pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Harless wins arbitration
#1
Quote: Fired police officer Daniel Harless could get his job back if he gets medical clearance to return to work.

An arbitrator hearing Harless’ appeal ruled in the former patrolman’s favor. The 15-page ruling was dated Saturday and released by the city Wednesday.

Harless’ attorney indicated his client is unlikely to seek his old job, at least for now. He has been receiving workers’ compensation and has applied for a disability retirement pension.

But Harless now has the right to be back on the job, according to arbitrator Harry Graham.

http://www.cantonrep.com/topstories/x210...ck-his-job

Really? WTF?
The guy violated all 8 of the departments rules. Has self proclaimed PTSD and all he needs is a physical to get his job back.

Is Harry Graham an idiot or what?
The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right. It tells the gov they can not infringe our right.
[Image: s2b0iw.jpg]
Reply
#2
Nice work if you can get it.Rolleyes

Just further proof why we're fucked.
Sad
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#3
kadar;42766 Wrote:
Quote: Fired police officer Daniel Harless could get his job back if he gets medical clearance to return to work.

An arbitrator hearing Harless’ appeal ruled in the former patrolman’s favor. The 15-page ruling was dated Saturday and released by the city Wednesday.

Harless’ attorney indicated his client is unlikely to seek his old job, at least for now. He has been receiving workers’ compensation and has applied for a disability retirement pension.

But Harless now has the right to be back on the job, according to arbitrator Harry Graham.

http://www.cantonrep.com/topstories/x210...ck-his-job

Really? WTF?
The guy violated all 8 of the departments rules. Has self proclaimed PTSD and all he needs is a physical to get his job back.

Is Harry Graham an idiot or what?

According to the guy that did our MARC training (How to deal with unions) recently, the current NLRB is extremely pro-union..., which makes sense since it currently isn't balanced like it's supposed to be.

Another thanks to Obama.

The arbitrators are supposed to be independent, but he also said they will sometimes rule based on what they think the NLRB would say if the case goes that far and right now, almost every case is ruled in favor of the union at the NLRB level.

I'm not saying that IS the reason he ruled the way he did, but it could be something that influenced the ruling. I'd like to read his opinion, is it posted yet?

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#4
OMFG.

I hope a citizen blows him away and doesnt lose a second of sleep over it. (he said the same thing to the citizen he was threatening)
Reply
#5
Wasn't there a state that passed a law this year saying something to the effect of "citizens may defend themselves against an aggressor with deadly force, even if the aggressor is a law enforcement officer"?

What state was that, or did it ever actually make it into law? My google-fu is weak at the moment. I hope it was ohio.
stimrob, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#6
Not in Pa. We lost that right when the new Castle doctrine law was passed. It's now illegal to resist a rrest by force in Pa, even when the arestee knows that the arrest is illegal.
Reply
#7
stimrob;42810 Wrote:Wasn't there a state that passed a law this year saying something to the effect of "citizens may defend themselves against an aggressor with deadly force, even if the aggressor is a law enforcement officer"?

What state was that, or did it ever actually make it into law? My google-fu is weak at the moment. I hope it was ohio.

I believe it was Indiana.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#8
Valorius;42815 Wrote:Not in Pa. We lost that right when the new Castle doctrine law was passed. It's now illegal to resist a rrest by force in Pa, even when the arestee knows that the arrest is illegal.

JustinHEMI;42819 Wrote:
stimrob;42810 Wrote:Wasn't there a state that passed a law this year saying something to the effect of "citizens may defend themselves against an aggressor with deadly force, even if the aggressor is a law enforcement officer"?

What state was that, or did it ever actually make it into law? My google-fu is weak at the moment. I hope it was ohio.

I believe it was Indiana.

Justin

Yep, it was Indiana.

And, IIRC, it was illegal before Castle Doctrine (this last round) to resist an unlawful arrest by a law enforcement officer...
Reply
#9
Valorius;42801 Wrote:OMFG.

I hope a citizen blows him away and doesnt lose a second of sleep over it. (he said the same thing to the citizen he was threatening)

Then that citizen would be committing murder. Is this what you are stating (advocating)?
I'm only here for the 'Foxes with Firearms' thread.

If they take our guns, who will protect our children?


Reply
#10
He is repeating what the cop said to the citizen to make the point that it is a ridiculous ruling.
Gun;43038 Wrote:
Valorius;42801 Wrote:OMFG.

I hope a citizen blows him away and doesnt lose a second of sleep over it. (he said the same thing to the citizen he was threatening)

Then that citizen would be committing murder. Is this what you are stating (advocating)?
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.