Harlan's grasp safe with Dave Shaeffer's suspension

If David threatened her (?) what exactly did he say, how far away were you when you heard him say it ..? Please refrain from injecting your impression or interpretation of what and or anything unless you actually heard him say it (if you did hear him say anything ) that is calling for a conclusion by assumption because you cannot read his mind and or thoughts ... As stated above (User 1), no man with a pair (Key Word : GONADS) is going to stand there and watch or listen to a 350ish pound man verbally and or especially physically threaten a woman much less a 100 pound woman even if she is all mouth ... If you or anyone threatens a person and they or you have a gun ( do not have to even imply using it, it would be a FELONY, Brandishing a weapon)its a FELONY the POLICE should of got involved POST HASTE ... You should of started out "Once upon a time" and made it a more realistic fairy tale, I am not buying it as stated and because it is biased I do not think anyone involved in or with the ATA should of taken it into consideration ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Should All Americans get extra competition points for fighting in the parking lot? New handicapping system needed?

 

Huntin Fool - Yes! Everyone accused is afforded the opportunity to face their accusers.

The constitution includes something called the Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

 

Possumskinner;
That's very true. The Confrontation Clause is in fact a provision of the 6th Amendment. However, don't you believe it would be more accurate to provide the complete text of said clause for full clarity in subject instance? I'm sure you are fully aware that said clause further states that "the right is not applicable in civil cases or other proceedings." The last time I checked an ATA complaint proceeding is not a criminal prosecution.

 

10Guns - pay attention to the forum.

Huntin Fool said:

My response was in response to his quote. The answer is YES
--------------------------------------------------------

Now please show in the sixth amendment where you are not permitted to know your accuser or whom is suing you. I have never heard of an anonymous lawsuit.

 

The courts are reluctant to get involved with disputes within private organizations. Take that to the bank!

 

This suspension should have never happened, just a warning was all that was needed to all parties involved.

GB.......................................DLS

 

possumskinner;
I am not disputing your statement as to the rights afforded to the accused under the 6th Amendment. I am merely stating that the "6th" is not applicable in this case and any response to Hunting'fool's statement(s) suggesting the same is irrelevant to the matter at hand. However, the rights of the accused to confront his/her accusers is in fact preserved in this instance pursuant to the due process provisions as stipulated under the 5th & 14th Amendments. I suspect the ATA had taken this into consideration when establishing the guidelines/rules for Disciplinary Action(s). Please reference ATA Rules,Section XII,C5a(6): Names and addresses of any witnesses to the alleged violation(s) must be stated.

You may never have heard of an anonymous lawsuit but they do in fact exist. Typically the petitioner is listed as John and/or Jane Doe. Admittedly suits of this kind are very rare as the courts set and extremely high bar for acceptance in deference to the rights afforded the accused/respondent pursuant to the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

 

10 Guns......Be clear there has NEVER BEEN A LAWSUIT WITH ANONYMOUS WITNESSES AND ANONYMOUS PLAINTIFFS.

No witnesses no lawsuit! WTF

 

possumskinner;
You might want to take a look at a Nov.15, 2017 Reuters article: New Weinstein lawsuits pit anonymous accusers against public's right to know. And in your spare time The Notre Dame Law Review Volume 57, Issue 3: Anonymity in Civil Litigation: The Doe Plaintiff is a good read.
Not that I don't enjoy a lively debate but I think you will agree we are getting a little far afield from the original topic of this thread. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on certain issues but if you ever get down to the Dollar in FL look me up. I'm usually there for all the major shoots Jan-Apr. I'll even buy you a brew of your preference and we can continue our discussion.

 

The laws as written are one thing, this is the ATA we are talking about and they do things to suit there need if anybody likes it or not ... There have been many unsafe issues handled over the years and depending on who you are or what you are or had been in the past they get the fast shuffle and dismissed or dropped and just go away never to be seen or heard from again ... Shooting in the general area of a trap kids comes to mind, don't remember what happened with that one ... The ATA is going to do what benefits the ATA, they have proven time and again they can care less about the membership or things to better the Association over all ... If Mr.Shaeffer has a legitimate case I hope him takes who ever is involved for a bunch and gets everything he is due in the process ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Witnesses were not anonymous.

You left the topic as you cant follow a simple thread.

Huntin Fool said>>>
The accused doesn’t need to know who is reporting the facts. Would the police name a witness or informant? No.

The correct answer is yes --read the forum first 10Guns.

 

Warnings to both parties should have been given.

 

George in PA,
Giving warning to both parties would of made to much sense, these are adults not children who do not know the difference between right and wrong ... I have a real problem with the ATA taking away points that were earned and accumulated prior to this happening, then accepting the entry's at the grand which is not cheap taking everything into consideration ... I have had to deal with some not so pleasant individuals who took things out on the score keepers for their performance ( the shooter) when the Spring Grand was at the old Phx Club, not once did it go beyond the borders of the club, never had to ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

It is past time for the ATA To make a total REDUCTION OF COMPLAINT, the Pros and Cons have been totally discussed here, and the EC Made a terrible mistake

GB.......................................DLS

 

What if it angers a gun company? NO GUNS FOR YOU!

