LEOs have troubles too. Remember this guy?

HE has PTSD? What about the citizen he threatened to execute?

PistolPackingMomma said:

HE has PTSD? What about the citizen he threatened to execute?

Click to expand...

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

Here is the link to the article.

I meant, if anyone from that night should have PTSD, it should be the citizen, not the cop.

PistolPackingMomma said:

I meant, if anyone from that night should have PTSD, it should be the citizen, not the cop.

Click to expand...

I have not kept up on street lingo .... PTSD = CRACK

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.

"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.

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.

Click to expand...

Anyone have a link to these State laws?

carolina guy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!!

mspgunner said:

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/forme...er-suing-former-departmentcity-claiming-ptsd/

Click to expand...

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.

REALteach4u said:

his 2A rights should have been denied as a result of his felonious actions.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS disagrees.....reasonable restrictions stand as the law(s) of the land.

OC for ME said:

SCOTUS disagrees.....reasonable restrictions stand as the law(s) of the land.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

It is a function of thought patterns. <snip>

Click to expand...

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?