Dash Cam: Canton, OH PD "Notification" Arrest & Officer Goes Berserk

[Knuckle Dragger]

Wow, just wow. This guy is a miserable human being and in the wrong job. I'll bet he goes home after his shift and kicks the dog. The fact that the driver possessed a gun is almost irrelevant. The officer set the tone long before he know about any gun.

The best part is he knows he's on camera too and it doesn't phase him.

This always surprises me as well. The problem is that the officer's behavior is acceptable or at least tolerated by his superiors and co-workers. That is until it goes viral.

They should all have cameras.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/CantonPD

Suspended WITH pay

All that means is that they haven't decided what to do with him yet. In some ways that worse for him. If he was suspended without pay, that would likely be the end of it.

I can't believe that video didn't get 'lost'.

I doubt one of his 'brothers' wanted to risk getting charged with destroying evidence.

 

[ARV]

http://www.cantonrep.com/topstories/x1009569021/Canton-police-shut-down-Facebook-page

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I doubt one of his 'brothers' wanted to risk getting charged with destroying evidence.

It's hard to "lose" video with some in-car digital systems. In addition to manually activating, many have a rather large circular buffer of video that will not be overwritten until the buffer loops around again.

 

[SteelShooter]

It's hard to "lose" video with some in-car digital systems. In addition to manually activating, many have a rather large circular buffer of video that will not be overwritten until the buffer loops around again.

this cop had already been reprimanded at least once for shutting off their video while they beat someone.

 

[milktree]

Video does not require two party consent.

Audio does not require two party consent, but may not be done in a surrepetitious manner, which is why conventional news reporting is allowed but undercover news show stings are illegal in MA.

The MA SJC stated this law is important as allowing persons to make hidden recordings of police could be used by drug dealers to document police misconduct.

Wait... What?

I thought police misconduct was considered "bad". When did that change?

 

[ChargingCharlie]

in EMS there is this thing called "Duty to Act"

for the LE, they take an oath.... for us Soldier's (service member's) we take an oath as well. so YES, the partner is just a guilty for not stopping it. although i don't have the legal mumbo jumbo, i'm it is out there somewhere. i guess i should have googled a swearing-in oath for a police occifer such as the a**h***s on that tape.

In the Military it's an Article 92 offense (Dereliction of duty). I don't know law enforcement has a similar violation though.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Wait... What?

I thought police misconduct was considered "bad". When did that change?

The exact wording from the SJC decision:

Followed to its logical conclusion, the dissent would encourage drug manufacturers to mount hidden video cameras in their facilities so they can capture the moment of truth when the police execute a search warrant and would authorize drug dealers secretly to tape record conversations with suspected undercover officers or with informants in order to protect the dealers' rights against hypothetical police abuse.

 

[Skald]

Well, at least the cop is getting due process (and a paid vacation), unlike his victim.

Actually, I think he is first using up his accrued sick time, and then vacation time.

Guy is a sleaze, but there is a thing called Due Process in the U.S and even if you're scum of the earth, you are still entitled to it via the U.S Constitution.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Actually, I think he is first using up his accrued sick time, and then vacation time.

Guy is a sleaze, but there is a thing called Due Process in the U.S and even if you're scum of the earth, you are still entitled to it via the U.S Constitution.

The constitution does not apply to employment contracts (union extortion does). How many of us private sector types would face weeks of "suspension with pay" if we did something that caused our employer to fear we are a danger to others while doing our jobs? My guess is not many.

Hopefully, this officer will be separated with formal discipline that makes him LEOSA-ineligible.

 

[BigMike]

Don't know why I watched that. Certainly didn't improve my mood

 

[tuna]

Why is everyone so pissed at the loudmouthed cop? Sure, he's an a**h***, but MAYBE he is that "one bad apple" the apologists always speak of. That would be bad enough, but almost acceptable, after all, we're all people and in a large group, you're going to have to have the minority that is the troublemakers.

My problem is with his partner. This guy is the problem, to allow the verbal abuse to go on and on, and encourage it, and make jokes about it with the asshat. And because of that crap about the "thin blue line" backing each other up, and from what I've seen in otherwise decent people who happen to be cops - THIS guy is the minority.

And THAT makes my blood boil, because how is he any worse than the aggressor in this?

Hence my belief that 5 to 10% of cops out there give the rest a good name.



And as for the story of the Nazi cops in LA after WWII, don't forget the veterans uprising in the South (Georgia???), where the returning vets locked up the crooked cops and waited for the state to come in to stop abuse like this. A much happier story, in my book.

 

[namedpipes]

Both cops were at best, incompetent and for a multitude of reasons should not be serving.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

 

[ASHDUMP]

Some cops are so lame. This guy thinks he's captain america.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Why is everyone so pissed at the loudmouthed cop? Sure, he's an a**h***, but MAYBE he is that "one bad apple" the apologists always speak of. That would be bad enough, but almost acceptable, after all, we're all people and in a large group, you're going to have to have the minority that is the troublemakers.