 

This is a great thread. I am sure most members never knew how the ATA worked on this suspension stuff.

 

I have never heard of the EC not following the recommendation of the investigators. That makes this whole thing smell.

 

It seems like the EC is running like the Odumbo administration did. We are now seeing just how it smells as we dig for the truth. There is money behind all of this.

 

Just follow the money trail. It always leads to the self servers. Roger C.

 

As per Pennsylvania and any other club, they can ban anyone for any reason or no reason. I don't see too many questioning PA. I think that is because there is no collective distrust for PA or their management. The perception is the ATA leaves fingerprints of distrust. Remember Pull2012 and getting caught publishing fake numbers for the WSRC. Doubling them. Just my opinion.

 

cfandg, He was banned for the same reasons in both places, if one is wrong then both are wrong. There is more to this than what is known to the shooters, you can count on it. I sure do remember PULL2012, very well, AND NOTHING WAS EVER DONE TO CORRECT THE NEFERIOUS ACTIONS OF THE PERP'S. I wonder how many ways the extra dollars were divided? Should we conduct a pole, and let the shooters vote? Roger C.

 

Roger
I am just saying that most of us are probably willing to give PA any benefit of any doubt. I think if PA said to Shaeffer don't come back none of us would care. Being that the ATA is involved it is an issue. jmho

 

That may not be true ..... A place "open to the public" should have "implied permission" ..... So, "for any reason" would then not be true .....

"Age", "race", "gender", "ethnicity", "religion", and "disability status" are a few examples of things that should negate "for any reason" .....

The legal system may go as far as "silence" being "implied permission" ..... If you say nothing about "behavior", past or present, it could be looked at as "implied permission" .....

 

As an aside, NSCA lost in its attempt to suspend a shooter for a worse safety violation and post-violation behavior than this. The matter went to court.

 

trap.skeet.sporting,
Please finish the story and tell us what the finding was by the court, and the basis for it ..? What got factored in to get it over turned ..?

The situation as described appears to be a set up of sorts only because the "Powers that be" are stripping David of points and accomplishments acquired before this fateful day which does not seem logical or even close to reasonable ... Worse case, this particular day was as bad or even worse than could be imagined between two adults ( 1-100 # woman / 1- 350 # man ) and he is the only one who is paying the price as a result, after based on what others have said she instigated or prompted his actions by making a comment which he in turn reacted to ... I don't care who is right or who is wrong there is no justification in turning back the hands of time and taking those points or targets away from him being as they were bought and paid for as well as acquired prior to this day ... IF any penalty would be justified it would (should) have to start after the day in question, if at all ... Compounding the lack of common sense and reason by issuing the penalty on history (past practice ) is the biggest and worse problem I see in the entire incident and if presented to a court it will probably be over ruled and over turned in David's favor, as well it should be ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

Happy New Year 2018 ...

 

What was the specific safety violation with Shaeffer.

 

I find the amount of speculation by those who are completely ignorant to the situation astounding.

I do not know Dave, but I can assure all of you that Sandy would not do this unless there was a legitimate issue.

Anthony Fortino

 

OK - - I'll bite. What did Sandy do? I don't see where anyone says a "Sandy" did anything. What is "legitimate"?
Also, who are you to call those interesting in reading and learning "ignorant" of the situation? Tell us the facts if we are "ignorant".

 

Banging his barrel muzzle on the concrete walkway?

 

Anthony Fortino,
Therefore you assume that in not knowing Dave but in knowing Sandy that she was absolutely without any fault what so ever, there by making it legitimate ... Were you there personally and did you witness what you are attesting (assuming) to ..? I would slay you (your testimony) in a court of Law if I was a Lawyer, you would walk out looking like a half baked fool ...
I do not know either one of them but from what I have heard and read Sandy instigated the entire situation by making a comment that was out of place and David reacted to it, which is just as legitimate ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Mr. Fortino

What is false in the report? Nothing but crickets now from Fortino?

 

Is that a safety violation? Who does that endanger? Please explain.

 

So he wasn't suspended for that? Okay. Then why was he suspended?

 

Fortino
What are you saying Sandy did?

 

I did not comment on the events being discussed nor did I say the report is false. I am saying that I know for certain Ms. Jack is of upstanding character and would not entertain any sort of alternative motive such as removing Harlan's competition from the field, which may I add is an absurd statement.

Was I there? absolutely not. It is however interesting to me you ask me that though, because I assume you weren't there either.

"I do not know either one of them but from what I have heard and read Sandy instigated the entire situation by making a comment that was out of place and David reacted to it, which is just as legitimate" -WPT If "what you heard" is true then I guess Dave should've filed a complaint as well, but like you said I wasn't there so how can I speculate.

Back to the crickets from me.

Anthony Fortino

 

Forgive me for not wording that better, but whatever transpired to cause the suspensions of Dave.

 

I ask you what you say Sandy did and you said >>>>

So you are saying she she caused "whatever transpired to cause the suspension of Dave."

And you come on the forum to tell us the readers here are ignorant as you say. The two most ignorant statements on the thread are yours. All you know about it is "whatever" and nothing more.

