armoredman
New member
Having been a supervisor in a job very similar for 8 years now, yes, the above scenario is very possible.
Canton OH Police CCW Holder Encounter
- Thread starter ltc444
- Start date
- Status
Just watched the third video.
Harless needs to be incarcerated. There is no excuse or justification for his actions.
PTSD does not serve as a defense in a criminal trial.
It appears that this investigation needs to be removed from the Canton PD and placed in the hands of a state or federal agency.
Harless needs to be incarcerated. There is no excuse or justification for his actions.
PTSD does not serve as a defense in a criminal trial.
It appears that this investigation needs to be removed from the Canton PD and placed in the hands of a state or federal agency.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
My guess is Harless realizes his LE career is effectively over and is angling to get as much of a disability/retirement/pension etc. as he can finagle.
Hitthespot
New member
Agreed, and nice to hear someone else say it again. This is what I been saying for sometime. I don't know what is going on in Canton, but what ever it is, it's not right. Charges should have been filed the next day, and that has nothing to do with being sick, unions, full moon, or not enough coffee that day. The longer this goes on and the more time that passes the more I think the city (Procecutor, Mayor, Police Chief, City Council,) believe they can wash all this under the bridge and continue with business as usual, ( I.E. Their Nazi regime).
Everyone needs to contact the Cleveland FBI and tell them they are outraged.
Hitthespot
New member
Thanks Shortwave. Nice to hear.
Hitthespot
New member
It has been reported that Harless disaplinary hearing has now been postponed till 12/1/2011.....what a joke, and on 12/1 probably till next year............The city of Canton is continuing with their case against the defendant. This whole thing is such a travesty of magnatude that I can't even get my mind around it.
Yeah, the continuing attempt at a prosecution is what is truly dragging the agency and city deep into the mire - morally and legally.
A malicious prosecution lawsuit is quite possible here - maintaining charges simply to try and dissuade a civil suit is absolutely not kosher and the DA could end up disbarred over it.
A malicious prosecution lawsuit is quite possible here - maintaining charges simply to try and dissuade a civil suit is absolutely not kosher and the DA could end up disbarred over it.
youngunz4life
New member
all good points but the two cases are seperate entities even though they are 'connected'.
the sad part is the PD backed this guy 110% before getting their ducks in a row. harless is a lost cause & now they're stuck w/it...
the sad part is the PD backed this guy 110% before getting their ducks in a row. harless is a lost cause & now they're stuck w/it...
Uncle Buck
New member
Has the mans lawyer been heard from? (The CCW guy?)
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
If that was a motion, please consider it seconded. We once fought a bloody revolution over this kind of treatment.
youngunz4life
New member
the prosecution of the cab driver for his offenses in itself has nothing to do with Harless' reprehensible conduct. Even though they are 'connected' at the hip, nothing changes the fact that the cab driver was either guilty or innocent of his offense. I feel he is innocent myself because it is plausible that he was frightened into keeping his mouth shut. the above quote is a deal but legally, the outcome of the cab driver's case might have nothing to do with what happens(or doesn't happen) to Harless.
I also feel the longer this goes on it favors the cab driver, but I might be wrong about that because people can have short memories.
First, the relationship between "the offense" and the conduct of officer Harless: the video shows the driver trying to show Harless something (his CHL) and Harless refusing to look at it. So, what is the alleged offense?
Second, as long as the video exists, and the defense has a copy, the lengths of people's memories won't matter. If this does go to trial, that video will be online and on the airwaves again.
Third, some members have posited that a "no lawsuit" deal was offered by the DA. I don't know if they have reason to believe that, or if it is speculation. If there is something to it, the city will have undermined their criminal case (since they would have been willing to drop the whole thing) and set themselves up for not only a lawsuit, but also State, Federal, and Bar Association sanctions.
Second, as long as the video exists, and the defense has a copy, the lengths of people's memories won't matter. If this does go to trial, that video will be online and on the airwaves again.
Third, some members have posited that a "no lawsuit" deal was offered by the DA. I don't know if they have reason to believe that, or if it is speculation. If there is something to it, the city will have undermined their criminal case (since they would have been willing to drop the whole thing) and set themselves up for not only a lawsuit, but also State, Federal, and Bar Association sanctions.
Agree MLeake,
If the city prosecutor did in fact offer 'a deal' to Bartlett(ccw holder) from the onset, consisting of what we've heard, "we(Prosecutors office) will drop all charges on you if you agree not to sue", it will be interesting to see how the same Prosecuting atty's. will try to explain this away to the Judge.
