Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: LEOs have troubles too. Remember this guy?

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    LEOs have troubles too. Remember this guy?

    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    HE has PTSD? What about the citizen he threatened to execute?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    HE has PTSD? What about the citizen he threatened to execute?

    He paid a $150 fine, Stopping in the roadway, and went about his business.

    Here is the link to the article.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    I meant, if anyone from that night should have PTSD, it should be the citizen, not the cop.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    I meant, if anyone from that night should have PTSD, it should be the citizen, not the cop.
    I have not kept up on street lingo .... PTSD = CRACK

  6. #6
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Sounds like the citizen should keep a close eye on this...if the former cop gets $$, he should file citing the cop as an example and ask for more.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    "Safety Director Thomas Ream issued the ruling Tuesday and released the three-page report explaining it Wednesday"

    So he was "Reamed"...

    "John Simpson, chief prosecutor for the city of Massillon, said that he reviewed state law for menacing, aggravated menacing and assault, but there was insufficient evidence to support any charges."

    Video/audio is insufficient evidence? WTF. Bartlett should have pushed the DA's office. That pile of crap belongs in jail. Period.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    John Simpson, chief prosecutor for the city of Massillon, said that he reviewed state law for menacing, aggravated menacing and assault, but there was insufficient evidence to support any charges.
    Anyone have a link to these State laws?
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  9. #9
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Sounds like the citizen should keep a close eye on this...if the former cop gets $$, he should file citing the cop as an example and ask for more.
    Harless has a history of abusing citizens; Bartlet should go to either the FBI or US Attorneys office and see if he can get 18 USC 242 (criminal statute for deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) charges brought against him; screw the locals!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430

    I think you were engaged in the conversation a while back on this, but I'll mention it for others anyway.

    PTSD is the same claim that Harless attempted to make as a reason to retain his job with the PD. What Harless continues to fail to understand is that any time he's involved in a serious issue, especially one involving his firearm, the department usually involves the shrink. If he had signs of PTSD they would have been identified during his sessions and that would mean the department covered it up. It's more likely that he has never had and currently does not have PTSD.

    In any case, if he claims PTSD he needs to be promptly committed against his will as a danger to himself and others, all of his firearms need to be confiscated, and his FBI file needs to be permanently flagged for NICS denial based on his "issues". Essentially, Harless should have been ordered by the courts to surrender all of his firearms and his 2A rights should have been denied as a result of his felonious actions.

    The fact that Harless and/or his partner have yet to be charged with any crime involving the lengthy history of complaints, several that have been proven legitimate via dashcam video, should anger the public. To my understanding, his former partner still has his job today even though his role in the viral incident illustrated an attempt to conspire to conceal a criminal act by a LEO and allegedly attempt to tamper with or destroy the dashcam video.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 08-31-2012 at 11:05 PM.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    his 2A rights should have been denied as a result of his felonious actions.
    The US Constitution was specifically designed in such a way as to render the government powerless to do this, frankly I really like it that way and this is an example of the type of thinking that has allowed the government to erode our rights.

    While I understand your frustration and am well aware of the mans criminal behavior caught on tape on three separate occasions, there were never to be any provisions to disarm anyone for any reason.

    He should be placed into prison where he will either reform or not, once released and having served his time, again there are no provisions to take something from him that the government specifically is restricted from taking, his rights.

    You, I, nor the government were ever to have the power over the rights of another, watch how you think as I can assure you, there are a host of others who would like to see your thoughts a reality and it gets them one step closer to seeing their own a reality, where they decide when you should or should not have a firearm.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    The US Constitution was specifically designed in such a way as to render the government powerless to do this, frankly I really like it that way and this is an example of the type of thinking that has allowed the government to erode our rights.

    While I understand your frustration and am well aware of the mans criminal behavior caught on tape on three separate occasions, there were never to be any provisions to disarm anyone for any reason.

    He should be placed into prison where he will either reform or not, once released and having served his time, again there are no provisions to take something from him that the government specifically is restricted from taking, his rights.

    You, I, nor the government were ever to have the power over the rights of another, watch how you think as I can assure you, there are a host of others who would like to see your thoughts a reality and it gets them one step closer to seeing their own a reality, where they decide when you should or should not have a firearm.
    SCOTUS disagrees.....reasonable restrictions stand as the law(s) of the land.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SCOTUS disagrees.....reasonable restrictions stand as the law(s) of the land.
    It is a function of thought patterns. If you allow for certain persons to be disarmed by your own thought patterns and justifications, then you must not complain when others who's thoughts are different than your own put you into a group that should be disarmed.

    How can one think their own justifications for disarming another are any more relative than Sara Brady's positions or Bloomberg?

    The most pathetic thing to come in the past few years is the phrase "reasonable" into our court system as the word itself lacks any factual basis and is indeed a totally subjective term. I would have to offer that it is by design so as to allow the government to continue to influence what is "reasonable" and indoctrinate each generation further into control, the opposite of freedom.

    It is frankly totally UNREASONABLE that this open carry site even exist as there is no reason open carry ever should have been restricted anywhere.

    I also would disagree that the reasonable restrictions stand as the law of the land, IMHO it was a cop out and while many of those laws indeed remain in place, it is not because they can pass the test, but because it cost to much to bring them forward and while the opinion indeed used the language implied, it was simply an additional method to keep challenges to a minimum, open carry for instance.

    OC would indeed be one of the "reasonable" BS answers. In the days the constitution was written it was reasonable to open carry but in today's world it is no longer "reasonable" to openly display firearms or carry them for that matter.

    My point, if you insist this officer lose his gun rights, then you indeed have little wiggle room when someone insist you lose yours as well for whatever reason they see fit.

    Can't get me off felons rights, felons can get guns easier than we can, they buy them on the street, no 4473 delays etc. It is a feel good law that is completely UNREASONABLE.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    It is a function of thought patterns. <snip>
    Are you talking to me?

    Of course the use of reasonable is unreasonable. But, like the outcome of the last session, reasonable is a reality today and must be dealt with in the manner(s) available to us today. We can change the meaning of reasonable in the "near term", maybe, with a goal to eliminate reasonable from the discussion all together down the road. Little steps, takes time, patience and finesse. Sound familiar?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •