Fired Officer Could Get Job Back

[dep190]

 I donbt want to see any officer loose their job however Our local Policer officer made famous by his UTUBE video dealing with an armed citizen exercising his constitutional rights    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
May be coming back to work in Canton Ohio because of an arbitraitors rulling



http://fox8.com/2012/11/14/fired-officer-could-get-job-back/

[pokeshell]

Just wow.

[bdhutier]

What a D-bag... Gives us all a bad name. 

[soupbone]

 

"His attorney tells Fox 8 that Harless will need medical clearance from a doctor before he can return to work."

How about a complete psychological workup [and clearance] before he can return, followed by some quality time with a trained and certified FTO [Field Training Officer].

As a former AF Security Police Officer, I would not want this man working for me or anywhere near me - couldn't trust him.

soupbone

[bdhutier]

... I would not want this man working for me or anywhere near me - couldn't trust him.

And worse, if fellow LEOs can't trust him, where does that leave the public??   

[trekker111]

What a D-bag... Gives us all a bad name. 

My thoughts exactly.

[soupbone]

And worse, if fellow LEOs can't trust him, where does that leave the public??   

Screwed - and at the mercy of an unstable bully. Oh, and for the record, I did spend a couple of years working as a street cop [and FTO] in the projects, so I don't buy the 'You don't know what it's like out there........' arguments.

soupbone

[blademan]

First,
 I would like to thank all the LEO's who commented on this for the appropriate nature of those comments.
   Second,
    That guy. Wow. What a disgrace to humanity. I have to agree with soupbone that the "you don't know what its like out there" arguments don't apply. The only theoretcial danger those officers were in was caused by failing to follow procedure (or I should say common sense, as I have law enforcement experience but am not familiar with their departments procedures) they guy was in the car with the officer who was not really in the best position to defend himself should the guy have decided to do something bad. He did try to notify and was not allowed to. Short of falling out of the car onto the pavement with his hands on his head and feet crossed shouting I have a ccw, I have a ccw, I have a ccw! There was nothing more this guy could have done. And unfortunately, doing that would have probably ended him.
    I don't think the problems this guy has can be solved with a fto, you can train procedure and protocol all day, and this guy and his partner could benefit greatly from that.  What is much harder to train is how to be a decent person. I hope this guy gets help and I wish him well, I just wish him well somewhere other than behind a badge. I wouldn't want this guy to be a crossing guard. For ducks.

[NassPrep]

So what the department is saying, is that this sort of behavior is OKAY. How despicable. These activities are becoming all to normal.

[soupbone]

From blademan: "The only theoretcial danger those officers were in was caused by failing to follow procedure..."

Sir, I respectfully have to disagree. The danger these fellow officers were in are far greater than that. Being overly aggressive  and mouthy is not being assertive [as an officer in this situation MUST be] but can often escalate a tense situation and turn it dangerous. The subject - suspect, perp, or whatever you wish to call him - could be pushed to a point where he snaps and does something really, really stupid. I've seen that happen before, and it's not pleasant for anyone involved - unless you and four other guys get a kick out of wrasslin' some poor guy 'off his meds' to get 'cuffs on him and get him into the car for a trip to the hospital. (The gal I was backing up on the call and I almost had him ready to accept the 'cuffs, when "the mouth" showed up and the shit hit the fan.)

Blade, I agree that the problem won't [and probably can't] be solved with an FTO - it's just that I would want to place as many obstacles between this guy and the street as possible. Hopefully, the guy will screw up enough to be deemed unsuitable for the job - and his screw-ups will be documented by competent people to justify his termination.

soup   

[blademan]

