Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting:

Two of the three Jackson police officers involved in an alleged assault on a handcuffed suspect have been offered jobs as Hinds County Sheriff's deputies but are awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary hearing before making a final decision. Sheriff Malcolm McMillin confirmed Tuesday that his department has offered jobs to Donald Gater and Keith Burnett.

Officers Tyree Jones, 28, Gater, 42, and Burnett, 40, are accused of striking Michael Black, 18, following a standoff and foot pursuit in April. The incident was videotaped from WLBT-Channel 3's helicopter and broadcast.

The officers were given letters last month informing them that the department intended to fire them but that they could plead their case at a hearing. Jackson Mayor Frank Melton later said he would override Chief Shirlene Anderson's decision, but he said she would have final say.

The hearing took place Tuesday before a board of city officials. The officers will find out in writing in the next five to 10 days what disciplinary actions they face, if any, Cmdr. Tyrone Lewis said. The men have been on desk duty since the alleged assault. [...]

McMillin added he didn't condone the men's behavior but didn't think their actions should end their careers.

"I felt that while their actions were wrong, I felt that firing them was too harsh a penalty and that time off without pay would have sufficed," McMillin said. [...]

Jones, a six-year veteran, was charged with simple assault by threat in a dispute at a Ridgeland restaurant and bar in January. In that incident, Jones and two other JPD officers, all off duty, allegedly scuffled with on-duty Ridgeland police officers after an argument with a waitress over a bar tab. His trial date is Sept. 28.

Last year, Gater, a 13-year veteran with the department, was demoted from acting lieutenant to sergeant for his alleged involvement in the arrest of a Sykes Elementary School teacher.

The teacher was arrested without receiving a probable-cause hearing as required by law. She recently received a $25,000 settlement from the city.

Previous Comments

ID

88670

Comment

I thought more highly of Sherrif Mac before this farce came out. Sad to see he's as bad as Frank is.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-09T13:53:37-06:00

ID

88671

Comment

My first thought on all this is straight out of "Butch Cassidy": Who ARE these guys? Meaning the police officers. And why in hell are all these public officials bending over backward to protect cops who behave no better than the "thugs" they're trying to arrest? Remarkable.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T13:56:57-06:00

ID

88672

Comment

Makes one think they might know somethin', or somethin' like that, huh? They beat a child and aren't good enough for the city, but we'll let 'em deal with all them county people. No biggie... The one that bothers me is that this Jones guy seems to be presenting a PATTERN of violent and uncontrollable behavior. Are these guys stupid? That is NOT the type of person we want acting as a law enforcement officer. Period.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-08-09T14:09:26-06:00

ID

88673

Comment

Your right Ali! Out of these three, Jones is by far the one who should be fired - no questions asked. Though I think all three should go, maybe the other two just made a mistake, and can learn from it after some type of penalty?

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-08-09T14:34:26-06:00

ID

88674

Comment

"Jackson's Finest" or "The Worst of a Bad Lot?" Jackson is in trouble if these men are our poster-boys for best practice in law inforcement. It makes you wonder why in the sam hell would Mcmillin want to hire these guys who have already made the national media for wrong-doing. Could it be that we are just a little piece of a big pie of corruption?

Author

justjess

Date

2006-08-09T16:49:59-06:00

ID

88675

Comment

I'm not happy with the officers and what they did. But, "they beat a child..."? Are we talking aout Michael Black? When I hear "child", I'm thinking a little kid with a teddy bear sucking his thumb. Michael Black is Parchman larvae; nothing more.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:10:37-06:00

ID

88676

Comment

OK, so the choice is "child" or "Parchman larvae"? That's offensive, Cliff. I bet some people would have said the same thing about Cedric Willis when he was arrested -- had he been beaten while in handcuffs. Parchman larvae, indeed. Can't we just settle on "human being"? Isn't that a good enough characteristic to keep one from being friggin' beaten while in handcuffs by a bunch of coward cops? That is not the kind of country I live in, nor city I want to live in. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty, and the cops don't get to go around beating the accused.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:31:20-06:00

ID

88677

Comment

Noted. I feel that calling Michael Black a child is just wrong though. It offends me.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:34:07-06:00

ID

88678

Comment

And, I don't think what the police did was right. I don't want anyone beat in cuffs. That's wrong also. That offends me as well.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:35:26-06:00

