I’m not necessarily disputing the right or wrong of THIS action, but some of what you’ve written is really not true. Castle Rock v Gonzales showed that the police can not be held accountable for failing to protect people (the element of the case would be your hypothetical of “going postal”). And that was likely a stronger case because the plaintiff had what the courts deemed to be a prior active relationship with the police. Scalia found that there was no individual entitlement despite a restraining order taken out by the victim.
It’s a little different fro the entitlement issue, but there are other precedents on that issue. Your department or local jurisdictional issues might be different.
But again, you can not arrest people for. What ifs. That has been a strong tenet of our laws for a while now.
Noops, ive been gone a couple of years but I seem to remember "Whitecastle being out of Washington state. Im not sure what it says. There are many ways to take someone off the streets.
ORS is clear on taking someone who is a danger to themselves or others off the street, out of their homes and detaining them for a mental or medical review. Most writs are reviewed and signed by a judge kinda like a search warrant.
However if it a chance encounter on the street and it’s obvious someone is in jeprody they go no questions asked.
In fact it’s also possible in Oregon for a thing called a “Two Doctor Hold”. It simply means that two doctors can sign documentation if based on the facts presented they believe a person is a danger to themselves or others.
It’s legal its real and it’s done often in Oregon.
If you really need the ORS sections I can call myold partners and hve them provide them. Won’t be till tomorrow, theres a sniper show on im watching.
It’s all fun & games until YOU’RE the “pain in the ass” whose “difficult”. When an organization/system turn on you for legitimate gripes, take comfort in the fact that you “brought it all on yourself.”
I guess MG Anthony Taguba “brought it all on himself” with his report.
takes an act of god to get most SWAT teams mobilized
Apparently not. In this case all it required was some accusations & assumptions.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions.
Yeah, all those poor officers on the unemployment line or wasting away in prison for failing to stop crimes. :rolleyes:
This wasnt just him having a bad day at work, police getting called, guns being taken.
He has a government job, not some job where if he mouthed off to his boss he would be instantly fired. There are so many steps involved, and many people in different departments involved with disciplinary actions at a government job it isnt funny. For it to get to the point where they are sending him to be mentally evaluated, this has gone on for a long time.
Just be cause he wasnt charged with threatening people doesnt mean he wasnt. It isnt that difficult to hint or to do things that are threatening and it not be enough to be arrested. Im sure there was enough evidence in his personnel file and on his computer that made the police believe what his employer was saying. I really doubt it was just a random thought by the police to check if he was buying guns.
Like I said the guy brought this on himself. Maybe next time he wouldnt act crazy when the police escort him out of his next job.
AlohaChris, sounds like you didn’t get your hug today. I’d be the first to say our system sucks. What do you think happens in say the USSR Or Africa or South america or S/E asia.
No hearing, no rights, no courts, no civil remedy. WE as citizens are blessed to be in a country as great as the United States. It ain’t perfect but its home.
Anybody notice the part of the story where Pyles says he does not have an attorney at this time?
Common sense time:
Pyles has been the subject of a lot of media attention
If Pyles is stable, there is likely a pay day in this if the cards are played correctly by even semi qualified counsel
ODOT is releasing enough information to give a flavor of what they have, but more than likely have additional fodder in the event of a trial
Now… why is it Pyles doesn’t have an attorney at this time? It is a contingent fee case. Maybe he has them 10 deep to pick from and he is going through a selection process. Then again… maybe not.
I already addressed that. The answer is “nothing” if you’re talking about repercussions for you or your employer.
In law enforcement we are held accountable for our actions and our in-actions. I can’t speak for the rest of the police on here but based on what is written, I believe the right choice was made.
Really? Who holds you accountable for inactions, and how? What if any consequence actually happens to you other than the usual whiners writing letters to the newspaper? Maybe you get a mean memo in your personnel file about doing things differently in the future - which I’ll go out on a limb and say is better than months or years of litigation because you went overboard and ruined somebody’s life and career by arresting him with a SWAT team in front of all his neighbors and a slew of reporters. The people harmed by a psycho who goes “postal” have no chance if they sue you or your department, for many reasons (such as sovereign immunity, intervening criminal act, lack of proximate cause, etc.).
There seems to be an attitude amongst some in law enforcement that the “safer” route is to act, to take somebody into custody, to deprive somebody of their liberty or property, so that they can say they “did something.” The problem is that this isn’t the safer route, it’s the route that’s more likely to result in a meritorious lawsuit.
The citizen has a built in remedy called civil court.
Exactly - in the scenario where you DO take action in a questionable situation, you expose yourself to liability. If you leave the guy alone, you don’t get sued (or at least you don’t get a lawsuit that has any real merit).
Good morning Mr. Brown. I provided the Statute section regarding the “HOW, WHY”. for Oregons police mental hold. I don’t write the rules. It’s clear to me that no answer will fit your need, except your own.
I get it, your pissed because your ex had a restraining order placed on you and those fucking police followed the law written by your elected officials and siezed your guns.
