Man sorry! I don't know why that post double spaced like that, making a long post HUGE! I did not type it like that!

Dagwood,

I would say that if any one knows of officers on

the force who have committed serious crimes,

especially any having to do with violence or

people who were physically injured, then bring

it public. If they have been found guilty of

crimes- most especially violent- then I don't

want them in charge of arresting me or mine. I

don't want criminals carrying guns and a

badge. If they went to another town and got

hired on, then that is that communities problem, not ours. Same would apply to Hall. If another

town, or Toyota, wants to make him chief of law

enforcement, then go for it. I won't care unless I am under the police authority of RH. But when

Jack read hired him to the Tupelo CDF and the

made getting him back as a. chief 1st order

of business after his election as mayor, that

really stinks to high heaven.

I don't know that a yes answer to any of the

questions you mentioned is an automatic

disqualification for recert. But it sure can not

help. And you had better have some darn

good explanations for the yes answers.

Something other than "Yeah, I did it and I plead

it down for a suspended jail sentence, but I do

have black skin, so you better recert me or

there will be trouble". That SHOULD not be

good enough. Answering "Yep I did it, but a lot

of folks like me" wouldn't, and shouldn't, be

good enough for a white man. It should not be

good enough for Hall.

As for officers, who have been convicted of

crimes which we don't know about, do you not

see the difference here? You said you were

not that familiar with the original crime, so let's catch you up. A child was run over by a drunk driver, who then added a hit and run. The child ( early teens I think) was injured. It was never really much said how seriously, but I think it was significant.

The drunk hit and run driver was soon arrested

some distance from the crime. As the arrest

was being completed and evidence ( like

blood on or damage to the car) was being

processed, the perps called their BUDDY,

Robert Hall. Who waded in and ordered their

release!

This was all very public knowledge in

Tupelo. Instead of firing him like he deserved,

or even arresting him like he deserved, the PD

tried to protect him. They just moved him out of

the spotlight as a. chief, to some other lessor

position.

Apparently not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, Hall did not realize when he had been done a huge favor, additionally corrupt though it was. So he calls in the NAACP. Next thing you know, they are down at the City Council meeting with threats and protests. With a local influential black preacher comparing poor Hall's

persecution by whitey to that of Jesus Christ. I

kid you not! All televised on the local channel.

Maybe not too smart, but you do have to admit

he had huge you know what indeed!

But that publicity brought more public review.

Next thing you know, some law enforcement

above the local level stepped in, and old Hall (

and the hit and run perp) are on trial. I think Hall was accused of obstruction of justice, perjury and I don't know what all. The original hit and run guy(Hall's buddy who Hall rescued) got 2 years in Parchman(SP?). 9 he served a very small part of this and was released)

Seeing the inevitable, Hall pleas it down. I'm

not sure what exactly he finally confessed to.

all of it but perjury, I think, with the

understanding that it would all be downgraded

as reward for his plea/confession. So, his 1

year jail sentence was suspended, and he

would quit the force, give up his certification,

and go away. So, even though convicted of crimes and a jail sentence, his only real punishment would be losing his job and high position on the PD. Not bad! Sadly, even though he was given many breaks and no jail time, he did not go away.

Then Jack Read hires him to a Tupelo related

position on the day he left the court room. JR

probably later got him his job as head of

security with Toyota. Why else would toyota

hire a known criminal for that position, unless

powerful people had worked in his favor?

Finally, Read is elected Mayor. One could be

excused for thinking the main reason he ran was to restore his buddy hall to a.Police

Chief. It remains a mystery why he would act so

insanely. Is it because he is such a bleeding

heart liberal, dedicated to the cause of the

black man over the white? Is it because he

wants to lock up the black vote, which he no

doubt has? Or, is it because, from his days on

the PD, RH has something on JR? I have no

idea, but it sure makes you wonder!

So you see, the conditions here are quite

different from the ones you stated. Where.

supposedly, there are white men ( and black?)

on the PD who have some crimes in their past.

But, we don't know about them or who

they are. Hall's fall came from obstructing

justice in favor of a hit and run drunk driver. All very public from the get go. With the PD acting in his favor by not arresting or even firing him.

