Contempt of Cop: Concealed Carry Division

In an article the good folks at Pajamas Media were kind enough to publish on July 16, I addressed the issue of police officers around the nation arresting and even beating citizens for lawfully photographing them as they go about their official, public duties. The following two paragraphs are from that article and apply directly to the subject of this post as well.

“Contempt of cop” is a play on words of the common legal term “contempt of court.” The latter refers to a judge holding someone responsible for conduct — usually in the courtroom — that is disrespectful or disruptive, that reflects blatant contempt for the law, the judge and his lawful authority. The former is similar. It refers to a cop’s reaction to the same kind of behavior by a citizen in their presence. In the best sense of the term, an officer’s attention will be attracted by someone who goes out of their way to irrationally and unnecessarily antagonize a police officer in a public setting. In such circumstances, it would be foolish for a police officer to allow that person to go unpunished lest their behavior encourage others to insult, even attack other officers.

Contempt of cop also applies to the worst instincts some police officers develop. In those cases, officers become “badge-heavy,” they begin to take matters personally. They become hypersensitive to any insult, real or imagined. They don’t consider the elements of the law, they take offense, act first and make up the rest later. Such officers are unpredictable and dangerous, not only to the public, but to their fellow officers who know that the bad will of the public is cumulative. Abuse the citizenry enough, and the officers who suffer for it — and some will suffer — will often be professionals, men and women of good will undeserving of their fates.

To this I would add one other simple fact of American policing: any and every rational officer must assume that any and every person with whom they have contact could be carrying a concealed weapon. This was so even in the years before most states allowed concealed carry, and since only Illinois does not allow it in any way, it remains an even sounder practice—even in Illinois. Most officers know that they will be speaking with people who are legally armed at any time. They also know that these people are thoroughly vetted by the state and are among the most law- abiding people in society. Every rational officer knows that they have less to fear from these people than almost any other class of citizens, and should have no surprise or anger when they do come into contact with them.

On June 8, 2011 in Canton, Ohio Officer Daniel Harless of the Canton Police Department was involved in one of the most egregious examples of Contempt of Cop I've ever seen. Go here for that article and video, and here for a related article. It was compounded in July by lawyer and Canton City Council President Allen Shulman who obviously has little respect for the Constitution, and less for anyone living outside Canton who dares to express an opinion. The links in this paragraph will take you to the police dash-cam footage of Officer Harless, and to the audio of Mr. Shulman's comments. Both speak, in many ways, for themselves.

The police video begins with Officer Harless stopping, in what is apparently a high-crime neighborhood, to investigate a parked car and three people. There is nothing obviously wrong with the officer's approach or his demeanor in speaking with the three people, one of who, apparently a known prostitute, is standing to the rear of the right side of the parked car. As he approaches, he orders the two people in the car to stay in the car. For the next five minutes he begins to threaten to jail everyone, yet there is no apparent violation of any law. He does not approach or directly speak to the driver until about 6:05 into the 17+ minute video. That's when the contempt of cop occurs, but not in the way a reasonable person might imagine.

Ordering the driver—William Bartlett--out of the car, Off. Harless begins aggressively questioning him (Bartlett immediately tried to tell Harless he was carrying a concealed weapon but Harless shut him off) and almost immediately accuses him of lying, despite there being no obvious evidence or indicator of deception. Within seconds, Bartlett tells Off. Harless that he has a concealed carry permit, and raises both of his hands. Harless immediately loses his temper and begins screaming at him. He grabs his right side—which Bartlett immediately tells him is his handgun, removes it, and another officer rushes over and handcuffs Bartlett, who is completely inoffensive, saying "yes sir" and "no sir" throughout the video despite being vilely insulted and repeatedly threatened by the officer.

Bartlett has clearly committed contempt of cop, apparently because he did not immediately inform Harless of his concealed carry status as required by Ohio law. Remember that Bartlett was obeying the orders of the officer to stay in his car, and that he did inform him within seconds of his first opportunity to speak with the officer. This obviously means nothing to the officer who is raging angry and screaming, calling Bartlett "stupid," and "an idiot," among other insults. Among the officer's early, screaming utterances:

"I could blast you right in the mouth!"

"I'm so close to caving in your goddamned head!"

"Talkin' to me with a fuckin' gun!"

"People like you don't deserve to move through fuckin' public; stupid idiot!"

