Police act swiftly after gun purchases

[Sly 233]

[Shandlanos 1,470]

Patently unlawful theft and detention by police. If the facts aren't being misrepresented and there was no crime committed or threats issued, the official responsible for this man's detention and confiscation of his property should be fired and held liable both criminally and civilly for kidnapping and theft. When your neighbors have been forcibly evacuated so you can be unlawfully detained, you should have an ironclad case for harassment. Can't be comfortable to live in the same neighborhood after that.

[Bayoupiper 738]

So now if someone from your employment calls the cops and says you're "disgruntled" and just bought a handgun or rifle, you get pillowsacked at 3am????????

 

 

 

If he comes out clean on the evaluation I see a lawsuit in his future!

[patriot 7,197]

Lawsuit Time! I see a very rich future for this man!

[IndyArms 10,186]

Personally, I think a lawsuit is only the beginning!!

 

However... and I say this with tongue in cheek...

 

We DONT KNOW the circumstances in which the people were concerned about. What did he say to them?? what things did he do to make them "concerned"?? Did he make veiled threats??? did he do things that would make others think he meant harm???

 

I dont know... and I would HOPE TO CHRIST *THEY* knew what he did before taking him into custody over what I would otherwise call TOTAL BULLSHIT!

 

I think this is a very fine line to cross and a very grey area to negotiate... without knowing the facts... I dont want to say more one way or the other...

 

[Paulyski 2,227]

The thing that people aren't seeing yet, is now that the guy is in a Psych ward on a 72 hour hold....

If he contests his containment, the county will give him a commitment hearing, & he will undoubtedly be committed on the urging of the police & doctors (that will side on caution).

 

Then once he has had a commitment hearing ruled against him, he will no longer be legally allowed to own firearms under both state & federal law.

 

Psych is being used as a tool to take this man's rights away.

[Frankyoz 15]

Direct violation of the 14th amendment just blatantly stupid I understand monitoring him but to be proactive is a dangerous line to cross with civil liberties and personal rights

[David Mark 2,452]

It seems like each and every day the Constitution and Bill of Rights has less and less meaning.

I have great fear for the future of our Republic if this kind of thing continues.

[ktcm7271 999]

(Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.)

 

Paulyski nailed it. Using loopholes to get around the law. Indy made a good point as well, IF there were threats, then monitoring is legal under the 'patriot' act, but no action should have been taken until he made a move. That's how L.E. builds air tight cases. Set up a sting and sees if he shows up.

[DogMan 2,343]

Well if he wasn't going to go postal then, he just might be thinking about it now. How ironic would it be if this blatant rubbing of his face in the dirt is what pushes him over the edge? Unfortunately, once he gets his guns back his employer and the police might actually have something to worry about. Absolutely freakin unbelievable.

[Ruffian72 548]

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"? correct me if I'm wrong. Tom Cruise movie. Didn't think we had that mind reader/known action technology yet. Talk about police state mentality. Yet, those who swore the oath, carried out the orders again. Ever wonder why people look at LEO/justice system badly. Left a department 20yrs ago over a lot less. Seen honest peoples property seized from doing business, with an unknown to them, drug dealers. Then gov. (all levels) require you sue to get back. Legal fees, time it took usually meant legalized theft by gov. ..

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"? correct me if I'm wrong. Tom Cruise movie. Didn't think we had that mind reader/known action technology yet.

 

This is the first thing I thought of. In the movie, they arrested people and charged them with "pre-crimes". Crimes that they hadn't even committed, but were (possibly) going to commit, according to 3 weirdos laying in a pool who could see these things before they happened.

 

 

The story in the OP is complete bullshit, from what info we're given in the article. Use that time and money to go after people who have already done bad shit, instead of all that hoopla for someone who hadn't even committed an actual crime.

