Today's Paper Search Latest stories Traffic #Gazette200 Paper Trails Digital Replica FAQs Weather Newsletters Most commented Obits Puzzles + Games Archive
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption

What would be wrong if Mayor Frank Scott implicitly signaled to his police chief to sacrifice one white police officer to the cause of allaying or neutralizing anger and resentment in the black community?

I offer the question for discussion. But I actually asked it of Robert Newcomb, attorney for the fired white officer, Charles Starks. We'll get his answer momentarily.

The officer shot and killed a drug-using black man who drove toward him in an incident that Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley reviewed before deciding to file no charges.

Victim Bradley Blackshire's family and friends believe the video shows a killing that didn't have to be.

Police Chief Keith Humphrey, who was personally hired only weeks ago by Scott and works for the mayor, fired the otherwise-cleared Starks. He said he did so because Starks, in the tragic incident, violated a department policy to get out of the way of an oncoming suspect's vehicle rather than voluntarily stand firm to engage in a potentially deadly incident.

All of Starks' overseers in the chain of command leading to the chief had sided with Starks. That signals either his legitimate professional exoneration or that the police stick together, or both.

Scott's differences with the Little Rock police force, which are serious, probably began in earnest when he called during his campaign last year for a federal civil rights investigation of the reporting by The Washington Post of the department's practice of no-knock warrants on drug suspects.

Blackshire was suspected of stealing the car he was operating. He first brushed Starks with the vehicle. Then Starks wound up in front of the car--to try to get to cover, he said--as the car came toward him.

Starks hopped on the hood and shot Blackshire eight times. He says both that he remembers being fearful for his life and that he "blacked out" some of the details.

Newcomb accuses Scott of having pressured the chief's decision. I asked on what basis. Newcomb said, "gut feeling."

That's not really good enough, though I had the same feeling.

Thus, the question in the beginning ...

I wasn't saying it was a fair or noble or moral question. I was saying it was the question.

What if the newly elected black mayor, seeking peace and unity for the city and worried about racial unrest in the part of the city from which he hails, had wanted one uncharged white police officer to be let loose from his job--sacrificed, essentially--to try to ease community tension?

Here was attorney Newcomb's answer: "If you do that, then you might as well tell every other police officer in the city to just stop doing their job."

I had thought he might say that.

Maybe the next officer would bail on a delicate situation, Newcomb said, for fear the mayor would sacrifice him if something went wrong, leaving him without employment, and a family to feed. Maybe another officer would "hesitate" for the same reason, he said, and die.

For the record, Scott subsequently told me he "did not influence nor instruct" the chief's decision. He used those precise words three times no matter how I asked the question.

Newcomb also alleged, based on unconfirmed reports, that Scott had encouraged Jegley to file charges. Scott told me he did no such thing. He said he placed a call to Jegley to try to get a sense of his timing on his decision--so that he could be ready for community response--but that Jegley never called him back.

It is possible Scott did not precisely influence the decision but that the chief who works for him felt implicitly influenced by him.

Did Scott favor the firing? He told me it would not be appropriate for him to answer since Newcomb had said he was intending to appeal the firing to the Civil Service Commission.

That seems to mean yes.

And therein lies the direct answer to my question: An officer let go for something other than actual cause may get reinstated by an appeal process.

I suspect Scott preferred that Starks be fired and that the chief who works for him knew that.

I am more certain that Scott believes it is his job to attend to the broader need for an easing of tension.

And now, if the Civil Service Commission rules that Starks should be reinstated, which strikes me as possible, Scott might better attend to the broader need at that time based on what Newcomb suspects of him now.

That is the delicate, regrettable and even tragic dance required of race and police relations currently in Little Rock.

I want the Civil Service Commission to make a sound and reasonable decision on the appeal. Then I want the mayor to deal with it, whatever it is, with healing leadership, since that's what he promised us in the campaign.

That's the best delicate dance I can do.

