Canton Officer Harless fired for pattern of behavior [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Canton Officer Harless fired for pattern of behavior


RussP
01-14-2012, 08:38
Order to terminate employment of Harless (http://imgsrv.whbc.com/image/whbca/UserFiles/File/HARLESS-DECISION.pdf)

Sam Spade
01-14-2012, 10:30
If his claim of PTSD plays out, I wonder what happens.

If his claim of PTSD plays out and it's shown that he acquired the condition in service to either country (he's a USMC vet) or community, I wonder what ought to happen.

eb31
01-14-2012, 13:42
One less psycho scum prowling..not patrolling.. the streets. Glad he lost his jobs. Let's see how he likes unemployment.

Taz
01-14-2012, 13:58
If his claim of PTSD plays out, I wonder what happens.

If his claim of PTSD plays out and it's shown that he acquired the condition in service to either country (he's a USMC vet) or community, I wonder what ought to happen.

If he has PTSD as a result of his USMC service he is entitled to medical services from the VA. If he got PTSD from his service to the city of Canton he is eligible for medical services through them. His PTSD is irrelevant as far as his suitability to be on the street representing the city. He has shown through previous acts that he is out of control and needs to be removed from service before he hurts someone.

Personally I think the PTSD is a brunch of crap he and his union advocate cooked to to try and keep him employed or on the dole. Most likely is roid rage.

Sam Spade
01-14-2012, 16:12
His PTSD is irrelevant as far as his suitability to be on the street representing the city.

Indeed, he has no place on the street.

But not every job is on the street. Not every job is in contact with the public.

jellis11
01-14-2012, 16:53
The only good thing in Canton is still the football hall of fame :)

Glad he is gone. PTSD or not, dude was nutzo

Lord
01-14-2012, 23:27
He should have been prosecuted for the terroristic threats he made. More than once he threatened to execute the driver who very clearly tried a number of times to be compliant with the law.

At one point he brags about his glock 40 as he threatens to unload all 10 rounds in him.

Around here, that's a crime.

AA#5
01-15-2012, 00:35
He should have been prosecuted for the terroristic threats he made. More than once he threatened to execute the driver who very clearly tried a number of times to be compliant with the law.

At one point he brags about his glock 40 as he threatens to unload all 10 rounds in him.

Around here, that's a crime.

........unless you're a cop....

Lord
01-15-2012, 00:37
........unless you're a cop....

Evidently. Ain't it a shame?

RussP
01-15-2012, 07:08
He should have been prosecuted for the terroristic threats he made. More than once he threatened to execute the driver who very clearly tried a number of times to be compliant with the law.

At one point he brags about his glock 40 as he threatens to unload all 10 rounds in him.

Around here, that's a crime.

........unless you're a cop....

Evidently. Ain't it a shame?Well, fix it. Here's the Ohio Code...Route: Ohio Revised Code Ľ Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE Ľ Chapter 2909: ARSON AND RELATED OFFENSES (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2909.23)
2909.23 Making terroristic threat.
(A) No person shall threaten to commit or threaten to cause to be committed a specified offense when both of the following apply:

(1) The person makes the threat with purpose to do any of the following:

(a) Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(b) Influence the policy of any government by intimidation or coercion;

(c) Affect the conduct of any government by the threat or by the specified offense.

(2) As a result of the threat, the person causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of the specified offense.

(B) It is not a defense to a charge of a violation of this section that the defendant did not have the intent or capability to commit the threatened specified offense or that the threat was not made to a person who was a subject of the threatened specified offense.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of making a terroristic threat, a felony of the third degree. Section 2909.25 of the Revised Code applies regarding an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of this section.

Effective Date: 05-15-2002Pretty clear, isn't it? Now, use the internet for something other than *****ing about bad cops on a forum where it isn't going to change anything.

Here is the link to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine: Speak Out Ohio, File-a-Complaint (http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/SpeakOutOhio/File-a-complaint)

You two, as well as others among us I would imagine, believe 2909.23 applies in this case. File enough complaints and it will be up to DeWine, a Republican, to pursue charges.