I’m not disputing the “mental hold” legality, although I certainly question its morality as it’s too open to interpretation. What Castle Rock basically held is what others have described:
The liability was created through positive action. No liability would have attached to the police had they “failed to protect” someone.
So you can argue that liability attached though that, but it’s basically not legally enforceable. The DOT, police, whoever created the liability. And in this case, it seems not unlikely that there will be an enforceable liability, but who knows.
As for mental hold, I know it’s legal, although somewhat untested. But it seems to me like an end run on the Fifth Amendment. And this is the perfect test case for that.
Yes, I saw that a long time ago. Pointing to a statute that allows you to do something does not answer my questions, however. The question is - what would be the consequences to you or your agency if you did not take somebody like this guy in Oregon into custody, and then he did something bad?
That is the question. Not “what statute do I put on my report to explain why I took him into custody.”
You have claimed that you would be held accountable if you failed to act in a situation such as this, and then the subject went on to commit some criminal act. Tell me how you would be held accountable and what negative consequences would befall you.
It’s clear to me that no answer will fit your need, except your own.
It’s clear to me that you are frustrated because you don’t have any answer, other than making false and defamatory statements about me like the one below.
I get it, your pissed because your ex had a restraining order placed on you and those fucking police followed the law written by your elected officials and siezed your guns.
Never had that happen to me, but thanks for your profanity-laden, libelous strawman accusation.
Mr. Brown I must be confusing you with another M4 member whom I exchanged posts with earlier in this exchange.
I apologize sir. I was not trying to be mean spirited regarding a Restraining Order. I thought it was you I had exchanged posts. During that first exchange I stated I understood the frustration level, and have EX police officer friends who fell victim to those same laws thus costing them their jobs. Again my apology to you sir.
How about this scene.
I let a drunk driver go on a traffic stop and he crashs and kills or badly injures someone, you don’t think Im fucked. Get real man. OR I have information that a bank robbery is going to happen at a specific bank at a specific time and I blow it off, The bank gets robbed, you don’t think there’s not going to be accountabilty on my part.
I would hope these small examples will help you understand how it really works.
Those are egregious examples that are not “close calls.” I would think you’d be disciplined or fired, but who can sue you?
So again, in exactly what sense are you “fucked” if you fail to act in a situation where you are making a judgment call, a discretionary decision, as a government agent? The only people who can second guess you are your supervisors and their options are limited.
Why does every “consequence” have to be criminal/civil for it to be a consequence?
Inaction can do a lot of things. First, public perception is a huge deal to police departments. If the public hates you, funding gets stripped, people get fired, and everyone suffers. Everyone.
Let’s face it. MOST people who have read this story, who do not give a rip about guns, who don’t know the legal aspects, who don’t care one way or another, and who don’t KNOW better, THINK the police in this matter did the right thing. By that logic, the police did exactly what the majority of the public thought was the right thing to do.
Oregon is a gun loving state. But… The problem with our skewed and biased perception on this board, as well as many others that match our interests, is that we only see one side. I’m sure there are MANY more boards/blogs who are looking at the same situation and saying “Good job! That bastard could have, and probably would have, killed a bunch of people.”
Again, public perception is everything.
We need not get our panties in a wad. Dirk, I appreciate your candor and agree with you, in principle.
Everyone screaming “Conspiracy!”… It just makes us sound like nutjobs. Have you noticed the more “level-headed” of our SMEs, Mods, regulars stay OUT of this sort of thread? This may be flame bait, and I don’t give a shit.
The tin-foil hat, they’re-gonna-take-our-guns-rights-women-and-kids mentality just makes us look childish, and spreads the classic “crazy asshole with a gun” stereotype.
I read a great quote the other day on LF.net that went something like this:
“If you’re sick and tired of the way things are going, and you just can’t take it anymore, grab your guns, run out into the street, and join the fray. If you’re the only one out there screaming with a gun in your hand, go back inside. It is not yet time.”
That’s what it comes down to. If these sorts of things ruffle your feathers, write your congressmen. Write the Oregon State Board of of Police. Whatever. But coming to an internet message board and ranting and raving solves nothing, and makes us look slightly stupid.
So in other words, you’re saying that the decision-making process for a LEO or LE agency in situations like this should be governed by the whims and soundbite opinions of people who are ignorant about the law and the subject matter? That is a truly frightening standard. “Well, we decided to do this because we figured it’s what the fast-food eating morons out there would want, and they’d be mad if we didn’t.” Way to have a backbone.
Again, public perception is everything.
Public perception is 0% of the equation in terms of whether you should deprive a person of his liberty and/or property. Lets turn that around for a moment. What if an enormously popular figure is accused of a horrible crime, and arresting him would result in unrest, protests, and people being pissed at your agency for a long time? Do you just let that person slide because of public opinion?
Everyone screaming “Conspiracy!”… It just makes us sound like nutjobs.