 

Is it possible by doing what they did, that a major catastrophe was averted? We'll never know. But when I think about that, I think about this quote:

 

"He who gives up freedom for security, deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

 

In other words, I'd rather keep my freedoms and take my chances with knowing someone might do something, than to have people arrested and have their legally obtained guns taken away and them arrested or put into a psych-ward. (Again, given what the article tells us)

 

That's my $.02 on it anyway.

[evildog 20]

I'm with Indy, may be more to the story. But if there isn't and the employer was a goody-to-shoes then ya i'm going to be really pissed. They could have just as easily watched him and if he's seen loading up his guns follow him and if it's back to his work then swarm him before something bad happens. But if i had been this guy in this situation and the swat and negotator woke me up at that hour, you would be seeing it on CNN and FOX because if i had done nothing wrong then i'm NOT coming out nor will i willing give up my guns for "safe keeping" by LEO. I smell more to the story here.

[Eric Pate 478]

That is totally PRE-CRIME!

[cellsworth 21]

I agree with evildog and Indy. There is very likely more to the story. There are few people in law enforcement able to authorize that kind of response (SWAT, evacuating an area, etc.) who are so stupid/ignorant that they would do so unless the individual in question had made statements clearly indicating that they pose a fairly imminent danger to themselves or others. I also agree that this kind of justification for taking someone into custody needs to be scrutinized VERY closely, as there is the potential for serious abuse. It is true that once you are officially labeled as somehow mentally incompetent, it can be almost impossible to regain your rights no matter how bogus the judgment was.

 

As for the idea of collusion between law enforcement and psychiatric professionals, it is a frightening thought, but I have never heard of anything even close to that happening (I'm not saying that it hasn't or couldn't). State-funded psychiatric facilities generally have limited resources and very few vacancies. As a result, it can be a challenge to get someone into one even if they really are an imminent threat to themselves or others. The people running those facilities are definitely not looking for excuses to commit someone.

 

The whole story needs to be known and understood before a rational judgment about it can be made.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Not even Pre-Crime. It's pre-pre-pre-crime. They arrested him and placed him in protective custody. Nice sounding? How about they Kidnapped him for crimes he may or may not commit in the future. What really flags this to me is that he had other weapons in the house already. Maybe getting placed on leave, finally gave him some free-time to go shooting again and buy the things he's always wanted to get but never had the time. If a "Very Disgruntled" co-worker on leave, buys a huge pickup truck, should we assume it's for running over all the employees at his office?

[rocinante 100]

what is a universal self-loading handgun?

[superA 289]

LOL on the three weirdos in a pool remark! On a serious note. The problem I see with this is even if the police acted abusively there is no way in hell they will receive the proper punishment because the department will do anything including lying about what happened to make it stick. In the end the guy may not be labeled a "potential criminal", but I doubt, even if he was in the right, justice will be served, the police will go about their merry way with possibly a paid vacation and the man will at the very least feel violated and frustrated at what it means to be a civilian in this country these days. People need closure, when they have been wronged they need action to avoid a seriously damaged mind. I agree, I think this is the sort of behavior that leads to people acting nuts. Way to much downside for a guy that hasn't committed a crime yet.

[chevymann 13]

Where's the ACLU, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to stifle these attempts to keep this man down???? Oh yeah.. Now I remember...

[Paulyski 2,227]

As for the idea of collusion between law enforcement and psychiatric professionals, it is a frightening thought, but I have never heard of anything even close to that happening (I'm not saying that it hasn't or couldn't). State-funded psychiatric facilities generally have limited resources and very few vacancies. As a result, it can be a challenge to get someone into one even if they really are an imminent threat to themselves or others. The people running those facilities are definitely not looking for excuses to commit someone.

It's not so much a collusion per say, as "erring on the side of caution".

First off, it's not how it used to be. People aren't brought straight to the state hospital any longer. Only chronic cases ever make it there.

How something like that would go down is a series of events. Not just one.

First, the Police feel for whatever reason that a person is a danger to themselves or others. They will tell the person "We' just want you to get evaluated... Will you go voluntarily?" They may even tell them that if they go there "voluntarily" they can leave if they don't want to stay (which is almost true). Most often, the threat of arrest or involuntary hold is presented as the alternative.