Let us know about the response you receive from the Ohio AG.

mattallamerican
01-15-2012, 07:44
dont worry the union will make sure he stays on the government gravy train. a double standard for police no jail time. they never have to worry about a drunk driving charge because a cop will never give another cop a ticket

RussP
01-15-2012, 08:24
dont worry the union will make sure he stays on the government gravy train. a double standard for police no jail time. they never have to worry about a drunk driving charge because a cop will never give another cop a ticketWell, fix it. Here is the link to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine: Speak Out Ohio, File-a-Complaint (http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/SpeakOutOhio/File-a-complaint)

File a complaint and let AG DeWine know how you feel.

Let us know about the response you receive from the Ohio AG.

Sam Spade
01-15-2012, 09:13
dont worry the union will make sure he stays on the government gravy train. a double standard for police no jail time. they never have to worry about a drunk driving charge because a cop will never give another cop a ticket

The only way you can believe this is if your head is up, well, you know...

Shall I start posting the DUI cop links---every one which originated in what you just claimed never happens---or can you do the google yourself?

bug
01-15-2012, 09:21
dont worry the union will make sure he stays on the government gravy train. a double standard for police no jail time. they never have to worry about a drunk driving charge because a cop will never give another cop a ticket

A friend of my wife's got one,(patrol officer in uniform in personal car) she works for a municipality and she received a ticket from a OSP officer last year for 6mph over in a 55 zone.

Your WRONG! and she paid it.

eb31
01-15-2012, 09:32
........unless you're a cop....

What lord said is absolutely correct. He should see jail time and I'll add..lose his pention. Behavior like his is unasceptable and there is no excuse. Many of us vets have PTSD and function fine on a daily basis....with coping mechanisms and other tools. We certainly don't go around threatening to kill Joe Citizen. That's a BS defense...and a BS excuse.

I know most refer to the one video of Officer Clueless v CCW driver. There are atleast two more videos out there with the same rhetoric...death threats ect. Can only imagine what's not caught on tape or heard behind closed doors at home. :upeyes:

bug
01-15-2012, 09:32
The only good thing in Canton is still the football hall of fame :)

Glad he is gone. PTSD or not, dude was nutzo

I am from this area and I used to have contact with canton cops on a semi regular basis most of them are decent down to earth guys. they were easy to talk to and not full of themselves like some dept. around my area.

This guy was one turd in the pot and they flushed him. but why the wishing bad things on the man??? maybe we should hope he gets help and be glad they caught it before he did something stupid.

I have a few family members with PTSD and its real! they have seen things that could make the devil turn his head.

I am confused what everyone is annoyed with the Union for?
protecting him is there job!! just like if you or I asked for a attorney if you are arrested, it is there job to protect you and your rights. even if you are Right or wrong that is the job...

RussP
01-15-2012, 10:34
What lord said is absolutely correct. He should see jail time and I'll add..lose his pention. Behavior like his is unasceptable and there is no excuse. Many of us vets have PTSD and function fine on a daily basis....with coping mechanisms and other tools. We certainly don't go around threatening to kill Joe Citizen. That's a BS defense...and a BS excuse.[Edited to add that eb31 has posted previously here on Glock Talk about his medical challenges in great detail.]

How exactly were you diagnosed with PTSD, eb31? Did you exhibit behavioral symptoms? How long after the trauma did they make the diagnosis? Did you think you had PTSD before the diagnosis?

Let me generalize those last two questions, eb31. Based on your knowledge and personal experiences about and with PTSD, do most victims of PTSD have a sometimes long period of time between the traumatic event and recognition of the problem, and do others see the problem(s) before the victim does?

You say, "Many of us vets have PTSD and function fine on a daily basis....with coping mechanisms and other tools." When did you learn those "coping mechanisms and other tools?" Did you learn them before the PTSD diagnosis or afterwards?

Going forward, still using the same quote, are you saying anyone exhibiting abnormal behavior before diagnosis should, after successful treatment and therapy resulting in their learning those "coping mechanisms and other tools", that those persons should be barred from returning to previous employment? Are you saying that persons using "coping mechanisms and other tools" to function should not be allowed in law enforcement?

I'm looking forward to your answers since they will be based on personal, first hand experience.I know most refer to the one video of Officer Clueless v CCW driver. There are atleast two more videos out there with the same rhetoric...death threats ect. Can only imagine what's not caught on tape or heard behind closed doors at home. :upeyes:Yeah, it might be ugly, huh? I bet it all will be horribly disgusting to Harless when he gets his right mind back. That can happen, right eb31?

