i want to know what happened to the genius that sent that little female guard to guard him... and she's no better, thinking she could handle a thug like him by herself is ludicrous.
Posted on 09/24/2005 5:07:01 PM PDT by wagglebee
ATLANTA -- Arguing to get his job back, a fired Fulton County sheriff's deputy said higher-ranking officials ignored his warning that courthouse shooting suspect Brian Nichols could be dangerous.
Sgt. Jerome Dowdell, who was fired for praying with Nichols, made his appeal Thursday before the Fulton County Personnel Board.
"I was confident those persons in courthouse security would take precautionary procedures," Dowdell said.
Concerns that Nichols could turn violent in court came out toward the end of his first trial on charges of raping a former girlfriend. Nichols' mother, Claritha Nichols, and her pastor warned Dowdell on Feb. 24 that Brian Nichols planned to get a weapon by overpowering a deputy if he was convicted. At the time, Claritha Nichols was working in Africa.
The next morning, on his day off, Dowdell, a deacon at the same church, met with Nichols as he was being taken to a detention area at the courthouse for his trial.
"My initial intent was to discourage him from doing anything foolish" -- not to pray with Nichols, as has been reported, Dowdell told the board.
"Seeing Brian with a Bible in his hands and tears in his eyes ... (and) when he started to cry, I asked if I could pray with him," Dowdell said, adding that he never met with Nichols again.
Dowdell said he already had told a detention officer of the e-mail warning from Claritha Nichols because none of his superiors was "available."
That detention officer, who ranked below Dowdell, told another low-ranking officer, who started the information up the chain of command, Dowdell said.
On March 11, Nichols was facing a retrial in the rape case. By then, Dowdell said, a lieutenant, captain and major assigned to court security knew of the earlier warning.
Dowdell said the top officers did not take the warning seriously, even though Nichols was found with homemade weapons hidden in his shoes the week of the March 11 shootings.
Dowdell admitted, however, that he told them only that Nichols might "act out" or try to force officers to shoot him.
Nichols is accused of shooting and killing Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau in the courthouse and sheriff's Sgt. Hoyt Teasley outside the courthouse. A fourth victim, federal agent David Wilhelm, was killed at his home later in the day.
Dowdell was fired Aug. 8 for having improper contact with an inmate, failing to put in writing the warning from Claritha Nichols, for not telling his superior and for using his computer at work to exchange personal and church-related e-mails with Nichols' mother and their pastor.
Dowdell was one of eight deputies who have been fired or retired over the shootings. He is the first to appeal the firing. Several others are scheduled to make their appeals next month.
The Personnel Board has 30 days to decide whether Dowdell's firing by Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman should be upheld or whether he should be reinstated.
"Charles Rambo, a union representative for law enforcement officers, said Sgt. Jerome Dowdell, who is assigned to the unit that trains deputies, was told Friday that he had been fired. Dowdell was cited in the report for his personal relationship with the inmate accused of the courthouse killings, Brian Nichols, and his mother, Claritha Nichols. All three attended the same church."
http://www.leoterrell.com/bbs/messages/4250.html
Why do that when you can fire 8 deputies?
Everyone involved in this clusterfook just needs to run out into the swamp, and blow their brains out, as close as possible, to the local, neigborhood alligator.
Another point of view:
"A report released last week by an independent panel reviewing the shootings said Dowdell got a phone call from his pastor that seemed to foreshadow the shooting rampage.
Shiloh Baptist Church pastor Otis White called Dowdell in late February with a warning that Nichols had told his mother he would overpower a deputy and take the officer's weapon if a trial verdict didn't go his way.
The report said Dowdell failed to urge Nichols to realize the consequences of his threats and did not alert proper authorities about the warning."
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=305&id=4844
The buck only stops with the sheriff if it folds and has come through the proper bag man.
Yet another side of this one:
"The panel rebuked Sergeant Jerome Dowdell. Investigators say he never passed critical information on to his bosses that they say foreshadowed the bloody rampage.
The panel says that after receiving a call from Nichols' pastor warning that the man could steal a gun, Sergeant Dowdell visited Nichols' jail cell as a deacon -- not a deputy -- and had a prayer session."
http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?S=3572151&nav=E8ZRbvoR
This is why he was fired: "Dowdell was fired Aug. 8 for having improper contact with an inmate, failing to put in writing the warning from Claritha Nichols, for not telling his superior and for using his computer at work to exchange personal and church-related e-mails with Nichols' mother and their pastor."
As a law enforcement officer, he is NOT to have any personal contact with an inmate without prior approval from his superiors. He was required by employee regulations to report any security threats to his superiors in person and in writing, and he is not supposed to be corresponding with an inmate's mother, especially while wearing his uniform.
