Fired Canton, Ohio Patrolman Daniel Harless MIGHT Get His Job Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
weblance

weblance

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
912
Interesting. The ruling says that his atrocious behavior is due to PTSD and that his employer, thus, did not have grounds to fire him. That's rather astonishing to read. In essence, what is almost certainly criminal conduct is NOT grounds for firing if you couldn't help it.

In other words, what the officer does is excused by who he is (i.e. what condition he suffers from).

I would hope to see at least a reassignment to a desk job if the department is forced to take him back.
 
Wow....

Clearly his "disability" hampers his performance on the job. That should be grounds for letting him go.
 
"Gun related?" It is concealed carry related, since the officer in question was threatening to execute concealed weapon carriers. It was discussed here when it happened, as per the link in post #1.
 
It's very, very difficult to fire police officers. Something to keep in mind if you have a mind of threatening one with a report to his boss--he probably won't care.
 
Well, the real question is does the finding of the arbitrator somehow signal that his treatment of a licensed firearms carrier (or any citizen) was appropriate or acceptable?

The Employer's statements in justifying their firing seem to say exactly the sorts of things we all have said -- that Harless' actions were completely unacceptable and violated department rules and policies. They say that "As Officer Harless has lost the confidence of the City due to his behavior he should not be restored to its rolls."

The union representing him agrees that "Officer Harless was verbally abusive to Mr. Bartlett..." Ironically, one of their arguments against his firing is that his partner, Diels, "has been convicted of criminal misconduct," but remains employed! That's a pretty sad statement right there!

The finding is limited to restoring Harless to the rolls of employees of the Department, but concludes "Return to active service, if ever, is to be determined by a competent medical authority." (Emphasis mine.)

That's not as fulfilling as having him fired forever, or jailed or whatever other punishments we might like. But at least there in the public record the City is stating their rejection of such treatment of any citizen (including in this case, one being arrested at the time).
 
No. Read the decision. Heck, read the article. That's spelled out -- he's due no back pay at all.
 
“Return to active service, if ever, is to be determined by competent medical authority,”

A couple of points here;

It is a mighty big "if ever". What Doctor is going to be willing to stick his neck and career out?

Second I wonder if this isn't a way for the Officer to get a medical retirement which he would not be eligible for if he was terminated for cause?
 
You get stopped, then keep your mouth shut. You will never win an arguement with a cop. Your phone's video is your best friend. Then you can pay some lawyer $25k to sue the city.

Be cooperative and answer in simple 'Yes' or 'No'.
 
Soo....gun related?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is a matter of police officers dealing appropriately or not with armed citizens, and what the official policies are and aren't regarding officers who act negatively.

So, for now, yes it is gun related.
 
I take it Canton PD didn't get the "at will employement" memo sent to them? You don't even have to have a reason to fire anyone in Ohio, must be a union thing...
 
Except it's not really about that. It's about the proceedings dealing with him getting his job back.

Almost none of the posts in this thread even talk about concealed carry and dealing with police. At the time I write this, there are 18 posts in this thread and all of them are talking about police being considered above the law, his possible back pay, the terms of his mental illness and what it has to do with the court case, a decent amount of rage regarding how hard it is to fire police, etc.

So are we talking about concealed carry here? Or are we just going to discuss police department rehiring practices? I'm fine with either, but the forum does purport to have a strict policy regarding discussing actual guns, not just news stories in which one or more of the people had a gun on them at some point.

No offense, Sam199, but you're not even talking about guns. Your 3 posts are concerning his possible back pay, PTSD, and whether or not he should be rehired.
 
Last edited:
And now we're arguing about whether you think we should be discussing this?

I think it is a look into how the city actually (claims to) perceive his actions toward a lawful carrier. If you don't find that worth looking at, please feel free to peruse other threads.
 
OP (or mod): change the dang thread title to read that "it's POSSIBLE Harless could get his job back IF some doctor some day certifies he's medical (mentally) cleared."

And no, this thread in and of itself isn't gun-related; spin it any way you want, it's just about a fired psycho cop's arbitration hearing results.

Guarantee this thread will spin totally out of control within another day ... But if that's what THR wants -- more us vs. them whining sessions, let's roll ...
 
Ragnar Danneskjold said:
Except it's not really about that. It's about the proceedings dealing with him getting his job back.

Almost none of the posts in this thread even talk about concealed carry and dealing with police. At the time I write this, there are 18 posts in this thread and all of them are talking about police being considered above the law, his possible back pay, the terms of his mental illness and what it has to do with the court case, a decent amount of rage regarding how hard it is to fire police, etc.

So are we talking about concealed carry here? Or are we just going to discuss police department rehiring practices? I'm fine with either, but the forum does purport to have a strict policy regarding discussing actual guns, not just news stories in which one or more of the people had a gun on them at some point.

No offense, Sam199, but you're not even talking about guns. Your 3 posts are concerning his possible back pay, PTSD, and whether or not he should be rehired.
Click to expand...

It is unwise to goad the Mods. I am sure that they'll not let this get too far out of hand.

Sam1911 said:
Interesting. The ruling says that his atrocious behavior is due to PTSD and that his employer, thus, did not have grounds to fire him. That's rather astonishing to read. In essence, what is almost certainly criminal conduct is NOT grounds for firing if you couldn't help it.

In other words, what the officer does is excused by who he is (i.e. what condition he suffers from).

I would hope to see at least a reassignment to a desk job if the department is forced to take him back.
Click to expand...

If Harless is found to be fit to return to active service by a competent medical authority, he can return to duty on the street- no restrictions. There is no degree of "fitness for duty", he either is or isn't "fit"- there is no gradation of fitness.

In all likelihood, Harless is looking for the ability to retire under disability and this process is simply prelude to that endeavor.
 
It's just interesting which threads are allowed to be non-gun related and which are closed based on the content and the agenda of those involved.

But since I'm not a Mod and thus the Code of Conduct "house rules" do apply to me, I'm leaving this thread as my own posts in this aren't even gun related.
 
I'll add a note in closing: We very often advise folks that if they feel they're being treated unfairly or improperly by a law officer in an official interaction not to resist, to remain polite and compliant (up to the point of not consenting to searches, which is not resisting the officer) -- and to let the dashcam be your witness as you file an official complaint and follow it up with legal action if necessary.

We've used the Harless situation as a prime example of what the results of such complaints and actions may be as the citizen seeks some redress of wrongs.

I think it is totally legitimate for folks to follow and understand the ultimate outcomes of this case (and others like it) to get a deeper view into how effective such actions may prove to be.

Perhaps as Frank suggests, we can't find much to discuss about it (and we won't host a cop-bashing thread out of frustration) -- but I do believe we should follow the matter and take note of how it plays out.

I think our Legal forum, where we "Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. [And] Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership ..." is the appropriate place to do so.

Perhaps when the final medical authority's pronouncement is handed down regarding full reinstatement we can simply tack that onto this thread to complete the record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

weblance
  • Locked
Canton Ohio, Daniel Harless Has been Fired
Replies
16
Views
1K
TexasRifleman
T
weblance
  • Locked
Canton Ohio Police Officer Daniel Harless Final Decision
Replies
13
Views
3K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
D
  • Locked
Welcome to Citrus County, FL: We’ll shoot you in the back
Replies
7
Views
1K
Al Thompson
A
T
  • Locked
Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits
2 3
Replies
64
Views
5K
SleazyRider
S
C
  • Locked
Ohio: "Concealed weapons bill back, with court ruling pending"
Replies
10
Views
618
444
4
Back
Top