EDITOR:

I am writing in response to Editor Dave Perry’s column of March 12, titled “Aurora Police Botched Sex-Case Allegation is an Unparalleled Failure and the Media Played Our Part.”

Our officers and detectives make difficult decisions every day to arrest or not arrest a suspect. They do so based on the best evidence they have. This evidence almost always includes the statements of witnesses or victims.

PERRY: Aurora Police botched sex-case allegation is an unparalleled failure, and the media played our part

Rarely, but sometimes, witnesses change their stories after an arrest is made. This can occur for any number of reasons – including fear of the suspect, a sudden realization of what it means to be involved in the criminal justice process, or a reluctance to see the suspect actually prosecuted (and perhaps jailed) because he or she is a friend, co-worker, family member or spouse.

In our best effort to keep our city safe, the men and women of the Aurora Police Department make roughly 10,000 custodial arrests a year. Many times, they risk their lives and safety to do so.  Our officers are also routinely targets for lawsuits for false arrest, most of them specious and unsustainable in the subsequent legal process.  Cops worry about getting sued, and then they cope with the anxiety, stress and second guessing when they are sued.

So we take our decisions to arrest very seriously. We accept and embrace our responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and schools safe. We understand our obligation to notify the public of dangerous individuals, especially when other victims may be out there and need to be located.

The matter referred to in the column involved the rare circumstance in which the evidence provided to the Aurora Police Department from a critical witness changed after the arrest was made. A judge looked at the same initial evidence we did and ordered the suspect held without bond.

The matter involves a juvenile victim. It remains an open investigation. So we simply cannot discuss the details.

We know that our inability to “defend” our actions by disclosing more information leaves the Police Department vulnerable to the criticism Mr. Perry has levied. It is the lot of police officers and police departments everywhere to endure criticism on occasion.   We also know well in policing that there is always another side to the story.

About 10 years ago, the Aurora Police Department was vilified in the court of public opinion for failing to arrest a serial rapist when it could have. The suspect victimized others before he was caught. Mr. Perry was one of our critics then over our perceived failure to act.  That case is the flip side to this week’s event. What if we don’t act now with the information we have? Our officers and detectives go through this analysis daily in weighing evidence and reports of crime. Our citizens and Mr. Perry expect us to, and we do the very best we can.

I and the supervisors involved in this event have undertaken an internal review of this matter. If there are lessons to be learned or appropriate remedial actions to take, we will take them. In the meantime, the superb men and women of the Aurora Police Department remain out on the street, doing the best they can to discern when an arrest is appropriate, based on probable cause. I am sure that despite his criticism, Mr. Perry is thankful that our cops are out there trying their best in a difficult world.

Daniel J. Oates

Aurora Chief of Police

33 replies on “Aurora Chief Oates: Perry wrong to criticize department over child sex assault allegations”

  1. Well said Dan! Perry is just another fool without all the facts, but is quick to give his opinion. It’s his job to increase readership, but unfortunately there are those that will read his drivel and think it means something.

    1. Oates is the one without the facts. Stahl was given a $50,000 bond when a $100,000 would typically be given for these kind of charges. Oates was very misleading in his editorial.

    2. Kevin, there is nothing good that comes out of Danny’s mouth unless he benefits from it to cover his hid.
      I know, and I know him well.

  2. Well said Dan! Perry is just another fool without all the facts, but is quick to give his opinion. It’s his job to increase readership, but unfortunately there are those that will read his drivel and think it means something.

  3. Pick a side Mr Perry! You criticize the police for taking too long to act several years ago and now you criticize them for acting too quickly. So if my opinion is that authors and editors are slime and only write stories in order increase readership, you’ll have to forgive. But I will have you know that it’s authors and editors like you that have made me feel that way.

  4. Mr Perry, you seem to think in most cases that Aurora PD can do no right. Unfortunately what you, and many members of our community, seem to forget is that the plice have to go with what they have, information, victims, suspects, circumstances, etc. They don’t get to pick and choose those items, instead, they do the best they can, enforcing laws written by flawed humans, on flawed humans, while they themselves are flawed humans.
    You seem to think you could do as well, if not better than they are doing, so my suggestion to you is got to this link and become a police officer..there are those that can, and those that just chastise those who do.
    https://www.auroragov.org/LivingHere/PublicSafety/Police/JointheAPD/index.htm

    1. My take on his article overall was more about the rush to release the information by the department and media.

      1. A judge thought there was enough evidence to hold the suspect, so I think this is why the Aurora Police Department released the information to the media. It was a lose-lose situation for the Aurora PD…release the information and be accused of acting too quickly or wait to release the information and be accused of trying to cover-up. No matter what Aurora Police Department’s actions were in this case, Mr. Perry would have found fault with them.

        1. Stahl was given a $50,000 bond when this kind of charge usually has a $100,000 bond. Don’t believe what you read simply because it is coming from someone in authority.

  5. Pretty clever of Gates to spin Perry’s column to make it sound like he was being critical of regular police officers when Gates knows it was directed at him. Clever, but as usual dishonest.