Misty02
01-15-2012, 11:19
Indeed, he has no place on the street.

But not every job is on the street. Not every job is in contact with the public.

If it was acquired on the job, wouldnít it be workers compensation? If he is unable to perform his duties due to a work related mental illness, wouldnít he be entitled to disability? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
From what Iíve seen in the videos, I donít believe he is fit to be an officer. I donít know what the success ratio is for treatment. Since this is not something you can physically see for yourself or even know what future triggers may bring it back, I donít believe it would be prudent for any PD to hire him back. Even a desk job may expose him to conditions/information that may create stress beyond his ability to handle. One heck of a liability for any employer depending on the diagnosis he ends up with and whether he is considered a danger to himself or others (that would include co-workers, not just the general public).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
He is opening a whole new can of worms with the PTSD diagnosis, most jobs involve some amount of stress and he may not qualify for many. I assume he will have to undergo various tests to determine the extent of the PTSD?
<o:p></o:p>
.

HexHead
01-15-2012, 11:30
Personally I think the PTSD is a brunch of crap he and his union advocate cooked to to try and keep him employed or on the dole.

I agree. I think he's just an A-hole with an attitude.

Dragoon44
01-15-2012, 13:38
If it was acquired on the job, wouldn’t it be workers compensation? If he is unable to perform his duties due to a work related mental illness, wouldn’t he be entitled to disability?

Depends on the state and how the PTSD was acquired. In many states PTSD is not compensated unless connected to physical trauma.

eb31
01-15-2012, 14:51
[Edited to add that eb31 has posted previously here on Glock Talk about his medical challenges in great detail.]

How exactly were you diagnosed with PTSD, eb31? Did you exhibit behavioral symptoms? How long after the trauma did they make the diagnosis? Did you think you had PTSD before the diagnosis?

Let me generalize those last two questions, eb31. Based on your knowledge and personal experiences about and with PTSD, do most victims of PTSD have a sometimes long period of time between the traumatic event and recognition of the problem, and do others see the problem(s) before the victim does?

You say, "Many of us vets have PTSD and function fine on a daily basis....with coping mechanisms and other tools." When did you learn those "coping mechanisms and other tools?" Did you learn them before the PTSD diagnosis or afterwards?

Going forward, still using the same quote, are you saying anyone exhibiting abnormal behavior before diagnosis should, after successful treatment and therapy resulting in their learning those "coping mechanisms and other tools", that those persons should be barred from returning to previous employment? Are you saying that persons using "coping mechanisms and other tools" to function should not be allowed in law enforcement?

I'm looking forward to your answers since they will be based on personal, first hand experience.Yeah, it might be ugly, huh? I bet it all will be horribly disgusting to Harless when he gets his right mind back. That can happen, right eb31?


Lmao. You can take up for him and make excuses for him all you like. Doesn't change the fact that he is a psycho scumbag that does not deserve to be prowling the streets armed.
Seems others agree...as he is no longer employed as a LEO.

You attempt at baiting won't work. Since you want to try and make this peraonal. Nothing but class lol. You're more than welcome to keep trying though. ;) Enjoy.

Dragoon44
01-15-2012, 14:55
I agree. I think he's just an A-hole with an attitude.

I think that is the general consensus even among the LEO's on this board. Personally I don't care what his problem is he has no business on the street.

AA#5
01-15-2012, 15:05
I think that is the general consensus even among the LEO's on this board. Personally I don't care what his problem is he has no business on the street.

Right. However, he DOES have business in prison...where he'll never be because he's a cop.

Sam Spade
01-15-2012, 15:58
Right. However, he DOES have business in prison...where he'll never be because he's a cop.

Tighter wrap, shiny side out.


(Ridiculous statements deserve ridiculous replies.)

RussP
01-15-2012, 17:14
Lmao. You can take up for him and make excuses for him all you like. Doesn't change the fact that he is a psycho scumbag that does not deserve to be prowling the streets armed.
Seems others agree...as he is no longer employed as a LEO.

You attempt at baiting won't work. Since you want to try and make this peraonal. Nothing but class lol. You're more than welcome to keep trying though. ;) Enjoy.Baiting? No no one is baiting you. Not even close...

