MATTINGLY'S DISMISSAL

Police Chief Robert White's decision to fire Detective McKenzie
Mattingly for his actions in the Jan. 3 shooting death of Michael
Newby has drawn some criticism and some praise. That suggests there's
some laudable restraint being exercised on all sides of the
controversy.

The incident was the 11th fatal police shooting in the city since
1998. Including Newby, seven of the victims were African-American
males, a fact that inevitably charges the public debate.

The muted reaction of most interested parties to Mr. Mattingly's
dismissal, while certainly welcome, was something of a surprise. But
it "cut the temperature down at least 25 degrees," according to Bishop
Dennis Lyons, pastor of Full Gospel Missionary Baptist Church.

Both Fraternal Order of Police president Richard Dotson and treasurer
Stephen Schweitzer said most officers are reserving judgment, in what
must be a trying moment for many of them. That's a good sign.

Mr. Mattingly, who is the first officer to be fired in this spate of
shootings, has been indicted on charges of murder and wanton
endangerment. But Chief White concluded that there was no future for
him on the force, no matter how that court case turns out, because he
violated departmental policies on the use of force.

The chief's decision was based on the results of a thorough
Professional Standards Unit investigation. In an April 15 letter to
Mr. Mattingly, he concluded, "Your conduct clearly brought discredit
upon our department and you as a member" and "damaged the bond which
we have established with our community."

At the heart of the matter is the chief's determination that Mr.
Mattingly "failed to exhaust other reasonable alternatives prior to
shooting." He also decided that Mr. Newby had not posed "an immediate
threat," and that there's no indication he would have clearly
endangered human life unless immediately stopped.

Some critics may feel that Chief White's decision was a bow to
political correctness. But the fact is, different standards are used
to reach conclusions in administrative reviews and court trials. "In a
criminal case, you have to meet the burden of `beyond a reasonable
doubt,'" Chief White pointed out. He is convinced that, even if Mr.
Mattingly is exonerated by the courts, dismissal is justified, since
the "preponderance of evidence" suggests that he violated department
rules. So be it.

So far, in this unfortunate situation, the system seems to be working.
That's because most people have been willing to give it a chance.