TheAgitator.com
Pre-Crime Policing
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010My crime column this week looks at the disturbing apprehension of David Pyles, who woke up to SWAT teams outside his home and had his guns seized despite having committed no crime. I spoke with Pyles on the phone Friday. Fun quote:
“They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning. I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation.”
The police described Pyles’ surrender as “voluntary.” Not sure that’s what I would call it.
If they go down to the park and arrest every grizzled old man I’m sure they’ll prevent some child molestations too…
“…I’m sure they’ll prevent some child molestations…”
Don’t give them any ideas.
Good article Radley — I was glad to see that Pyles was willing to go on the record with you.
The next logical step is a government agency — the “Department of Due Process,” perhaps — to manage this innovative “proactive approach” to what passes for law enforcement.
More evidence that law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from Brady law background checks or registration requirements to own firearms.
[/sarc]
I really don’t understand why cops now seem obsessed with going after almost everything nowadays (drug users, this guy, random black people for walking around) except actual threats to the community.
Is it making up for a lack of real competence or something?
Is it making up for a lack of real competence or something?
A lack of institutional competence, I think. The chances of any one cop being an incompetent, egomaniacal dickhead are probably not all that high. But a hyper-politicized, image-obsessed environment like modern day law enforcement is bound to produce screwed up priorities and procedures on an institutional level.
This is doubleplusungood.
By definition, an actual “threat” is something I should fear as it might be able to hurt me.
On the other hand, if I can arrest non-threatening people, I can make it look like I’m doing something while at the same time avoiding exposure to actual harm.
Someone like Cheye Calvo even makes it fun. We get to play dress-up, shoot some dogs, turn his house upside down, and act like the big man for a few hours without any actual chance that we’ll be hurt. Same with Pyle.
Beats the hell out of going after criminals who might be armed and dangerous.
This should also serve as a warning, in case you ever get involved with the police, that they are not under any obligation to tell you the truth. Their promises (in the context of a situation like this one) aren’t worth anything; they’re going to try to get cooperation by whatever means they can.
The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation.”
If he had asked them not to shoot him he would be dead now.
Excellent article, Radley. Section 1983 cases are difficult to win, but I think this guy actually has a pretty good shot.
I swear, if I ever win the lottery, I will construct a fake house that is made out of solid steel and just looks like it has space inside. Then a few wireless cameras and an anonymous phone call from a pay phone and I can go viral on youtube with the videos of SWAT trying to break into a solid chunk of steel.
Law enforcement is the one of the only professions where you are actively taught and encouraged to lie and trick people in order to con them into doing something that injures them against their will, all with complete impunity and state approval. There are few occupations as sleazy. Being arrested like that would have to be a lot like being raped, except without the involvement of the genitals (at least in most cases). And it would probably be hard, if not impossible, to get the stink off.
“Bloom says the police are permitted to make a determination on their own to take someone in for a mental health evaluation—there’s no requirement that they first consult with a judge or mental health professional.”
So… basically… in Oregon if the police think you might be arrestable and you legally own a gun, they can just surround your house, call you on the phone and demand you surrender for a ‘mental evaluation’. And of course, for their ‘safety’, they’ll need to search for your gun.
If you surrender… they get a free search! If you don’t surrender, they break in and arrest you for … um… ‘obstruction of justice’. And get a free search.
I’m pretty sure that’s the classical definition of “Wiping your ass with the Constitution”
If they thought he was such a danger why didn’t they just do some real police work. Now taxpayers are going to pay an even bigger bill when he wins his lawsuit.
From the article:
At root behind this case and others like it is our naïve, hopeful, and sometimes even dangerous belief that every horrible shooting spree or lone-wolf act of terrorism can be prevented.
Warning signs, people! Anyone who goes out and buys a gun after being put on administrative leave is a ticking time bomb. A two alarm fire. I two SWAT team take-down.
