© AP
The grand jury recommended that Sheriff Stanley Glanz be removed from office after more than 26 years following an investigation that was prompted by the shooting of Eric C. Harris by the reserve deputy, Robert C. Bates, who was a friend of the sheriff's. The panel charged Mr. Glanz with two misdemeanors, for refusing to release a 2009 report that raised questions about Mr. Bates's fitness for duty, and for false expense reimbursement.
Critics have charged that Mr. Glanz broke the rules to allow an unqualified friend operate largely unsupervised as an armed reserve deputy, endangering the lives of others, and intimidated the people under him into going along.
Mr. Bates, 74, an insurance broker who worked briefly as a police officer in the 1960s, led the sheriff's last re-election campaign and had donated expensive equipment to the sheriff's office, including vehicles. He has been charged with second-degree manslaughter involving culpable negligence in the death of Mr. Harris, one in a string of fatal shootings of African-Americans by white law enforcement officials that drew national attention.
At a hearing Wednesday in a packed courtroom in Tulsa County District Court, the indictment was made public and Scott Wood, a lawyer for Mr. Glanz, 73, said he would resign. Mr. Wood would not give a date for the resignation, which would avoid formal proceedings to have Mr. Glanz removed, but he said that Undersheriff Rick Weigel would take control of the office immediately.
Comment: A resignation by the sheriff likely means that he gets to keep his pension. There's also a sealed indictment against the sheriff that is likely a felony which would mean the sheriff would lose his pension, but an agreement could be reached where if he resigns he gets to keep his pension and the felony indictment remains sealed. Considering his actions led to the death of a human being, his pension should absolutely be denied to him. Unless people start seeing real, financial penalties for their actions, we will continue to see law enforcement authorities abuse their positions of power.
"I know that my decisions have caused some to criticize me both publicly and privately," Mr. Glanz, who was not present in court, said in a statement released by Mr. Wood. "As sheriff, I take responsibility for all decisions made by me or in my name, but I assure you they were all made in good faith."
A group critical of law enforcement practices, We the People Oklahoma, forced the investigation under a state law allowing people to petition for a grand jury investigation. The group needed 5,000 signatures and collected more than 6,000 this summer.
"This is nothing personal," said Marq Lewis, an organizer with the group. "We wish Sheriff Glanz nothing but the best, but this is about the safety of the people of Tulsa County."
On April 2, an undercover sheriff's team set out to make an illegal gun purchase from Mr. Harris, with Mr. Bates as one of the deputies working backup. Mr. Harris, 44, fled on foot, and deputies caught him and forced him to the ground, but he continued to struggle.
On video from a body camera worn by another deputy, a voice can be heard saying "Taser, Taser." A moment later, there is a single gunshot, and a voice says, "Oh, I shot him. I'm sorry."
Officials said Mr. Bates had accidentally drawn his handgun rather than his Taser.
The 2009 report on Mr. Bates, made public after the shooting, showed that officers supervising him thought he was unqualified and expressed concerns about his conduct, but Sheriff Glanz and other commanders pressured them to drop the matter. The report showed that the sheriff's office could only document a fraction of the training it claimed Mr. Bates had received, and even the amount it claimed fell short of what was required for his post.
Despite that report, the grand jury wrote, "Reserve Deputy Bates was not counseled or disciplined in any fashion, and his duties and actions were not limited or curtailed in any way."
The grand jury charged Mr. Glanz with refusal to perform an official duty, for denying lawful requests to release the report on Mr. Bates. It claimed that he collected $600 a month for use of his personal car, when much of the time he was using a county car — the grounds for the other misdemeanor charge. Each count is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.
The panel concluded that Mr. Glanz had committed what it described as gross partiality, oppression and maladministration in his handling of questions about Mr. Bates.
Comment: See also: