2nd video emerges of Canton PD Patrolman Daniel Harless

[Kennah]

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x2014919089/Video-Officer-Harless-loses-his-temper-on-another-arrest

This is the cop who verbally abused and threatened to execute someone during a traffic stop. That driver had a license to carry, and tried to tell Harless he had it.

In this case, the person with the gun didn't have a license to carry, and has since pled guilty.

It is one thing to have an over the top initial reaction upon discovering a gun. I think a lot of profanity and threats can be excused initially, but this guy keeps on, and on, and on. Again with the threats to execute people and "kill every one of you motherfuckers."

This cop is a ticking time bomb who needs to be in a different line of work, if not in jail.

[MicaelS]

1. Given that Harless is now on sick leave

I think he's going to claim he's a victim of PTSD and that's why these incidents happened. Then he'll file for disability.

[RSillsbee]

5. Hate to say it but

Paying him disability would be cheaper that paying the civil suits he's liable to rack up for them

[beevul]

2. People unreccing this?

I guess that shows certain peoples true position on the gun issue.


Disgusting.

[NewMoonTherian]

3. Can someone's hatred of guns...

really blind them to the danger of letting this maniac run loose? There's so much fear of armed citizens, but this monster is paid by the taxpayers to run around with a glock(and a taser, pepper spray, handcuffs and a baton) when he has proven that he shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened pencil.

[Hoyt]

6. Yep, he's bad. Now, if folks wouldn't carry in public, he wouldn't have to worry about his crud.

[Euromutt]

7. I sincerly doubt Officer "I'll put lumps on ya" Harless would be a paragon of professionalism...

...if there weren't people legally carrying. When it comes to the perceived danger involved in vehicle stops, I think the cops are dealing to a large extent with a problem of their own making. Too many cops seize upon a moving violation or an expired tab as a pretext to conduct a search of the vehicle that goes well beyond what is mandated by the probable cause at hand, and as a result, individuals who have contraband items in the vehicle that they don't want found resort to shooting the cop rather than let him find it.

We saw it in the video with Officer Harless's partner, going through the back seat of the car without any apparent justification, and without getting the driver's permission to do so. We also heard Officer Harless threaten to "put lumps" on the young lady in the incident, which had exactly nothing to do with anyone carrying.

But what I love most is your quasi-acknowledgement of Harless's misbehavior, followed without drawing breath by an attempt to justify and transfer the blame to CCW permit holders. Your hypocrisy is quite breath-taking.

[Kennah]

8. If only blacks wouldn't come into white neighborhoods, we wouldn't have crime.

Isn't that the argument made by police departments with ties to the Klan in the South years ago?

[Hoyt]

14. Actually, people with guns shot them, or intimidated them. Klansman where I lived wore guns on hips.

Klansmen/women loved their guns for the "power" it gave them over minorities.

[ileus]

17. ...firearms are there for all of us now, no one has to be intimidated anymore.

[Hoyt]

18. We could ban them in pubic for EVERYONE too. Or you guys could just not carry and

quit supporting gun proliferation.

[ileus]

19. When you get criminals to stop going out in public...you'll get your wish.

Until then I'll keep mine...as I always say....Safety first victim later.

[oneshooter]

20. "Everyone" does that include LEO's? n/t

[SteveM]

26. "We?" Who's "we?" 75% of Americans think 2A recognizes an individual right.

[NewMoonTherian]

28. I choose not to take advantage of this option.

I submit to you that you guys could just educate yourselves on guns and gun owners and quit supporting measures that the majority of the American public reject.

[SteveM]

25. Easy to have power over minorities when minorities are denied guns. nt

[AzWorker]

32. The racist roots of gun control.....

"Klansmen/women loved their guns for the "power" it gave them over minorities."

yup

And they REALLY loved the racist gunlaws that disarmed minorities so that the Klan could have a monopoly on force.

[iverglas]

43. will you come right out and say it? will somebody?

Are people who advocate gun control racists?

Please, enquiring minds really want to know.

If you are not willing to say that -- or, of course, if that is not what you think -- what is your point, please?


The roots of "rape control" are misogynist. Rape was a property crime committed by one man against another man.

Are you suggesting that there should be no "rape control" now?

This is called an analogy. This one is an excellent analogy. It is almost an identity.

If you want to say that the "racist roots of gun control" (accepting that this allegation is true purely for the sake of argument) mean that there should be no gun control now, you have to say that the misogynist roots of rape control mean there should be no rape control laws now.

You have to own what you say, you see.

So will you just tell us what you're saying, please?

[gejohnston]

49. no, and I fail to see the connection.

it is historical fact. Your own pistol laws dating back to the late 19th century were more about fear of certain immigrants.

[iverglas]

51. there are lots of historical facts; billions -- brazillions

Nobody ever posts them here.

Shall I start?

There were several smallpox outbreaks in the 19th century that resulted in massive deaths throughout Europe and North America, because of the decline in vaccination rates.

Why is "the racist roots of gun control" a RELEVANT fact in this discussion? -- again, if it were a fact, if MODERN gun control policy had any racist roots?

150 years ago and for centuries before, in a spectrum of civilizations, laws against rape were intended to protect the property of men from other men.

This -- at least to me -- is no argument against modern laws against sexual assault.

So why is "the racist roots of gun control" chanted as if it were an argument against modern gun control measures?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233666&mesg_id=233786

http://abacus.bates.edu/Library/aboutladd/departments/special/ajcr/1970/Tydings.shtml

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE
July 9, 1970
Page 23393

SENATOR TYDINGS AND GUN CONTROL

Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, in the June 27 issue of the New Republic, Alex Campbell has written a perceptive article about the political situation in which the Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS) presently finds himself being the object of attack from both the left and right. I think this short piece clearly demonstrates what happens to a public figure when he takes on the tough issues without ducking. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

...