ID

88679

Comment

I can see that. I, personally, would choose to call him a teenager—perfect for that stupid, uncertain time between being a little kid and an adult, and the time that one needs the most help and guidance. Note I did not say beatings while in handcuffs.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:36:27-06:00

ID

88680

Comment

As usual, we're closer than we think. Oh, the pesky language that divides. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:37:28-06:00

ID

88681

Comment

How about wayward teenager who's really messing up. BAD. ;-)

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:41:48-06:00

ID

88682

Comment

Deal. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:42:17-06:00

ID

88683

Comment

Cliff- I know that child and his family. Notice I said 'child'. Parchman Larvae? That makes me ill. He is a PERSON...just like you are a PERSON. The very fact that he hasn't had the advantages and education that you have had doesn't mean he is only fit for PRISON. I think what you said reeks of a$$hole larvae.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-08-09T17:47:58-06:00

ID

88684

Comment

I just think that's where he'll end up if he doesn't change his ways. You can't do it for him and neither can I. "I think what you said reeks of a$$hole larvae. " Is that an ad hominem?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:53:56-06:00

ID

88685

Comment

These 'cops' should be out on their collective asses. Sheriff McMillian would just be condoning their behaviour if he hired them to the Sheriff's office. *sigh*

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-08-09T17:56:11-06:00

ID

88686

Comment

Is that an ad hominem? Nope. It would be an ad hominem if I said "Cliff, YOU reek of a$$hole larvae". :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-08-09T18:10:53-06:00

ID

88687

Comment

Oh, I know how it works Ali. I'm just pointing out that you are violating the spirit of that rule; I won't reciprocate.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T18:13:47-06:00

ID

88688

Comment

"Deal. ;-D Posted by: ladd on Aug 09, 06 | 5:42" I think one of us just bought the other's car; I'm just not sure who... ;-)

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T18:26:04-06:00

ID

88689

Comment

Cliff-feel free to say that something I state reeks. Seriously. I just wonder what "spirit" you are violating when you call a confused child "parchman larvae".

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-08-09T18:28:13-06:00

ID

88690

Comment

Confused child!? Good grief!

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-09T18:29:47-06:00

ID

88691

Comment

It was a quick (albeit offensive to some) way of saying that's where I think he'll end up. And I do. I think he'll go to prison if he keeps doing the things he's doing. I hope he proves me wrong; nothing would make me happier; sincerely. "Cliff-feel free to say that something I state reeks. Seriously." I did. I said that you calling Michael Black a child offended me. The notion that "he's just a child" seems an unreasonable assertion. I just didn't attach the name calling to it by playing the rules game on ad hominem attacks. I can say something reeks without adding the other part though.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T18:39:25-06:00

ID

88692

Comment

I wouldn't wish any hardship on anyone, but it would be interesting to see the reaction of these officers if someone had beaten one of their children the way that they beat Michael Black. If Michael is the "thug" that the mayor says he is then why has Melton not taken him in as he seemingly does all of the other young wayward boys? He believes that he can make all of the difference in the lives of our youth. This would be a perfect time to salvage Michael Black's future. Those officers seem to have forgotten the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". I guess that this saying bit them in their a$$es this time.

Author

lance

Date

2006-08-09T20:36:15-06:00

ID

88693

Comment

Hey! Back to Mcmillans actions. Could it be that he is just irritated by everything Melton does, and just decided to offer those two officers a job to make Melton look bad. I really think it is all political.

Author

Darron

Date

2006-08-09T22:58:33-06:00

ID

88694

Comment

Cliff writes: Michael Black is Parchman larvae; nothing more. I wonder what makes him a "damn thug" and "Parchman larvae," since he was never indicted for anything? Is it the fact that he's a young black male who happened to be arrested, and happened to get beaten by police officers? If police officers had arrested or beaten you or me, would we be "Parchman larvae"? If we wouldn't be, should we just thank our lucky stars we happened to be born white? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-09T23:55:44-06:00

ID

88695

Comment

As for McMillin: I don't care why he's doing it. It's still wrong, and it still sends the message that McMillin condones the indiscriminate beating of handcuffed young black males. I am very, very disappointed in our sheriff, and I suspect he will lose some friends over this. Peace, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-09T23:57:56-06:00

ID

88696

Comment

McMillin doesn't tolerate any crap. If he hires them then there is probably something we don't know about. I have a feeling its also been made very clear to them how they are expected to conduct themselves.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-08-10T00:13:01-06:00

