In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Policeman fired for brutality

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited July 2002 in General Discussion
Policeman fired for brutality

June 29, 2002

BY FRANK MAIN CRIME REPORTER
A Chicago police officer repeatedly accused of striking people with batons, choking them and pointing his gun at them over his 25-year career has been fired for allegedly throttling a South Side man.

The Police Board voted this week to fire Officer Rex Hayes, who has cost the city at least $1 million in legal payouts because of excessive-force complaints against him.

His dismissal was long overdue, said a civil rights lawyer who represented Hayes' alleged victims in their lawsuits against the city.

"This is a bittersweet victory," said Amber Miller of the People's Law Office. "So many people have been brutalized by this officer. He is a classic example of a 'repeater' officer. He should have been fired years ago."

At least 23 excessive force complaints were filed against Hayes between 1987 and 2000, Miller said.

In the case that cost Hayes his job, he was accused of choking John Kurylo on April 2, 1998. Hayes and his partner responded to Kurylo's house in the 13300 block of South Brandon on the Southeast Side after Kurylo thought he smelled natural gas and called 911.

During the Police Board hearing, Hayes testified he ordered Kurylo into his house after firefighters said there was no gas leak--but Kurylo was belligerent and shouting profanities.

Hayes, 50, said he was preparing to arrest Kurylo for drinking in a public way and disorderly conduct when Kurylo slammed the door. Hayes followed him into the house.

The 4th District police officer, who tips the scales at 230 pounds, admitted grabbing the 150-pound Kurylo's neck for eight to 10 seconds to control him during the arrest, but denied trying to choke him.

Lee Ferron, an attorney representing the city in its attempt to fire Hayes, told the Police Board that photos taken a week later showed a handprint on Kurylo's neck, indicating he was choked.

Kurylo and his wife, Melissa, have received a settlement of $190,000 from the city, said Miller, one of their attorneys on the case.

On Tuesday, the Police Board, which rules on disciplinary cases against officers, found Hayes guilty of bringing discredit on the department, of disrespect or maltreatment of a person, and of engaging in an unjustified verbal or physical altercation. The decision was made public Friday.

A prior 1998 police department review failed to sustain any of the allegations Kurylo brought against Hayes. But the Office of Professional Standards reopened the case later that year after receiving a letter from civil rights attorney Mariel Nanasi demanding the department take a second look.

Hayes' attorney, Tamara Cummings, told the Police Board that the department's reopening of the case was a "travesty" and she called Hayes a "victim."

"Mr. and Mrs. Kurylo have gotten their money. Let Officer Hayes retire with the pension he deserves," Cummings told the board.

Cummings said Friday she plans to meet with Hayes next week to discuss the likelihood of his appealing the board's ruling.

"We are very disappointed," Cummings said. "He has been in one of the city's hardest-working, roughest districts. It is not unusual he will be accused of things when he is making a lot of arrests. It doesn't mean it's true. People aren't happy to be arrested."

Hayes has been suspended without pay since Police Supt. Terry Hillard moved to fire him on Feb. 1, 2001, and he has been working odd jobs to make ends meet, she said.

Police spokesman David Bayless said he was pleased with the ruling.

"This case demonstrated the superintendent's desire to make sure that officers who engage in this type of activity are held accountable," Bayless said.

The city's new contract with the Fraternal Order of Police allows the department to maintain records on complaints registered against wayward officers for seven years, instead of five. The move was intended to strengthen the department's much-criticized disciplinary procedures.http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-brut29.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    How is it this guy only loses his job?Does not a repeat offender EARN hard time regardless of their job title?

    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • ghost614ghost614 Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    only in america.
  • YankeeClipperYankeeClipper Member Posts: 669 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its just like Sheriff Arpia in AZ. He has cost the county 12 mill. in law suits. But he saved $10,000.00 on food. Lets do a little math on that one.

    Helping keep America free: One gun at a time.
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I saw the subject and thought this was going to be about Nunn's rat incident.

    Oh well, what do you expect in Chicago?
  • 96harley96harley Member Posts: 3,992 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    They are out there. They give good cops bad print. As for punishment his dept. should treat him no different that an habitual offender. When things like this happen the public looks at law enforcement as some distant entity that doesn't care about the really good people they serve. On the other hand I have seen the press try to railroad a really good officer for his personal beliefs ie; not being politcally correct.
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rogue cops must be stopped, it is time for abusive acts to end!


    07/01/02
    Roosevelt Wright, Jr.
    Email this story to a friend

    For years we have complained that the Monroe Police Department has little respect for the rights of the poor, especially poor minorities.

    For years we have detailed the accounts of police brutality, abuse of force, harassment, insults, intimidation and a variety of other improper actions that have been leveled at Monroe's poorest residents.

    Much of that criticism has been shrugged off by politicians who either don't believe the reported actions are true or they don't care enough to make it a major priority.

    The poor have reason to expect better treatment since Monroe's government is controlled by men who were once poor themselves.

    The mayor and the majority of the Monroe City Council are men who have lived on the poor side of town. Yet, not one word is ever said in opposition to the increasing number of acts against our community by the Monroe Police Department.

    Sooner or later the blame falls at the feet of those who must take responsibility for it.

    This month two more citizens came forward to complain of police intimidation.

    Derrick Wasson was arrested by the police in his underwear, in front of his children, because he would not open the door and let police search his home without a warrant.

    Then last week Mrs. Pamela McCall reported the chilling story of how police burst into her home with guns drawn with no one home but her three children. Again, no warrant.

    The police tell residents they don't need warrants to come into their homes searching for suspects.

    They kick in doors, and otherwise disturb premises without the legal standing that a warrant provides. They leave, as in the case of this month's victims, without finding a crime committed but having fully traumatized the residents. Sometimes they add insult to injury by charging the resident with some trumped up charge like "interfering" for refusing to let them in their homes without warrants.

    We hasten to add that this is not the procedure of every officer on the Monroe Police force. There has always been a rogue element that has watched too many episodes of "Kojak." This small handful gives the entire department a bad name.

    Moreover please note that this same criticism was leveled against mayors Melvin Rambin, Abe Pierce, Bob Powell, Ralph Troy and W.L. Howard. In 32 years of editorializing every single mayor has ignored what happens to poor people. They seem to be concerned about police abuse of force issues only when they are running for election.

    Isn't it amazing that the only local department that frequently receives these kinds of complaints is the Monroe Police? Very seldom do you hear complaints of abuse of force from sheriff deputies, or city marshals. They arrest criminals every day but somehow they manage to be very professional about the way they do their jobs.

    We believe the difference is at the top. It's in the leadership of the department itself.

    The Police Chief in Monroe is not an elected official. The city marshal and sheriff are elected. They know they will have to answer to the public for a department that abuses its powers.

    In Monroe the police chief is appointed by the mayor. If his officers foul up the mayor of the city takes the blame because ultimately he is responsible for every unaddressed abusive act by the Monroe Police Department.

    As a community we have a right to expect a professional response by our law enforcement officers.

    We should not be called *. Our rights should be respected and we should be treated with decency.

    Stewart is not elected but his boss is! Abuses of force and disrespect must end!
    http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=352&NewsID=324712&CategoryID=275&on=0

    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sign In or Register to comment.