User Profile: rpa49


Member Since: October 08, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 27, 2014 at 6:30pm

    This incident occurred 3 years ago at 1:40 am on June 8, 2011. The officer’s name is Daniel Harless. He was fired in January of 2012 by Safety Director Thomas Ream for making threats during multiple traffic stops. Ream cited a pattern of verbal abuse and making physical or death threats. In November of 2012 arbitrator Harry Graham ruled fired police officer Daniel Harless could get his job back if he gets medical clearance to return to work.
    As part of the settlement reached in November of 2013, the city has dropped its appeal of an arbitrator’s ruling that cleared the way for Harless to return to work pending medical clearance. Harless, too, will drop all claims, including a lawsuit that the city retaliated against him for applying for workers’ compensation and a grievance involving vacation and sick leave. Harless had been on medical leave since shortly after the June 8, 2011 confrontation with William Bartlett. Harless filed for workers’ compensation after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which stemmed from a Jan. 1, 2003 incident.
    Daniel Harless, a 15-year veteran, will receive $40,000 from the city, a neutral employment recommendation and a retired-officer ID in exchange for his resignation as part of a legal settlement. Kristen Bates Aylward, deputy chief counsel for the Canton Law Department, declined comment.

  • July 24, 2014 at 8:04pm

    I want you to focus on the last sentence in Sec. 38-31 (c) from above. “It is an affirmative defense to this subsection that the failure to obey did not interfere with or hinder the police officers.” His failure to obey the command to sit down did not interfere with or hinder the officers from conducting their inquiry/investigation.

    In Sec. 38-32 (a) (b) from above would not apply during the informal questioning of the subject. Once the officer begin to detain him, he never appears to resist their commands.

    In Sec. 38-39 from above, it states that it is the responsibility of every citizen to immediately report the officers abuse to another officer or by contacting 911 to report the incident.

    Sec. 38-93 from above defines assault. It is easy to see in the video that the officer intentionally (and recklessly, Did you notice they were against an upper deck railing?) assaulted the subject by striking him repeatedly in the chest to inflict violence upon the subject. The officer definitely violated the rules of force escalation.

    Anyone agree or disagree? Why?

  • [1] July 24, 2014 at 7:47pm

    The young man may have been drinking but he did not appear to be slurring his words, using repetitive speech, swaying or seeming unbalanced in any way. You’ll notice initially his hands are clasped together down below his waist as he is listening to the officer.
    You’ll also notice how quickly he is able to regain his stance twice after being forcefully shoved in the chest by the heavier officer.
    Finally, you’ll notice that even during a high level of stress the young man is able to express himself in a coherent manner.
    The game was over 3 hours and they stop serving after the 7th inning stretch. That would indicate a relatively low blood alcohol level on a breathalyser.
    You are the only one injecting that the guy had something to drink on the way to the game or before.
    Regardless, he still does not appear to meet the definition of public intoxication.
    Just so you know, I’ve been a paramedic since 1993 and have hundreds if not thousands of dealings with intoxicated or drunk individuals on a professional level.

  • [2] July 24, 2014 at 7:31pm

    You are wrong with regard to this particular incident.
    0:00-0:13 It sounds like the officer believes the suspect provided alcohol to a minor. The ultimatum given by the officer is “you can leave or go to jail. Now, which is it?”
    At 0:14 the officer raises his angrily voice, shouting “Answer the question!”
    0:15-0:22 the suspect asks the officer if he can answer the question but his response will need explanation beyond a yes or no answer.
    0:23-0:24 the officer calmly says, “alright, let’s hear your answer.”
    0:25 As the suspect begins to speak the officer orders the suspect to, “sit down.”
    0:26-0:28 the suspect glances behind himself and takes a step backwards but does not sit down.
    0:28 the officeer orders the suspect to “sit down” a second time.
    0:29 the officer is squared up on the suspect and using both hands he forcefully hits the suspect in the center of his chest. The officers palms are out and there is a loud smack noise heard over the general stadium noise.
    0:30-0:31 the suspect regains his balance, raises his voice and points at the officer as he yells, “Officer, that is abuse of your…”
    0:31 the officer shoves the suspect more forcefully, propelling him further backwards.
    0:32-0:42 the suspect regains his standing and states, “abuse me again!” Officer, as a citizen of the United States of America, abuse me again!
    0:43-0:45 the suspect turns to ask a 2nd officer, “Please officer, refrain from touching me!”

