Canton OH Police CCW Holder Encounter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shulman seeks to garner political points by disparaging the criticism of outsiders, as if their opinions on police abuse aren't valid because they don't live in that jurisdiction.

He also attempts to characterize the criticism as an attack on the the entire Canton police department, then later as an attack on the entire city of Canton.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Folks who live in states like NJ, NY, CA, ILL, etc. dream about living in a state with gun laws like OH.

We should all be so lucky as to have a Police department, which, although as vulnerable to attracting bad eggs as any other, has so far stepped up to condemn the actions of this officer, and appears to be dealing with the matter according to protocol and the law.

Shulman is a class A, typical left wing ideologue who, out of one side of his mouth, claims support for the second amendment, while condemning the laws that allow folks to exercise it out of the other. He would serve himself and others better by keeping his incongruous philosophy to himself.

But I would defend his right to stupidity to my death.
 
I believe Allen Schulman's tenure as Canton City Council Pres. is up Dec 2011.

With Schulman's thoughts on cc, which he is entitled to, I'm in the process of making his day.

See, every year as many of our family members that can, get together and go somewhere that the majority of family attending want to go.
We had three places on a list that we couldn't make our minds up where to go. The Football Hall of Fame was one. It's been scratched from the list as we feel we wouldn't want to visit a city that has, not just a city council member, but the Pres. of their city council not wanting us in his city.

Two of our family members(out of roughly 40 to date) that are showing up are out-of-state LEO and were not only disgusted by Harless's actions but more-so the comments Schulman made as a representative of the City of Canton.

Since its now virtually impossible to reach Schulman by phone cause he simply refuse's to answer his phone or call people back. I'm sending him an email as I feel he probably needs the good news of our family not visiting his city being legally armed.

Schulman has a right to his opinion.... but after having a family vote...it was unanimous...


Our money will proudly be spent eslewhere!
 
it is pretty obvious that this officer had a good record(I believe one article quoted an oficer aying this) and is respected by his dept and peers. He'll have to answer for this one though, and he knows he slipped up.
 
Hmmmm, am I the ONLY one here seeing a "trend" in this country?? How many videos must we see of LAW ABIDING citizens getting treated like 3rd class citizens with badges for LAWFULLY carrying a firearm?? Just saying.........:mad:


Edited Comment: This thread is about a single incident and a single officer. Comments that attempt to broaden the "scope" of this thread will be treated harshly.

Just Saying.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited Comment: This thread is about a single incident and a single officer. Comments that attempt to broaden the "scope" of this thread will be treated harshly.

Just Saying.....
Last edited by Al Norris; Today at 10:04 PM. Reason: Not in this thread!
Click to expand...
Hence this last night...

TOO HONEST TOO HEATED!!! TOO BAD!!!

Brent
Last edited by hogdogs; Today at 12:11 AM. Reason: see text
Click to expand...
Looks like reason was my buddy, huh?

Brent
 
Last edited:
If he is highly regarded by his peers there is something wrong in the whole dept. as I think he has had such problems in the past.
Again, his partner should have taken a position that the officer was wrong.
Do LEOs think their partners can do no wrong? Fire them both then. Such things result in a great distrust of LEOs.
LEOs are to uphold the law and protect the PUBLIC not put the priority on protecting their partners when the partner is a loose cannon.

Jerry
 
it is pretty obvious that this officer had a good record(I believe one article quoted an oficer aying this) and is respected by his dept and peers. He'll have to answer for this one though, and he knows he slipped up.
Click to expand...
Maybe one of his fellow officers thinks his record is good, but he has a history of complaints for excessive violence, and there's another video out there of a stop a year ago in which he threatened to blow the detainee's effing head off and sleep well that night. In that video he repeatedly called the occupant of the vehicle "M-Fers".

If that's their idea of a good record, the entire department needs to be replaced.
 
Maybe one of his fellow officers thinks his record is good, but he has a history of complaints for excessive violence, and there's another video out there of a stop a year ago in which he threatened to blow the detainee's effing head off and sleep well that night. In that video he repeatedly called the occupant of the vehicle "M-Fers".

If that's their idea of a good record, the entire department needs to be replaced.
Click to expand...

I'll second that motion!
 
If he is highly regarded by his peers there is something wrong in the whole dept....
Click to expand...

Maybe he was a good cop at one time. Probably was.

