Jackson Free Press

WLBT is reporting, and showing video of, police officers punching an 18-year-old accused of car thefts and burglaries while he was in handcuffs:

It all ended with Michael Black in custody, but, while he was in handcuffs, Black was met with numerous punches from officers. In the video, you can see one punch to the stomach, another to the face, and one more as Black was put in the car.

"There was one officer that was injured in that chase,” said Bell. “I believe his hand was broken."

Police could not confirm if that officer's injury was from punching Michael Black.

Only a coward would beat someone while in handcuffs. Can we expect to hear about dismissals, and charges, being filed against the police "thugs" by the end of today?

Good reporting by WLBT.

Previous Comments

ID

173153

Comment

i expect charges the police should be held accountable as an ordinary citizen is held accountable, we have a crime problem, i think its in the police department. What drives an officer to punch a suspected criminal after apprehension of that suspect, i guess they where mad he made them run.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-27T14:34:36-06:00

ID

173154

Comment

Donna, you are right. It takes courage to report these kind of things when crime seems to be increasing. Some will just excuse the officers for being "over-worked", "under pressure" and just plain "stressed out." There is no excuse for abuse of power, especially when you are placed in a position to serve and protect.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-04-27T14:35:19-06:00

ID

173155

Comment

That is so true. I said earlier I would investigate, when ladd put comments by someone who wanted to know why the young man arrested was punched three times. I am a little 'off' today as I commented before and didn't realize they were talking about the arrests made yesterday. (It's been a long week) It makes no sense that the young man was hit like that, while in hancuffs. Police do things like that. I've witnessed a police slap someone already in handcuffs on the ground, and I must say this is the exact reason why I despise police, even though I know their job is to make the streets safer. This is where the police training should come in but doesn't. When people are high off adrenaline there's not telling what can happen or what they will do. Whom ever hit that kid should definitely be held accountable. "i guess they where mad he made them run." WILLman wrote they forget that is what they are paid and trained for, not all criminals are going to just willing give themselves up.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-27T15:49:21-06:00

ID

173156

Comment

You people are being ignorant and misguided by what you believe to be a coherent and civilized society. What the police deal with everyday are humans who have little regard for anyone that is not "them". They are desensitized to remorse. pain, love, etc. It's people like Willman and ca webb who expect policemen to get cats out of trees and remove cars from yards, that allow scum like this to be looked at as unfortunate children with no other alternatives in life. Bull...Put the fear in these fools. Perhaps they may prefer life over death someday.

Author

tprime

Date

2006-04-27T16:34:09-06:00

ID

173157

Comment

Initially, I was concerned why it took what looked to be the entire JPD SWAT team to apprehend an 18 year old car theft subject. Not car jacking subject but car theft. I understand that he hid in the house when they came and as an officer, you don't know if he has a gun. But all of those SWAT guys? I'm sure that he was terrified to come out of the house. As I sat watching it unfold, I was pretty sure that the suspect would be shot on the spot. I'm glad that it ended with a living suspect and I hope that some lawyer is salivating at the prospect of representing him on police brutality charges.

Author

urbangypsy

Date

2006-04-27T16:37:41-06:00

ID

173158

Comment

Sorry- suspect-not subject...Meds clearly not working today.

Author

urbangypsy

Date

2006-04-27T16:51:58-06:00

ID

173159

Comment

YEEJA, if we needed national attention we're going to get it.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-04-27T16:55:01-06:00

ID

173160

Comment

I feel compelled to respond! I do not agree with the actions of the police officer, nor do I believe he/she should not be reprimanded, suspended, etc. I DO know that in some cases, all the facts are not fully reported regarding what lead up to a situation arising. I don't believe that is the case in this situation, and there is NEVER a justification for stricking anyone who is detained (handcuffed). Unfortunantly, I must say.....what do we expect? Our city leader (FM) is running rampant through our city acting in a manner that is NOT law abiding! He is portraying himself in a manner that depict's his being a law enforcement officer....HE IS NOT. If I drive around town with a shirt barring the word POLICE, I am breaking the law and portraying myself as a law enforcement officer. If I make slanderous comments in the media toward an individual...I am subject to a law suit! Etc., Etc. So what accountability do our law enforcement officer have? If they follow in the foot steps of our mayor, then they are essentially without reprimand or censure. The old saying.....S&%T rolls down hill, is actually relevant in this. FM's behavior and lawlessness facilitates our law enforcement officers believing there are not boundaries to their behavior. In a civilized society, we are shocked at the behavior of these officers by their portrayal of having lost sensitivity, understanding or respect for another human. But are we really that shocked? They (police officers) are following in the steps of their leaders - Wyatt Earp style policing!

Author

Katie D

Date

2006-04-27T17:07:07-06:00

ID

173161

Comment

I'd like to respond to UrbanGypsy's comment. The last time a JPD officer accosted a juvenile car thief he was gunned down in the middle of Ellis Avenue. I think the SWAT was a good call. Hitting him while he was cuffed was a bad idea and somebody needs to loose his job for that. Uncuffing him and then hitting him would have been a better idea. Like in Lethal Weapon.

Author

The Red Baron

Date

2006-04-27T17:23:36-06:00

ID

173162

Comment

I'm not passing judgement on the SWAT team at this point. But there is nothing "ignorant and misguided" about having zero tolerance for punching anyone in handcuffs. It doesn't what led up to that point. In fact, it's "ignorant and misguided to try to make excuses for it, and the fact that police are "ignorant and misguided" enough to commit such cowardly violence is evidence that we do not live in a "coherent and civilized society." And, tprime, there is nothing about your post that indicates that you have any idea what you're talking about. You are no better than anyone else, even the people you believe are the "fools." Don't forget it. It sounds to me like we need to turn the "thug" volume down a bit. My prediction has always been that all of Melton's swashbuckling for the media could raise the level of police violence in this city -- "leadership" means setting an example from the top, and the example of late for the police is pretty scary. And it's going to be costly when we start paying out the lawsuits.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-27T18:19:05-06:00

ID

173163

Comment

So this is all the police are saying? Where is Chief Anderson in front of the cameras declaring zero tolerance for police violence on her staff? She's got a lot at stake here: WLBT: "Right now we're looking into it. It's a personnel matter and internal affairs is not allowed to discuss personnel matters outside the police department," said Tim Corbitt, a member of JPD's internal affairs division. When Michael Black arrived at the police department, he was very vocal about not wanting to appear on camera. One of the juvenile suspects threatened disgusting behavior if he was videotaped. And it's really too bad that WLBT is identifying the names of juvenile suspects. That's unconscionable.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-27T18:24:11-06:00

ID

173164

Comment

Yeah, what is it about identifying juvenile suspects? That's really scary stuff. I can't believe they'd do this if we were talking about rich white kids here. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-27T19:14:10-06:00

ID

173165

Comment

And it's really too bad that WLBT is identifying the names of juvenile suspects. That's unconscionable. Wait, did I miss something? I only saw the name of the 18-year old listed in the news story, and last time I checked I thought an 18-year old is an adult in legal terms.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-27T19:35:06-06:00

ID

173166

Comment

That was the first story, ejeff. The current story names a 16-year-old. There is no reason to do that, and I'm not going to link to it out of protest. I'm glad they broke the story, but there is no reason for this.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-27T19:40:04-06:00

ID

173167

Comment

You know, one thing that's interesting is that both Melton and Donelson talked to me in interviews about police violence against young black men.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-27T19:55:16-06:00

ID

173168

Comment

Wow, apparently the presumption of innocence does not apply to police officers. I would have expected posters here to be as vocal an advocate for "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to these officers as they have been for Mr. Donelson and Justice Diaz. FYI Chief Anderson was at the local COPS meeting supporting the community. RNH.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-04-27T20:31:31-06:00

ID

173169

Comment

Niles, there is a *video* of police officers beating a man in handcuffs. There is simply no excuse -- unless the video was doctored, which I do not believe. It's amazing how quick some of you are to forget the very American rights against such abuse -- at least for young men you perceive to be less than you somehow. Good to hear the chief was there. Did she speak about the beating? You don't support the community by going easy on police violence. Please don't tell me that no one there cared enough about it to ask her for a response. I just don't need to know that.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-27T20:34:50-06:00

ID

173170

Comment

The officer may have went a step too far in punching the thug, but I'd bet anything they had their reasons. I can't believe that Ms Ladd and others have such comtempt for the police when they actually did a decent job on this one except for punching the thug at the end. Also, what is wrong with telling the juveviles names? If they are old enough to do the crime well then they are old enough for the public to know their names. I mean these three guys are suspected in care thefts and break ins of people'e home. If they grown up enough to take things that don't belong to them then they are old enough to be known.

Author

CentralMSDawg

Date

2006-04-27T21:10:46-06:00

ID

173171

Comment

I for one had no idea what had happened since I went straight to the meeting after work and had not seen the news so your moral approbation falls a little wide. Some of us don't actually "do" the media for a living. Chief Anderson made reference to dealing with a large problem and, in retrospect, that seems likely what she was referring to. Sigh, what the hell is this paragraph about Donna? Who is "some of you" Donna, because I missed the part of my post where I made any reference to anyone being less than anyone else. Oh, my bad, I did, in fact, actually disagree with your position, and now am treated to a diatribe about "young men you perceive to be less than you somehow." How do you know that? Based on what? Who? Me? or just some nebulous "some or you". Thats the language of bigotry. I'll try to rise to your enlightened standard in the future, really. In the meantime, perhaps you should ask me if I actually think that way before simply making an immediate value judgment. At any rate, what I was saying is why not let the system work bit (i.e. a day or so) before immediately assuming 1) its a racial thing and 2) these officers are immediately guilty. You often complain about kneejerk reactions, and this seems to be a classic one. We saw it on tape, they are guilty, so lets discuss how bad they were. Not the usual attention to detail and desire to get into the weeds on an issue which I would normally see here. I agree, it looks damning. Almost as damning as a marine shooting an apparently wounded man in a mosque, or someone smacking some truck driver in the head with a brick, or a bloody glove or any other "watertight and irrefutable" evidence. I was just suggesting that you apply the same enlightened restraint with regard to these police officers that I have seen applied to other accused persons around here lately. RNH

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-04-27T21:16:01-06:00

ID

173172

Comment

Yeah, what is it about identifying juvenile suspects? That's really scary stuff. I can't believe they'd do this if we were talking about rich white kids here. TH Aw heck, Tom, if these were rich white kids this wouldn't even have appeared as a news story. That was the first story, ejeff. The current story names a 16-year-old. There is no reason to do that, and I'm not going to link to it out of protest. I'm glad they broke the story, but there is no reason for this. Ladd I see. Understood. The officer may have went a step too far in punching the thug, but I'd bet anything they had their reasons. I can't believe that Ms Ladd and others have such comtempt for the police when they actually did a decent job on this one except for punching the thug at the end.CMD Y'know, as much as I believe in sending a message to criminals, I'm not sure that hitting a perp when he's handcuffed counts as acceptable police procedure, dude. Shame on JPD. They are making it that much easier for Faye to get these guys off.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-27T21:23:31-06:00

ID

173173

Comment

CentralMSDawg, Do you know they did it though? I think the point of withholding juvenile names is that the juvenile system is supposed to have a rehabilitative element. Isn't there a legal prohibition on reporting juvenile offenders, anyone? RNH.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-04-27T21:27:02-06:00

ID

173174

Comment

Sorry folk, looks like the majority of WLBT viewers disagree with this board. WLBT web poll found that 71% of view Did Not think the JPD used excessive force on Michael Black while only 20% Did. Don't forget this is the station that actually showed the punches being thrown. Also, let's not forget the victims of the crimes this guy commited. I'd bet they like to get a few punches in on the guy too. Why do a lot of people on here want to make the victims and police out to be the bad guys? There is no telling what Black was saying to the officers or what kind of threats he was making to them. Mabye this will send a message to other criminals that the police will kick your arse if you get caught. If the DA isn't going to properly prosecute criminals then all we have left is the police.

Author

CentralMSDawg

Date

2006-04-27T22:12:56-06:00

ID

173175

Comment

CMD, I got no problem with sending a message to the criminals not to f%@& with the police. And I'm sure that the victims of this guys criminal spree are probably shouting 'way to go' at the cops who took a shot at this kid. But in an era where criminals and their defense attorneys are quick to point out just these kinds of errors and abuses in police procedure in order to get their clients off on technicalities, I think police officers should always be aware of how their tactics can be perceived and used against them. I feel little sympathy for this guy, other than the sad, stereotypical message of seeing yet another young black male trotted out on the nightly news and added to the ever growing ranks of criminal justice system instead of being a contributing member to this society. But it's also a life he chooses, judging by his rap sheet, and he deserves to be punished. It also doesn't let the officers, who I agree did a great job of capturing all of the suspects without a loss of life, off the hook for getting out of line while placing Black in custody. It doesn't take much of an adrenaline rush for a small punch in the stomach by an angry officer to escalate into a Rodney King style beating. And we really don't need that.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-27T22:40:10-06:00

ID

173176

Comment

Oh wait, I should have said "the victims of this guys' ALLEGED criminal spree." Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-27T22:43:35-06:00

ID

173177

Comment

ALL who say something to justify the cops are wrong Iam the one who emailed donna about this, and asked her to start a forum, not on the young mans guilt, the courts will decide that. iam talking about the cops punching him. i stay in south jackson. the cops are weak that punched the young man, two wrongs dont make a right. so stop making excuses for the cops thats what they go to the training academy for. this is not the courts, this is a forum on the weak cops.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-27T23:39:04-06:00

ID

173178

Comment

I'm sure the Pollers all love to see a little retribution "pay back" for his laundry list criminal record. But the problem is the police are suppose to enforce laws, not dispense punishment. Only to subdue an uncontrolled combatant should force be used, not to dispense retribution. The policemen appears to be trying to "teach him a lesson," as the handcuffed fellow appears under control. Call it machismo adrenaline reacting to whatever happened before what we saw on TV and justify it as a sign of how bad crime is, but the police are are suppose to enforce laws, not dispense punishment.