Soup, your comments are totally correct and based on experience and I resepect that. Totally and understand them from both being in similar situations just general life where something turned out a lot worse than it had to because someone couldn't either choose their words more carefully or just keep their mouth shut.  I have more training in law enforcement than I have actual experience so I draw upon that when I comment on these things. Let me explain the reason I said what I said the way I said it. And I'm not arguing with you at all just clarifying what I meant.
    The reason why I said the only theoretcial danger the officers were in was from not following procedure...
   I say theoretical (perhaps potential danger would have been more correct), because they in fact gave this guy every opportunity to shoot one or both of them by their lack of following procedure. He had a gun. Was possibly engaging in illegal activity and was being handled by two intimidating and agressive armed officers. He possibly did attempt to notify but obeyed what he was told to do. Which was shut up and not move. The actuality of the situation was that regardless of whatever else the guy was doing, he was cooler headed and less agressive and violent than the two large, trained, coordinated and armed officers who were abusing him. Hi didn't resist or attempt to agress the officers in any way. That is what leads me to say the only danger they were in was the danger they created by not following procedure and was potential rather than actual because they gave the guy both reason and opportunity to do something bad and he didn't so I conclude that he also wouldn't have if they had followed procedure in the manner you described above. It doesn't prove it, I realize that, its logical assumption that if he didn't freak out under stress while still being able to maintain a cool head,  he probably wouldn't have under less stress. He still could have though so its not the only danger they were in, but reviewing the situation makes it clear the biggest danger they were actually in was of their own making by being totally careless in their custody of those people. There were backs turned and aattention averted from the guy with the guy several times. These created more possible danger than anything else aside from the fact that the guy was armed. That is the biggest potential and actual danger they faced. The magnified this danger several fold in my opinion.
  Again soup, thanks for the well thought out and respectful response. My original comment were from a perspective of what could have happened and what actually happend and how well it turned out in spite of the officers mishandeling of the situation, surmising that it probably wouldn't have turned out worse if they had handled it better. I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with your comments.

[soupbone]

You are quite welcome, blademan. I think we were expressing the same idea but in different ways.

stay safe,

soup

[blademan]

I think so too. What, if anything, if you know, happened with the officer conducting that very unsafe search of the vehicle? Did he receive some agressive retraining in officer safety? And the greater importance of making sure he and his parnter both get to clock out over making a bust for some contraband.
   Stay safe yourself sir!

[Kilroy]

Communities get the law enforcement that they want.  Either through knowledgeable participation or apathy.  If this clown made the case that his training did not cover this, officer safety, etc., perhaps even something medical, then it is likely the union can make a case for his job.  Using an FTO (Field Training Officer) is based on evaluation and less likely to fix a problem like this.  The Community Oriented Policing model of PTO (Police Training Officer) would be a much better fix.

Sadly, few in their community really care about this issue.  Not enough to make the agency respond appropriately.  Complain about the cop all you like, but to be effective, make it important to the guy who appoints the cop's boss.  Fire the city administration and replace them because of this issue and you may see a different result.

As it is, some of this guy's co-workers have learned from it, probably in other agencies as well.

Effective complaints need to be accurately placed.  Anything else is noise that fails to satisfy anyone.

[blademan]

Your basic concept is sound kilroy, but its just not as simple as that. Besides firing the administrators for this isn't a guaranteed solution. I'm not saying that there aren't administrative types out there that would be more useful and less dangerous sweeping streets with a broom or flipping burgers somewhere, but holding someone 6 levels up and completely disengaged from the situation at hand is not the answer. This is a departmental training, policy and cultural issue.
   Honestly, it shouldn't matter what the training is like unless the training is in fact to treat people like this, this officers actions were his own and he is responsible for them. He chose to act like this, it was not instinct or reflex, it was a choice. It may have been a conditioned attitude, but he chose his actions, words, and chose to ignore basic safety procedures.
   There is no sensible technical reason that this officer should be given a badge and a gun and authority again. If the training and departmental policy is really at fault, this doesn't lessen the officers responsibility one iota. I'm not saying that he won't get his job back. Just that he shouldn't and that any decision to give him his job back is based on bunk thinking.
      You are a person and an officer is what you do not who you are. If his training was such that he learned this behavior and its the stardard of behavior, he is responsible for the actions he takes and responsible for agreeing to conduct himself in such a way. "Everyone else is doing it" or "that's how I was trained" is unacceptable to me in this situation.

[Kilroy]

Your basic concept is sound kilroy, but its just not as simple as that. Besides firing the administrators for this isn't a guaranteed solution.

Didn't say it was a guaranteed solution.  Too many folks will stand back and complain, wring hands and pontificate, and then fail to become involved in the process of changing that status quo.