    1. Who is “Gates”? You may actually want to know a person’s name before you accuse him of dishonesty.

      2. Oates, the story speaks for himself you don’t need a name? He is a narcisstic evil man to his officers, but this story is covering up ass for the public to look really good while dum dum PERRY, threw a curve ball to blasted that department… what”s next can’t wait.

      3. Oh, I know him very very well ! And, he is dishonest and worse we go to court in july 2014, for trying to ruin lives and city employee careers. Back to you!!!

    2. Yes, you are right! Oates aka: Gates is a narcisstic controlling person and that is how he works! And, yes yes OATES IS AS DISHONEST AS THEY COME…. I KNOW! AND, DUM DUM REALLY?? 》》》bz6pph has it right the name is not the issue, if you carefully read the story it tells you how dishonest that person is you don’t need the name, the story speaks for itself… diarrhea of the mouth just like Perry.

      Oates is an evil man with a huge ego but one day, he wiil step on his own and ppl will see the truth.

  6. I am thankful for the police force in Aurora, Colorado and their diligent work to protect the public. I, along with the Aurora Police Department, long to see justice served in all cases. I know this is a difficult task and is not to be taken lightly. However, I do have several concerns regarding the editorial written by Daniel Oates and the way in which this case was handled by the officers and detectives. Oates makes the argument that the officers make arrests “based on the best evidence they have.” The affidavit in this case makes it clear that the only key witness was unsure of her own testimony making the ‘best evidence’ anything but ‘best.’ I can understand a weak argument being made for probable cause but the idea that charges were pursued with such weak evidence is a miscarriage of justice in itself. Oates also makes the argument that there are various reasons why people change testimony but fails to note that the change of testimony may also be done because of initial ill intent. The Police Chief states, “what if we don’t act now with the information we have” but fails to mention what happens when an individual is falsely accused and the ramifications a false accusations may have on an individual’s life, especially in this situation. Another ramification of this is that if Stahl were guilty of these allegations this case has been so poorly handled that a conviction is extremely unlikely. Perhaps the most egregious statement made by the Police Chief is, “A judge looked at the same initial evidence we did and ordered the suspect held without bond.” Contrary to Oates’ statement, Stahl was ultimately given a $50,000 bond by a judge before the charges were dropped. The neglect of this fact is extremely misleading and leads me to believe that he is attempting to make the Aurora Police Department appear innocent in the public eye or is ignorant of this high profile case in his own department. In light of all of the facts I am greatly disturbed by the conduct of the Aurora Police Department and the effects on the lives of those involved.

    1. Joseph, you should be concerned I, and many ppl do not agree with this article that the chief editor put out the chief Oates, re-post the
      news article to hid really bad problems within the Bureau!

      1. What are these problems? What would Oates want to cover up in this particular case? Who are these people? Do you know former Aurora police that have spoken out regarding this issue?

    1. MIKE….REALLY???
      YOU JUST MUST HATE POLICE OR YOUR A PREDATOR TOO!!
      MY GUESS IS YOUR A BAD BOY WITH A POLICE RECORD. DUM DUM

  8. Well said, Chief Oates! Good for you for standing up for the cops in our town under your command. Dave Perry is just another liberal media elitist, blowhard who uses the Sentinel (Editorial Page) as a forum for waxing, not so eloquently, with the standard Dem-party talking points. When I can stomach actually reading them, its almost as if they were issued by the DNC and perhaps tweeked by that brain trust, Ed Schultz. These include, unfortunately attacking cops (along with belittling those of us college educated types who conceal carry and think that global warming is a scam, because well, Dave Perry is smarter than all of us peasants..but I digress), while saying, “hey! Look at me! I’m an oh-so-important journalist doing my job for the people!” Hey Dave! Get over yourself….and move up to Boulder. Hey.. we’re all human, and people make mistakes. But, in Perry’s brazen, sanctimonious, arrogance, he is quick to judge things he doesn’t really have enough facts to make an educated decision about. Its a typical trait of libs like Perry. So, please forgive him. Its that sniveling arrogant elitism. As my dad used to say…”don’t let the bastards keep ya down.” Thanks again for standing up for your team, Chief! Cheers!

  10. Chief Dan Oates said: We understand our obligation to notify the public of dangerous individuals, especially when other victims may be out there and need to be located.
    I agree that his officers understand their obligation to the public but, I’m here to tell the public Chief Oates either doesn’t or, doesn’t care to.
    If the above comment made by Auroras chief is true on his part, would he then care to tell the public why his officers are no longer allowed to use the term “drive-by shooting” and are now told to reference such shootings as “random”?
    The way I see it, you are asking or telling our officer’s to point blank lie to us when it comes to gang related shootings. What else is being altered in our police department to keep the faint of heart convinced they have nothing to fear? Also, with all that goes on in our world today, is anyone really that faint of heart anymore? Or, is it just meant to make you look good Dan?

  11. REAL SIMPLE POLICE PEOPLE….if you voted democrat that’s the hatred you voted for…blame…blame…blame from their computers.

Comments are closed.