TYDINGS OF NO JOY

And, because Tydings is also pushing for saner gun laws, lavish displays of posters and bumper stickers paid for by you-know-who tell Maryland voters, "If Tydings wins, you lose."

What?

Their guns; therefore, they seem to fear, their manhood. Both fears are groundless; nevertheless Tydings, a self-confessed liberal, is now being depicted as a castrator as well. Tydings is Maryland's senior senator and faces in September a primary fight with George P. Mahoney, a Democrat who is an eight-times loser and is so far from being a liberal that in 1966 Spiro T. Agnew won the governorship from him largely by appearing to be by contrast a moderate.

Mahoney is counting confidently on gun lobby backing. Should Mahoney lose a ninth time, the gun lobby doubtless will back Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr. against Tydings in November.

Unregistered guns killed two of Tydings’ close friends, John and Robert F. Kennedy. The 1968 Gun Control Act is a flop; only three states require gun licenses and in 35 states, lunatics may legally own guns. Tydings wants guns registered and licensed. His assurances to hunters that this will not interfere with sport and to collectors of antique guns that these won't count, have failed to abate the trumped-up hysteria against Tydings' modest proposals; so have Tydings' terrible statistics – 99,000 armed robberies annually, more than doubled since 1964, and 9,000, Americans shot to death each year.

... The senator has written a book, Born to Starve, to expose his views on population control. He says that 5.4 million American women who are poor don't want large families and do want family planning assistance, but fewer than 800,000 get it. The Nixon Administration has adopted elimination of unwanted births as a national goal, but Tydings is urging larger financial provision, $984,000 over five years. His less rational accusers blow up over his family planning stand. Some blacks say he's a rich white who aims to sterilize the black poor; others profess shock at his proposal to leave abortion "to individual conscience." If he politically survives the attacks generated by what seems to be everyone else's castration syndrome, Tydings may look good in 1972, when he will be only 44. Many of his liberal ideas match with those of Senator McGovern – and of Senator Ted Kennedy. Tydings would also fit a Muskie ticket, or a Hughes ticket. But sometimes, reading his hate mail, Tydings becomes a bit glum. The storm that is being worked up against him in his state is contrived by the gun lobby in part because he is a liberal, and people who fear and hate liberal views readily believe that Tydings is plotting to disarm them so as to leave them helpless prey of vaguely glimpsed powers of evil. But, meanwhile, Tydings' efforts to protect poor and black people from the criminals who prey on them are rudely rebuffed.

As I said two years ago: those were the days, my friend.

That was the modern era of gun control, and the beginnings of the modern era of gun militancy.

Does someone here really, really think that Martin Luther King would be on the side of the gun militants?

Will someone dare to say they do?

Can anyone even find a reputable organization representing African-Americans that is not on the NRA-ILA's blacklist??

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=15

The idea that anyone who spouts this "racist roots of gun control" crap -- and trust me, I am not targeting posters at DU here -- gives a crap about people of colour is laughable. At best.

[gejohnston]

60. so what does

have to do with misogyny?

[iverglas]

67. perhaps you refer to post 43 ...

The explanation is in that post.

I was doing what's called "arguing by analogy".

I can't explain it much more than that, really.

If X is bad because it is a result of ABC, then Y is necessarily bad if it results from ABC.

We'll consider racism and misogyny to be equivalent; both are ABC.

If laws governing the possession of guns arise from racism and are bad, then, since laws governing sexual relations with women arise from misogny, they are bad.

There's no way around it.

The problem with the logic is that MODERN laws prohibiting certain guns do NOT arise from racism, and MODERN laws prohibiting certain sexual relations with women do NOT arise from misogny.

The plain fact is that MODERN laws against rape have nothing to do with laws against rape in an earlier age. They in fact have the complete opposite intent and effect: they are intended to protect women, not to protect men's control over women.

And the plain fact is that MODERN gun control laws have nothing to do with "gun control" laws in an earlier age. They are in fact the complete opposite: they are designed to protect the public in general, not to protect white people's control over people of colour.

The chanting of "the racist roots of gun control" is just the perpetuation of a lie: that MODERN gun control is rooted in racism.

The real fact is that modern gun militancy is rooted in racism.

I do get tired of doing all the work. Google "George P Mahoney" "your home is your castle".

Here ... I've done it enough times ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409654&mesg_id=411016



typos fixed

[gejohnston]

71. While that may be true of your current federal laws (after the 1934),

most if not all of our state and local laws are not those modern laws. They are the same ones written to suppress labor and human rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are the ones being repealed. None of the dire predictions of those opposed to repealing them came true. Based on that alone, and our preference for individual freedom, I think it is proper to question the public safety value of those laws.
What I find appalling, is that some of my fellow USAans, who call themselves liberals, root for and support for agents of the state violating peoples 4th and 5th amendment rights simply because they belong to a different sub culture or hobby or whatever you want to call it. How is that different from a right winger doing the same to their "other"?
I found an interesting gun control debate (have to find the youtube link again) about the long gun registry. The "pro gun" guy supported going back to the 1977 law and supported licensing scheme that it entailed (is it safe to assume he was not from LUFA?) but viewed much of the 1995 was mostly theater. The "anti" was supporting the current law because the streets and snow would turn red if it were repealed.

[iverglas]

75. "our preference for individual freedom"

Unlike the rest of us benighted slaves, who prefer kowtowing; right?

