Judicial Watch • Arizona Mayor Denies Moment of Silence for Cop Killed in Line of Duty

Arizona Mayor Denies Moment of Silence for Cop Killed in Line of Duty

Arizona Mayor Denies Moment of Silence for Cop Killed in Line of Duty

MARCH 05, 2014

In a ghastly public act, the mayor of Scottsdale Arizona refused a request for a moment of silence for a police officer killed in the line of duty this week during an afternoon shootout with a fugitive.

The unbelievable incident took place during last night’s Scottsdale City Council meeting when a public speaker, whose own father was a cop murdered in the line of duty, asked for a moment of silence to honor a fallen hero. The detective, John Hobbs, from the neighboring city of Phoenix, was tragically wounded and his partner critically hurt during a violent exchange with an ex-con wanted for a recent murder.

Hobbs, a 21-year-veteran of the Phoenix Police Department, was only 43 years old and he left behind three young children and a wife. The story made national headlines because it seemed more like a scene from a movie, with chaotic gunfire exchanged in the middle of the day near a busy intersection in a major U.S. city. An Arizona newspaper followed up with a touching profile of the murdered detective, who was already mortally wounded and with his partner down, yet managed to return fire at the fugitive, who was also killed in the incident.

“It was the final act of bravery for a man who’d spent the last seven years of his 21-year career tracking down the worst of the worst violent offenders,” the article says. It goes on to explain that Detective Hobbs was part of a unit described as one of the police department’s “special forces,” the Major Offenders Unit. The fugitive, a 28-year-old man who had done time for a drug conviction and resisting arrest, had an attempted-murder warrant. Gently put, he was a menace to society, a scumbag.

Detective Hobbs gave his life to take this violent criminal off the streets. Many believe the least he could get in return is a moment of silence. After all, Phoenix and Scottsdale are in the same county (Maricopa) and located just a few miles apart. Nevertheless, Jim Lane, who served four years on the City Council before becoming Scottsdale mayor in 2009, vetoed the request and ordered the man seeking it speak during his publicly allotted time.

Judicial Watch contacted Mayor Lane about the incident and he explained the difference between members of the public speaking at city council meetings and requesting things such as a moment of silence for a fallen officer. “We can’t allow them to take control of the meeting,” the mayor told JW. The public speaker could have just stood there silently during his allotted time, but Lane claims instead “he was directing the audience.”

A video excerpt of the meeting shows the man asking the mayor’s permission for the moment of silence, not in any way directing the audience. Lane is heard scrapping the idea and directing the speaker to continue with his statement. The man asks again for a moment of silence for the murdered officer and Lane snaps back; “that’s a no!” The speaker tells the mayor that the “moment of silence rejection is going to hurt you.”

 

 

 

 

 

Sign Up for Updates!


Read more about

© 2010-2014 Judicial Watch, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • slammadew

    I messed up the quote of the mayors response. It should have read: “That’s a no for you for right now, yes, thank you.”

  • slammadew

    Let me make it clear that I think the mayors actions in refusing the moment of silence were despicable. But I also have to take issue with your characterization of the exchange in the last paragraph of this article. You state: The man asks again for a moment of silence for the murdered officer and Lane snaps back; “that’s a no!”
    Your phrasing that the mayor “snapped back” seems intentionally designed to make the mayor look even worse than he already did. You even add an exclamation point to make is seem even more harsh.
    When in reality, if you watch the video, the citizen is actually clarifying that the mayor is denying his request “So that’s a no, mayor?” To which the mayor replies “That’s a no to you for now for you for right now, yes, thank you.” Now the mayor is clearly refusing the moment of silence which, as I mentioned in the beginning is despicable. But I certainly don’t hear anything in that exchange that could reasonably be characterized as “snapping back” and certainly nothing that would warrant the inclusion of an exclamation point. The response was actually delivered in a calm, almost apologetic, tone.
    Now you might be saying, “what’s the difference? Why focus on this? We got the jist of the exchange across.” But when you seem to go out of your way to try and make someone look worse than they already are, it makes it seem like you have some hidden agenda or bias. It makes me wonder if I’m really getting the whole story from you or the real story. And maybe I take that into account the next time I read one of your stories.

    Mayor Lane already looked bad enough from what actually happened. You didn’t need to spin it to make him look worse. You just end up making yourself look bad and damage your own credibility.




Sign Up for Updates!