If you would have read the thread you could have seen that a few that were actually there gave their views. Merlo interviewed one of them. Two others that were there commented. The only ignorant person on this thread is you. And you sir are the ignorant ass.

 

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying sir. As far as I know they had a cage match behind the trap line, it seems to me though the masses are out to smear Sandy's good name, which I am simply defending.

So may I reiterate, I WASN'T THERE and I am ignorant to the situation that occurred just as you are.

Good job with the name calling though.

Anthony Fortino a.k.a. "The Ignorant Ass"

 

Mr. Fortino,
So, you do not know David, therefore you really do not know if he is a fine upstanding gentlemen on the same level as his accuser, or are you assuming he is not or Sandy Jack would not of gone off half cocked with out being given cause to ..? If I were David I would file it in a Court of Law where people would be sworn under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God ... Once its over turned I would go after the EC of the ATA like a Pit Bull with PMS to get all that I had due as well as what I spent to accumulate the points and targets they took away from previous shoots (prior to this day) , plus damages, and reinstatement (punitive damages) then give them the paper work so they could wipe their asses with it ... I do not assume a woman who weights 100 pounds is not capable of making a comment that was uncalled for based on the circumstances like you do or so it seems ... (Excuse the assumption on my part, please ) If she said "anything" to him and or if he heard it, it could be due cause for him to respond to it even if things escalate from that point on ... So she verbally assaults him and he can do nothing in return, if I am reading this right ..? B S ... I was married to a 120 woman with a 150 pound mouth so I know how that works ... I doubt she ever felt threatened being as there were other men standing there as and while it happened, so it obviously was not going to get physical ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I lost interest in knowing Dave when I watched him throw a silver seitz at the grand after missing his 99th target in the handicap for a 99.

I think Dave should take full legal action to fight for his rights like you say though.

Anthony Fortino

 

Mr Fortino

You started with the name calling. You called the whole forum "ignorant". Great first post newbie.

I don't see anyone smearing a "Sandy" or even mentioning her name. But you come on this site calling us "ignorant". Some have gone to great lengths to get the facts. This site even has one of the complaints printed. You are the only "ignorant person here and I don't give crap what anyone does with their Silver Seitz.

 

I meant no offense with my use of the word ignorant, I should've said "lacking firsthand knowledge of the incident"

 

We Love Ya Man ... I would love to have the amount of money the guns would be worth that I have seen thrown in trash cans wrapped around light poles etc. over the past 42 plus years (lost count long ago) ... Happy New Year ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Anthony, since it seems you know Sandy well, why don't you ask her what she said to Dave and then decide if she made a reasonable comment. No use defending her if you don't know what she said.

Please come back and fill us in. Thanks.

 

Dave probably didn't mean what he said to Sandy either so it should be dropped, erased, forgotten about, lets have a big ol" group hug and have a Happy New Year ... All will eventually get their due ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

How interested were you in David before he threw his gun? So, this is about him having a better gun than you and throwing it? Gun envy?

 

He's not the only ATA All-American with the distinction of throwing his high dollar gun.

 

I thought his shooting accomplishments were very impressive, which they still are, so I followed his shooting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this" but I have no reason to be jealous of his firearm, mine is of equal quality.

Anthony Fortino

 

That is a fairly unfortunate "distinction" to have when your temperament comes into question though.

 

Everybody has some sort of "temperament." Some show it more than others. Dave is a great guy to some. Gave me free advice and even walked with me to my vehicle to check my gun. Some people just don't like the guy for whatever reasons. I have heard people chastise him for the "Riff Raffs" he hangs out with. You might have to be from the North East to understand what I meant by my last statement.

 

Mike J,
Excellent point. I would think that any credible person would want to have a reasonable knowledge of the facts and circumstances which resulted in the subject incident and following disposition(s) by the PSSA and ATA before drawing a nonprejudicial opinion and/or conclusion regarding said incident. This is why I find it most interesting that the prevailing narrative of "posts" in this thread are so heavily weighted in favor of Mr. Shaeffer. Of the 350+ posts I believe there are only 5 individuals who were either involved in the incident, a witness to the incident or have had direct contact with a party of the incident. And what facts have been disclosed?

The OP, Merlo's interview of Mr. Shaeffer certainly didn't disclose any viable facts. What questions were asked? With the exception of several leading questions which obviously were designed to favor Mr. Shaeffer, I don't see any. Where were the follow-up questions to Mr. Shaeffer's statements to seek clarity? As an example Merlo stated that Mr. Shaeffer told him, "Near the middle of that trap Sandy Jo Jack said something to him. No shells were lodged after that." Wouldn't it be logical for the interviewer to ask what she said. Was it a derogatory statement or perhaps considering he stated he had no further problems with the shells, did she say, Dave use my wad knocker that should help you? Mr. Shaeffer alleged that he was the victim. If so why didn't he provide or better yet why didn't Merlo ask to see a copy of the complaint and Mr. Shaeffers response. In fact, is it even known if Mr. Shaeffer responded to the complaint? Was Merlo's interview of Mr Shaeffer actually seeking facts regarding the alleged incident or merely to present a forum for Mr. Shaeffer to play the victim? YOU DECIDE.