ID

88697

Comment

"Michael Black was the only one left inside when he ran out of the home, but police chased him down. He was originally identified by the Hinds County Sheriff's Department as person of interest in 11 recent car burglaries, a few auto thefts, and even a strong armed robbery. Over the past few days Hinds County officials say purses and cars were stolen while Byram residents pumped gas or shopped. "The same people are responsible for the majority of these crimes,” said Hinds County Sheriff Malcolm McMillin. “It is a little gang of thugs that are responsible for these, and a definite person of interest is Michael Black." The sheriff says Black once led deputies on a high speed chase, but authorities backed off when it became too dangerous. After officials went public, a “Crimestoppers” tip led police to a home on Longwood Drive around 2:00 p.m. Wednesday. An Infiniti, believed to be stolen, was spotted in the driveway..." Tom, if you or I were involved with this stuff we'd eventually be headed to prison regardless of what color we are. As I said before, if this "child" doesn't change his ways, he's going to the big house.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T00:17:52-06:00

ID

88698

Comment

Cliff writes: Tom, if you or I were involved with this stuff we'd eventually be headed to prison regardless of what color we are. As I said before, if this "child" doesn't change his ways, he's going to the big house. And nothing would convince him to change his (alleged) ways like getting beaten, with impunity, by four police officers. Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. You need to decide whether he's subhuman and can be simply used as a punching bag--completely worthless, simply a "damn thug," just "Parchman larvae"--or a young human being, with rights, who might need guidance and intervention. You can't have it both ways. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T00:27:23-06:00

ID

88699

Comment

And if he really is on the verge of a life of crime, then it seems to me that this is an aggravating circumstance for the police officers--in that they might have just, through their actions, pushed him over the brink--rather than a mitigating circumstance. All the more reason to throw the book at them, as far as I'm concerned. Seriously, reprimands and suspensions and all that aside, why the hell aren't they under arrest and charged with assault? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T00:28:54-06:00

ID

88700

Comment

Meanwhile, Maurice Clarrett, who was always misunderstood and really was a good kid, was arrested with 4 firearms today and wearing body armour.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-08-10T00:42:23-06:00

ID

88701

Comment

Here's what gets me: Black is being accused of property crimes and running away from police officers. He was never indicted for anything. Four police officers are caught, ON CAMERA, assaulting a black suspect. Five people. Four people captured on film committing a gratuitous violent act, one accused of committing petty crimes. So why the hell does he get to be the "damn thug" and the "Parchman larva"? Aren't the officers the obvious "damn thugs" and "Parchman larvae" in this case? They're the ones on camera beating a guy with a stick, for crying out loud. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T00:54:42-06:00

ID

88702

Comment

[quote]As for McMillin: I don't care why he's doing it. It's still wrong, and it still sends the message that McMillin condones the indiscriminate beating of handcuffed young black males.[/quote] I had to wait for hours on the wrong side of the velvet rope when McMillin used to work the door at George Street Grocery. All the cute, pretty girls would breeze right in without even paying the cover charge. He certainly wasn't very fair-minded then- and I haven't forgotten it or forgiven him for it...

Author

Rico

Date

2006-08-10T00:57:27-06:00

ID

88703

Comment

To me, the issue is straightforward. It is not a question of whether Michael Black is a good person or bad. It is not even a question of whether the police are good men or bad. These officers are professionals, and they committed a horrible offense of that code, regardless of the ways they violated Black's civil rights. If a high school teacher shoves a student into a locker, we fire that person. That does not mean that we lack sympathy; the little bastard probably deserved it. But that is not how professionals handle their responsibilities.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-08-10T01:32:23-06:00

ID

88704

Comment

This goes beyond that for me, Brian. The officers committed assault against a handcuffed suspect, assault that could have potentially killed or seriously injured him. Further, since he was never even indicted with an offense, there is no reason to believe that he deserved this kind of treatment--it is hard to see how anyone could. And since this was a young man who was apparently on the margins of legal society anyway, their behavior may have quite possibly--and understandably--pushed him over the edge. Certainly we don't approve when the prisoners at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay were beaten down with nightsticks while handcuffed, not even prisoners who may have committed violent acts. When it happens in our own city, we should raise hell. This goes beyond a professional code violation. This should be treated as a violent crime and prosecuted accordingly. These officers need to spend time in prison. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T02:37:26-06:00

