Florida cop, Marine vet, arrested for wearing ‘Anonymous’ mask warns of ‘a war coming

[Red James Cash]

Florida cop, Marine vet, arrested for wearing ‘Anonymous’ mask warns of ‘a war coming’

Michael Dorstewitz
bizpacreview.com
December 8, 2013

A veteran South Florida police officer and former Marine arrested late last month for refusing to remove his Guy Fawkes mask near an anti-Obamacare demonstration. He has now come forward to say what motivated him.

Ericson Harrell, 39, a 15-year veteran of the North Miami Beach Police Department who spent four years in the Marines, was driving through Plantation when he came upon the rally, according to the Sun Sentinel. He parked his vehicle, donned his cape and mask and grabbed his banner — an inverted U.S. flag, signifying distress. .

When police later stopped him and told him to remove the mask, Harrell said he politely refused, asserting his First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The arresting officer and her supervisor assumed Harrell was part of demonstration, but “in actual reality,” he told Red Pill Philosophy. “I was alone at the time. I was a soldier of one.”

Harrell said he only identified himself as a police officer “after the fact, because I didn’t want to get any preferential treatment.”

The simple response would have been to remove the mask. Had Harrell done so, the officer would have moved on and that would have been the end of it.



But Harrell isn’t a simple man.

His Facebook page describes him as a “Front Line Oath Keeper 1992 to present.” Oath Keepers are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement personnel who advocate disobeying orders that violate the U.S. Constitution.

Florida Statutes 876.155, under which Harrell was arrested. had been revised since it was originally drafted, he said. It was signed into law “sometime in the 1950s because of the Ku Klux Klan trying to intimidate a certain group of people — a certain race of people,” Harrell said.

Here is the statute. Chapter 876 Section 155 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

In short, he’s not a criminal and is not looking to overthrow the government of the United States. Quite the opposite, he’s just living up to the oath he took as a Marine and as a police officer, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

His oath isn’t just a collection of empty words — his service appears to be exemplary. The Sentinel reported:

According to the North Miami Beach city website, Harrell was named Officer of the Month in August 2007 for stopping a burglary to a business, which began after he noticed a turned over trash can on the corner of a strip store. He investigated further and found a broken front window of a nearby business and found his suspect hiding in a trash bin.

He was praised at the time for his “keen sense of observation and immediate actions.”

Harrell told Red Pill he wouldn’t have done anything differently.

“There’s a greater issue,” he said. “I have a daughter — I have children. I don’t have the luxury of not being involved.”

Of his oath, he said, “We are the front-line defenders to the Constitution. Our job is greater than just arresting people for petty crimes.”

“There is a war coming, and we’re in the midst of it,” Harrell added. “I no longer can be afraid.”

Until the charges against him are resolved, Harrell has been placed on administrative leave, the Sentinel reported.

Related posts:

Florida cop arrested for refusing to remove Guy Fawkes mask in Obamacare protest
French military condemns soldier for wearing skull mask
Ski-Mask Wearing Thug Assists Police At Checkpoint In Houston County
Active Duty Troops In Iraq Are Wearing Oath Keeper Tabs: “… what we are wearing while over here in Iraq”
Florida unemployment hit record 12.2 percent in February

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Unclebuck257]

RJC,

I have a great deal of respect for this man and his reasons for doing what he did, after watching and listening to his video. However, the local police were faced with an uncertain situation regarding this anti Obama demonstration, although peaceful at the time, it could have gotten nasty fast. By their very definition, masks cover faces and also the faces of those who might want to cause trouble and do harm to others at a demonstration like this. As a police officer himself, he should know that better than most and either identified himself as a police officer, or just gone ahead and taken the mask off as was requested by a fellow officer from another agency. I am very much for standing up for one's rights under the law, but common sense must also come into play too. In a possible tense situation such as this protest rally might have been if dirupters showed up, certain safety precautions must be taken by law enforcement to protect all, or at least make their best attempt at doing so. The police officers did not ask this man to stop doing anything regarding the protest rally, with the exception of taking off his mask so they could clearly see his face for possible identification. I think this man pushed it too far, considering the situation, especially since he lives in that situation day in and day out. I'm willing to bet that when he refused to take the mask off initially, that only hightened their suspicions of a possible trouble maker with bad intensions and they couldn't afford to take that chance.

 

[Red James Cash]

Theres a few ways of looking at it Unclebuck.If he's just standing there not doing anything in my opinion theres nothing to be suspicious about.If its just because of the mask then the arresting cop must have a busy time on Halloween unmasking everybody walking or standing on the street.Unless you are under suspicion of a crime you do not have to identify yourself to any cop.Wearing a mask and standing on the sidewalk is not a crime.

 

[Unclebuck257]

RJC,

I understand what you mean and what you are saying, but considering this was not Halloween and this was definitely an anti Obama rally where tempers and attitudes could flare up over the things Obammy is doing, don't you think that these police officers were, in a way, trying to protect these protesters. Two things come to my mind quickly. One, those Acorn Ex types could try to infiltrate this rally and purposely start some trouble, and/or say that some trouble had occured and serious injuries had occured, wouldn't we all be wondering why the police allowed certain persons to wear masks to hide their identity to cause the trouble or injuries in a hidden manner? Just some thoughts to clarify what I meant

 

[Red James Cash]

I know what you were saying unclebuck.Cant really say it was an anti obozo rally,it was an anti obozocare rally.A provocator wouldnt be wearing a mask and be standing all by themselves.Provocators would make sure that they fit into the crowd,maybe even be carrying signs along with the other people.I'm just a hardarse when it comes to things unclebuck.If I have the right to do something I'm going to do it if I want to regardless of who doesnt like it.I'm all for other people who feel the same.