 

The police will then take the patient to the ER of a local major hospital. They will tell the doctor that they feel the guy is an imminent danger to themselves or others & the person has agreed to be evaluated ... Now an official has presented this to the hospital, so it is considered credible. The police leave, soon the patient is transfered to Behavioral Health Sciences. Every large public hospital has one. We are the filter that all police holds, attempted suicides, schizophrenics & any other type of mental illness go through.

 

Often the patient thinks that since he is "voluntary" they are free to leave at any time... WRONG!!!!

If he decides he wants to turn around & leave before being throughly evaluated & there is ANY CHANCE (like the police telling the Dr. so) that he will be a danger, he is placed on a 72 hour hospital hold for evaluation...

You see, if he actually were to hurt someone, the family could sue the hell out of the hospital & Dr. that released a dangerous person.

 

If he feels that the situation was misrepresented (which he would rightly conclude) & demands to leave AMA (against medical advice), a commitment hearing is scheduled. If he displays intense anger at his captivity, that proves emotional instability furthering the case that he is a danger.

 

So now the commitment hearing ensues.

You have the Judge the Patient, the Doctor, & the County Investigator who's holding a scary police report....

One of the people is a mental patient & the other 2 are highly respected voices of our social infrastructure.... Who's gonna be listened to more? If the Judge lets the guy go & he harms someone, the blood is now on the judges hands.

 

So the person is now CIVILLY COMMITTED. (this doesn't mean they will be there FOREVER, just that they are not free to leave until the Dr. discharges them & they can be held for up to 180 days) They have now been found a danger by a magistrate & by state & federal law can no longer own firearms, be a Dr., be a cop, join the military,,, the list goes on...

(my colleague is the one that sends out the paperwork. I am quite familiar with it.)

 

If they go ballistic when they get back & realize this, I'm one of the guys who must restrain them & hold them down while a nurse shoots tranquilizers in their ass. If they continue to fight, we put them in 4pt. restraints. (tie them to the bed)

 

I have tried to tell many how to avoid this & get out quick, but they rarely listen.

They are understandably pissed at what they see as an unjust & wrongful imprisonment & they, like all men will usually try to fight the system & regain their freedom immediately.

They fail to realize that they lost a LOT of rights when they came into my unit.

It can be a really screwed up situation for them.

 

Now I'm not going to argue the ethics of all of this, because that's how the system that we live under is. It's not gonna change any time soon.

Many times I do not agree with it, but I have little influence over the events. I just react when people get violent, threatening or are in crisis.

All I can do is enlighten people as to the process. The choice of what to do with the information is ultimately the patient's.

 

So.

Like I tell my patients.

Now you know... What you choose to do is in your court.

It's not persecution once they get on my milieu. It's everyone covering their own asses. The $1,800 per day to keep them in the unit is nothing compared to the lawsuit that Dr.'s & Hospitals fear if they make the wrong call...

And you think a Psych patient is going to sue a Psych ward for keeping them? Good luck! A person with a court affirmed mental disorder prevailing against multiple psychiatrists? Okay...

 

Now I like to screw around on the net sometimes, but just a heads up... THAT'S REALLY HOW IT WORKS.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Paulyski

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

I have a feeling that there were, at minimum, verbal threats made at the time this guy was let go. He may have been let go for assaulting an employee or some other violent behavior. Hence the "there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss."

 

I doubt police would "stake out" the guy if there wasn't a justifiable reason. People get laid off all the time now and we sure as hell don't have enough LEO's to monitor all of them.

 

I am not justifying what has happened, but I have met people that have gotten fired because they are pieces of shit with no moral code and a mentality of taking everyone down with them. If threats on my life or my coworkers were made, I would call the police to watch the asshole that threatened us. Of course, I would not be an unarmed victim.