Several of us here really appreciate another's personal, real life experiences. We just ask for someone's opinion, opinion based on those personal experiences, about something others of us could in no way have the knowledge you do. We want to learn.

But, this is what pisses me off. You ***** and complain, make accusations about another person's possible PTSD without any background other than what you read provided by the media. When asked to educate the rest of us about the probability/possibility of successful treatment, you run away.

Why? Why not educate the rest of us?

RussP
01-15-2012, 17:18
Right. However, he DOES have business in prison...where he'll never be because he's a cop.Are you going to let the Ohio AG know that? Well, fix it. Here's the Ohio Code... (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18433902#post18433902)

RussP
01-15-2012, 17:19
I think that is the general consensus even among the LEO's on this board. Personally I don't care what his problem is he has no business on the street.Amen...

Misty02
01-16-2012, 04:45
Depends on the state and how the PTSD was acquired. In many states PTSD is not compensated unless connected to physical trauma.

One article mentioned he was in an altercation that resulted in someone nearly biting his finger off. It didnít mention the extent of the injury, or if there was actually one, but if it was close and he needed something like stitches to put it back, that may qualify. I read just a bit about PTSD and workers compensation after reading the first article, it mentioned it would be difficult but not impossible for it to be compensable. I also donít know if it turns out to be a compensable on-the-job mental injury/illness if the same rules would apply to disability.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Mental illness may be difficult to prove and/or disprove, but once he is branded with it, it could affect the rest of his life and his ability to make a living, he is young. All those death threats may also land him in the dangerous category.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I donít know, in his place, I think I may prefer to say I was being a jerk and have learned my lesson and still have a shot at a normal life after some period of time later on. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Which are the chances of future employment anywhere if someone is branded with mental illness and violent episodes of PTSD whenever theyíre exposed to any stress?<o:p></o:p>

.

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2012, 06:44
What I have learned from this thread: It is the general consensus that people with PTSD have no business going about the streets with a firearm. I guess that means servicemen comming back from warfare should be denied a CCL.

Misty02
01-16-2012, 06:59
What I have learned from this thread: It is the general consensus that people with PTSD have no business going about the streets with a firearm. I guess that means servicemen comming back from warfare should be denied a CCL.

That is not my opinion on the subject, no. However, if a person suffers from violent episodes of PTSD I donít believe it is prudent to place that person in a stressful job where he/she may be a danger to others. Life, in general, is stressful; however, a person going about their normal every-day business would not be subjected to the same level of stress an officer would have. There is, in my mind, a huge difference between someone carrying for self-defense and someone exposed to the dangers of apprehending criminals. Even sitting at a desk where you get exposed to case files of great harm to innocents may be beyond what a person in a delicate state of mind may be able to handle. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Some people may be receptive enough to understand and acknowledge their own condition and avoid things that set them off; others may not be and there may be a need for third parties to intervene and set those limits for them. Much like driving after a couple of drinks, I wonít do it (even if I think Iím fine) other people may need to have the keys to their vehicle taken away from them.<o:p></o:p>

.

eb31
01-16-2012, 06:59
What I have learned from this thread: It is the general consensus that people with PTSD have no business going about the streets with a firearm. I guess that means servicemen comming back from warfare should be denied a CCL.


No. You can have PTSD and have a HCP. You can have anxiety and have a HCP.

When you SHOULD NOT have a HCP is when you are prone to violent fits of rage and are unable to show self restraint in dealing with any situation..stressful or not.

Then again, just my opinion (based off personal facts).

RussP
01-16-2012, 09:18
No. You can have PTSD and have a HCP. You can have anxiety and have a HCP.

When you SHOULD NOT have a HCP is when you are prone to violent fits of rage and are unable to show self restraint in dealing with any situation..stressful or not.

Then again, just my opinion (based off personal facts).Based off your personal facts, do you believe having the proper coping mechanisms and other tools and therapy would mitigate the unreasonable behavior exhibited before treatment?