If they had any brains, they would never have arrested the guy. If he really was disgruntled and indeed had all those guns, just the fact that he calmly handled the unwarranted siege of his house is proof that he is probably more stable than most of the guys involved in the arrest.
Meanwhile back in Texas: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/carrollton/stories/DN-carrlawsuit_12met.ART.State.Edition2.4b8b287.html
Dave,
Add in lawyer and politician to that list.
Given their determination to do exactly what they promised him they wouldn’t it’s lucky he chose the conditions he did.
If he’d given up on the basis that they not shoot his dog, shoot him and then put a gun in his hand to frame him then his night could have been a whole lot worse.
Obviously, the mental evaluation result was in his favor, as he is now back home and not in a mental hospital or jail. I hope he sues the pants off everyone involved in his “take down”, particularly the person who authorized sending SWAT after him, and also, especially the person who suggested to the cops that he might be planning something heinous.
I said this before: Suppose we know someone is disgruntled at a group over a certain offense (being fired in this case) and they go out and buy some firearms immediately after said offense… is there anything that should be done without additional threats, etc.?
Obviously this story is ridiculous but I’m wondering if we need to wait for a person to show up at the workplace with guns?
Just playing devil’s advocate.
So, what will this guy do when he goes out to get a job now? Does he have to disclose his evaluation? Sounds like that will make it even harder for him to get a job, more likely to be depressed, and more likely to go off the deep end. To protect everyone, we had to make this one guy’s life more difficult forever. Talk about disproportionate.
Honestly, if I had an employee I hated and really wanted to ruin his chances at future employment, this is what I would do. I think a lot of asshole bosses just took note of what happened.
Let’s us not forget one last thing. This dude was arrested for NOT committing a crime.
Reggie, the simple answer is YES!
It is OK to check this guy for priors, talk to his friends, and neighbors, you know investigate the potential. We do not need to set a standard of crime for a thought. We humans have this crazy thing about changing our minds.
The worst part for me is that they entered into his home, and removed private property after they kidnapped him. They had no warrant, he was not arrested in his home, he was secured, he did not give them permission to enter his home.
I do not care what state, commonwealth, or province you live in, the police can not enter your home, or even trespass on your curtilage without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or permission.
//Obviously this story is ridiculous but I’m wondering if we need to wait for a person to show up at the workplace with guns?//
What would be wrong with that? If government personnel weren’t so busy attacking the rights of everyday citizens, they would probably have time to do real police work.
@ Reggie
As I said on a previous thread on this incident, the intelligent (and compassionate) thing to do would be to knock on his door* and say “These things have been brought to our attention, would you like to talk about it? We can put you in touch with a confidential counsellor if you like.”
*Or phone him from the station if you’re too chickenshit to meet him in person.
Reggie,
Unless I’m mistaken, the article indicates he works from home due to employee/employer disputes. In other words, he was not fired.
So your chain of reasoning is off.
Hello this happens all the time. Scared ex-girlfriend files restraining order. Creepy ex-boyfriend adheres to the letter of the restraining order, but still weirds out the girlfriend (i.e. standing just 301 yards way or what have you). Girl goes to cops. Cops shrug and say, “He hasn’t broken the law yet.” Two months later the cops are arresting him after having found the girl chopped up in his trunk.
Now, sad, but think about this. Ex-girlfriend is pissed at you. You slept with her really really hot friend. So to get even she says you’ve been creeping her out and she wants a restraining order. She gets one because, yeah she’s been over starting fights in public, and all people know is that you yell at each other. Then she calls up the cops and say, “He just told me if he can’t have me nobody can, go arrest him before he chops me up like the girl in the above paragraph.” Next thing you know you are on your face in your underwear as a cop screams at you “YOU FUCKING MOVE SICKO AND I BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS ALL OVER YOUR FUCKING BEDROOM!!!!!”
Sound like a good plan there Reggie? Maybe that is your biggest fantasy, to be handcuff and man handled by a bunch of dudes in military style gear, but I think I’d rather pass and take my chances.
