Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2006 > June > 25 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPolice exhibit a double standard
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Not even my darkest side would permit me to kill another human being.
For sake of discussion, though, say I flip out. Someone gets shot to death. Basic police work calls for investigators to gather information, to name the shooter.
I doubt the Gwinnett County cops would identify me on an incident report as a “Gwinnett County columnist.”
They might list that as my alias, but definitely not my real name. Rest assured, “Rick Badie” would be printed in the offender’s box.
But if I were a Gwinnett County police officer, things might be different. A double standard might be applied. The authorities might invoke a hybrid code of silence that rivals any cinematic plot.
Unfortunately for us, the script is a reality.
On June 10, a Gwinnett police sergeant shot and killed an unarmed man on Hamilton Mill Road in Buford. Police say 41-year-old Jeffrey Hugh Cantrell was intoxicated. Cantrell apparently knew he was too tanked to drive. He’d called some co-workers and was en route to a gas station to meet them so somebody could take the wheel.
He didn’t make it. A veteran police officer who tried to stop Cantrell shot him from a moving vehicle. He died before his truck even left the road.
We know lots about Cantrell, thanks to Sheriff’s Department records. Since 1997, he’d been jailed in the county detention center 10 times on various charges, DUI among them. And just this April, he spent time in the pen on a disorderly conduct charge.
His criminal history is an open book. He doesn’t enjoy the blue-shield luxury of the officer, who apparently failed to follow departmental policy when he shot at Cantrell from a moving vehicle.
In public records, the cops declined to list the officer’s name. Homicide Detective S.K. Shaw, who is handling the internal investigation, listed him on the incident report as “GCPD Officer.”
How clever.
The authorities have told us zilch about this officer, a 20-year veteran. All we know is that he’s been placed on administrative leave while an internal inquiry continues.
This practice of selective anonymity makes a mockery of what cops are sworn to represent and uphold. It spits in the face of Cantrell’s family as well as the general public’s lawful right to know who this cop is and what his service record says.
It tells us something else, too. A double standard exists. Fraternal loyalty matters. Character, ethics and full disclosure are expendable when cops are involved. Do as I say. Not as I do. We are the law, and when it comes to shielding one of our own, we’ll skirt it.
This week, details of the internal investigation into the shooting are supposed to be turned over to District Attorney Danny Porter.
How are we to accept the police investigation of one of its own, when the department’s first instinct was to shield him?
I expect a paper tiger that, if it includes any recommendations for charges, taps the offender on the wrist and sends him on his way.
On Friday, I called Detective Shaw as well as Cpl. Darren Moloney, the police spokesman, to see what they had to say about the decision to shield the officer’s identity. Shaw referred me to Maloney.
Moloney didn’t return a page.
By the way, I used my real name as well as my professional title.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 25, 2006 10:32 PM | Link to this
Yes the double standard is a sad reality of all police departments, the investigation will probably be nothing more than a cover up and as far a District Attorney Danny Porter doing anything, we seen how he handled the case of the sheiffs deputies Tazering a man to death.
The department may be understaffed and under paid, but there is no excuse for for it. Those charged with enforcing the law are not above it.
But now a days it’s just not the police, but politicians, ceo’s, teachers, students, just about any group you want to pick. Passing the buck and cover-ups are just what we expect these days, unless we demand change, how can you expect anything better.
We have become a society that excepts low expectations and we get what we deserve. Harry Truman where are you?
By Brandy Bozeman
June 25, 2006 11:30 PM | Link to this
Mr. Badie, I find it very interesting how quick you are to point fingers at the very system that protects you and your family at night. You, among others, are the first to bash these men and women who wear a badge and never question putting their lives on the line. I find it ironic that you are also the first to call for help when you need to be protected. As much as you have every right to express your opinion, before you publish your article, think about the affect that your comments have on your readers. What happened to the days of supporting your local law enforcement and portraying them as heroes? Have you even considered how this officer feels dealing with the fact that another person’s life was taken? Just because you can’t completely report a story to get another plaque on your wall, doesn’t make it appropriate to bash this officer or the department that the officer works for. It seems that the media didn’t need assistance in finding and releasing information about Cantrell, it seems you have the means to get that all by yourself. Again, no time was wasted releasing information about this man’s past and not taking into consideration the man’s family. Find something else to report other than a story that only lowers the confidence in law enforcement of the Gwinnett population.
By Ben Wade
June 25, 2006 11:50 PM | Link to this
Hey, Rick, you and the other brothers didn’t get far in “shutting Gwinnett county down” in that other racist brouhaha, so now you’re trying to stir up a different hornet’s nest. Give it a rest, dude: another DUI exterminated is a good start. I don’t give a rat’s a* what the cop’s name is who ventilated the drunkard.
By Ofcr
June 25, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this
Very well put Brandy. It seems that this guy needs to learn reality and not base his opinions on “Hollywood”. Maybe you should come out a do a ride along so you can see how things evolve within seconds, and maybe you will change your mind. I doubt it though. It’s easier for you to take days or weeks to second guess a decision that was made in seconds. I can guarantee you that the Sergeant is going through a difficult time dealing with this. No matter how justifed a shooting is, it doesnt make it any easier. I’m not saying that it was justified or not justified, because I do not have all of the facts, neither do you, so why dont you do something useful and go to hell.
By Buford Resident
June 25, 2006 11:57 PM | Link to this
I find it ironic that you are also the first to call for help when you need to be protected.
How is that irony? Sounds more like common sense.
What happened to the days of supporting your local law enforcement and portraying them as heroes?
What is heroic about shooting an unarmed trucker? I don’t know the full story, and it may actually be heroic, but I’m not yet sure.
Personally, I’d like to know the full story. If the officer or someone else was in mortal danger, then I am glad the officer was there to protect us. If not, then we citezens have a right to know what happened and if the officer has a record of poor decisions.
By Keith Bastin
June 26, 2006 06:14 AM | Link to this
Consider that the officer may have been acting within the rules and may have been doing his job exactly as he should have been. Why should he be subjected to the possible threat of retaliation by friends/family of the victim? Some of the people that might be shot by police officers are gang members, drug sellers or other possibly violent offenders. I think it is quite sensible that any jurisdiction protects the identity of the officer until the investigation is complete.
By bj
June 26, 2006 06:21 AM | Link to this
Rick, I can see them not naming the officer to avoid speculation prior to all the evidence being brought forward. Look at the incident with the Capital Policemane and Cynthia McKinney, Once she had his name plastered all over the media as a racist and tried her best to turn public opinion in her favor. Guess who was right in the issue and justified in their actions…Not Her.. and Look who is being prosecuted… Not her…Lets talk about some double standards here.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 26, 2006 06:46 AM | Link to this
The mentality of some, making an officer, Judge, jury and in this case executioner is amazing. What makes it worse, he was off duty and broke department policy. Ask yourselves why would an officer kill a DUI suspect driving away from him? There seems to be a lot more to the story, maybe that is just one reason why the named is kept secert.
Some call this protection? It’s a black eye for all the decent officers, what example is being set for them?
By Michael H. Smith
June 26, 2006 06:55 AM | Link to this
Apart from eating donuts and drinking coffee, I couldn’t do a cop’s job. Fact is I’ve been known to spill the coffee and drop the donut, if that tells you anything. Wait a minute…. that might say too much. The cops, the good guys and the bad guys all belong to the same human race as me that spills the coffee and drops the donut. Life doesn’t come with a ready made eraser attached and neither does the opposite end of the barrel of a gun. The cops name will come out in time. Perhaps the cop will be charged, or exonerated. Though no matter how justice is eventually served in this case, unfortunately like so many others, it will in the end have been served poorly. A life has been lost and the lives of many others will be, if not already, forever devastated.
By ITP
June 26, 2006 07:04 AM | Link to this
Maybe if the officer in question had ten “incidents” in his record, we’d know his name. What we have here is a cop shooting an oxygen-wasting lowlife, and here come the conspiricy theorists moaning about a code of silence. I for one would like to know the cop’s name, so I could thank him for keeping the roadway clear of trash who are armed with a several-thousand pound vehicle.
By Capt
June 26, 2006 07:12 AM | Link to this
Hey Bruce,
Next time you need the help of an officer….before he helps you…ask him if he is acting within Departmental Policy. If not then just stand there and see what happens….Have you ever made a split second decision in your life…is your job in the public sector defending people you don’t know. Do you do anything but sit back and agree with people like Badie that make is living on the backs of public servants yet he produces nothing of his own. Have you or Mr. Badie ever sacrificed ANYTHING in you life….think about it…
By Joe Camp
June 26, 2006 07:40 AM | Link to this
First of all, I respect Danny Porter and the Gwinnett County Police Department. I trust them to protect my home and family. I believe they do a fine job.
Second of all, it would be a mistake to start trumpeting the officer-involved’s name before all the facts are in. This is a veteran officer, whose career and freedom is on the line. We as a society should not subject him to trial-by-media or trial by Rick Badie.
Third of all, I concede that the apparent facts, as released so far, show a bizarre incident that is way out of bounds of police procedure. Firing a pistol from a moving vehicle is very dangerous and not authorized by GCPD. HOWEVER, consider this: 1) This very drunk individual was driving a massive truck, that is not easily stopped by the nifty “rear tap” procedure seen in those police videos. 2) This very drunk individual in this very big truck could have easily killed you or I or a family member had we been in his way. 3) The drunk bastard would not stop for the blue lights and 4) this veteran officer, in the midst of this incident, fired a very good shot that did the trick, killing this SOB dead at a point where he harmlessly ran off the road.
Give the officer a break, Badie. I trust that if Danny Porter sees a crime, he’ll prosecute it. Then, you can write up your d@mned column about it.