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2012, 12:48
That is not my opinion on the subject, no. However, if a person suffers from violent episodes of PTSD I donít believe it is prudent to place that person in a stressful job where he/she may be a danger to others. Life, in general, is stressful; however, a person going about their normal every-day business would not be subjected to the same level of stress an officer would have. There is, in my mind, a huge difference between someone carrying for self-defense and someone exposed to the dangers of apprehending criminals. Even sitting at a desk where you get exposed to case files of great harm to innocents may be beyond what a person in a delicate state of mind may be able to handle. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Some people may be receptive enough to understand and acknowledge their own condition and avoid things that set them off; others may not be and there may be a need for third parties to intervene and set those limits for them. Much like driving after a couple of drinks, I wonít do it (even if I think Iím fine) other people may need to have the keys to their vehicle taken away from them.<o:p></o:p>

.


Wait, wait a moment. Let's put this in perspective now. So you are saying that anyone with a PTSD should not have a stressful job not be around a firearm. So, a guy with PTSD should be barred from working on Wallstreet and should be denied a firearms permit?

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2012, 12:54
No. You can have PTSD and have a HCP. You can have anxiety and have a HCP.

When you SHOULD NOT have a HCP is when you are prone to violent fits of rage and are unable to show self restraint in dealing with any situation..stressful or not.

Then again, just my opinion (based off personal facts).

Okay, who is going to distinguish and judge these situations? Troops that have PTSD=good and Cops that have the same ammount of stress because they are in warzone everyday=bad?

I think it boils down to self-regulation. I knew a Vietnam sniper who was good at what he did. After the war he went out hunting with a bolt action .270. After awhile he noticed that he started instinctively hunting people instead of game. It freaked him out. He stopped hunting.

He self-regulated.

When you are wearing a bullseye everyday and people you know get killed doing what you do and you see their families suffer and people shoot at you regularly, you will have some PTSD. It is a normal human reaction.

It is what you DO with it that matters. I am just tired of the military no matter what automatically = good and LEOs automatically = bad.

It is why LEOs rarely seek help and a lot of them eat their guns.

This is why I as long as I encounter this mentality I will continually hound the issue.

Misty02
01-16-2012, 14:22
Wait, wait a moment. Let's put this in perspective now. So you are saying that anyone with a PTSD should not have a stressful job not be around a firearm. So, a guy with PTSD should be barred from working on Wallstreet and should be denied a firearms permit?

No that is not what Iím saying; take a minute and a step back, and then re-read what I wrote in a neutral frame of mind without adding things I didnít. That post of mine you quoted clearly refers to a person suffering from violent episodes of PTSD. Yes, I donít believe that a person prone to suffering violent episodes of PTSD should have a stressful job (such as being a police officer) unless the triggers are known well and a way to successfully avoid them has been developed (even then, it may not be wise).<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Please notice that not a single one of my posts in this thread has addressed that person shouldnít carry. I have very mixed feelings where self-defense and mental illness meet. Just because a person is ill their right to defend themselves doesnít stop; conversely, if they wanted and were determined to harm/kill others they would just find the next most efficient tool. Iím not so sure I agree with restrictions on the available tools and Iím glad it is not up to me to make those decisions.<o:p></o:p>

.

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2012, 14:41
No that is not what Iím saying; take a minute and a step back, and then re-read what I wrote in a neutral frame of mind without adding things I didnít. That post of mine you quoted clearly refers to a person suffering from violent episodes of PTSD. Yes, I donít believe that a person prone to suffering violent episodes of PTSD should have a stressful job (such as being a police officer) unless the triggers are known well and a way to successfully avoid them has been developed (even then, it may not be wise).<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Please notice that not a single one of my posts in this thread has addressed that person shouldnít carry. I have very mixed feelings where self-defense and mental illness meet. Just because a person is ill their right to defend themselves doesnít stop; conversely, if they wanted and were determined to harm/kill others they would just find the next most efficient tool. Iím not so sure I agree with restrictions on the available tools and Iím glad it is not up to me to make those decisions.<o:p></o:p>

.

So, if you want to disarm police officers and remove them for their positions because they are suffering after traumatic events, then by that same token would you have soldiers discharged from the military with a dishonorable because they suffer from the exact same problem?

Misty02
01-16-2012, 15:37
So, if you want to disarm police officers and remove them for their positions because they are suffering after traumatic events, then by that same token would you have soldiers discharged from the military with a dishonorable because they suffer from the exact same problem?