Edited March 10, 2010 by BuffetDestroyer

[DogMan 2,343]

I have a feeling that there were, at minimum, verbal threats made at the time this guy was let go. He may have been let go for assaulting an employee or some other violent behavior. Hence the "there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss."

 

I doubt police would "stake out" the guy if there wasn't a justifiable reason. People get laid off all the time now and we sure as hell don't have enough LEO's to monitor all of them.

 

I am not justifying what has happened, but I have met people that have gotten fired because they are pieces of shit with no moral code and a mentality of taking everyone down with them. If threats on my life or my coworkers were made, I would call the police to watch the asshole that threatened us. Of course, I would not be an unarmed victim.

 

Making verbal threats would be a crime. But he has not been charged with a crime. They know they are on shaky legal ground and would be looking for anything they could charge him with, but they haven't. Administrative and personnel matters are just that, and they they don't involve the police unless a crime has been committed which apparently there has not.

Edited March 10, 2010 by DogMan

[superA 289]

I have a feeling that there were, at minimum, verbal threats made at the time this guy was let go. He may have been let go for assaulting an employee or some other violent behavior. Hence the "there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss."

 

I doubt police would "stake out" the guy if there wasn't a justifiable reason. People get laid off all the time now and we sure as hell don't have enough LEO's to monitor all of them.

 

I am not justifying what has happened, but I have met people that have gotten fired because they are pieces of shit with no moral code and a mentality of taking everyone down with them. If threats on my life or my coworkers were made, I would call the police to watch the asshole that threatened us. Of course, I would not be an unarmed victim.

 

Making verbal threats would be a crime. But he has not been charged with a crime. They know they are on shaky legal ground and would be looking for anything they could charge him with, but they haven't. Administrative and personnel matters are just that, and they they don't involve the police unless a crime has been committed which apparently there has not.

 

 

 

Good point Dogman, I think they would have been pretty quick to identify if he had been charged with a crime. Maybe appearing "very disgruntled" is now a crime.

[cellsworth 21]

As for the idea of collusion between law enforcement and psychiatric professionals, it is a frightening thought, but I have never heard of anything even close to that happening (I'm not saying that it hasn't or couldn't). State-funded psychiatric facilities generally have limited resources and very few vacancies. As a result, it can be a challenge to get someone into one even if they really are an imminent threat to themselves or others. The people running those facilities are definitely not looking for excuses to commit someone.

It's not so much a collusion per say, as "erring on the side of caution".

First off, it's not how it used to be. People aren't brought straight to the state hospital any longer. Only chronic cases ever make it there.

How something like that would go down is a series of events. Not just one.

First, the Police feel for whatever reason that a person is a danger to themselves or others. They will tell the person "We' just want you to get evaluated... Will you go voluntarily?" They may even tell them that if they go there "voluntarily" they can leave if they don't want to stay (which is almost true). Most often, the threat of arrest or involuntary hold is presented as the alternative.

 

The police will then take the patient to the ER of a local major hospital. They will tell the doctor that they feel the guy is an imminent danger to themselves or others & the person has agreed to be evaluated ... Now an official has presented this to the hospital, so it is considered credible. The police leave, soon the patient is transfered to Behavioral Health Sciences. Every large public hospital has one. We are the filter that all police holds, attempted suicides, schizophrenics & any other type of mental illness go through.

 

Often the patient thinks that since he is "voluntary" they are free to leave at any time... WRONG!!!!

If he decides he wants to turn around & leave before being throughly evaluated & there is ANY CHANCE (like the police telling the Dr. so) that he will be a danger, he is placed on a 72 hour hospital hold for evaluation...

You see, if he actually were to hurt someone, the family could sue the hell out of the hospital & Dr. that released a dangerous person.

 

If he feels that the situation was misrepresented (which he would rightly conclude) & demands to leave AMA (against medical advice), a commitment hearing is scheduled. If he displays intense anger at his captivity, that proves emotional instability furthering the case that he is a danger.