By Eric
June 26, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Ah the subtle (and not so subtle) racism of some of our fine Georgia citizens. Ya’ll get your hoods and robes pressed before the next rally… when you get together after an officer shoots another black person for the wrong reasons.
Certainly you can’t comment on all of law enforcement when an incident like this happens, but to ignore the racism of such an incident is stupid and is itself, racist.
If it had been a white teenager, staggering home from a drunken party they would have PROBABLy gotten a ride home and a stern talking to… but a black man gets gunned down.
Welcome to Georgia.
By Orlando
June 26, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Thank you Rick for having the courage to write this article. It is long over due for cops to know that they can not do anything the feel like doing. A split second decision? This is someones life, not a traffic ticket! Off duty too? This needs to be exposed, so everyone can see how things are done in that dept. Danny Porter will not do anything either!
By Tina
June 26, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this
Hey Joe Camp, I think someones live in more important than a career! Geez, are you that shallow?
By Pam
June 26, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this
Eric- ANOTHER example of someone calling racism where there is none. Cantrell was white you moron.
By Orlando
June 26, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
Hey Pam, I have plenty of examples of blacks being shot by white officers, want some? And just maybe if there were not SO many instances where racsim IS involved, this would not be questoned!
By Jay
June 26, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
“The cops, the good guys and the bad guys all belong to the same human race as me that spills the coffee and drops the donut. Life doesn’t come with a ready made eraser attached and neither does the opposite end of the barrel of a gun.”
Yes, and everyone must pay for the coffee they spill and donuts they drop—even cops.
By Michael H. Smith
June 26, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Right you are Jay.
By Sara
June 26, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
I think it’s really, truly unfortunate that so many of you can’t respectfully disagree with Mr. Badie or the other commenters.
I don’t have much of an opinion in this matter — I wasn’t there, and the truth is, either way it goes, a man is dead. The real victims are his poor loved ones. I understand that senseless loss of life is a daily occurance, both in the Metro area, and worldwide, so that may make it easier to lose sight of the fact that a fellow human being is no longer with us. But in the midst of discussing this matter, I find that many of us here seem to be losing our humanity — our sense of mutual respect, courtesy, and common decency.
Even Mr. Badie called the veteran officer no nasty epithets. Sure, he highly questioned a sensitive issue — but this is an opinion blog in a e-version of a major daily newspaper. What kind of readership could these opinion pages expect if they just stuck to ‘safe’ topics and tried to keep every topic syrupy sweet?
It’s wonderful to see so many folks here that have much respect for and support of law enforcement agencies. That indicates to me an underlying love for truth, justice, and common decency. It seems to me that in this entry, Mr. Badie was attempting to point out his fear that such traits may not be exercised to their fullest capability by all law enforcement agencies — and, that, given their endowment with the public trust, perhaps — in the interest of the common good — we ought push for more accountability to such public stewards, lest the foundations upon which our justice system lie turn to quicksand.
Perhaps you disagree with the arguments that Mr. Badie or others have raised along this line. But there are ways to express such thoughts without resorting to verbal barbarism.
By Michael H. Smith
June 26, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
What you bring up Joe, hopefully not too far off topic, is something I’ve thought about from time to time when considering our free press verses the restricted press in the United Kingdom. In the U.K. media trails like we have here don’t occur to my understanding before an actual indictment. We’ve often protected the rights of the guilty after a conviction in honor of justice. And more often I must question, in the honor of free speech and free press have we’ve slain the innocent pre-indictment?
Perhaps herein lays the duplicity of questioned standards? Maybe our media in a expediting the truth is in a rush to form judgment? Possibly we all share this dangerous haste?
Our good fellows across the pond may have got it jolly right on this issue of public trials held by an unbridled media in serving our precious right of need to know. I’m certainly becoming more convinced they have.
By Nikole
June 26, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
How sad, that some would excuse the murder of others as a cop “just doing his job”. I pray that most people aren’t so accepting of things like this. Police should be treated like any other murder suspect, with their picture and profile all over the news.
By Observer
June 26, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Rick, “Policy” is not an absolute - though rare, there may be situations where policy is not followed. Had the DUI driver of large truck been running other drivers off the road? Could a collision of the truck and a passenger car killed the innocent drivers? Was there imminent danger? Taking a life is not done lightly, and I’m sure the officer would trade the minutes he had to react for the hours available to arm chair quarterbacks. GCPD will eventually release this officers name after appropriate investigation - whether charged or exonerated. You don’t really believe all names related to criminal investigations should be published as soon as they’re known, do you? If your sense of justice is so strong on this issue, I’ll look for you to print the Duke Lacross accuser’s name in your next column. The evidence known today through discovery in that case is far stronger towards indicating player innocence and accuser false charges than our DUI case. Or maybe after all, we’ll just be patient a little longer in both cases.