Why would anyone do that? If they have violent episodes that can potentially place their safety or the safety of others in jeopardy and this condition was acquired due to the job they do/did, they should get full benefits; no different than those who suffered a physical injury. That goes for everyone, not just service members and/or police officers.

I also didn't state that I wanted to disarm police officers or anyone for that matter. May I ask why you state (almost as if it was a fact) that I made comments that I actually never made? It doesnít bother me; however, if it is a matter of my failure to properly communicate I should rephrase my comments. Based on what I have stated, I truly donít see how the section highlighted above fits.

Again, if Iím not explaining my thoughts/opinions clearly, please let me know and Iíll try to do better.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>.<o:p></o:p>

Sam Spade
01-16-2012, 18:06
So, if you want to disarm police officers and remove them for their positions because they are suffering after traumatic events, then by that same token would you have soldiers discharged from the military with a dishonorable because they suffer from the exact same problem?

Soldiers are absolutely discharged for psychological reasons. But you're the first to call for a dishonorable, something that's punative and results in loss of veteran's benefits. The way it's actually handled is through a medical discharge or retirement with no loss of earned benefits.

And I'm okay with the same model for LE. If the job makes him a casualty that can no longer do the work, either physically or psychologically, then try to make an accomodation. No different than if he lost a limb in service; you try to find an assignment where he doesn't need both arms, or shuffles papers instead of dealing with people. If you don't have such a position that he can fill, then you retire him on the disability.

eb31
01-16-2012, 18:41
Okay, who is going to distinguish and judge these situations? Troops that have PTSD=good and Cops that have the same ammount of stress because they are in warzone everyday=bad?

I think it boils down to self-regulation. I knew a Vietnam sniper who was good at what he did. After the war he went out hunting with a bolt action .270. After awhile he noticed that he started instinctively hunting people instead of game. It freaked him out. He stopped hunting.

He self-regulated.

When you are wearing a bullseye everyday and people you know get killed doing what you do and you see their families suffer and people shoot at you regularly, you will have someh PTSD. It is a normal human reaction.

It is what you DO with it that matters. I am just tired of the military no matter what automatically = good and LEOs automatically = bad.

It is why LEOs rarely seek help and a lot of them eat their guns.

This is why I as long as I encounter this mentality I will continually hound the issue.



I think you should re-read my post. We are essentially saying the same thing...yet you are arguing with me...??? Nowhere did I say military is good and LE is bad. I am both...incase you weren't aware.

I said...." When you SHOULD NOT have a HCP is when you are prone to violent fits of rage and are unable to show self restraint in dealing with any situation..stressful or not."

Having PSTD or any other "condition" is not the problem. Having no self control is the problem. Whether you are a soldier, a LEO, a school teacher or a house wife..makes no difference.

Irriguardless of the debate...the issue has been resolved. Harless is no longer on the street threatening citizens while hiding behind a badge. It is a good day.

It's only a matter of time, based on what I've seen of him, that he will inevitably overstep his bounds as a civilian and it won't end well for him.

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2012, 20:01
Soldiers are absolutely discharged for psychological reasons. But you're the first to call for a dishonorable, something that's punative and results in loss of veteran's benefits. The way it's actually handled is through a medical discharge or retirement with no loss of earned benefits.

And I'm okay with the same model for LE. If the job makes him a casualty that can no longer do the work, either physically or psychologically, then try to make an accomodation. No different than if he lost a limb in service; you try to find an assignment where he doesn't need both arms, or shuffles papers instead of dealing with people. If you don't have such a position that he can fill, then you retire him on the disability.

Herein lies the difference. If you discharge an LEO for a psychological reason, it is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge. He or she is now persona nongrata in any LEO job. That is why, even when they have problems, they keep them to themselves, or turn to a substance addiction to self-medicate the the "problem". That is also why there is a high rate of suicide among LEOs. They aren't suppose to seek help because that means you're weak. Also, you won't find any friends on the outside as they are treated by-in-large by the public as an anathema.

Dragoon44
01-16-2012, 21:22
If you discharge an LEO for a psychological reason, it is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge. He or she is now persona nongrata in any LEO job.

If an officer is discharged for being unable to perform his duties of course he is not going to get an LE job elsewhere. Such a discharge is the result of a professional medical diagnosis. It is no more an dishonorable discharge than the soldier who has his legs blown off being discharged. Neither one is able to perform their duties. Neither is being dishonorably discharged.