------------v------------

John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

Editorial on 05/09/2019

Print Headline: JOHN BRUMMETT: The delicate dance

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsor Content

You must be signed in to post comments

Comments

  • mozarky2
    May 9, 2019 at 8:11 a.m.

    You could hold a public lynching of Officer Starks and there would still be no "healing" in the black "community". It's ridiculous to even think so.

  • Morebeer
    May 9, 2019 at 8:12 a.m.

    Delicate and dishonest. What’s Starks supposed to do, retreat when a grand-theft suspect refuses to comply, and allow a vehicle pursuit to ensue, which endangers other drivers, pedestrians and other officers?
    Starks tried to contain the situation; Blackshire pushed the situation to where it ended by not complying. Starks will prevail on appeal. Some officers will be more hesitant to confront illegal activity in some neighborhoods, making those streets more lawless. No contact, no complaints, Cincinnati police used to say in the ‘70s.

  • mozarky2
    May 9, 2019 at 8:15 a.m.

    Everyone should go to YouTube and watch Chris Rock's cautionary tale, "How not to get your a** kicked by the police".

  • limb
    May 9, 2019 at 8:23 a.m.

    Starks had been reprimanded ten times in the past. Is that the officer you want on the street?

  • hah406
    May 9, 2019 at 8:26 a.m.

    I have an idea. If Mayor Scott wants to ease tensions in the black community, tell them to stop committing so much crime. And to everyone out there, learn what many of us learned as children. Whether you trust the police or not, comply and survive.

  • drs01
    May 9, 2019 at 8:59 a.m.

    I once remarked to the police chief (not this one) that his officers are guilty until proven innocent. How ironic that those charged with enforcing the law and keeping the peace are forced to live by a different justice system than those they apprehend.
    I don't believe Starks will get his job back. I also don't believe the mayor or police chief will lose theirs over this, although I believe both of them were put in a bad situation. The confusing thing about this incident is that 4 layers of management in the police organization recommended reprimands rather than termination. Had this been white on white, we wouldn't talking about it today. If every decision in Scott's administration is based on race, we're in deep do do for the next 3 1/2 years or longer.

  • GeneralMac
    May 9, 2019 at 9:23 a.m.

    John Brummett calls it a "sacrifice"
    (aka...giving in to blackmail )

    "We are coming to the mayor's house"

  • wowy
    May 9, 2019 at 9:34 a.m.

    "Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack
    I went out for a ride and I never went back
    Like a river that don't know where it's flowing
    I took a wrong turn and I just kept going ......."
    As music is playing on the ole transistor I'm reminded
    of what is happening in Baltimore now that blacks FULLY
    control the city --- the police sit by and watch a car chase
    and now a mugging and hear a woman scream in a back alley
    and do nothing.
    A friend was doing a lot of construction work at UAPB when the
    head guy was in the process of getting fired because of numorous
    "discrepancies" and, every time my friend saw him he asked him what
    was going on, but, the man always shrugged him off. Finally after months
    and months of asking the man finally turned to my friend and said, ' J...
    don't ever put a black man in charge of money, women or whiskey '
    The guy who said it was black and got fired a short time later. Chancellor I think he was.
    Another friend told me that his sister was the top auditor for the UofA and the
    Chancellor in Fayetteville sent her to UAPB to straighten "the mess" out down there
    (a couple years before this first story) and after several months she
    came back and told them (UofA) that in order to straighten out the mess
    down there she would have to fire the WHOLE Admin. Staff and she
    wasn't going to do that because they would call her a racist and sue.
    So, short answer is yeah, we will become a little Baltimore sooner
    rather than later...
    How about them there juanbummsquirter ? Oh YEAH --- Look It ---
    ! ! ! T R U M P ! ! !

  • ARMNAR
    May 9, 2019 at 9:42 a.m.

    ^^^Bath salts.^^^

  • MaxCady
    May 9, 2019 at 9:48 a.m.

    It wasn't like people were rioting and burning down Little Rock anyway. The need to appease was strictly optical.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT