Police chief's home torched after man dies in custody
Friday, January 20, 2006; Posted: 4:17 p.m. EST (21:17 GMT)
Officials investigate the home of Police Chief Stephen Stewart in

MARSHALLVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- Several people broke into the police chief's house and burned it down early Friday, a few hours after a man died in police custody, authorities said.

No one was home at the time, and no injuries were reported. No immediate arrests were made.

Police Chief Stephen Stewart, a Navy reservist who returned from duty in Iraq about two months ago, had left the house along with his family shortly after the death in this town of 1,300 people 90 miles south of Atlanta, authorities said.

Clarence Walker, 48, died at a hospital after officers shot him with pepper spray Thursday night while he was resisting arrest on probation and parole violations, said John Bankhead, a spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The cause of death was not immediately disclosed.

As news of Walker's death spread, about 100 people gathered downtown near the police station. Sheriff Charles Cannon said the crowd was not unruly.

"In a small town like Marshallville, it's a situation where people want to know what's going on," Cannon said. "They're inquisitive, concerned, especially the family of the deceased. We don't have all the answers."

After about two hours, Cannon said, he asked Walker's family to ask the crowd to disperse, and they did. It was around that time that several people broke into Stewart's home and set it on fire, Bankhead said.

The FBI joined the investigation.

The home, actually a parsonage in a church, was destroyed. Stewart, police chief for about 21/2 years, and his family had been living in the home temporarily after his return from a year in Iraq.

The two officers involved in Walker's arrest were suspended with pay, the sheriff said.

James Jackson, a brother of Clarence Walker, said Walker angered the police because he often ran away from them. He said the police chief had let it be known around town that his officers would arrest Walker "dead or alive."

The chief, who stopped by the charred ruins of his home in the afternoon, would not respond to the allegations or discuss what happened during Walker's arrest.

"I can't speculate. I'm not going to," Stewart said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/20/sheriff.home.ap/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++

Who do we have to look to when the authorities and those in position of power outright break to law...mob justice unfortunatly. If the sytem wasn't so corrupt there would be no need for such. Too bad for us it is...

Too bad they burned down a poor house to do it. And too bad Iraq vets are living in poor houses.

I don't see in this article anywhere that the Police Chief was involved in the arrest, the pepper spraying or the death.

Sounds like the sort of quick, trial-free justice the Scottsboro Boys got. Do you romanticize that too?

He said the police chief had let it be known around town that his officers would arrest Walker "dead or alive."

Also note that the officers "were suspended with pay." A piad vacation as it were.

Brooks don't pretend that cops don't illegally beat people who run away from them. It's extremely common. I've heard of many deaths around the country that are nearly identical to this one. Guy runs from cops, gets peppersprayed excessively, put in chokehold, dies, cops get off scot free. It happens time and time again.

Except in this case it happened in a town that was small enough that everyone knew everyone and they decided not to put up with it. In a town that small it is no secret who burned down the house.

Maybe it was unforseeable, maybe it was all done with minimum force. However, probation and parole violations seems pretty insignificant to risk a mans life to me.

Heres a more detailed recounting -
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/13676736.htm

"About 9 p.m., officers spotted Walker, who had outstanding warrants for alleged obstruction of an officer and simple battery in August, as well as probation and parole violations.

Driving up to Walker in an unmarked police vehicle - which, though not typical practice for the police department, had been authorized for that occasion to retain some anonymity, Stewart said - the town's two police officers attempted to arrest him.

Walker resisted arrest, police said, and in the course of the scuffle the officers used pepper spray to subdue him.

About 75 yards away, standing in the front yard of a home in Tumtown, 25-year-old Alex Felton began to hear what sounded like moaning. He walked over toward the car lights in the road.

"They (were) on top of him, one on each side," he said. "I noticed the guy wasn't moving - he wasn't looking too good."

While one officer restrained Walker, Felton said, the other went to retrieve a patrol car parked out of view across the railroad tracks.

"They stopped, picked him up, drug him in the car then ... he wasn't moving then ... a couple minutes later, it got real hectic around here. It was close to a riot," said Felton."

and another:

"He was dead when they brought him from the projects. His mouth was open, his cheek was bruised, and he had blood coming from his mouth," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001754.html
Sounds like the sort of quick, trial-free justice the Scottsboro Boys got. Do you romanticize that too? Brooks you really need to learn how to take your own advice. Look at your sig (how many times have people had to say that now?).