By Sara
June 26, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Excellent points, Mr. Smith. I’m inclined to believe that the public ‘trials’ via media frenzy turn the actual trial into kangaroo court. Impartial jury, me arse. Even the sequester is a joke.
By Chrissa
June 26, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
All of you bloggers are bashing Rick saying that he doesn’t have all the facts and therefore cannot pass judgement. From what I read, Rick is not passing judgement. That he is stating he does not have all the facts b/c the PD has not released them. Yes the police put their lives on the line for us everyday and we should commend them for that, but what if the DIU offendor was your brother, uncle or father. There is no healing and no chance for a person to change their ways if we shoot first and ask questions later.
What I took from Rick’s colounm is that he’s asking for it to be an equal playing field. If the PD wants to release and make available for public viewing the offenders history and record, then the same should apply for the officer who shot him. Does this officer have a history of “shoot first ask later?” If the officer is in a moving vehical as was the offender, how was the officer under bodily treat that he had no other choice than to shoot?
By Nja
June 26, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
My father was a police officer killed in the line of duty. And I still say hold people accountable for their actions.
If if was your loved one who was killed you would be asking for answers.
Mr. Badie stated his position and people jump all over him. He did not respect this officer in anyway. Are we not to question the police? No checks and balances? There is good and bad in everything AND THAT INCLUDES POLICE.
By observer
June 26, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Chrissa - Quick thoughts: 1 “Chance…to change their ways” - see prior criminal record, including earlier DUI. Chance squandered. 2 “brother, father, uncle” - my family believes in personal responsibility. I’d be sad that they’re dead, but also mad at them (not officer) for placing others lives in jeopardy, and causing this situation. Make the call for a ride, and sit there waiting for it. 3 “same should apply” - Nope. One’s an offender, one’s not (at this time). 4 history of “Shoot first ask later” - these officers don’t get to become 20 year veterans. 5 “officer under bodily threat” - officers are responsible not just for themselves, but the public too.
By ITP
June 26, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
If the DUI offender was my brother, father, or uncle, I’d be ashamed that they were for some reason driving drunk and endangering people’s lives, and forcing cops to shoot them. Yes, I’d be sad. But I pray to God I wouldn’t be one of these shmucks on TV complaining that my relative was shot while “only” waving a gun around, or something of that nature.
And it’s not an equal playing field. Police are called to intervene when there is trouble. They’re charged with the responsibility of protecting not only themselves, but the public. The least we can do is not subject them to undue harassment.
By Know for sure
June 26, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Been in law enforcement field for 30 years. It exists and don’t let anybody tell you it doesn’t
By Madison
June 26, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
First for Eric, the guy that was shot is white, not black so put your race card back in your wallet. As far as the self righteous Rick Badie, frankly you don’t have a right to know the officer’s name. If you learn it before an appropriate time, you’ll convict him through your column and judge him for something only he could have decided to do in only a few seconds. For you to say that you could not kill even in your darkest time demonstrates why you are not an objective writer. COPS don’t try to kill people, it just works out that way when someone is trying to kill them or another. To suggest that there is a luxury of the shield is simply nuts. Those COPS are constantly scrutinized publicly by people like you who sit on their fat a** and demand service when its needed, but insist the COPS otherwide leave them alone and are racists if they enforce the laws by pulling you over for a traffic violation. The media never offers a fair presentation of the facts for these men and women. Remember the guy at the airport who slammed the lady for not moving her car then not listening after she was under arrest? That poor officer and his name was dragged through the print and broadcast media for months, only to be given his job back without much fanfare. If you think that’s a luxury, please consult Webster. Moreover, no laws or procedures have been skirted, as a voter I’m sure that Mr. Porter will do what is right as he did when the GCPD officer was accused, tried, and convicted for murder. No cover-up there Mr. Badie, or perhaps the other GCPD officer that was indicted for taking bribes from the Asian massage spas, yep that one got swept under the rug as well by Mr. Porter and the COPS. Simply put, the GCPD and Mr. Porter have charged and arrested COPS when they break the law. As a citizen, I’m confident that pattern of behavior will continue. Meanwhile, you don’t need to know a thing about the officer who shot and killed Mr. Cantrell because you’re nothing more that a reporter. You are not part of the investiagtion, you are not a memeber of the grand jury, and you are not a member of Mr. Cantrell’s family, so shut up and go back to your Black Panther Party.
By Wayne
June 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
“By Know for Sure” Being a security guard at the used car lot is not Law Enforcement. You probably mean 30 days if you lasted that long.
By know for sure
June 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Madison, assuming you a are a copy, you have just demonstrated the attitude that needs replacing in the police dept.
By ITP
June 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
What a classic dialog:
JEFFREY HUGH CANTRELL: (on cellphone to coworker): Hey, even with lots of practice driving drunk, I think I’m even more loaded than I’ve ever been! I can’t drive. And that’s a hell of a statement, coming from a convicted drunk driver.