My problem is with his partner. This guy is the problem, to allow the verbal abuse to go on and on, and encourage it, and make jokes about it with the asshat. And because of that crap about the "thin blue line" backing each other up, and from what I've seen in otherwise decent people who happen to be cops - THIS guy is the minority.

And THAT makes my blood boil, because how is he any worse than the aggressor in this?

Hence my belief that 5 to 10% of cops out there give the rest a good name.



And as for the story of the Nazi cops in LA after WWII, don't forget the veterans uprising in the South (Georgia???), where the returning vets locked up the crooked cops and waited for the state to come in to stop abuse like this. A much happier story, in my book.

I know you're trying to communicate, I can tell, but I have no idea what you just said...

In other news, the acting cop should have been fired immediately as others have said due process is fine on the criminal charges but as far as employment goes he should be out on his butt. As for the partner seems as though loss of employment would also be warranted and possibly charges for accessory.

Nothing in this country will change until people are held accountable for their actions, both police and welfare rats alike.

 

[milktree]

The exact wording from the SJC decision:

Followed to its logical conclusion, the dissent would encourage drug manufacturers to mount hidden video cameras in their facilities so they can capture the moment of truth when the police execute a search warrant and would authorize drug dealers secretly to tape record conversations with suspected undercover officers or with informants in order to protect the dealers' rights against hypothetical police abuse.

Nope... still not getting it. Isn't "misconduct" always bad, even when it's done against suspected bad people? Isn't that what the "mis" in "misconduct" means?

What exactly is wrong with police misconduct being caught, even if caught by a suspected bad guy?

I guess I don't see the problem of anyone recording conversations with police, even drug dealers.

What am I missing?

 

[namedpipes]

... What exactly is wrong with police misconduct being caught, even if caught by a suspected bad guy? ... What am I missing?

What are you, some kind of right wing fringe lunatic tinfoil tea bagger?!

Let the police do their job and stop interfering. They might accidently execute, er, apprehend the wrong guy once in a while but on the whole they're doing a pretty good job, and it certainly helps keep the stray dog population down.

The courts know this as a fundamental truth, so things are shaped to ensure the police can convict the people they think did it (or at least SOMEONE can be convicted) whether or not they did it. And the person they choose to be the perp is hardly ever actually innocent, just sometimes of that particular thing, so who cares?

Closure rates are MUCH more important than accuracy rates, after all....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Nope... still not getting it. Isn't "misconduct" always bad, even when it's done against suspected bad people? Isn't that what the "mis" in "misconduct" means?

What exactly is wrong with police misconduct being caught, even if caught by a suspected bad guy?

I guess I don't see the problem of anyone recording conversations with police, even drug dealers.

What am I missing?

You're not the one who is missing something; the SJC is.

 

[ARV]

This link is on the FB page about the video.

www. change.org/petitions/william-j-healy-canton-police-dept-dismiss-officer-harless-prosecute-him

 

[Coyote33]

OK, time someone says it:

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

 

[weekendracer]

I agree with you 100% on that but I think it goes one step further. The good officers make themselves look bad by not ostricizing these asshats. The department makes itself look bad for not firing the bad cops on the spot. There would be far more trust for the police if officers like this asshat weren't allowed to continue serving as though their criminal activities had never happened.

How are other officers supposed to publically 'ostricize' bad cops. The union is legally obligated to defend the officer. At least in my case, I CAN NOT talk to the press without prior authorization regarding agency issues. So if I spoke up and said, yeah so and so is a legally challenged moron, I'd lose my job. Boy, I see that as great for the long term. I speak up and lose my job, a job I take seriously and don't do this kind of crap. They replace me and what's the chances of someone else being hired that performs at the level that I do?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So if I spoke up and said, yeah so and so is a legally challenged moron, I'd lose my job.

Yes, but would you lose your job if you filed a report stating that your partner's conduct during an arrest was not consistent with department policy?

There is a huge difference between not being allowed to make public statements and remaining silent about official misconduct.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

There is a book and I can’t recall the name of it off the top of my head, I’ll try to Google it. It was the true story about how a group of returning WWII combat veteran became police officers in Los Angles. They used, let say questionable tactic to keep criminals out of the city. The moral of the book was how it kept the city safe during that time. I guess you would call these Vets everything that it wrong with this country. I would call them heroes.

the problem is yea in a perfect world it works, only the criminals get harassed but hey who cares their only criminals. The problem with that is, A.) our legal system is your innocent until proven guilty. B.) if you did that in reality innocent people would be harrassed and assulted by cops. Its not worth it. Like a previous post said its better to let 1000 guilty men go then to lock up 1 innocent man

 

[BullieBred]

the problem is yea in a perfect world it works, only the criminals get harassed but hey who cares their only criminals. The problem with that is, A.) our legal system is your innocent until proven guilty. B.) if you did that in reality innocent people would be harrassed and assulted by cops. Its not worth it. Like a previous post said its better to let 1000 guilty men go then to lock up 1 innocent man

