Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Pre-Policing

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/1...rime-policing#

    To hear them tell it, the five police agencies who apprehended 39-year-old Oregonian David Pyles early on the morning of March 8 thwarted another lone wolf mass murderer. The police "were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation," announced a press release put out by the Medford, Oregon, police department. The subject had recently been placed on administrative leave from his job, was "very disgruntled," and had recently purchased several firearms. "Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers," the release said. Fortunately, Pyles "voluntarily" turned himself over to police custody, and the legally purchased firearms "were seized for safekeeping."

    This voluntary exchange involved two SWAT teams, police officers from Medford and nearby Roseburg, sheriff's deputies from Jackson and Douglas counties, and the Oregon State Police. Oregon State Police Sgt. Jeff Proulx explained to South Oregon's Mail Tribune why the operation was such a success: "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach."

    There's just one problem: David Pyles hadn't committed any crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    At least they called him first. With no-knock warrants, they just burst in without telling you who they are. I imagine if they hadn't called, this guy would be given the death penalty for defending himself against home invaders with badges.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post



  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    I apologize. My comment was meant in Jest and in the sense of good natured ribbing. I will remove the offending post if you wish.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.
    A police agency? most likely they will stay silent.

    A police Officer? Yes they will condemn their own.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.
    The article does not describe a voluntary encounter in my opinion. That makes it an involuntary commitment. An involuntary commitment has to be supported by

    an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled, for an emergency evaluation. RCW 71.05.150(3).
    imminent likelihood of serious harm means that there is a "substantial risk"

    If these officers took the man into custody without being able to articulate that he was a substantial risk to others or himself, then they made an unreasonable seizure.

    Kwikrnu, you apparently have some expertise in this area. What's the minimum point at which a person becomes a substantial risk? I can guarantee you that where ever you draw the line, there will be folks arguing on both sides that you drew the line in the wrong place. There may even be some folks who will want you in jail for drawing it where you did cuz that's just the way it is.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    kwikrnu wrote:
    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.
    The article does not describe a voluntary encounter in my opinion. That makes it an involuntary commitment. An involuntary commitment has to be supported by

    an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled, for an emergency evaluation. RCW 71.05.150(3).
    imminent likelihood of serious harm means that there is a "substantial risk"

    If these officers took the man into custody without being able to articulate that he was a substantial risk to others or himself, then they made an unreasonable seizure.

    Kwikrnu, you apparently have some expertise in this area. What's the minimum point at which a person becomes a substantial risk? I can guarantee you that where ever you draw the line, there will be folks arguing on both sides that you drew the line in the wrong place. There may even be some folks who will want you in jail for drawing it where you did cuz that's just the way it is.
    It is whatever the government wants it to be.

  10. #10
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    erps wrote:
    kwikrnu wrote:
    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.
    The article does not describe a voluntary encounter in my opinion. That makes it an involuntary commitment. An involuntary commitment has to be supported by

    an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled, for an emergency evaluation. RCW 71.05.150(3).
    imminent likelihood of serious harm means that there is a "substantial risk"

    If these officers took the man into custody without being able to articulate that he was a substantial risk to others or himself, then they made an unreasonable seizure.

    Kwikrnu, you apparently have some expertise in this area. What's the minimum point at which a person becomes a substantial risk? I can guarantee you that where ever you draw the line, there will be folks arguing on both sides that you drew the line in the wrong place. There may even be some folks who will want you in jail for drawing it where you did cuz that's just the way it is.
    It is whatever the government wants it to be.
    Which means that they can do whatever they want.

    There needs to be specific wording on where the line is. Not a vague idea of "risk."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    The Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) investigates facts and credibility of the persons providing information, that an individual presents a likelihood of serious harm or is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder.
    These guys are scary. They work for the county and can lock you up for something like three months without you committing a crime, without any court cases, just because he thinks your a danger to yourself or others. This is what tyranny looks like. There is serious discussion about expanding their power to include involuntary rehab for people judged to be chemically dependent.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Lack of probable cause+use of force by brandishing weapons=free money

  13. #13
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    kwikrnu wrote:
    Wheelgunner wrote:
    ERPS will still support their actions
    Will a police agency ever condem them own?

    What they did was illegal and I hope that everyone of those cops goes to jail.
    The article does not describe a voluntary encounter in my opinion. That makes it an involuntary commitment. An involuntary commitment has to be supported by

    an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled, for an emergency evaluation. RCW 71.05.150(3).
    imminent likelihood of serious harm means that there is a "substantial risk"

    If these officers took the man into custody without being able to articulate that he was a substantial risk to others or himself, then they made an unreasonable seizure.

    Kwikrnu, you apparently have some expertise in this area. What's the minimum point at which a person becomes a substantial risk? I can guarantee you that where ever you draw the line, there will be folks arguing on both sides that you drew the line in the wrong place. There may even be some folks who will want you in jail for drawing it where you did cuz that's just the way it is.
    Quoting RCW is nice, but this happened in Medford, Oregon.

    Not stating an opinion, just pointing that out. And for the record, I don't know much about Oregon's laws.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Well this one is a little closer to home...

