Canton OH Police CCW Holder Encounter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks youngunz.

Our donation leave time according to contract, was only allowable after the person that was off on leave had exhausted all his/her time on the books. Then we could donate.

Another thing worth mentioning about accumulated sick time at separation of employment. Union contracts are negotiated differently but I don't know of any local LE or other government agencies around here that pays out sick leave balances on a day for day basis upon separation.

I know a few that pay out 1 for 2...thats you get paid 1 day for every 2 accumulated day. Many are at the rate of 1 for 4.

If you're under this type of contract, the only way to get paid 1 for 1 is to go out on sick leave prior to separation, exhaust your time, then separate.

Good possibility this is what Harless is doing.

Again, getting arrested for criminal charges and going to jail while on paid sick leave , may throw a big wrench into the sick leave scheme since most contracts will not grant ANY paid leave time for being incarcerated. That time is classified as AWOL in most contracts.

Unfortunatly, unless someone is monitoring the situation closely, Harless could get arrested, go to jail and still continue to be on paid sick leave.
 
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?
Click to expand...

The victim usually must file a criminal complaint. Typically, it is up to the grand jury and/or prosecuting attorney on whether to prosecute the complaint. If no charges are prosecuted criminally, the victim can always bring a civil suit seeking damages.

I would imagine that the lawyer for the CHL already has the civil suit drawn up and is just delaying filing it while he negotiates with the city. If the statute of limitations starts to be an issue, he'll file it.
 
It has recently come to light that this is the second time that Harless has threatened to execute someone during a stop. There is now another dashcam video in the public domain of Harless expressing the same to another (in that one someone who actually had an issue, a pistol under the seat of a car illegally, that person was convicted).

It is going to be interesting to see what happens on the 8th, If he bothers to show up in court and what happens when they play both videos in court for the jury to see and the gentleman's lawyer starts picking him apart. Playing it over and over again, stopping at each point where the man was trying to notify and Harless telling him to repeatably shut up.

Canton PD doesn't have the "bestest" reputation amongst its citizens due to other incidents that have happened over the last couple years.
 
The victim usually must file a criminal complaint.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response Bartholomew Roberts.

Typically, it is up to the grand jury and/ or prosecuting attorney on whether to prosecute the complaint
Click to expand...

...and with the Canton prosecuting attorney trying to make the deal with the victim that they would drop the original charges against him if he wouldn't sue, thats scary.

Also, given the circumstances of the chain of events in which the P.A. had to be aware of in order to offer the deal in the first place, is that even legal,let alone ethical for the P.A. to do that?
 
Last edited:
We have a golf outing in Canton and from experience their LEO's reputation is of being di**s.I've been stopped twice in Cincinnati since i got my CCW ,and the first time i was asked did i have my weapon in the vehicle,and the second time what do i carry.
 
Boy oh boy has this gotten interesting since I last checked (I've not had an available internet connection for the past week). It seems to me that there's some confusion over Harless's rights to due process. I think what many people are upset about is that Harless has not been arrested or charged with anything yet. While Officer Harless certainly has the right to a fair trial just like anyone else, his actions in the video (I've only seen the first one) would certainly seem to represent sufficient evidence for criminal charges to be brought and an arrest warrant to be issued. As far as I am aware, however, no charges or warrants have been brought against Harless.

Now, it seems to me that there are a couple of possible reasons for this. First, the city of Canton may be trying to "protect their own". Given the less-than-stellar behavior that we're hearing about from both the President of the City Council and the DA, that is certainly plausible. The other possible reason is that perhaps the CCL holder has not filed a criminal complaint yet. According to the information Bartholomew gave us, a criminal complaint probably has to be filed by the victim before further action can be taken. It would not be suprising to me if the defendant's lawyer advises him not to take such action until his own legal troubles are resolved.
 
It would not be suprising to me if the defendant's lawyer advises him not to take such action until his own legal troubles are resolved.
Click to expand...
It would seem to me that filing such a complaint would leverage his own legal troubles.
 
It would seem to me that filing such a complaint would leverage his own legal troubles
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think the CCL holder has much worry at this stage of the game as to the level of legal trouble he's in, given the PA offered a deal of all charges being dropped if CHL holder would agree not to sue the City of Canton.

If the charges the CHL holder was arrested for was valid(or strong), no deals would have been offered in the first place. The charges against him won't stick anyway.

Me thinks, at this point, the CHL holder is in the 'catbird seat' so-to-speak. There has more than likely been many behind the scene meetings with Canton officials from the Mayor on down,the CHL holder and his attorney as to how this whole thing can be rectified as cheaply,quietly and quickly as possible.

In other words, Harless's actions has got the City of Canton in big 'do-do' and IMO, its now about 'damage control'.

Using flemsy charges against the CHL holder as a negotiating tactic for the City of Canton at this stage of the game, would almost be laughable, would only make this whole embarrassing situation for Canton even worse and would only cost the city even more than its already going spend.

Wouldn't it be bad if the CHL holder collected money for being threatened by a Canton LEO and then turned around and collected again for false arrest?

Not to mention that if the CHL holder is married, Mrs. CHL holder may also sue due to the fact that Mr. CHL holder can no longer perform his husbandry duties cause of the depression he's been in since the incident.:D
 
Quote:
It would not be suprising to me if the defendant's lawyer advises him not to take such action until his own legal troubles are resolved.

It would seem to me that filing such a complaint would leverage his own legal troubles.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I'm not a lawyer, so my comments are really just speculation on my part. I wonder, however, what if any effect the filing of a criminal complaint against the Harless might have on the defendant's ability to sue the officer, department, and/or city in civil court. As I said before, I'm not a lawyer nor am I nearly as well versed in legalese as many others here, so if anyone can shed more light on the subject I'd be very interested to hear an analysis.
 
