- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,575
The main point is an illustration as to the absurdities of MA law.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Framingham Police Officer’s past affects gun license
- Thread starter LadySmith
- Start date
The main point is an illustration as to the absurdities of MA law.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,411
- Likes
- 17,599
Rob....Len.....you guys are bordering on being "in violent agreement" ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Rob....Len.....you guys are bordering on being "in violent agreement"
We usually are . . . been friends for a very long time.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,575
I find it good sport giving Len some s--- from time to time, but I rank him right up there with GSG, Terraformer and a couple of others when it comes to the accuracy of his information.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Oh yeah, no, you're not biased in the least. Nice to see however that you never answered my questions. Although the fact you seem to think juvenile criminal records should be subject to FOIA requests clears up a good portion of it for me. Nice to know you think people should be branded for life for dumb crap they did before they knew any better.
A "common carrier" is an old-school way of saying "publically accessable transportation of goods or people". P&B buses, UPS, and sometimes even utility companies can be considered common carriers.
The statute you cite, however, only refers to people in direct control of public conveyances, like a steamboat captain (think the Martha's Vineyard ferry) or a bus driver (think Logan Express), or those in management who are grossly negligent (think failure to repair safety violations to keep up profits).
Obie, the cite was directly out of Ron's book. I didn't research it.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
I agree with you on your examples. I was thinking more like a juvie who killed someone but got released when they became an adult.
The only thing worse than a yellow dog cop is a yellow dog cop who thinks he's better than everyone because he's -- gasp -- a law student. Yeah, we've seen how well pig-headed lawyers do around here.
As for me being biased? You bet your ass I'm biased. I'm completely biased against Harry P. Wareham who allegedly committed heinous crimes as 15 year old and allegedly ended up being one of the biggest pricks on the Framingham Police Department. I'm equally biased that the Chief there allegedly looked the other way for all this time.
I'm especially biased when the standards in departments are allegedly different standards for different officers, depending on who's on the Chief's list of favorite people, and I'm supremely baised when stuck up law students (not to mention the fake lawyers who post on this site) try to bully the rest of us out of our legitimate opinions.
I'm biased that this alleged criminal cop has been a police officer for all these years and I cannot wait for the media to rip the case wide open. If Harry Wareham were such a stand up guy, why won't he talk about the "dumb crap" that he allegedly did? He won't discuss it because it was rough stuff, not dumb crap.
Fifteen is old enough for a guy to do a hell of a lot of damage to a victim, so I'm sure through his "dumb crap" he hurt some people. And the fact that he's lied about it and concealed it for years while allegedly being a First Class Dick on the job makes me think he's got some serious problems that go far beyond the concealment of his criminal past.
Biased? Most definitely I am biased, and that will never change.
Last edited:
Good answer.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
And you are the reason people like Half Cocked don't post here any more. You have no ability to view a situation objectively and are asking for remedies unheard of in any other circumstance. You're not concerned about reasoned principles of fairness or equality--your goal is to simply bash someone that for one reason or another you seem to have a problem with.
A FOIA request on a juvie CORI? Are you serious? are you freakin' serious?
But I'm sorry--this "yellow dog law student cop" must watch out lest he become too pig headed.
The chief "looked the other way" about what, exactly? Him being a "prick"? What makes him a prick? You've failed to substantiate you claims with any evidence, whether it be unsubstantiated anecdotes or otherwise.
And if I were to assume for the sake of argument the officer was a "prick", that's reason enough to assume that he deserves to have his gun rights revoked? Your support of the second amendment is not principled--it's limited to those who don't rub you the wrong way.
As for "heinous" crimes, all we know is he was adjudicated delinquent of a statutory disqualifier, or a crime with a penalty >2 years in a HOC. For all we know, he shoplifted a couple Atari games.
I couldn't agree more about chiefs playing favorites. As for the second part, if you don't have the ability to judge a situation objectively, I'm going to call you on it. It's not bullying. It's calling out what I feel to be an assinine take on a situation.