Remember, he was NEVER fired! He RESIGNED as a part of his plea bargain with the courts! But later, he wanted to take it all back!

So Dagwood, now that you are up to date,

what do you think? Do you want such a person

as 2nd in command of the folks who have

arrest power over you? Surely not?

One final thing: there was a racial element. It

was a white child, run over by a drunk black

man who then fled the scene leaving the injured child on his own. The his buddy, also

black, cuts him loose, nearly ruining the case

against him. So tell me every one, what do you

think would have happened if the colors had

been reversed? Don't you know that same

NAACP that came running to the Christ like

Robert hall's defense, would have been

marching demanding justice for the black man

or child? You know they would have! They

would have had Al Sharpton and Jessy down

here organizing national protests against the

terrible discrimination. And you know what?

Rightfully so! They should protest such an

injustice and such obvious racial

discrimination. I say go for, and do what is right, my fellow people! But where is justice when the colors are reversed? Why do they, and others, support the CONFESSED criminal when he is black? How about a little color blindness when it comes to justice?

Anyone else notice how quickly this article got buried by other news? It has almost disappeared from the "News" page in less than 24 hours.

@daggwood

I think the application form is meant to help determine the qualifications and possible disqualifications of an applicant. I assure you I have no knowledge in the matter of the certification process of the board. I think it is fairly safe to assume that of all the questions that could be posed to an applicant, the board is going to ask questions that are relevant and weighty in determining whether to certify an applicant.

I fully agree that there are probably many officers on the force that have transgressed the law. Of those, how many had their certification revoked and had to re-certify? I think that is the difference. Those officers did not have to re-certify, for whatever reason. Hall does.

I meant to bold section 7(e) below as well.

MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972

As Amended

SEC. 45-6-11. Law enforcement officer qualifications; recertification after leaving law enforcement; certification; reprimand, suspension or revocation of certification.

(1) Law enforcement officers already serving under permanent appointment on July 1, 1981, and personnel of the division of community services under Section 47-7-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, serving on July 1, 1994, shall not be required to meet any requirement of subsections (3) and (4) of this section as a condition of continued employment; nor shall failure of any such law enforcement officer to fulfill such requirements make that person ineligible for any promotional examination for which that person is otherwise eligible. Provided, however, if any law enforcement officer certified under the provisions of this chapter leaves his employment as such and does not become employed as a law enforcement officer within two (2) years from the date of termination of his prior employment, he shall be required to comply with board policy as to rehiring standards in order to be employed as a law enforcement officer; except, that, if any law enforcement officer certified under this chapter leaves his employment as such to serve as a sheriff, he may be employed as a law enforcement officer after he has completed his service as a sheriff without being required to comply with board policy as to rehiring standards. Part-time law enforcement officers serving on or before July 1, 1998, shall have until July 1, 2001, to obtain certification as a part-time officer.

(2) Any person who has twenty (20) years of law enforcement experience and who is eligible to be certified under this section shall be eligible for recertification after leaving law enforcement on the same basis as someone who has taken the basic training course. Application to the board to qualify under this subsection shall be made no later than June 30, 1993.

(3) (a) No person shall be appointed or employed as a law enforcement officer or a part-time law enforcement officer unless that person has been certified as being qualified under the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.

(b) No person shall be appointed or employed as a law enforcement trainee by any law enforcement unit for a period to exceed two (2) years. The prohibition against the appointment or employment of a law enforcement trainee for a period not to exceed two (2) years may not be nullified by terminating the appointment or employment of such a person before the expiration of the time period and then rehiring the person for another period. Any person, who, due to illness or other events beyond his control, could not attend the required school or training as scheduled, may serve with full pay and benefits in such a capacity until he can attend the required school or training.

(c) No person shall serve as a law enforcement officer in any full-time, part-time, reserve or auxiliary capacity during a period when that person's certification has been suspended, cancelled or recalled pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(4) In addition to the requirements of subsections (3), (7) and (8) of this section, the board, by rules and regulations consistent with other provisions of law, shall fix other qualifications for the employment of law enforcement officers, including minimum age, education, physical and mental standards, citizenship, good moral character, experience and such other matters as relate to the competence and reliability of persons to assume and discharge the responsibilities of law enforcement officers, and the board shall prescribe the means for presenting evidence of fulfillment of these requirements. Additionally, the board shall fix qualifications for the appointment or employment of part-time law enforcement officers to essentially the same standards and requirements as law enforcement officers. The board shall develop and implement a part-time law enforcement officer training program that meets the same performance objectives and has essentially the same or similar content as the programs approved by the board for full-time law enforcement officers and the board shall provide that such training shall be available locally and held at times convenient to the persons required to receive such training.

