Canton OH Police CCW Holder Encounter

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no issue with any of the details you mentioned in your follow-up post. I believe to the charge is frivolous and a very long stretch to say the least(as I said it is very plausible this cab driver might've been sufficiently scared about opening his mouth any further until prompted - at the very least in the legal sense anyways).

To answer your question about the offense, I guess the prosecutor is trying to take advantage of this 'stretch' on the lines that the cab driver had other opportunities and other alloted times to state: "I have a CCW Permit on me."

PS- I am far from lawyer material so I am sure some of the lawyers could set me or the record straight, but I do like to think back in the Old days when one could just "become a lawyer" I might've been a good one:D
 
also

I have to agree with Gary's post, and plus these kind of deals are commonplace and everyday occurences within the legal system(just like many political backroom deals:cool:).

I am not going to try and explain it the way Gary did, but that pretty much made perfect sense to me.

Furthermore, the prosecutor is on the side losing the battle, but he is trying his best to find a way to make this work out some way(and he knows he might be able to do it if he gets his chance). If the cab driver pleads guilty to anything or is found guilty of a crime here then the city would be protected because the cab driver would Legally be guilty of said offense. Please Note: I do not think he deserves to be guilty of a crime, and I do not think he will be found guilty of any crime. When the cab driver successfully finishes the adjudication, his doors will be opened and he will reap the benefits. The prosecutor is playing chess and trying to 'wait out the defense and/or the cab driver' and get a deal to cement the issue. He has a boss too and bigger pictures. I have always liked defense laywers much more than the other side, and cases like this are one of the numerous reasons...reminds me of some private getting a lot of extra stress for not even doing anything illegal and just because he/she is easier to push around. This cab driver was friend's with a hooker; that is NOT a crime.

I am not a mindreader, but the cab driver came off as believable in his statements and story(note I used 'story' in the singular case and not the plural case because his story never changed).
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, the prosecutor is on the side losing the battle, but he is trying his best to find a way to make this work out some way(and he knows he might be able to do it if he gets his chance). If the cab driver pleads guilty to anything or is found guilty of a crime here then the city would be protected because the cab driver would Legally be guilty of said offense
Click to expand...

I think your right, but this is the part I completely don't understand. The only side he should be on is the one fighting crime. I always thought the prosecutor was a separate office and usually voted into said office by the people. His job is to bring charges and proscecute those he feels is guilty of a crime. Why, I say again why is he trying to prosecute the cab driver who is clearly innocent, (AL also brought this up )and yet he has not brought charges against the officer who has clearly commited crimes? In my opinion he either needs impeached, or when the FBI gets around to this thing ( and I think they'll have to ) he needs to go where the soap and bubba are also. I say this for the 100th time, this whole thing is a travesty of justice and something needs to be done.
 
I personally think Bartlett was at the very least flriting with a prostitute, possibly a prostitute that he knew from the past - driving her as a cabbie or as a client of hers. Whether that actually rises to the level of solicitation or not, it's hard to say. Whether the procecutor could convince a jury of that - at this point, it's probably doubtful.

I also don't think that picking up a john on suspicion of soliciting warrants threatening to murder him.

I wonder if Bartlett's attorney is trying to get the prostitute to cooperate with their case.

It would be interesting - I'm sure she doesn't like a police officer who threatened to give her a beating and probably meant it. On the other hand she probably does not want the publicity.
 
I have never seen a PA make a 'deal' or 'plea bargain' with someone they felt that was guilty of a crime which entailed dropping all charges, but only if the defendant wouldn't sue the city. If the city wasn't wrong...sue them for what?

Again, thats not a plea bargain, thats blackmail. Which in turn, is forcing the city's hand to have to go through with the charges. If they didn't, I'd bet the Feds would already be on this case.

Have seen plenty plea bargains to a lesser offense if the defendant would plead guilty to the lesser charge.

There's no doubt in my mind that prior to the PA offering this 'deal' ,he viewed the video and knew Barlett had them by the short hairs. He then offered this so-called deal to Bartlett hoping Bartlett would jump all over it making everything just go away.

In other words, the whole thing would be swept under the rug if Bartlett would have accepted the deal and Harless would still be out on the street threatening to kill people. Which, from other prior vids., he has done in the past and the same PA along with the same IA, no doubt, viewed those vids. when those incidents happened and did nothing about Harless's actions then.

I hope the Feds. do move in and do an all out investigation on the whole Canton PD, including their IA staff, along with the PA's office.

As far as Barletts att'y getting ahold of the supposedly known prostitute...I've been thinking more along the lines of the Canton PD getting ahold of her and pressuring her into making some kind of statement so they'll have something they can make some kind of case out of.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone heard any updates on the trial date for Mr Bartlett?

I thought it was supposed to be Sept.16,2011. Was this date correct?

Went and checked the site for the Canton Reporter and don't see any updates.
 
According to the OFCC site, the trial begins on 10-6-2011 against the defendant and the disaplinary hearing against the officer is on 12-1-2011.

I suspicion this is just the beginning and there will be a lot of waiting and delays to come.
 
The trial could be delayed for months and months for an array of reasons. The disciplinary hearing, not so much.

If I were the attorney for the defendant, I would want the results of that hearing in my back pocket before the trial. I still have my doubts that there will even be a trial due to the incompetence and on-scene behavior of the arresting officer, the further embarrassment to the department and the city, significant doubt about the guilt of the defendant.
 
10-6-2011, Thanks Hitthespot.