ID

88705

Comment

Tom, I never said the police shouldn't be charged. In fact, I posted this response to Lakeside Res over on The Clarion Ledger Forum some time ago. "Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:23 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lakeside res wrote: The officers should Not be fired. They over reacted a little, but the kid is a total thug. It's not the first time the police in Jackson and surrounding cities had chased this guy. I'm sure it didn't help that he ran that day either. If punching the little thug a couple of time makes him think twice before coming to my town to steal car then so be it. The officers should indeed be reprimanded, but they should not be fired. The JPD has many shortcomings and I've had an incident with an officer that was a total *. The guy couldn't tell my wife was having an insulin reaction and wanted to run us both in of domestic charges. I have also had an incident when the JPD helped my locate my wife after a car accident. These officers involved in the chase of Michael Black were after a known criminal. They should not be fired for hitting a low life thug that only cares about robbing and stealing. To me they did the whole community a favor by getting him off the streets. Cliff Wrote: Lakeside, I agree up to the point of when he was cuffed. That's against the rules. They can't do that. They can, however, meet force with just above equal force. IE he runs, they chase. He hits, they defend themselves hitting back if needed. He shoots, they shoot back. It called meeting force with just enough equal force to control the situation. That's how they are trained to enforce the law. You just can't hit that punk after he's cuffed no matter how big of a POS he is. He'll get off if the police didn't follow policy and procedure anyway, so it's a moot point. Plus it'll cost the city mega bucks in the lawsuits that follow." It may not be worded just like you want it, but I feel we agree he shouldn't have been beaten in handcuffs by these officers. But "petty crimes"? Come on Tom. Until they happen to you. High speed chases are" petty crimes"? I guess it's a "petty crime" until he slams into you, or one of your loved one's car doors and kills them. And the rest of the stuff? Stolen cars in the driveway? Purse snatchings? That's pretty violent stuff. Petty crime is where the victim wouldn't have a chance of bodily injury, or death. "Petty crime"? I think not. And yeah, offensive as it may seem, people that are sick of crime are going to use words like "thug", "Parchman Larvae", "POS", "punk"and so forth because they're just so tired of this. Then, those same people turn arounnd vote for someone like Melton, and things just get worse. At some point, Michael Black will have to take responsibility for Michael Black. Perhaps, he'll kill someone in a stolen car during a high-speed chase, or some sort of other violent crime. Then, at some point he'll go to prison. It'll just be interesting to see where he goes from here, and what excuses will be made for him then. I wonder what he's doing too improve his station in life?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T06:50:10-06:00

ID

88706

Comment

OK, I'll be perfectly honest. I don't think those "love taps" could have possibly injured or killed that "child". That "child" is old enough to know running is a bad idea. I don't think his economic disposition has any bearing on his criminal or lack of criminal activity. I think it's unprofessional of the police to punch him. At the same time I really don't care and wouldn't have cared if they wore his ass out. Guilty or not, don't run from the police. It's simple. It's a good thing I'm not in charge and never will be because the truth is I'm a calloused SOB. I've seen more violence in my lifetime that most people, and that "beating" doesn't even register on the radar. Donna, you can call those policemen cowards until your heart is content, but the fact is they put their lives on the line everyday.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-08-10T10:30:50-06:00

ID

88707

Comment

And furthermore, Michael Black has led Clinton PD, Jackson Pd, and the Hinds County Sheriff's Department on several reckless and highspeed car chases on several different occasions. His running from the police the day he was apprehended was just typical of his behavior. Understand that he was in handcuffs and being interrogated when he broke and ran. Ask yourself why this young man insists on running from the police, even when he is in custody. The police were very frustrated with him, thus the over aggression witnessed when he was being led to the patrol car. It should not have happened, but it did. We all should be celebrating getting a very reckless and dangerous young man off the streets.

Author

Darron

Date

2006-08-10T12:26:13-06:00

ID

88708

Comment

That's all bad, and he should have been punished in a legal way. But none of that in any way justifies what those cops did to a man in handcuffs. It's remarkable to see so many people try to justify this away. Do y'all want to live in a civilized society or not? If not, you've got to start with your public servants and police and go from there. There is NO justification for what they did, and allowing them to continue to be police officers sends the wrong message both to other cops, as well as would-be criminals. If we justify our police doing this, don't you think more suspects are going to run? Then they get beaten once they're caught? Come on, people. We can do better than this. And we can hold the police to higher standards. So many Jacksonians complain that the police are unprofessional when they come visit you. Do you really think that a police force that believes it can engage in brutality at will is going to be NICE and LOVEY to you when they come to your house. Double standards, folks. Either you believe in American ideals or you don't. And a very basic one is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Part of that means that some thug cops don't get to take the law in their own hands because a suspect p!sses them off.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T12:33:47-06:00