I'm not saying that there aren't administrative types out there that would be more useful and less dangerous sweeping streets with a broom or flipping burgers somewhere, but holding someone 6 levels up and completely disengaged from the situation at hand is not the answer.

I'd strongly disagree.  This is an agency problem that this guy is on the street.  He was tolerated and it is not the only thing in his background that should have been a warning sign.  Thank a strong police union for standing behind him.  This sort of thing stems from the top down, to let it pass, or to change the culture.

Honestly, it shouldn't matter what the training is like...

I have a "bit" of experience in this field and it certainly stems from training.  I've seen some very large agencies do a 180 turnaround because of the training their folks were not getting.  It also speaks of a management philosophy, closely related to that training.

 unless the training is in fact to treat people like this, this officers actions were his own and he is responsible for them. He chose to act like this, it was not instinct or reflex, it was a choice. It may have been a conditioned attitude, but he chose his actions, words, and chose to ignore basic safety procedures.

All tolerated by his administration in kind or degree.

   There is no sensible technical reason that this officer should be given a badge and a gun and authority again. If the training and departmental policy is really at fault, this doesn't lessen the officers responsibility one iota. I'm not saying that he won't get his job back. Just that he shouldn't and that any decision to give him his job back is based on bunk thinking.
 
Speaking as a cop, he needs another line of work

... he is responsible for the actions he takes and responsible for agreeing to conduct himself in such a way. "Everyone else is doing it" or "that's how I was trained" is unacceptable to me in this situation. 

I wouldn't stand for it and allow his agency and administration to get by with his conduct.

Concealed carry changed across the nation when enough people took an interest.  Once a privilege reserved for Chief Law Enforcement Officers to determine, it is mostly a 'shall issue' matter now.  Don't settle for poor law enforcement and don't get lost in focusing on a symptom, one cop, for the systemic wide problems of an agency

[blademan]

Kilroy,
   I agree with you in principle. I am not familiar with the general situation in canton. I am speaking generally from what I saw in the video of that situation. Even firing him for his conduct doesn't solve the problem. What happend happened. Firing does ensure that HE doesn't do this again as a police officer. I can't speak of anything towards a solution or resolution or satisfaction of the unfortunate citizen he abused. That's not a matter for me to comment on in the scope of the subject of this thread.
   Now, as far as this being a chronic problem in canton or anywhere else, I agree with you that it is a people problem. If you have people in positions of power at any level who tolerate, encouraage, and train this sort of behavior and protect those who choose to behave that way from the consequences of their actions, you are absolutely correct, they should not be tolerated by the general citizenry. And you are right the problem is greatly a result of people who either have fleeting feelings of indignation when they hear of something like this but a few minutes later they think, "oh, well it doesn't effect me directly, what can I do?" And forget about it.
   The other part is that good officers do the same thing. They don't act, they don't ostracize officers that do this. They don't enforce the law on the cops who do this kind of thing.
    Now that's not to say that some don't. I'm sure some do. Its obvious that not enough are.   
If this had been a private citizen who acted like this, he would have had an entire book of charges to answer for. That's just if you ignored the trouble he would get in for interfering to begin with.     
     I agree with you and forward your point that its not just a problem cop, department, or even a city, county or state problem. Its a combination of those, but ultimately you are right this comes from the top down. The public is the top, all police officers and officials, and elected persons come from and are accountable to the public. If we fail to meaningfully and consistently hold them accountable for negligence or malicious conduct and accepting meaningless half measures and non solutions to situations like this, then the problem will continue and get worse. Its active and dynamic problem which requires a solution which is also.

[Veritas]

So what the department is saying, is that this sort of behavior is OKAY. How despicable. These activities are becoming all to normal.

I don't think the department is saying that at all. The headline is "Fired Officer Could Get Job Back". The department apparently fired this Officer. From the looks of it he filed a lawsuit or appealed the firing and it went to an arbitrator or mediator. If they ruled in his favor, the department had no choice but to let him come back. I don't like what he did and agree he should have been fired along with the Officer on scene who allowed him to behave like he did. However, it doesn't appear that the Police Department will have a choice whether or not he gets his job back.