Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
gigag, I think the problem here is very clear.gigag04 wrote:I take people in for emergency mental health evaluations with great regularity. Where's the problem...sure this could be portrayed as something it isn't, but these types of forced evaluations are not new. If the officer reasonably believes the person is a danger to themselves or others, they can (and should) act. The reasonable standard can be decided in courts, but an officer acting in good faith and dealing with a mentally unstable person should not be punished our sued by you lawsuit happy types.
With funding cuts for MHMR programs, resources are limited for solving the problems of the mentally unstable. This often turns it into a police problem. I'm not sure of what led up to the police involvement at this level, but frankly neither are any of you.
Complaints of excessive use of force are investigated by the FBI and taken very seriously. When they get involved, I will worry. Until then, I bet you $100 there are facts that we need to know to better understand the response by all involved - and I bet you the media won't be the ones to dole out that info.austinrealtor wrote:gigag, I think the problem here is very clear.gigag04 wrote:I take people in for emergency mental health evaluations with great regularity. Where's the problem...sure this could be portrayed as something it isn't, but these types of forced evaluations are not new. If the officer reasonably believes the person is a danger to themselves or others, they can (and should) act. The reasonable standard can be decided in courts, but an officer acting in good faith and dealing with a mentally unstable person should not be punished our sued by you lawsuit happy types.
With funding cuts for MHMR programs, resources are limited for solving the problems of the mentally unstable. This often turns it into a police problem. I'm not sure of what led up to the police involvement at this level, but frankly neither are any of you.
1. There was nothing at all "voluntary" about this. While the forced nature of this may be legal under Oregon law, the excessive show of force is an issue here, IMHO.
2. The police had no legal right to enter his home or take his weapons (far as I can tell - IANAL)
3. IF police have the power to "force" a mental health evaluation, then shouldn't there be a mechanism to review their use of such power and reprimand them for abusing it (as appears happened in this case)? This is a circumstance that cries out for that most American of ideals: checks and balances. I fully understand that officers from time to time - acting in good faith - may just be wrong about the need for a mental health check, misread the warning signs, whatever. But this one goes beyond that for me, especially the entering of the home and taking of property.
The lawyer who wants to charge the police with kidnapping is off the deep end. But the illegal entry and removal of property seems a very legitimate civil rights complaint. And showing up first thing with SWAT teams and such seems to be excessive force. If a few officers had asked him to voluntarily go with them for the mental health check and he had barricaded himself inside with his guns, then go ahead and bring SWAT. But seriously, have you ever before heard of the use of SWAT teams for a non-criminal forced mental health evaluation? Overkill.
That brings back some memories. Showing my age somewhat, I read that book in junior high, a little before the year 1984.bdickens wrote:In related news:
Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
jmra wrote:That brings back some memories. Showing my age somewhat, I read that book in junior high, a little before the year 1984.bdickens wrote:In related news:
Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
Discretion is the better part of valor. Sometimes valor takes a while to comprehend. I once had a gentleman come in to buy a pistol on "instant credit" which was offered as an enticement to customers. A license and one credit card was all that was required. This guy had obviously been on the losing end of a fight, complete with bandages. I made the decision to let him fill out the paper work but told him there was a three day waitinh period on firearms. This was in 1966 and Texas has never had a waiting period. He wasn't happy but aquiesced to the terms and left. His wife called about an hour later frantically asking if someone had come in to purchase a gun and gave his description. I told her what I had done and she explained he'd been beat up and was out to get revenge and was very greatful for the action we'd taken. Now I can't say for sure that he didn't go get a weapon somewhere else, but he never came back and being a small town I would've heard something. Was it correct procedure? No! Was it RIGHT, yes! IMHOseniorshooteress wrote:Seems like Law Enforcement is in a catch 22 on this one. We want due dilengence from our police officers in regard to stopping potential threats as people going into their place of former employment and doing stupid stuff like killing off all they come in contact with. Then on the other hand is this case. I believe the reasoning behind taking all the weapons was like a precaution not knowing if another family member could, or would,take up the cause. I don't think our rights as individuals should be compromised but if you look at all the data the police had, it COULD have been an explosive situation. On the other hand if this guy had actually purchased all this fire power with bad intent and gone into his former place of employment and run amuck then we would be asking, why wasn't action taken by police to prevent this? They had all the warning signs, how could this happen? IMO this is the gray area that law enforcement has to deal with. Isn't it better to err on the side of no one being killed or crippled by a crazed (or in this case, supposed disgruntled) person than to sit back and take a lets just wait and see if he is really a nutcase stand, which would be a little bit too late. The guy did get all his weapons back and was released after a hospital stay. I would much rather see this than a bunch of bodies and rooms full of blood and then have them say well he had a CHL and purchased all the weapons legally so the LE couldn't do anything till he actually committed a crime.
I think the only problem I see with your argument is the constitution and the bill of rights. We thread on very dangerous ground when we seize person and property on the premise that we think they might do something wrong.seniorshooteress wrote:Seems like Law Enforcement is in a catch 22 on this one. We want due dilengence from our police officers in regard to stopping potential threats as people going into their place of former employment and doing stupid stuff like killing off all they come in contact with. Then on the other hand is this case. I believe the reasoning behind taking all the weapons was like a precaution not knowing if another family member could, or would,take up the cause. I don't think our rights as individuals should be compromised but if you look at all the data the police had, it COULD have been an explosive situation. On the other hand if this guy had actually purchased all this fire power with bad intent and gone into his former place of employment and run amuck then we would be asking, why wasn't action taken by police to prevent this? They had all the warning signs, how could this happen? IMO this is the gray area that law enforcement has to deal with. Isn't it better to err on the side of no one being killed or crippled by a crazed (or in this case, supposed disgruntled) person than to sit back and take a lets just wait and see if he is really a nutcase stand, which would be a little bit too late. The guy did get all his weapons back and was released after a hospital stay. I would much rather see this than a bunch of bodies and rooms full of blood and then have them say well he had a CHL and purchased all the weapons legally so the LE couldn't do anything till he actually committed a crime.