Its obvious I am not romanticizing it. I was contextualizing it. When authorities are held unaccountable due to their status the only 'justice' available is mob justice. It clumsy, dangerous and unweildly. But when its the only form of justice available people will readily resort to it.

Besides that they only burned a house. Thats very small in comparison to a mans life. No one was hurt, except for the man the police killed. It was a statement, a response, to a killing, not an eye for an eye act of revenge.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

1. Brooks don't pretend that cops don't illegally beat people who run away from them.

2. Brooks you really need to learn how to take your own advice. Look at your sig (how many times have people had to say that now?).

3. Its obvious I am not romanticizing it. I was contextualizing it.

4. Besides that they only burned a house. Thats very small in comparison to a mans life.

5. It was a statement, a response, to a killing, not an eye for an eye act of revenge.

1. I never addressed that. I only took issue with burning down the chief's house.

2. I don't see how I exaggerated anything you said. (Two other people did tell me to look at my signature line. And when I asked the most recent about it, he said "sorry". So what are you talking about?)

3. "Who do we have to look to when the authorities and those in position of power outright break to law...mob justice unfortunatly."
That is romanticization.

4. Unless it's your house and you may have had nothing to do with the crime.

5. How noble and romantic.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Also note that the officers "were suspended with pay." A piad vacation as it were.

Normal procedure in almost every police department in the country. I don't recall any death in police custody in which paid leave didn't happen.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Brooks don't pretend that cops don't illegally beat people who run away from them. It's extremely common. I've heard of many deaths around the country that are nearly identical to this one. Guy runs from cops, gets peppersprayed excessively, put in chokehold, dies, cops get off scot free. It happens time and time again.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, how do you know that's what happened here?


Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Maybe it was unforseeable, maybe it was all done with minimum force. However, probation and parole violations seems pretty insignificant to risk a mans life to me.

So when people start resisting arrest, the correct course of action is to let go and let them run free?


Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Its obvious I am not romanticizing it. I was contextualizing it. When authorities are held unaccountable due to their status the only 'justice' available is mob justice. It clumsy, dangerous and unweildly. But when its the only form of justice available people will readily resort to it.

Held unaccountable? On what planet are people able to make an instant determination that justice will not be done? Couldn't they at least wait until the prosecutor declines to press charges or something? It happened yesterday!


Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Besides that they only burned a house. Thats very small in comparison to a mans life. No one was hurt, except for the man the police killed. It was a statement, a response, to a killing, not an eye for an eye act of revenge.

Yes, very small in comparison to a man's life. Maybe someone should determine if it was the fault of the police first. And the house didn't even belong to him. They apparently felt the need to punish some church for the supposed misdeeds of the police chief.

Ok I get it 500lb. Justice was served by burning down the guys house even though you don't know any facts about the event. Sounds very much like your insane logic. Violence is justified if you happen to agree with it, otherwise watch out for the venom to flow!

1. Brooks don't pretend that cops don't illegally beat people who run away from them.
1. I never addressed that. I only took issue with burning down the chief's house.
yeah that mush is obvious...

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, how do you know that's what happened here?
from the article:"He was dead when they brought him from the projects. His mouth was open, his cheek was bruised, and he had blood coming from his mouth," she said.

Normal procedure in almost every police department in the country. I don't recall any death in police custody in which paid leave didn't happen. Which give them no incentive to ensure they have the upmost respect for those they suppossedly serve. Pay should be withheld until it is determined that it is a legit situation.

Violence is justified if you happen to agree with it, otherwise watch out for the venom to flow! Violence cannot occur against inanimate objects. However to take away someones neccessities for living (tools, home, transportation etc) is. Just wanted to clarify.

So when people start resisting arrest, the correct course of action is to let go and let them run free? No, of course not; Its to spray them with chemical weapons, beat them, then kneel into their back till they are no longer breathing....

Held unaccountable? On what planet are people able to make an instant determination that justice will not be done? Couldn't they at least wait until the prosecutor declines to press charges or something? It happened yesterday! Yup they could. What I'm saying is that incidents like this have happened for a long time now. People were obviously anxious that justice would not be served based on previous examples. You can't ask people to ignore recent history.

Yes, very small in comparison to a man's life. Maybe someone should determine if it was the fault of the police first. And the house didn't even belong to him. They apparently felt the need to punish some church for the supposed misdeeds of the police chief. I agree.
3. "Who do we have to look to when the authorities and those in position of power outright break to law...mob justice unfortunatly." That is romanticization. Yeah the whole unfortunatly part really is a sound endorsement....