P-MX10 (Osker Reynolds) was one of the members of the squad and by his own admission a long time friend of Mr, Shaeffer. What facts has he provided? He has stated that he sent a letter to the ATA in support of Mr. Shaeffers version of the alleged incident. Does anyone know what Mr. Shaeffer's version is? I would think that would hold some relevance. Was his statement included with Mr. Shaeffer's response to the complaint or did he just arbitrarily decide to write a letter to the ATA?
If it wasn't included in the "response", why not? Also, I don't know of any reason that would prevent Mr. Reynolds from posting his letter to this thread yet he apparently has no interest in doing so.

Oleoolliedawg who has stated that he was on site and interviewed the complaints immediately after the alleged incident took place. He then directed them to the State Delegate who I believe may also have been the PSSA tournament director. It is not my place to speak for the "Dawg" but in my opinion he's been around the game long enough to know the difference between a temper tantrum and an incident that might require further official review. To the "Dawgs" credit since he did not personally witness the incident he has remained impartial posting solely the facts that he can attest to regarding the subject incident or similar incidents that he has witnessed over the years. I don't recall any post by the "Dawg" where is has injected a hypothetical.

Huntin'fool was a member of the squad that followed the "Shaeffer Squad" and has stated that he was a witness to the alleged incident. He has provided a statement of fact(s) as he perceived them regarding the alleged incident whereby he stated (paraphrasing) that; Mr.Shaeffer exhibited a continuous disruptive behavior to his other squad members throughout the entire event. After the event Mrs. Jack said something to Mr. Shaeffer about his behavior to which he apparently took offense to and in the opinion of Huntin'fool was verbally abusive and threatening to Mrs. Jack. Huntin'fool is the only one who has posted the facts as he perceived them and yet he has been labeled as biased and a liar. WPT stated his story was "pure bullshit" and went further as to question his manhood. Yet when Mr. Dysinger & Mr. Berlet related a story of an incident where they stood by and witnessed the verbal/threatening abuse of a woman, WPT had no problem with that. In fact he even "liked" Mr. Dysinger's post. I guess if the facts aren't favorable to an orchestrated narrative then they can't possibly be true. That's the typical argument of most progessive party supporters.

User 1 who has stated that he has talked to Mr. Shaeffer. Outside of stating that Mr. Shaeffer told him, "it's not over", I don't recall User 1 posting an other statement(s) of fact to this thread as represented to him by Mr. Shaeffer regarding the incident. Perhaps like Merlo the facts are of no interest to him. It is noted however, that on the other thread on this forum started by Dr. Longshot regarding the Shaeffer suspension, User 1 did post: "I don't think it's a question of "guilt"..... When I spoke to Mr. Shaeffer he was quick to "admit" to "banging his barrel", and talking not so nice to someone on the squad after they "said something" ... A somewhat different "story" than he told Merlo. It makes one wonder just how many stories Mr. Shaeffer might have?

Given the facts that are known how can anyone make an objective judgement of the subject incident and to the "fairness" or validity of the disposition. What it leaves is a thread that is filled with nothing more than hypotheticals and heresay. It makes one wonder who the real "kool-aid" drinkers are.

 

I could not agree more. My intention is far from placing guilt on either party as I do not know what actually happened and have really only heard one side of the story from a person directly involved.

I understand your last statement quite well, I don't really care what someone does for recreation and who they are friends with as my character has been judged by solely that subject in the past. It's rude and I will not tolerate it again whether its me or someone else, therefore those rumors and hear say about Dave should not taken into account in any way shape or form when this particular incident is being discussed.

10Guns has expressed my feelings better than I could have.

Anthony Fortino

 

Those who take the time for a long post, and fail to address the "punishment" given by the "ATA" .....

As many keep saying ..... I have seen worse, get less ..... So, in that long post I fail to see a justification for the severe punishment .....

 

I'm sure worse things have received less, and I'm sure lesser offenses have received more. That said, a one-year suspension seems a common punishment for violations involving verbal confrontations. An added year for not following through with the terms of a punishment, such as writing an apology as instructed, is also a sanction that is not unusual.

I don't know that I've read any instances of someone seeing a worse complaint get a lesser punishment here. Maybe I missed them. I'm sure it has happened.

The way I see it, it is not an uncommon punishment from the ATA at all. No more severe than many others that have been handed down. Much less severe than the gun club in PA imposed for the same dust-up.

 

Do tell when the "ATA" took a years worth of shooting accomplishments ..... inquiring minds want to know ......

After all ..... it should be easy to give examples of something that is " not an uncommon punishment from the ATA at all."

 

I don't think anyone on this site is neutral about the ATA EC decision. I am against the decision mostly because they overruled Vice-President Paul Shaw (a lawyer) recommendation which was very reasonable.

Huntin'fool was by no means neutral in his comments. He has an obvious bias against Dave given what he wrote after his statement about the incident.

Here is what Huntin'fool wrote to describe the incident:

"Sandy said something to David on his continual disruption of the squad after the round was complete. Swearing after missing targets, lots of body movements. Keep in mind that on three different occasions David slammed the barrel of his shotgun down twice on a rubber pad and once on the concrete, so hard that you could see the barrel impression of a circle in the concrete.
At the end of the conversation David said to Sandy “Give me 10 minutes and we can settle this in the parking lot.”"