ID

88709

Comment

At the same time I really don't care and wouldn't have cared if they wore his a** out. Then you don't understand what makes America different from the countries so many people love to hate.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T12:37:16-06:00

ID

88710

Comment

No, I'm pretty sure I understand better than most people.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-08-10T12:55:45-06:00

ID

88711

Comment

Explain then. If you believe in the ideals that undergird American freedom (including from abuse from public servants), how can you make the statement that you do not care that an accused American (there's the best word for him) is beaten while in handcuffs. Please, please make me understand how patriotic people can even THINK of turning our backs on such abuse by the state. Come on. I dare you.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T13:02:51-06:00

ID

88712

Comment

Wow that strikes a nerve with you just like your comments strike a nerve with me. I've been to the worst place in the world and seen the difference between America and absolute hell myself. I don't need you to tell me anything about freedom. I've seen where people have none first hand. I have my own right to my opinion and my right to express it just as you have yours. I do not think that qualifies as abuse. It's not even a beating. I've seen a man in the desert with his heart ripped out of his chest and his face peeled off. That's abuse. I've seen a man with his legs broken and forced to heal back in a manner that makes them useless. That's abuse. A poke in the gut is a blessing, he could have learned a lesson from it, but now he will get media attention and pity to validate he is the victim and not those he has walked over. Even a proper beating still wouldn't be abuse because he would walk away with the knowledge that being a criminal is actually a bad thing and he shouldn't be proud of it. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-08-10T15:22:49-06:00

ID

88713

Comment

Btw, I know you are angry at me, but really "Come on, I dare you". If you are trying to intimidate me, it's really not going to work.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-08-10T15:25:58-06:00

ID

88714

Comment

Different deal I know--- but, this reminds me of Michael Fay, the American 18 year old in Singapore that was caned in 1994 for vandalizing cars. That was harsh, but I can't say felt sorry for him. I don't think he spray-painted many cars after those four strikes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T15:40:16-06:00

ID

88715

Comment

It's a matter of professionalism. If they can't be trusted not to beat handcuffed suspects, its only a matter of time before one dies. Any force necessary to capture that's allowed, then zip. Part of the rules. Since these three can't be trusted to do that, they shouldn't be in Law Enforcement.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-10T15:47:47-06:00

ID

88716

Comment

"but the fact is they put their lives on the line everyday." So do I. So does everyone else. We could be involved in an auto accident going to and coming from work. Whilst on the job, we could be electrocuted, we could get knocked off a ladder, we could have any number of accidents. Judging from the number of times people shoot into occupied dwellings around here, we're no safer at home. According to CNN, police officer doesn't even make the top ten in most dangerous jobs. http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/ Ned

Author

NedWreck

Date

2006-08-10T16:06:04-06:00

ID

88717

Comment

So you don't think they take more risks on a daily basis than you? How many criminals do you actively pursue? That's a pretty bold statement.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-08-10T16:15:15-06:00

ID

88718

Comment

nothing, read the top ten list. I think he has a valid point. We wouldn't let loggers or airline pilots beat people to a pulp because they have dangerous jobs, so we shouldn't let police officers, either. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T16:18:44-06:00

ID

88719

Comment

From where I sit, the officers screwed up and should face some type of disciplinary action. The primary bone of contention among everyone seems to be the measure of discipline to be imposed. Some think the officers should be fired. I, on the other hand, believe that a good butt-chewin' from the Chief would suffice. The appropriate measure of discipline probably lies somewhere between these two extremes. What I saw on the video doesn't fit my definition of a beating. He got punched, rather weakly, a few times. Maybe someone with some medical training could jump in here, but I don't believe there's any way those punches could have caused any serious injury, much less death, to this behavior-challenged young citizen. As far as prison time for the officers, under the MCA, what they did, at worst, was simple assault--a misdemeanor. Nobody goes to prison for that.

Author

Curt Crowley

Date

2006-08-10T17:19:27-06:00

ID

88720

Comment

Curt Crowley said: "behavior-challenged young citizen....." That's good. Where's my smiley face button? Like Barney Fife say's "When are we gonna get 'modearn' around here....."