If that happened, I'm not convinced that a judge will see this kind of deal as ethical or legal and will probably throw the whole case out. So yes, IMO, the charges towards Bartlett and the conduct of not only Harless but the PA as well, may end up being as one.
IMO, If the 'deal' was offered by the PA, as I've said before, the city going ahead with these charges is only a scare tactic towards Bartlett in an attempt to draw this whole thing out, buying the City of Canton more time to try and strike an out-of-court settlement with Bartlett. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that either the City of Canton is successful at buying Barlett off either before his hearing date or the hearing date will again be postponed by the City of Canton for some bogus(but legal) reason to buy them some more time to try and buy Barlett out.
There are a couple things that we can be reasonably sure of if the City of Canton is successful in buying Bartlett out:
1. the amount of money will be agreed to be kept undisclosed.
2. Barlett will have to agree on no further legal action against the City of Canton.
Again, in the meantime, I speculate that Harless could care less about what he's caused as he's working diligently(with his council and doctor) to insure his future of retirement and not only collecting his full pension but probably additional disability monies for the rest of his life.
If the city prosecutor did in fact offer 'a deal' to Bartlett(ccw holder) from the onset, consisting of what we've heard, "we(Prosecutors office) will drop all charges on you if you agree not to sue", it will be interesting to see how the same Prosecuting atty's. will try to explain this away to the Judge.
If that happened, I'm not convinced that a judge will see this kind of deal as ethical or legal and will probably throw the whole case out. So yes, IMO, the charges towards Bartlett and the conduct of not only Harless but the PA as well, may end up being as one.
IMO, If the 'deal' was offered by the PA, as I've said before, the city going ahead with these charges is only a scare tactic towards Bartlett in an attempt to draw this whole thing out, buying the City of Canton more time to try and strike an out-of-court settlement with Bartlett. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that either the City of Canton is successful at buying Barlett off either before his hearing date or the hearing date will again be postponed by the City of Canton for some bogus(but legal) reason to buy them some more time to try and buy Barlett out.
There are a couple things that we can be reasonably sure of if the City of Canton is successful in buying Bartlett out:
1. the amount of money will be agreed to be kept undisclosed.
2. Barlett will have to agree on no further legal action against the City of Canton.
Again, in the meantime, I speculate that Harless could care less about what he's caused as he's working diligently(with his council and doctor) to insure his future of retirement and not only collecting his full pension but probably additional disability monies for the rest of his life.
Last edited:
In the initial thread (which was closed by yours truly), you can scroll down to post #16, where Webleymkv gave us a link to the Ohio CCW forums where we find that the attorney has actually stated:
Back in July, I went to that forum and read the above quote from the attorney.
All along, I've been wondering why the prosecutor is still pushing this case. Unless there is more that we don't know (which is entirely possible), he has blown the credibility of the entire case, early on, but keeps pushing it.
Back in July, I went to that forum and read the above quote from the attorney.
All along, I've been wondering why the prosecutor is still pushing this case. Unless there is more that we don't know (which is entirely possible), he has blown the credibility of the entire case, early on, but keeps pushing it.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
FWIW, the judge will never be "officially" informed of this offer. (S)He may well know about it informally, but from the legal standpoint of any subsequent court action, the offer was neither made nor rejected. That's the way the legal system works. Otherwise, a prosecutor could never offer to plead a murder charge down to a manslaughter without the defense parading the offer in front of the jury.
Gary,
I understand your comments for the judge never formally hearing the 'deal' if the 'deal' was offered as part of a plea bargain to a lesser charge but the 'deal' was offered to drop all charges on Barlett if he wouldn't sue the City of Canton. Thats not a plea bargaining thats 'blackmail', is it not?
I would think in this particular case, Bartletts council would have every right to present the facts of the 'deal' to the judge as evidence. Stateing Bartlett was falsely arrested in the first place, the PA new that from the actual video prior to charging Barlett and so there was no 'plea bargain' attempt in the 'deal' but rather a blackmail attempt by the PA.
I understand your comments for the judge never formally hearing the 'deal' if the 'deal' was offered as part of a plea bargain to a lesser charge but the 'deal' was offered to drop all charges on Barlett if he wouldn't sue the City of Canton. Thats not a plea bargaining thats 'blackmail', is it not?
I would think in this particular case, Bartletts council would have every right to present the facts of the 'deal' to the judge as evidence. Stateing Bartlett was falsely arrested in the first place, the PA new that from the actual video prior to charging Barlett and so there was no 'plea bargain' attempt in the 'deal' but rather a blackmail attempt by the PA.
- Status