Posted on 03/28/2010 12:00:42 PM PDT by marktwain
Police reports on a disgruntled Oregon Department of Transportation planner who surrendered to a police negotiator and SWAT team early March 8 indicate that the man hadn't made any threats, but people who worked with him were increasingly concerned that violence could erupt.
Incident reports from Medford police and the Jackson County Sheriff's Department describe verbal outbursts and "a declining state of mental health" seen in slipping personal hygiene and appearance, and a "somewhat disorderly and uncooperative" exit when the man was placed on administrative leave on March 4.
Fears of retaliation prompted electronic surveillance that notified authorities when the suspended planner, David J. Pyles, 39, bought three handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun and a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle over the next three days.
The purchases only heightened police concerns, prompting additional meetings, surveillance and, finally, in the pre-dawn hours of March 8, the intervention of a negotiator and SWAT team, who took Pyles into protective custody for a mental-health evaluation and seized his guns. He was released in about 3.5 hours and his guns were returned March 12.
"Given the circumstances, we decided to react to be on the safe side," Jackson County Sheriff's Lt. Rich Fogarty said. "I think we did what was necessary."
The seizure of the guns and Pyles' trip in handcuffs to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation sparked controversy among gun-rights and civil-liberty advocates.
"If the cops have an explanation, they should give it," Oregon Firearms Federation Director Kevin Starrett said in the days following the incident, which he called "chilling."
The Mail Tribune requested reports from Medford police, the sheriff's department and Oregon State Police in an attempt to piece together the details. The OSP hasn't provided its report yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at mailtribune.com ...
It seems that the supervisor should have been evaluated for ‘mental health’ because he didn’t go out and buy a firearm for personal protection, being in the type of business that puts him at risk.
Sounds like a critical issue here is whether Pyles did or didn’t actually go back to his place of employment and bang on the back door. Sgt. Clauson says he “was told” Pyles did this (but no mention of by whom) and Pyles said he didn’t. If he actually did this, after being told by a state trooper that it would constitute trespassing, that’s a big problem. If someone made up the story that the did this and told it to police, that person needs to be charged with a crime.
Even if the police version of the pre-SWAT events is taken at face value and all the unattributed statements assumed to be verifiable, I’m still having a lot of trouble reconciling the heavy-duty police response with the psychiatrist’s lightning-fast determination that Pyles was not mentally unstable (followed, as it should have been, with the reasonably prompt return of Pyles good-sized arsenal). How could so many people be so seriously alarmed about Pyles mental state, and yet a psychiatrist who’s been briefed on all the reports to that effect, so quickly determine that he was just fine? And it appears that he was and is indeed just fine.
Weird case, and I’m glad it’s getting a lot of attention. Possibly it was just a series of unfortunate misunderstandings — like Pyles hanging up on Sgt. Clauson, which may well have been the deciding factor in having him handcuffed as he was taken away for a not really voluntary psych evaluation; and possibly someone mistaking a similar looking person for Pyles in the banging on the office door incident.
A lot of red flags went up with this incident, and a lot of people have been watching closely. I agree that we must watch this type of thing with an eagle eye and make sure that the authorities do the right thing.
That said, no one is perfect, and the only people who never make mistakes are those who don't do anything. In a nation of 300+ million people, there are bound to be situations where missteps are made by the authorities. It is our job to keep them accountable for their actions.
In this case we are lucky that no one was hurt, the property was returned reasonably quickly (many, many times the authorities fight that tooth and nail!) and there is significant public outrage and oversight. That is as it should be.
Looks like you have been fired again. This is your final season. LOL
If multiple people confirm a deterioration in personal hygiene, it’s likely to be a legitimate piece of the puzzle. I had a co-worker some years ago who was clearly deteriorating on many fronts, and the decline in personal hygiene was definitely correlated with the increasingly severe depression and some delusions of grandeur. No one ever felt he was dangerous, but he became unable to do any meaningful work, and last I heard was still out on long-term disability due to his mental problems. He was a nice guy, but he just wasn’t coping despite not really having any major stressors in his life. If his psychological make-up had been the sort that’s prone to violence, he could well have gone that route as he lost control of his life.