As a Deputy, he is basically on call 24 hours a day, and probably a Peace Officer to boot. If the inmate's mother attempted to make contact with him for help or advice, he should have referred her to an assistant, or the pastor of another church to assist her. His first responsibility was to the law enforcement agency he was hired by, and his fellow officers.
By failing to conduct himself in the proper manner, he put himself and others in danger. And in this case, it ended up costing people their lives.
i want to know what happened to the genius that sent that little female guard to guard him... and she's no better, thinking she could handle a thug like him by herself is ludicrous.
A little hyperbole, don't you think? The guilty party was whomever kowtowed to political correctness by letting a small female deputy escort this POS without adequate restraints.
History is destined to repeat itself once again.
This guy was only part of the problem. My response was to the person who didn't think that he should lose his job. I never said he was the only problem, but his actions helped to create the overall laxness in the system.
You can say all you want about females, small or large, working with felons. I'm a female and spent 23 years in uniform, working amongst murderers, rapists, etc.
In the Atlanta incident, it wasn't that the Deputy was a female, the problem was that she never should have been alone with that convict. Whether the Deputy was male or female, ONE officer should never have been left alone with him. Bad security procedures had the biggest role to play in the tragedy. We still don't know what the written procedures were, or if the Deputy's were even following them. If Supervisors knew the security procedures were being ignored and did nothing about it, they should be fired too. Hopefully, more heads will roll.
Agreed, but wasn't a bigger part of the problem the fact the POS wasn't in cuffs and leg chains because some damned lawyer thought such a common sense measure might prejudice the jury and some idiot bureaucRAT of the court consented?
And, as we all recall, it was a woman hostage who in the end disarmed the POS by listening to him and making him breakfast.
From what I understand, Nichols was uncuffed during the time he was in the holding area. Had security been doing their job, he never should have been out of cuffs/shackles prior to his being escorted into the courtroom. Of course, I'm not really sure what the standing security order was for inmates in the holding area...if they were required to be in cuffs/shackles, or if they weren't. But, if 8 were fired over this incident, it's highly likely that whatever orders existed, they hadn't been followed.
The issue over prejudicing the jury dealt with whether a defendant should be cuffed within the courtroom. Here in New York State, it's the Judge's call. When we took convicts to court hearings, and if the Judge wanted the cuffs/shackles off the convict, we had no choice but to obey him. It didn't matter if we felt he was a threat, we were bound by law to obey the Judge's orders.
It would be interesting to see what the original security procedures were at that courthouse, and what actually was being done at the time of the incident. And, it would also be interesting to see what changes in procedure have taken place since that fateful day. I'm hoping it opened some peoples' eyes.
You're right.
At a facility I worked at, several officers were brought up on charges for allegations of "roughing up" an inmate who had just been transferred to our special housing unit from another nearby prison. Two Sergeants were on the scene when the alleged incident took place. One Sergeant was a black male, the other was an older white female. The female Sergeant was sent down to the unit with a camera by the Lieutenant on duty.
When the inmate testified at her arbitration hearing, he could not identify her as having been in the SHU at the time of the alleged incident. He did identify the black male supervisor however. And, at the time of his admission, the inmate was seen by medical staff (standard procedure) and cleared of any marks on his body. Photos showed nothing as well, and they could never prove any "roughing up" actually took place. Yet, the only person who lost their job was the female Sergeant who had an exemplary record and had been in the department for about 17 years. At the time of her hearing, she had not been afforded a Union lawyer to represent her. After her dismissal, each person facing charges for this alleged incident was afforded Union legal representation. No one lost their job.
As each person's hearing took place, the punishment diminished in severity. The male Sergeant was demoted and later again re-promoted on a new civil service list. Others were fined in decreasing amounts until the last person was found "not guilty" of all charges. The arbitrator's decision to allow the black Sergeant to keep his job was "because there was a need for black staff in the department." However, he apparently thought there wasn't a need for a white female supervisor in the same department where at the time, black staff (male and female) outnumbered white female officers and supervisors.
There are always injustices when it comes to the government's arbitrary application of the rules. Some people get away with things while others are pinned to the wall. I know...I had it happen to me once. I had attended an off-duty meeting regarding re-deployment of staff that was going to be occurring at several facilities, including ours. When I questioned the Correction Commissioner about the discrepancy in staffing levels between prisons, and he didn't even know which prison he was speaking at, he was "booed" royally. We all eventually walked out on him. The next day I was given the cold shoulder by the brass, and within a week, I was brought up on charges for allegedly "using force" on a male inmate. I'm female by the way, and was a Sergeant myself at the time. The only thing they could find me guilty of was using profanity and not ignoring my supervisor's orders. He had told me it wasn't necessary to file a specific form with my misbehavior report on an inmate. He backed me up at my hearing, but they still found me guilty anyway. If they want to get you, they'll get you no matter what. I paid my fine and finished my career two years ago. I don't miss it one bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.