Author

Herman Snell

Date

2006-04-27T23:52:13-06:00

ID

173179

Comment

FTR I wasn't necessarily oppossed to SWAT being used. I'm all for officers protecting themselves in a situation with too many unknowns-i.e.going into a house with a possible armed suspect. It just seemed like an awful lot of officers for that situation. Guess I've seen one too many movies and just assumed that 30 officers with guns blazing might make a situation with a possibly volitile 18 year old worse.

Author

urbangypsy

Date

2006-04-28T00:13:25-06:00

ID

173180

Comment

The officer may have went a step too far in punching the thug, but I'd bet anything they had their reasons. I can't believe that Ms Ladd and others have such comtempt for the police when they actually did a decent job on this one except for punching the thug at the end. Since when did Donna have contempt for the police? I don't ever recall her saying that. I support police, but when they do something I perceive is wrong, I'll speak out on it. It is cowardice for an officer to hit someone who's already restrained. If the suspect tried to cause physical harm towards the officer while in cuffs (kicking, trying to escape, etc.), then some use of force is justified.

Author

golden eagle '97

Date

2006-04-28T00:29:52-06:00

ID

173181

Comment

CentralMSDawg writes: Mabye this will send a message to other criminals that the police will kick your arse if you get caught. That's not the way our criminal justice system works; you have to be actually found guilty of something before you're punished for it, and you're not usually punished by having your "ass kicked." Would you really want that standard in place if you, or a member of your family, were arrested for something? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-28T01:44:08-06:00

ID

173182

Comment

Before I read the comments about this article, I had mixed feelings about this incident. One side of me felt that there was noting unsual about this because I have been a victim of crime several times in the past. I guess that I felt a sense of "evening the score" by watching the video clip. The other side of me felt that even criminals are innocent until proven guilty and they should not have "convicted" him on the spot as they did. That is the most important thing though. When you look at it, a lot of the things that have been going on in the JPD that would lead us to believe that this type of action is right in line with Melton's idea of cleaning the streets up. But the real issue here is NOT to succumb to the level of becoming street vigilantes. I agree that this kid needs to be punished for his crimes (if Melton dosen't mess this one up too), but not by attacking him like they did. Most of us have kids and we would want the system to run it's course for our children. We cannot stop violence with violence. I wonder if there would have been an assault on this kid if he were not handcuffed and there was only ONE officer?

Author

lance

Date

2006-04-28T06:02:12-06:00

ID

173183

Comment

I would have liked to see Frank's response to this incident. Did Chief Anderson did make a statement? I assume Frank gave her permission to be Police Chief this week while he's in NY. I won't go as far as blaming what the police did on Frank and his "Walking Tall" imitation; if you believe "Batman" this sort of thing has been going on for years. But the cops are supposed to follow procedure in arresting a suspect, and hitting a perp in handcuffs who is offering no resistance is in akin to "hitting below the belt" or "kicking him when he's down", and is clearly out of bounds.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-28T06:41:01-06:00

ID

173184

Comment

we are not saying let the young man off because he got punch three times, we are saying its the cops time to be arrested for assault, PEOPLE think if you HAD a troubled child, u would want something done, cops are not off the hook, if we let this slide what message would that send to other cops its ok to use not excessive force, but assualt because people would consider it as adrenaline rush.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-28T08:38:57-06:00

ID

173185

Comment

Perhaps I had a bad angle from the sky view, but I didn't see three serious punches. Cops tend to use the force they deem necessary, but can very easily step over the line. I agree with the idea that police should be aware that their punishment isn't what is prescribed. It's one of those lines, however, that tends to be hard to discern. There are your dirty harry's who are on the front lines and then there are your paper pushers. In theory, yeah, keep your hands to yourself. In life, adrenaline is a mutha. I could never suggest that someone lose their job for their actions, but reprimand is good. I am sick of people acting like all cops are good cops. Some cops are like some doctors--in it for the money. Not saying that they're running their own operations, just saying that life tends to desensitize them to what is necessarily right or wrong. They're simply concerned with getting the job done however they see fit. We have these disconnects when issues like this arise and we want to see someone fall for their wrongs. The public raises cain and then someone is crucified, no matter of the extent of their crime. Just quiet the public. As far as the young men are concerned and the entire apprehension process, I think that it is most fortunate that the event ended up without the loss of life. I think that the public should step up and offer praise because of that. As mad as most of us can be about the situation, there is plenty to be grateful of. Seen the size of that house? All hell could have broke loose had their been a parakeet in the house. Little triggers. At any rate, tprime--"putting the fear" into those fools leads to cops getting shot. That is not the only avenue for getting people on the right track. It's pretty effective, but it's cowardly and lazy. Willman--thanks for the tip. We can't expect cops to get everything right, but they can refresh their skills.

Author

lilsoulja

Date

2006-04-28T09:37:28-06:00

ID

173186

Comment

"(Suspects) have all the rights as any other citizen," Anderson said. "If that's what happened, were not condoning it, and we will deal with it." If the investigation shows wrongdoing, Anderson said she would decide on what action to take. But she would not say what that might be....from the CL What is really unconscionable is that so many people think this type of behavior is OK. Laws apply to police and criminals equally. The CL also quotes a MC law professor saying you can't clearly see what is happening. WHAT?!!! Is she blind? It is clear the boy was hit three times and if you watch a longer version of the tape. You can see officers doing something to him inside the police car, but that is too questionable to draw any conclusions. Michael Black is punk. He has more warrants than most career criminals. He deserved a beating....from his mother. When police act like this, it destroys all trust in the system that is supposed to ensure order. I am glad the Chief spoke out to the CL. To Ms. Ladd....There is no law that prohibits revealing the names of juveniles. It is a long standing journalistic tradition, but not law. Luke Woodham was under 18 when he shot up Pearl High. Everyone named him and nobody raised a stink. I bet you named him too. The juvenile that was named has hour felony warrants for his arrests. if was wanted for petty theft, I doubt he would be named. But that boy led police on a four hour standoff, threatened to spit at WLBT cameraman, not to mention, stole purses, cars, etc... I would also bet that he will be tried as an adult for those crimes. Would you name him then? I think you would. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case from a 15-year-old rape suspect named by a Pittsburgh Newspaper...here is a clip from the article.... "Pennsylvania law generally prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing the names of minors arrested for crimes until they have been convicted, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the prohibition does not extend to newspapers. "A newspaper may not be held liable for its publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information on a matter of public significance unless imposing liability would be the most narrowly tailored means of serving a state interest of the highest order," Judge Richard L. Nygaard wrote in an April opinion that dismissed the case.

Author

inside story

Date

2006-04-28T09:50:10-06:00

ID

173187

Comment

The punches may not have looked like they were serious from the skycam, but I'm willing to bet they were. The young man was hit by more than one officer in an anger/adrenaline rush and I'm also willing to bet that was't the end of it once the cameras were rolling. I agree that the kid was a punk, comminiting all the crimes that he did, but that doesn't make it right for officers to assualt a suspect while in custody.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T10:16:08-06:00

ID

173188

Comment

I thought the whole juevenile name dropping thing was mainly applicable to sexual crimes, but it seems I am wrong.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T10:17:53-06:00

ID

173189

Comment

"..but I'd bet anything they had their reasons." Does that jusitfy their actions? Yeah their reasons were probably; 1. Angry because they had to chase him 2. Angry because of all the crimes he has committed or has thought to commit. It still does not make it right. Police are supposed to set the example, regardless of the situation. I would understand them using excessive force if and only if......the suspect was resisting arrest once the handcuffs were on. But clearly that's not the case here.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T10:26:49-06:00

ID

173190

Comment

I thought the whole juevenile name dropping thing was mainly applicable to sexual crimes, but it seems I am wrong. As "inside story" points out, there is no law prohibiting release of juvenilles names, but more like a standard of caution on the part of most news outlets to withhold the names of juvenilles until formal charges have been filed (nothing to do with the type of crime) to avoid charges of smearing the good name of a youthful offender. Certainly misdemeanor type offenses are less likely to have kids names revealed than for felony/murder type of crimes, where the charges are heinous enough to be considered an adult level crime and the public demand to know the identities of the suspects regardless of age might be higher. Ladd's policy appears to be withholding the names of underage suspects, and that's fine, but I also think WLBT acted within its own right to release the names. A controversial move, and suggestive of a double standard (as TH alluded to) but not illegal.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-28T10:38:13-06:00

ID

173191

Comment

Mentonitus, is the desease the cops suffered from, my leader is ruthless so iam I. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-28T10:44:38-06:00

ID

173192

Comment

exactly ejeff. Naming the kid is the choice of the news department. WLBT would like not name someone with minor offenses. This boy eluded police and the SWAT team for 4 hours. Not to mention, has four felony warrants. They made a choice, and I think it was the right choice. I think the line is drawn when felonies are involved, or if there is chase, stand-off....something that draws a massive amount of attention. In short, it is a case by case basis.

Author

inside story

Date

2006-04-28T10:50:26-06:00

ID

173193

Comment

I thought the whole juevenile name dropping thing was mainly applicable to sexual crimes, but it seems I am wrong... There is also no law protecting rape victims. It is a long standing policy not to identify victims of sexual assualt because it is believed that would prevent someone from coming forward. Sexual assault can ber very personal and embarassing. Rarely do new outlets ID the victim, but they could if they wanted to, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Author

inside story

Date

2006-04-28T10:55:36-06:00

ID

173194

Comment

what the heck is a Mentonitus?

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T12:38:34-06:00

ID

173195

Comment

a new desease playa

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-28T13:25:33-06:00

ID

173196

Comment

Inside story, you can debate with yourself the legality of naming juvenile suspects for as long as you want, but Donna Ladd never said it was illegal. She said it was unconscienable. What's more, you can "bet" Ladd ran the name of the Pearl School shooting all you want, but unless you can find such a reference, you're just blowing smoke. Go find the reference or stop wasting our time. The JFP does not run the names of juveniles without consent. I will let Donna explain her own feelings on this, but for myself, there are very good reasons why it is UNETHICAL, though not illegal, to run those names. The short version is that juveniles have a special right to privacy precisely because they are not yet adults. They are not yet entirely responsible for their actions. This is why the government restricts their sex lives, their driving rights, their voting rights, etc. It is also why juveniles get more lenient treatment from law enforcement. The reason why is that youth sometimes make stupid mistakes, but they deserve a chance to get back on the right track and lead ordinary adult lives. Part of granting them that opportunity is maintaining their privacy, so that they are not publicly branded with the mistakes for the rest of their lives. Brian Johnson Assistant Editor

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-04-28T14:00:33-06:00

ID

173197

Comment

I saw the video last night. It was hardly a punch. More like a cuffing, or a good ole fashioned ear boxing. You know, if a cop tells me to stop or stand back or God Forbid....raise my hands....then I think the fastest thing to do is just that. It's easy to follow instructions, even if you've broken the law, and yes, especially if your out numbered...................

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-04-28T14:21:14-06:00

ID

173198

Comment

....never heard of it. I thought you were cracking a joke at Melton.... like meltonitus......because he is becoming like a desease... he is harmful to the public.....

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T14:22:48-06:00

ID

173199

Comment

...hardly a punch?.......hardly a punch? goodness........yeah from hundreds of feet in the air it may look like hardly a punch, but I'm willing to bet that when those po pos hit that boy it was felt...it was more than just hardly a punch. When you hit someone while your angry with all kinds of adrenaline running through your body, I find it hard to believe it was a 'soft' punch. I don't see how people downplay the situation because the kid is considered a criminal. I said it once I'll say it again.....that does not justify the actions of the police....they crossed the line....he was in handcuffs for heavens sake....sure he ran.....but he was in handcuffs when he was punched three times...... not to mention what they cameras didn't catch or what happened behind closed doors.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T14:30:46-06:00

ID

173200

Comment

I guess he'll slide on the 20+ felonies he's committed now. Glad I don't live in Jackson.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-04-28T14:57:46-06:00

ID

173201

Comment

jan06....I watched it several times. let's think back, what happened to Rodney King, now that was brutality and what happend to Reginald Denny....brutal. After a chase and essentially a baracade tensions were high around this kid. These aren't gods they're men. I am sure those police officers knew this young man and probably had dealings with him before. Men out on the street in situations like that respond to force and with force. In a situation like that, with adrenaline and testosterone moving, it could have been worse. I call it a cuffing, It's not like they body slammed him into the patrol car. But you are right....he was in cuffs and essentially incapacitated, out of threat range. It's what leads up to it. I just don't see the "slugging" that was implied in the news report.

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-04-28T15:20:37-06:00

ID

173202

Comment

I've got a question for Brian J. What about when a juvenile acts like an adult and commits a grown up crime? Why shouldn't their names be made publice at that time. If they are old enough to commit an adult act then they are old enough to pay for it like an adult. The only thing UNETHICAL is these kids are commiting these crimes.