Off. Harless aggressively grabs Bartlett by his handcuffs—officers know that this is painful and intimidating—and roughly jerks him back to his patrol car. It appears, from the sounds and from what is being said, that he is not gentle in putting Bartlett in the back of his patrol car, where he continues to loudly berate him.

At about 11:00 into the video, the dispatcher can be heard telling Harless that Bartlett has a concealed carry license. Harless did run his license plate earlier. It is not known why the dispatcher did not tell him this earlier.

Bartlett is still very polite, obviously afraid of Harless, who escalates to threatening to kill him, saying that he could have pulled out his "Glock 40" and shot him ten times. There was, of course, absolutely no justification for the use of deadly force. In fact, there was no justification for arresting Bartlett, but Harless continued:

"And he [referring to his fellow officer] would have been a nice witness as I executed you because you're stupid!"

For a time, Harless speaks to his fellow officer who appears to be trying to calm Harless down, and obviously remembers what Harless does not: they're being recorded. During the course of the incident, that officer does only what he must, being very quiet and engaging in no unprofessional conduct, and is careful not to turn his face toward the camera. Harless continues to loudly and angrily insult Bartlett, swearing broadly. Toward the end of the tape, he returns to Bartlett, threatens to charge him with felonies, and continues his tirade, threatening to harass him without cause whenever he sees him in the future:

"I'm going to pull that car over, tow it, and you’re going to jail every time."

This is one of the most badge-heavy officers I've ever had the misfortune to see. His actions and emotional state are far out of proportion to the situation. He allowed a completely non-threatening situation involving a very polite and cooperative citizen who was doing nothing more than exercising a fundamental Constitutional right and doing his best to obey Ohio law—which he did at the earliest reasonable opportunity—to send him into a dangerous and towering rage. He took personally what no officer should take personally.

Until Officer Harless lost control of himself, he was obviously behaving reasonably and professionally. It might have even been within the reasonable boundaries of professional discretion to handcuff Bartlett for the purpose of searching him for additional weapons, and perhaps even seating him in a patrol car only long enough to be sure that there were no outstanding warrants. If there were none, the reasonable thing to do would have been to explain, sincerely apologize and release him. However he compounded his grossly unprofessional behavior by arresting Bartlett, charging him with failing to tell him about his concealed carry permit, and with parking on the street. Clearly, he acted first and made up the charges later.

Many across the nation have called for the firing of Officer Harless. Based only on this incident, that would probably be excessive. If, however, Off. Harless has a history of such behavior firing might be warranted. If not, any responsible police supervisor or administrator should take great care to be certain that Off. Harless will never again behave so irrationally--for very obvious reasons--before allowing him to have contact with the public. The only good thing that can be said about his behavior in this incident is that he did not step over the line of overtly and brutally assaulting Bartlett—or worse. Even so, a false arrest is, in fact, an assault, as I suspect Off. Harless and the Canton PD will soon—to their dismay—discover. Anyone viewing the video might be forgiven for thinking that he was frequently very close to stepping over that line.

There is one additional issue that the Canton Chief of Police—or any police executive--should consider. With this video in the public domain, Off. Harless will be forever uniquely vulnerable to charges of harassment and abuse of his authority. Every police officer knows that some citizens, and unscrupulous attorneys, will lie about their actions, falsely accusing them of all manner of misconduct. Off. Harless has done something quite remarkable: created the presumption that he is out of control and abusive. Sadly, he has also tainted every professional police officer.

I should address two issues that Daniel Zimmerman at "The Truth About Guns" (the first link) slightly misstated. The brief search of the car depicted in the video was not obviously illegal. Officers do have the power to search vehicles under such circumstances for their protection, subject to some specific limitations. I was concerned that the officers did not remove the driver before conducting the search, as not only does the law allow this, but leaving anyone in a car you're searching is, to say the least, foolish and dangerous. In fact, had they removed the driver, he would almost certainly have informed them earlier that he was armed, though it's far from certain that Off. Harless would have reacted less explosively.

The other issue is that of Miranda. Simply being arrested is not a trigger for the reading of Miranda. Miranda applies only in cases of "custodial interrogation," which means that the person is under arrest and officers are questioning them with the goal of obtaining incriminating evidence. Even if officers don't mirandize under those situations, it means only that incriminating statements will usually be excluded from court. Miranda is not an automatic get out of jail free card.

Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm seems to be on the right track. He has suspended Harless, who has worked for the Canton PD for 14 years, and an investigation is being completed. Chief McKimm said:

“I think it’s important for citizens to understand that the behavior demonstrated on the video is wholly unacceptable, and it violates many of our rules, our regulations and standards we demand of our officers."

He also said:

“The city administration, in conjunction with the police department, recognizes the seriousness of this matter."

While the administration of the City of Canton may well recognize the seriousness of the issue, there appears to be considerable doubt in that regard about Canton City Council President Allen Shulman, who will almost certainly not be nominated for Chamber of Commerce business and tourism promotion awards for the foreseeable future. Those listening to his statement will likely hear what I heard: self-righteous indignation and arrogant condescension.

Mr. Schulman seems particularly incensed about three things:

(1) That anyone dare criticize Canton City government or any of its branches for its apparent slowness in dealing with this case.

(2) That anyone not a resident of Canton level any criticism or indeed, even venture an opinion.

(3) That any unwashed bumpkin be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, which as every civilized, enlightened being—such as Allen Schulman—knows will inevitably lead to chaos and mayhem.

But Mr. Schulman--who is a Democrat--is not against guns, no. He said:

"For those people who are going to say I am against guns, I am not against handguns, I’m not against people that hunt with weapons, but we all should believe in common sense, reasonable gun control laws that don’t allow this kind of thing to happen at 1:30 in the morning in a crime-ridden neighborhood with prostitution and drugs while we sit every week and listen to our citizens say, ‘we want to be protected.’

Well, we are being protected. And I know the police department and the safety director and the mayor will investigate this thoroughly. And that’s one of the benefits of having a video that allows our citizens some transparency as to what happens in these stops. But these laws are completely insane."

Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that everywhere concealed carry has been in effect—and that's most of America—violent crime has decreased and the kinds of shootouts and mayhem anti-gun advocates have predicted have simply failed to materialize. Concealed carry licensees are among the most law-abiding, responsible people in America. Considering that in order to received their licenses they must spend considerable time and money and be thoroughly vetted by the state, this is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that Mr. Schulman--attorney Schulman--is apparently unaware of this commonly known reality.

Consider too attorney Schulman's apparent inability to process logic. If given a choice about the best and most rational time and place in which to carry a concealed handgun, and those choices were: (A) In a crime-ridden neighborhood with prostitution and drugs at 1:30 in the morning, or (B) In a completely safe neighborhood at 1:30 in the afternoon, who would not choose "A"? Apparently Mr. Schulman would not. Mr. Schulman believes that the laws that allow honest citizens to carry concealed weapons "are completely insane." He also believes that the people of Canton, OH are "being protected." Again, Lawyer Schulman apparently does not know that the police have no legal duty or obligation to protect any individual citizen (US Supreme Court: Castlerock v. Gonzales), or perhaps he simply doesn't want the citizens of Canton to know that.

Given the opportunity to speak for the City of Canton, Mr. Schulman does not address the actual issues, he does not reassure the citizenry that they have nothing to fear from their police force, but takes the opportunity to berate citizens who dared to contact an elected official to express their concerns, and engaged in an anti-Constitution, anti-gun tirade. I suspect that a great many Americans would believe that it is Mr. Schulman's thinking and those who mirror that way of thinking that is "completely insane." I also suspect that enough citizens of Canton, OH might share my suspicion to see that Mr. Schulman is denied further opportunities to embarrass their fair city at the next electoral opportunity.

I will, by the way, as a public service, and no doubt, to greatly annoy Mr. Schulman, send him a link to this article. Should he respond, I'll be happy to print his response in its entirety.

There are a number of lessons inherent in this sorry situation. It remains to be seen whether they are taken to heart. They are:

(1) Such notification laws are of no practical use. Not only do they not protect police officers, but they allow out of control officers like Daniel Harless protected means of harassing the law abiding. Any competent officer should assume that anyone with whom they interact could be armed. In addition, computer records should indicate any citizen with a state issued license.

(2) In cases like this where it is more than obvious that the officers involved exceeded their lawful authority, all charges against those they mistreated should be immediately dropped by the prosecutor involved. That has apparently not yet been done in this case. There is no excuse for causing innocent citizens falsely arrested to go through the trouble and expense of having to go before a judge—even for arraignment—for the charges to be dropped.

(3) Politicians should follow Abraham Lincoln's advice: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."