But then again, to you, I'm just a jack-booted thug. So I could see how you think that would be bullying.
He's not criminal, he's delinquent. But hey, don't let me get in the middle of your ignorance. You seem to be having a lot of fun.
Who cares why he doesn't want to disclose it. Perhaps the particular facts are embarassing. That's the point of juvenile records--they shouldn't follow you around for the rest of your life. Although you don't seem to think so--or do you? You still never answered that question after two replies.
And you "you can't wait for the media to rip the case wide open"? Is that how you get your jollies? By basking in the suffering of other people? What a life that must be.
And 2+3=23.
More unsubstantiated accusations.
Your evidence that he failed to disclose his juvie record is what? The police see and always have seen all juvenile records at the time of hire, so I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.
But again, don't let me get in the way of your unsubstantiated rants by providing facts. Those stubborn things have a pesky way of opposing assumed conclusions with truth.
Agreed.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off like I was giving you crap--just trying to point out the absurdity of a disqualifier that I have never seen charged.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,575
There is also the concept of "legal fiction", under which an individual with certain sealed records is entitled to answer "NO" to any questions about having a record and, under the law, such an answer is not considered untruthful. Although licensing officers don't generally accept that the concept exists, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has 5 legs. If it is legally applicable in this case, it is not appropriate to assume the officer "lied" in the legal sense of the word.
Don't worry, no problem with me. Further info sent via Email.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
I've given this a lot of thought before posting,cad the topic seems to have heated up!
While in general, I don't think juvie records should be something that follow you around for life, I do somewhat dismiss the "doing something before you know any better" as the reason for that record not following you. Knowing full well that many people have not done anything worthy of getting a juvie record, to me, shows that even as a juvenile, one can in fact know better. However, as a child, and being influenced more strongly by your parents then compared to the rest of your life, you can see a connection between parenting and misbehaving in my opinion.
Let the guy have his LTC, and let's move on, but don't tell me tat no kid is capable of understanding right versus wrong until the arbitrary age of 18......
.....oh and LadySmith, cut the crap
While in general, I don't think juvie records should be something that follow you around for life, I do somewhat dismiss the "doing something before you know any better" as the reason for that record not following you. Knowing full well that many people have not done anything worthy of getting a juvie record, to me, shows that even as a juvenile, one can in fact know better. However, as a child, and being influenced more strongly by your parents then compared to the rest of your life, you can see a connection between parenting and misbehaving in my opinion.
Let the guy have his LTC, and let's move on, but don't tell me tat no kid is capable of understanding right versus wrong until the arbitrary age of 18......
.....oh and LadySmith, cut the crap
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
I think it might not even be legal fiction, but that may simply come down to the symantic differences between the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems.
For example, MGL ch. 41, s. 96A prevents convicted felons for serving as police officers:
However, if we are to assume for the sake of argument the officer's DQ charge was indeed a felony, here the officer was never "convicted"--he "adjudicated delinquent". Additionally, this may also be of importance in some questions where one is asked "Have you ever appeared as a defendant...?" as juveniles charged with crimes are not defendants, but are termed "the accused".
Now compare that language with the requirements for holding an LTC in MGL ch. 140, s. 131:
While the same words can certainly have differnet meanings depending on where they fall in the legal code, the fact that one statute leaves out delinquency as a disqualifier while one includes it would seem to indicate a difference, lest the language in the latter be superfluous.
I'm sure he is a nice guy. I know a couple of cops who were juvenile delinquents and did a lot of bad stuff. They grew up. Somehow they got their LTCs without this issue becoming an obstacle.
