• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Pre-Policing

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-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.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
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.
 

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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."
 

joshcdc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

[size="-1"]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.
[/size]
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
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.
 

arms_libertas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
66
Location
Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
imported post

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

Sheriff wants computer program to assess threats

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011431932_taskforce25m.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...
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
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/html/localnews/2011431932_taskforce25m.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!
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
 

arms_libertas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
66
Location
Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
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...
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top