Author

CentralMSDawg

Date

2006-04-28T15:20:53-06:00

ID

173203

Comment

"I guess he'll slide on the 20+ felonies he's committed now." I am in no way suggesting that because he was punched he should not serve time for his crimes. My point is and will always be that the police were wrong for what they did. They need repremanding. they are making themselves and other officers look bad, and if they do not face consequences what type of message does that send the public: "if you commit a crime, the police have a right to punch you in the stomach and face while your in cuffs" I don't consider that 'good police work' That doesn't give him a 'get out of jail free card' but I'm pretty sure that when they punched this kid who was in handcuffs they broke sometype of protocls themselves. If they are trying to get criminals off the street and trying to prevent crime: you don't lead by example with violent acts, especially when it's not a fair fight.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T15:44:23-06:00

ID

173204

Comment

lilsoulja you are exactly right, what happened to mr. king and mr. denny was brutal.... this situation may not be that extreme, but let's face it....it starts somewhere....... I bet king and denny weren't their first victims....... it needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand....before another king or denny situation does happen

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T15:46:59-06:00

ID

173205

Comment

Call it what you want; but Iron hit the nail on the head. He probably did have a rap sheet and they finally got him! But now, due to overzealous force he will end up scott free and a bit richer. You shouldn't kick a man when he is down. Now, I just watched a brutal video of a man who stepped out of his car and beat down a lone police officer while the few residents around watched. OK, in that case I wish the SWAT team was there to assist, subdue, and if necessary kill that person. But, in JPD's case the criminal was apprehended and in cuffs being carried by two other officers. Then 3 sucker punches later he is in the back of the police cruiser. Get out of Jail Free. Do not stop at Go. And collect $200! Woohoo! Great leadership at JPD. They would already have a pullout in the Clarion Ledger that detailed why Chief Moore and Mayor Johnson should be fired! And WLBT would be broadcasting live at the jail with Councilman Stokes who would be holding a vigil until somebody's head rolled and a new street is named for Michael Black.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-04-28T15:50:24-06:00

ID

173206

Comment

jan2006: I bet king and denny weren't their first victims Uh, you do know that denny was not a victim of a police beating?

Author

Rex

Date

2006-04-28T15:54:29-06:00

ID

173207

Comment

"...due to overzealous force he will end up scott free and a bit richer." I hope not. He needs to serve his time for what he has done, being hit by police shouldn't set him free. ....but then again the way they opperate he just might......and that will be really sad.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T15:55:21-06:00

ID

173208

Comment

Not really, when I seen the name Rodney King I just assumed Denny was also, my bad.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T15:56:02-06:00

ID

173209

Comment

Rex, would you mind enlightening me on Denny?

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T15:56:46-06:00

ID

173210

Comment

Reginald Denny was the fellow dragged from the truck during the Los Angeles riots and pretty much beat senseless. It wasn't police but it was on video for the world to see. That was my reference to video.

Author

ATLExile

Date

2006-04-28T15:59:51-06:00

ID

173211

Comment

I think I recall that.......it was a while ago..... about ten or so years ago?

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T16:05:09-06:00

ID

173212

Comment

...more like 14 years ago..... yeah that was pretty brutal.......nothing compared to being punched.......

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T16:07:30-06:00

ID

173213

Comment

I'm just waiting to see the outcome of this though........ i hope neither the police nor michael black get off for what they did.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T16:08:54-06:00

ID

173214

Comment

I can't believe that Ms Ladd and others have such comtempt for the police when they actually did a decent job on this one except for punching the thug at the end. I didn't how "comtempt" for "the police." I'm criticizing a police officer who is "thug" enough to punch somebody in handcuffs. And, like Willman, I can understand that there may be more than one criminal in this equation: the young man and the police officer. We don't have to choose sides. We should punish the criminals. All of them. Also, is there anybody out there who can provide one good reason for punching someone in the face when they're in handcuffs? And the point that bad cops get criminals off the hook is very true. It's a necessary part of our system -- to deter police brutality such as what the WLBT video showed. Dawg wrote: If they are old enough to commit an adult act then they are old enough to pay for it like an adult. The only thing UNETHICAL is these kids are commiting these crimes. This is not true, Dawg. These kids are innocent until proven guilty, although some folks don't seem to realize that. The overwhelming research on juvenile delinquency shows that identifying them as adults, and prosecuting and imprisoning them as adults, actually increase recidivism. (Look it up if you don't know what it means.) Also, juveniles are often accused of crimes they didn't commit, as are adults. But identifying juveniles as criminals usually gets front-page coverage, and when they're cleared, you're lucky if it's mentioned in the paper. The ones targeted as criminals are then more likely to become criminals. You may not care about the big picture in your misinformed attempt to punish the "thugs," but there are people who do actually care about these issues. And people who run media outlets are exposed to plenty of data about why it is unethical to identify juveniles. However, the corporatization of media in recent years (and the ensuing move toward sensationalism because it's cheaper than real investigation) has meant that many outlets have rolled back these standards. They should be shamed for it, and I will do that every chance I get. They know it's bad, and that they're doing it to make money. The public just needs to hear about it more often. Oh, and you will note I never said there isn't a law that prohibits showing a juveniles face. I said it was "unconscionable," not illegal. It used to be that media outlets cared about the ethics of how they treat juveniles in the press. There's been much study and navel-gazing about this in the journalism press. If you really care about the issue, go do some homework. I've got too much on my plate right now to do it for you. But, don't put works in my mouth. BTW, it certainly makes no sense to treat a juvenile like an adult, but turn around and tell them they can't drink a beer until they're 21. That's some f-cked up logic. Willman, I'd love to have you on our first panel to discuss this. E-mail Melishia if you're interested. And thanks for suggesting that we do this thread. You were right, clearly, that it's needed. It's truly remarkable that anyone would defend punching someone in handcuffs. Sometimes we all need a wake-up call about backward attitudes out there, and this thread is bringing them out. Cheers.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-28T16:17:02-06:00

ID

173215

Comment

I typed that wrong....... being punched is nothing compared to being almost dragged to death and almost beat to death

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-04-28T16:17:54-06:00

ID

173216

Comment

An interesting fact about Reginald Denny is that he defended his attackers. There's a great piece about this in Karl Fleming's biography, "Son of the Rough South." Fabulous book.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-28T16:17:57-06:00

ID

173217

Comment

I was just suggesting that you apply the same enlightened restraint with regard to these police officers that I have seen applied to other accused persons around here lately. The selective "fairness" demand is remarkable in this case. Which other "accused persons around here" have we seen videos of committing their crimes??? OK, maybe Mr. Melton going up on Batman mama's porch, but I'm not sure that who you meant. Or, maybe you did. I'm getting lost in the inconsistencies of who's a thug -- and not entitled to constitutional rights, apparently -- and who isn't. And, Niles, I'm not just addressing you. I'm talking to all who would try to make it sound like there could be a justification for beating someone in handcuffs. Maybe the kid has laser weapons implanted in his eyeballs or something, and the punch was going to render them inoperable. OK, so maybe they could be a reason. Going offline. Not a good day for me to blog. Y'all don't kill each other.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-28T16:35:54-06:00

ID

173218

Comment

ATLExile.....did we see the same video clip? When the kid was punched he 'doubled over' and it was obviouse that had the officers not been holding onto his arms he would have fallen! I do not believe that is considered a 'cuffing', nor do I believe the majority of people would! I do respect your opinion, and understand that you essentially do not see the same degree of unlawful behavior as I on the part of the officer. But lets at least be truthful and note the difference between a 'cuffing' and a 'punching'. I sincerely believe the young man should serve his time for any illegal acts that he is convicted of. I personally don't want him on the streets where I live, work and my children play. Unfortunantly, I see the behavior of the officer as potentially being a 'get out of jail free card'. I also believe that as humans, we must also consider the fact that this young man is still someones child, nephew, cousin, brother, etc. Despite the family enviornment that he might have come from, if it was less than perfect, it would be heartbreaking to see someone you love being treated in that manner in the media, especially by someone that is supposed to uphold the laws of our city. Essentially, when the behaviors of police officers become vigilanty, it not only hurts the community, but you must also take into account the number of other children who were watching the news at the time this was played. What message is the police dept. sending to other children? How can we continue to teach our children to trust in and always search out a police officer in times of trouble if they are witness to unlawful behaviors of those same officers?

Author

Katie D

Date

2006-04-28T18:00:04-06:00

ID

173219

Comment

blah, blah... you can throw all the studies you want into this mess but it is a clear cut case.... It is obvious, in slo-motion, in close-up, and the wide shot, that the police punched a man who was handcuffed. Whatever he did to provoke that doesn't matter. Officers must obey the law or the system will fail. It is the sole discrestion of the news organization whether or not to ID the kids. Those decisions are made on a case by case basis. When Luke Woodham shot up Pearl High, we all I-D him, as we did with Kip Kinkel and the kid wrestled to death his younger sister....even the New York Times called them by name, though they weren't found guilty of anything when they were i-d. It all depends on the circumstances. If police just busted them for purse snatching, WLBT would have probably not ID the kid. But they led police on a four hour spectacle. The public has a right to know as much as the media has a responsibility to protect. In this case I think the public's right was more important considering these boys held an entire neighborhood at bay. JFP can do whatever they want as can WLBT, call it what you will. Unethical??? I don't think so. Questionable???? yes. Don't be so quick to throw out labels. You people are writers, pick your words a little more carefully. Considering what he did, I think most of the public would say NOT naming the kid would be unconscionable.

Author

inside story

Date

2006-04-28T19:34:48-06:00

ID

173220

Comment

It is obvious, in slo-motion, in close-up, and the wide shot, that the police punched a man who was handcuffed. Whatever he did to provoke that doesn't matter. Officers must obey the law or the system will fail. Agreed, inside story. It doesn't matter what he did. Punching him while he was in handcuffs is not acceptable. It's unconscionable. It's unethical. It is the sole discrestion of the news organization whether or not to ID the kids. You're right. It is fully their responsibility what they chose to do. That does not mean they did the right thing. Those decisions are made on a case by case basis. When Luke Woodham shot up Pearl High, we all I-D him, as we did with Kip Kinkel and the kid wrestled to death his younger sister....even the New York Times called them by name, though they weren't found guilty of anything when they were i-d. I know. I spent a great deal of my time in graduate school both studying, and then trying to teach, why and how the media those exact cases made bad decisions. I wrote a piece lambasting, in part, the NY Times based on their decisions in these cases. And, yes, I quoted some mighty fine studies. It all depends on the circumstances. I agree. There could be rare exceptions where identifying an ACCUSED young person could help ensure the public safety. This case was not one. If police just busted them for purse snatching, WLBT would have probably not ID the kid. "Probably"? That's comforting. But they led police on a four hour spectacle. The public has a right to know Know what? Why? He was in custody. You're going to have to work harder than this to build a case that outweighs the need not to identiied the young accused. as much as the media has a responsibility to protect. Yes, and good journalists know that you never override the need "to protect" if the public's "need to know" is not compelling enough. And it wasn't here. By any stretch. In this case I think the public's right was more important considering these boys held an entire neighborhood at bay. Why? Because they were CURIOUS? JFP can do whatever they want as can WLBT, I know. call it what you will. OK, I will. Unethical??? I don't think so. I do. I believe that it is patently unethical to identify an accused juvenile. Questionable???? yes. Don't be so quick to throw out labels. Labels? I assure you, inside, I have much more grounding on this one than merely throwing out labels. I can't comprehend the ethics of an organization that would do this. You people are writers, pick your words a little more carefully. Why? Because they make you uncomfortable? I picked my works very carefully here. Considering what he did, "what he did?" Whoa, I hope you're not a journalist. The juvenile is ACCUSED, and we don't know what he did. That's one reason it is important to protect his identity. I think most of the public would say NOT naming the kid would be unconscionable. So what? Most of the voters in Mississippi in the 1960s voted to close the public schools rather than integrate them. What's your point? The rights of a juvenile, or the ethics of a news organization, have nothing to do with popularity contests or the whims of the public, just as the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of one person. But you are so right that media organizations, especially corporate ones, are naming juveniles just for this reason. They are sticking their finger in the wind and bowing to sensationalism. It's unconscionable.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-28T19:51:32-06:00

ID

173221

Comment

Some say that the young child should be treated as an adult. Some don't seem to have a problem with the names being mentioned, and so on. I still challenge ANYONE who has a child to imagine what they would feel if this had been their child. You probably would want the officers to be dealt with for the crime that they commited against the youth. The child was not able to defend himself. He was no longer a threat. If he said anything to the officers, it shouldn't have mattered. Words don't hurt people....fists do. If you don't have children then imagine yourself being attacked while YOU are handcuffed. It's simple. The system of justice began when the youth was arrested. The police took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury. Whatever anyone may think......the police were wrong and should also have to be tried for their criminal act. YOU DO NOT HIT DEFENSELESS PEOPLE. Period.

Author

lance

Date

2006-04-28T21:44:58-06:00

ID

173222

Comment

donna mad as frankie baby

Author

skipp

Date

2006-04-28T21:46:29-06:00

ID

173223

Comment

I find it amusing that there are some odd 70 replies to this one entry, but there are a solid replies 56 to all of the blogs combined on the JFP crime blog (to which I can't find a direct link on the main menu). Why is it on this board that when a criminal suspect suffers force there is a street riot, but when citizen after citizen after citizen is victimized you can hear a pin drop? You start to wonder who you care about, and whose side you are on. I suppose you focus on what you think are the evils in this world. Fair enough. But there needs to be more balance.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-04-28T23:53:31-06:00

ID

173224

Comment

MAllen writes: Why is it on this board that when a criminal suspect suffers force there is a street riot, but when citizen after citizen after citizen is victimized you can hear a pin drop? You start to wonder who you care about, and whose side you are on. Folks ask me sometimes why I spend so much time on my civil liberties site kvetching about issues in the United States when North Korea, Nigeria, Iran, and so forth are so exponentially worse. And the answer is that I expect more from the United States. Besides, everybody hates crime. But not everybody hates police misconduct... There's a real issue there for journalists, where crime is something where journalism and public discourse might not be as useful. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T00:24:32-06:00

ID

173225

Comment

BTW, it certainly makes no sense to treat a juvenile like an adult, but turn around and tell them they can't drink a beer until they're 21. That's some f-cked up logic. I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed this. I always thought it was silly to tell a 14-year old that he's not responsible enough to drink or possess alcohol until 21, cigarettes and can't even register vote until 18, yet is responsible enough to face charges as an adult. I remember one Texas legislator, right after the Arkansas middle school shootings in 1998, even wanted to let the death penalty apply to 11-year olds! How he ever came up with that idea...oh wait, it's Texas, go figure.

Author

golden eagle '97

Date

2006-04-29T09:50:17-06:00

ID

173226

Comment

I don't want to make this a discussion about the death penalty, but that's really kind of the intrinsic logic of capital punishment. If you say "the government has the authority to kill captive adults," then "the government has the authority to kill captive 17-year-olds" isn't a stretch. Then it's 16, 15, 14. Before long you have legislators talking about killing 11-year-olds as soon as there's a suitably infamous crime to serve as a test case. And there's no reason why it has to stop at 11. If a 9-year-old kills his 4-year-old sister, some legislator will inevitably demand the death penalty for 9-year-olds. Meanwhile, you get the death penalty expanded to include sex crimes (as in Louisiana and, soon, South Carolina), then to include drug offenses and property crimes (as in much of Asia--and the death penalty for drug dealers has long been a staple of the conservative agenda), and then--if religious fervor really gets big--to public order and "morality" offenses (as in much of Africa and the Middle East--and we all know the country is full of people who would like to stone gays to death, as is done in rural Nigeria). It really doesn't take much of a slide on this slippery slope from killing 35-year-old serial killers to killing pregnant 13-year-old girls for "criminal fornication" (they're already imprisoned for it in some Midwestern states). If you say to the government "Thou shalt kill," pandering legislators will want to expand the terms under which it is regarded as acceptable every chance they get. The only issue is where we draw the line, and how hard of a line we're willing to draw. The easiest approach is to take the death penalty off the table, but if we say "adults and only adults for murder and only murder" and stick with it, even if we run across the most horrible murder we can think of being committed by a 17-year-old, even if we run across the most heinous case of child rape on the books committed by a 40-year-old monster, we have to stick to our guns. Because there will always be heinous cases, exceptions that justify the rule. And legislators will always be lying in wait, ready to exploit those cases in hopes of winning the coveted "Tough on Crime" trophy. Anyway, Matt, I had another thought last night as I headed off to bed and I was too sleepy at the time to share it, so here it is now: We should not presume for a moment to assume that we are on different "sides" from criminal offenders. They are our brothers and sisters, just as much as police officers are. Law enforcement and criminal justice are somber necessities for protecting the public order, not instruments of a righteous war, with banners flying and trumpets blowing. Whenever an 18-year-old is arrested and imprisoned, that is tragic. Period. Sometimes it is a necessary tragedy, sometimes the events that lead up to imprisonment are even more tragic, but imprisonment is always tragic. It refuses to allow the 18-year-old to become a better person on his or her own. Most police officers, I think, understand the gravity of what they do. When a police officer punches a suspect when it isn't necessary, that is comparable to an accountant taking financial advantage of her client or a gynecologist molesting his patient. It is an abuse of power. It should be prosecuted as such. Criminals? We're already going after criminals. Everybody wants to go after criminals. It's always popular to say arrest 'em, cut off their hands, fry 'em in the chair. If we criticize a police officer for something like this, we're improving the law enforcement system. But when we stir up righteous anger about a criminal that everyone already wants to see arrested, or who has already been arrested, we're really more of an angry mob. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T10:57:28-06:00

ID

173227

Comment

I find it amusing that there are some odd 70 replies to this one entry, but there are a solid replies 56 to all of the blogs combined on the JFP crime blog (to which I can't find a direct link on the main menu). MAllen, your misinformed hyperbole is barely worth answering on this one. You are somehow equating outrage at what the "state" does to citizens, in violation of the Constitution, with how much discussion you see about every individual crime committed by private citizens? Talk about both, but use your thinking cap--and I know you have one, unlike some others who make this kind of argument--to realize that you are mixing up two different things. There has been PLENTY of outrage and discussion on these blogs about crime, what causes it, how to stop it, how not to sensationalize it, and so on. Certainly, "balance" in the discussion of crime from all angles is needed in this community, but I don't see you out there admonishing people like your dad when they talk about the "wild tigers" that can't be rehabilitated, the "thugs" in the "hood," and so on, for their lack of balance or breadth on the issue. Not saying you're not going it privately, but watch how you throw around half-cocked ideas about "balance" because it might boomerang back on you. More soon ...

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-29T15:14:30-06:00

ID

173228

Comment

I think an important point is being overlooked in this discussion, which is that the ONLY people being accused of violence in this case are the police. I have read nothing about Michael Black having a weapon. The only way he resisted arrest, so far as we know now, was through what seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to run. He made it only three blocks. He did not lead police on a car chase, high-speed or otherwise. He did not go into the crane-kick position and send four policemen to the hospital with his karate. He did not pull a knife and force the police to fight him with their batons. (Naturally, if he had pulled a knife, he would have been shot.) All he did was run away. The only injury suffered by police was a broken hand, which is clearly an offensive injury, unless Black was pursuing the very unsound martial arts practice of snapping his chin down on an officer's fist. Note that none of the charges against Black involve violence or weapons, with the possible exception of the kidnapping charge that was added today. For the moment, we do not know any of the particulars of this charge. In any case, if the other charges against him are true, Black likes to steal cars, though he didn't manage to steal one when he needed it. What "payback" were the police taking when they punched him then? That he made them run? Was there some middle-aged smoker among the police who just had to get some payback for being out of breath? Was it that Black made them nervous? I do not imagine that our police are such delicate daisies that waiting around outside a house for an hour turns them into nervous wrecks. So why did they do it then? It is imperative to remember that Michael Black is 18 years old. He is legally an adult, and he will have to suffer the consequences of his actions if he is found guilty. I very much doubt, however, that he is emotionally an adult, and in any case, he is still a teenager. That alone makes it morally repugnant that a police officer in his thirties would strike him. (I am assuming an age for the officer based on a low-res video stream. JPD has not identified the officer.) An older, stronger man struck a hand-cuffed teenager because the boy ran away from the police. My fear is that this episode may illuminate a much larger problem in the Jackson Police Department. How often do officers strike suspects in custody? Is it commonplace or very rare? I do not know the answer to that question, and I feel negligent as a citizen for not knowing more about what the police do under my government. Of course, it is very hard to learn more because the JPD is very closed to citizen scrutiny. Internal Affairs, in particular, is a black box.

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-04-29T16:43:25-06:00

ID

173229

Comment

One point more. I think it is important to be specific about the charges against Black precisely because they are property crimes. When suburbanites criticize Jackson, they talk about West Jackson as if it's Falluja, with bullets whizzing by while good white folk in SUVs are carjacked at stoplights. But West Jackson is lovely and generally safe. Do not misunderstand my point. Jackson is far too violent, and the city is awash in cheap hand guns. Most of the crime in Jackson, however, is property crime. I live in Belhaven, which many suburbanites still regard as dangerous, and the only crime I've ever seen has been petty vandalism. Stupid kids doing stupid kid stuff. Car theft is also a problem, though no one seems interested in my junker. Car theft is a serious crime, but it isn't a violent crime. Yet property crime and violent crime get thrown in together in the suburban mind. (This is one reason why the Morgan-Quitno ratings have always been dubious, because they also combine property crime and violent crime. See the rising tally on our main page of the number of days The Clarion-Ledger has failed to report that Jackson fell out of the top 25 most dangerous cities in 2004.) I believe that this is why some posters to this site have thought it forgivable that officers struck Black. After all, the police are at war with thugs. They have to bust some heads. But they are not at war with thugs. They serve a city suffering from chronic poverty, one in which some poor kids steal cars to make money. Some of you have talked about Michael Black as if he were a deranged killer instead of a kid in very, very big trouble. It is fair that he should answer for his crimes, if the charges against him are true. It is neither right nor legal that this 18-year-old boy was struck by a police officer while his hands were cuffed behind his back.

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-04-29T17:02:36-06:00

ID

173230

Comment

Crime..."how not to sensationalize it".... Don't interview and give standing to thugs (IMHO) like "Batman". Thugs exist. The thug that carjacked me with a gun to my head was a numerously convicted felon....a "thug", as was the thug that broke into my office with an axe on a Saturday afternoon (and into St. Richards 3 days later). Thugs exist everywhere...my ward, your ward, Russia, Tahiti, Aruba (see Natalie Holloway)... I won't "whistle past the graveyard " and "Alice in Wonderland" that away...OR apologize for that term. Sit in my home ANY weekend as regular people call me with stories of being savaged by "nice, misunderstood" people EVERY weekend. Some people ARE "wild animals" (see Jeffrey Dahmer, Son of Sam, Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson, et al). Ignoring or "explaining" away "wild animal behavior" will not wash their behavior away. They ARE wild animals....PERIOD. Let's all look up "thug" in the dictionary and analyze....not condescend.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-04-29T18:50:04-06:00

ID

173231

Comment

First, the cops were absolutely wrong and should be fired! With that said, if this suspect is indeed guilty I hope the cops wrong doing does not abate or negate his being punished accordingly. “But West Jackson is lovely and generally safe” – posted by Brain Johson This is certainly a broad statement.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2006-04-29T18:58:03-06:00

ID

173232

Comment

I get the distinct feeling that I'm missing part of this discussion, but here we go anyway... Ben, the problem with "thug" is that it has a history of being used in a race-baiting way. Folks are calling Mr. Black a thug even though he is not guilty of any violent crime. Do some people deserve the label? Sure. I used the word in a recent blog entry, to describe a group of neo-Nazis who had been recruited to intimidate Hispanics and drive them away from voting booths, and their children away from schools. That is the narrow meaning of thug: One who uses violence, and especially intimidation, to get what he wants. Is "Batman" a thug? I have no idea. But is every last burglar or drug addict in the city a thug? No. And the truth is that the word has so many ugly connotations that I am reticent to use it to describe common criminals. I use it only to describe specific folks recruited to intimidate. The truth is that the literal meaning of "thug" comes from the Sanskrit sthagati, "he who conceals," by way of the Hindi "thag" (pronounced "thug"), violent bandits who followed an extremist religious sect during India's middle period. So even way back then, it was a "them" word. As for Dahmer, Berkowitz (who has since ostensibly converted to Christianity and started a prison ministry), Capone (who went senile from syphilis and became a sweet old recluse), Baby Face Nelson, and so forth: The sad fact is that they aren't wild animals. They are us, human beings, doing horrible things. To deny our humanity is to deny our own capacity for evil. This is not to say that they're in any way "nice" or "misunderstood," though they are unquestionably misunderstood (who can fully understand violence?) and probably have some capacity for kindness, depending on context. This is not to question the evil they inflict on others. This is to affirm that we are they and they are we and what separates us is what they have done and what nature and nurture have made of them and what they have made of themselves, and not some manichaean shift to the Dark Side. Don't you think that people who don't have empathy were either born without it (in which case we're talking about a mental handicap) or had it burned away (in which case we're talking about pain)? I would love to hate monsters. I frequently do. But in this cold and indifferent universe, hate--however warranted it may be--is never a skillful emotion. So I'm in Donna's court when it comes to use of the word "thug." That said, I don't think it's ever fair to publicly ask someone to publicly criticize or publicly acknowledge criticism of a member of his or her family. I would hate to be held accountable for some things that some of my VERY conservative family members have said or done, and I'm sure they would be hate to be held accountable for some of the things I've said or done. I thought it was reprehensible when Mel Gibson was asked to publicly condemn his own father for antisemitism, when Dick Cheney was asked to publicly choose between loyalty to his running mate and loyalty to his daughter, and so forth. It's not that I think these decisions are outside of the moral sphere. It's that I think they're outside of the public sphere. I'm sure that your post here is a defense of your son, and I think that's admirable even if I completely disagree with its content. There isn't enough loyalty in this world. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T19:12:26-06:00

ID

173233

Comment

Mr. Allen, I’m in no way attempting to defend “Batman”, but what are your reasons in labeling him a thug. Does those reasons regard his previous conviction(s) or have you the opinion that he’s guilty of the most recent charges despite his being acquitted?