I heard from a very good source that the something was "You would not behave the way you did if you were shooting well." It would be nice if Huntin'fool can confirm if this is what she said. If she did say this, shouldn't this be considered in the punishment given to Dave since this could be an instigating comment?

 

Has an All American qualifier (at time of suspension) ever been suspended before? I haven't, and won't take the time to look through the ATA minutes to find out. I suspect the answer is very few, perhaps none. Someone else asked earlier if that wording is included on all suspension letters. Does anyone know the answer to that question? Could it be that Mr Shaeffer's suspension wording was the norm, and in that sense he was treated like everyone else?

Maybe this was "new ground" for the ATA and they needed to create a position on it.

 

Close to 20 years ago Joe Ljutic was given time off for giving a puller some lip, Pete McCall was also given time off for his mathematical skills.

 

The question is simple ..... How can they make a "suspension" retroactive ?????

If you spend time and money, with no reported problems or "suspension", earning "points" ..... How in the Hell can the "ATA" justify "revoking/removing" them ?????

Tell someone AFTER THEY SHOOT ..... your "suspension" starts a year ago ..... Damn, how much Kool Aid does One have to drink to make sense of that ......

The "unsafe" is so far out in Kool Aid Land, no one has been able to come close to justifying that .....

 

No. Just a trapshooter who opened the thread due to the reference to the shooter from Kansas. I am not acquainted with any person on the squad.

 

WPT:

You have raised some very interesting issues in post 300 and other places. I use the term issues because points may not have the best choice of a word.

It is hard to assign a state of mind to a quote of another when the words used by the other are vague as to their meaning. It is also hard to assign an accurate motive for an observed physical reaction. Folks communicate their thoughts differently. People perceive things differently.

Alleged words:

"Give me ten minutes and we can settle this in the parking lot."

Alleged observation of a physical symptom:

Subject was trembling.

Let us take up the words first. It seems some believe the words selected constituted a threat of physical harm. Thoughts of folks having a dispute inside a bar and agree to settle their differences in the parking lot come to some minds.

"Give me ten minutes."

Can I take a break first?

"We can settle this in the parking lot."

If you want to scold me; could you please do so privately instead of here in the presense of these people.

We can now move onto the physical symptom of shaking. Is there any other explanation for involuntary trembling other than fear of harm? Well sure there is. Subject was so "upset" his/her adrenal gland was over productive.

Now combine all of the above with the 300 pounds vs 100 pounds and some may just be predisposed to have the wrong impression. Two people were upset. Two people were inhibited by being upset in their ability to have a polite verbal exchange. Some reviewers see/saw things in a most favorable light for the physical underdog. I think we have already seen one or more examples of predisposition in this thread.

 

Bat, I can give you an instance of a worse case. Shooter was knocked off of the walkway by another shooter after an altercation. He threw a shoulder into a 79 year old man. And this was because he told two men that a gun club was not the place to try and start a fight. The incident went to the EC with formal written complaints. As he also wanted to take another person into the parking lot for a fight. The complaint was ignored for about three months. Then the state delegate ask for another letter from me. I told me to send it to him, and not to the EC. I did, the other man that was threatened received a reperamand, for telling the bully he was acting like an ass hole. When I ask about my complaint, I was told by the delegate that he never forwarded my complaint, said that was not his job. This is more proof that the delegates work for the EC and not the shooters The perpetrator of all of this received the same letter as the other man. I'm not going to tell who it was, but he had a lot of pull and was not an all American. I have no confidence in any action taken by the EC as they do not represent the average shooter. They only represent themselves and a few other persons. Roger Coveleskie

 

THIS IS A TRUE STORY :
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE THE SAME IS IT HAPPENED IN A PARKING LOT ...

My dearly beloved was out of town visiting family so rather than go home and cook for one I stopped to get a take out sandwich like they serve at "Subway" but it was a family owned place for a change of pace ... I got my sandwich, as I was walking to my truck some guy comes speeding into the parking spot next to my vehicle in a way where I assumed he was in a super hurry ... I got into the lane to exit the parking lot and this guy is standing in the middle of the lane, I tried to go left, he walked in front of me, then I tried go around him the other way and he jerks a Glock 26 out of his waste band and racks a round into the chamber, hollers Now what MOFO ( that's a clean version ) probably figured he was scaring the holy hell out of me by this time... I opened my window and hollered that he don't have the balls it takes to shoot a man, called him a Punk, P-- sy, candy ass, and a few other choice words that would no doubt get me time in the penalty box if I posted them but use your imagination ( if you know or have met me you won't have to) ... He walked over to my drivers door like he just won a championship prize fight but slipped his Glock back where it came from ... While this was happening I reached over and got my Glock 17 out of the holster and in my hand at the ready ... When he got to my door my Glock was resting on the door panel, I asked him what he was going to do now, my Glock was in his face and his in his waste band ..? I don't know for sure if he shit his pants but it smelled like he did, I reached over and removed his gun as I held him with my GLOCK right in his face ... He stuttered a bunch of half ass excuses, and said how sorry he was probably 20 times, told me he had a family etc. and asked that I please don't hurt him ... I was 6'5", 300# at the time ( he was maybe 5'7 - 150 #'s but a lot younger ) 65 (and counting) but my mind still works really good and I can realize a threat when I see one and at that distance I am a hell of a shot ... He stood there and watched me take the magazine out of his pistol, throw the ammo, then threw the magazine as far as I could, then I looked at his new Glock and made him watch when I threw it and it hit the ground, the pieces went flying in every direction ... I told to to look at my face and make a note if he ever see's me again and does something stupid like he did he is going to die right on that spot, no more breaks ... I called the Police and told them what happened, they said a car was on the way ... I told him the guy will be in the parking lot picking up pieces of his gun, the magazine, and ammo if they are interested ... I did stop by the PD on the way, but they said go home, if they have any questions they will call you ...
Later that day a Detective called me and said I should of stayed and filed Felony charges of Brandishing a weapon which could be jail time ... I told him I gave him fair warning and they can do what ever they want from there on, I was not going to file anything ... The Detective asked me why I didn't shoot the guy, I told him I felt sorry for the fool and if he does it to any one again let them shoot him ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

