And about that "on camera" part. That was the squad car's dashcam. Officer Harless, in other words, knew about it--he wasn't being surreptitiously recorded, like the not-quite-equally-thuggish police officers in Philadelphia. If he knew about it, and did it anyway, he apparently didn't expect to get in trouble over it. It turns out he was wrong (although not wrong enough), but what does it say about more general attitudes in that department, that he could be anything less than positive that such behavior is utterly unacceptable? Also, what do incidents like this one (and the Philadelphia one) say about some jurisdictions' laws against making audio/video recordings of police officers? What are they trying to hide? [More]That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.
Stumble it!
2 comments:
According to MArooned (http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-more-shocking-news.html), " Canton’s internal affairs unit has investigated 16 complaints involving Harless dating back to 2000.
" He was reprimanded in one 2003 case. Harless and another officer were exonerated of using excessive force, but were given a letter of reprimand for not activating the in-car video camera at the scene per department policy."
11 years, 16 IA investigations.
Thanks for the info. A busy little thug, I see.
Post a Comment