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T17:28:37-06:00

ID

88721

Comment

I've been to the worst place in the world and seen the difference between America and absolute hell myself. I don't need you to tell me anything about freedom. I've seen where people have none first hand. I have my own right to my opinion and my right to express it just as you have yours. I haven't said you don't have the right to your opinion. But I am challenging you to think harder about this. nothing, I appreciate that you have been in war, and remember that from the past. My father had his life destroyed because of the wars he fought, and the horrors he saw. He was never the same afterward and could never beat the alcoholism and psychological issues it caused for him. I know war is hell. That is why I believe we must honor at home why wars are fought—if we don't, we're hypocrites. A primary reason wars are fought—or so they tell us even when it's not true—is to protect the freedoms that we believe are unique to our country (or rellatively unique). No other country's constitutional protections stand us to ours. Even when we haven't given them to everyone, they are beautiful and wonderful. High among those is the right to not be punished for a crime until a jury of our peers has decided that we are guilty. This applies to every single American, and has to, if we mean it. The emotional side of me may want a bunch of vigilantes to go round up the hoodlums we believed commited a horrible crime—whether the elderly woman in Fondren, the three civil rights workers in my hometown, or the rape and murder of that young woman found in Presidential Hills—and beat the hell of them without further adieu. We have all felt that. But the beauty of America is that we do not, and cannot, legally act on those emotions. We cannot because everyone has the same right as you, me, Tom Head, or Michael Black to not be abused by people in authority, to be tried fairly, before we are punished. It HAS to be this way, in order for our system of freedom to work, to last, to be a model for other countries where you and my father fought. People who do not understand the basic principle of the U.S. Constitution, and who allow their emotion to cloud their judgement, should not be put into a position to abuse it. It is very basic, and it is what you fought for, bless your heart.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T18:22:58-06:00

ID

88722

Comment

O.k. Donna: Whether I agree in principle or not, that was a well thought response to nothing that makes me think. Hard too... It's also very hard to argue when couched in those terms. My bottom line is this: The police are responsible for their actions, and so is Michael Black.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T18:35:03-06:00

ID

88723

Comment

And, If I may... This is an excahnge that you and I had on another thread that should have been. Others might not have seen it. Donna said: "Also, it is good to know that the worst criminals do not fear punishment. That's a sad truth that the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key folks don't like to hear, but it's fact. And that means that ensuring that the fewest people possible become criminals in the first place is the way to make our society safer. Then you have fewer to send away for life, or to rehabilitate. (Notice I didn't say put to death, because I do not believe that civilized societies do that. Some day, the U.S. will become civilized—sooner rather than later, I believe.) Posted by: ladd on Aug 09, 06 | 5:34 pm" Cliff said: If we don't strongly enforce the law, and crime get's bad, (real or precieved) then public opinion swings wildly towards someone who say's "It's over...Jackson's crime problem will end in 60 days". That worked out real well. They (the public) become so fed up with crime, that they take drastic measures. Then, we're stuck with a bad decision that last 4, possibly 8 years. I know; I was fooled. What happened in Jackson's last election is nothing new. In Criminal Justice 101, they teach "The Pendulum Effect" as relates to crime. I know you've heard of it Donna, but, for those that don't know about it, it goes something like this: If crime is down, and the public is not concerned with overagressive law enforcement and rights aren't being violated, it's ("the pendulum") is in the center. Sort of a happy medium, if you will. If crime goes up, the public throws a fit and want's something done because the pendulum swung too far off center... in Melton comes swooping in to save the day. So, our new "crime fighter" goes about cracking heads and such, violating people's rights. Soon, the public throws another fit wanting something done about that, because now the police are beating on doors with shotguns, have no warrants, pull people over for no reason, impose curfews and states of emergencies, ahem...try to ban gunshows and so on... Now, the pendulum has gone all the way to the other side. And, whether we like it or not, the public will have the last say on this issue. What I'm getting at, is we don't want them throwing a fit either way. What we're talking about is prevention -vs- punishment. Like most things, if we don't have a balance between the two, we're doomed to fail---because the pendulum as relates to crime, will be off center. Yes, try and save them when they're young. But, once they're past a certain point, it's up to them. Posted by: Cliff Cargill on Aug 09, 06 | 8:02 pm

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T18:46:00-06:00

ID

88724

Comment

Should have been here, I mean...