CO-WORKER: Okay, drive over to the BP station and I’ll come pick you up! Just make sure to not run a busload of nuns and schoolchildren off of a cliff on the way!
By Wayne
June 26, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
“By Know for Sure” Being a security guard at the used car lot is not Law Enforcement. You probably mean 30 days if you lasted that long.
By know for sure
June 26, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
Wayne - 30 years buddy and you can go jump
By jim d
June 26, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Mr. Smith,
“Though no matter how justice is eventually served in this case, unfortunately like so many others, it will in the end have been served poorly. A life has been lost and the lives of many others will be, if not already, forever devastated.”
I coudn’t possibly agree with you more on this subject, and thats all I’ve got to say about that.
By Foots
June 26, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Based upon know for sure’s very clear 9:33 comment, the blog could probably be closed right now.
By Freind of the Court
June 26, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Based on that comment DA Danny Porter should probably demand this blog be closed right now.
By Orlando
June 26, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Hey Madison, I bet you do not show your face that is hidden behind that sheet? You are the racist.
By Linda
June 26, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
My some of you friends of the court and cops sure do sound threatening. I am sure Mr. Porter would be proud.
By Fair is Fair
June 26, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
THANK YOU JAY!
By justmeagain
June 26, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
I’m sure Cantrell being black was certainly a factor of the cop shooting him. But I don’t think it will show to be the only factor.
This man was a habitual DUI offender. If nothing was done and he killed other people that night due to his intoxication, then there would be a blog about the way police ignore these offenders and let them continue to drive. I’m just glad an innocent family wasn’t killed. Usually it’s the drunk driver that lives and others are the victims of their stupidity and inconsideration to get behind a wheel in that condition.
Why wouldn’t his friends have him stop and just pick him up where he was? Why have someone who is impaired to drive, drive further to a gas station?
By Joe
June 26, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
It goes both ways. When I was in New Orleans, I was rear ended at a stoplight by an African American woman who did not have insurance. When an African American cop showed up on the scene he tried to prevent me from filling out a police report so his she would not get in trouble. If she were Caucasian, would he haave tried to talk me out of filling out a report? Unfortunately, not all that wear the badge are noble or believe in justice for all.
By Lisa
June 26, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
It must be so nice for your family to know that you will be home every day from your hard writing job,or you might not even leave your home to do your job. It must be nice to know when you pick up the phone to dial 911 to report a intruder some one will respond as fast as they can get there to help YOU, who sits behind a desk and passes judgement on people who do a job that few would do, to take care of people of your likes that only bash police officers instead of standing behind them and thank them for such a job with little thanks and respect. Iam sure you have a hard job, deciding what to write all day, you need to ride along with my husband and see how hard it is to do this job, then come home and read the —— that you write. Iam sure no one in your family suffers if you write a really bad story. This officer does need to be protected until all the facts are in. I hope you never need to call a police officer, and hope that if he needs to make a split decision to save your life he makes the right one.Have a great day and don’t work to HARD.
By J. Barnwell
June 26, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
People, check the facts! Mr. Cantrell is white! Jay, if/when you get pulled over or encounter the police, I’m sure you’ll get your money’s worth of service.
By me
June 26, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
I thought the motto was to “serve and protect”, but they are using the “shoot and kill” motto i see.
By dalton
June 26, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Rick,
Looks like Cantrell is a drive-by shooting by cop victim. What the heck, the SC just gave LEO’s a license to kill with their upholding of no knock home invasions.
Remember the insurance guy (husband, dad, son)in Macon or Columbus area gunned down by cop on the highway? Was that killer ever prosecuted? Then there’s the guy who was stunned to death at GCPD also recently. Not a single one of those gangbangin killer cops were prosecuted.
Reading at least one comment to your editorial made me sick at my stomach. The comment surely could not have come from a natural born American citizen…he/she sounded like some sort of whacko taliban jihadist stating that the cop was right to kill the drunkard. To realize there are actual people amongst us with this sort of attitude should be enough to awake us all. And he’s probably a GCPD cop.
Facts are, today’s cops are killing more and more with immunity.
By Capt
June 26, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Way to go Eric…AAWWWWWWW your race card doesn’t work on this one…he was white…what a shame that your crutch broke…now you have nothing to fall back on….and Eric…if you don’t like Georgia go back to where you came from….and go back to bed with the Clintons, Kerry Jessie J. and Sharpton…they all make as much sense as you…because you are the bigot here….not us…
By Tom
June 26, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Why don’t you say the officer “allegedly” shot Jeffery Crantell? Brain Nichols “allegedly” shot a Fulton County Deputy Sheriff and a State Court Judge among others. Double standard?
By Rock
June 26, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Hey Capt Crunch, racism is still alive in GA! Judging by your blog, you are the ring leader, or should I say imperial wizard.
By linda
June 26, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Seems to me that Mr. Badie is questioning the law in regard to public record. An offenders name can be had and it doesn’t seem to say you can exlude an officers name.