My only regret: if this same PUNK pulls a gun on someone else and they do not have a gun when I had him in my sights that day and he was had, dead to rights ...

 

Nathan Hofer was suspended in a similar fashion for only 9 months though

 

Roger, as I said earlier I'm sure there are some better and some worse decisions by the EC arising from complaints, just that this one seems pretty typical, certainly not much more severe from my reading of punishments issued recently.

You guys getting hung up on the AA points - I don't think they should take any points away from him at all, and I'm not sure whether they did or not, officially at least. But, since his membership is suspended, he is not eligible for consideration for being named to the AA team during his suspension. Does not matter how many points he earned up to date of suspension, he simply is not eligible for any team determined during the time of his suspension, and he cannot earn any additional points during the suspension.

Losing out on the AA Team was not part of the punishment handed down, it was a ramification OF the punishment. And yes, there have been similar suspensions with what I would consider worse ramifications than this one in the past. Even given to EC members.

 

Bat, Read between the lines. The delegate did forward the letter. The only way they could save the bully's ass was to put the delegate up front and say they never received the letter. Physical contact is a lot more serious than a threat. That is why it took so long to get any results. And the fairy ass delegate went along with the plan. These are the same people that looked the other way when the 2012 PULL deal was brought to light. Once trust is lost, very seldom is it restored. Roger C.

 

Not to the Pull2012 creeps and the creepers that hid it.

Not the ATA Officials that lied to us about the grand attendance - - doubling it and then publishing the report.

Not the ATA Official that told us there were 5,000 competitors at the WSRC camping and another 5,000 in the local motels.

Not the ATA Officials that gave out $16,000 guns for free that were against ATA by-laws.

Ok Bat I give up. Who was over punished?

 

And now more Bat Bullshit ..... " I'm not sure whether they did or not" ..... keep that garbage in Kool Aid Land .....

Come back when you are sure ..... and I won't have to show you "specifically" the "ramifications" of posting Bullshit .....

 

Par4,
I agree 100%. Everyone perceives things differently. However just because perceptions differ it doesn't necessarily mean that one is right and the other wrong. There is no bright-line test in this instance to resolve the ambiguity. That is why I stated in my previous post that until one has full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances it would be unrealistic to be able to reach an unbiased conclusion as to the "fairness" of the subject case disposition.
In this case there were (6) parties involved in some manner with the alleged incident, (3) complainants and (3) witnesses. We know this because P-MX10 (Osker) stated that he read all 6 complaint letters, further stating that; "they are close but have discrepancies". Given that they differ would in fact go to their credibility, as any competent investigator seeing (6) identical statements would obviously dismiss them as rehearsed and/or orchestrated. So far only one of the parties involved in the alleged incident has chosen to post the facts as he perceived them to be. Additionally Mr. Shaeffer is banned from the PSSA grounds for (2) years as a result of the alleged incident. The basis for the PSSA punishment and whether or not that held any relevance to the final ATA disposition is unknown. As previously noted a copy of the complaint/witness statements and Mr. Shaeffers response has not been posted. The recommendation of the investigator (Neilson) is unknown. Nor is it known if the Zone VP (Shaw) concurred with the initial recommendation or dismissed it in lieu of his own. If in fact the investigation determined clear and convincing evidence to sustain the alleged violations against Mr. Shaeffer then it appears that there is sufficient precedent in prior complaint dispositions to support the "punishment" in this instance.
Regarding the removal of the AA points and exclusion from the AA team, I have to admit I did find that to be somewhat odd. I don't recall ever seeing that stated in the final case disposition. Basically my only thought was, who the f... cares. I've been around this game since 1972. I have shot my share of leagues, games and local club events but for the most part I have been a "tournament" shooter. Not that I'm that good, far from it, I just enjoy the competition. Over the years I have met quite a few of the "top guns" in the game. Personally, I don't know of any who shot for AA points. For the most part their only concern was how big the number was on the check at the end of the event.

 

What say you "Bat" ?????

And how about some real information about this ..... "And yes, there have been similar suspensions with what I would consider worse ramifications than this one in the past. Even given to EC members." ..... you know, "specifically" the names and dates of what you claim .....