He's got 14 or 16yrs(don't remember) on the force. He's no doubt seen his share of scum. Maybe just burnt out. It happens and its a shame.

I doubt Harless's actions of late are highly regarded by his peers.

Regardless, his carreer in law enforcement should be over and it will be up to the arrested ccp holder to file criminal charges.
 
Eghad, ltc44's point is that due process does not imply immunity from normal criminal charges that anybody else would have faced.

Officer Harless should be receiving due process, as defined by the departmental agreement with the union, for interdepartmental charges.

He should be receiving due process, as defined by the 4th and 5th Amendments and applicable state of Ohio laws, for those actions that went beyond inappropriate and met the gate for criminal charges.
Click to expand...

Its not immunity from anything... why do people want to put words in posts that are not there?

I did not say anything different from what you just said.

Can you show me anywhere where I said that he should receive any favors and privileges that is not contained in the union contract or the laws of the land and the policies of his police department?

some posters "ASSUMED" that is what I meant.....

Does due process mean that you are afforded the protections you are entitled too in a contract, policy or law?
 
Eghad, I know people who have been arrested and spent days in jail for allegedly having made threats while they were not armed, nor in the presence of those allegedly threatened.

Yet this officer has not been charged...

So, to what due process were you referring?
 
Aguilar, thank you

Maybe one of his fellow officers thinks his record is good, but he has a history of complaints for excessive violence, and there's another video out there of a stop a year ago in which he threatened to blow the detainee's effing head off and sleep well that night. In that video he repeatedly called the occupant of the vehicle "M-Fers".

If that's their idea of a good record, the entire department needs to be replaced.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of this.
 
1)shortwave

Regardless, his carreer in law enforcement should be over and it will be up to the arrested ccp holder to file criminal charges.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you one thing, the victim would be wise to get it while he can.


2)mleake,
this happened on duty, so it is a little different. They are going thru this with a fine-toothed comb, and the "brass" so to speak are involved. They are going to do things by the book, and the officer is entitled to that due process while the internal investigation is going on.

It is odd he is on sickleave though - that seems more like volunatry leave...he is probably one of the ones who saved a bucnh of it(hence the burning out quicker possibly). Also, I apologize, but I am unsure of the due process myself of exactly how it pertains.
 
More than likely allowing him to go on sick leave was something worked out with the union to avoid putting him on suspension. A suspension would stay in his record if he gets cleared and returned to duty. Sick leave is not a disciplinary action, so no gigs in the personnel folder if they manage to make this go away. Just another example of the thin blue line taking care of their own, even in a case where the guy is blatantly in the wrong.

There is zero question that if any ordinary citizen threatened to shoot someone else, the ordinary citizen would be arrested and charged posthaste. The evidence in this case (and the one from a year ago) is indisputable -- it's on the department's own dashcam footage. He should be in jail or out on bail while they pursue their internal investigation. He should not be allowed to be home on sick leave.
 
yeah that sickleave bit is odd. I am wondering if this guy has family in the dept(or past retired)? That is only one of other possibilities, but this guy must have friends or connections in the dept(or be respected from some past on-duty history; the spokesman for the dept in one article stated he was a very respected officer but maybe I read it wrong). Usually it is an automatic to be put on admin leave(with pay if they like you or can do this) or just with leave without pay while invest is conducted. He avoided desk duty too...just basically burning free time and getting money. Then again, if it is his sicktime and he requested it, no one can say he is lying: it is like if you call into work. They aren't even supposed to ask questions these days. I'm not agreeing with this on this case, but who knows what reasons he used.
 
Another problem is that this officer probably did lock up quite a few people who needed to be in jail or prison - and now every one of those cases is going to get looked over with extreme skepticism. A lot of guys who probably should be in jail are going to have an opening to challenge that again - more cost for the court system and the city of Canton on top of this incident.

And of course, the passenger of the CHL gave the officer a fake name - which means that while the officer was busying arresting and threatening the CHL, he was releasing somebody who probably had warrants.

The incident where Officer Harless was reprimanded for turning off his dash cam? Can you imagine how that one is going to go now?

Truthfully, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the CHL here; but I can't decide if I'm more aghast at the way Harless handled the CHL or the low-quality police work displayed (illegal search, putting himself and his partner in a dangerous situation, releasing a guy who gave him a fake name, losing his cool so dramatically as to jeapordize previous arrests).
 