You can stop now.
BTW true story here (using made up name as I don’t recall the guys actual name and the dialog is made up too):
My step-father used to work for the post office (he died about 2 years ago), but one day he comes to work. Police, bomb squad, basically a scene out of a bad cop television show.
So my step-father asks his boss, “What the Hell?”
Boss replies, “Well we had to let Jim go, and well…there is a tool box up against the front door, we think it might be a bomb!”
So my step-father says, “I see. So that explains the police, bomb squad, etc.?”
Boss, “Yeah, we are all very scared.”
My step-father, “You know, Jim lives 5 minutes from here anyone think to call him and ask what the deal is?”
Lots of blinking ensues. Then they get on the blower. Jim drives over.
Jim, “What the fuck!?!?!”
Authority figure points to tool box, “Is that a bomb?!?!?!”
Jim, “What the fuck!?!?!?! No, I borrowed some tools and the tool box. I brought them back this morning, but the door was still locked so I left them there.”
Jim walks over, opens tool box and inside are…wait for it…tools!!!
Might have been a note involved, on top of the tool box, can’t recall. But the above story is the gist of it. Oh, and it is a fairly small town so leaving a box of tools in front of the post office door isn’t unusual.
Arensen is right, making calm and measured contact early on might be the most reasonable thing to do. If a co-worker runs into a former co-worker who was let go under less than ideal circumstances and he says, “He man I bought a couple of guns.” Then having someone call, talk to the neighbors, look at his criminal history, maybe talk to other employees, and even talk to the guy himself. All good ideas. Wait till he is coming home from the grocery store and has his hands full with grocery bags if you that worried.
Sending in the Wanna-Be-Green-Berets is probably a bad first option, even if he is thinking of doing the massacre thing. You might percipitate the very incident you are trying to prevent.
Rhayader “A lack of institutional competence, I think. The chances of any one cop being an incompetent, egomaniacal dickhead are probably not all that high. But a hyper-politicized, image-obsessed environment like modern day law enforcement is bound to produce screwed up priorities and procedures on an institutional level.”
Man, Rhayader that was very well put!
Harassing citizens like this is probably the best way to make them more disgruntled and likely to go postal.
@Reggie: By your reasoning, we should go ahead and detain everyone that shows up at a bar, package store or club. We shouldn’t have to wait until they get into a car to prevent the tragedy of drunk driving. At the very least we should set up mandatory blood draws outside all those places so everyone that has consumed alcohol can be detained “just in case.” The law of the land, at least last I checked, was still innocent until proven guilty…as much as people seem to want to change it.
As was clearly explained in the “Don’t Talk To The Police” video (mentioned here a few months ago) by a policeman, “I’m allowed to lie.”
I posted a link to this article on my Facebook page. A few people understood it to be outrageous. Sadly, others thought it was a great idea. A couple of the quotes in that vein:
– “I would have to say that if innocent lives were saved by this ‘preemptive’ raid then it was worth it.”
– “I’m thinking the families of murdered, abused women with failed restraining orders would approve of this.”
Yes, this is the kind of thinking we’re up against. It seems as though many people are willing to give governments ANY power they ask for — as long as they claim something worse MIGHT have happened without that intrusive power.
Jay, that is what the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission currently does (at least with bars).
For what it’s worth Radley, I’m glad you exist.
An analogy:
My 10-year-old son likes to play Warcraft 2, which comes with a map editor. So he makes these huge maps where he has like 6 allies and a single enemy. He and his allies have gold mines that are essentially limitless, trees galore, oil wells, lots of workers and soldiers – everything they need. His poor enemy, on the other hand, has a tiny gold mine (if at all), few trees, and only peasants. No soldiers. Sometimes they have enough resources to make a few, but it’s irrelevant against his horde of hundreds of soldiers.
