What's going on in the Heart (Downtown) of Brownwood ?

Wednesday January 10, 2007

Op Ed: Letters To The Editor

Wheels grind while suspect remains free

To the editor:

I am the owner of The Turtle Restaurant in downtown Brownwood. We were burglarized 3 times in 2006. I believe all these burglaries were fueled by drug usage.

The first time we lost a refrigerator full of food, the chef’s boom box and CDs. The place looked like giant raccoons had taken over but were interrupted by something. The second time we lost several thousand dollars worth of tools. The third time, we knew who did it because they signed in and out of the cash register, twice, in the middle of the night using their password

When the recent suspect arrived at work later in the evening we called the police department requesting he be arrested. The officers promptly removed this fellow from the premises, however they were unable to arrest him because too much time had passed since the commission of the crime.

The crime occurred on Dec. 28, 2006. It is now Jan. 5, 2007, and no arrest warrant has been issued. The police department gave my husband a case number and said they had sent it to the DA’s office on Jan. 2, 2007. I called the DA’s office this afternoon, left a message on an answering machine. My call was not returned. My husband, David, then drove over to the DA’s office and the receptionist said she didn’t have any record pertaining to this case. David then drove over to the police department where they explained that not only had this person burglarized my business, but that he had allegedly stolen a car. They said that the suspect had been in a car driven by a person allegedly carrying cocaine. The alleged coke head was arrested. When the alleged coke head was released, he reported to the police that his car had been stolen by our burglary suspect. So, while the DA’s office seems to know nothing — this fellow is roaming around loose with a stolen car doing who knows what. The police also said that they had sent this case to the DA’s office on Jan. 2, 2007. They were also wondering why they had not yet received an arrest warrant.

I don’t understand why an arrest warrant could not have been obtained between the time this crime was reported at around 9 a,m. the morning of Dec. 28 and 6 p.m. when this individual reported to work. I am angry that at this late date an arrest warrant has not been issued. We had the alleged criminal in hand. He is allegedly on drugs without means of support. He will probably commit more crimes in order to feed his alleged habit.

This year we have had a succession of employees who lasted less than a week because of self-admitted drug addiction. I have recently talked with numerous employers who complained to me about the declining quality of our workforce and shared their “stories.” A few have said that it has gotten so bad here that they closed their businesses and went to work for someone else because they were tired of employees stealing from them. While I believe people should be given second chances, I think there are too many halfway houses in Brownwood.

Our community is too small to absorb the number of addicts who are brought here. A known percentage will relapse. If you are infected with too many germs your body can’t tolerate the disease. Businesses can’t tolerate this disease. Families can’t tolerate this disease. Schools can’t tolerate this disease. This community can’t tolerate this disease, especially when it seems that the community’s immune system — the legal system for whatever reasons is not up to the task of defending the community.

I think this community may be reaching a breaking point if the DA is so overwhelmed with drug driven crimes that he doesn’t have time to track and issue arrest warrants to fight this disease. Perhaps the DA thinks it’s more important to prosecute a U.S. Marine Gulf War 1 Veteran who irritated an election judge by talking on a cell phone? Maybe he IS overworked or maybe his values are skewed or maybe it’s just too hard? I am kind of mystified. I would like an answer.

My employees and I did our part to apprehend a criminal. We collected the evidence, we convinced the suspect to return to the scene of the crime so he could be apprehended. The police did their part as far as is legally possible. So what happened? The police sent a request for an arrest warrant on tJan. 2 and still haven’t receive one by Jan. 5, meanwhile the suspect is driving around in a stolen car, and who knows but he may burglarize you next.

Mary and David Stanley

Owner Bear Feet Shoes

The Turtle Restaurant

Brownwood

source: http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/articles/2007/01/10/op_ed/letters%20to%20the%20editor/letter02.txt
------------------------------
Tuesday January 16, 2007

Op Ed: Letters To The Editor

DA stands on record in this and other cases

To the editor:

As district attorney for the 35th Judicial District and chief law enforcement officer for Brown County, it is my desire to respond appropriately and fairly to each and every crime referred to my office. I am proud of my dedicated staff, who work extremely hard and take their responsibilities to protect the citizens of this community seriously, and am equally proud of the fine job our law enforcement agencies do in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate criminal acts. It is our commitment to act responsively, appropriately, aggressively and within the bounds of the law to each referral made to us for prosecution.

