Police act swiftly after gun purchases

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • WHAT HAPPENED

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 14, 2009
    487
    16
    Largo, FL
    Police act swiftly after gun purchases | MailTribune.com


    Police act swiftly after gun purchases
    ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying handguns, AK-47

    March 09, 2010

    By Anita Burke
    Mail Tribune
    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.

    He was taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for a mental-health evaluation.

    The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.

    ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.

    However, the state agency had reported concerns about the man to law enforcement agencies, who started monitoring him, officials said.

    "We had concerning information regarding a personnel issue and were watching the subject," Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters said.

    In two 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.

    Authorities were "extremely concerned" that the man may have been planning to retaliate against his employers, the news release said.

    "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

    Douglas and Jackson County sheriff's departments, OSP officers based in both counties and police in Medford and Roseburg collaborated, he said.

    Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.

    Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.

    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.

    About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.

    After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

    Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

    Reach reporter Anita Burke at 541-776-4485, or e-mail aburke@mailtribune.com.

    Wow, the “Thought Police” are here?
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,434
    36
    They're working on perfectly technology that can allow someone to control devices through electrical pulses in the brain - a very primitive form of mind-reading. Just give it time.

    This is the future.

    WE ARE NOT A 'PRO-ACTIVE' SOCIETY. WE ARE A RETRO-ACTIVE SOCIETY, AS WE MUST BE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR LIBERTIES. THIS IS NOT MINORITY REPORT, AND I'D RATHER DIE THAN WATCH IT BECOME SO. You cannot prevent crime beyond being well-armed - you can simply punish those who commit it - AFTER they have committed it.

    :twocents:

    So, let's count the number of things wrong with this...
    1.) Invasion of a man's home
    2.) Invasion of his privacy
    3.) Assumption of wrongdoing before any wrongdoing has been done
    4.) Pre-emption of his God-given right to do as he pleases within his own home
    5.) LEO crossing jurisdictions in furtherance of pursuing "pro-active" action
    6.) Police seizing his firearms
    7.) No one has sued yet.
     
    Last edited:

    jdhaines

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    1,550
    38
    Toledo, OH
    I commend them for thinking outside the box. I am in awe at how poorly it was executed though. Surely they could accomplish the same thing in a much less....rights-violating way. Their actions may have prevented something bad from happening, but as it unrolled it went the complete wrong direction. For their sake I hope that he agreed to them taking his guns and him going into the hospital. If not they could be boned.
     

    Deputy527

    Plinker
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 83.3%
    5   1   0
    Mar 17, 2009
    42
    8
    Indy WestSide
    So, what would have happened if he hadn't voluntarily come out? How far was LE prepared to go? There is more to this story than what was reported...
     

    tv1217

    N6OTB
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    10,195
    77
    Kouts
    I'm totally doing this if I ever get fired. If only because trolling people in real life is so much more fun than on the Internet.
     

    Joe Williams

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 26, 2008
    10,431
    38
    I'm totally doing this if I ever get fired. If only because trolling people in real life is so much more fun than on the Internet.

    And potentially profitable. Unless the man made some rather nasty threats, with lots of witnesses to back it up, the lawsuits are gonna be ugly. For all we know, he threatened to sue his bosses, and they decided to attack. After what's been done to him, a he said/he said situation is going to fall sqarely in his favor.

    Course, he coulda stood in the middle of the shop floor, and screamed that he was coming back with a bunch of guns to get everybody. Which, combined with the purchases immediately after, creates at least reasonable suspicion.
     

    ihateiraq

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 25, 2009
    2,813
    36
    Upinya
    what would people be saying if he had gone berserk and started killing people? especially once it came out that the state had informed authorities? would you want to tell the families that "yea, we thought this was going to happen, but we didnt do anything about it."?

    its a pretty nasty catch 22.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Would it have been so hard to knock on his door and ask to talk to him... Tell him of the concerns raised, and ask him to come for an evaluation? He committed no crime, he was merely "suspected". Admittedly, the phone call might have been just that: asking him, explaining the concerns... but the surrounding with a swat team might have been going a little far.
    I understand the "what if" thinking; that if he'd been asked and suddenly started shooting, they'd have been behind the 8 ball, but I also understand "staging"... have the team nearby so they can be in place in moments

    To me, the whole thing comes down to those who think the "overwhelming force" paradigm was needed. Needed? Really? Consider:

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    William Pitt

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    boozoo

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 21, 2009
    833
    16
    NE Indy
    I'm basically wondering on what grounds and authority (pretense) did they do all this?