BUT, he can't have his LTC unless we all can for the same reason. We have to use this very public case as an opportunity to change the laws for this guy and us, not make another exception for a government worker and move on. Nobody will make the exception for you unless you are well connected.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Sorry, was typing on my iphone, but yes, I agree. Give him it was basically a shorthand way of saying "this is screwed up for everybody, fix it for all people. Using a public figure like a PO to illustrate the absurdity might be a better bet than joe schmoe off t he street"
Way to try to stifle my First Amendment rights when you can't think of anything intelligent to write.
lancecolonel
NES Member
so using this logic we can assume that a teenage journalist who may have plagiarized an article for a high school newspaper will have his press creds pulled 30 or so years later. wow, i feel extremely safe AND well informed now. ![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
i cannot wait to gtfo of mass.......
i cannot wait to gtfo of mass.......
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Im not trying to stifle your first amendment rights, moron Im using mine to tell you you are a complete maroon.
Accuse me of nothing intelligent to write? Go read my FIRST post on this topic (its on this page in case you were wondering), and then compare it to all the crap you wrote. I've got intelligence in spades compared to you.
And some of those bully's from our juvenile years went on to be cops. A lot of people that were real ******** in their youth decided law enforcement was the perfect job for them because they could go on bullying and abusing, but with the legitimacy of a gun and a badge.
Now I am not painting all cops with a broad brush, I know this does not apply to all officers, but if you are around long enough you start seeing and hearing what officers are trouble. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about it.
I avoided the "bad" ones like a case of the clap, and when my friends warned me to avoid/watch Officer X, I made it a point to avoid them.
VERY true. Not all, but many.
I'll second that, people change, but core values and younger experience stays with you all the time. It all depends on the crime.
There is nothing really objective about the OP's position. I don't know if the Framingham Police Lieutenant is a bad guy or a good guy or simply somewhere in between. Until I have actual knowledge documented or anecdotal from several first hand sources, anything written about him is hearsay...period. There is a lot of hubris in the OPs posts in this thread that appear to be quite emotional in nature, and for the most part, while the information in the linked article was interesting and timely and potentially impactive on those of us who have LTCs, the intensely personal nature and anger is a tad unsettling.
I find it ironic that the new CORI Reform Laws do have an unintended consequence, which is that it allows greater access to government agencies and less access to records by employers. Of course, from a public safety perspective, there never is such a thing as a "sealed record" in the strictest sense, and certainly with regard to juvenile records, what Law Enforcement saw in a BOP even before CORI reform was far more comprehensive than an employer CORI Report. What is also happening and I believe that it was Len who pointed it out, is that more and more people are having there records put into the system. Records that were formerly in cardboard boxes or even on microfiche. This is a point that has been addressed on more than one occasion on this Forum, and people who have had LTCs for years with no problems are being denied.
To those of you who think that "carrying on the badge" is a quaint custom, it was/has been a standard operating policy in many departments and in many states. There has been a shift in the past fifteen or twenty years to require licensure of police officers to carry on the Job. This has occurred simultaneously with the growth of the gun licensing movement. There is also the issue of liability. Police officers today in many jurisdictions (including Mass) are not considered on duty 24/7.
I am reminded of the State of Arizona which before had concealed carry licenses (now no license is required) concealed carry by non-sworn citizens was illegal (although open carry was permitted except where prohibited by municipal ordinance {think Tombstone and Wyatt Earp, an early proponent of gun control, something many of you seem to forget, esp the SASS crowd} ) The only way that a person could carry concealed was "on the badge" so in other words if you wanted to carry 24/7 you had to be sworn. No other way around it.
We are so hung up on licenses here. In the majority of states, a firearms license is just as easy or almost as easy to procure as a driver's license. Of course all states should be like Vermont, Alaska and Arizona and require no licenses for anyone.