  • July 24, 2014 at 6:47pm

    City of Denver Municipal Code

    Sec. 38-31. Interference with police authority.
    (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to obey a lawful order of a police officer if such failure interferes with or hinders such police officer in the discharge of his official duties. It is an affirmative defense to this subsection that the failure to obey did not interfere with or hinder the police officers.

    Sec. 38-32. Resisting any police authority.
    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to resist any police officer, any member of the police department, or any person duly empowered with police authority, while such officer, member or person duly empowered with police authority is discharging or apparently discharging their duties.
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to resist any deputy sheriff, prison steward or deputy warden while any such officials are discharging or apparently discharging their duties.

    Sec. 38-39. Duty of citizens to report offenses.
    It shall be the duty of all persons who witness or have reason to believe that a provision of this Code is being or has been violated promptly to report the same to a police officer, a member of the police department, or a person duly empowered with police authority.

    Sec. 38-93. Assault.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or recklessly assault, beat, strike, fight or inflict violence on any other person.

    Responses (3) +
  • [5] July 22, 2014 at 10:23am

    Ok, on one hand you have a group of people who appear to be peacefully protesting against abortion. It also appears that they have permission and have been told by a member of the local PD that “as long as you’re on the sidewalks you’ll be fine. That’s public property.”
    Now, let’s not kid ourselves here. These signs are very graphic and difficult to look at. However, that’s the point. To show people that an abortion is not the same as going in to your doctor to have a mole removed. More importantly these signs show a human. Murdered, in the name of abortion.
    On the other hand we have a group of locals who may be business owners. They are never identified. They have a right to object all they want. That’s the way it goes with the first amendment. As long as they remain peaceful in their counter demonstration all is well. But they didn’t remain peaceful. They began to steal the private property of the anti-abortion group. They could have put up their own signs right next to the others. Instead, the anti-SIGN group decided to remove the signs (private property) off of the sidewalks (public property) and to place them in a basement of a commercial building (private property).
    As I mentioned in another post, these signs are not cheap to have made. Maybe $50-$75 each. Most communities any theft in excess of $250 is considered a felony. More than five signs appeared to be taken. Felony!
    And the cops just let it happen…WOW!

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] July 22, 2014 at 9:59am

    A big ol’ fight would have been a terrible display for a group trying to discuss a serious subject. This actually works to their advantage because this story is now national and it will continue in the courts and newspapers in that area, and hopefully further, for the next couple of months.
    Too bad the group can’t afford to buy a bunch of new signs and stand in the same place this next weekend. I’ll bet the bad PR for the police department will cause a change in attitude.
    The protesters were right for not escalating this into any kind of physical altercation.

  • [5] July 22, 2014 at 9:51am

    You are so right! Not only did LE not tell the perpetrators to immediately stop, they watched as he and his friends took every one of the protester’s signs down to his basement to be locked up.
    Had the signs been video monitors (TVs) would LE allow someone to just walk away with them? BTW, those signs aren’t cheap. I’ll bet each one cost $50-$75. In most communities, theft in excess of $250 is a felony.

  • [4] July 22, 2014 at 9:40am

    One of the individuals stealing the signs was black. There was also a female black officer. The only race that is in this story is the human race. Quit trying to inject hatred towards blacks into stories when their is none present.

  • [1] July 22, 2014 at 9:35am

    It was in the story. An officer at the beginning of the video can clearly be heard telling the group that as long as they keep their signs on the sidewalk, which is public property, they’ll be fine.

  • July 18, 2014 at 3:22pm

    This is so stupid…
    It’s fake. You get 18 seconds of crappy video with the most important part only partially recorded, then it just repeats in slow motion.
    Why does the dirt around the hole appear to be uniform in size and distance from the hole?
    Why does the hole appear to be symmetrical in shape?
    Why are the edges of the hole so crisp and angular if this happened two years ago?
    Why is the earth/dirt two very different colors? Dirt on outside is light brown/tan yet dirt on inside is black/gray.
    Maybe I’m just becoming skeptical of most videos like this. I’m sensing a huge hoax instead of a hole.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 17, 2014 at 5:30pm

    You might be getting your acronyms mixed up.”Shoulder-fired, rocket propelled grenade” is what is commonly known as an RPG. It is highly unlikely for an RPG to take out such a large aircraft at altitude. When you start getting into missiles such as the French SA-7 or even bigger… yes, those can and have taken down large aircraft in the past. SAM “surface-to-air missile.”

