Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger has an editorial today crediting Acting Chief-Sheriff Malcolm McMillin with dealing with the Latasha Norman case quickly and effectively, which seems a bit forced (they must have also heard that he may well not have enough Council votes for confirmation), but we don't have a problem throwing kudos their way. We'd probably hold out until we know more about how the investigation was initially handled. But the part about the Ledger editorial that perplexes is the following. First they write:

Norman told Pearl police on Oct. 9 that Cole hit her in a restaurant parking lot. He was arrested on that assault on Nov. 15. On Nov. 29, Cole had a hearing in a Pearl court on the October assault and was taken into custody by the Jackson Police Department for questioning in Norman's disappearance. [...]

Then later in the editorial:

It is difficult to envision a scenario in which any law enforcement agency could have prevented the tragic circumstances that befell Norman.

Is it really so difficult to imagine a scenario in which police take domestic violence seriously enough to arrest the guy immediately, as in the next day!?! How are offenders going to learn that society takes domestic abuse seriously if law enforcement response time is so slow?

"Difficult to envision," my a$$.

Previous Commentsshow

Under that editorial, someone has pointed out the problem with their logic in falling all over themselves to credit McMillin with the Norman case: However, not to take anything from JPD under new leadership, but they didn't necessarily "solve" the case. If it were not for the ex-boyfriend leading them to the body, NO law enforcement agency would have found her...they hadn't to date... What gets me is that The Clarion-Ledger wouldn't compliment former Chief Robert Moore, who happened to be black, no matter what he did. And he did many good things, include preside over steadily dropping crime rates for years. Yet, he couldn't have paid the Ledger edit-boyz for such an editorial.

DonnaLadd

Dec 3 2007

Honestly, there is too much of a fixation on the problems of the CL on this site. Very few people read the CL anyway and it has little influence outside of that small circle of people. It is getting old.

Willezurmacht

Dec 3 2007

Sorry, Wille. Our watchdogging of The Clarion-Ledger is not open to negotiation. I've explained the reasoning behind our media-literacy efforts many times, so you might as well spend your time posting on another topic, not telling the site owners what there is "too much" of here. There's plenty other stuff, so just post under that and ignore what you don't personally like. And we're thanked by many more people for our media criticism than who complain about it, so even sheer numbers aren't on your side. Not that doing what is needed is a popularity contest, anyway.

DonnaLadd

Dec 3 2007

How about watchdogging yourself? "Is it really so difficult to imagine a scenario in which police take domestic violence seriously enough to arrest the guy immediately, as in the next day!?!" Have you ever read the definition of domestic abuse in the Miss. Code? 97-3-7 A person is guilty of simple domestic violence who commits simple assault as described in subsection (1) of this section against a family or household member who resides with the defendant or who formerly resided with the defendant, a current or former spouse, "a person who has a current dating relationship with the defendant", or a person with whom the defendant has had a biological or legally adopted child and upon conviction, the defendant shall be punished as provided under subsection (1) of this section; however, upon a third or subsequent conviction of simple domestic violence, whether against the same or another victim and within five (5) years, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) years. In sentencing, the court shall consider as an aggravating factor whether the crime was committed in the physical presence or hearing of a child under sixteen (16) years of age who was, at the time of the offense, living within either the residence of the victim, the residence of the perpetrator, or the residence where the offense occurred. If they were not currently dating on Oct 9 or had lived together while they were dating he could not have been charged with domestic abuse. Her step-father said in the C-L they had been broken up for months. Sure he should have been arrested the next day for assault ,but not domestic abuse. There is no way to knowing if he would have been in jail or not, highly doubtful the way the courts are so slow nowdays. I have not read or heard anything about them still dating in Oct. So before you bash the police for not arresting him for domestic abuse you need to check and see if they even could. They definitely need to be bash for not arresting him for the simple assault. No excuse for that.

BubbaT

Dec 3 2007

We watchdog ourselves all the time. ;-) To be honest with you, above I'm not referring to the legal definition of "domestic violence" or "domestic abuse"—my big point is that it is not taken seriously enough to even have strong enough laws on the books to deal with it well, or help deter more serious violence. And then the police too often don't take an assault as seriously as they would, perhaps, in other cases because it's a "domestic" (here boyfriend-girlfriend) situation. I don't like the laws the way they are now, and they are inconsistent. When I refer to domestic abuse and violence, I'm using the definition that advocates for battered women use: a pattern of abuse between "partners" (married or unmarried) that is used by one to have power over the other. Ultimately, I agree with your last sentence, and it is what I'm saying. But don't miss my bigger point—that it is very possible that they not rush to arrest him because domestic-type situations aren't viewed with the same societal urgency as a stranger assault is. And that, my friends, is exactly my point. Thanks for helping me make it clearer to people.

DonnaLadd

Dec 3 2007

I always know when I hit the mark; the instant defensiveness is the tell. I would not presume to tell you (or anyone else) what to write, post, think about, etc. But please do not argue that comments about the "passive voice" and sentence construction are "watchdogging." This particular piece is an editorial, an opinion piece by definition- it is not "watchdogging" to disagree with an individual's faulty reasoning. Yes, CL has sloppy editorial practices and their reporting is preposterous. Before I was around they were a segregationist mouthpiece; they manipulated public opinion on behalf of murderers. When I was a kid they were nick-named "The Clarion-Liar" for their supposed liberal and pro-black bias. Now they are a toothless corporate puppet. They are an embarrassing relic. I just don't understand why people are upset by them anymore.

Willezurmacht

Dec 4 2007

It's not "defensiveness" to answer you directly and succinctly. It's always weird to hear people accuse that because I answer in a no-nonsense way. I will indeed argue that calling out very poor writing in a daily newspaper that they distribute for free in our public schools is "watchdogging." I take literacy very, very seriously, especially in my home state. And as I'm sure you know, calling out the embarrassing writing at the Ledger is not the only way we watchdog the state's largest newspaper.

DonnaLadd

Dec 4 2007