That's why we are free to marry any person of our choice and you aren't.
That's why you have "free speech zones" and we don't.
That's why you have Guantanamo Bay and we don't.
That's why prop up countless dictatorships around the world and we don't.
That's why we have laws protecting the freedom of everyone of every sexual orientation (and of course the standard sex, race, religion, etc.) to hold employment, rent accommodation and obtain other services in the private sector.
That's why we are free to choose our health care and our health care providers without interference from any third party.
That's why we are free to exercise our own choice if we're pregnant.
That's why we are free to travel to Cuba.

Because we don't have a "preference for individual freedom".

Do any of you really have any idea what goes on in the big wide world?

Do you genuinely and sincerely believe that you "prefer" individual freedom somehow more than the rest of us do?


What I find appalling, is that some of my fellow USAans, who call themselves liberals, root for and support for agents of the state violating peoples 4th and 5th amendment rights simply because they belong to a different sub culture or hobby or whatever you want to call it. How is that different from a right winger doing the same to their "other"?

I give up. How is requiring that someone, say, register their firearm THE SAME as whatever you're talking about? How would refusing to allow people to carry firearms around in public be THE SAME as whatever you're talking about?

Since I can't even guess what you're talking about, how would I even begin to answer?

Why do you have to insert disingenuous clauses into your questions like "simply because they belong to a different sub culture or hobby or whatever you want to call it"? Personally, I couldn't give a flying fig what someone's "subculture" or "hobby" is. Possessing handguns, carrying firearms around in public: they are acts. Not subcultures or hobbies. So just stop playing this whole nasty little game, which is what I find appalling, why don't you?


The "pro gun" guy supported going back to the 1977 law and supported licensing scheme that it entailed (is it safe to assume he was not from LUFA?) but viewed much of the 1995 was mostly theater. The "anti" was supporting the current law because the streets and snow would turn red if it were repealed.

Yes, I'm sure the "anti" -- the one opposed to existing laws -- was the picture of sweet reason, and the "pro", the one in favour of existing laws, was a perfect loon. How else could one possibly characterize such a person?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/ct019-eng.htm

Chart 4.6
Firearm-related spousal homicides by type of firearm, Canada, 1980 to 2009


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/part-partie4-eng.htm

While males were more likely to be the victims of homicide, females were more likely to be the victims of family-related homicide, particularly spousal homicide. Over the past 30 years, the rate of spousal homicides against females has consistently been about three to four times higher than that for males ... .

The use of firearms, particularly rifles and shotguns, during the commission of spousal homicides has dropped steadily over the past 30 years. The rate for spousal homicides involving firearms fell 74% from nearly 3 per million spouses in 1980 to less than 1 per million spouses in 2009 (Chart 4.6). Nevertheless, shootings were the cause of death in nearly one-quarter (23%) of spousal homicides between 2000 and 2009, second only to stabbings (41%).

Any other kind of homicide rate anywhere been cut by 2/3 in the last 30 years?

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Law/ChangesToTheLaw.pdf (dispute the facts based on the source if you choose)

In contrast, the controls on rifles and shotguns—unrestricted weapons—were more limited. A Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) was required to acquire an unrestricted firearms but screening was, in practice, limited. However, the law did confer broad powers on Firearms Officers who could refuse to issue an FAC if they had information indicating that “it would not be desirable in the interests of the safety of the applicant or any other person”. Although there was a safety test requirement in the law, it had never been proclaimed.

New requirements introduced in 1991 with Bill C-17 strengthened the screening requirements by adding a mandatory training course, a detailed questionnaire, references, a photograph and a 28-day waiting period. It raised the age for an FAC from 16 to 18 with provisions for minors’ permits. The law also reinforced the powers of the Firearms Officer to refuse an FAC if it was not in the interests of the safety of the applicant or any other person by shifting the burden of proof on appeal of the decision. That is, it required that the applicant prove that the Firearms Officer erred in his or her refusal. This law also defined safe storage requirements, and prohibited semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons as well as large capacity magazines (although there were provisions for provincial exemptions to the magazine prohibition).

However, the 1991 law did not address many of the concerns raised by public safety organizations in the wake of the killing of 14 female engineering students at l’Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal December 6, 1989. In particular, concerns focused on gaps in the controls over firearms owners: the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) was required only to obtain guns, not to possess guns, and only 1/3 of guns owners had valid FACs. – It also recognized the need to strengthen accountability for the firearms owned through registration. For example, rifles and shotguns have tended to be more frequently recovered in crime and are more often a cause of death than handguns. Consequently, an unusual alliance of more than 350 organizations – including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the YWCA of Canada, Victims of Violence International and others – encouraged the government to improve the controls over rifles and shotguns. In addition, a series of inquests recommended the licensing of all firearm owners and the registration of all firearms.

But hell, let's just go back to 1977 and count bodies for a few years to check your gun guy's hypothesis.

[gejohnston]

76. short answer

My PM kind of covers that, plus we have an empire.

Second point, I am refering to cheering police misconduct mentioned on other threads, notice the amendments did not include the second.

For the lack of better words? would gun control advocate New and gun control Old be better? It would be more accurate.

If your gun control groups are as intellectually dishonest as (and I suspect they are, the whole "nobel lie" thing) the ones in the US, I question that those are facts.

[iverglas]

77. well, you feel ... free

If your gun control groups are as intellectually dishonest as (and I suspect they are, the whole "nobel lie" thing) the ones in the US, I question that those are facts.

I have no evidence of any such dishonesty on the part of groups in the US, and if you have any evidence of dishonesty on the part of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control -- actually, if you have any evidence that the rather obvious historical facts I reproduced are not true -- feel free to present it.

The graph I offered was of course from Statistics Canada, an agency so independent that the Chief Statistician resigned last year when the right-wing Conservative government abolished the long-form census (for ideological reasons and no other), contrary to the wishes of government statisticians, other governments and the private sector, and then lied about him to the press. So I wouldn't be questioning the integrity of StatCan.

