Memphis Officer's SUV may have killed boy

The Commerical Appeal ^ | February 28, 2004 | Wayne Risher

[RKB-AFG]

Officer's SUV may have killed boy

Police seek details on driver involved in hit-and-run case

By Wayne Risher

February 28, 2004

A police officer's personal SUV may have killed a 12-year-old Frayser boy in a hit-and-run Feb. 18, Memphis police said Friday.

They were still trying to determine who was driving a white Chevrolet Tahoe registered to Officer Dressels D. Fox, Police Director James Bolden said.

Fox, 31, a 10-year police veteran, joined the vice and narcotics unit last May. Police kept his vehicle and relieved him of duty with pay Friday morning pending further investigation. No charges had been filed.

Daniel Louis Mitchell, a seventh-grade student at Frayser High School, was walking home from basketball practice about 7 p.m.

He was crossing North Watkins near Ed Rice Community Center when a northbound vehicle struck him. The impact threw him into opposing lanes of traffic, where he was hit by another vehicle.

The first vehicle, described as a light-colored van or SUV, kept going, but the second car stopped. Daniel died at Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center.

It was unclear whether Fox was on duty that evening. Police spokeswoman Rhonda A. Lee said Fox was assigned to the B shift, which runs 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Police said an anonymous tip led them to Fox's vehicle. Fox gave investigators a statement under questioning.

"Although it has not been determined who was driving the vehicle at the time, he still shares in the responsibility because he is the owner," Bolden said.

Daniel's mother, Betty Mitchell, said the family was encouraged that police appeared to be making progress in the case.

Daniel played on a basketball team at the community center, his mother said.

"My biggest prayer was for them to catch whoever did that," Daniel's mother said. "I want the person who did this to take responsibility, and I want the person to be punished to the full extent of the law."

[martin_fierro]

[RKB-AFG]

Memphis Cop altert!

[TADSLOS]

Another SUV serial killer on the loose.

[writer33]

Why wasn't the SUV put on suspension? It's obvious the officer had nothing to do with this at all.

[Chi-townChief]

SUVs just keep getting craftier.

[steve50]

I see he works narcotics and vice.

[joesnuffy]

Dressels D. Fox.....great name fo a cartoon character

[Squantos]

Damn .......if only it had been a plain old truck vs a SUV the kid would still be alive.......

Stay Safe !

[PAR35]

Here's an SUV story for you.

[lambo]

Taking the day off, ambrose? ;-)

[codyjacksmom]

I think I need to get rid of mine. They are just to evil!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Weren't we just talking about something along these lines?

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Jeez. You'd think SUVs had bayonet lugs on them or something.

[Joe Hadenuf]

It was unclear whether Fox was on duty that evening. Police spokeswoman Rhonda A. Lee said Fox was assigned to the B shift, which runs 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Bull sh*t. It's perfectly clear, they are just not saying.

"Although it has not been determined who was driving the vehicle at the time,

Does anyone notice that it doesn't say if he admitted driving the vehicle at the time, or if he is denying it?

Sheesh, if this was anyone else, this story would be very different.

[Moonmad27]

Curse those murderous SUVs! If there had only been a human driver at the wheel, this wouldn't have happened....

[coloradan]

Police didn't say whether the owner of the vehicle was on duty or not. Why not?

[gitmo]

It was unclear whether Fox was on duty that evening.

Unclear to the police or unclear to the reporter?

[Clinging Bitterly]

Occam's razor would seem to apply.
Of course the government still needs to be able to prove it's employee is guilty (if it is inclined to make an accusation), and where the vehicle was picked up would probably be key to establishing that. The article left out that important detail, which is a known and should have been reported. We do critique media reports here, right?

I have been following the local paper's coverage of the sentencing of one of two local cop turned rapists that has been going on here. He copped a plea for some vague "coercion" charges, and agreed to some Alford pleas for official misconduct or some such, for purposes of avoiding the need to register as a sex offender. Throughout the sentencing hearing he still denied doing anything criminal, saying everything was consensual. The judge gave him about 5 1/2 years where he could have got 20. The worst the paper's editorial following all of this had to say of him was he "didn't get it". and went on to stick up for him as a mostly decent guy who "made some mistakes" and is now getting what he deserved. Now I'm thinking of a guy doing all this stuff while wearing a gun and badge (because he was, that was reported), and wondering what what would drive the editors to use such an adjective as decent in describing even a fiber of that guy. Earlier articles allude to the paper's omission of certain facts in the interest of "fairness". Not sure why the lamestream media doesn't question when things are omitted in what they are fed at the onset of cases like that. When government agents are involved, they oughta be getting out their microscopes. There is a need to know what our tax dollars are buying, and we aren't being informed.

[goldstategop]

The SUV's owner is named again. Hmmm... maybe the media is figuring those driverless SUV stories are SNL fodder.