Both of who? My post is independent of any specific type of crime.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Harless to get job back
- Thread starter JSlack7851
- Start date
Both of who? My post is independent of any specific type of crime.
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
Actually, he is kind of "in" right now. He's still employed by Canton PD but not allowed to work till he's medically cleared. If he changes, he'll be cleared by the doctor. If he doesn't change, he won't be cleared.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
People here seem to keep missing the point, a Union has ZERO obligation to the public, the city government does, the Union is there to represent their member in arbitration. the arbitration and union system is meant so that officers don't get sacked without just cause because the city mayor is feeling the heat after an incident goes public. While firing Harless was the right decision for the city, they royally screwed the pooch in how they did it, and in fact they violated labor law and probably numerous policies and the only reason they did so was the news got a hold of the tape. To legally fire a government employee you must have just cause to do so AND must enforce the rules against people in an equal fashion.
This is what we have,
In 2003 Harless suffered on-duty injuries and was almost forcibly disarmed by a suspect. he was subject to chest injuries and several broken ribs. Harless's attorney contends this leaves him with PTSD, the Ohio Workers Compensation Board agrees with this.
The incident that caused the controversy occured in 2011, it was a single incident and although Bartlett felt threatened, fact is, he wasn't touched. except to be cuffed during the encounter.
Two other incidents were brought up during the time of controversy, two other videos which were under totally different circumstances, one of them a suspect was ordered to place his hands on the car, and chose to keep flailing them around. Another one was a group of felons in possession of a firearm. under those contexts threats may be nessecary to maintain command presence over the suspects, as his union rep argued.
No one has brought up any incident in which Harless has been physically violent in an unjustified manner, I'm not aware of anyone being shot by harless, and i'm certain if there were complaints alleging excessive force or being unreasonably violent the media would've found it.
Further more, the Arbitrator found that other officers were treated with kid gloves for similar incidents, thus rules were not being enforced equally. failure to enforce regulations establishes a "past labor practice" which means that the practice must be changed before new action can be taken against the employee (note this is standard with ALL union shops, not just police)
So the arbitrator had no choice but to award Harless the job back, the city violated the law by firing him in the manner they did.
So how should the city handle this?
1) They need to clarify all policies regarding the threatened use of force to maintain suspect compliance
2) They must begin actively enforcing said policies, Harless had no sustained disciplinary record, if both those previous incidents were unreasonable then they should have been recorded with discipline given to Harless
3) They must also remember to give out discipline even if the video doesn't reach the masses.
this is a demonstration of a problem with the city, basically they didn't care that Harless (and others from the looks of it) were threatening people until someone shone the light on him, this is actually good for the city, because now they'll have to take harless back in the public eye and that may force them to straighten themselves out.
This is what we have,
In 2003 Harless suffered on-duty injuries and was almost forcibly disarmed by a suspect. he was subject to chest injuries and several broken ribs. Harless's attorney contends this leaves him with PTSD, the Ohio Workers Compensation Board agrees with this.
The incident that caused the controversy occured in 2011, it was a single incident and although Bartlett felt threatened, fact is, he wasn't touched. except to be cuffed during the encounter.
Two other incidents were brought up during the time of controversy, two other videos which were under totally different circumstances, one of them a suspect was ordered to place his hands on the car, and chose to keep flailing them around. Another one was a group of felons in possession of a firearm. under those contexts threats may be nessecary to maintain command presence over the suspects, as his union rep argued.
No one has brought up any incident in which Harless has been physically violent in an unjustified manner, I'm not aware of anyone being shot by harless, and i'm certain if there were complaints alleging excessive force or being unreasonably violent the media would've found it.
Further more, the Arbitrator found that other officers were treated with kid gloves for similar incidents, thus rules were not being enforced equally. failure to enforce regulations establishes a "past labor practice" which means that the practice must be changed before new action can be taken against the employee (note this is standard with ALL union shops, not just police)
So the arbitrator had no choice but to award Harless the job back, the city violated the law by firing him in the manner they did.
So how should the city handle this?
1) They need to clarify all policies regarding the threatened use of force to maintain suspect compliance
2) They must begin actively enforcing said policies, Harless had no sustained disciplinary record, if both those previous incidents were unreasonable then they should have been recorded with discipline given to Harless
3) They must also remember to give out discipline even if the video doesn't reach the masses.
this is a demonstration of a problem with the city, basically they didn't care that Harless (and others from the looks of it) were threatening people until someone shone the light on him, this is actually good for the city, because now they'll have to take harless back in the public eye and that may force them to straighten themselves out.
Go back to the context of the "in" conversation. He is not "in" a place where criminals are "reformed" to be judged by a parole board.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
You responded to JediSkippDog
Actually, I agree with you.
Harless is a victim of his system, yes. But there are still victims of Harless because of his system.
He (and his union) have legitimate grievance for HOW he was fired. And the people have further grievance against his cohorts and superiors for the system that kept a-holes "exemplary" on paper.
I can't fault the system for being forced to make this call.
But I don't see how his "exemplary" superiors will allow the medical clearance. Their damage control will make sure they stay away from this hot potato.
And a mere response to someone lumps me with whatever insult you choose for them?
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
No insult was intended, but Jedi compared Harless's rehire to releasing violent felons from prison, and your response was that they had to pass the parole board, All I'm saying is that discussion is unnessecary unless Harless has been convicted of murder or rape, parole board or release or whatever is not really in any way comparable to Harless and his verbal, but non-physical threats...
