search
top

Officer Harless of Canton, OH Fired

John Richardson notes that the City of Canton has decided to let this particular loose cannon go. I wish I could say this is a case of a town doing the right thing, but I suspect the primary reason is that Daniel Harless was a walking potential 1983 suit just waiting to happen, and I would point out that 1983 allows one to sue all the way up the chain of command.

I’d say justice served, but I have to agree with Uncle on this one. If I threatened to shoot someone dead, who was not threatening me in any way, while I was open carrying a pistol, I’d be in jail already.

8 Responses to “Officer Harless of Canton, OH Fired”

  1. David says:

    Why is Harless not being charged with a crime for his acts?

    • Sebastian says:

      Because he’s like you and me, only better.

      • David says:

        This is where the state AG needs to step in and file charges. In the very least his written report constricts what the video shows. There are a pile of thing Harless can and should be charged with. Bad behaving cops should not have the luxury of dodging criminal charges when they act like criminals.

        • HSR47 says:

          “Bad behaving cops should not have the luxury of dodging criminal charges when they act like criminals.”

          You’re right: They should have the luxury of dodging bullets.

          John Bad Elk vs US.

    • Dannytheman says:

      How about nailing his partner, too? He stood there and watched this whole thing go down. And Harless was right when he said, “If I pulled my Glock 40 and put 10 in you right now,” he(the partner) would swear he (the criminal) deserved it.
      The LEO “code” needs to be reviewed. These other cops knew this guy was a walking time bomb.

  2. politicsbyothermeans@yahoo.com says:

    Who polices the police? Not the police, clearly.

  3. Ken says:

    One of the comments on the Uncle post has it right: this is all about the FOP.

    And that’s where the problem lies. The FOP has an inordinate amount of power, mainly because it’s one of the few unions that endorses members of both parties. As such, GOP politicians never, ever make the slightest criticism of policemen, no matter how egregious their actions.

    Politicians are politicians; you won’t sway your local Congressman on this issue, because he cares more about the endorsement of the FOP than he does about your vote. What you can do is talk back when someone endorses police excesses.

    One example: the conservative talk show hosts instinctively backed James Crowley, the police officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates (who, for the record, made things worse by making it a racial issue). The fact was, though, that Gates’ crime essentially amounted to talking back. I got incredibly pissed when I heard Hannity saying Gates should have just cooperated and gone inside his house like a good little non-Only one.

    Apparently, the position of the “conservative” establishment is that you are an individual! and the government cannot violate your rights, which are given not by man, but by God! (unless, of course, the acting government official is in a union whose endorsement the GOP is seeking–then you should roll over and surrender. But hey, you can always seek redress from a D.A. who spends his evenings drinking martinis with the police commissioner).

    Anyway, my point is that you should specifically target influential conservative spokesmen and force them to defend their views. Eventually they will hopefully understand that police are not “pillars of the community” who are immune from criticism. Then maybe victims of police brutality might have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting legislators to take their side.

top