Apparently giving the impression that you might commit a crime is an arrestable offense now:

Quote :

"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."

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


No worries mate, the state is here to protect you.

3/22/2010 6:39:02 PM

you know, police can take someone into custody for an involuntary commitment without a warrant or mental health consultant, if the police deem you a danger to yourself or others. It is not an arrest but a custody placement so they can receive a mental evaluation.

3/22/2010 6:44:47 PM

3/22/2010 6:51:03 PM

Preemptive strike. We tried running a country on that for a while, and all we got was a lousy war.

3/22/2010 7:23:48 PM

I don't know all the details here, but hypothetically if this guy did go nuts and shoot everyone, wouldn't people be complaining about how all the signs were there, and we did nothing?

Just saying, sometimes you can't win for losing.

3/22/2010 7:25:43 PM

^

Quote :

"'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin"

3/22/2010 7:27:35 PM

Quote :

"you know, police can take someone into custody for an involuntary commitment without a warrant or mental health consultant, if the police deem you a danger to yourself or others. It is not an arrest but a custody placement so they can receive a mental evaluation."

Just because they do it doesn't make it right. They could've easily just watched this guy and gotten him for speeding when he was on the way, or something. This preemptive shit is unacceptable.

And let's not forget: Labeling people as insane or mentally ill is a rather efficient tactic by governments to rob individuals of their rights and their credibility.

3/30/2010 9:47:18 AM

^^I don't think it's exactly sacrificing freedom for security.

I'm just saying that when we have had these kinds of incidents in recent years, many people have looked back and complained that nothing was done when there were warning signs. (See the Ft. Hood attack and the VT incident).

I'm not making a judgment, just an observation.

3/31/2010 1:06:38 PM

We're light on details here.

What caused his employers to call the cops? As he was being led out of the building did he turn around and say "You'll pay for this" or something?

3/31/2010 1:29:23 PM

3/31/2010 1:45:49 PM