Author

K RHODES

Date

2006-04-29T19:14:58-06:00

ID

173234

Comment

Tom... The ever-easy way to view any issue is to sit back, analyze and "justify". I used a FEW examples to make a point (which admittedly will NEVER be accepted by the vast readership here). Fine. I didn't post it to convince or persuade anyone. I will say that one thing I HAVE noticed here is the lack of real capacity (IMHO) to sometimes face REALITY in real world issues....(ie: dealing with the world as it IS, not as we wish it to be). Thugs exist. Denying it only reeks disrespect to those that are victims of "thuggery" and making the "thuggers", victims, and the "thuggees" only marginalized, as having been caught up in the world of "criminal Russian roulette" we face in many parts of our city today. (ie: wrong place, wrong time). It's really not the criminals fault...don't blame him/her. We are losing. Look around. You are old enough to know exactly what I am talking about.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-04-29T19:24:28-06:00

ID

173235

Comment

"To deny our humanity is..." --> "To deny their humanity is..." And while we're speaking of loyalty, I should say that the final paragraph isn't really meant as a criticism of Donna's post, though it might read that way. We all have a little trouble staying on our feet, especially when words like "thug" are thrown around, and we all say unfair things. Maybe I just did. But I would have been shocked and depressed if Matt had publicly criticized you for something you said on your radio show. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T19:24:57-06:00

ID

173236

Comment

Being ACQUITTED.... Give me a break. Hell yes he was ACQUITTED. More AMAZING is with 50+ murders a YEAR we have had only 4 murder trials within memory. Good God...this system is so broken! It hits you in the face like a wet mop. More murders in Hinds County each year than the rest of the State COMBINED, but ....zero/nada/the null set/NO.... prisoners from Hinds county on Death row for capitol murder.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-04-29T19:31:05-06:00

ID

173237

Comment

Ben Allen writes: The ever-easy way to view any issue is to sit back, analyze and "justify". I don't find it easy at all. I used a FEW examples to make a point (which admittedly will NEVER be accepted by the vast readership here). Fine. I didn't post it to convince or persuade anyone. I will say that one thing I HAVE noticed here is the lack of real capacity (IMHO) to sometimes face REALITY in real world issues....(ie: dealing with the world as it IS, not as we wish it to be). I don't see why I would want to believe that I'm just as flawed as any purported thug. That's not a particularly inspiring thought. I'd much rather believe that I'm way up here and they're way down there and an impassible gulf separates us. But that's not the truth. Thugs exist. The human beings you describe as thugs certainly exist. The issue is whether it makes any sense to call them thugs. Denying it only reeks disrespect to those that are victims of "thuggery" and making the "thuggers", victims, and the "thuggees" only marginalized, as having been caught up in the world of "criminal Russian roulette" we face in many parts of our city today. (ie: wrong place, wrong time). It's really not the criminals fault...don't blame him/her. Blame is not a zero-sum issue. If someone killed me by dropping a piano on my head from a third-story window, it would be technically accurate to say that this person had killed me and to say that I was killed by a falling piano. Both are true. So we can say, I believe, that individuals are culpable for their actions and still say that their behavior is a product of the context that they live in. We are losing. Look around. You are old enough to know exactly what I am talking about. I'm old enough to remember the late 80s and early 90s, when we had over 100 homicides per year. Now we kvetch if the number goes up into the 40s. I wouldn't call that losing. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T19:35:51-06:00

ID

173238

Comment

We are losing. Look around. You are old enough to know exactly what I am talking about. -Ben Allen Exactly what do you mean by that statement councilman?

Author

lance

Date

2006-04-29T19:39:50-06:00

ID

173239

Comment

Ben writes: Being ACQUITTED.... Give me a break. Hell yes he was ACQUITTED. And being acquitted means that the folks in charge of determining guilt have declared the defendant not guilty. More AMAZING is with 50+ murders a YEAR we have had only 4 murder trials within memory. How many plead out, and what penalties do they plead out for? That's the more interesting question for me. I don't care how many murderers go to trial. I do care how many go to prison. Good God...this system is so broken! It hits you in the face like a wet mop. Maybe it is. I can be convinced that Faye Peterson is a bad DA, but pleading out murder cases doesn't make her one, and not seeking the death penalty doesn't make her one. More murders in Hinds County each year than the rest of the State COMBINED, but ....zero/nada/the null set/NO.... prisoners from Hinds county on Death row for capitol murder. We have an understaffed DA's office, and capital cases are a waste of its resources. For a fraction of the same cost in man-hours you can send the defendant away for life, which is just as effective from a public safety point of view. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T19:39:56-06:00

ID

173240

Comment

lance, I asked myself the same question, but I respect the councilman and I don't think he meant that the way it sounded. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T20:04:15-06:00

ID

173241

Comment

Councilman, we can debate the use of the word thug all we like. We can discuss the innocence or guilt of the criminal. We can discuss whether his life contributes to his crime. What the problem here is the cops sucker punched this guy when he was cuffed. End of point! Bottom line - it was wrong. And two wrongs don't make it right. I am sure that a majority of posters here are with me when I say if this happened under a different Police Chief and Mayor you and your cohorts at City Hall and talk radio would be up in arms that "their" leadership has led to this and the city looking bad. Not to mention the $$$ that the back of the phone book atty. will get! Which would normally be Dale Danks! You councilman are plenty old enough to know when things are not right, and are not how other cities do it. Maybe I don't watch enough "Cops" on TV; but, I've missed the episodes where the police beat the criminal up after he is subdued and cuffed!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-04-29T20:44:55-06:00

ID

173242

Comment

No, Donna, I’m not misinformed. I love it when people chuck out the term “Constitution” as if it is an absolute. Donna said: ”Your misinformed hyperbole is barely worth answering on this one. You are somehow equating outrage at what the "state" does to citizens, in violation of the Constitution, with how much discussion you see about every individual crime committed by private citizens? Talk about both, but use your thinking cap--and I know you have one, unlike some others who make this kind of argument--to realize that you are mixing up two different things.” I have my “thinking cap” on. The problem here is that I don’t thing I’m misinformed about anything. People (especially civil lib types) love to chuck out stuff about the Constitution as you did, relevant or not. I don’t thing many legal scholars will argue with this – the Constitution has been the hammer for the accused, and the nothing for the victim. Tom also said: “That is the narrow meaning of thug: One who uses violence, and especially intimidation, to get what he wants.” I’m sorry. Were the guys around my corner, who drink all day but never work, after something else? Losers. Tom also said: "But I would have been shocked and depressed if Matt had publicly criticized you for something you said on your radio show." A juicy challenge, indeed. If any of you from the other political side had listened about two years ago, like I did and still do to his side and your side, you would know that I was a co-host on the radio show and that Larry and I could agree on nothing. We fought constantly about the Mississippi flag, which I still think is an embarrassment. I don’t listen to the show today. Not by choice, but because I get to the office extremely early (not so early that some of my people on West street haven’t received their daily first cold beers yet), not by choice, and our office net scheme isn’t high tech enough. Imagine that.. But to my knowledge, Ben hasn’t said anything that would remotely need me to criticize him. And by the way. For the next "thug," and call him what you want, that steels a bunch of cars, breaks into houses, etc., tell him to please stay away from my neighborhood. And yes, I said THUG.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-04-29T22:23:29-06:00

ID

173243

Comment

Matt writes: I have my “thinking cap” on. The problem here is that I don’t thing I’m misinformed about anything. Well, yes, that certainly does seem to be the problem. People (especially civil lib types) love to chuck out stuff about the Constitution as you did, relevant or not. The Constitution specifies a trial by jury before a sentence can be administered, and enforces due process. I would hardly call that irrelevant to the case of a handcuffed kid being punched around by officers. I don’t thing many legal scholars will argue with this – the Constitution has been the hammer for the accused, and the nothing for the victim. That's because the state represents the victim. The job of the Constitution is to provide parameters for that, parameters that protect the accused--who might not otherwise be protected. A juicy challenge, indeed. If any of you from the other political side had listened about two years ago, I don't generally listen to political talk radio--not even Air America. I find it tedious. like I did and still do to his side and your side, you would know that I was a co-host on the radio show and that Larry and I could agree on nothing. We fought constantly about the Mississippi flag, which I still think is an embarrassment. Then I suppose this was the basis of Donna's comment asking you to contradict your father's point of view publicly. I'm sorry I got involved in that particular line of discussion. And by the way. For the next "thug," and call him what you want, that steels a bunch of cars, breaks into houses, etc., tell him to please stay away from my neighborhood. And yes, I said THUG. I hear you. If this is provocative label week, does that mean I get to bust out "redneck" again? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-29T22:42:12-06:00

ID

173244

Comment

My post: People (especially civil lib types) love to chuck out stuff about the Constitution as you did, relevant or not. Tom H's post: The Constitution specifies a trial by jury before a sentence can be administered, and enforces due process. I would hardly call that irrelevant to the case of a handcuffed kid being punched around by officers. Thank you, Tom. I had missed the first day of law school, but now I have filled the gap. I didn't realize the part about a jury being sequestered and a thing called due process. Wow. This is going to be more exciting than I thought.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-04-29T22:52:00-06:00

ID

173245

Comment

I sincerely hope that the couniclman had a different meaning than what he wrote. Getting back to the title of the article which has obviously sparked some spirited debate, I still believe that beating up on suspects is not going to solve anything. There was a time when there were no tv cameras, cell phone cameras or anything to give you a bird's eye view. Police brutality was much harder to prove and ofterntimes was swept under the table. But it didn't stop the crimes from being committed. Besides the fact that it's wrong (police brutality), new technology affords us the opportunity to make sure that we have the right criminals. Make no mistake, I am NOT defending Mr Black's past record or his current charges, I am merely saying he deserves fair treatment until his case is either proven or he is set free.

Author

lance

Date

2006-04-30T06:47:49-06:00

ID

173246

Comment

lance.... Friday morning, May 5th, Don Taylor with the Dept. of Human Services will be on the air with me. We will be discussing the state of our society and using facts (not wishes) as to the "well-being" of our "world" as to today versus "yesterday". Listen, and draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that we, as a society, are losing. Language, civil courseness, the institution of marriage and its place regarding children, criminal and civil justice issues, video "games", television, grotesque "reality" shows, manners (or lack thereof), personal responsibilty, work ethic, music "honorees" (and the societal "message" they send), denigration of common sense and its place in society....well you get the drift. Listen, and draw your own conclusions. I have stated mine.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-04-30T07:28:11-06:00

ID

173247

Comment

When suburbanites criticize Jackson, they talk about West Jackson as if it's Falluja, with bullets whizzing by while good white folk in SUVs are carjacked at stoplights. But West Jackson is lovely and generally safe. Wow. I know even a few brothas who would disagree with that one. Certainly a lot of the hyperbole that goes into describing the area as a war zone is very exaggerated, and there are plenty of good neighborhoods with good people, no question about it. But it can't be glossed or sugar-coated over that this is a blighted, economically depressed area, and a lot of crime goes on in this side of town. The vast majority of residents are law abiding citizens, but there is a small contingent of criminals, thugs, whatever, that makes life harder for the honest, hardworking majority. It is more alarming to me the number of underage criminals who have adopted crime as a way of life, and appear unrepentant, even defiant about their behavior. Hell, I grew up poor like a lot of them, but I never gave in to the jealously of seeing people with stuff that I didn't have. Just the opposite, it made me work that much harder to try to use my God given talent to get ahead in life, and it has worked. Not everyone is as fortunate, but it doesn't mean that they have to adopt crime as a way of life either. Make to mistake, I want to see criminals arrested and punished. I expect the legal system to prosecute convicted criminals to the fullest extent available, even when they think its easier to negotiate for a lesser sentence. I also expect law enforcement officers to carry out their job in a professional, dedicated, even AGGRESSIVE manner, but to ALWAYS play within the rules of proper procedure and conduct. I refuse to jump onto the bandwagon that blindly wants to see the officers in this incident lose their job or put in jail, especially if they are otherwise good patrolmen, because I think within the full context of the arrest they did a great job. But if they do have a history of this sort of aggression, than they deserve to lose their jobs. I trust JPD not to blindly sway to public opinion one way or another, but to review the case and these officer's conduct, and follow its own guidelines on how to reprimand them. Seems to me some folks are angry about crime in Jackson is because it just won't stay put confined to one area of town. While Jackson is technically and statistically safer than it was a decade ago, criminal activity has now spread throughout the city, and it is hard to feel any safer on County Line Road or Terry Road than on Robinson Road or Medgar Evers Blvd. Criminals seek out victims and opportunities where they can, and they don't politely limit themselves to stealing from and terrorizing a small confined area, because eventually there will be nothing new to steal. In that sense, they do act like predatory animals. And we are all potential targets of criminals on the prowl who don't respect the right of people who actually work for their property, and give in to their materialistic envy, societal anger, frustrations, etc. And the criminals aren't scared to roll up on Woodlea, Fondren or Heatherwood looking for victims. They mostly don't care about color, age or sex of the victim, just on how vulnerable they are and how easily they can get away without getting caught. If a strange person walks up to my car at an intersection for no go reason and looks like he's trying to get into my car, I'm pulling off or putting my gun on him, regardless of age, race or whatever. Hell, I've known some dudes who honestly enjoy frightening and intimidating folks who have what they don't have. There are some people who give in to the evil in their heart, and while it doesn't necessarily make them evil people, I'm not going to shy away from judging them on their actions calling them for what they act like, and I don't care what it sounds like to other people.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-30T07:37:12-06:00