Wake the fuck up and read what I am writing. People are so used to cops murdering people/breaking the law and getting away with it that they are starting to resort to their own brand of justice. It happens quite naturally. Black people were marginalized from society for so long and saw no end in sight so teh Black Panthers formed and created their own system/society.

Yes I am glad people are willing to finally take matters into their own hands. And yes I regret that this form often is misguided and makes very poor decisions.

If there was a riot everytime the cops killed someone there would be a drastic reduction in such. The fact that most cops see themselves as above the law and as society owing them for their service leads to these situations.

You're dangerously insane - lets be thankful that people with your ideas are limited to a tiny minority.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yes I am glad people are willing to finally take matters into their own hands.
Well, I'm glad you quit the charade that you weren't romanticizing this.


Suspended with Pay....
If the cop is guilty, he will go to jail. If he's not guilty, should he lose his house while awaiting trial? Common sense, no?

If the cop is guilty, he will go to jail. If he's not guilty, should he lose his house while awaiting trial? Common sense, no? I don't ever hear you complaining about excessive bail or lawyer fees that routinely do such to Americans at trial...

Originally posted by DrewM
Ok I get it 500lb. Justice was served by burning down the guys house even though you don't know any facts about the event. Sounds very much like your insane logic.

I just read the entire thread, and if anyone here is making "insane" statements, it is you, Drew.

You immediately accused 500lb of forwarding an opinion that **justice was served**, when in fact he said nothing of the kind.

The FIRST thing he said about the house burning was that it was UNFORTUNATE that mob justice led to the burning of the house.

unfortunate; Pronunciation: un'forchunit -- 1 [adj] not auspicious; boding ill. 2 [adj] unsuitable or regrettable

He THEN went on to say that it was **too bad** that the system is corrupt and that it leads to mobs taking the law into their own hands.

He THEN went on to say that it was **too bad** that they burned down the house........!!

bad -- 1 [n] that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency. 2 [adj] having undesirable or negative qualities;

I for one can't figure out if you are that miserable at reading comprehension, or if you're purposely misconstruing what 500lb said in order to have something to criticize him over.............I suspect the latter......

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I don't ever hear you complaining about excessive bail or lawyer fees that routinely do such to Americans at trial...
Bail, whether excessive or not, is returned to the subject if he doesn't flee before trial. Doesn't cost him a dime. I don't get the comparison.

Lawyers fees would pertain to a cop on trial too, wouldn't it? What's the difference here?

Bail, whether excessive or not, is returned to the subject if he doesn't flee before trial. Doesn't cost him a dime. I don't get the comparison. Yeah and whats he suppossed to pay rent with?

My point is that "the law" unjustly burdens anyone who is awaiting trail.

FT - yup they seemed pretty ridiculous to me too...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah and whats he suppossed to pay rent with?

My point is that "the law" unjustly burdens anyone who is awaiting trail.


If it weren't for bail, people would be incarcerated until trial. Can you think of a better way to prevent someone from going on the lam?

How many people, do you think, would make themselves available for trial if not for bail?

Now you are just trying to take me for a ride...

My point was that the officers should not be paid until it is determined whether they used the least force possible and took all preventive measures necessary.

So tell me Brooks. If a cop murders someone, get a paid vacation then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" do they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?

My take on this is a little different than anything I have seen here. This happened in a small town, where people all know each other.

http://www.hometownlocator.com/PlaceDetail.cfm?SCFIPS=13193&City=Marshallville



Everyone in town knew the police chief and the victim. They knew all about the problems between them. I'll bet if you talked to the local folks, they would tell you that the police have a reputation for acting violently. Many in town might have experience with the police chief.
This did not happen in a vacuum. Many people in town probably know who torched the house. That no one has come forward to identify the culprit speaks volumes. When there was a crowd in front of the police station that numbered nearly a hundred people, that was a substantial fraction of the towns population.
I am not suggesting that burning down the police chiefs house was right, but I doubt that anyone outside the town knows the whole story.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
1. Now you are just trying to take me for a ride...

2. My point was that the officers should not be paid until it is determined whether they used the least force possible and took all preventive measures necessary.

1. Hey, you're the one who brought up bail.

2. Everyone else in society isn't penalized until after they are found guilty.

Thats what I was trying to get across Imagineer. Thanks.