(5) Any elected sheriff, constable, deputy or chief of police may apply for certification. Such certification shall be granted at the request of the elected official after providing evidence of satisfaction of the requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section. Certification granted to such elected officials shall be granted under the same standards and conditions as established by law enforcement officers and shall be subject to recall as in subsection (7) of this section.

(6) The board shall issue a certificate evidencing satisfaction of the requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section to any applicant who presents such evidence as may be required by its rules and regulations of satisfactory completion of a program or course of instruction in another jurisdiction equivalent in content and quality to that required by the board for approved law enforcement officer education and training programs in this state, and has satisfactorily passed any and all diagnostic testing and evaluation as required by the board to ensure competency.

(7) Professional certificates remain the property of the board, and the board reserves the right to either reprimand the holder of a certificate, suspend a certificate upon conditions imposed by the board, or cancel and recall any certificate when:

(a) The certificate was issued by administrative error;

(b) The certificate was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud;

(c) The holder has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;

(d) The holder has been convicted of a felony; or

(e) Other due cause as determined by the board.

(8) When the board believes there is a reasonable basis for either the reprimand, suspension, cancellation of, or recalling the certification of a law enforcement officer or a part-time law enforcement officer, notice and opportunity for a hearing shall be provided in accordance with law prior to such reprimand, suspension or revocation.

(9) Any full- or part-time law enforcement officer aggrieved by the findings and order of the board may file an appeal with the chancery court of the county in which such person is employed from the final order of the board. Such appeals must be filed within thirty (30) days of the final order of the board.

(10) Any full- or part-time law enforcement officer whose certification has been cancelled pursuant to this chapter may reapply for certification, but not sooner than two (2) years after the date on which the order of the board cancelling such certification becomes final.

(11) Any temporary deputy sheriffs appointed as provided in Section 19-25-21 shall be exempt from the requirements of this section.

SOURCES: Laws, 1981, ch. 474, § 6; Laws, 1990, ch. 434, § 3; Laws, 1992, ch. 415, § 1; Laws, 1993, ch. 584, § 1; Laws, 1994, ch. 516, § 2; Laws, 1998, ch. 394, § 3; Laws, 1999, ch. 506, § 1, HB 581, eff from and after July 1, 1999.

Perhaps ole Larry isn't here for this discussion because he's considering his next step to get his certification back. As someone else here says... just saying.

I find it amazing that Tupelo would seriously consider retaining an assistant chief of police who isn't a real cop. Does Hall or anyone else in authority not give a hoot about what this rehire has done to morale in the department? I have talked randomly with several officers and I've failed to identify ONE that has respect for their 2nd in charge.

I have followed this story since Mr. Hall was rehired. I am not that familiar with the charges or the incident that led to his plea agreement or resignation. That being said, I have a few questions and comments.

1. @lurchaddams; the certification questions that you posted does not specify that answering "yes" to those questions disqualifies the applicant. To the best of your knowledge or anyone elses knowledge here, does a yes to any of those questions disqualify the applicant or are they simply a part of a larger package that's considered by the board?

As far as a discrimination suit, I don't have enough information. However, I do know that thier are cops on duty that are certified that would have to answer yes to some of those questions. I know for a fact that there are cops that resigned while under investigation and gone on to get jobs as policemen in other towns. There are also cops on duty that have plea bargained down to simple assault rather than being convicted of domestic violence charges because the domestic assault charge bars you from carry a gun under federal law. Many of you know that this is true. Therefore, I wouldn't automatically dismiss a discrimination suit.

I'm not looking for an argument here, just some information and a rational discussion.