In today's Akron Beacon Journal there is an ad for a LEO job in Canton Ohio. Is is coincidental, or prophetic I/we could only speculate? Regardless, with everything going on, I found it quite interesting that they have an opening or openings there.

Tomorrow will be the day that we will find out if Harless even shows up in court, or even if they let it go to court. You never know, the city might be sitting on the curb with a wheelbarrow full of money tomorrow morning.
 
The Phoenix AZ police department once ignored a flat-out murder by one of their officers. The reasoning was obvious: if they admitted that he killed, they would give the family of the deceased a major leg up in the inevitable civil trial against the department.

The same thing is going on in Canton :(.

As an aside: what happened in Phoenix is fully documented. A low-level bad guy had fled from a female cop the day before. The male cop-boyfriend of the lady cop caught the guy the next day and tasered him to the chest continously for 53 seconds per the taser's internal log. There's zero difference between that and smothering somebody to death - and trust me, when they're struggling, 53 seconds is plenty because they're using oxygen to fight. Muscle spasms under a taser are even more severe at O2 usage.

The Phoenix PD ruled this "within their policies". Based on that official, published ruling, I do not consider tasers in the hands of any Phoenix PD officer to be non-lethal force.
 
this all being said, just because someone gets in a fight and says something like, "I'm gonna kill you" the said individual isn't locked up with the key thrown away. The same goes here, the cop lost his temper and he had his reasons. It isn't determined yet how much they got on him and usually when preparing a case you get as much as you can before bringing charges.
 
younggunz4life said:
this all being said, just because someone gets in a fight and says something like, "I'm gonna kill you" the said individual isn't locked up with the key thrown away.
Click to expand...
But the individual IS arrested and locked up, until he gets released on bail, with charges pending. They don't throw away the key until after a trial with a verdict of guilty. Due process does not entail allowing people accused of threatening murder to wander the streets, uncharged, for indeterminate periods.

The same goes here, the cop lost his temper and he had his reasons. It isn't determined yet how much they got on him and usually when preparing a case you get as much as you can before bringing charges.
Click to expand...
But his reasons were not valid. NO reason is valid for allowing an officer of the law to threaten to execute a citizen. They have the video. They have the victim's statement. They do NOT need anything more in order to bring charges. The video speaks for itself -- eloquently.
 
Last edited:
I hear you Aguilar

but that doesn't change the fact that this guy is drinking a beer and watching espn right now while collecting fullpay. Like it or not, there are obviously some people that do not see this situation in as serious light as others. I am not one of them, but it just seems like it has partially been swept under the rug(whether or not it stays that way is another story...)
 
this all being said, just because someone gets in a fight and says something like, "I'm gonna kill you" the said individual isn't locked up with the key thrown away. The same goes here, the cop lost his temper and he had his reasons.
Click to expand...

No, a person is not automatically sentenced when they are accused of a crime. However, they are arrested to ensure that they do not attempt to flee before they can be brought to trial. In many cases, the person may pay a fee (bond) to be used as collateral in order to ensure that they appear for trial. In other cases when it is determined that a monetary bond would not be sufficient to prevent them from fleeing, they may indeed have to sit in jail until their trial. In this particular case, Harless made terroristic threats which were caught on video. The profanity-laced tirade was at first merely unprofessional but became criminal when he threatened the CCL holder's life with a deadly weapon.

It isn't determined yet how much they got on him and usually when preparing a case you get as much as you can before bringing charges.
Click to expand...

You don't get much more damning evidence than a video tape of the crime being committed. While we don't know exactly why the DA has not brought charges against Harless at this time, I think it's pretty safe to say that lack of evidence is not that reason.
 
OK, set aside the death threats for a sec. Let's say they treat the lines like "I should have killed you" as not constituting a threat, more of an insult and therefore not criminal. I could almost buy that.

What about the direct promise Harless made to the driver to subject him to further abuse (illegal abuse at that) every time he saw him? Is THAT not a criminal offense? It would more or less have to be, wouldn't it? Under such a direct threat, what is somebody supposed to do if they see a cop car? Run? Shoot the cop? OR just live in fear of more abuse?

Put simply, if you take such a threat seriously as a citizen, it becomes impossible to function in society. How is that not one of the most serious civil rights violations possible?

I can assure you, if such a threat was issued against me, and I had no proof that it had occurred, my quality of life would be irreparably harmed. There would be only two choices left, move away or...yeah, let's not go there.

It gets worse. The fact that this disgusting specimen is still free is itself a statement that the threats he made against that driver may still be in force by the rest of the department, or may crop up again once the media heat has died down. In short, the civil rights violation that began that night continues today against that driver.

I am very, very glad I don't live in that town. Very.
 
While we don't know exactly why the DA has not brought charges against Harless at this time, I think it's pretty safe to say that lack of evidence is not that reason.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the "why isn't Harless charged?" question is easy to understand: to avoid giving additional help to the inevitable civil suit to follow.
 
Jim I would agree with your assessment on both the question of whether there were death threats and the threat of future harassment under color of authority.

The former has wiggle room, as he never said " I am going to kill, shoot, etc." It was "I ought to . . . , I am about to . . . (cave your head in) " etc. And I have never heard it alleged that there was, in fact, a corresponding physical attack.

The latter threat of future harassment under the color of law (or whatever the similar charge would be in OH) has merit, as well as the false arrest itself, IMO.
 
there is definately a valid civil rights violation

but I think many an officer will get the hint to leave this guy alone in the future(otherwise they will attract unwanted trouble). The cab driver seemed passive and also his story probably checked out.

one other thing - right or wrong, some LEOs have a habit of putting fear in people's minds w/threats about I better not see you around here or whatever
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top