That’s what we’re talking about here. It’s expected in a 10-year-old – grown men who are trusted with authority should act a little older.
Excellent article, Radley.
And to elaborate a bit on what Kevin said: me too, and I sleep a little better at night knowing you’re out there.
Oh, and I have a question maybe someone can help with:
Where / how was the connection made with this guy being placed on leave and then having bought guns? I mean, by who? Who was watching and decided he might be dangerous?
This is the part of the story that really bothers me most and I seem to be missing the answer.
So, the state can take you illegally and they cannot be held liable. If you resist during the illegal “arrest”, you validate the arrest…making it legal.
Fucking A. Carny games aren’t as rigged as this crap.
I’m betting he’s disgruntled now.
Nice intelligent responses by some. Crazy angry ranting by others… seems about right for posing a question while agreeing with the hive anyway.
Ya shoulda expected that one Reggie, it’s pretty emotional…good phrasing of the question and it really is a useful point for discussing because it’s a valid concern (not wanting ppl to get shot).
Extrapolating to the extreme isn’t helpful…the initial information was troubling: 1) dude gets fired, 2) coworkers say he’s “very disgruntled”, 3) he purchases an AK and two handguns the next day. HELL yes it’s time to be concerned, I wouldn’t go to work for a month without artillery if I heard that about a coworker. The question, of course, isn’t whether to be concerned but what the response should be. As others have noted I think the appropriate thing would be “further investigation” looking for specific threats and “engagement” where you actually talk to the guy and keep track of him during the cooling off period if he really is fantasizing about going out with a bang. Reggie’s not suggesting (correct me if I’m wrong) that the SWAT teams and illegal search, seizure, arrest, etc are the appropriate response but instead suggesting that “some” response was needed. Our arguments here are almost all about what happened, not why, and Reggie deserves a wee bit better than our first foaming at the mouth knee-jerk response…god knows I’ve been guilty of it before, but he’s asking the right question to engage those we disagree with.
Ah! Yes, Trish.
My thoughts exactly.
How did the goons get their information in the first place?
How did they know he had been put on leave?
How did they know he bought any guns?
Who made the decision to plan this whole deal?
Whose idea was it that they publicize this as a “success”?
Then my next question:
Given the totality of the circumstances (being awakened in the early hours to discover a SWAT team outside your home and being told to “surrender” and then doing so under some stipulations, only to learn you were played for a fool and lied to) wouldn’t you or I be a little angry?
…And if he it was determined that he was “angry” (subject exhibits issues with anger and resentment of authority figures) by the shrink, where would he be now?
Hell!!!!! I am angry after reading this article. Does that mean I may be visited by the goon squads?
The more Radley you read the more you realize we’re all just an administrative error, ill informed report, or petty attitude away from the kind of thing you grow up believing only happens in all those far away bad countries..
Geez, the cops lied to Pyles about handcuffing him and removing him. C’mon those guys wouldn’t do that. They wouldn’t LIE through m-fing teeth would they???? NEVER, EVER trust anyone in law enforcement, EVER, for any reason. Lying, cocksucking sons of bitches. Whew. Ok, I’m done.
Dave Krueger hath scrit:
Surely the (in)famous Dave Krueger sarcastic wit hasn’t overlooked lawyers and politicians matching exactly that same job description. Right, Dave?
welcome to the United States…….papiers bitten
Are we talking some silly abstract theory thing or reality? If it is the former, yes by all means some moderate response with more investigation and possibly talking to the guy and getting him help if he really is considering “wiping out that nest of vipers.”
The reality though is that the police have one response button:
MASSIVE OVERWHELMING FUCKING FORCE THAT WOULD SCARE YOU BACK TO THE STONE AGE MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!11!!!!oNE!!!ELEVEN
Given that, no. No “premptive action” should be taken. None at all.
Why?