We don’t own any guns....jackelopes took’em.®
This case went a little further though, in that supervisors had already reported serious concern to police, and THEN he went out and bought three guns. In hindsight, it’s clear something went wrong here, but it’s still not clear exactly what. It didn’t help that he hung up on the police officer who was apparently trying to handle the concern in a less aggressive manner. It appears that was just a misunderstanding (Pyles said he confused the officer with a union representative who had a similar name, and it *was* awfully early for anyone to be fielding all these phone calls), but not unreasonable for police to take it as yet another piece of evidence that Pyles was mentally unstable.
“Fears of retaliation prompted electronic surveillance that notified authorities when the suspended planner, David J. Pyles, 39, bought three handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun and a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle over the next three days.”
Eh? What’s this? Electronic surveillance? What sort? How was permission obtained, and by whom from whom?
I totally disagree.
“good-sized arsenal”
I thought “arsenal” was a gun-grabber term for a collection.
Ya, I get it now!!!!! Does this line of thought make any sence to anyone else??? I hope he ends up owning that LE agency!!!!! At the very least he needs to get the ACLU involved and let them play their games.
And he “bought a AK-47 “in Oregon.??
Hmmm.. Right next door to California too. Hmmm...
Might be time for a little trip north this summer.
I agree. I just haven't seen that evidence in this case yet. Were there multiple people who confirmed this, or not? We also know that David Pyles asked to be able to take a shower before surrendering to the police SWAT team.
Yeah, Redbob(that’s a convenient handle, Red like Mao or Marx)
We don’t want a Spazi in the country and there are several areas of disagreement in the law and common sense.
So let’s see Ammendments:
1st Free Speach
2nd Right to arms, which protects Free Speech
4th Free from search and seizure without probable cause
5th Due process and deprived of liberty and property
8th cruel and unusual punishment. subjecting him to psych.
Oregon Constitution:
ection 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.–
Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.–
Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.–
Section 11. Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; provided, however, that any accused person, in other than capital cases, and with the consent of the trial judge, may elect to waive trial by jury and consent to be tried by the judge of the court alone, such election to be in writing; provided, however, that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, which shall be found only by a unanimous verdict, and not otherwise; provided further, that the existing laws and constitutional provisions relative to criminal prosecutions shall be continued and remain in effect as to all prosecutions for crimes committed before the taking effect of this amendment. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 4, 1931, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1932; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 4, 1931 (2d s.s.), and adopted by the people May 18, 1934]
Section 13. Treatment of arrested or confined persons. No person arrested, or confined in jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor.–
Section 14. Bailable offenses. Offences [sic], except murder, and treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason, shall not be bailable, when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.–
Section 15. Foundation principles of criminal law. Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on these principles: protection of society, personal responsibility, accountability for one’s actions and reformation. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 32, 1995, and adopted by the people Nov. 5, 1996]
Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly.
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
NEXT?
If you were surrounded by a swat team. You may well need a shower too.
Come to San Franciso, we got it all.
“because not a lot of harm was done,”
Really?
You legally purchase some firearms. You are sacked out at home and the phone rings. Cops with SWAT are outside. You are ordered outside where you get cuffed and stuffed and hauled away. They search your house and take your weapons. You are forced into a mental eval.
This guy just got raped by the govt, and you say not a lot of harm was done. I guess he should have just relaxed and enjoyed it, right?
LoL! pretty liberal town??
Let your freak flag fly!
But you have to give up your arms first ;)
They may not want to take showers, change clothes etc.
From cold dead hands! Oops, they fell overboard and into the deep blue sea, while I was cleaning them on a catamaran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.