ID

173248

Comment

"I refuse to jump onto the bandwagon that blindly wants to see the officers in this incident lose their job or put in jail, especially if they are otherwise good patrolmen, because I think within the full context of the arrest they did a great job." ejeff Good point ejeff. On a whole they did a good job and we will never know the pressures they feel out on the job in that situation. But, those of us who have listened to Ben and Larry's show or other politicians before Melton was elected know that every problem that the JPD had was then directed at the leadership - Chief Moore and/or Harvey Johnson! I am not longing for the old days (well in many ways I am); but, those who watched the last leaders skewered everyday for so much less then what happened to Black are sick to our stomachs and fed up with this A$$ kissing, can't do wrong support of Melton and Anderson. Maybe if "citizen" Melton would have let the police (and Chief Moore) do their job and not "had" to turn in Sullivan (or whichever criminal it was) when all that crap was going down, they may be in jail today! Maybe if Melton hadn't taken it upon himself to "protect" the witnesses with $$$, cars, and apartments then someone may be in jail! Somehow I keep missing that fact on the Ben and Larry show when y'all have discussed this case. At some point all you talking head, political types, are going to have to swallow the fact that crime was down OVER 20% under Chief Moore! We had a COPS program. We had a PLAN (5 point plan). We had CRIME STATS (that were decreasing)! We had more GRANTS! WE had MORE POLICE! And in less the ONE YEAR all of this is gone! I don't know how these politicians who have to work with Melton even sleep at night knowing they are part of the problem - especially when they know what Melton is doing is wrong - at work and at home! I'm sure Don Taylor will gloss over Melton's Foster Home and tell us why he can do what he can do. How about you bring us the Melton file for the last 15 years that shows he does follow the DHS laws as would any other foster parent! What about having guns in the house with known felons living there? Ben if you have grandchildren are you willing to let them sleep over at Uncle Melton’s? I wouldn't! It would be one thing if most of us bloggers were just making stuff up about Melton; but, we aren't!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-04-30T09:29:00-06:00

ID

173249

Comment

I find it amusing that there are some odd 70 replies to this one entry, but there are a solid replies 56 to all of the blogs combined on the JFP crime blog (to which I can't find a direct link on the main menu). Why is it on this board that when a criminal suspect suffers force there is a street riot, but when citizen after citizen after citizen is victimized you can hear a pin drop. Y'know, I actually had a similar reaction as Matt did to the discussion here, but for different reasons. If I had to guess why this story is getting so much attention on this site, its because so many of the posters here like myself who have been critical of Melton's "Walking Tall" persona have been concerned about it having a negative effect on the people below him, particularly the police department, because in essence he was giving them free reign to take any means necessary to combat crime. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I do have concerns about police conduct and the manner in which they carry out their duties, if only because I don't want the criminals having a leg to stand on in terms of suing an already cash strapped city. I don't blame Melton for this incident, but his attitude could be having a top-down effect on the street cop in thinking he can get away with taking a shot at a suspect without recrimination. I don't want to see that happen. But there are plenty of people who are willing to give the police broader latitude to deal with the crime situation, such as this "genius" who wrote a letter published in the C-L this morning. (from a non-stakeholder, no less).

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-04-30T09:37:30-06:00

ID

173250

Comment

TRUE PIKERSAM, I SAW EX COUCILMAN ROBERT WILLIAMS PASSING OUT YARD SIGNS FOR CHUCK ESPY, DIDN'T HE USE TO WORK FOR FRANK MELTON, THAT MADE CHUCK ESPY LOSE MY VOTE FOR SURE.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-04-30T09:41:18-06:00

ID

173251

Comment

WILL, how about this letter from the head of the Republicans here in MS yesterday in the CL. I guess he forgot to remind the republicans before the mayor's race! What hypocrites!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-04-30T09:51:18-06:00

ID

173252

Comment

Ben writes: My conclusion is that we, as a society, are losing. Language, civil courseness, the institution of marriage and its place regarding children, criminal and civil justice issues, video "games", television, grotesque "reality" shows, manners (or lack thereof), personal responsibilty, work ethic, music "honorees" (and the societal "message" they send), denigration of common sense and its place in society....well you get the drift. Yeah. Heck, I hear a police officer battered a handcuffed suspect within the past week. What's the world coming to? I don't think we're losing. Our city has a gross history of racial oppression--a GROSS history; I can tell you stories about deliberate white segregationist efforts as recent as the year 2000--and we're finally overcoming it. Women are finally achieving real power in this city. We had the crack boom and the violence that came with it, and now both have tapered off to the point where the murder rate is less than half what it was 15 years ago. HIV-AIDS treatment is better. We seem to have more services for the poor. Life is not great for the poor, but you'll be hard pressed to name a time in history, anywhere on this planet, where life was particularly great for the poor. And even hip-hop, for all the talk of what a wicked influence it's supposed to be, is SO much better than it was ten years ago in the heyday of gangsta rap. Musicians are becoming more responsible. But if there were an idyllic period you could go back to, Ben, what would it be? Not the 1950s, I hope. You're not that naive. Not the 1960s or 1970s, either, for the same obvious reasons. So maybe the 1980s? Not from a crime perspective! It's easy to say that the wickedness of this generation exceeds the wickedness of the last--people have been writing about that for several thousand years now--but I challenge you to name a time when things were better. And for everybody, not just privileged whites. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T10:13:50-06:00

ID

173253

Comment

Im just glad the public finally gets to see what JPD has to offer. Alot of us thought it just happens in California and Texas but right here in Jackson. At the end of the day weither he made them run or not, they were doing the job that they took oath to do. Their job description clearly states that they will have to run. This is a 18 year old suspected car thief, I dont think the SWAT team should have been called. If you are dealing with a group of scared teenagers treating them like a band of armed robbers. They are lucky this did not get ugly!

Author

UrbanMogul

Date

2006-04-30T11:14:56-06:00

ID

173254

Comment

Ben ordered: Don't interview and give standing to thugs (IMHO) like "Batman". then wrote: Let's all look up "thug" in the dictionary and analyze....not condescend. Uh, you just told me who I should not interview, and then told me to "not condescend." Well, then. You full well know that I will interview anyone I want to, Ben, whether it's you about speaking to the Council of Conservative Citizens, or a man who was just acquitted of murder. So don't bother trying to tell me what to do, because it won't work. I believe you already know that. OK, now to the actual condescension: That started when MAllen told us off in a very emotional (note: no conservative "logic" anywhere in his attack) posting about otheres here caring too much about police officers punching an accused person in handcuffs: He wrote: Why is it on this board that when a criminal suspect suffers force there is a street riot, but when citizen after citizen after citizen is victimized you can hear a pin drop? You start to wonder who you care about, and whose side you are on. Wow. "Whose side you are on"? That is some personal attack on people who may not agree with you. And it doesn't make a lick of sense. Here's why: A. When an employee of the state--a public servant--abuses a citizen, accused of a crime or not, we are all responsible for that crime of the state. If we do not speak out against it, we are complicit. That's America, boys. It's a fundamental premise of why we're different. B. Calling out a rogue police officer in no way indicate that one condones the crime. Only an emotional dumbass who can't hold more than one thought at a time would believe that. I don't believe either Allen man is an "emotional dumbass," but I do believe they post without thinking sometimes. We all do. But to include in those emotional attacks outright attacks on people's characters is in really poor taste. You might think harder about it next time. And you will find that most people who post here regularly are perfectly capable of being that a criminal should be apprehended and punished, constitutionally, and calling out bad police officers who abuse the constitution on behalf of us all. In fact, real conservatives tend to be pretty paranoid about that. C. I provide an open forum here for anyone to start a post. If you care so damn much about victim's rights, Matt, go start a thread and talk about it. No one's stopping you. What's the logical fallacy called when you ignore the current topic and bring up a different one instead? I know it's a straw man, but there's another one at place here as well. At least one. I'm having a rare weekend off, so refuse to think too hard about it. Y'all are smart enough to figure it out. Finally, if you and your dad are actually interesting in doing something about, uh, thuggery, then you need to be willing to actually listen to people who believe are thugs themselves from time to time. You might figure out a thing or two about how to prevent these things in the future. If you hadn't noticed, wholesale incarceration of black males is not working. And if you are not able/willing to listen to someone who has done some of the things you fear the most, then that says more about you than about people who are. It certainly does not indicate that you actually wish to deal with the problems. Matt, my advice to you to argue actual points, rather than throwing out these emotional attacks, and then people won't return fire on you and your arguments so hard. Your post was off the charts and really plain silly. You are reaping what you yourself sowed in the responses. Be Republican and take responsibility for what you said.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-30T12:51:42-06:00

ID

173255

Comment

I have no problem with the SWAT team being called (other than the concern urbangypsy expressed vis-a-vis possible escalation), but beating a handcuffed prisoner is unacceptable. It might have been an understandable reaction (still unacceptable, but understandable) if he had shot somebody, but it's ridiculous to pound on a restrained 18-year-old who committed a property crime. Nobody would want to see their kids treated like that, and in America, nobody should have to. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T12:54:34-06:00

ID

173256

Comment

The thought I had in all of this--and it's not really comparable, because Batman hasn't done anything comparable--is James Dobson interviewing Ted Bundy the night before his execution. Would y'all accuse Dobson of moral relativism because he wanted to know "why" Bundy did the things he did? What you're really attacking when you criticize that kind of analysis--wanting to understand the environmental factors that lead to crime--is not liberalism. It's science. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T12:59:36-06:00

ID

173257

Comment

It's also attacking journalism -- and the need to talk to all sides, including those you don't agree with. The JFP interviews everyone from vigilante mayors to white supremacists to accused criminals. Get used to it.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-04-30T13:12:45-06:00

ID

173258

Comment

MAllen, is all you have to say about the Constitutional argument that some people sure do think it's important? And then shrug at the simpletons? Your contention that discussion of the Constitution here is "irrelevant" is a hard sell, but you do not even try to sell it. And then you throw out absurd assertions like this one: "I don’t thing many legal scholars will argue with this – the Constitution has been the hammer for the accused, and the nothing for the victim." Oh really? Do you have them handy? I don't think most legal scholars would be comfortable with that formulation at all. For one thing, most *scholars* would be cautious about hyperbolic language like "hammer for the accused" and "nothing" for the victim. For another, that is such a strange axis to use for viewing the Constitution. That aside, I do find it interesting that you are so hostile to the Constitution. There aren't many who have the independence to imply that the founding fathers (and the women who loved them) really blew it, at least when it comes to "victims' rights". Would you care to explain why it is that the Constitution is irrelevant? It is the central contract for our entire legal system, and fortunately, it does dwell a bit on police powers. Could you at least make an argument? Here, I'll start: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. All right, take it away.

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-04-30T13:22:55-06:00

ID

173259

Comment

You know, that's a good point. What kind of message are you sending if you refuse to interview Batman, but you're perfectly willing to interview Jim Giles? I think the danger of reactionary politics--liberal and conservative--is the tendency to kill the messenger, to attack the very process of thinking rather than thinking things through and dismantling only the bad ideas. Everybody does this at some time or another, but political talk radio--left and right--strongly encourages this tendency. I worry about Ben, who is obviously an intellectual in the very anti-intellectual world of political talk radio, falling prey to this. I hate to quote a cliched inspirational poster, but: Control your thoughts, because thoughts become actions. Control your actions, because actions become habits. Control your habits, because habits become character. Control your character, because character becomes destiny. I'm not so sure about the first and last bits, but the middle two I'll swear by. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T13:24:15-06:00

ID

173260

Comment

Thank you for your clarification councilman Allen. I did not draw any conclusions of your statement, however the context of your conversation prompted me to ask you "exactly did you mean". I, as anyone else can sometimes get caught up in reading these blogs and will misinterpret a message. That is when I will ask a direct question. I appreciate yours and every opinion of the bloggers. No one person is always right or wrong. You are right in that we ARE losing battles on a lot of fronts. I guess that is a part of life. I sincerely believe that the way we cope with these changes for the betterment of society will define our place in the history books. Even with the changing times, it STILL will NEVER be acceptable to strike a defenseless person. Only the worst coward will launch an assault knowing that the person being attacked can not strike back.

Author

lance

Date

2006-04-30T13:30:32-06:00

ID

173261

Comment

Listen, and draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that we, as a society, are losing. Language, civil courseness, the institution of marriage and its place regarding children, criminal and civil justice issues, video "games", television, grotesque "reality" shows, manners (or lack thereof), personal responsibilty, work ethic, music "honorees" (and the societal "message" they send), denigration of common sense and its place in society....well you get the drift. - Ben Allen I think that comment deserves its own thread. Still, you mention "personal responsibility" without actually placing that on the officers that landed blows on a handcuffed and controlled teenager. It is their personal and professional responsibility to serve and protect those in their custody -- whether they are a rabid criminal or falsely accused. It is not "to serve and protect ONLY the innocent." Imagine if they were dealing punches to Matt on public airwaves (even if he was guilty). I suspect you'd use your show to rail against the city and the police and would probably be on the phone with a lawyer (like any parent). We're trying to prevent crime and curb it. We are not trying to instigate a higher level of disrespect towards our men and women in blue.

Author

kaust

Date

2006-04-30T13:33:05-06:00

ID

173262

Comment

To focus a bit, the Constitution is a contract governing the relationship between citizens and the state. Scholars would be aghast at your statement, MAllen, because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about victims of crime, simply because *that* is not relevant to the Constitution's purpose. And, to be *relevant*, the crime in question here is a crime by the state against a citizen. (Thug or not, Michael Black is a citizen.)