In response to a letter to the editor printed on Jan. 10, 2007, relating to a burglary at a downtown restaurant, however, numerous corrections need to be addressed. The Brownwood Police report indicates the crime was committed on Saturday, Dec. 30, 2006. After completing their investigation, my office signed for receipt of the report from the Brownwood PD on Jan. 3, 2007. While our law enforcement agencies do a good job of investigating crimes and preparing reports, it is still the legal obligation of my office to complete a thorough review of any report referred for prosecution before the filing of formal charges. This review was completed in an timely manner, within 48 hours of our receipt of the report from the police department. After this required review, a complaint was prepared on Jan. 8, 2007, by the intake officer who notified the detectives on that same date. On Jan. 10, 2007, the detectives came to our office and signed the complaint.

My office reviews and files more cases than any county our size in the state of Texas and we do it with less staff than most other offices. But in spite of receiving over 600 reports from multiple law enforcement agencies each year and filing over 500 felony cases in the preceding 12 months, my office was able to have a criminal complaint ready to be signed in this case within three working days from the date we initially received the report.

The measure of a successful prosecution is whether justice is ultimately achieved, not whether a suspect was arrested within 24 hours. I would never condemn or blame a victim for becoming a victim, but there are certain things an employer can do to reduce the risk of being victimized. First, don’t leave large amounts of cash in the register overnight if possible. Second, take advantage of the availability of background checks through the many services now offered by private companies. If those results demonstrate that a prospective employee is a career criminal or otherwise calls into question his/her trustworthiness, don’t hire them. If you are concerned about drug use among employees, create a drug-testing program for applicants and employees. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you throw the fox in the hen house, don’t be surprised when the chickens are gone. However, if this happens to you, we are here to help, not play the blame game. Mrs. Stanley certainly did not deserve to be victimized.

Cases received by our office are prioritized based on seriousness of the crime and the dangers posed to our community. Violent offenders receive priority over property crimes. Unless an officer makes a special request for an immediate warrant, cases are handled on a priority basis. Mrs. Stanley’s case was handled by my office within the established protocol and proper turnaround time.

While I sympathize with the victim of a crime, and understand that any criminal act perpetrated on any individual is one too many, I am proud to stand on the record of my office in dealing with the high volume of cases we are presented in a timely, effective and professional manner. We do not disregard criminal activity based on bias or prejudice, but attempt to evaluate each case on its merits and the evidence available. I have never met Mr. or Mrs. Stanley, but I can assure them that my employees and I take our ethical responsibilities seriously.

As far as our values are concerned, both assistant DA’s and I are career prosecutors who have families. We perform our duties so that our families as well as yours can enjoy a quality of life in a community we call home. The assertion that my office is prosecuting a former Marine for “talking on his cell phone” is especially bothersome and inaccurate. Charges in that case were based on the finding by a grand jury that the defendant intentionally, knowingly or recklessly assaulted multiple police officers, one of whom is an Iraq War veteran himself, and the other being the same officer Mrs. Stanley praises in the investigation of her burglary.

To make such an erroneous assertion attacking my integrity and the integrity of my office, as well as the police officer victims in that case, is irresponsible.

On one final note, if you are a victim of crime and you have a question about the handling of your case, contact the district attorney’s victim witness coordinator. She will endeavor to answer your questions or put you in touch with somebody who can answer your questions. Thank you for the privilege of representing the citizens of this community as your district attorney. It is a position in which I am honored to serve.

Micheal B. Murray

35th Judicial District Attorney

source: http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/articles/2007/01/16/op_ed/letters%20to%20the%20editor/letter01.txt
------------------
Wednesday January 24, 2007
Op Ed: Letters To The Editor

Business owner follows up after conversation with district attorney

To the editor:

I appreciate DA Michael Murray’s response to my letter to the editor dated Jan. 10. Mr. Murray called my office late last week. We talked for about an hour.