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that people can / will make mistakes even if they witness a crime taking place right in front of them?
The only way that we as a society can be 100% sure that only the guilty are punished is by due process? No matter what crime has taken place, no matter how many people witnessed it, no matter how heinous it was, we can never condone people taking the law into their own hands and say give a suspect a beating? In other words you advocate for a fair trial 100% of the time? You cannot bear the thought of even 1 innocent person getting harmed? Correct?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that people can / will make mistakes even if they witness a crime taking place right in front of them?
The only way that we as a society can be 100% sure that only the guilty are punished is by due process? No matter what crime has taken place, no matter how many people witnessed it, no matter how heinous it was, we can never condone people taking the law into their own hands and say give a suspect a beating? In other words you advocate for a fair trial 100% of the time? You cannot bear the thought of even 1 innocent person getting harmed? Correct?

Are you for real?

 

[beaker]

Hey BullieBred. Are you actually Officer Harless?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[mark056]

How are other officers supposed to publically 'ostricize' bad cops. The union is legally obligated to defend the officer. At least in my case, I CAN NOT talk to the press without prior authorization regarding agency issues. So if I spoke up and said, yeah so and so is a legally challenged moron, I'd lose my job. Boy, I see that as great for the long term. I speak up and lose my job, a job I take seriously and don't do this kind of crap. They replace me and what's the chances of someone else being hired that performs at the level that I do?

No one expects a LEO to publicly ostracize another LEO. What they would expect is that at the very least any LEO seeing egregious behavior from another LEO, to use the chain of command and report it. Also too, if you are working with another LEO and the person does something against policy or procedure, then attempt to intervene. Of course this will never happen because nobody wants to be a "rat" and incur the negative peer pressure that will ensue. Report a brother officer could be a career ender, especially with all the nepotism that is rampant in police work esp in the Northeast. It's the Blue Wall. Also remember the Kenneth Cole case and how that went down.

 

[BullieBred]

Are you for real?

Hey Ed,
I am asking a question? I am not stating my opinion why do some people have such a hard time with reading comprehension around here? There is really only a few people around here Peter85 being one of them that are capable of reading what people write and then can apply their own independent thought to the issue. I asked Mike's opinion of the Prof. Gates incident and people thought I was trying to compare these two cases even though I wrote why I was asking that question.
We need more Peter85's and a little less groupthink around here.

 

[william_munny]

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that people can / will make mistakes even if they witness a crime taking place right in front of them?
The only way that we as a society can be 100% sure that only the guilty are punished is by due process? No matter what crime has taken place, no matter how many people witnessed it, no matter how heinous it was, we can never condone people taking the law into their own hands and say give a suspect a beating? In other words you advocate for a fair trial 100% of the time? You cannot bear the thought of even 1 innocent person getting harmed? Correct?

I can't speak for fitz, but I would agree with that. Cops should never take the law into their own hands. It's a breach of public trust.

 

[Jose]

what you are saying is that people can / will make mistakes even if they witness a crime taking place right in front of them?

Yes

The only way that we as a society can be 100% sure that only the guilty are punished is by due process?

There is no 100% foolproof way to make sure only the guilty are punished, but due process is the closest we have ever come.

No matter what crime has taken place, no matter how many people witnessed it, no matter how heinous it was, we can never condone people taking the law into their own hands and say give a suspect a beating?

Correct. And don't confuse self defense with street justice after the fact. They are not even in the same universe.

In other words you advocate for a fair trial 100% of the time?

Yes

You cannot bear the thought of even 1 innocent person getting harmed? Correct?

Correct. Compromise in that regard is offensive to freedom.

What else do you wish to learn?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that people can / will make mistakes even if they witness a crime taking place right in front of them?
The only way that we as a society can be 100% sure that only the guilty are punished is by due process? No matter what crime has taken place, no matter how many people witnessed it, no matter how heinous it was, we can never condone people taking the law into their own hands and say give a suspect a beating? In other words you advocate for a fair trial 100% of the time? You cannot bear the thought of even 1 innocent person getting harmed? Correct?

Hey Ed,
I am asking a question? I am not stating my opinion why do some people have such a hard time with reading comprehension around here? There is really only a few people around here Peter85 being one of them that are capable of reading what people write and then can apply their own independent thought to the issue. I asked Mike's opinion of the Prof. Gates incident and people thought I was trying to compare these two cases even though I wrote why I was asking that question.
We need more Peter85's and a little less groupthink around here.

Hey Bullie,
My post has nothing to do with your questions to Mike or Peter. It has to do with your insinuating, redundant questions about being guilty as long as it looks that way. Your attitude breads the thug mentality that we see in this, and MANY MANY more instances of cops doling out your street justice. We don't need more of anything around here, if you don't like what I have to say you can ignore it.