By George S. Patton
June 26, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Let’s get back to the point of Sharpton’s, I mean Badie’s article. Why does Badie think he is entitled to information before the investigation is complete? Oh yes I know, he has a article to write! Shame on the police for holding up Badie’s deadline! Maybe Badie will have to find someone else to drag through the mud until the officer’s name is released. Let’s do the math: 20-year veteran officer + supervisor. Do you really think this officer could make it 20 years and be a supervisor if he always “shot first and asked questions after”? I doubt the media is going to find anything negative with this officer’s record when it is released.
When it comes to the actual shooting, I don’t really care either way. I know some of you would say “what if it was you or one of your family members”? Guess what? No one in my family or I would put ourselves in that situation. First, we would not drive drunk, steal a truck, and ignore blue lights. Cantrell got what he deserved and the officer probably saved the taxpayers of Gwinnett some money. If he was alive, Cantrel would get court-appointed lawyers.
Oh yeah, put the race card back in the drawer. Cantrell was white.
By Dave
June 26, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Hey Rick, after reading the posts on this subject, was the officer black? We know the drunk was white. The reason I ask is how is racism involved in your post? What in the hell is going on, it seems the bloggers that read your column like to insert their own material. We sure have a lot of dolts out there in never land. There always has been a system of protecting an officer of the law when a death occurs at their hands. This is keep speculation down about his motive, period…..
By Jay
June 26, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
“Jay, if/when you get pulled over or encounter the police, I’m sure you’ll get your money’s worth of service.”
Hopefully I won’t get shot. Oh yeah, you know who else got a DUI, besides Cantrell? George W. Bush. Guess that was just “youthful indiscretion.”
By linda
June 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
General: The name should appear in the original incident report and should be public record. The reason it is questioned here is that GCPD will never “get through” with the investigation and release it. If you didn’t do anything wrong, you shouldn’t mind.
By Kowalski
June 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
All DUIs, regardless of hue, should be summarily executed by duly deputized officers of the law.
By Bruce Wilcox
June 26, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Hey Capt when the cops start killing people for DUI, I’ll take my chaces with the crimials. Is this a new Georgia Law or maybe the Commissioners that a DUI is a Capital Offense? Maybe they should have shot that Gwinnett Judge that spent most of his day in the bar. Oh wait, he’s a bro of the police, no can do.
Come to think of it, we really don’t need Judges at all, just give a cop a badge and gun and let him decide who lives or dies.
Round up the posse Jeb, we gotta DUI check-point tonight. Only in Georgia.
By linda
June 26, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Uncle Cracker could be the poster child for birth control
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
DANNY PORTER FOR GOVERNOR!!!!! He doesn’t take any crap, and takes care of business.
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
To all you cop-bashers, have you completed your application to the Police Academy? If you aren’t part of the solution, then you are part of the problem…….get off your lazy butts, and do something. Walk in their shoes for one day, and your views will change VERY quickly.
These fine men and women deserve WAY more respect than they receive. I have several family members in law enforcement. I have the utmost respect for these people, and I thank God we have these brave people who put their lives on the line each and every day for us.
And put the damn race card away. Who cares what color the cop or the victim is? We are all humans, and we need to respect each other. That is whats wrong with this world, everyone thinks they are entitled to be respected. Respect is earned.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POLICE!!!!! I sure do, and quit complaining.
By linda
June 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
We support them. But they aren’t 100 per cent right all of the time and are snd should be subject to the same rules we all live by. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.
By Reader
June 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
No, the officers name should not be public knowledge until the incident has been investigated. There is a huge difference in the perp being publicized and the officer. The driver was DUI, we all know that. I’m sorry for his family but maybe if they’d helped him prior to this (in addition to his many other offenses) it might never have happened. None of you were there so you don’t know EXACTLY what happened.
As for you, Mr. Badie, this is yet another race-baiting article/column of yours and shows your true “colors” as well as the AJC’s for putting a blog on it. You have a responsibility to accurately report the news or you may ACCURATELY comment on something that has happened. Instead you decide to put your foot in your article and write about something where you don’t know have all the facts. When you have all the facts, please feel free to include them in the article. Until then, stick to wandering around DragonCon or the latest Beauty Pageant and leave the real reporting to the professionals. You, sir are the epitome of the term “yellow journalism.”
By linda
June 26, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
@reader - What are the facts and what do you base your opinion that the officer’s name should be withheld. The orinal report is public record and the officer’s name should be on it. What law are you quoting that says it shouldn’t be there. You weren’t there either, or maybe you were. Mr. Badie didn’t mention anything about race. He was speaking for the general public. I’m sure you are a copy - you know the “them” of “cops against them”. I know a lot of good cops, but I know some who are not so good. Cops are human and humans make mistakes.