I'll tell you one thing, the victim would be wise to get while he can
Click to expand...

Agree.

I may be wrong but doesn't the victim have to pursue the criminal charges himself or direct his attorney to do so in his behalf... and if thats he case, isn't there a time frame in which this has to be done?

I'm glad a few attorney's chimed in on this thread. Maybe they could answer these questions.

Hopefully the victim and counsel for the victim handles the situation correctly.

On the 'sick leave' issue, the City of Canton may be looking at this as a 'pay him now, pay him later' situation. More then likely, if/when Harless gets relieved of duty, he's due, in money, the balance of any time (sick or vacation leave) he's accrued at the time of termination.

Canton officials may not have fought Harless's request for sick leave so they can pay him out for his sick time gradually rather then in a lump sum....but in 33yrs as a public servant, I've seen many times where an employee gets in trouble and before his/her departmental charges are officially presented, the employee falls out on some kind of bogus sick leave claim and if the employee is slick enough, there's really nothing that can be done till the employee returns to work.

IA can do their investigation and have enough evidence to the departmental charges to relieve Harless of duty without having to interview Harless. Thats one scenario... but second scenario could be, if in IA's investigation, they have to interview Harless and Harless is out on sick leave due to mental issue's and his doctor feels that in Harless talking to IA(or anyone) about this or other LE incident's, may impede his mental condition, then the IA investigation may be prolonged until Harless is deemed fit by his doctor to answer questions. In short, if Harless handles things right he could prolong IA's investigation for awhile. He'll just meet the piper later rather then sooner.

Also, if I were in his(Harless) shoe's, I'd probably try to prolong facing hearings on departmental charges as long as I could. Kinda the same line of thought that the longer you can keep a legal case out of court the better your chances are. People tend to 'cool off' with time.

If its the second scenario, you can bet the city officials will be trying to work some kind of deal with the victim to get this whole mess put behind them as cheaply/quietly as possible.

But while talking about IA's investigation into departmental charges, they should not be confused with the victims rights and being threatened with his life according to the law.

Again, union contracts and the law are two seperate issue's altogether.

Union contracts deal with rules set up between employer/employees and in no way supercede the law.

In other words union contracts do not protect an employee when breaking the law which is what Harless was filmed doing.

Also, many city LE Depts. and their employee's pay into a retirement system known as Public Employee's Retirement System(PERS). Many citys/unions have negotiated the amounts they pay...i.e. employee pays half his required amount into PERS and the city matchs the other half for the employee. This is usually negotiated in lieu of an hourly raise for each employee.

Here's the catch. If employee gets into trouble and employer gives the employee a chance to resign, then employee recv's. all monies paid into his retirement by him and the employer.

If employee is flat out fired, he only gets what he/she has contributed to his/her retirement, not what employer has matched.

This can amount to several thousand dollars, Especially with the amount of time Harless has in.

Harless is entitled to 'due process' within his department for DEPARTMENTAL CHARGES according to employer/employee union contract.

Another catch in many union contracts is that you cannot use any accumulated time(sick , vacation leave or comp. time) if you're incarcerated.
If victim presses criminal charges and Harless is locked up, it would be interesting to see if tax dollars are still being paid to him via his sick leave while locked up.

Harless is entitled to 'due process' in a court of law if criminal charges are pressed by the victim according to the laws of the land.

Big difference in 'due process' between the two and we need to be careful not to confuse the two.
 
Last edited:
hopefully some others will chime in shortwave and that was a good read...

annual leave is always paid upon termination or resignation(and usually an be used to retire early). sick time many times does not work that way. I know some agencies who do not pay sicktime upon resignation, retirement, termination, etc. In this case Harless is making out like a bandit.That is why many older people are willing to give people leave in the 'voluntary leave program': basically if someone is sick, human resources sends an email notification to every employee(sometimes nationwide after locally sending it) asking for donations to help the fellow employee.

also you're probably right that Harless probably doesn't need to report to IA until coming back to duty. Not only that, he could be working on his disability early retirement, favorable resignation, etc while all of this is going on.

There is a new law for govt I believe(at least federal I read), that will allow these employees to retire early with the saved sicktime otr retie early by adding it towards their retirement deadline. I believe it has partially taken effect and within the next 2 yrs or so(jan 1st 2013 at the latest), 100% protected for the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top