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-04-30T13:33:57-06:00

ID

173263

Comment

And by the way: The JFP did a good profile (including an interview) with Roy McMillan, who has made it his job to intimidate women on a full-time basis for many years now. We can haggle over the meaning of the word "thug," but if I had to sit next to Batman or McMillan on a long train ride, I think I'd choose Batman. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T13:41:17-06:00

ID

173264

Comment

(And I should clarify: I mean the religious protester ROY McMillan, and not our fine sheriff Malcolm McMillin.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T13:42:43-06:00

ID

173265

Comment

By saying that I thought West Jackson was "lovely and generally safe," I did not mean that it suffers from no violent crime. All I meant was that when I have been in West Jackson, I have never felt unsafe. I have sat in backyards in West Jackson (surrounded by abandoned houses, I grant you) and reveled in the fine weather and good company. Admittedly, this has always been in the day or early evening. I will not pretend that I would be comfortable driving into certain parts of West Jackson late at night and getting out to use an ATM, assuming I could even find one in an area that is, for all intents and purposes, "red-lined." I would also have a hard time finding a grocery store, but payday loan-shark outlets would be in abundance. West Jackson needs capital, job training, and health care, none of which are forthcoming from our Republican leadership. Economic development is the surest way to reduce crime, which is why it is worth our while to invest in poor urban neighborhoods. Of course, it won't work without intelligent police coverage. Punching a suspect in custody does not qualify. The police must never go to war, whether against thugs or anyone else, because the police are not soldiers. Using such hyperbolic language encourages abuse. And while we’re speaking of victims’ rights, we must remember that the vast majority of victims of crime are also poor. The poor generally steal from themselves. Nevertheless, I doubt very much that the people of West Jackson (the vast majority of whom do not commit crime, though they suffer it disproportionately) rejoice at seeing the police strike a teenager in handcuffs. How does that help us turn the corner in our most desperate neighborhoods?

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-04-30T13:52:32-06:00

ID

173266

Comment

Tom... You make good points. We as a Government and a Country are collectively "getting better". It is the individual collections of people that make the heart and soul of our country, and I do see disturbing, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, shifts from the realities of basic "right and wrong". In any event, you don't, but I salute your "glass is half full " attitude. Carry on.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-04-30T14:02:43-06:00

ID

173267

Comment

“I refuse to jump onto the bandwagon that blindly wants to see the officers in this incident lose their job or put in jail, especially if they are otherwise good patrolmen, because I think within the full context of the arrest they did a great job. But if they do have a history of this sort of aggression, than they deserve to lose their jobs. I trust JPD not to blindly sway to public opinion one way or another, but to review the case and these officer's conduct, and follow its own guidelines on how to reprimand them.” No ones on a “bandwagon” or being blind when the officers’ guilt is irrefutable. Why these officers acted in such a manner given the suspect was clearly handcuffed and secured is irrelevant. Further, these officers acted in total disregard of citizens and the media being present. More interesting is how anyone’s guidelines would allow for these officers to remain in any capacity of law enforcement! And how is it these particular officers are being perceived by some as having done a great job. They could have been "johnny come latelies” responding on the seen that played no role in the actual standoff or chase, but rather proceeded in assaulting and then securing the suspect into the police cruiser during the instances of which the video shows.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2006-04-30T19:19:43-06:00

ID

173268

Comment

Brian, I did not say there was anything in the Constitution that explicitly referrenced victims. Regardless, I think, and I stand by my earlier assertion about a lack of scholars who would disagree, that it is used as a sword in favor of the criminal. Put this case in context, is all I'm asking. The individual had a bunch of stolen cars at his house. He ran from the police. At worst, a police officer lost his temper and clocked the guy after the chase while he was handcuffed. Good? No. In the overall context terrible? No, if certain things took place. We don't even know yet what the circumstances were. What I'm trying to say is that people are people. The guy probably lost his temper after chasing him. Lord knows I would have. The individual arrested has a long - long - rap sheet. I'm sure the police are tired of dealing with him. I'd be willing to place a wager that the individual threw out all kinds of cuss words to him while he was handcuffed. But even if he didn't - some police officer probably had a wife and kids at home and had to go into the house of a burglar, not knowing what to expect, and then chase him. Meanwhile, the kid has committed all kinds of crimes. I don't know whether or not he's been found guilty of any of them. But that doesn't mean the police don't know that he has committed them. The checking point for what it takes to proove someone has committed a crime in court, and for what it takes to register in your common sense whether someone is a criminal, are two very different things. And now everyone wants to hang this officer out to dry. It's been stated that he's just a 18 year old who committed property crimes. Plenty of younger people in the city have killed over less at stake. So if I'm an officer, yes, I'd feel better if the SWAT team was with me if I went to do a raid on a guy, regardless of age, who had a bunch of stolen cars. Part of my point in all of this is that people are frustrated, myself included. They're tired of the same people committing all kinds of crimes. They're tired of the family of the accused basically saying that their family member has been bullied by the police. IWell, that person has sure bullied a bunch of other people. The mother of that guy conveniently neglects to discuss the stolen cars that were at the house. So I really don't give a damn about what the mother (or sister, or aunt, or whatever relation she may be) in this case has to say. And I think most people don't. And while the Constitution has it's place, you won't see me doing a 100 yard dash to throw it in this suspect's favor. If an officer struck him, he should be punished in some way. I'm confident he will be. But let's let the process run its course before lynching the officer. In the meantime, let's not lose site of who they arrested.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-04-30T21:52:29-06:00

ID

173269

Comment

Matt, you've graduated from law school and I haven't, so here are a few basic questions: (1) Are police officers responsible for trying and sentencing defendants? If not, how could excessive force possibly be justified on the basis that they knew the suspect was guilty? (2) Do you believe that our criminal justice system has any restorative function at all when dealing with the youngest of possible adult defendants--an 18-year-old? If so, what is the restorative value of being punched by a police officer? (3) You remark that the police officer should not be subject to "lynching." I agree. But if the police officer is entitled to due process despite videotape evidence, why is the suspect not also entitled to due process? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-30T23:37:19-06:00

ID

173270

Comment

"Let's all look up "thug" in the dictionary and analyze....not condescend." Sure..lets do that councilman and by that defintion we could label George Bush and Dick Cheney "thugs". Bill O'Reilly is a "thug" Even you and Kim wade could be described as "thugs" for that matter. Yes, Frank could be called a "thug" for walking up on Batman's mother's porch. its SOOOOOO convenient to produce that word and then sprinkle your comments with the names of a few white folks to try to make it seem as if you're identifying thugs across the board. Fact is...to a conservative republicans, affluent well-to-do people, thug=black. "Don't interview and give standing to thugs (IMHO) like "Batman"." That's not your call councilman. Everyone, regardless of whether YOU think they are guilty or not, has the right and should be given the opportunity to speak their peace. The courts found him not guilty, he is a free man, if he's indeed repsonsible for those things GOD will be his ultimate judge. That's not my call and I stay outta that, but i will forever defend his right to his JFP interview. If you would take the time to read, ask, and observe Batman and those like him are screaming in efforts that someone hear their plight. Nowhere in the interview did he say he committed crime just for the sport of it, just because he was inherently BAD!!! Whether or not you beliee it. Black folks are not just conditioned to commit crime. All folks...black and white are generally good people until conditions and surroundiings SOMETIMES push them to do otherwise. Of course its the criminals fault sir, don't be ridiculous. no one here is that green. But if we truly want to get to the crux of the problem then we have to start at the bottom and work on solutions to those "conditions" that led to to you getting carjacked. Because of course you believe those "wild animals" just did it for the mere sport of it huh? You're a councilman, I suggest you get a liiiiiiiitle more in tune with whats going on around you. I pray for the day that some of these folks around here get some cantelopes and get some "realness" on their shows. Ya'll need a view live from the trenches. Perhaps a Sunday night ride with Frank like Donna did. Lord knows she got an education first hand!!!!! And though she may never be Frank's biggest supporter, she has different perspective.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2006-05-01T10:17:33-06:00

ID

173271

Comment

Excellent comments by everyone.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-01T11:00:00-06:00

ID

173272

Comment

Kamakazi...thanks for the input. I knew my comment would provoke some angry (or testy would be a better description) responses, but to me, that is what these conversations are about. You have probably noticed that very few "conservative Republicans" even bother to drop by, or drop by for very long I should say. That being said, I can assure you that I have ridden with the JPD and the Sheriff's office as well, visited the jail, Parchment, etc etc many times. Am not trying to promote some "expertise" or "know-it -all'ism", but do want you aware that I am not some "rich, white, Republican" totally out of step with the world. Hell, I live it 3-5 times a week downtown . I am not in a vacuum here, and gladly accept criticism , even when it is criticizing me for something the criticizer is unaware of. You have had the same conversations as I regarding Mr.Donelson. You are the reason this interview took place. You arranged it. Your take on the scope of the issue is different that mine...I understand that. My take is from my experiences, while yours is from yours. What I was told of this entire situation sickened me. The JFP has every right in the world to interview whomever they wish, with or without anyone's permission or blessing, but my PERSONAL opinion is my personal opinion. I don't like movies and TV " spectaculars" about issues put onto FILM for the sole reason of ratings/viewership and money, IF in my opinion the greater good (AGAIN imho) is exploited and the truth subverted. (Not saying this applies here, but what I was told is what I was told) In any event, as I look back at the venom of some of the responses, I wonder if my opposing view really IS welcomed or taken seriously. I will press on because I will admit, I learn something everyday here, and hope my views will be addressed as simply that. Nothing more/nothing less. And for the record, the fact that I am blessed with a lowly position as a lowly Councilman can not and will not temper my opinions on issues. The day it does is the day I quit. May have to "back up, restate and clarify" sometimes, but that part of the political world ain't me. In any event, thanks for your passion.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-05-01T11:12:33-06:00

ID

173273

Comment

BTW: Definition of "thug"... Other than references to a band of people in India, "thug" is described by "dictionary.com" as: 1. Cuttroat or hoodlum 2. An aggressive or violent young criminal

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-05-01T11:59:54-06:00

ID

173274

Comment

Ben, you should have put the entire Dictionary.com definition: A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum. also Thug One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her. an aggressive and violent young criminal You left out "ruffian": now look it up: A thug or gangster. [French, pimp, from Old French rufien, from Old Provençal rufian, from Old Italian ruffiano.] n : a cruel and brutal fellow You know what one of the most famous uses of "ruffian" is, don't you? The violent white men who fought the abolitionists in Kansas. Just an interesting tidbit.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T12:12:01-06:00

ID

173275

Comment

Why these officers acted in such a manner given the suspect was clearly handcuffed and secured is irrelevant. Further, these officers acted in total disregard of citizens and the media being present. More interesting is how anyone’s guidelines would allow for these officers to remain in any capacity of law enforcement! And how is it these particular officers are being perceived by some as having done a great job. They could have been "johnny come latelies” responding on the seen that played no role in the actual standoff or chase, but rather proceeded in assaulting and then securing the suspect into the police cruiser during the instances of which the video shows. I wasn't on the scene, so I don't know what role these officers had in the actual arrest of Black, so your point is noted. If they were merely backup patrolmen who had no part in the chase or capture other than "cuffing and stuffing" the suspect, that makes what they did even worse because they definitely can't claim getting caught up in the moment. That said, I still withhold passing judgement on what disciplinary action should be taken (and let me reiterate for clarity, THESE OFFICERS SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED AND PUNISHED FOR STRIKING AN UNARMED, SUBDUED SUSPECT. THAT BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED). But I'm still short of calling for them to be put in jail or fired before JPD finishes its review and has a full report on the incident for public consumption. I have my own feelings about what will happen, but I'm reserving full judgement while this continues to play out. But by all means, you are entitled to your opinion. Heh, I'd love to hear a debate between Kim Wade and Kamikaze on the state of the City. My money's on Kami, but it would be interesting if Kim could resist taking cheap shots like he often does on his radio show.

Author

jeff lucas

Date

2006-05-01T12:22:52-06:00

ID

173276

Comment

I went back and checked....I did leave out "ruffian". Ruffian sounds so sissy....kinda like a Yankee trying to describe a "bad guy". A "Ruffian". No ring at all. Didn't register upstairs.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-05-01T14:29:33-06:00

ID

173277

Comment

WHERE IS VIDAL SULLIVAN??????????????????????????????????????????

Author

justjess

Date

2006-05-01T14:34:36-06:00

ID

173278

Comment

Try Frank's house or various hiding places.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-01T14:40:13-06:00

ID

173279

Comment

See 2nd word above...start there.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-05-01T14:42:52-06:00

ID

173280

Comment

W H E R E I S V I D A L S U L L I V A N

Author

justjess

Date

2006-05-01T14:55:45-06:00

ID

173281

Comment

"I'd love to hear a debate between Kim Wade and Kamikaze on the state of the City." maaaaaaaaan me too!!!!!!!!!! but do ya think he'd actually do it??? maybe Councilman Allen would be so kind as to have him on......talk about some fireworks!!!!!!!