Post something useful under "Bat", or there will be no more guessing for the Doc who he is talking to .....

 

I don't know about any EC member. But I do remember a former NYS delegate and son of a former ATA President who was suspended for 1 year for his verbal abuse of a scorer at the Grand.

 

Well "Bat" does ..... even "members", more than one, and with "worse ramifications than this one" .....

And "Bat" is even going to post the details, so we all know the truth .....

After all, some believe ..... "it appears that there is sufficient precedent in prior complaint dispositions to support the "punishment" in this instance."

 

We know (minutes) Shaw recommended warnings.

 

7.5shot,
That's true. What is unknown is what the recommendation of the investigator (Neilson) was. It was never stated in the minutes if the Zone VP concurred with the initial recommendation. If not then the VP's cause for dissent and subsequent recommendation with supporting documentation would be submitted with a copy of the case file to the other VP's for their review.

 

All that before the end of the "target year" ..... The "punishment" had to happen before the new target year, or the "ATA" poster child my have had a different face .....

 

User 1,
Sure. The investigation was completed and forwarded to the Zone VP 07/11/17. The final disposition completed at the EC meeting, 08/01/17. There is then a 10 day notice requirement before the disposition becomes effective. In this case it was 08/15/17.

As far as new poster boy, I have no clue. Probably 10% of the membership are tournament shooters and probably 10% of that 10% shoot enough targets and venues to be even become eligible for the AA team(s). My guess is you would be hard pressed to find many shooters who could name the 12 members of current open AA team. I agree with Mr Dysinger the AA team is a joke.

 

Well 10Guns, It would be hard to find someone to care less about All American Points/Teams than I do .....

But, when I spoke to Mr Shaeffer, All American Points to the level of "Team Captain" seemed to be a priority to him ..... Then thinking his goals would upset some people's agenda, has some asking many questions .....

I am waiting for "Bat" to provide the details I ask about ..... Come on "Bat", something that you know happened shouldn't take much effort to post ..... Who were these "EC members", and what was their "punishment" that had "worse ramifications than this one" ?????

 

This seems to be the same for most "ATA" members ..... "Basically my only thought was, who the f... cares."

"who the f... cares" ..... about "Mr Shaeffer", "PULL 2012", "Shotgun gifts", and, and, and, ..... "who the f... cares" about other members, as long a member gets their personal wants satisfied .....

The "ATA" death spiral is picking up speed, and "Basically my only thought was, who the f... cares." .....

 

Dave is a trapshooting instructor. It is important for his "business" to be able to put on his resume how many times he has been on the AA FIRST team. Again, the EC action was excessive and in blatant disregard to the VP recommendation.

 

The "ATA" poster child is in the same "business" .....

It makes One wonder how the legal system may look at the conflict of interest ..... "helping" one business, while "harming" a competing "business" with ..... "the EC action was excessive and in blatant disregard to the VP recommendation"

 

Mr. Shaw being an Attorney, and although a Canadian Attorney and not allowed to practice in the U S of A, he comes highly recommended by all in the field of law.

He just may have had an inkling that some legal battle could ensue because of the lack of "Cause", and advised that a "Warning" be issued instead of an all out punishment of this nature.

Just a guess on my part...

 

The ATA at one time was an organization a person could be proud to be a member of, there seemed to be an instilled degree of "Integrity" that has been eradicated (disregarded) starting at the top over the past 20 years or so ( guesstimate ) even before the move to Sparta, Ill ... The amount of money the ATA pays out for the EC, ED and some of the BOD is staggering compared to how it used to be and before the Cash Cow syndrome got on a roll ... The "Established " rules are there if they choose to follow them and to dictate to other's (Clubs) what and how they want things done, even though club rules over ride ATA rule on many applications of same ... The Greed on all levels is obvious and the lack of giving a shit what the membership wants is ridiculous being as the members are the ATA, not the other way around ... The ED, EC and some of the BOD go to the shoots on members money (paying expenses) and then they want to be treated like "Rock Stars" and have every want and desire taken care of for them ... The Organization is crumbling which is obvious by the lack of attendance at what was once the biggest and best shoots of the year when grand week came around ...

User 1 hit the nail right on the head when he said :
The ATA death spiral is picking up speed and basically the remaining members of the ATA figure who the F... Cares ...

WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

10Guns, same guy. I am probably incorrect, I thought he was a VP, but after seeing your post maybe what I was thinking that he was in line to be the next VP.

My point remains the same. He received a one-year suspension. Pretty basic punishment handed out by the ATA. The ramification of that basic punishment was that he would never become VP and eventually President. That was a very severe ramification for the man. But yes User 1, I was incorrect to describe him as EC, he was only "nearly" EC, but suffered a pretty severe outcome all the same. Sorry about that.

 

Family Guy,

I didn't say anyone was "overpunished".

If you are asking about punishment, first you have to tell me which official complaints you are talking about. I don't recall reading about any that are similar to your post? Someone has to make a complaint first. Closest would be the IL Attorney General investigation, which does not seem to have led to any charges or penalties that I have seen. Then again, you are not really asking a serious question about complaints related to those issues, just making statements. Which is fine.