[gejohnston]

79. Of course you would not have

evidence of dishonesty of US groups, anymore than I would of LUFA or NFA or anyone else there. I did not accuse CCGC of dishonesty, just if they are anything like ours. I was not questioning the data from StatCan, but how you interpeted it, or how CCGC did. Sorry I did not clarify. Like I said before, coincidence does not mean one caused the other.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. Not on the NRA's Blacklist?

Sure - easy:

Congress of Racial Equality

http://www.core-online.org/

[iverglas]

90. "a reputable organization representing African-Americans"?

Congress of Racial Equality

http://www.core-online.org/


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Welcome to DU!

I, however, did not just fall off a turnip truck.

search results for - iverglas "congress of racial equality"

You could start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=33922&mesg_id=34226

I'll abbreviate:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/20_commentary_1_pr.html

The show's most compelling on-air presence is Armstrong Williams, possibly the most noxious Black personality in broadcasting. He lovingly embraces arch-racist Senator Strom Thurmond, who decades ago gave the servile yet ambitious young Armstrong an internship, as both "friend" and "mentor." Williams has served the interests of apartheid South Africa, wallowed in the largess of every Hard Right foundation and think tank in the land, and reveled in long weekends with white supremacists. Williams' broadcast deals entangle him with the Christian Right's unholiest electronic pulpits. He is the premiere Black political whore in America, and the central fixture on America's Black Forum.

Armstrong Williams' protégé is Niger Innis, rising son of gangster "civil rights" caricature Roy Innis, head of the family business criminally referred to as the Congress of Racial Equality. CORE is a tin cup outstretched to every Hard Right political campaign or cause that finds it convenient - or a sick joke - to hire Black cheerleaders for their cross burning events. As the bearer of such lineage, Niger Innis is a prince among Black political scavengers - he even fancies himself an interpreter of what he believes to be Hip Hop culture's conservative characteristics. Niger Innis advertises his political "consultant" wares on America's Black Forum, in the shadow of Strom Thurmond's protégé, Armstrong Williams.

... (Farmer made another appearance on the program later in the year, when he confronted Roy Innis, the man who had hijacked CORE a decade before and turned the organization into what Farmer called a "shakedown" gang. Innis brought to Washington his thuggish Brooklyn entourage and attempted to feed hotel shrimp to the whole party at our expense, which we refused. No doubt the rich, Hard Right is more accommodating to Roy and his son, in their current capacities.)

... Niger is national spokesman for CORE. He helped his father prove CORE's value to white conservatives by running the elder Innis' Democratic primary campaign against Black incumbent New York Mayor David Dinkins, in 1993. The exercise earned the Innises $100,000 in contributions from the usual Right suspects, and the favor of Republican Rudolph Guiliani, who beat Dinkins in the general election.

In the old days, polite Republicans eschewed Roy's goon-like attacks against Black leadership. He was an embarrassment to suburban, Connecticut bankers. White goons run the Party, now, and the Innisses fit in just fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Innis

CORE

Innis was elected National Chairman of CORE in 1968, and has held the position ever since. Initially Innis, headed the organization in a strong campaign of Black Nationalism. White CORE activists, according to James Peck, were removed from CORE in 1965, as part of a purge of whites from the movement then under the control of Innis.<4> He subsequently became prominent as a conservative activist. CORE supported the presidential candidacy of Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972. Since taking over CORE, the organization's politics have moved sharply to the right. Mother Jones magazine said of the modern organization that it "is better known among real civil rights groups for renting out its historic name to any corporation in need of a black front person. The group has taken money from the payday-lending industry, chemical giant (and original DDT manufacturer) Monsanto, and ExxonMobil."<5> CORE's original leader James L. Farmer, Jr. said in 1993 that CORE "has no functioning chapters; it holds no conventions, no elections, no meetings, sets no policies, has no social programs and does no fund-raising. In my opinion, CORE is fraudulent."

The NRA and its fellow gun mlitants find a useful tool. Sadly, it's broken.

Next?

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Correlation/causation.

That racists may have leveraged gun control to disarm target populations does not necessarily have anything to do with 'Gun Control' as a regulatory function.

No more than birth control is 'eugenics' today, as you hear from a lot of right-wing mouthpieces. Even though birth control may have been one tool leveraged by eugenicists in the past.

[gejohnston]

48. yet when a freedom rider be it

an African American or a white liberal showed up with his, the sheets scurried way like roaches.

[NewMoonTherian]

10. Firstly, I doubt that's true.

Secondly, the wrath of a deranged police officer shouldn't be the motivating force behind life-changing decisions. The victim of the tirade that gained Harless his national infamy was acting fully within the law(I believe no charges were filed except failure to notify, and it's apparent in the video that he was trying to notify the officers). What other legal activities should we refrain from in order to pacify society's most volatile, dangerous elements?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. His "crud" runs deeper than people carrying in public

You have to wonder just how classist and racist he is and how many other basic civil rights he opposes

[iverglas]

22. oh dear, I clicked in the expectation of some new revelations

His "crud" runs deeper than people carrying in public

Ah, interesting, I think. And what is all this then?

Well, here's what it is:

You have to wonder just how classist and racist he is and how many other basic civil rights he opposes

Do we? Who sez?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. A thinking person would but its your choice

[iverglas]

35. a thinking person would ... expect you to put your money where your mouth is?

Well, I did, and look where it got me.

Noplace.

[SteveM]

27. The crud runs deep in him, grasshopper.

[rl6214]

34. Seriously, you are going to blame people carrying in public?

But of course you are. If he goes this berserk over something that is legal to do than he will go berserk over anything. He also said the same thing in both instances about shooting someone in the face and being able to sleep at night which makes it sound like he quick draws his gun and practices his lines in front of his mirror at home.