By Jay
June 26, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
singlemom, it’s absurd to suggest that anyone who isn’t a cop is lazy. Just because someone’s job involves little physical exertion or danger doesn’t mean it’s easy. In fact, it’d be much easier for a banker or engineer to assume the role of a cop than vice versa; that’s part of why cops make so much less money. I guess you could say cops are “mentally” lazy.
By Jan
June 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Good Grief!!!
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Jay, where did you get the impression I considered non-cops to be lazy? I was directing my post to those who don’t do anything, but sit behind their computer and whine and moan about how things are handled, instead of doing SOMETHING about the problem.
Did you not read where I have several family members in law enforcement, and that I support ALL law enforcement officers? You might want to stop putting words into other’s peoples mouths…….and possibly get your foot out of yours.
By Officer
June 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Initial incident reports are in fact public record. However, it is standard practice not to list suspects on initial incident reports.
In our department, we almost never release a suspect’s name in an initial incident report unless they are arrested. The suspect is listed in an investigative supplemental. Under the open records laws, investigative supplementals are not required to be disclosed until the case is closed.
If you’ll think back, there are only a few instances where a suspect name is routinely released. They include:
If the police need help identifying the suspect.
If the suspect was arrested.
If the suspect has outstanding arrest warrants and they are seeking the public’s help in finding the suspect.
Other than that, most news reports state something to the effect of, “The police are questioning a suspect in the case.” Therefore, there is nothing strange or unusual about witholding this information.
Gwinnett County has a history of prosecuting police and other public officials when there is a clear case of wrongdoing. This is not an effort to “cover-up” anything. Everyone knows as well as I do that this officer’s name will be released in due time. However, what purpose does it serve to release it now? It is not going to make the death any easier. It is not going to change the investigation or outcome.
Also, I would like to point out another thing. First of all, this was not some minor DUI. It was a stolen vehicle, DUI, and a dangerous car chase. Yes, most departments have policies that prohibit firing at moving vehicles. However, almost all of them add an exception to that policy if there is a clear imminent threat or danger to the public. Lets see… This man is drunk, driving a stolen truck, and fleeing from the police. Do none of you think there might be a slight possibility that he attempted to run over or otherwise harm or kill the officer or another innocent bystander?
I love the people that are automatically out there trying to hang the police without the facts. You have weeks, months, or even years to second guess our split-second decisions. The least you could do is give the officer the benefit of the doubt but we all know that doesn’t play well into your agenda.
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
If the supplemental is marked original report, it has to be released with the incident report. Most departments release the full original report blotting out juveniles names. You said it was a practice not to put in the officers name, but its not a law is it.
By Officer
June 26, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
A supplemental is not an original report. As I’ve said before and I’ll say again, an active investigative supplemental report is not subject to open records disclosure.
Also, I did not say anything about witholding an officers name. I said we do not list suspects in our original incident reports. This means officer or not, a person would not be listed in the initial incident report disclosed to the public unless there was an arrest made in the case.
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
If the narrative of the original incident report is continued on a supplemental, then it is to be released. For your information, supplementals have a place to mark original report.
By Officer
June 26, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Are you really this difficult? I’m talking about an ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT filed separately from an incident report. What part of this do you not understand?
Yes, sometimes police reports are more than one page long. Yes, when they get to page two, technically the top of the paper says “Supplemental Report.” However, there is a box they can check that says “Incident Report” meaning that it is not a SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT and a box that they can check that says “Supplemental Report”. If the page is checked that says “Incident Report” then it is to be disclosed. I am talking about a report that is checked “Supplemental Report.” Are you happy now?
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
There you have it folks. That “I am a cop you are dir” attitude.
By Anti-Linda-ite
June 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Officer, don’t bother…Linda evidently can’t understand english well enough or she’s just baiting you. You stated what the reports are and what they entail three times already. She’s either that thick or trying to push you over some edge she’s created.
By Anti-Linda-ite
June 26, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Poor widdle Linda doesn’t have anything better to do so she sits at her keyboard and slams cops all day. Honey, here’s 15 cents…go buy a life. Ugh!
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
@anti-linda-ite: aka cop - i was trying to get him to say what law kept the officers name off. He also misstated the law on public record and then contradicted himself.
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
The only cops I slam are those with attitudes like yours. I know a lot of damn fine cops. Some of you GCPD cops need an attitude adjustment.
By Officer
June 26, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
There is no law which specifically bars the publishing of a suspect’s name. There is a law, aka the open records law, that allows a suspect’s name to be kept confidential until a police investigation is completed. I’ve pointed out that if a suspect is known and cooperating with the investigation, that this law is routinely used to keep suspects information confidential. I’ve also said that this practice applies to any suspect in a crime.
As far as reports, I’ve said:
The original incident report is subject to disclosure under open records act.
A supplemental report in an active police investigation is not subject to open records disclosure.
I’ve agreed with you and said that page two of a report contains a check box for incident report or a check box for supplemental report.
I’ve also agreed with you and said that if page two of the incident report is checked “incident report” then it is subject to open records disclosure.