Wrong you already conceded that they have to put up bail which can be a large portion of any money you may have in the bank to pay for food and rent. The are penalized the second they are accused. Also if you use a bondsman because the bail is too high you don't get back 10-30% of what you put up.

BTW good job not answering my last question...

So tell me Brooks. If a cop murders someone, get a paid vacation then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" do they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
1. Thats what I was trying to get across Imagineer. Thanks.

2. Wrong you already conceded that they have to put up bail which can be a large portion of any money you may have in the bank to pay for food and rent.

3. So tell me Brooks. If a cop murders someone, get a paid vacation then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" do they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?

1. With all due respect to Imagineer, what he said is the mentality in any lynching. The townsfolk just "KNEW" that the Scottsboro Boys whistled at that white woman. The mob just "KNEW" Leo Frank deserved the death penalty. And in this case, the locals just "KNEW" about the police chief and the victim. The mob always "KNOWS".

2. Believe me, if bail went away tomorrow, I wouldn't be completely heartbroken. But can you think of a better system for guaranteeing a court appearance? And, based on bail calculations, the people you are talking about who get exceedingly high bail don't have ties to the community, a house or a career and are therefore a greater flight risk. Thus the high bail. Again, how do you keep them around for trial?

3. First of all, get the terms straight. "Murder" has a very specific definition, that is not determined before trial. By the time "murder" has been determined, the perpetrator is already in jail. I think the way you wrote the question is intentionally inflammatory.
Anyway, how do you justify suspending someone without pay before all the facts of the case are in?
The "suspension" in these cases is not for disciplinary reasons. It is for the police officer to get counseling to determine how fit he is to continue serving. If an officer involved in a shooting were immediately put back on the street with post traumatic stress disorder and makes a serious mistake, the municipality would be in huge trouble (and rightfully so).

Originally posted by Brooks
"Murder" has a very specific definition, that is not determined before trial. By the time "murder" has been determined, the perpetrator is already in jail. I think the way you wrote the question is intentionally inflammatory.
Anyway, how do you justify suspending someone without pay before all the facts of the case are in?
The "suspension" in these cases is not for disciplinary reasons. It is for the police officer to get counseling to determine how fit he is to continue serving.

So tell me Brooks. If a cop kills a citizen during the course of his job, gets a paid vacation, then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" should they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?

Originally posted by Freethinker
So tell me Brooks. If a cop kills a citizen during the course of his job, gets a paid vacation, then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" should they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?
Careful Reader, I just got through saying that in cases like this, the suspension isn't always for punitive purposes. It is for the municipality to cover itself. Why wouldn't the PO be entitled to keep his wages?

And if you think someone feels like they are having a "paid vacation" after being in a shooting and possibly awaiting a trial, you have not thought too deeply about this.

Well what else would it be if they are getting paid after commiting murder(at the most)/manslaughter(at the least) while they are suppossed to be upholding the law?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Well what else would it be if they are getting paid after commiting murder(at the most)/manslaughter(at the least) while they are suppossed to be upholding the law?
Again, once the word "murder" is applied, the person is in jail. Salary is no longer an issue.

There are certain concepts, such as murder and bail, that I think you just don't understand.

There are certain concepts, such as murder and bail, that I think you just don't understand.

Nobody would ever have an opinion if they waited until they had all the relevant facts. -- Paraphrased from Scott Adams

So tell me Brooks. If a cop kills a citizen during the course of his job, gets a paid vacation, then is determined to have acted "out of bounds" should they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?

Originally posted by Brooks
Careful Reader, I just got through saying that in cases like this, the suspension isn't always for punitive purposes.

I could give a fuck less what purpose the suspension is handed out for.

The purpose of the suspension has absolutely nothing to do with the question as it was posed.

Originally posted by Brooks
It is for the municipality to cover itself. Why wouldn't the PO be entitled to keep his wages?

Ok. Fine.

I will put down your answer to the question as a "No".

Originally posted by Freethinker
I could give a fuck less what purpose the suspension is handed out for.
Nor do you understand same.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Nobody would ever have an opinion if they waited until they had all the relevant facts. -- Paraphrased from Scott Adams

So you admit to constantly being uninformed on your opinions?

Originally posted by Brooks
Nor do you understand same.

I understand it.

But this is not about the purpose of a suspension handed out to a police officer.

The purported **purpose** ---WHATEVER it is--- has nothing to do with the specific question at hand, which was--- ""If a cop kills a citizen during the course of his job, gets off with pay, then is later determined to have committed a wrongful act, should they have to pay their "suspended" wages back?""

