Police take man's guns away in Oregon

#1
utvolpj

utvolpj

Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
93,756
Likes
65,397
#1
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.
Click to expand...

So now owning guns makes you mentally unstable? It sounds a little odd but maybe there was something illegal going on...

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.
Click to expand...

so they were ok with him buying them but now that he takes them home you are worried?

Maybe he was upset about being placed on "leave" but who wouldn't be? It does not connect the 2 events IMO. Maybe he had some free time now and wanted to visit the range more often. This is really getting into a questionable area when they start doing these things.

Police act swiftly after gun purchases | MailTribune.com
 
#2
#2
Pure speculation on my part but it's my strong suspicion he's tipped his hand about something before making the purchases.

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

My guess is there were threats involved. They made it sound as though the reason they knew about the purchases was he was already flagged before he made them. There simply has to be more to the story that's not out yet.

Still, from a legal standpoint, this was a bit attention grabbing:

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

So where, exactly, is the cutoff for being "proactive"? What is the threshold for making a "preventative" arrest?

Might be getting a bit Minority Report up in here.
 
#3
#3
hndog609 said:
Pure speculation on my part but it's my strong suspicion he's tipped his hand about something before making the purchases.

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

My guess is there were threats involved. They made it sound as though the reason they knew about the purchases was he was already flagged before he made them. There simply has to be more to the story that's not out yet.

Still, from a legal standpoint, this was a bit attention grabbing:

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

So where, exactly, is the cutoff for being "proactive"? What is the threshold for making a "preventative" arrest?

Might be getting a bit Minority Report up in here.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#4
#4
I tend to think this man may have made some remarks to someone that made them feel he was a possible threat. I can see both sides here, I don't like the idea of law enforcement sending up red flags and stepping in because someone bought guns legally but at the same time I'd like to think they did because there was a legitimate threat or reason to believe this man was about to do something to harm or threaten others.
 
#5
#5
My guess is he already did something..............

This is all damage control by pr.
 
#6
#6
if he made legit threats that had people scared then why give him the guns in the first place? Couldn't he just have easily picked them up and driven straight to his target? Is the threat of harm not enough that they could have picked him up earlier?
 
#7
#7
He was in trouble so he was being monitored. He apparently had to do "something" and the excuse for the media is weapons and an evaluation.

You have to have a reason to "hold" someone......... :)
 
#8
#8
OrangeEmpire said:
He was in trouble so he was being monitored. He apparently had to do "something" and the excuse for the media is weapons and an evaluation.

You have to have a reason to "hold" someone......... :)
Click to expand...

yah, that whole habeus corpus thing...

Lincoln didnt mind holding people without cause though
 
#10
#10
utvolpj said:
if he made legit threats that had people scared then why give him the guns in the first place? Couldn't he just have easily picked them up and driven straight to his target? Is the threat of harm not enough that they could have picked him up earlier?
Click to expand...

The mental evaluation aspect is so reminiscent of soviet russia in which anyone expressing anything that wasn't politically correct was sent for mental evaluation and if he didn't disappear then when he did emerge he was sure to have a very politically correct attitude.

On the plus side, can we now arrest calypso louie and submit him to mental evaluation???
 
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
what's wrong with it? A semi-auto AK is no more dangerous than the other guns available.
Click to expand...

Why on earth do you need one? I don't understand. You don't need an AK-47 for personal protection or hunting.
 
#19
#19
utvolpj said:
like the person who wrote the article and called the mean looking gun an "assault rifle"
Click to expand...

Actually I'm trying to recall if calling it an AK-47 would even be accurate as I believe, in the strictest sense anyway, that would be referring to a weapon with select fire capabilities. The same kind of thing that separates an AR-15 from being erroneously called an M-16. Technically still legal but you'd need a Class III license to make it so.
 
#20
#20
bam15 said:
Why on earth do you need one? I don't understand. You don't need an AK-47 for personal protection or hunting.
Click to expand...

Why does a responsible gun owner possessing any weapon he chooses any business of others? The comment about not needing an AK-47 for personal protection all depends on who you might need protection from doesn't it?
 
#22
#22
KB5252 said:
Why does a responsible gun owner possessing any weapon he chooses any business of others? The comment about not needing an AK-47 for personal protection all depends on who you might need protection from doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Considering your logic, I guess we should legalize RPGs and fully automatic weapons.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top