…
The tin-foil hat, they’re-gonna-take-our-guns-rights-women-and-kids mentality just makes us look childish, and spreads the classic “crazy asshole with a gun” stereotype.
Classically weak argument - paint the people with whom you disagree as tin-foil hat-wearing nutjobs.
I have news for you - not everyone who sees this differently than you is a nutjob.
Who is screaming about a “conspiracy?” I don’t think anybody is saying that there was some sinister plot hatched by ODOT and the police to screw this guy over. The facts and conduct of the police standing alone are problematic - no conspiracy needed. My main concern is this idea that LE will somehow be “held accountable” if they make a discretionary decision to not act in a situation like this - when in fact that just isn’t what the law says.
In a world more perfect than the one we live in, it would not be the case. But let’s look at the facts. Sheriff’s and Chiefs are elected/appointed officials. There is a chess game being played on all cases. Some are cut and dry A+B=C cases, and those are the easy ones. This case doesn’t SEEM easy. Someone calls and reports the dude is acting crazy (I understand “crazy” is subjective). The police witness the man acting irrational (Again, subjective… read my first post) The cops go back to the station. They say “Boss, the dude was acting a little nuts. Just thought I’d pass it up.” A few days later, the SAME department starts getting calls from a few gun stores asking for background checks (I have no idea if this is how it works… I THINK, in Washington, when with transfer is filled out, the investigating agency also notifies your local LEO, but I’m not 100% sure) on this SAME GUY. What would YOU do?
Public perception is 0% of the equation in terms of whether you should deprive a person of his liberty and/or property. Lets turn that around for a moment. What if an enormously popular figure is accused of a horrible crime, and arresting him would result in unrest, protests, and people being pissed at your agency for a long time? Do you just let that person slide because of public opinion?
I honestly don’t know how to answer this one, because I don’t know. I can’t think of an instance where it has happened. I still stand by my statement. Again, read my earlier post. There are only 2 options the police had, with three different consequences; A) Do nothing B)Psych Hold/Arrest/Seizure of weapons.
If they do nothing, and the dude does nothing, problem solved. Non- issue. If they do nothing and the guy goes and kills 10 people, and it gets out the cops knew… can you imagine the shitstorm? THEN we get BAD reform. Then it becomes law. I can call the cops and say “You know, my neighbor talks to his dog. I think he’s crazy. He has guns.” The U.K lost their gun rights because of ONE school massacre. The PUBLIC made that decision. See where I’m going with this?
The third consequence is exactly what we see now.
Classically weak argument - paint the people with whom you disagree as tin-foil hat-wearing nutjobs.
I have news for you - not everyone who sees this differently than you is a nutjob.
I hate that argument too, and I wasn’t trying to use a broad brush in my painting. I was, again, speaking about perception. I wrote that statement as a Devils Advocate. If text could have a “slightly hysteric” lilt in my voice, I would have added it. Or maybe the appropriate smiley. Again, I don’t disagree with anything said or done or posted.
I originally started the post just wanting to slightly defend Dirk’s statement of accountability, as I understand where he is coming from. My first statement was “Why does a consequence always have to be civil/criminal?” It all circles back to perception, which we do fundamentally disagree with.
Who is screaming about a “conspiracy?” I don’t think anybody is saying that there was some sinister plot hatched by ODOT and the police to screw this guy over. The facts and conduct of the police standing alone are problematic - no conspiracy needed. My main concern is this idea that LE will somehow be “held accountable” if they make a discretionary decision to not act in a situation like this - when in fact that just isn’t what the law says.
Again, I should have used the proper smiley. That was mainly a comment on basic thread-drift in these sort of discussions.
It isn’t ALWAYS about the law. I THINK it has been pointed out that what the police did was all potentially legal. If we take that fact, and then look at the other possibilities, I don’t know whether I agree or disagree with the actions taken. I DO on the other hand, understand what was going through the minds of the officers involved when they did it. Look, I am as much about protecting what few rights we have left as the next guy, and I’m pretty anti-Police-State as most people here, and I think Mr. Williams (the only police officer in this particular thread, I believe) will agree wityh us that the system is broken. We know this, and we understand it, and I’m sure most of us wish everyone saw it the same way. But when you get down to brass tacks, sometimes the law doesn’t have an answer, and people have to think. Sometimes policy doesn’t have an answer. Every job has these equations that don’t have answers. Unfortunately, more and more, police departments have to look at the overall picture. In this case, while maybe LAWFUL, it was the wrong decision TO US, and, again, we are the public.
I realize this is a long post with only half-formed thoughts and probably a metric shit ton of typos, but I hope we can at least agree to disagree. I would never call someone out for an opinion, and I don’t disagree with anything said here (accept for the accountability part).
Assuming that what was written in the article is accurate, that guy had enough red flags on him to be seen from space. It seems to me that what happened was exactly what needed happen.
I’m curious about the legality of this step. What kind of privacy protection is on these background checks? Did they have a warrant for this information?