Don't know where I got 9-16 from.:o

The trial could be delayed for months and months.
Click to expand...

Agree M.P....and yes, were I Bartletts attorney, I would want the results of Harless's hearings before trial as well.
 
I still have my doubts that there will even be a trial due to the incompetence and on-scene behavior of the arresting officer, the further embarrassment to the department and the city, significant doubt about the guilt of the defendant.
Click to expand...

Under normal circumstances I would say that is spot on. I believe these people (procecutor, chief, city council, mayor) have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with the guilt of the defendant. I haven't seen a criminal, or power happy group of individuals with dilusions of grandeur yet you could embarrass, and the impact to the city is a joke to them. (that should be obvious to everyone by now )The only thing that matters to them is their right, your going to jail, and we will do what ever we want. Without a HUGE public out cry, or a stop to this caricature by the FBI, you can rest assure there will be a trial and probably a conviction.

Everyone watches too much TV. Good triumphs evil. Yeaaaaa...will see.
 
Last edited:
The lawyer defending Bartlett and the Canton Repository have provided an update.

There was a motion to dismiss charges and a motion to suppress evidence. Officer Harless DID NOT appear. His partner did. His partner was caught in "inconsistencies" in his testimony.

The lawyer asked for statements given to the Internal Affairs dept. The assistand prosecuter says Harless gave no statements but the partner did and they could be provided to the court.

The judge is taking it all under advisement and will rule in a week or so. The lawyer says next week's trial is off of course but has not been officially rescheduled.

==============

The above was just the facts from what was reported on the newspaper and OFCC website.

I didn't think Harless was going to appear, and I doubt he ever will appear on the stand. The lawyer is going to tear him apart if he ever does.
 
Thands for the update. I have been playing devils advocate to all the good things that could and should happen, but, nothing would make me happier than to see the charges dropped against the defendant. The officer fired. Then charges brought against him for the blantent behaviour he exhibited. A message needs to be sent that this type of behaviour by those we need to respect, and those who are held to higher standards cannot be tolerated in any shape or form. Police officers are in a position of power, they can easily and dramatically change the course of a persons life, they HAVE TO act according to the law, and a code of ethics and morals of the highest standards. I hope officer Harless is made an example out of, and I hope with all my heart that everything I said during the course of this thread ends up just being hot air, and justice prevails of the highest magnitude.
 
The fact that the DA's office didn't agree to the dismissal of all charges already is an intolerable act of prosecutorial misconduct.
 
Agreed Mr. March. I have been very outspoken during the course of this thread, but after I watched the video for the first time I was horrified. It effected me in a way I never thought possible. I thought these things happen in other countries, on TV, in Books, never real life, and to top things off all within 45 minutes of where I LIVE! The city's behaviour doesn't suprise me in the least. Any officer who has gotton away with the things he has said and done, has to be supported by a corrupt system of the first order in my opinion. So it's no suprise the DA, the chief, the mayor, the city council has done nothing and in fact almost seem to support him right down outright.

I think the public has to get involved, or I really sincerely believe the FBI needs to start sending out some warrants themselves. If this is not corrected I will, as others I know will be, petrified everytime I get pulled over or stopped by someone in authority. Knowing all these people can get away with everything I've seen so far (including the DA) is highly surreal.
 
drcook said:
There was a motion to dismiss charges and a motion to suppress evidence. Officer Harless DID NOT appear. His partner did. His partner was caught in "inconsistencies" in his testimony.
Click to expand...
Are any specifics available regarding just what some of these "inconsistencies" were? Such as perhaps his testimony perhaps not quite matching up with what the dashcam video clearly showed and recorded?

Could he perhaps be charged with perjury?
 
There has been another (what I find extremely interesting ) developement in this whole thing.

When this all came about the OFCC had asked for the dismissal of Harless and the resignation of the City Councel president based on comments he made blaming the gun laws on the whole incident. The last post by the OFCC is stating that the city councel president (Allen Schulman ) now has contacted them (interesting) and agreed to throw in his political clout to help change the dysfunctional gun notifying laws. Unbelievable! If the OFCC throws in the towel on this guy I am going to be extremely disapointed. What a bunch of dancing is going on now. It's funny but it's not.

http://www.ohioccw.org/ Then page down to Cantons Aftermath
 
Good news. Thanks to all you buckeyes for keeping us updated. We need to keep up the pressure to have Harrless prosecuted and hopefully the CCW carrier will get a nice award.

These two events will stiffle abuses of this type in the future.

Quail season starts so I'll catch you later.
 
The fact that the DA's office didn't agree to the dismissal of all charges already is an intolerable act of prosecutorial misconduct.
Click to expand...
I may even be worse than that. The prosecutor allegedly agreed to dismiss the charges early on in exchange for a release of liability. If so, that is an ethical violation. I pointed this out more than three months ago. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668790&postcount=72

There was a motion to dismiss charges and a motion to suppress evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the motion to suppress was due to lack of probable cause to search the car. Although the group of people, including the driver, were involved in suspicious behavior, it did not appear to me to rise to the level of probable cause to believe a crime was being committed.

There's also the question of whether the driver had to notify the officers of the gun under Ohio law since he was already stopped; i.e., was this a traffic stop for purposes of the Ohio concealed carry law. Anybody have a clue?

The fact the trial judge delayed the trial and did not rule from the bench is a good sign. That doesn't necessarily mean he or she will rule in favor of the defendant, just that the judge is seriously considering the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top