Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/p ... e-policing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Allegedly “disgruntled” man has his guns seized, and “voluntarily” surrenders to two SWAT teams and dozens of police officers for a crime that hadn’t been committed

Radley Balko | March 16, 2010

"...There's nothing wrong with looking for signs that someone is about to snap, and if he's putting up multiple red flags, we'd certainly want law enforcement to investigate, possibly to chat with the person and his friends and family. And obviously if someone has made specific threats, a criminal investigation should follow. ..."

"...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...."


Do You Support "Pre-Policing?" Was it right for the police to arrest Pyles?

Or was it a crime for which the police should be held legally responsible?

Wrong.

The police should have just kept an eye on that guy.

This is a tough one. Unfortunately, a lot of people die because warning signs aren't true probable cause for arrest. It's like diagnosing a disease at an autopsy. I'll go with "Moral, not Consitutional" but he'll win in court without question.

We're not quite to the point of "Minority Report" just yet.

I don't see how he can be convicted of a crime - he may need help in terms of mental and medical assistance, but that's about it. I have no problem with people, even the police, stepping in to avoid something bad from happening, but I don't see where it leads to criminal charges.

GannonFan wrote:I don't see how he can be convicted of a crime - he may need help in terms of mental and medical assistance, but that's about it. I have no problem with people, even the police, stepping in to avoid something bad from happening, but I don't see where it leads to criminal charges.

Unless he has made threats or done something stupid that has yet to be reported, Pyles has zero chance of being prosecuted.

However, IF he has done no wrong and is as sensible as he appears to be in the article, Pyles has a case for lawsuit.

No probable cause? No warrant? No threats? No history of mental illness? Why shouldn't the cops and whoever planned this witch hunt go to jail?

His last name is Pyle, goddammit! Hasn't anyone seen Full Metal Jacket? He's crazier than bat shit!

native wrote:Why shouldn't the cops and whoever planned this witch hunt go to jail?

That would also be silly.

Hmmm, the Thought Police are here at last.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Wrong.

The police should have just kept an eye on that guy.

To what extent? I'm not saying he should have been arrested, but are you suggesting 24/7 surveillance?

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. They arrest him, that's wrong. They don't arrest him and he does something bad, where were they?

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Wrong.

The police should have just kept an eye on that guy.

To what extent? I'm not saying he should have been arrested, but are you suggesting 24/7 surveillance?

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. They arrest him, that's wrong. They don't arrest him and he does something bad, where were they?

Yeah, 24/7 surveillance for a bit. You're damned if you arrest him. And you're damned if you do nothing. You're not damned if you pay some donut eating fat dude to sit in his Ford Taurus outside the guy's house. I'm sure it would be less expensive than sending out the SWAT team and such.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You're not damned if you pay some donut eating fat dude to sit in his Ford Taurus outside the guy's house.

Maybe.