Author

trusip

Date

2006-05-01T15:00:28-06:00

ID

173282

Comment

I don't believe Mr. Sullivan is in Mr. Melton's house. He was going to let me interview him, but the chief told him that Mr. Sullivan was upset about something he said about him in our first interview, and wouldn't do it. That's all I know. Suffice it to say, the public ought to demand to know where he is. But I'm not sure the public actually demands anything of Mr. Melton -- or if there are people in authority who are willing to really challenge him. That's really the most remarkable part of all this. As we said about the bad police officer, everytime Mr. Melton oversteps the boundaries, he is doing it as an actor of the state. Problems that occur as a result are all of our responsibility -- especially if we do nothing to rein him in.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T15:00:49-06:00

ID

173283

Comment

Missouri ruffians were certainly not sissies. And it was unfortunate to leave out the one word in the definition that, at least in the U.S., stands for some of the worst white "thugs" our country has seen. Studying history is a good thing. And not the whitewashed kind they teach at some of the schools around here. Also, it is clear from these definitions that anyone who would beat someone in handcuffs fits the, er, dictionary definition of "thug."

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T15:04:29-06:00

ID

173284

Comment

Ben, the fact that "thug" registers upstairs is part of the problem. When we use words that have powerful unspoken histories that go with them, and someone says those histories have racist overtones, I think we need to take that seriously. I don't think you'd argue that "thug" hasn't generally been used in a racist way to refer, exclusively, to non-white and generally low-income men falling within a certain age group. That has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. I don't think that's what you mean when you use the word, but when you use emotionally charged words like that without thinking carefully about their meaning, it's like walking in tall grass. Sooner or later, you're bound to step in something. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-01T15:25:04-06:00

ID

173285

Comment

Tom... In making "light" the term "ruffian" (STILL sounds "sissy" to me) and stating the "thug" registers to me or others because of some "racial connotation" (that I have never even dreamed of) leaves me honestly confused. (WTF.....unspoken "histories" of the word "thug"???.....hell a thug is a thug is a thug....aint' no race issue here with me OR larry for that matter...believe that or not)...I am with a pure heart CLUELESS to what you are talking about. I have no clue as to people calling black people thugs but not white people. Believe that or not. I really don't care...would like to but can't cause that statement is to me so silly. The white SOB that broke into my business in 1990 was a thug. The white SOB that broke into my apartment in 1983 was a thug. Caught both of the little sh#@s. The white punk that stole my Honda 90 motorcycle in college was a thug. Luke Woodam is a thug. Damn, now I have heard it all. The word "thug" is now racist. My God please enlighten me. I mean it. I am trying to learn here. Thug= black=racist comment. I am sorry. I mean no disrespect. I am truly baffled (call me BOZO whatever) I can't get over this.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2006-05-01T18:25:51-06:00

ID

173286

Comment

Damn, now I have heard it all. The word "thug" is now racist. Ben, I don't believe you solely use this word this way, but you truly cannot tell us that you do not know that the word "thug" is typically applied to young black men in the inner city!?! And that the people who complain about "thugs" usually are not talking about white rednecks from the country, or the old Klansmen that many of them say it is too late to prosecute for their thuggery. If you don't know that, expand your circle of conversation! (Which I realize you have done here.) It's really a good thing to be empathetic toward what other people are feeling without lecturing them for their fears and experiences. I listened to the tape of my appearance on the Kim Wade show and the talk of "get over it!" was rather amazing. It is not your fault if you have traveled small circles, but all of us much reach outside our circles for greater understanding. I appreciate that you are doing that. Now, your son's contention/rationalization about the police punching a man in handcuffs is just beyond my comprehension, especially coming from someone in the legal profession. Y'all are full of surprises. But that makes you interesting.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T18:46:51-06:00

ID

173287

Comment

I highly suggest, by the way, that you read the book about the White Citizens Council in Mississippi by Neil McMillen, or go to the state archives and pull up writings by Bill Simmons (William J.). You'll find the origins of so much of the language of today—and "liberal"-bashing (known then more as "communism") falls right into old ideas of white supremacy. That does not mean that every person who repeats the hackneyed, ignorant phrases mean them that way -- but they/you should really know what you're repeating. I've heard for instance you repeat very barely coded race phrases on your radio show that you probably have no intention of putting out there. And then you wonder why some people have thought you are a racist. Language is very powerful; so is studying up on it a bit. That's not about "political correctness"; it's about knowing what messages you are sending to people.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T18:52:06-06:00

ID

173288

Comment

Well I'll be educated ! When I was growing up in NYC in the 60's, ""thugs" were Italian. Irish or Jewish depending on the nieghborhood .

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-05-01T19:04:12-06:00

ID

173289

Comment

Well, they were originally Indian, apparently, but that does not negate the slang language right here in Mississippi and places with similar history. I suspect you could do an unscientific study simply by comparing "thug" language in a simple Google or Nexis search. And there's probably an linguistic academic somewhere out there who has beat us all to it. The most telling component is to note when certain people talk about "thugs" (inner city, for instance), whether they give equal time to other types of thugs (Klan killers gone unprosecuted). It doesn't take an academic to have eyes. I happen to remember a radio show a while back when Larry Nesbit wanted the thugs hanging from gallows in front of the Capitol or such. To his credit, I believe Ben scolded him. But still. Good Lord almighty.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T19:13:16-06:00

ID

173290

Comment

I'm sure we don't have a group worshipping Kali by infiltrating groups of travelers and then strangling them with a silk cord ala "thugee" . My wife informs that her area "thugs" outide of NOLA were Vietnamese or Blsck when she was growing up. I hesitate to class "thug" as a blatant racist term. A stereotypical term based on regional demographics, yes. But maybe I haven't lived in MS long enough.

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-05-01T19:37:34-06:00

ID

173291

Comment

Well, no one said it couldn't be used in similar "stereotypical" wars toward certain groups. Of course it can. The point is recognizing the stereotype, and how it's inevitably used against certain groups much more than others. And it's really tough to have EVER listened to screech-radio in Jackson without knowing what group it's applied to. In fact, some college class here should do a semester- or year-long analysis of talk radio, or select shows, and analyze just how and when it is used, among other stereotypes, and see how much equal time they actually find. Hmmmm. Bet I could find some folks to take this on.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T19:46:05-06:00

ID

173292

Comment

stereotypical WAYS (I meant; no time to edit my posts tonight)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T19:47:32-06:00

ID

173293

Comment

For the record, I proudly considered myself a Ft Shuyler thug in my teens. With age comes a little wisdom.

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-05-01T20:05:04-06:00

ID

173294

Comment

Yeah, well, I consider myself a Fondren Thuggress, these days. But I only fight with words. ;-P

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T20:34:07-06:00

ID

173295

Comment

If I should ever see you with a silk scarf I going the other way ;-)

Author

JLYerg

Date

2006-05-01T20:41:10-06:00

ID

173296

Comment

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-01T20:43:58-06:00

ID

173297

Comment

"I am with a pure heart CLUELESS to what you are talking about." ....c'mon man are you serious?!?!?!?! "I have no clue as to people calling black people thugs but not white people" ...no REALLY...are you serious?!?!?LOL The word "thug" has and never was intended to be racist... but neither was the "N" word. By defintion, neither was a racist term, but SOMEHOW black folks got tagged with 'em. So yo can't hide behind that one councilman. Take Donna's advice and step outside of your circle for a second and those with your like views should the same because your "psuedo-ignorance" on this issue is almost comical to me at times. but call me cynical.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2006-05-03T10:06:52-06:00

ID

173298

Comment

kamikaze do you regret ever getting in the bed with frank melton, you for a person who supposed to know the atmosphere on the street(word)on the street, frank aint never been popular with real jacksonians, so please tell frank to get real. and i guess you need a hearing aid to listen to the streets better.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-05-03T14:32:35-06:00

ID

173299

Comment

Well WILL let me say this since you asked(and so that you'll learn something about me). I'm in bed with no one. Not Frank, not Faye, not Harvey, not anyone. I have and will alwyas be my own man with my own views that I will always stand behind. And though your question is not in-step with this particular blog, I'll continue. I'm on no one's side. I'm on MY side and the side of all the kids and "thugs" as you all would call them who feel they don't have a voice. I rep for those who never trusted the political process. Those who watch a city get built around them as they wonder where they're next meal is coming from. I, along with others, stand up for the rappers, the impoverished, the uninformed who could care less about a budget, or what happens with the king edward, or a communications center, when what they want is solutions to the blight they face everyday. Hell yeah, I got my wear to the street and thee coalition that helped found is the VOICE of said streets. I'm one of those REAL jacksonians you speak of, born and raised. So I'd have to say your statement is slightly inaccurate. Whether its Frank or Harvey or Bozo the clown, I'm down with whichever candidate is concerned most about these KIDS and their future. someonw who knows what they face daily, someone who understands that. So let me dispell that myth. That I or any of my colleagues are in "bed" with Frank. We're on a much higher mission, one that no "professional" politician is willing to undertake. If you don't agree with me...that's your business, if you DO agree with me...that's your business. I will continue regardless. No I don't NEARLY agree with everything that Frank does. He's wacky by even the tamest of standards. I'm not blind. He stepped over a line that the streets don't cross by going up to a mother's door, point taken. However, he makes no qualms about it and promises to remain the same guy. I can at least respect that more than a "career" or "classy professional" politician who's gonna feed me the pc lines and then never return my phone calls or take a meeting with me cause I'm a "rapper" whose views dont count.. These kids won't wait. and when there's an issue I need to be able to walk right into someones office at city hall and speak my peace...saggy jeans, doorag, and all. ALL 3 mayoral candidates asked to come speak to the MAP coalition and all were given equal time...Whether they were lies or not...and all 3 had their share I'm sure. Melton tested better with our demographic. Your guy harvey didnt fare so well, he was visibly uncomfortable and got agitated when prodded with questions, either because he was surprised to hear such intelligence in a room of supposed "thugs" and "rapper" or because he simply didnt have the answer. Many members felt like He felt he was too good to even be there...but of course he wanted our vote. Granted half the room hates Melton's guts but they knew where he was coming from point blank. So in conclusion neither I, nor the coalition can be bought and sold and the streets arent towing the line for anybody...get that straight. Whoever is the mayor, one thang is certain, he's gonna get a hard time from me as long as i continue to see suffering in the eyes of these kids/fans in these hoods. period. Hope that helps you WILL.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2006-05-03T15:18:40-06:00

ID

173300

Comment

frank aint concerned about the kids, he lied to you and their future what about the kids thats supposed to go to pearl to get training and come back to biuld up their nieghborhoods.

Author

WILLman

Date

2006-05-03T16:33:31-06:00

ID

173301

Comment

According to the news media and his attorney, Madison court documents appear to show that Michael Black may have been falsely arrested. Court documents seem to show that on the day of the supposed crimes, Michael Black WAS ALREADY IN JAIL. How could Mr. Black commit crimes WHILE IN JAIL? More egg on the face of the JPD and Frank Melton?! Can you spell LAWSUIT??????!!!!! Will this charade ever end?!!! I wonder how Ben Allen will SPIN this debacle on Melton's behalf.

Author

Joerob

Date

2006-05-03T22:50:43-06:00

ID

173302

Comment

I saw the news too! I am not happy that the city could possibly wind up in a lawsuit because it will cost the citizens as well. I am not happy that Mr Black DOES have an extensive record at such a young age. I AM happy that the vast majority of the bloggers have a passion for what is right. The responses to this article have not condoned Mr Black's lifestyle, but rather have stood up for the very issue of protecting a person's civil rights. The police department, the mayor, and a couple of other factions took a mundane attitude torward the event, but now the very fact that a person is "innocent until proven guilty" has sucker punched the mayor and his cohorts. I (and many others) said all along that Mr Black should be held accountable for any wrongdoing and I still feel the same way. By the same token, the same SHOULD apply to the police.

Author

lance

Date

2006-05-04T05:40:33-06:00

ID

173303

Comment

UNBELIEVABLE. Guess this shows all you folks you tried to justify police brutality. Eat your words, and think about what it means to be American, boys. Now, per Kamikaze's comments about supporting Mr. Melton: I have the tape of that MAP meeting, and I've never understand why he "tested better." I'm not sure I've ever seen such a demonstration of condescension. I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm on y'all's side. I just think his charm offensive worked a little too well on some of you. All that said, I truly appreciate your facilitating this series of interviews. As you can see, you alone have started the dialogue that is captivating the city right now and gotten the other media fully on board. And you deserve mega-credit. And for the record, I don't believe you're "in bed" with Mr. Melton. Folks, Kamikaze is definitely his own man, and I respect him, even as we disagree from time to time.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-04T11:22:27-06:00

ID

173304

Comment

"And for the record, I don't believe you're "in bed" with Mr. Melton." Indeed. A ridiculous accusation to begin with. The man should be applauded!!

Author

trusip

Date

2006-05-05T10:11:21-06:00

ID

173305

Comment

Read this and weep; AP is reporting: A 14-year-old boy kicked and punched by guards at a juvenile boot camp died because the sheriff's officials suffocated him, a medical examiner said Friday, contradicting a colleague who blamed the death on a usually benign blood disorder. "Martin Anderson's death was caused by suffocation due to actions of the guards at the boot camp," said Dr. Vernard Adams, who conducted the second autopsy. Adams said the suffocation was caused by hands blocking the boy's mouth, as well as the "forced inhalation of ammonia fumes" that caused his vocal cords to spasm, blocking his upper airway. Martin Lee Anderson's body was exhumed after a camp surveillance videotape surfaced showing the guards roughing him up Jan. 5, a day before he died. His family had questioned the initial finding by Dr. Charles Siebert, the Bay County Medical Examiner, that the boy died of complications of sickle cell trait. "I am disturbed by Dr. Adams' findings and consider the actions of the Bay County boot camp guards deplorable," said Gov. Jeb Bush, who ordered the investigation that led to the second autopsy.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-05T15:14:32-06:00