Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: ODOT worker who'd been put on leave is mentally evaluated after buying weapons

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://www.kuda1610.com/?p=6531

    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.

  2. #2
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    and more:

    Man, guns held by police spur controversy
    http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...2/NEWS/3120325

    ODOT worker wants guns; police say they'll comply
    http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...2/NEWS/3120326



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    When He gets His Guns back He should also SUE Medford Police, and anyone else who was involved with this, because; The Medford Police Violated His 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights when they seized His Lawful Firearms without a Warrant.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    When He gets His Guns back He should also SUE Medford Police, and anyone else who was involved with this, because; The Medford Police Violated His 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights when they seized His Lawful Firearms without a Warrant.
    Without knowing the FULL details of what the hell is going on, I wouldn't rush to that judgement.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    Ironbar wrote:
    Without knowing the FULL details of what the hell is going on, I wouldn't rush to that judgement.


    a lesson the medford pd should take to heart, the man was released after a 5 hour evaluation AND his weapons returned..... one would assume that had he been a threat to himself or others he would have been held and his firearms withheld.

    pre-crimes? what were they thinking?
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    George Orwell's 1984..., that is what Medford Police are thinking.

    Little did Citizens of Medford know..., there is a *NEW LAW* in Town..., it is called:

    THINK CRIMES!!!!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    OK honestly, I am NOT siding with the cops on this issue. Peopel are only involuntarily committed if they present as a danger to themselves or other people. What I have NOT seen is compelling evidence to show that this man was a danger to himself and other people.

    The news articles report very vague referrences to him being "very disgruntled" after being put on administrative leave. Well, what the hell does that mean? Did he tell someone that he was really, really pissed off, or did he tell someone he wanted to kill his boss, then go out and buy a bunch of guns? If it was the latter then the cops may have been justified, but only if they can prove it. Otherwise I smell huge lawsuit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Ironbar wrote:
    OK honestly, I am NOT siding with the cops on this issue. Peopel are only involuntarily committed if they present as a danger to themselves or other people. What I have NOT seen is compelling evidence to show that this man was a danger to himself and other people.

    The news articles report very vague referrences to him being "very disgruntled" after being put on administrative leave. Well, what the hell does that mean? Did he tell someone that he was really, really pissed off, or did he tell someone he wanted to kill his boss, then go out and buy a bunch of guns? If it was the latter then the cops may have been justified, but only if they can prove it. Otherwise I smell huge lawsuit.
    The news reports ALSO stated that he was working from home for ODOT. If that is true, can't imagine it was too big of a problem that led to the administrative leave.

    The way the media is you just KNOW that if there was anything negative to report on the guy (his name is Mr. Pyle) that it would have made major headlines.

    Sufficient time has passed that any information that might have given true cause to the police to do this should have come out. Since it hasn't, until such time as information of that type is released, Medford PD gets a big ZERO on this. What's next, harassing me for lawfully open carrying? Good luck.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •