Canton Ohio Council President …

… forgot the first rule of PR is that when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging:

What your officer did was unconscionable. There’s absolutely no fucking excuses for that video I saw. This guy needs to be raked over the coals. You Sir, no matter what you say, are against the Second Amendment. This guy should not have a council meeting for the next several months that is not inundated with angry gun owners from Ohio. This guy has thrown down, and it’s time to act.

39 thoughts on “Canton Ohio Council President …”

  1. Sounds like somebody is upset about the grassroots organization that comes with concealed carry.

  2. Lessee… Places I’d relocate to for work… Nope, scratch Canton off that list.

    This guy is a pompous ass and while he believes the citizenry shouldn’t have guns, the citizenry believes he shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power.

  3. Here’s the correct spelling of his name, along with his phone numbers and email address. I think he could use a little more education on the rights of the people and the responsibilities of the police. I’m surprised to see that his home phone number is listed.

    3519 Culver DR NW
    Canton, OH 44709

    Home: 330 492-5409
    Business Office: 330 456-4400
    Council Office: 330-489-3223


  4. This council president may change his mind when the lawsuit arrives.
    He appears to be offended by the response of many citizens who are not residents of Canton.
    This is not a Canton issue. The last time I looked Ohio, and all the towns and counties therin are a part of the United States of America. This is a freedom issue.
    Paul in Texas

  5. Wow… this is about 2a. And the police not being respectful to citizens. We stick together beacause mayors like yourself thinking the police can protect people. Well They can’t. Police can get fired let go budget cuts etc. They are only there to enforce law. Not to protect people. Self defense is protection especially at 2 am in a crime ridden neighborhood. The best service you could do is arm the people and tech them self defense. But u want the people helpless so u can do what ever u want… what a power trip the mayor is having.

  6. Wow. Gee, what could be worse than for an ordinary citizen to have a gun when traveling through a bad neighborhood at night! So much better to go unarmed and be curbstomped by a hoodlum; in Canton, if you’re armed. they have to have a cop offer to do it instead.

    Yes indeedy, I hope OH gun-owners start attending city council meetings in Canton. No need to be anything but there, perhaps with a nice lapel-pin, shirt or cap with a logo.

  7. Principles of policing according to Robert Peel
    (with particular attention to #7 in this case)

    1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

    2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

    3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

    4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

    5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

    6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

    7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

    9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

  8. Schulman calls CCW laws completely insane? One has to listen to his full rant to fully appreciate the Schulman experience. Holy Crap! Talk about completely insane!

    No wonder Canton Ohio has such crazy cops with a fool like Schulman in charge.

    Schulman covers the full gamut doesn’t he? Fearful of an armed public, while declaiming at the same time that he isn’t against guns! I don’t know whether he is dishonest or just an idiot who can’t recognize the contradictions of his own beliefs.

    One thing is certain though, he has the attitude of a petty fascist who venerates the armed wing of state power. Wow, just wow.

  9. What a fucking moron. He “likes” gunz unless they are in “bad” areas? Where the hell else do you need them? Or maybe Canton has a law that criminals have to give 24 hour notice before attacking your ass. Maybe my email will drive up his bloodpressure another notch or 3.

  10. Mr. Schulman is an ambulance chasing trial lawyer in his day job. So his position should be no surprise. This one is easy. No reason to get mad or angry. Just what is in Canton, other than the Pro Football Hall of Fame? I’m a baseball fan. To all my 2A supporting friends out there who love football, please enjoy to your heart’s content, it’s just not my game but then neither is soccer. But I digress. Mr. Schulman forgets that us “out of towners” are potentially future tourists but what else is there in Canton, Ohio? When the tourists don’t show up and the hotels and the restaurants and the Pro Football Hall of Fame revenues and the city tax coffers tank, Mr. Schulman should not be surprised.

  11. But Sebastian, you aren’t allowed to have an opinion on an officer that threatens to beat and murder a handcuffed and compliant citizen, because you don’t live in Canton! Only Canton residents are allowed to have an opinion on such issues!

    …and that’s his BEST argument!

  12. There is obviously a corporate culture of arrogant douchebaggery at work in the Canton municipal government.

  13. Canton Council President Schulman:

    I recently listened to an audio clip on WHLO News, in which you reacted to the situation regarding officer Daniel Harless and citizen William Bartlett. I too have seen and heard the video of their encounter. While unfortunate and highly troubling, it was an isolated incident and those things happen from time to time. I trust Officer Harless will be handled appropriately. Also, I am sure some of the emails (including from out of town) excoriating the city and the police department have been “less than polite”, and I am sorry you’ve had to endure those.

    However, it was your own remarks on WHLO that compelled me to write. You said that carrying a gun in high crime areas (in the worst situations) is not acceptable, that the laws allowing this are insane.

    Sir, I understand you were frustrated, but that is no cause for you to so thoroughly depart from reality. Carrying defensive weapons (in some manner) is lawful in 49 states, and it’s estimated that 6 million Americans possess permits to carry guns in public. Moreover, the US Supreme Court stated that the second amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Simply put, it’s our right to carry defensive weapons, and quite frankly, the need for that right is most acute in the high-crime areas and in the worst situations that you described.

    One of the primary reasons you’re getting so many calls and emails is because those people know that it could have been them instead of Mr. Bartlett. I travel a great deal, sometimes in Ohio. It could have been me instead of Mr. Bartlett. Fortunately, my armed encounters with law enforcement have been professional and mutually respectful. We who bear arms take our rights and responsibilities seriously, just as we take incidents of police threats and brutality seriously. Officer Harless was the liability here, not Mr. Bartlett. If you don’t understand that now, I suspect you will when the promised lawsuit is settled.

    In brief, I am sorry that certain people have misplaced blame on your city council, on Canton, and on your police department. The blame rests entirely on Officer Harless, and in part on the accompanying officer (for not intervening). I believe you needlessly escalate the situation by shifting blame upon concealed carry laws … but shifting blame upon the fundamental right (to bear arms) that millions of Americans cherish deeply and exercise daily.

    “Carl from Chicago”

  14. By that logic, fire extinguishers should be banned in fireworks stands and seatbelts illegal in race cars…

  15. Anyone that can speak for two and a half minutes before he believes he’s made a comment just has to be a politician.

  16. Rule number 1 of fighting a PR fire. Don’t throw gas on the fire you’re trying to put out. Now Mr. Schulman has two fires to put down. One he was dealt and one he started.

    I’ve always said that city councils are made of of people who were too stupid to move out of the city.

  17. Whining at this guy will accomplish nothing. While he is up for re-election this year he rolled all over his last opponent better than 2-1. Unless someone has a concrete plan for ousting him this fall he’s just going to blow off any criticism he gets.

  18. He’s saying that guns shouldn’t be allowed in crime-ridden neighborhoods? In other words, if you need to go into a crime-ridden neighborhood, you should be unarmed. Because, you know, there are dangerous criminals there.

    Doublethink at its best.

  19. We are going to have this happen in every city? Just because citizens are allowed to carry guns? I guess police departments nationwide are going to start hiring this type of officers to keep the populace in line. That’s the only thing I get out of his statement. He should be worried that the behavior of a extremely bad cop will put every officer in his city in danger. Get pulled over in Canton and be in fear for your life.

  20. A bad man, Shulman, an evil man. Sadly, we will always have someone like this around.

  21. Apparently in Canton, stupid starts at the top and filters down. It seems Mr. Schulman is one Red Bull away from ‘roid raging like the cop in the video.

  22. What a moron. He missed the issue. A police officer threatens to kill a citizen just because the officer wants to. That’s the issue. The second admendment, as viewed by the Supreme Court, is just the excuse.

  23. He must be outraged over the worldwide “out of town” attention given to the Norway shooting. These are coming from people who don’t live in Norway, they don’t know their police, firefighters, or public servants- know nothing about the country of Norway.

    Love how he also rationalizes how being in crime ridden neighborhood late at night is even *less* reason to protect yourself. He probably also says “what are you afraid of?” when someone wants to remain armed in Applebee’s.

  24. I used to do a fair amount of business in the Canton area. Got lost once returning from delivering some livestock and ended up late at night in a bad Canton Neighborhood. I was shocked how such a small city could have so much urban blight. Hearing that clown from council explains a lot.

    Canton is also the county seat of Stark County, where male deputies strip searched a detained female. One classy place.

  25. Markie Marxist sez: “Of course, my commie compadre, Council President Schulman is correct! People shouldn’t be allowed to carry in crime-ridden neighborhoods! They might shoot our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminals as they go about their business of ripping off capitalism and bringing down America! It’s just common communist sense to disarm law-abiding citizens!”

  26. … forgot the first rule of PR is that when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging:

    Schulman’s problem is that he can’t find himself in a hole, with both hands.

  27. I spoke with the guy today. Left a rather assertive, less than friendly message along with my name and number. He called back, thanking me for having the fortitude to back up my remarks with my name and number.

    Told him I was an editor of a gun rights periodical, GunNews, with a circulation north of 12k/month.

    Some quotes:

    CCW ‘makes their jobs harder’ referring to cops encountering people with guns.

    the money quote: “Some unscrupulous manufacturers have flooded poor communities [I think he meant to say neighborhoods here] with weapons and they make a fortune doing it.”

    Do you own any guns? “No, I don’t.” … “I’m scared of guns.” He clarified “scared” as in scared of having an accident with a gun and injuring or killing a family member. “I’m not sure I could handle a gun” in a critical incident.

    Says, because of the litigation surely pending and the investigation, he “couldn’t” criticize the cop “as much as I might want to”.

    He criticized the CCW holder. Paraphrased: That neighborhood is a hotbed of prostitution and drug sales. Out of town guys come in, find a pimp (I’m not sure why “Johns” would find a pimp to get him a girl(s)) to get him a girl.

    He believes the cop panicked when he found out he had a guy with a gun behind him for so long.

    Wouldn’t — WOULD NOT — criticize the officer’s actions as improper or illegal, despite repeated direct and round-about questioning on it.

    He talked for about ten minutes, I took notes. Then I talked for about a minute and he acknowledged that your rights don’t end just because you’re in a bad part of town at o-dark-hundred. I noted that cops shoot the “wrong people” accidentally at a much higher rate than cops (one of his primary ‘problems’ with CCW).

    He tried to make a big deal of restaurant carry, turning it into “bar carry while drinking”… I pointed out that license holders are very law-abiding and it’s the people carrying guns in bars without permits are the ones he should be worried about.

    That’s all for now. If you have any questions about my impromptu interview with him, email me at templar223 at


  28. John:

    Excellent work. I admire that you actually contacted the guy and spoke with him. That actually engages the man himself in a meaningful way … something that defiant/enraged/whiny blog commentary just cannot accomplish.

    Thanks for sharing the gist of the conversation. He’s not yet replied to my own email (above).

  29. @John Bock:

    Great work, and thanks for sharing your experience.

    One question about this line, though: “I noted that cops shoot the “wrong people” accidentally at a much higher rate than cops (one of his primary ‘problems’ with CCW).”

    Did you mean, “at a much higher rate than CCW holders?”

  30. John Boch

    Good job.

    From the additional info you have uncovered, Schulman appears more and more as a living embodiment of the stereotype of an anti-gunner.

  31. Unbelievable pompus, ignorant jerk.

    “commonsense gun control laws”

    From his own lips. This guy is isnsane. Gun control only impacts the law abiding citizen. Criminal (by their nature) do not care about the law, and by extension gun control laws.

    Way to go Ohio!

  32. Did you hear how angry he was that the laws ‘allow’ people to exercise their rights? A true statist by his own admission. People of Canton, if you elect this guy again you deserve every statist policy he backs and the violence they perpetrate against you to enforce those polices.

  33. Am I the only one who laughed at this guy?
    He honestly sounded like a parody of…himself! Something you’d see on a late-night comedy show.

    Half of it sounded like it was right out of a Gregalogue!!

Comments are closed.