First I’ll admit that the crime was reported on the 30th. I was looking at the suspect’s time card and the sequence of events began on the 28th so mea culpa. I am glad that by the 16th of January, Mr. Murray was familiar enough with my case to notice the date discrepancy in his letter.

The first thing Mr. Murray said to me was that I should have talked directly to him before I wrote a letter to the editor. Let me restate that I called his office, and my husband visited the office personally and we got no information and we were not referred to a victim witness coordinator. David was told by the receptionist that they knew nothing about the case. Mr. Murray informed me that his office could not tell me anything about a case which they had not received. However, the police department told me over the phone, and David to his face, that they sent the case to Mr. Murray’s office on the 2nd of January. The police officers insisted that they needed a warrant in order to arrest the suspect even though (I was told) they had a confession that evening. Mr. Murray told me that they should have arrested the suspect if they had a confession. The fact that they didn’t was no fault of his office. There seems to be some dispute as to these facts, which did not originate with me. I, unfortunately it seems, took the word of the police department. There seems to be some sort of communication problem between the two entities.

Mr. Murray wanted to know who at the police department told me the case was delivered to his office on Jan. 2. He said that his office signs a receipt when a case is delivered. I could not give him a name since I did not question the person who answered the phone at the police department and it was not I who visited the police department. Since I could not name names, Mr. Murray said it didn’t matter.

I asked questions in my letter to the editor to which Mr. Murray gave me thoughtful answers. One was: “is he over worked?” The answer was: “My office reviews and files more cases than any county our size in the state of Texas and we do it with less staff than most other offices.”

Now my question to this community and those who get to exercise control over it: Why? Why is Brown County so full of crime that Mr. Murray has to use triage to decide which cases “deserve” prosecution? Triage was the word Mr. Murray used to describe the situation in his office.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines “triage” as follows: “The evaluation and classification of casualties for purposes of treatment and evacuation. It consists of the immediate sorting of patients according to type and seriousness of injury, and likelihood of survival, and the establishment of priority for treatment and evacuation to assure medical care of the greatest benefit to the largest number.” I agree with Mr. Murray, I think Brown County really is in an emergency situation and is losing the so called War on Drugs and crime. What are we doing about it? Do we need a new plan of attack? Or are we in denial? Or do we accept defeat?

I asked if Mr. Murray’s values were skewed? I did not write “his values are skewed.” I asked for an explanation as to why things were the way they were. Mr. Murray answered my questions, which I appreciate. Mr. Murray assured me that he would professionally prosecute this case no matter that I had written a letter to the editor asking impertinent questions. This is reassuring. I appreciate the professional attitude of our DA.

I disagree with Mr. Murray over the relative importance of property crime compared to the “violent” crime allegedly commited which I used as an example for contrast. Collectively, property crime in Brown County is in the millions of dollars. If I steal in appropriate small increments from the right kind of people, apparently I will escape prosecution because property crime is considered “unimportant” by both the DA and the police department compared to other kinds of crimes.

Millions of dollars in theft is what supports our illegal drug industry. This is a nice subsidy for this industry. That is why a stolen bicycle is as important as a bank robbery or an alleged assault on a police office. Property crime and the drug abuse which it supports affects more people on a daily basis. It grinds down the community bit by bit. We need to establish a priority of “treatment” to assure “care” providing the greatest benefit to the largest number of citizens in this “disaster.” That is the true meaning of triage, not trying to save the worst patient but trying to benefit the greatest number of people. Property crime is a drug-related crime. Property crime is silent violence against this community. Everyone has felt it or been a victim of it. Everyone pays for it but the perpetrator.

I would also like to point out to the two recent letter writers complaining about the deplorable state of local restaurants that the fact that our work force is infected with illegal drugs directly contributes to the kind of service they complain about. No health department inspection is going to improve the root cause of these complaints.

Lastly, I really appreciate the way Mr. Murray didn’t blame me the victim for “letting a fox in the hen house.” Will the DA offer free criminal histories of prospective employees to the employers of Brown County?

Mary Stanley

The Turtle Restaurant

Bear Feet Shoes

Brownwood

source: http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/articles/2007/01/24/op_ed/letters%20to%20the%20editor/letter01.txt