Because with MASSIVE OVERWHELMING FUCKING FORCE THAT WOULD SCARE YOU BACK TO THE STONE AGE MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!11!!!!oNE!!!ELEVEN you will get dead innocent people. Absolutely no doubt about.
Sorry Reggie.
BTW when reading the massive overwhelming force part imagine someone shouting it like Sam Kinison used to shout.
“And Pyles is now attorney shopping for a possible civil rights lawsuit.”
Duh.
Fucking duh.
Can anyone put me in touch with my local SWAT team? They can come to my house and abuse me and we’ll split the 7-figure settlement — half for me, half for the squad. Sound like a deal?
SamK is right. Tone down the vitriol, please.
Let’s address dissent (which doesn’t really even describe Reggie’s comment) with a bit more respect.
The point of the comments section is to have a discussion, not to browbeat anyone who even slightly disagrees into submission.
I’ve warned commenters who disagree with me to do so without being dick-ish about it. Same goes to those responding to people who may disagree with the prevailing opinion on this site.
TONE DOWN THE VITRIOL, PLEASE
Fair enough, Radley.
So would someone explain how the cops came upon this information which led them to assert they needed to do something (something as egregious as this)?
Who informed them he was put on leave?
Where did they find out he just purchased the guns?
Who’s brilliant idea was it to saddle up the fucking SWAT team over the notion that he MIGHT commit a crime?
Do we no longer have a right to face our accusers either?
Someone help me out here because I am unable to put all these missing pieces together.
You took the words right out of my fingers, Kevin. I was thinking those same thought earlier today.
Without the information, the SWAT team cannot act, unless of course, they make up the information out of whole cloth (which, admittedly, does not seem to be the case here).
Assuming a SWAT team does not behave overtly illegally (i.e., being an actual criminal gang like Jeffrey Cujdik in Philadelphia, or the cops in Atlanta who murdered Kathryn Johnston as opposed to behavior of “questionable” constitutionality), then the information must come from somewhere.
Perversely, it seems to follow that the less information the SWAT team receives in aggregate, the more sensitive they will be to any perceived threat, as they will need to demonstrate their raison d’etre or else face possible elimination. Certainly they wouldn’t be able to play dress-up with their toys and bully people, and that would be torture for them.
Any SWAT team not directly accountable to the people by a Citizen’s Review Board with actual sovereignty is a bomb waiting to go off in a community. Now that pre-crime is overtly actionable (in reality, it always has), it appears Amerika has moved a giant leap forward toward overt Police State.
We either live under the constitution or we don’t. If we are using the constitution cafeteria style, then nothing is unconstitutional. Including arresting someone for not breaking any laws and entering his home without a warrant and stealing his stuff.
What differentiates cops from politicians and lawyers is that cops actually have a professional ethic that condones lying. It’s part of their job description and a legitimate strategy to accomplish their mission. They overtly elevate lying to a place of honor. They consider it a job well done if they successfully trick someone into committing a crime or confessing to one. The one tactic that is used more than any other against consensual “crime” (including drug arrests) is the sting. Stings are lies.
Politicians certainly do lie and, however they rationalize it, most live without even a hint of guilt. But, they do not openly admit to doing it, claiming it as a badge of honor.
The law, as a profession, covers too broad a range of occupational types for me to paint them all with the same brush. For example, I don’t consider the lawyers at the Institute for Justice to be deceitful self-serving liars. Insofar as the government uses sleazy underhanded immoral methods to throw people in prison or take their property, I don’t think of that as the fault of lawyers as a profession nearly so much as it is the fault of lawyers operating in the role of politicians. Granted, there are plenty of sleazy lawyers, but they still don’t openly admit to lying and intentionally deceiving people the way cops do.
Because Pyles has been “under the care of a mental health institution” I’m pretty sure he can be denied the right to own a firearm in a number of states now.
It’s pretty clear to me that they, (they being: those in .gov issued costumes and the politicians giving them orders), have started this war. For that, I will never grieve over the loss of a single one of them… not one, not ever.