 

User 1, no I am not Neil Winston, not sure how many more times we have to go over that.

 

I see you don't take my warnings about posting Bullshit serious "Bat" .....

"10Guns, same guy. I am probably incorrect" ..... "I was incorrect to describe him as EC, he was only "nearly" EC, but suffered a pretty severe outcome all the same. Sorry about that."

You said ..... "Even given to EC members." ..... I will give you one more chance to post the "specific" details about the "EC members", more than one ..... like names, what was the "infraction", who filed the complaints, what years, and much more .....

Trying to "piggy-back" 10Gun's post won't cut it ..... trust me when I say ONE MORE CHANCE .....

 

"And now more Bat Bullshit ..... " I'm not sure whether they did or not" ..... keep that garbage in Kool Aid Land ....."

What portion of my statement quoted above is bullshit? I don't know if they actually deleted any of his AA points from the official counts, FWIW I don't think they should have since that makes no sense. I don't really care about it since IMO if he is suspended from membership on the date the AA Team determination is made, he is not eligible to be named to the team regardless of how many points he has.

Of course, my position is based on the assumption that when someone's membership is under suspension, he is not a member in good standing. I realize that some of you will disagree with that, but it seems to be a pretty weak argument to me. Of course I could be wrong about it. What say 10Guns on that issue, he seems to have legal experience?

 

User 1, you are getting to picky about my writing skills in an informal setting. We will have to get an English major in here to discuss the issue. 10Guns mentioned the same case I was talking about, but his memory is better than mine in regard to EC v Delegate status at the time.

 

Goodbye "Bat" ..... We may see you after the 1 week ..... or there may be a requirement for you to write an "apology letter" to ever return .....

 

Someone has to complain about the EC that hid Pull2012 and complain to the EC?

 

If we had one person on the EC with even a minimal amount of honor, the complaint would have been raised in the next meeting. They must have all been in on the scam, or someone surely would have protested the action. I guess there is not anyone with a reputation to protect as they all now look as guilty as the person or people that perpetrated the action.
Many years ago my grandfather told me: The only thing a man comes into this world with is a good name, and a bare ass. It is up to him to keep both clean, so he can go out the same way. Roger Coveleskie

 

Roger:

I found it....ah.....interesting there was a complaint against two others for similar charges just down from the PA matter in the minutes. The results and recommendation appeared not to have been ready. That was not specifically spelled out. The last line of the minutes on that matter just indicated the investigation had been assigned on July 7.

The PA incident was alleged to have occured on June 18 and the investigation was assigned June 20. The investigation was complete on July 11.

The CT incident was alleged to have transpired on June 25. However, investigation was assigned not nearly as quickly. Investigation was assigned July 7. There was no mention of when the complaint was received.

The appearance regarding the PA matter being ready for deliberation at the Grand is certainly a matter for interest. I think you may be onto something.

 

There was a rush to get this matter resolved not just before the grand but before the Cardinal Classic where there was a lot of points to be earned. Interview says Shaeffer showed up without knowledge of the suspension.

 

Par4.
My post was in regards to the PULL2012 action. David was set up by the EC and some outside unknown source. We will never know why. It only adds to the miss trust many have for the (LEADERS) of the ATA. Roger C.

 

This matter is obviously something that never should of taken place between David and Sandy ... Sandy Jack is an accomplished Lady shooter who would or certainly should know better than make a comment to a shooter who is having an unusually bad day and continue to respond or say things that made it escalate to the point of things being said that some people consider to be threats to be carried out later in the parking lot ... I feel a simple apology may of been in order once she realized she hit a nerve to defuse the entire situation, but rather than do what would seem the most logical she files a complaint that puts another shooters chances of making All American at risk ... The obvious is David did not seem to think it was a matter where a complaint should of been filed or he would of filed one also ... The ATA then for what ever reason expedited making the rulings and issue a suspension thus eliminating the possibility of David making the All American Team but they also seemingly turn back the hands of time and make it retroactive to dates and shoots before the day in question which only compounds the matter and makes it look more like a set up to those of us not on the "need to know list" that has been mentioned a time or two by a member of the Good Ol' Boys club ... I don't recall there ever being such a need to rush the Judgement and impose a penalty before this unfortunate incident ... I am not taking sides or making excuses for anyone but something seems to be a miss all of a sudden with the extremes of the penalty as well as the swiftness in which it was imposed, on something that could and probably should of been settled on the spot with a few kind words and a hug and a kiss ... I must of missed something here or did I ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Oh no! No takesies backsies. If Shaeffer cant take it back!

 

He didn't just "show up" ..... http://www.shootata.com/ShooterInformationCenter/tabid/118/userID/9001762/year/2017/Default.aspx ..... shows scores at the "GRAND AMERICAN - WORLD SHOOTING COMPLEX" ..... from "8/2/17" until "8/12/17" .....

Hmmmm ..... He "shot" on "8/12/17", as per "shootata dot com" ..... when was he "told/informed" about the "The final disposition completed at the EC meeting, 08/01/17" ?????

 

They got a lot of money from him before they told him? Follow the $$$$.

 

Bill you have a P.M. Roger