    To raid a guy's home, you better have good cause.

    This is what hacks me off about news, though. If you read between the lines, there was something pretty disturbing going on with this guy that can't be disclosed, but most people won't bother to think about that much.... so once again gun buying gets equated to evil/crazy.

    The man recently had been placed on administrative leave from his job and was "very disgruntled," the news release said.


    ODOT Communications Director Patrick Cooney said there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss.
     

    bigus_D

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 5, 2008
    2,063
    38
    Country Side
    So, let's count the number of things wrong with this...
    1.) Invasion of a man's home The article said they called him, and he came out voluntarily. Not and invasion.
    2.) Invasion of his privacy. Again, he came out voluntarily.
    3.) Assumption of wrongdoing before any wrongdoing has been done Perhaps... but no laws were broken, as he volunterred to come out.
    4.) Pre-emption of his God-given right to do as he pleases within his own home OK... we are repeating ourselves here. Nobody came into his house and stopped him from doing anything. They called him and asked him to come outside. He came outside, and the rest is history.
    5.) LEO crossing jurisdictions in furtherance of pursuing "pro-active" action Not sure what jurisdiction was crossed, but it sounds like this guy was loosing it... I'm glad he didn't kill anybody. +1 to the cops for getting him to the hospital for evaluation without insident!
    6.) Police seizing his firearms ok. they are just keeping them safe while he is in the hopital. I'm sure he'll get them all back with little or no hassle.
    7.) No one has sued yet. sounds like this guy is nutzo... so that may be why he hasn't sued (yet).
    comments in blue above. sarcasm in purple.
     

    Redemption

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 6, 2009
    396
    18
    If he made no threats to his former employer or associates then there is no way anyone who says they love freedom can support this.
    If he made threats then perhaps some sort of intervention is warranted.
     

    pig957

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 28, 2009
    399
    18
    Under an oppressive government
    "Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said."

    According to Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen, this guy must be guilty of something, after all he was known to have weapons. Guilty until proven innocent!!
     

    Joe Williams

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 26, 2008
    10,431
    38
    snip

    According to Medford police Lt. Bob Hansen, this guy must be guilty of something, after all he was known to have weapons. Guilty until proven innocent!!

    That's not what the police said, or did. They got a call that a guy may be a little on the insane side, found out he'd bought a bunch of guns, and took the appropriate precautions to ensure a safe and peaceful resolution. The cops, in this case, haven't accused the guy of anything, charged him with anything, nor did they come after the guy JUST because he owned firearms.

    Now, whether whatever the guy's employer's told the authorities that caused them to act in such a fashion had any merit, or whether they were making crap up to cover their butts from some sort of wrongdoing... that's the real question.
     

    Hornett

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Sep 7, 2009
    2,579
    84
    Bedford, Indiana
    Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun.
    EvansvilleThompsonGunner and Joe Williams make good points but there is still this.
    They seized the weapons for 'safekeeping'.
    They had to go into his house and get them.
    Did they have a warrant?
    Did they get his permission?

    I think that some intervention was definitely warranted, but I see too many possible rights violations.

    Consider this.
    I he had threatened to run over his boss, would they have seized his car?
    It just smells like gun hating.
    Sorry but it does.
     

    LEaSH

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    5,803
    119
    Indianapolis
    I've been to this place in Oregon.

    the Rouge river Valley and Medford make a strange combo of Authoritarianism and Inbreeding.

    Miners and loggers rule over anything else and people (used to) have more guns than anything else. But the authorities will lock you up for just about anything if you're not a logger or miner. And no, this guy probably wont get his stuff back if he has made enemies at the ODOT.
     

    E5RANGER375

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Feb 22, 2010
    11,507
    38
    BOATS n' HO's, Indy East
    so they violated his rights on a whim, and then they have now made all his neighbors and community afraid of him even though he's innocent until proven guilty. plus they told every criminal that he has guns in his house, come get them and use them in a crime. this is BS. they said they took him into custody to protect him. well who is gonna protect him or us from the out of control police?? if they didnt have a warrent for my arrest id have sat in my house for EVER with my lawyer :)
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    I'll reserve judgment on this because we don't have all the facts. I will say that the bar to do what they did ought to be set very, very high.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I didn't know it was illegal to buy a gun while unemployed. Or to look disgruntled.

    Freedom is a b**ch sometimes. It means that you have to leave people alone until they actually do something wrong.
     
    Top Bottom