If the answer is --"no"-- then the officer is being rewarded for committing a wrongful act.

YOU might think that is alright, but i do not.

A reward would be EXTRA pay, wouldn't it? Where's the reward here?

There are times when the behavior is so obviously wrong (Abner Louima case) that immediate punitive action is taken when the facts are in.
But for those grayer areas, where a court, jury and internal investigation aren't sure right away, the suspension is with pay.

It makes total sense because if they can't decide, sitting calmly in an office with a committee, slowly going over facts, without any fear, weeks later, with hours to decide, how can they judge someone else's split second life-and-death decision (as with the Amadou Diallo case).

Where I work, you can be suspended without pay for thirty days, then they have to decide whether to re-instate you or fire you. We're not talking about years and years of free money here. And anyway, if it takes more than thirty days to figure out what the PO had to decide in a quarter of a second, then shame on them for bringing the case to a grand jury in the first place.

rewarded? how is being suspended a reward? look at it this way, if you have two kids and tell them to clean up their mess, and one isnt listening and gets put on time out, is he being rewarded? I guess if you look at it like "he gets to sit down and not work" then ya, he is, but in reality he is in trouble and is that much closer to a more severe punishment.

"Shut the fuck up Donny. You have no frame of reference here. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know."

how can they judge someone else's split second life-and-death decision (as with the Amadou Diallo case).Great example there Brooks.
:@@:

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Great example there Brooks.
Problem with that?

Diallo was clearly a case of serious police over reaction with ended in the killing of an innocent man on his doorstep. The cops should have been fired and charged with manslaughter. Particularly the ones who shot an excessive amount of bullets and have complaints lodged against them.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Diallo was clearly a case of serious police over reaction with ended in the killing of an innocent man on his doorstep. The cops should have been fired and charged with manslaughter. Particularly the ones who shot an excessive amount of bullets and have complaints lodged against them.
Diallo matched the description of of a suspect in a series of armed rapes. The police officers ordered him not to move, he spun on them in semi darkness after pulling a wallet out of his pocket. You would have just stood there, I guess.

Excessive amount of bullets? He was hit 19 times. Here's a story from the Daily News from last week. A gunman with an Uzi, who has shot cops in the past, fired at the officers. They returned fire and hit him EIGHTEEN times. He's still alive.

Tell me this, expert. What is an excessive amount of shots? Is eighteen and a half hits just right?

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-24-2006/news/story/385260p-326961c.html

Originally posted by Travh20
rewarded? how is being suspended a reward?

WTF?!?!?!

How fucking dense do you have to be to not understand that the people in question were suspended WITH PAY.

They do NOT have to perform ANY work, but are still recieving full PAY.

That is what is commonly refered to in this country as a **paid vacation**.

Originally posted by Brooks
What is an excessive amount of shots?

ONE...........when it kills an innocent unarmed person who is not breaking any law.

Originally posted by Freethinker
ONE...........when it kills an innocent unarmed person who is not breaking any law.
That's really cute, but that wasn't the question.
Both cited shootings were legally justified.
In one case 19 bullets killed somebody, in the other case 18 bullets didn't.

One day in Freethinker City, you can arm your cops with crystal balls so they can predict who will shoot. But those in the real world, who know what they're talking about, will continue carrying guns.

Originally posted by Brooks
That's really cute, but that wasn't the question.

Yes.....that was the question.

You don't like the answer, so you make a mad attempt to obfuscate the issue.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Yes.....that was the question.

You don't like the answer, so you make a mad attempt to obfuscate the issue.


Freethinker, are you studying to take your SATS for the fifth time????

As usual, you are using archaic terms to "obfuscate" the fact that you have not a clue of what you are talking about.

Why do you always run at the coattails of any interesting discussion and ruin it with your blather?

Free, My question to Guerilla was prefaced by him talking about the cops who fired an excessive amount of times. He was referring to a legally justified shooting in which someone was struck 19 times.

I then pointed out a legally justified shooting wherein someone was struck 18 times and didn't die.

My question to Guerilla was how many shots is excessive (obviously he trapped himself, so the question is unanswerable).

Your cute answer is that one shot is excessive if the victim is innocent. I agree, but that information isn't available until after the shooting.

The question remains to Guerilla, and now you, how many shots is too many?

It amazes me that because someone reads a newspaper account of some incident involving the police after the fact, they criticize the police for not knowing before the fact what they now know.