  • [13] July 17, 2014 at 12:09pm

    It was over Russian controlled eastern Ukraine. Of course, the Russians are denying any involvement. Amsterdam to Kuala Lampur is a crazy route. At 35,000 feet you would need some pretty sophisticated rockets.

    Responses (3) +
  • [27] July 16, 2014 at 10:43pm

    This is a classic example of how a private citizen is a better steward of their money than what the government is with that same dollar. This woman will get the full benefit of the $119,000 USD to use for her treatment. No middle-man, no bureaucracy to feed, no wait time after pleading for months. BAM! Done!

    The benevolence of the human soul will shine through if not suffocated by the weight of a burdensome government.

    May God bring blessings upon this woman and rid her of her illness and may those blessings also find the anonymous donor. God is good!

  • [8] July 16, 2014 at 10:25pm

    Nothing is done because it’s up to the Department of Justice to take the information and charge the defendant in court. But since the contemptible Eric Holder is in charge we know he just turns a blind eye away from issues he and Obama want to get buried.
    We have our senate to blame primarily because it is evident that any impeachment process that is advanced to the senate will fail. Impeachment is the tool we have to hold over the administration, but with that out of the way the administration will continue to trample the rule of law and our constitution.

    I can’t wait for the next revolution to begin!!!

    Responses (2) +
  • July 15, 2014 at 11:53pm

    Flagrant abuse of authority. “Because I’m the Congress man (husband?/wife?) who oversees the House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee, and therefor, the FAA, these rules don’t apply to me.” More clearly he is saying, “So what?! What are you going to do about it, tell your mommy?” He fears no repercussions because there are none. Sure we can say we will vote him out but in the meantime he can abuse this law or any other that he so chooses because the rules don’t apply to him.
    Now don’t get me wrong. I think this is a stupid infringement upon a business and it makes no sense to have two sets of rules. It should tell you something when even a democrat can see the need for less regulation in the face of common sense.

  • [3] July 12, 2014 at 2:49am

    The story is about the tradition of a husband and wife and where they spent their anniversaries for the last 31 years. Red Lobster seems to have turned this into a story about their wonderful values and staff. Please!
    I can see the waitress and manager feeling like doing something nice to honor this woman’s loss and tradition. However, it didn’t cost either of them a dime. Hell, the manager just comp’d the meal and the waitress probably got a nice tip out of the deal. How about Red Lobster step up and honor this wife and her former husband by offering her and a guest an anniversary meal for as long as she wishes to return to Red Lobster? How about they offer to make a donation in her husband’s honor to a charity of her choice? How about they learn to seek their good publicity from being honorable to their guests?

    Responses (4) +
  • [5] July 10, 2014 at 4:31am

    Money… that’s the only thing stopping many patriots from gathering up their weapons and heading towards the border. Many patriots have families and a job they can’t afford to miss. But there are other patriots… the unattached mid 20 to early 30 patriot either male or female. Maybe they’re a veteran or college student. Maybe a former football or basketball player with a strong sense of teamwork. Mostly they’re just pissed that no one is doing anything and like true patriots, they are done talking. Bold action is in order!
    So, if you recognize a patriot matching these characteristics lend them $20 cash or more. If they disappear for a week or two don’t worry. Say a prayer for their safety. And when you hear on the news a breaking story of an armed assault on the Mexican prison that resulted in getting SGT Tahmooressi freed and returned to the United States, know that the next time you see your friend the patriot, shake their hand and say thank you.
    Of course, this is just a made up story…

  • [4] July 7, 2014 at 12:14pm

    This coming from the man that told a 16 year old homosexual that if he was to have anal intercourse with his 30+ year old boyfriend that he should wear a condom.

    Think about that for a quick moment! Instead of reporting a statutory (alleged) rape, Duncan advises the kid to wear a condom when getting it up the wazzu. He also failed to report it to his superior at the time in violation of a legal requirement.

    Imagine Duncan giving the same advice to a 16 year old girl, that she should make sure her 30+ year old boyfriend wears a condom when he has anal sex with her. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

  • July 7, 2014 at 11:52am

    In the video, Mike Sink, states that in Washington, D.C. they have a weekly fireworks show every Saturday night, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and New Year’s Eve.

123 To page: Go