That's right, he COMPARED. He didn't even shroud it in a metaphor for you. It was a legitimate comparison of how some criminals are treated by the system. Whether or not you feel it was "unnecessary" is your problem.
Whether or not you feel generic rapists and murderers should ever be compared to this armed assailant is irrelevant.
Next time you tell someone they've "flown the coop," you should probably specify that "no insult was intended," because it sure sounds like one. Maybe I'm old fashioned.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
hmmm, I didn't think that was a huge insult there, it's kind like "jumped the gun" or "gone a little too far" Didn't think about it that way, you have my full apologies.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
2 cents
If I as a citizen threaten to shoot another citizen 10 times with my Glock while armed in the presence of witnesses guess what is going to happen? I will be charged & prosecuted. Why should citizen (peace officers) be any different?
If I as a citizen threaten to shoot another citizen 10 times with my Glock while armed in the presence of witnesses guess what is going to happen? I will be charged & prosecuted. Why should citizen (peace officers) be any different?
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
If I as a citizen threaten to shoot another citizen 10 times with my Glock while armed in the presence of witnesses guess what is going to happen? I will be charged & prosecuted. Why should citizen (peace officers) be any different?
If you threaten me the police will only charge you if I request them too. If the police don't have a victim, they don't care about pressing charges themselves in cases like that.
In this care Mr. Bartlett is the victim and I have not read anything online that he pushed for charges. I actually haven't read anything from him since the day they made the final plea deal and he accepted it. If he would put pressure on the prosecutor to charge Harless and then the public adds the pressure as well, the prosecutor has no option but to face a media storm or charge him. In Hamilton County, Prosecutor Joe Deters has no problem charging cops and treating them as equal to Joe Smoe. He doesn't want the pressure and therefore he charges.
Right now the outcome for everything is what it is because of how all the parties directly involved let it come out. Without more action by a party involved, we can expect nothing more. And we have seven parties involved:
Mr. Bartlett - Our defendant in the entire case. Took a plea deal to the traffic violation and has been silent since.
Mr. Harless - Charing officer, terminated and reinstated due to poor performance of Canton
Canton Police Command Staff - Failed to use proper discipline techniques
Canton City Administration - Has allowed Canton Police Command to get away with their improper discipline. And I'm sure records will show this isn't the first time.
Canton Prosecutor - Pushed for a case when he had no grounds and also has failed to properly deal with Mr. Harless in a court of law on criminal charges
Mr. Arbitrator - Unfortunately did what he had to do. No fault on him at all. He had no choice on his decision.
Mr. Medical Doctor - Has yet to come into play but currently says Harless is not fit for duty due to his pending disability claim
Nothing more can be done without the first person in that list doing more. OFCC, BFA, 2A Foundation, NRA, FBI, etc won't get involved unless #1 asks them to or he starts the ball rolling. I've yet to see anything saying they are so I'm taking it as cased closed till the last one in the list changes his current opinion. We may not like it, but we can't change this particular case as we are nobody directly involved.
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
We're not talking about my opinion.
I told you that in my role as a union representative for a federal LE agency, I always advocated for the law. You said that wasn't true, that it was "utter nonsense", and then stated again that you don't believe me.
When someone tells you he has done something, and you tell him he hasn't, is it merely "disagreeing with his take on something"?
If there is a misperception here, it is that either you thought I was speaking in the abstract, or you're just calling me a liar and don't want to admit it.
No guilty employee has ever had my personal support, but the law that protects the rights of guilty and innocent alike has always had my full professional support.
Now that we're clear: go ahead. Tell me again how I didn't really advocate for the law.
JSlack7851
Regular Member
NO CRIMINAL CHARGES:
The city law department asked the Massillon prosecutor’s office to determine whether Harless’ actions warranted criminal charges. John Simpson, chief prosecutor for the city of Massillon, said that he reviewed state law for menacing, aggravated menacing and assault, but there was insufficient evidence to support any charges. -Canton Repository
The civil suit has been settled, with a gag order.
eye95
Well-known member
It is your opinion--and it differs from mine. Get over it; no one is calling you a liar, just wrong in your opinion.
Moving on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Moving on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Deanimator
Regular Member
That's the first I've heard that there'd been a suit, much less that it had been settled.
Any details?
I've seen in the past where such things were subject to public records requests.
If Bartlett settled BEFORE the arbitrator's decision, that may have been a serious mistake as the findings regarding failure to supervise on a wide basis would have left the city in an utterly indefensible position.
JSlack7851
Regular Member
It was settled due to the high cost of a civil trial. From what I understand funding for the criminal side was withdrawn by a 2A rights group. That put a crimp on Bill's wallet. I have no details about the settlement, I would guess the lawyer got paid.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Sweet. That leaves the Canton PD rampaging about like some Hutu militia. Maybe they ought to take away their Glocks and give them machetes.
Any idea which 2A group it was and why they pulled out?
KBCraig
Regular Member
You can continue to crawfish, but it's not a matter of opinion whether I've advocated for the law. It's a concrete fact and a matter of record in various employee disciplinary files.
You continuing to state that I did not do what I said I did, most certainly is you calling me a liar. It's time for you to be a man about it and take responsibility for your words, not just blow it off and claim you're "moving on".