[ileus]

9. People who hate private ownership, want cops like this.

[NewMoonTherian]

11. It's extremely unsettling...

to converse with someone, and consider the notion that they might actually want this to be the norm.

[ileus]

13. to some any gun owner is a criminal...this cop is lucky enough to be in power to enforce his feeling

He's no worse than those that want any open carrier stopped, questioned, and kicked around. He's no different than people that don't want legal citizens from having a concealed firearm. He's no different than those that want guns abolished from society....give any of these types the power this cop has and you'd see the same videos.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Having met people who say exactly that on campus...

None of them were aware that I had firearm on my person at the time.

[iverglas]

68. what on earth are you talking about?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. First line in the body of post #21

You do remember what you posted...

[PavePusher]

83. Jello. n/t

[AzWorker]

33. And they want them to 'stop' folks every 25 yards or so...

Just for safety sake ya know, and if there is a 'lumping' or maybe an extrajudicial 'execution' from time to time then I guess that is the price we pay...........for safety.

[ileus]

69. maybe a good wood shampoo will teach those people who legally carry.

[Blown330]

4. Have to remember...

....that many of the gun-control homers would like nothing more than if only the police and military had firearms. Have to expect them to be a little testy when they are presented evidence that these "highly trained" individuals are far from the perfect specimens they think they are.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. This cop is going to murder someone.

[spin]

16. Self delete. replied to wrong poster. (n/t)

[iverglas]

23. can someone tell me what this is supposed to prove?

After getting the driver, who was suspected of driving drunk, and the front passenger out of the car, Harless noticed a gun on the floor next to the foot of one of the rear passengers, according to the video and police reports.

Harless pulled his weapon and ordered — in profanity laced language — the man and woman in the back seat not to move or he would shoot.

“Don’t (expletive) move. Let me see your (expletive) hands,” Harless shouted. “I’ll kill every one of you (expletive). There’s a (expletive) gun in this car. You (expletive) move, I’ll shoot you in the head.”

Harless also threatened to send the suspects “to the grave” if they moved, adding, “I will shoot you in the face and I’ll go to sleep tonight.”

In his report on the incident, Harless wrote that the man looked as if he was trying to make a decision whether to pick up the gun or leave it alone, and that he yelled several orders to the man that he and the woman would be shot if she kept moving around.

A cop alone in the dark is faced with a carful of drunks who he discovers (some time into the video) to be in possession of a firearm -- and yes, they are in illegal possession (given that they are drunk I don't think it would have been legal no matter what the law or what permit they had). They are evidently uncooperative, to put it mildly.

How exactly do you people expect cops to talk to CRIMINALS WITH GUNS???

A cop doing a drunk driving stop discovers that there is a gun in the back seat of the car and gets no cooperation from the people sitting by the gun -- to whom he has been, to that point, entirely civil. No cop anywhere ever would find that situation, oh, extremely threatening.

A lot of talking out of both sides of mouths around here, is what I'm hearing.

[iverglas]

24. the earlier incident ...

... the facts ...


http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x121489646/Canton-officer-under-investigation-after-concealed-carry-arrest

Harless and his partner, patrolman Mark Diels, were working northwest Canton on June 8 when they spotted Bartlett’s gold Pontiac stopped in the 100 block of Newton Avenue NW around 1:38 a.m.

The area is known for prostitution and drug trafficking. A woman was standing outside Bartlett’s car. A third person was in the back seat.

The police ordered the rear passenger to get out and place his hands on the car roof. Harless questioned the man and the woman while Diels climbed in the rear seat. Bartlett sat quietly behind the wheel, according to an enhanced audio version of the recording posted by the gun group.

I watched that video too. The individual in question twice stated that his date of birth was "9-18-17". He continues to be totally unable to state his date of birth or state an age that is consistent with any date of birth he tries. He did NOT inform anyone that he was carrying a firearm until the last minute, as he was about to be searched.

“As soon as I felt your gun I should have took two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let you drop. And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep,” Harless shouted. “Do you understand me?”

“Yes, sir, I do,” replied Bartlett, still sounding calm.

"Still" sounding "calm"??

He sounds and looks like a raving idiot under the influence of something. And he sat there talking to a cop with a firearm concealed on his person and said nothing to that effect until he was taken out of the car. "Fucking idiot"? I think so. And worse. "What is the first thing you're supposed to do?" And what didn't he do?

Yeah, cops shouldn't swear at criminals. And police departments are ever so contrite when they are shown to have done so.

Okay, so as long as we're speculating (you know ... how "racist" and "classist" the cop is) ... what exactly was he doing there? Try listening from minute 11. He has a pimp in his car with a prostitute alongside. "Well I didn't know she was a prostitute." "I swear to god".

How stupid are you people?

How stupid do you think the rest of us are?

But hey ... this will never show up in those "statistics". He was just a law-abiding "concealed carry" permit holder. All his life.

Listen to the cop's remarks starting just before 13 minutes.

During his career he has earned several commendations.

One was from a Virginia judge, who praised the way Harless handled a situation involving a man with a gun, according to records in his city personnel file.

Thing is, the cop actually faces the situation you all are so afraid of encountering some day: people whom they perceive as threats ... people with guns ... who tend to actually be threats.

And this "law-abiding" gun carrier certainly did his very best to make himself look like one of them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Argument from authority, assumption of facts not in evidence, and elision of a death threat

For those who might have forgotten:

“As soon as I felt your gun I should have took two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let you drop. And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep,” Harless shouted. “Do you understand me?”

Threats like that are a crime most anywhere, unless you're one of the elect, it would seem.

