgruntled" if he wasn't making threats? The story is kind of vague and I'm sure there is more to it.
FarmDad,
Poor choice of words on my part. What you're suggesting is exactly what I meant.
As for "disgruntled" and "threats", well, it's the news, and they're reporting on gunowners. Facts are few and far between.
HOWEVER...
If he had made a specific threat: i.e. "I am going to go get a gun and come back here and shoot the place up", wouldn't they have had a charge to hang on him?
I have a feeling if there were something concrete they could have used against him it would have been used. I'm also certain there's a lot more to the story than we've been told...
Pissed,
Read the article again - they weren't watching him for a couple of days
Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.
Then later in the article
Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.
Now, what could they have possibly seen in that time frame to make them think he was a danger to himself or others.
What was the probably cause?
Was a warrant obtained?
The article didn't mention one at all.
There is a major difference between checking someone out for danger and taking someone into protective custody.
And protective custody was probably only used because he surrendered himself the armed people outside his house.
This is also what confuses me. YOu have someone that the agency and police are worried about so the bright idea is to confront him at his home with a SWAT Team.
Gee talk about upping the stress. level!!!!
Bob S.
I took this statement as to the assumption they were keeping an eye on him:
"We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.
In two days, ( 2 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.
Pissed,
That information could be obtained prior to surveillance or after due to Oregon's system of background check.
While the article doesn't say how long the entire process took - from time of leave/reporting of concern to surveillance -- but the actual surveillance was 6 hours before they took action.
What probable cause do you think they developed in 6 hours?
If they had probable cause, why didn't they act immediately?
The man did nothing illegal that has been report. Not a report of a threat, not a report of a plan, nothing reported, right?
Pissed,
What you're also leaving out here is that the H&K .45 was a DUPLICATE of one the man already had! He already had a pistol, he already had a shotgun, he already had the weapons that he would need if he was just going to go in a shooting rage. No one buys weapons they already have just to go on a rampage, they use what they have. If these were the first gun purchases the man had made, you might have some kind of point.
Frankly, I've been let go of jobs before where someone could have been afraid of me coming back and going on a rampage, simply because they didn't know me. I've always had the attitude that there's always another job, and that God will provide. But for someone who doesn't know me well, assumptions could be made about what I MIGHT do. One of the last places I worked, a fellow was let go and the manager who fired him got fearful because he said "Thanks" and walked out laughing. I'm sure they did the same thing after me, because they were just fearful people.
One person's fears of what you MIGHT do should NEVER be a reason to rescind your Constitutional rights. Some people are afraid of anyone who carries a gun and isn't a police officer. To those people, ALL law-abiding CCW holders should be locked up. What next, lock up men because they have a penis and might rape someone? Or lock up someone because they just LOOK scary? JayG's met me, he can tell you that I look kind of scary myself, and yet I'm a nice guy for the most part.
Your logic has flaws.
A possible reason for the 3am - 5am delay is that they called in Roseburg SWAT as well - which is an hour and a half away.
III
Geez, you can't even get SWAT to respond when a guy on an airplane lights his underwear on fire...
"The last time I checked, we had laws against this sort of thing, you know, like that you have to actually be doing something wrong before you can be arrested?"
Nope. Just having large amounts of cash on hand is evidence that you're in the drug trade in today's America. They might not arrest you but they'll charge the money with a criminal offense and take it.
You know things are off the freaking chain when you see a court document detailing the case of "United States vs. $100,000 United States Dollars." I might be wrong on the dollar amount, or the exact wording, but it's out there and it's recent.
However, odds are there's something we don't know about this situation. I think it was SayUncle that said maybe the wife called it in. If true that would appease me.
Hey, CavArms had a lot of community support until the owner's action came to light. Turns out the dude was in the wrong. Not morally, in my opinion, but legally. We never know all the details when LE swoops in on somebody.
If we find out they didn't have a good reason in this case, well, cry havoc and work to fix it. I suspect there will be a valid reason though.
Until more evidence comes in to support the behavior, I have to go with what is reported. "very disgruntled" is subjective. And once you say "I know it's unconstitutional", we are done discussing. As soon as you give THEM rationalization for their behavior, you and I are done. Well I know what they did was illegal but they had good intentions. Screw good intentions. If they were alerted to a possibility something was up, they had time to stop it should ANYTHING have given them a reason to believe that he was going to do something. Like, him packing all his firearms in his vehicle and driving over to his workplace. That would have been probably cause to maybe do a Terry stop and see what is what. Otherwise, don't evacuate his neighborhood and call him out in the morning before everyone gets up because you are a touched "concerned" Aight? They have done this man serious damage in his community. Everyone will just KNOW he was going to do something. You said it yourself. There MUST be more to this.. and that is what his community is going to think. Something more better come out or he's going to be a rich man on the taxpayer's dime.
e don't know enough to make a decision about this. Clearly there is much that isn't being reported by the paper and by the sources, particularly the employer.
I hate to suggest it, but given the fact that something that sounded like "workplace killer" was reported to them, whatever happened was bad enough that the STATE DOT put him "on leave", and they knew he'd just bought three guns in two days, maybe the police are actually exercising some restraint and sensitivity?
Maybe what he said IS enough to charge him, but the police are being careful not to in case they can be convinced he wasn't serious?
In terms of personal difficulty, I would WAY rather have what happened to this man happen to me than be charged with a felony and taken to jail.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as second amendment as anybody and we ought to be VERY VIGILANT about this. But it's a little early for a decision yet.
Y'all are overlooking the fact that any co-workers and/or managers who felt threatened should be perfectly free to carry their own defensive arms. If the police averted a bloodbath then it was only one that would have been enabled by victim-disarmament laws or company policies. The solution, as always, is to stop infringing on any person's basic rights.
http://www.ktvl.com/articles/police-1194262-local-guns.html
They gave them back. he's considering next steps.
Post a Comment