I find it ironic that the new CORI Reform Laws do have an unintended consequence, which is that it allows greater access to government agencies and less access to records by employers. Of course, from a public safety perspective, there never is such a thing as a "sealed record" in the strictest sense, and certainly with regard to juvenile records, what Law Enforcement saw in a BOP even before CORI reform was far more comprehensive than an employer CORI Report. What is also happening and I believe that it was Len who pointed it out, is that more and more people are having there records put into the system. Records that were formerly in cardboard boxes or even on microfiche. This is a point that has been addressed on more than one occasion on this Forum, and people who have had LTCs for years with no problems are being denied.
To those of you who think that "carrying on the badge" is a quaint custom, it was/has been a standard operating policy in many departments and in many states. There has been a shift in the past fifteen or twenty years to require licensure of police officers to carry on the Job. This has occurred simultaneously with the growth of the gun licensing movement. There is also the issue of liability. Police officers today in many jurisdictions (including Mass) are not considered on duty 24/7.
I am reminded of the State of Arizona which before had concealed carry licenses (now no license is required) concealed carry by non-sworn citizens was illegal (although open carry was permitted except where prohibited by municipal ordinance {think Tombstone and Wyatt Earp, an early proponent of gun control, something many of you seem to forget, esp the SASS crowd} ) The only way that a person could carry concealed was "on the badge" so in other words if you wanted to carry 24/7 you had to be sworn. No other way around it.
We are so hung up on licenses here. In the majority of states, a firearms license is just as easy or almost as easy to procure as a driver's license. Of course all states should be like Vermont, Alaska and Arizona and require no licenses for anyone.
Last edited:
Agree 100%.
Usually when that amount of hatred is shown by a woman towards a man it is reserved for a scorned lover.
I'm sorry but Juveniles know they can do whatever they want and get a slap on the wrist, as far as I am concerned a 15 year old knows right from wrong, and should be held to the same standards as an adult. Why do gangs recruit younger members? Because they can hold the guns and drugs and if caught get a slap on the wrist leaving the those who could be charged as adults to keep on keeping on
How many people have registered to post here to ask the question " I did something stupid when I was a teenager" or "when I was in college...." in regards to a licensing question. Once you get to be a teen, you know how you should behave, and as far as I am concerned they should be held accountable.
I'm sorry but Juveniles know they can do whatever they want and get a slap on the wrist, as far as I am concerned a 15 year old knows right from wrong, and should be held to the same standards as an adult. Why do gangs recruit younger members? Because they can hold the guns and drugs and if caught get a slap on the wrist leaving the those who could be charged as adults to keep on keeping on
How many people have registered to post here to ask the question " I did something stupid when I was a teenager" or "when I was in college...." in regards to a licensing question. Once you get to be a teen, you know how you should behave, and as far as I am concerned they should be held accountable.
Right you are, Glock. If yellow dog were paying attention in school, he would know that at common law a complete defense due to incapacity existed only for children under the age of seven. Children between seven and 14 were rebuttably presumed to lack criminal capacity and children over the age of 14, i.e., children like Harry P. Wareham was at the time when he committed his crimes, were held responsible as adults.
Sucks to be Harry Wareham, or any other crooked cop who lied on his application or relied on sealed documents to get past the prohibitions.
I fully applaud the unsealing of all juvie records and, in a perfect world, ALL criminal records would be available for anyone to see. If you can't do the time or don't want to suffer the consequences, then don't do the crime.
The more records unsealed and the more guns taken from inappropriate licensees -- especially ones unqualified to police the rest of us -- the happier I will be. Yeah, I love my 2A rights, but if I ever f*ck up like Harry Wareham and an obvious number of people who post here, then I'd kiss those rights goodbye.
Two things:
1) The First Amendment doensn't apply here. Read this:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...1st-Amendment-Rights-and-This-Forum-Read-this
This is important. You have no First Amendment rights here. None. We all post at the pleasure of Derek.
2) Even if the First Amendment applied, it would not only allow you to say stupid stuff, but it it protects our right to tell you to shut up, because you're being an idiot. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that anyone has to agree with you, or protect you from ridicule when you say stupid stuff, it only protects your right to say it.