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-10T18:55:34-06:00

ID

88725

Comment

My bottom line is this: The police are responsible for their actions, and so is Michael Black. I agree with that statement, Cliff. There is nothing about saying that policemen who do not understand, or respect, basic American rights should be fired that, in turn, says that Michael Black should not be responsible for his actions. What is absurd would be to argue that, somehow, beating him while he's in handcuffs is holding him responsible somehow. And I know you're not doing that, Cliff. I, too, agree in a combination of prevention and punishment. The problem, though, is when people do not do enough homework to understand when the harshest punishments actually increase recividivism and the level of violence in the community—not to mention turn employees of the state into killers. Civilized societies are not ruled by bloodthirst or the need for revenge.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T19:01:54-06:00

ID

88726

Comment

Criminals like Black don't deserve our sympathy, but they do deserve to be treated legally.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-10T20:17:58-06:00

ID

88727

Comment

It's interesting that some people cannot seem to grasp the idea that following the Constitution when dealing with a suspect is not, somehow, the same as being "sympathetic" toward the crimes they committed. Fortunately, our founding fathers were a bit more prone to logic over emotion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T20:20:50-06:00

ID

88728

Comment

I would ask you a question, though, ejeff: Has Mr. Black been convicted of anything, yet? If not, this "criminal" is innocent — until proven guilt.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T20:22:46-06:00

ID

88729

Comment

Oh come on, Ladd, you aren't even reading the posts in this very thread that have noted the guy committed crimes, including being in possession of a stolen vehicle and leading police on a high-speeed chase, and the Clarion reported today that he is currently being held in the Hinds County Detention Center for several felony and misdemeanor charges, including burglary, auto burglary and simple assault. I know you are trying to convince all of us "law and order" types that we should be careful about labeling people, but by definition he is a criminal even if he is not guilty of the crime he was suspected of when he was arrested. Even his running from the cops is a considered resisting arrest.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-10T20:48:07-06:00

ID

88730

Comment

He did choose to resist arrest.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-10T20:59:09-06:00

ID

88731

Comment

He isn't a criminal until he's been convicted of a crime. Sure, we have evidence that he fled the police. We even better evidence that three police officers beat him up, which would probably make them criminals if he were white. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-10T21:06:15-06:00

ID

88732

Comment

No, I am reading, ejeff. I don't see the part where he had been convicted, yet. Does that mean I think he shouldn't be, assuming he's guilty? Hell, no. Can you really not see the difference here? And have you missed the whole ironic arc that he is much LESS LIKELY to be convicted and then become a "criminal" if a handful of rogue officers decide to jump the gun and violate his rights? If you want more criminals off the streets, you shore as heck ought not be defending away, or excusing, police brutality. No, he is not a criminal until he is convicted of a crime. A suspect? Yes. An accused man? Yes. I can't help but think of Cedric Willis again. I wonder how many locals would have been cheering the cops on had they beaten him while in custody and a TV camera was there? And what's most intriguing to me here is that the bloodthirst isn't coming out toward a guy who was accused of killing a child or a cop. He was "in possession of" a stolen vehicle and ran from the cops. Not good, and deserved just punishment (apres jury verdict). But it's not like he killed a cop or a child. Now, that's emotion that's truly understandable. But, here, some of y'all are sounding like you want to round up a posse to string up the horse thieves. It's kinda creepy, folks. I'm off to play the national anthem over and over again so I can remember what country I live in.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T21:09:56-06:00

ID

88733

Comment

Amazing how hard you guys are trying to convince us that even though we witnessed this guy evading police in a stolen car and endangering the lives of innocent motorists that we shouldn't judge him as a criminal. I've never suggested that he get put away for the rest of his life or anything that extreme; a few months in jail as the law allows is a proportionate punishment. But I also don't want to see him get off or get paid because a couple of cops went Dirty Harry on him. And I do want to see the cops get punished also. Just as you guys accuse us of being "bloodthirsty", I can also see how the cops are being equally judged by some of the folks here even though they haven't been convicted of anything either.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-10T22:05:05-06:00