 

So now the commitment hearing ensues.

You have the Judge the Patient, the Doctor, & the County Investigator who's holding a scary police report....

One of the people is a mental patient & the other 2 are highly respected voices of our social infrastructure.... Who's gonna be listened to more? If the Judge lets the guy go & he harms someone, the blood is now on the judges hands.

 

So the person is now CIVILLY COMMITTED. (this doesn't mean they will be there FOREVER, just that they are not free to leave until the Dr. discharges them & they can be held for up to 180 days) They have now been found a danger by a magistrate & by state & federal law can no longer own firearms, be a Dr., be a cop, join the military,,, the list goes on...

(my colleague is the one that sends out the paperwork. I am quite familiar with it.)

 

If they go ballistic when they get back & realize this, I'm one of the guys who must restrain them & hold them down while a nurse shoots tranquilizers in their ass. If they continue to fight, we put them in 4pt. restraints. (tie them to the bed)

 

I have tried to tell many how to avoid this & get out quick, but they rarely listen.

They are understandably pissed at what they see as an unjust & wrongful imprisonment & they, like all men will usually try to fight the system & regain their freedom immediately.

They fail to realize that they lost a LOT of rights when they came into my unit.

It can be a really screwed up situation for them.

 

Now I'm not going to argue the ethics of all of this, because that's how the system that we live under is. It's not gonna change any time soon.

Many times I do not agree with it, but I have little influence over the events. I just react when people get violent, threatening or are in crisis.

All I can do is enlighten people as to the process. The choice of what to do with the information is ultimately the patient's.

 

So.

Like I tell my patients.

Now you know... What you choose to do is in your court.

It's not persecution once they get on my milieu. It's everyone covering their own asses. The $1,800 per day to keep them in the unit is nothing compared to the lawsuit that Dr.'s & Hospitals fear if they make the wrong call...

And you think a Psych patient is going to sue a Psych ward for keeping them? Good luck! A person with a court affirmed mental disorder prevailing against multiple psychiatrists? Okay...

 

Now I like to screw around on the net sometimes, but just a heads up... THAT'S REALLY HOW IT WORKS.

 

 

I don't doubt what you are saying at all. Some very scary things can happen once you get into the mental health system (which you clearly know more about than I do), and I think that warrants close scrutiny. However, I think it is a mistake to suppose that police officers make a habit of making false statements to the doctors evaluating people.

 

I have personal knowledge of many instances in which people have been taken to a hospital for voluntary evaluation because, for example, their roommate reported that they were talking about killing themselves and they admit that they are depressed and have been thinking about it. However, in this example, they insist that they are not planning to hurt themselves or anyone else. Nonetheless, they agree to voluntary assessment because they really are in crisis. They get to the hospital and meet with the doctor. The officer simply tells the doctor what the person told him and what he observed (some bad officers may lie or exaggerate, but no one I know has). The truth is that the police officer does not "have a horse in the race" in at least the vast majority of instances. They don't have a vested interest in the person being committed. The person insists that they are not going to harm themselves, and they are back home within hours.

 

In cases where the person is transported involuntarily for evaluation, there must be good reason to believe that they pose an imminent danger to themselves or others. This requires more than an officer saying "I think they are." Examples include the person slashing their wrists, or having to be snatched of the rooftop ledge of a parking garage because they were preparing to jump. In such cases, there is a pretty good chance that they will at least be held for 72 hours.

 

Some people (not you) seem to believe that the police are going around arbitrarily snatching people up and having them locked up in mental institutions because they feel like it. Such is the stuff of paranoid delusions. And that kind of thing can get you locked up! J/K

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

I have a feeling that there were, at minimum, verbal threats made at the time this guy was let go. He may have been let go for assaulting an employee or some other violent behavior. Hence the "there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss."

 

I doubt police would "stake out" the guy if there wasn't a justifiable reason. People get laid off all the time now and we sure as hell don't have enough LEO's to monitor all of them.