I’ve pointed out that although page two might say “Supplemental Report” at the top of the page, it is not considered a supplemental report unless “Supplemental Report” is checked. It is merely considered page two of the incident report.
Please tell me where I’ve contradicted myself. I would like to know.
Also, as far as the attitude, it is not a cop attitude. It is the same attitude you would get if you asked the dentist several times how he was going to do something and then told him he was doing it wrong.
By Lilburn Parent
June 26, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
@Officer: Thank you for the additional information on this case, and the explanation of the policy. I don’t know if I agree or disagree. At least I understand the policy.
By Rock
June 26, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
leave Linda alone, you all are a bunch of idiots, you just accept whatever is thrown your way. the cop was wrong for shooting a moving car! why not shoot at the tires?
By linda
June 26, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
I was asking about the officers name not a suspects. And you did say supplementals were not released and then backtracked. And you know some of you guys go to school for ten weeks and then think you know everything. You can’t tell someone with a closed mind like yours anything. Its a one way world with you.
By linda
June 26, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
This is outrageous,how dare a Mexican take the job of a white guy and become a serial killer.Everyone knows only white guys are serial killers.Dammn Latinos are taking all the best jobs.They’ll be letting black guys be serial killers next.
By the real linda
June 26, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
You are real cute. You must be a cop too with this kind of mentality.
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
This blog needs to be shut down immediately. I cannot believe that last few posts, what lovely language. Is anyone monitoring this thing?
By the real linda
June 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
You’ll all be sorry on Judgement Day, when even the most virtuous are banished to hell because they didn’t subscribe to the one true religion. I saw it on Southpark.
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
I have nothing better to do with my time than police this blog! For I have no more hairy ballz to play with today!
By singlemom
June 26, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Honestly, even the rightsd of child molesters must be protected, or else the cops will falsely accuse everyone of that particular crime. Cops lie. Cops lie more often than they tell the truth. They might have not been looking for a “child threatener” and might have been lying.
Not only is it, in this case, illegal to give information to a police officer without a warrant, it is rarely a good idea anymore to comply with the police.
The war on drugs has turned our police into nazi criminals. Most police officers routinely break the law, often such felonies as threats of bodily harm (when not required, such as the tale of “break the law by giving me info or I’ll make sure you are raped”) That cop committed a felony and shoul be executed for it. We cannot tolerate felonies on-the-job from cops, but it’s extremely common.
By the real singlemom
June 26, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Now I see someone is playing. Someone is posting with my name and it aint me……
By ITP
June 26, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Ah, that’s UncleCracker morphing. Guess he/she missed that last dose of lithium.
By blog-tired
June 26, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it about time for school to start again and get these kids off the blogs? Unclecracker MUST be in school still…he has the mentality of an eleven-year-old. He’ll say poo-poo next…watch!
By Police Records Clerk
June 26, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Actually Linda, you said they only Redact Juvenile info, that is not the case. In Cobb Co. anyway, we must send a request to Juvenile court and the Judge must sign an order of release and then Juvenile court releases the report NOT the P.D.
@Officer, you quoted the Open Records Act verbatim.
All this can be found at the GBI website under publications-Georgia Law Enforcement and The Open Records Act. Very helpful book, leaves no gray areas.
By witchywoman176
June 26, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
How dare you “SINGLEMOM” say anything about executing the officer involved in the shooting. He is a loving, God-fearing, HONEST, officer. You, nor I, were there when the incident occurred. Gwinnett has some of the finest officers in the Nation. They are not corrupt and they don’t go off killing citizens for kicks. So you’re a “singlemom”. Then take some responsibility for what you say. What if it was your child protecting citizens and he did what was necessary? Would you want him persecuted by citizens who don’t know what happened?? Get a life people and leave it be until the investigation is over. It’s not a cover up. It’s freaking STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES!!!
By linda
June 26, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Maybe in your county honey, but not in mine. He quoted it correctly after I called his hand on it. Taken a GCIC privacy and integrity class lately? It changes from class to class.
By ???
June 26, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
witchywoman are you for real? Can You not read?
By Success Lives Here?
June 26, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe this blog, and I’m frustrated that Rick and/or the AJC would allow such postings. Get a life, folks. Learn to respond to an article maturely or save it for MySpace.
By Shakes The Hand Of Cops
June 26, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Want to bash cops? Try the DeKalb Vent.
By Police Records Clerk
June 26, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
@Linda,
Actually yes I have had my Security and Integrity class, that class deals with what GCIC/NCIC info you can or cannot disseminate. What you can or cannot run and what purpose codes to use. Not Georgia Open Records Law.
By blog-tired
June 26, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
EVERYONE - please note that there was a flamer/lurker/whatever using the names of others. Singlemom is in a cop family. It wasn’t her actually doing the bashing. READ BEFORE YOU POST!
CLOSE THIS BLOG NOW AJC!!!