ID

88734

Comment

Now, you're getting into the sticky issue of police chases. That's another whole topic when it comes to endangering people's lives. No one is telling you to believe he's ultimately *innocent*. What you are being asked to do it to not degrade our Constitution and our freedoms by somehow justifying what was visible to all in the TV footage: police beating a man in handcuffs. In the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty ditty that is so important to the American way, he is not a "criminal" until he is committed of a crime. That is the time to mete out his punishment, and the only time. But I also don't want to see him get off or get paid because a couple of cops went Dirty Harry on him. Sorry, but don't you understand that that is the price we pay to ensure that cops don't go Dirty Harry on us all at will?!? If you do not want this to happen to people likely to be proven guilty, then don't excuse it away. That is a responsibility of citizenship, IMHO. The problem the cops have is the video camera capturing them beating someone in handcuffs. Police officers should consider that possibility in the future; maybe that will help deter similar idiocy, being that so many people don't understand why it's so abdominable to participate in police brutality. That, sadly, means that many cops probably don't, either, and if they're not fired for punching the Constitution in such a way, it's not exactly going to send that message to others, either. I fear a vicious cycle. Otherwise, I'm just going to declare plain silly *any* attempt here to say that someone who opposes police brutality is somehow excusing the person committing crimes in the first place. Sorry folks, that's stankin' thankin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T22:19:07-06:00

ID

88735

Comment

Right back at ya, Ladd. I find your arguments just plain silly.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-10T22:21:27-06:00

ID

88736

Comment

Sorry. Kneejerk response. I see your point, but I still disagree with your characterizations.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-10T22:23:34-06:00

ID

88737

Comment

I didn't say your argument was "silly," ejeff—unless you're engaging in the very illogical fallacy that "someone who opposes police brutality is somehow excusing the person committing crimes in the first place." That argument would be silly on its face. I don't think it's what *you* are saying, and hopefully not what others are trying to say. But emotion can cloud, and that's what ends up coming out in many of these posts. My urge to all is to think this through. You really can go after the bad guys AND protect their constitutional rights. That's one of the many things that's so great about America. We understand the need to do both, and do not believe that doing one somehow cancels out the other. Gotta fly. Literally. Peace.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-10T23:13:51-06:00

ID

88738

Comment

I certainly never said or accused you of excusing Black, which smacks of putting words into someone else's argument. I just take issue with the handwringing that goes on around here whenever folks like me focus on what Black allegedly did, that we are some bloodthirsty lynch mob ready to hang him from the gallows, and describe him as a criminal based on his behavior. In my world, even if he wasn't a criminal before JPD went after him, he is now a criminal by definition. To wit, Webster's definition of a criminal: 1 : one who has committed a crime 2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime You correctly point out that he has not been convicted of a crime. But choosing to run from police while in possession of a stolen vehicle made him a criminal under the first definition, just not in the strict legal sense (the same legal system that tells us if we witness a man's throat being cut that the throatcutter is only "alleged" to have cut his throat). Many of us are unconvicted criminals using that logic arguably, but the word isn't being used incorrectly. And the officers that hit him were acting like thugs and should be suspended or fired for their actions.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-11T06:14:39-06:00

ID

88739

Comment

You might be reading in a bit, Black. And all my comments are not to you directly. If you re-read this thread and others that deal with that topic, that would be obvious. Allow me to make my position clear: It does not matter what someone does wrong. The police do not have the right to beat them while in handcuffs. And to do so, or justify it in any way, makes a mockery of our system of freedoms. There's very good reason for that -- even if it rankles some in individual cases like this one. I believe in both preventing crime and apprehending criminals -- have I told y'all about the one I chased up State Street recently because he stole a wallet from a customer in business near our office? -- but I can do that and believe in (and argue on behalf of) our very basic right to be proven guilty in a court of our peers before being punished by rogue cops. Otherwise, sounds like we agree quite a bit, so I really don't need to keep back and forth with you on it, ejeff. There has been nothing personal directed toward you. We just disagree on a small part, it seems. No big deal.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-11T11:17:34-06:00

ID

88740

Comment

TO BEAT OR NOT TO BEAT - THAT IS THE QUESTION. DO NOT BEAT - THAT IS THE ANSWER. This is AMERICA. The land of the free, the home of the brave! We are to be presumed "innocent" until proven "guilty." Policemen have absolutely no right, under any set of circumstances, to beat a child, man, girl, boy, or woman while handcuffed. This is criminal and should be punished. Am I the only person who remembers the Rodney King case from California? MS continues to ride that "slippery slope" and if we are not careful, the South will rise again with all of the negatives of slavery and by the way, it does not matter what color the slave master is. Ladd, your lecture in civil liberities was excellent and again these are the things that not only protect us in the legal system: These are the behaviors that seperate us from lower animals: The very qualities that make us HUMAN!

Author

justjess

Date

2006-08-15T11:10:36-06:00