 

I am not justifying what has happened, but I have met people that have gotten fired because they are pieces of shit with no moral code and a mentality of taking everyone down with them. If threats on my life or my coworkers were made, I would call the police to watch the asshole that threatened us. Of course, I would not be an unarmed victim.

 

Making verbal threats would be a crime. But he has not been charged with a crime. They know they are on shaky legal ground and would be looking for anything they could charge him with, but they haven't. Administrative and personnel matters are just that, and they they don't involve the police unless a crime has been committed which apparently there has not.

 

 

 

Good point Dogman, I think they would have been pretty quick to identify if he had been charged with a crime. Maybe appearing "very disgruntled" is now a crime.

 

It could also be that an intimate relationship with a co-worker transpired and when it was over things were said and done that were threatening one or more people.

 

If someone that just got "put on leave" shouts, "I am going to buy an AK and pull a Virginia Tech on this place!", I think the cops would likely be notified and justifiably get involved. BTW, State Workers often times cannot get fired, rather just transferred if they have tenure. "Administrative Leave" may be the worst punishment for someone that really fucked things up or did something really bad.

 

Conspiracy to commit a crime is no doubt a slippery slope, but I don't think that this report has all the facts about this guy everyone is rushing to defend. The guy may ACTUALLY be a fucking psycho with a restraining order and/or a history of violence or abuse or any number of other material things not mentioned! The NICS background checks don't catch everyone and the news reporter probably doesn't know what a violation on the 4473 questions would entail.

 

I lack any faith in the news media in this country for reasons I can easily pick out in this report. I just don't believe that all of the facts were acknowledged in a one page news article. Police don't just go around following people as they go to the gun store in my experience. They need a reason that they can back up in court. Otherwise all of us would be in the psych ward right now!

 

If this guy is on the up-and-up, then I agree that someone is gonna get sued!

Edited March 10, 2010 by BuffetDestroyer

[superA 289]

I have a feeling that there were, at minimum, verbal threats made at the time this guy was let go. He may have been let go for assaulting an employee or some other violent behavior. Hence the "there were administrative, personnel matters involved that limited what the department could discuss."

 

I doubt police would "stake out" the guy if there wasn't a justifiable reason. People get laid off all the time now and we sure as hell don't have enough LEO's to monitor all of them.

 

I am not justifying what has happened, but I have met people that have gotten fired because they are pieces of shit with no moral code and a mentality of taking everyone down with them. If threats on my life or my coworkers were made, I would call the police to watch the asshole that threatened us. Of course, I would not be an unarmed victim.

 

Making verbal threats would be a crime. But he has not been charged with a crime. They know they are on shaky legal ground and would be looking for anything they could charge him with, but they haven't. Administrative and personnel matters are just that, and they they don't involve the police unless a crime has been committed which apparently there has not.

 

 

 

Good point Dogman, I think they would have been pretty quick to identify if he had been charged with a crime. Maybe appearing "very disgruntled" is now a crime.

 

It could also be that an intimate relationship with a co-worker transpired and when it was over things were said and done that were threatening one or more people.

 

If someone that just got "put on leave" shouts, "I am going to buy an AK and pull a Virginia Tech on this place!", I think the cops would likely be notified and justifiably get involved. BTW, State Workers often times cannot get fired, rather just transferred if they have tenure. "Administrative Leave" may be the worst punishment for someone that really fucked things up or did something really bad.

 

Conspiracy to commit a crime is no doubt a slippery slope, but I don't think that this report has all the facts about this guy everyone is rushing to defend. The guy may ACTUALLY be a fucking psycho with a restraining order and/or a history of violence or abuse or any number of other material things not mentioned! The NICS background checks don't catch everyone and the news reporter probably doesn't know what a violation on the 4473 questions would entail.

 

I lack any faith in the news media in this country for reasons I can easily pick out in this report. I just don't believe that all of the facts were acknowledged in a one page news article. Police don't just go around following people as they go to the gun store in my experience. They need a reason that they can back up in court. Otherwise all of us would be in the psych ward right now!