Looks like Harless was a law-abiding gun owner- right up until he wasn't.


But that's OK- he's one of The Privileged Ones, dontcha know...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

39. Is "gun militant" your latest insult of the week iverglas?

[iverglas]

41. how are you going to qualify for the fan club

if you don't understand the concepts?

Google really is your friend. First one up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x233666#233786

Despite the protestations in that thread, I think you'll find, if you search for the term in both singular and plural, that Paladin and I (independently) are pretty much the only posters who have adopted the so à propos term. ... Yup, I'm right, a search minus those two terms produces no results (except for a certain young master quoting me without attribution ... called out in my absence yet again ...) other than single uses by MrBenchley and a person I don't recognize.


I think the tombstone count on the stroll through that particular graveyard came to 10.

Does no one here ever hold a nice memorial service for the fallen?

[rl6214]

63. I guess the mods didn't like the quoting of "gun militants"

in my title because they certainly didn't like it in the post I quoted it from so I guess you'll have to find another claim to fame for your fan club other than "gun militants".

[rl6214]

64. Self delete, double post

[iverglas]

66. I guess you're confused

Not actually a guess, but whatever.

[rl6214]

70. Confused about what?

Was there another reason your post #36 was deleted?

Please un-confuse me.

[iverglas]

78. if I knew the answer to that ...

Check post 42. Report it if you like.

[iverglas]

42. I'm going to post this again because IT BREAKS NO RULE

And whoever deletes it had better tell me what rule it breaks, because otherwise how the fuck am I supposed to know what I am allowed to post and what I am not allowed to post?

_______________________________________________________________________


You know what "threat" means, right?

If I say "I should have gone to bed earlier last night", I'm sure as hell not threatening to go to bed.

Maybe on your planet, though.


Looks like Harless was a law-abiding gun owner- right up until he wasn't.

Looks like a whole lot of gun militants wanna play tough on crime until the criminal turns out to be one of them.

That really is how it looks. Really. To any disinterested, normal bystander.

[beevul]

52. Disinterested normal bystanders...

Disinterested normal bystanders don't ignore the fact that the CCW holder in question tried to notify and was told to shut up by an overzealous powertripping cop and/or his partner, then make up things out of whole cloth, like the claim that he was drunk, for example.


Nor do they excuse abuse of authority, threatened abuse of a woman, and civil rights violations, when it suits their agenda.

That disqualifies you from being one.

[iverglas]

54. I'll have to try to watch that again, I guess

The "CCW holder" in question tried to notify the cop at the first opportunity? How long had the stop been going on before the beginning of the video served up to us? How long in that video was it before the individual was told to get out of the car and THEN seems to have said that he had a firearm?

"Tried to notify" WHEN HE HAD NO OTHER OPTION because he was about to be searched. Duh, duh, duh.

Did you manage to make out how old he was or when his birthdate was?

make up things out of whole cloth, like the claim that he was drunk

Well, I think I did say drunk "or", or words to that effect.

When you are under the legal driving limit, have you ever been unable to give a coherent report of your age and date of birth?


Nor do they excuse abuse of authority, threatened abuse of a woman, and civil rights violations, when it suits their agenda.

There's nothing I love better than a good round of question-begging.

I'd say it beggars belief, but it no longer does.

[beevul]

57. Yeah, you will.

"I'll have to try to watch that again, I guess"

Here, let me help you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

Its even captioned for you.

[iverglas]

62. pretty sad

He says (it seems) "I've got a carry" and then he is NOT interrupted, he stops. Then he goes off on some tangent about where he was working and how he knew the woman in the car. The went on and on about it and made no further attempt to say anything about his weapon. NOBODY "forced" him to start yammering about any of that, he did it voluntarily and pointlessly and not even in response to any questions. In response to a demand for his driver's licence he starts yammering about how he came to be there and how he knew the woman.

"I was handing that to you sir" -- when he was getting out of the car. Before? Evidence?

The man is stupid. Just plain stupid. Seriously, the idea that people like this are driving the streets with firearms, it just boggles my mind.

The onus was on HIM from the very beginning of contact to inform the police. That's the law. Is that not right?

Here's what really amuses me, though.

The entire sequence with the date of birth boondoggle is completely missing from that version of the video. I watched the version at the media site:

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x121489646/Canton-officer-under-investigation-after-concealed-carry-arrest

And here's a theory. The date of birth thing is actually a conversation between the male passenger, in the police car, picked up by the audio, and not a conversation between Harless and the driver, as it appears to be on the media site. The audio on the two sites are totally different for that segment of the video. On the media site, it seems, the conversation between the driver and Harless can't be heard, and it appears that what is being heard is actually the conversation between the other two.

So I may indeed very well have been misled by that video -- at the site to which the OP linked. The fool who didn't know how old he was, that was the passenger. The fool who couldn't complete a sentence when he had every opportunity to -- "I've got a carry" followed by demand for driver's licence followed by blabber about where he worked and whom he knew and how, that was the driver.

Sorry. I still do not see any genuine effort to meet the onus of informing immediately. I see a complete idiot driving around late at night and just too obviously up to nothing good, and I am just gobsmacked at the idea of people like that wandering around with guns, let alone being allowed to.

But hey, thanks for the video. It pretty much confirmed what I would have hesitated to fear about people who wander around with guns ... and the outfits that take up their cause.

[Blown330]

55. Maybe you should spend more time...

...reading the rules then.


And whoever deletes it had better tell me what rule it breaks, because otherwise how the fuck am I supposed to know what I am allowed to post and what I am not allowed to post?