 

[austin]

First of all, every Obozo rally now is an anti-Obozo rally. Bet ya a buck that if there is ever anything now like a pro-Obozo rally, a whole bunch of people would be wearing a mask because they had been forced to attend...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Here is the thing if they were so worried about breaking the law then why aren't they arresting all the Muslim women wearing burkahs?

We will NOT go quietly into the night!

 

[G.I.B.]

It was a violation of the law, the same law the officer was sworn to uphold.

There are legal exceptions to the law which include religion (something to do with our stupid constitution) and recognized holiday's, like that silly one the end of October.

 

[Red James Cash]

GIB now try posting all of it.

876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
History.—s. 1, ch. 81-249; s. 1416, ch. 97-102

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

View attachment 910820


It was a violation of the law, the same law the officer was sworn to uphold.

There are legal exceptions to the law which include religion (something to do with our stupid constitution) and recognized holiday's, like that silly one the end of October.

GIB, with all due respect, please point out the part that grants exception to Muslim women or to religion.........:what:





........

I will help to save you some time......

There are NO exceptions in the law for religion... You can search the entire law, you will not find a single exception for adults wearing it because of their religion.


Here are the only exceptions.

876.16* Sections 876.11-876.15; exemptions.--The following persons are exempted from the provisions of ss. 876.11-876.15:

(1)**Any person or persons wearing traditional holiday costumes;

(2)**Any person or persons engaged in trades and employment where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession;

(3)**Any person or persons using masks in theatrical productions, including use in Gasparilla celebrations and masquerade balls;

(4)**Persons wearing gas masks prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises.

Any woman wearing a burkah outside their home and on public property is in violation of Florida law...





We will NOT go quietly into the night!

 

[G.I.B.]

What's your point?

The sub sections, you can recognize them by the (x), are not all inclusive to the crime. They present different elements. You can do a (3) and not a (4). It doesn't have to be every one of them combined to be a violation.

The term harass and intimidate is painted with a very wide brush. It is accepted by our courts that wearing a mask at a public demonstration is a violation.

There is also a ton of case law on the subject- and we don't want to open the law library do we?

This is the same law that took the hood's off of the KKK and other groups, as is in subsection (4).

The definitions were written (Applicability) to exclude the religion and recognized holidays.

So, posting all of it just strengthens the point of the officer being in violation of the law he swore to uphold.

 

[Red James Cash]

This is the same law that took the hood's off of the KKK

And what did the KKK wear hoods for?Youre wrong.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

What's your point?

The sub sections, you can recognize them by the (x), are not all inclusive to the crime. They present different elements. You can do a (3) and not a (4). It doesn't have to be every one of them combined to be a violation.

The term harass and intimidate is painted with a very wide brush. It is accepted by our courts that wearing a mask at a public demonstration is a violation.

There is also a ton of case law on the subject- and we don't want to open the law library do we?

This is the same law that took the hood's off of the KKK and other groups, as is in subsection (4).

The definitions were written (Applicability) to exclude the religion and recognized holidays.

So, posting all of it just strengthens the point of the officer being in violation of the law he swore to uphold.

All of what you just posted does not change the fact there is no exception to the law in state of Florida for religion.


Any citizen could upon seeing a muslim woman wearing a burkah in public call a LEO and show them a copy of the law and request they be arrested and would be with in their rights according to Florida law.

Why in force the law on one and not all?


We will NOT go quietly into the night!

 

[G.I.B.]

And what did the KKK wear hoods for?Youre wrong.

Would you please educate me. How am I wrong?

 

[Red James Cash]

apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device: with intent.

What does the above mean GIB,you have to see it.The guy was standing on the street,by himself,minding his own business.

 

[G.I.B.]

It was still a violation of the law.

Right or wrong, agree or not-

There may not be a conviction- but as the old saying goes, 'you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.'

And, his career is over. I hope it was worth making the statement.

And the KKK are all now unmasked in public. If I'm wrong, why are they all showing their faces now when wearing the hoods?


We are a society made up of laws. I don't agree with them all- but I'm obligated to follow them, lest we become what we oppose.

 

[G.I.B.]

apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device: with intent.

What does the above mean GIB,you have to see it.The guy was standing on the street,by himself,minding his own business.

Do you know the legal difference between 'specific intent' and 'general intent'?

If not, I'll not waste time explaining why his presence in the mask at that gathering is prima facia intent.

 

[Red James Cash]

It was still a violation of the law.

Wrong.

And, his career is over. I hope it was worth making the statement.

It probably is and was to uphold the oath he took unlike so many others that dont.

And the KKK are all now unmasked in public. If I'm wrong, why are they all showing their faces now when wearing the hoods?

Because they wore the hoods to intimidate.

(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;

 

[TheRingFinder]

Another real American hero - Go Brother, all my support!!!!!

 

[G.I.B.]

Wrong.

We'll then, I guess because you said it's wrong, without any explanation, that must mean I, and all my legal experience, is just plain wrong, because you said so.