 

If this guy is on the up-and-up, then I agree that someone is gonna get sued!

 

 

 

You are probably right and I hope you are. Hopefully the media and the police are just not reporting certain information and hopefully they had a very good reason to go pick this guy up. I will admit, loosing ones job and then going out and spending a good deal of money on guns doesn't make fiscal sense to me but that is of course speculation on my part. Time will tell I guess.

[Paulyski 2,227]

BTW

Don't get me wrong.

Most people who enter a psych unit unwillingly or are placed on holds can be quite justifiably deemed an imminent threat.

It's just once in a while, a series of events can lead to unfavorable outcomes to a person. Especially when they find out they can't necessarily leave.

I've seen some lousy situations in the past.

 

It wouldn't be hard to imagine a situation manipulated with all parties simply erring on the side of caution because of someone else's unfounded fears & preconceived notions.

 

(warning: random rant, subjective, confabulated & not directed at anyone in particular)

Who knows?

What if the guy was terminated after his ultra liberal, large assed female boss herd him while he was all excited & talking about buying guns he's been looking at on the net to some fellow employee, then she freaked out because she's of the mindset that the only reason for guns is to kill people. So she has him fired after freaking out & during the dismissal, he is upset & is perceived by human resources of looking threateningly at them (when understandably he's just pissed at a wrongful dismissal)

The office makes a big deal out of everything & calls the cops & says the guy was acting threateningly & talking about getting guns.

 

Now Dude now just lost his job & is looking at a while on unemployment @ $400 a week because the economy is shit & his work reference isn't looking so good, so he buys a couple of toys before the cash gets tight, so he can play while he has free time.

 

He kicks back, relaxes, & goes to sleep after a really hard day.

Only to wake up to fuckin' Armageddon on his doorstep then people cuffing him, stealing his shit & telling him he can go with them voluntarily, or.....

 

I doubt "voluntarily" meant the dude just all of a sudden said "hey guys... Ya know, I wanna go to the nut house! How's that sound!? Can ya hold my guns so they don't go & shoot eachother while I'm gettin' shots in the ass!?"

 

I can see how this scenario could happen once, noticed & then be duplicated intentionally for others's political agendas.

 

 

But who knows? The guy may be Charles Manson reincarnated.

I just think this is a touch presumptive.

This is Oregon we're talking about here. Our leadership is of the the Polozi type. Our state has decent (could be better) gun laws, & that pisses some people off.

I just can't see how "A terrorist attack at a state building by a mentally ill, disgruntled employee being thwarted by the state police" would possibly have failed to make the news, had their been some legally solid reasoning to this.

The political climate is too hot for it to be overlooked.

 

At any rate, just let this be an example of how the population can be controlled even if they actually break NO laws.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Paulyski

[Gaddis 1,689]

I just have to think back on the Olympic Park bombing suspect who was later found not to be guilty or the Branch Davidian compound raid fiasco (where they could have put Barney Fife & his one bullet at the main gate) to arrest anyone attempting to leave the compound (and not incinerate them instead) to see just how fallible some branches of law enforcement can be.

[Bayoupiper 738]

I just have to think back on the Olympic Park bombing suspect who was later found not to be guilty or the Branch Davidian compound raid fiasco (where they could have put Barney Fife & his one bullet at the main gate) to arrest anyone attempting to leave the compound (and not incinerate them instead) to see just how fallible some branches of law enforcement can be.

 

 

 

Speaking of just being let out of the asylum!!

 

 

 

 

Where ya been?

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Conspiracy to commit a crime is no doubt a slippery slope, but I don't think that this report has all the facts about this guy everyone is rushing to defend. The guy may ACTUALLY be a fucking psycho with a restraining order and/or a history of violence or abuse or any number of other material things not mentioned!

 

That's why I said "....from what info we're given in the article" in my post, multiple times.