Look at you trying to tell the mods here how to do their jobs. I can imagine you own medicine must taste really bad...:rofl:



As for your assessment of the video and the cop in question you're just plain wrong. That driver was amazingly calm for a guy who's being threatened by a raging lunatic with a gun. Of course you didn't seem to note that the driver attempted numerous times to verbally state he had a gun and actually had his permit in hand. I guess the cop, like you, prefer to only listen to themselves to the exclusion of any evidence that contradicts them.

[iverglas]

58. my assessment of the video is completely accurate

The cop asks the driver for his birthdate. The driver says something completely bizarre. The cop (thinking the driver had failed to understand the question? why else would someone say his date of birth was "9-18-17"???) asked him again. He said the same bizarre thing again.

There was then a fairly lengthy discussion of how old this bozo was. He was absolutely unable to come up with a birthdate with a matching age. He said he was born in 1984, then 1985. He said he was 22, then 23. None of these added up to the actual year.

What would you think you were dealing with if you were the cop??? I'd think I was dealing with someone with a mental illness, myself. Or a drunk.

Nothing you could clutch your pearls about happened until this fool got out of the car and THEN apparently mumbled something about having a firearm. I didn't hear any multiple times. Is this supposed to be compliance with the law? I don't think so. The cop didn't think so. The cop had been dealing with somebody who had a firearm on his person for quite a piece of time at that point, without knowing it until he was confronted with him outside the car. I imagine the cop thought that the fool had had no intention whatsoever of announcing that he had a firearm until it became obvious that he was about to be searched -- long after first contact.

I'm sure you have some alternate theory, though.

So I see a cop faced with somebody who appears to be unwilling -- or hey, we'll be charitable: unable -- to identify himself intelligently and has concealed the fact that he has a firearm on his person until he is already in close physical proximity to the cop.

Poor, poor law-breaker.

[Blown330]

61. You assessment...

...is merely your opinion and nothing more. You attempting to construe as anything even approaching fact is laughable. First off you already stated you didn't pay total attention to the video. This is obvious at at the 5:54 minute mark the driver plainly states "I've got a carry..." when he is finally approached by an officer. The officer doesn't even comment on that but instead starts questioning the driver and accuses of him lying even though the officer has established NOTHING on any factual basis. Maybe you and that officer would be good friends since neither of you let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[iverglas]

65. here's the thing: see post 63

I watched the video at the site to which the OP linked -- it is linked to on the right hand side of that page, and I clicked.

I did not watch the video at youtube because I had no link to it. I investigated for myself and found the video at the news website.

The two are quite different. The audio is different. It appears that the audio accompanying the smallscreen video at the news site is from a conversation between two other people. The conversation between the cop and the driver is inaudible. Try it for yourself:

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x121489646/Canton-officer-under-investigation-after-concealed-carry-arrest

I stick by my assessment of the driver. He is a moron and it is beyond obvious that he was not just out for a pleasant drive. And the idea that he is on the streets with a gun is enough to confirm my resolve to keep my valuable loonies at home.

[Blown330]

85. You watched a video...

...and there are several available, some with detailed commentary. So obviously you lack investigative talent or are just plain lazy. Neither excuses you. I've already seem several versions of this video and know there are plenty that detail the conversation between the cop and driver (very audible) so it appears you are the one who should "try it for yourself". Poor assessment, no facts, lack of objectivity...that's all you have so far.

[iverglas]

91. I'm so sorry, so very sorry

I looked at the video posted at the news outlet cited in the OP.

I didn't go hunting around on gun militant websites, or their youtube offshoots, for their "detailed commentary" or anything else.

Hey. Shoot me.

[Blown330]

92. Not a problem.

Break into my house and you'll probably be obliged. Castle laws = equal opportunity for all intruders.

[beevul]

31. How selective of you.

"He did NOT inform anyone that he was carrying a firearm until the last minute"

Nevermind he tried to and was told to shut up.

"He has a pimp in his car with a prostitute alongside."

Facts not in evidence.



Nevermind "officer friendly" telling the alleged prostitute that he'd put lumps on her if he saw here again that night.

I find it both interesting, and telling, given your past history of posting the way you do and the things you do about womens issues, that it goes completely ignored here.


Yup, telling indeed.

[iverglas]

38. oh, ya gotta love that benefit of the doubt

Facts not in evidence.

Snork.

I could say so many things here that I could spend the rest of the evening amusing myself.

But I think everybody can think of a few for themself.

He was soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, cutting a deal with the pimp while the prostitute leaned on the car, while he was carrying a firearm. If that was all he was doing, which I actually kind of doubt.


I find it both interesting, and telling, given your past history of posting the way you do and the things you do about womens issues, that it goes completely ignored here.

Y'know, I put myself in the boots of a cop dealing with a drunken moron apparently falsely identifying himself (who in the entire state of whatever that was cannot state their birthdate and their age after being given umpteen opportunities to do so and getting it wrong every bleeding time??) who is in the company of two people who the cop KNOWS to be a pimp and a prostitute, and discovering that said drunken moron is carrying a firearm that he has not bothered to mention during several minutes of raving loony conversation ... and I kinda have an idea of how I'd feel finding out that the person who had been carrying on that raving loony and plainly deceitful conversation was carrying a gun. Maybe you think the cop had never actually had to deal with criminals with guns before, and had no memory of the experience and no apprehension about it happening again.

Oh, I know. You'd have believed whatever random tale they all told. High school sweethearts, they were. Just out for a drive.

You'd have believed it every time. Here's a cop cap for you, sir, have a nice evening doing whatever it is you're doing on this drug-dealing streetcorner with a prostitute and a pimp for company.

Well, every time the raving drunken lying piece of crap in the driver's seat failed to produce a permit for the firearm he was toting in the company of a pimp and a prostitute in a narcotics street market.

