Did you catch this editorial posted this morning?
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756593.html
Chalmers is right to investigate slur
The Herald-Sun
Jul 30, 2006
Last week, the Raleigh Police charged two Durham officers with assaulting a cook outside of a Raleigh restaurant. Whether guilty or not, the fact that the officers put themselves in position to be charged with such a crime is one big embarrassment for Durham and the department.
The officers, Gary Powell Lee, 38, and Scott Christian Tanner, 33, have both been charged with simple assault, which carries a maximum 30-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine. They are accused of beating Rene Dennis Thomas, a cook at Blinco's Sports Bar on Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh.
Lee, a member of the department's Special Operations Division, is accused of striking Thomas and causing him to fall to the ground. Tanner, a motorcycle officer in the department's Traffic Services Unit, allegedly kicked Thomas in the head.
Three other officers initially named in the case and restricted to administrative duties -- Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Officer Richard Clayton and Officer James Griffin -- were allowed to resume their regular duties last week, although they haven't been entirely cleared in this matter.
The altercation apparently started after an exchange of racial epithets. Thomas, who was in the rear restaurant, said he was called the N-word by one of the officers leaving a going-away party for a departing officer. Thomas admits he responded by calling the offending officer a cracker.
Neither the accused nor the accuser has anything of which to be proud in that exchange. However, law enforcement officials are held to higher standards than ordinary citizens are, as they should be.
If one of the officers is found to have hurled a racial slur at Thomas, it is difficult to see how he could continue on the job in a town that places such a high value on racial diversity. Such behavior erodes the public's confidence in the department. It also tears down trust in predominant black neighborhoods, and especially in those where the residents don't feel they get a fair shake from the police.
Police Chief Steve Chalmers, who is black, has said the department doesn't take racial slurs lightly, and it should not.
"The alleged conduct is something that is certainly deplorable to us, and something we don't want to be consistent in the way we operate and conduct ourselves," Chalmers said. "The entire allegation is disturbing."
Disturbing is the right word. And we again urge law enforcement officials in Durham and Raleigh to continue to investigate this matter thoroughly and share the findings with the public. It's a matter of trust.
Three other officers initially named in the case and restricted to administrative duties -- Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Officer Richard Clayton and Officer James Griffin -- were allowed to resume their regular duties last week, although they haven't been entirely cleared in this matter.
Yes. I did thank you. I think I saw some quotes excerpted and posted by you earlier.
Thank you. I appreciate the help!
Herald Sun editorial "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of"
Some factual issues regarding Mr Cheek but also contains comments on the lacrosse. I sent the following email to the publisher, editor, managing editor and editorial page editor:
Subject: 7/30 Editorial "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of
Date: Sun 07/30/06 12:26 PM
Since this 'editorial' is not credited as the opinion of any particular writer, I am submitting to all of you the inaccuracies in this "report". If this is an opinion piece, why do you not not state whose opinion??
Since this is more obviously a 'report' merely published on the opinion page... I would like to see corrections published in the opinion section of this paper - correcting the factual inaccuracies I'll identify below. As a citizen of Durham, I listened to both Mr. Cheek's and Mr. Nifong's statement in interest. After reading your editorial it did not jibe with my memory of Mr. Cheek's statements so I listened to the full press conference and follow up questions linked at WRAL
The first factual error in your your 'article': "Yet he still withheld a formal decision on whether he would actually campaign for the office."
When in fact Mr. Cheek stated on several occasions that he would not campaign for the office. Some quotes include "I will not run a campaign." and "I'm not going to have any further connection with the campaign, with the election, with anything after I finish answering questions today.. "
Second, your article implies that Mr. Cheek says supporters shouldn't vote for him after all "Cheek said being district attorney would be too much of a distraction from the business of his Durham law firm, so supporters shouldn't vote for him after all."
When in fact Mr. Cheek said "The people will be able to directly state whether they are satisfied with the status quo. They will state that themselves." "In June the people spoke with signatures on a petition. In November the people will speak with votes at the ballot box."
Further Mr. Cheek says "I want to emphasize to you that what I am saying is that the people will speak. Lewis Cheek isn't going to be speaking. Its up to every individual voter to make up his/her decision on what they might believe is the right thing to do."
Lewis Cheek absolutely DID NOT say that his supporters shouldn't vote for him after all. This is a grossly inaccurate statement (to say the least). He spoke very clearly about what he thought the voters should do. You've done the Durham community a HUGE disservice with your misstatements/lies.
As to the opinions (again, whose opinions I'd like to know):
The article says that 'some people will continue to urge voters to cast their ballot for such a candidate' which 'tends to cheapen and demean the seriousness of the political process'. While this may be someone's opinion, I say that this is what our political process is all about. Let the citizens of Durham speak. It is obvious (based on the hugely successful petition drive) that as many as 15,000 Durham citizens are NOT happy with the status quo and want an alternative. If that alternative results in letting Governor Easley select a new DA - perhaps that is exactly what should happen. Perhaps Durham voters have more faith in Mr. Easley than they do in Mr. Nifong at this point. I agree that this is not about just one case. This is absolutely about the next 4 years. Does Durham want Mike Nifong for the next four years?
With respect to the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong himself caused the media spectacle that portrays our city very negatively. All of the negative media coverage can be pointed directly to him. In local and national media, he demonstrated choke holds, suggested condom use, suggested date rape drugs, stated that no one on the team was cooperating with police, suggested that the lacrosse players should not have consulted attorneys.
Do some investigative reporting... I think you'll find that Mr. Nifong and the DPD had evidence AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENTS that they were false. Yes, the defense team has responded... but only after Mr. Nifong made false claims about their clients in the media. This is their right & their job.
My expectation is that a crime be investigated by the police department BEFORE charges are brought against anyone accused of a crime. The Durham Police Department should then take all the evidence to the DA and request charges. DPD should be allowed to do their job. After all the evidence is in, the DA should review to see if there is enough evidence to move forward. The DA's job is to pursue the truth. How can refusing to meet with the defendants in this case possibly be viewed as a pursuit for the truth? How can these actions by Mr. Nifong possibly be explained away?
Did Mr. Nifong wait for evidence in this case?? No. Is this how you would like a charge against you or a loved one handled? Not me.
I am very disappointed with local reporting. It is the media that can help protect the public against injustice. Yet, local reporting seems to support the political players who continue with this case that should never have been.I look forward to your corrections and a reponse.
3:39 PM, July 30, 2006