Misty02
01-17-2012, 05:40
Herein lies the difference. If you discharge an LEO for a psychological reason, it is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge. He or she is now persona nongrata in any LEO job. That is why, even when they have problems, they keep them to themselves, or turn to a substance addiction to self-medicate the the "problem". That is also why there is a high rate of suicide among LEOs. They aren't suppose to seek help because that means you're weak. Also, you won't find any friends on the outside as they are treated by-in-large by the public as an anathema.

You are incredibly harsh on the general public. Most people understand that many of the things that are seen and lived by those in the service, by those in the police force and in some other professions are enough to seriously mess with a personís mind. The more carrying the person was originally, the more they may be personally impacted, although, every human-being has their breaking point.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Another thing you might not have given consideration to, in this particular case, is that this officer was not discharged because he was diagnosed with a mental illness. This officer was discharged because he was prone to violent episodes while dealing with the general public. As a reason for his behavior PTSD has been introduced by either him or his defense team. Assuming that he in fact suffers from it, it was not his medical condition that led to his discharge but his behavior and treatment of others. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It is clearly evident from the videos Iíve seen that this officer is not fit for duty. Are you implying that any person that is not fit to perform their duties should be allowed to continue performing them? Forget about the fact he is an officer, what if he was an EMT or a doctor that goes into panic attacks, is unable to focus and perform the job of treating and saving their patients due to a psychological trauma theyíve suffered. Should that individual be allowed to continue doing the same job?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There are certain professions, where lives are at stake, they donít have the luxury of accommodating certain personal issues (medical or otherwise). This officer had a partner whose life depended on him having a clear head and performing his duties well. Are you willing to risk the life of the other officers that were around when he had his temper tantrums and practically stopped doing the job he was trained to do?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have a feeling that an officer that seeks help due to a psychological trauma, that continues to perform their job as they should would not be dismissed. If their doctor believes that continuing the same duties would pose a risk to the health of the officer or the safety of others they may recommend, temporarily, that they have duties that are less stressful. The reassignment may become permanent if it is believed to be for the greater good, but think of the alternative if that wasnít the case? Would you defend those in charge if he was allowed to continue his normal duties and due to his condition it cost his life or the life of another officer? Letís put it this way, would you be ok if your son/daughter was this officerís partner while they were out on patrol? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
This particular officer was so self-involved in his own temper tantrum that he allowed his partner to have his entire body inside a vehicle with the driver still at the wheel (could have driven away and caused serious injury to the other officer). This driver was armed, he didnít pose a threat to the officers but there was no way to have known that in advance. Was the other officer at fault as well? I think so. However, if I had to work day-in and day-out with someone so unglued I might not be at the top of my game either. Talk about a hostile job environment, you donít only have to worry about the criminals you encounter; you have to worry about your own partner too! If you havenít seen the original video, here you go (there are others if you care to search for it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Should the investigation reveal this officer was aware of his PTSD and kept it quiet because he didnít want to give up his street duties, whatever little sympathy I had for him would go out the window. You donít place the life of others at risk because you donít want to have desk duties. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You are so obfuscated in not having a person dismissed due to psychological reasons that you are not seeing the bigger picture and the lives that were at risk while this was allowed to continue. A person in such positions that seeks help is not weak, the weak one is the one that selfishly attempts to hide it while placing the life of others on the line, turning to substance abuse or attempting to self-medicate to cover up the problem. Those officers (or any other individual in another profession) are in fact an anathema and in some cases no different than the criminals they apprehend.<o:p></o:p>

I donít possess any credentials that would validate my opinion so it's not even worth $.02.
.

Sparkster
02-01-2012, 08:44
This particular officer was so self-involved in his own temper tantrum that he allowed his partner to have his entire body inside a vehicle with the driver still at the wheel

This is just as disturbing to me as the threats of harm made to the driver and alleged hooker. You never place your partner in danger if you can help it. It's a betrayal of the first order.

And the statement, "I find you one more time tonight I'm gonna put lumps on ya," is clearly menacing (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.22) at the very very least, if not aggravated menacing (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.21).

PTSD doesn't excuse him for this behavior in my book but my perspective is purely religious and I see it as a sin problem.