Then you'd have said ... I dunno, would 10 years be good?

I do note that there seems to be no allegation that the cop used improper force against any of these people in any incident.

Getting yelled at by a cop. Tsk tsk. Is that pearl clutching I hear?

[beevul]

50. Which video are you referring to?

"Y'know, I put myself in the boots of a cop dealing with a drunken moron apparently falsely identifying himself (who in the entire state of whatever that was cannot state their birthdate and their age after being given umpteen opportunities to do so and getting it wrong every bleeding time??) who is in the company of two people who the cop KNOWS to be a pimp and a prostitute, and discovering that said drunken moron is carrying a firearm that he has not bothered to mention during several minutes of raving loony conversation ... and I kinda have an idea of how I'd feel finding out that the person who had been carrying on that raving loony and plainly deceitful conversation was carrying a gun. Maybe you think the cop had never actually had to deal with criminals with guns before, and had no memory of the experience and no apprehension about it happening again."


Which video are you referring to here?


The original video - the CCW holder in question wasn't drunk.

[iverglas]

56. can someone please explain to me

how a person who is not drunk -- or otherwise majorly impaired -- can fail to state his date of birth and age accurately, OVER AND OVER, and never get it right?

He said twice that his age was "9-18-17" or however that went. He gave two different years of birth and two different ages. None of them added up to the year he was in.

Now, if somebody asks me my age, I might have to think a split-second; I'm almost one age and tend to start thinking of myself as that age. But my birthdate? "26th of January 62" (not, but it sounds kinda like that). Just like that. No hesitation. Ever. Can I imagine circumstances in which I would give a cop two bizarre and two incorrect dates of birth? Can you? How do you explain what he did? Facts not in evidence? Was he just too stupid to stand upright?

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Fear? Adrenaline?

Some people have issues dealing with stress. (questions of whether such a person should be carrying a firearm aside)

[rl6214]

37. He seems to have his lines down pat

"pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let you drop. And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep,”

As he said nearly the identical thing in both situations. Could it be when he's at home he practices his quick draw and recites his lines in front of his mirror? Something one of our anti gun advocates accuses gun owners of doing all the time and "playing cowboy".

[iverglas]

40. I doubt it

I don't think most cops are actually fools. Not always pleasant, no disagreement there. But not really fools.

I think maybe he routinely had to deal with so many people from whom he had every reason to perceive a potential threat that he maybe did have a bit of a routine, designed to secure compliance from non-compliant individuals.

Truly, I am seeing an awful lot of pearl clutching here. An awful lot.

How many times a day do you imagine that a cop yells and swears and says really tough things to get someone who is a potential threat in a situation to comply?

I really just can't get over that second one. Two people sitting in the back seat of a car that has been stopped, and after some time the cop realizes there is a gun sitting on the floor with them. Perhaps he should have said "sir, ma'am, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would one of you please just reach over and pass me that gun?"

I think they might be lucky they got away with being yelled at.

[Tejas]

72. "most cops" "a cop"

The subject of rl6214's post is Daniel Harless, not your strawmen.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. LMAO!!! I finally found this mythical "Cowboy". . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOuL3tK9t3Y

[Hoopla Phil]

47. self delete, double post

[JoeyT]

45. Whoops, there's that argument. Knew it would turn up.

"Thing is, the cop actually faces the situation you all are so afraid of encountering some day: people whom they perceive as threats ... people with guns ... who tend to actually be threats."

The argument that's always trotted out when some young non-white person gets shot in the back for resisting an arrest that wasn't happening until after they were shot. It pretty much amounts to "Police are special and brave! They deserve to act like cowards when it suits them! You'd be no different!"

If you're that terrified of danger, don't be a cop. Period.

[iverglas]

46. I seem to have missed something

The argument that's always trotted out when some young non-white person gets shot in the back ...

The only people I saw in these videos were not "non-white". I wasn't paying total attention. Did I miss something?

If not, why have so many people decided to drag the race thing into this? Isn't there some kind of expression for doing that?

Isn't it bad enough for you when a white person gets yelled at?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Yelled at. Clutch your pearls.


It pretty much amounts to "Police are special and brave! They deserve to act like cowards when it suits them! You'd be no different!"
If you're that terrified of danger, don't be a cop. Period.

That terrified of danger that you're likely to yell at someone when you find they have a firearm on their person they haven't bothered to tell you about, or a firearm lying on the car floor beside them and are arguing with you?

Yes, by all means. Let there only be cops who will ... um ... oh yes: "Sir, ma'am, would you be so kind, if it isn't too much trouble, to stop arguing with me and just pass me that handgun you have there?"

I now, I really do, that this is how you all want your cops dealing with criminals. You make it quite plain every day!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Actually, you can hear him speak up twice, attempting to inform the officer

and is told to 'shut up'. Had the officer allowed him to finish his sentence, none of this would have happened.

The only alternative I can think of, for the fellow, is to shout at the officer "I HAVE A GUN", which might not produce the intended results.

[Tejas]

73. Sure is weird how some here defend the LEO's actions by

attacking the driver, no earthly idea how they can keep justifying the LEO's actions. This isn't Canada or Russia or Mogadishu: rule of law, we haz it.

[mwrguy]

74. Only the police should have guns

:|

[PavePusher]

82. Yeah, that's never created any problems.... sheesh. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. That's fine....

...as long we ALL get to be police officers. ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. Cops, drug dealers, rapists, murderers...

...jilted corporate execs that kill... Those who engage in PREMEDITATED violence need to be locked away... forever.

Having drug users, embezzlers, shop lifters... and unarmed, non-violent criminals in prison for any extended period (more than 30 days) serves only to apply society's resources where they will do little to rehab the offender and nothing for the community at large.