    Sheriff wants computer program to assess threats

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...kforce25m.html

    "The results are highly accurate and based on science," Rahr said.

    After a person was determined to be likely to follow through on threats, law-enforcement officials and mental-health experts could "reach out" in an effort to prevent violence and connect the person to social services, she said.
    Hmm... I wonder if they could expand on the "reach out" terminology. I'm not opposed to tools that help, but this has the potential to do a lot of harm as well. Computer models that aide in the decision making process are useful, but computer models that MAKE the decision are a bigger problem...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    That sounds like an expensive computer program based on junk "science" designed to replace common sense. Ridiculous.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    arms_libertas wrote:
    Well this one is a little closer to home...

    Sheriff wants computer program to assess threats

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...kforce25m.html

    "The results are highly accurate and based on science," Rahr said.

    After a person was determined to be likely to follow through on threats, law-enforcement officials and mental-health experts could "reach out" in an effort to prevent violence and connect the person to social services, she said.
    Hmm... I wonder if they could expand on the "reach out" terminology. I'm not opposed to tools that help, but this has the potential to do a lot of harm as well. Computer models that aide in the decision making process are useful, but computer models that MAKE the decision are a bigger problem...

    I really wouldn't have a problem using their computer program if someone has already made threats or broken the law. Use the program as a tool, but not as evidence of wrongdoing. For example use it on a woman stating she's going to kill someone. However, I see a big problem when they start using technology against people who have not made threats or broken the law.

    They'll enter the data which may include how many guns you have, how much ammo you have, any nfa weapons, any internet argument or banning, how many times you were stopped for speeding, education level, etc. The computer spits out a number and you'll be committed or jailed based upon the threat level. Sounds great!


  17. #17
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    I would love to have someone show me the "science" (studies, predictive analysis, etc.) behind this new innovation, and any studies pitting the program against predictions made by humans based on the same information that would be input to the program. Good grief people. It's called common sense.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    *
    I really wouldn't have a problem using their computer program if someone has already made threats or broken the law. Use the program as a tool, but not as evidence of wrongdoing. For example use it on a woman stating she's going to kill someone. However, I see a big problem when they start using technology against people who have not made threats or broken the law.

    They'll enter the data which may include how many guns you have, how much ammo you have, any nfa weapons, any internet argument or banning, how many times you were stopped for speeding, education level, etc. The computer spits out a number and you'll be committed or jailed based upon the threat level. Sounds great!
    I completely agree with you... I got a little ahead of myself. If someone has made a threat and law enforcement use the tool to make a better decision on which people making threats should merit more police resources such as surveillance, then I have no problems. However, if the technology is easily adaptable, which I assume it is since it appears to be just an scoring algorithm with underlying probability distributions, then I fear there is a considerable risk that there will be "scope creep" for the use of this tool into predicting who's most likely to commit a crime...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    antispam540 wrote:
    At least they called him first. With no-knock warrants, they just burst in without telling you who they are. I imagine if they hadn't called, this guy would be given the death penalty for defending himself against home invaders with badges.
    Somone comes busting through my door late at night they better be quick to let me see with my eyes that they are LEO or their a$$ is going down. One of the biggest factors for me when in a home defense situation is that I reasonably assume, given that I am a law abiding citizen that the person breaking through my door bas no business in my house. If Iend up beignwrong then throw the switch on me.

    Personally I have given much thought to this, I would yell repeatedly that they better not come any further in the house until they prove they are LEO then it's up to them how they want to handle proving they are LEO. People break into homes declaring that they are LEO to try and get control of their victims.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    the legally purchased firearms "were seized for safekeeping."
    No, the legally purchased firearms were stolen by the LEO and probably have been distributed among them already. This guy will never see his guns again. If he's lucky, he won't be institutionalized for the rest of his life with a lobotomy or drugs to make him into a vegetable. Once people are remanded into the custody of a mental hospital by LEO, the hospital get a free guinea pig to play with. But I'll wager that we will never hear anything about this guy again.


    erps, RCW doesn't apply as this was in Oregon, not Washington.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    the legally purchased firearms "were seized for safekeeping."
    erps, RCW doesn't apply as this was in Oregon, not Washington.
    Thanks sirpuma, I was aware of that and posted the only reference I had at that moment to illustrate the type of language associated with involuntary commit statutes.
    No, the legally purchased firearms were stolen by the LEO and probably have been distributed among them already.
    I urge you to take the evidence you have of thiscrime and file a citizen's complaint so that these rogue officers can beprosecuted andfired. You do have evidence to support these claims, right?

    Credibility is such a fragile thing.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    No, the legally purchased firearms were stolen by the LEO and probably have been distributed among them already. This guy will never see his guns again. If he's lucky, he won't be institutionalized for the rest of his life with a lobotomy or drugs to make him into a vegetable.

    Googled it and here is an update. What you said appears to be untruthful.
    Police gave a local man his guns back today after taking them from him earlier this week.
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://www.ktvl.com/articles/police-...ocal-guns.html

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    "RCW doesn't apply as this was in Oregon, not Washington."
    oops missed that. No idea how they do it there.

Posting Permissions

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