Hall reinstated, reassigned by Tupelo police

[King Rat]

Hall, like other public officials, not only has to adhere to the law, they also have an ethics standard. Just because the atty general said he didn't break any laws doesn't mean he didn't violate ethics rules that warrant a demotion. I agree with TF and others here that without factual coverage of the issue and without public disclosure we are left to speculate. Speculation rarely, if ever, heads in the right direction. But we have absolutely no investigative journalism in Tupelo so speculate we must.

I'm not satisfied, myself, that Hall treated the kid "just like everyone else". The smoke just doesn't drift in that direction.

[granny2young]

he may not have, but seems to me that if the boy is facing the music and was indicted by the grand jury I would lean towards him not recieving any special favors. he is still in hot water. I couldn't think of anything worse happening to him had it been done "right"

[zipzam]

granny2young said:

Why is everyone after Hall?

who's after hall?

i'm only interested in the truth.
1. did the driver get any special treatment?
2. what all (if anything) did hall do to "help" this driver?
3. why was hall suspended? did hood and his gang just do it for no reason? did hall pizz off one of hood's buddies?
4. after a decision by hood, why did he re-open this? was it bad investigating the first time, a bad decision the first time, or is he just folding under political pressure from the naacp?

[King Rat]

What music is the boy facing, exactly? The full arrangement or just the chorus? We don't know but there must've been some reason for the demotion. Even the NAACP, from the stories I've seen, don't dispute that Hall did something wrong - they just think that because TPD doesn't have enough blacks in position of power, Hall, who is black, shouldn't have been demoted. Am I mistake here? As I recall that is the jist of the story WTVA initially ran when the NAACP got involved. Admittedly I haven't kept up with this case as closely as some of you so if I am mistaken on that then by all means set me straight.

[granny2young]

that is the questions I am asking. the boy has been indicted. he was charged with the accident and now is facing it, so what exactly did Hall do to help him. It looks like nothing.

[TF Admin]

granny2young said:

that is the questions I am asking. the boy has been indicted. he was charged with the accident and now is facing it, so what exactly did Hall do to help him. It looks like nothing.

OK... We finally got a little more information from the WTVA article. Note the following at the tail end of the article:

"21-YEAR-OLD JAMISON SHELLS... OF SALTILLO... HAS BEEN INDICTED ON A FELONY CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN INJURY. HE HAS PLEADED "NOT GUILTY" AND IS OUT ON FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS BOND. "

Look at the charge the Grand Jury indicted him on. NOT A DUI! It's a felony charge of Hit and Run with Injury! So my information regarding his recog at the scene was incorrect. It appears he was charged with the above and sent home. He then went to Grand Jury and made a plea and bonded. BTW, $5,000 is not nearly enough for this type of crime in my opinion.

So now, I understand a bi-racial committee is going to look at this and we may get a public hearing as well. The bi-racial committee is complete and utter BS! Here's a quote from over at the djournal.com forums from motorcop that pretty well sums up my feelings about this:

"Why would a bi-racial comittee need to be formed to decide if Robert being demoted is wrong?
Was a bi-racial comittee formed when any white officer was fired?
This is not a racial issue. If it is, then there needs to be the NAACP for black people, the NAAWP for white people, the NAAFP for foreign people, the NAASP for stupid people.....does anyone see that this is an absolutely silly notion? The list of NAA whatever P could go on forever and it would not change this:
Robert chose to involve himself in a DUI/RT case for whatever reason. It could have been because he knew the folks involved, it could have been because the drivers family felt that their son was mistreated by the Police, it could have been for any one of a hundred possible reasons and the reason DOES NOT MATTER!"

He went on to say the following:

"It sickens me to realize that every time anything happens concerning anyone who is black, the race card is played bringing personal issues into the mix. Discrimination does occur on a regular basis. However, that is not the case here in the context of the release of the DUI/RT suspect.
There may well have been persons of high rank, within the department, who saw an opportunity to use this incident for personal satisfaction or gain. That does not change the fact that a DUI was being meddled with by an officer who should never have involved himself in it in the first place.
If there is a racial issue here, it is after the fact and should be examined on its own face, not in the context of the question of why did Robert allegedly order this suspect to be released pending the outcome of the Hit & Run - DUI/RT investigation.
There is still a chance to get it right for once, but not by the formation of some comittee formed with the sole purpose of reinstating a black officer to his previous rank just because he is black. That isn't what it is about....."

I agree wholeheartedly. I believe the NAACP is trying to cloud the issue at this point, which could be yet another reason the AG's office reopened the case. The focus is being shifted to politics when the fact is that the case itself needs to be resolved based on the facts at hand FIRST, then repurcussions on the political end can be dealt with accordingly.

Now, here's an interesting thought. If during the Grand Jury trial, Robert Hall is called to the stand, he could be asked why he did what he did. If the information that has been rumored from some very good sources is true (that he was TOLD to let the young man go and not spend the night in Jail) then we have an ENTIRELY different can of worms opened. Again, that is strictly rumor and no evidence to support it, but if Robert testifies to that. We could very well see some serious fur fly about the administration at the PD. Let me reitereate, that is strictly rumor and speculation. But it has a little weight behind it and we will see the outcome during any Grand Jury testimony Robert may give.

TFADMIN

[King Rat]

granny2young said:

that is the questions I am asking. the boy has been indicted. he was charged with the accident and now is facing it, so what exactly did Hall do to help him. It looks like nothing.

The WTVA report last evening, as well as the earlier reports I've seen, said that the police on the scene detected the presence of alcohol and that the boy refused several sobriety tests. Hall, it appears, let the kid slide on the DUI charge. So the kid is now being charged with the hit and run but NOT with the DUI. Was the kid drunk? We won't ever know because he was not taken to the station and tested as you or I would have been. DUI is a serious charge and would make a significant difference to the existing charges against him if the kid was drunk at the time of the accident. But we will never know whether he was or not because, again apparently, he received special treatment and was given a pass.

WTVA also interviewed the mother of the victim who said on camera that the police refused to arrest the driver because of "insufficient evidence" even though the victim's blood and hair was found on the driver's side mirror and his tire had been flattened when he ran over the victim's bicycle.

I think what is being lost in this entire matter is the true VICTIM - not the driver who ran over him.

Let me ask you, Granny, how you would feel if someone ran over you with a car then fled the scene only to have a top-cop step in and send the suspect home instead of administering a sobriety test after officers on the scene detected alchohol? Would you feel that YOUR rights of equal protection under the law were upheld?

Make no mistake concerning the added sentence this kid, if found guilty, would have gotten had he also been charged with a DUI. That turns an "unfortunate accident" followed by "a scared kid running away" into a much more serious crime.

Why has our society become so quick to feel sympathy for the person who commits a crime and bend over backwards to give them another chance?