So, where is ol' LarryDickman? He is usually has a strong presence in these Hall forums. I guess he is feeling under the weather, but he can still hope for a judge to save Hall.

my challenge is for Reed and Carlton to make a public statement and allow questions from the public

Well, at long last the council has found something to help them rise up against this corruption, at least some of them have. That is, demanding that Hall apply for certification, as the written job description demands. Hooray! And at long last it looks like there is at least a possibility that justice MIGHT be done and a criminal, who committed his crime while on duty as assistant police chief, will not be allowed to stay in that position just because of his skin color. And just because the mayor wants to cater to those that demand privileges because of skin color.

But soon it will come down to a judge. And that could mean anything, you never know what kind of crazy ruling a judge will come up with. They are often liable to discriminate based on the right skin color, which means NOT white.

@Davis64, are you by any chance Nettie Davis? I heard on TV she said they should just leave poor Robert alone. Sounds like you and Nettie have the same thoughts on this subject.

BTW, I challenge the idiots, like Reed and Carleton, who claim that the 2nd in command in their police department doesn't need a certification to name just one other city, anywhere in the United States that has a deputy police chief that does not have arrest powers.

Just name one!

Anyone?

Anyone?

About journalist I guess you get what you pay for.Maybe they hire illegals like everyone who puts out shoddy work.

Hall should get a job playing Morgan Freeman in a new movie, Driving Mr Reed. Or something.

This outcome is exactly what was expected. And unless someone can get to a chancery judge the appeal process should end the same way. My understanding is that ROBERT was denied so ROBERT must appeal, not the city. I don't think we need to spend another taxpayer dollar on this mess. We've already paid him a salary in a position he should not have held in the first place. Time for him to move on. Still trying to figure out why the mayor thought it appropriate to drag Tupelo into such a mess.

Some think this is another entitlement program

This is for all. DAVIS64 always gives an opinion that no one will like. He does this just to get attention. The same as little children do. And we all know he is one brick shy of a full load.

DONT FORGET the only victim is the child that was mangled due to Robert's actions. They will never have a normal life again. I wished an attorney (Pro-Bono) would sue the city and help the real victims with medical bills since Robert is employed. Not like the city is worried about money when they pay a criminal 70 K a year to perform a job he's not qualified for. This poor family has suffered and lost everything due to Robert, while he has a cushy job pushing a pencil. NO HE SHOULDN'T BE CERTIFIED. WTG Board!!!

@WTFDude that is kinda like WTVA running all the news channel in NEMS.. They control all of what we see with control of Fox/ABC and NBC news in this area.. NEMS needs more newspapers, local blogs , and other outside people coming into Tupelo where people can see really whats happening in the City with the way it is now.. WTVA / Daily Journal is easy paid off by Mr Reed etc..

There are "professional journalists" in Tupelo?

Really? Who are they? For what media outlet do they work?

There may be people who are paid to write for Journal Inc. publications, but they don't have any real "reporters" or "professional journalists", they have WRITERS.

Journalists uphold the ethics of their profession and don't play favorites as Journal Inc. and its WRITERS do.

I challenge anyone to find ANYTHING critical of Jack Reed Jr.

You won't find it. Why?



Here are just a few reasons:

1) Reeds spends a lot of money in advertising with Journal Inc.

2) Both Jr. and Senior are/have been Journal Inc. board members.

3) Journal Inc. Chairman, Billy Crews, ran Reed's mayoral campaign.

So, it's no wonder that such abuse of power adn misappropriation of taxpayer money happens in this region. There is no media outlet ethical enough to hold the government accountable and keep the people informed.

You watch, there will be an editorial in the next few days expressing support for Robert Hall.

Journal Inc. has ZERO CREDIBILITY on ANYTHING related to the Reed Regime.

Billy Crews gave away what little they had when he decided to run Reed's campaign for mayor.

Actually davis64 is right, there might be discrimination law suit which could be initiated against the city.

With Hall's lack of certification and qualification according to The state Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training to be a police officer at the Tupelo Police Department it would appear that Hall’s hiring without an official posting or interview process could possibly convince a reasonable person that Hall was hired over other employees simply because of his race, and not because of his qualifications which according to minimum standards is none.

@lurch

If we had professional journalists in Tupelo, you might have seen the qualifications from them. The Journal is not known for anything that might be detrimental to the All American city or some of it's favorite sons.