UPDATE: Orange cop case won't conclude this week

UPDATE: Orange cop case won't conclude this week

UPDATE: On July 27, 2010, the day after James Whitehead was killed by Robert Arnold, Texas Ranger Ken Parks told former Orange Police Chief Sam Kittrell, "this is a good shoot and it will only take a couple of days to investigate."

Arnold's attorney Greg Cagle is cross-examining Kittrell about his reasoning for finding Arnold should be indefinitely suspended for killing James Whitehead. BEing argumentative with him about procedure in filing documentation regarding the case. Cagle is being paid by the Texas Municipal Police Association, a union that represents Arnold and other officers with the Orange Police Department.

The hearing has been adjourned until May 9.


Testimony in the hearing to determine the fate of Robert Arnold’s job at the Orange Police Department will continue through today, however due to time constraints and the need to receive information from a number of key witnesses the arbitration will be continued on May 9 and 10.

Arnold is on indefinite suspension for the July 26 shooting of James Whitehead, an unarmed and highly decorated U.S. Marine, in the parking lot of the O’Reilly Auto Parts store on 16th Street in Orange.

Currently, Major Sparky Robinson, a 20-year veteran of law enforcement, is under cross examination by Arnold’s attorney Greg Cagle. Cagle asked Robinson about his comments from Wednesday that Arnold was a “discredit” to the department.

Specifically, Cagle pointed out there were no statements from citizens to affirm Robinson’s concerns.

“Before we would not be known as a department that would shoot an unarmed citizen,” Robinson said. “Now we are a department that is known to have shot an unarmed citizen.”

Robinson said he has spoken to a number of Orange residents and seen a number of comments published or broadcast by local media outlets to that effect.

Cagle is trying to break down Robinson’s review of the shooting and the departmental policy violations he wrote in his report that deemed the shooting inappropriate.

It is expected that former Orange Police Chief Sam Kittrell will be the next witness called to testify for the city. Kittrell released a scathing report in November that placed Arnold on suspension and found he not only violated a number of policies but that the chief no longer had faith in his ability to serve as a police officer for the city of Orange.



After reading the suspension

After reading the suspension report I have no doubt in my mind that had the grand jury been given a copy of they would indeed have indicted for homicide.
Arnolds own boss (chief Kittrell) had grave concerns as to his past violent conduct with the dept over almost 6 years.
unfortunately this type of behaviour does not cease with a job loss.

Yes...Kitrell was so

Yes...Kitrell was so concerned over Arnold's past violent behavior, he recently promoted him to the position of Captain and used the oppourtnity as a photo-op, because he was the first black captain in City of Orange history and Kitrell was the Chief who put him there....people do your homework and the Examiner is not it.


This is a simple case of murder.
Arnold should be sitting in jail right NOW.... between his trial appearances for murder not his job for goodness sakes.
Wake up South East Texans!!

hang him

I think he should lose a lot more than his job. look at his past. why was he still a cop anyways. If they dont lock him up and take his job justis will never be served!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This cop was wrong,that is a

This cop was wrong,that is a fact,and I believe if the table was turned and it was a white cop that shot a black unarmed man there would be a trial alright,a murder trial.There is NO WAY an off duty white cop would get away with shooting an unarmed black man,much less keep his job.So come on Orange,lets get real.The cop was off duty,he did not inform Mr. Whitehead that he was a police officer,he walked all the way across the parking lot to get his gun and Mr. Whitehead was trying to leave when he was shot.Not only should he lose his job, he should be IN JAIL !!!!!

I also have been following

I also have been following this case very closely. Is The Examiner reporting bias? Maybe. But I think rightfully, if so. This is a case with a lot of information and a lot of statements. The only place we've gotten (real) information about the events is in The Examiner. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Whitehead was WRONG for the way he acted and the things he said. Arnold was WRONG for the way he reacted to the situation and he was WRONG for shooting and killing Whitehead. Cop or no cop. No one has a right to kill someone for words. Period.

Only difference is Whitehead is dead...Arnold is alive. Dead because of words. Has someone ever said anything derogatory to you? How did you react? Did you throw words back? Did you throw a punch? Did you shoot and kill that person?

If you or I got into an altercation in a parking lot...and I shot and killed you. Hell, even if I only shot you but didn't kill you...do you think I'd be walking around a free man? Hell no! I'd be buried UNDER the jail. Would you be a free person if the shoe were on the other foot? No. No. No. No.

This is a horrible event which deserves justice. The justice you and I would face.

Let's get real here. Arnold has a history of not reacting 'normally' to events in his past. Stabbing a kid in the back when he was 15. Trying to strangle his ex-wife when he was a trooper. Punching a 13 year old girl in the face, all the additional events Kittrell noted to Arnold in his suspension report.

Really? Are you kidding me? Bias? Whatever.

Arnold needs to go to jail for premeditated murder. He knew what he was doing. He made the trek across the parking lot to get his gun. Left his child in the store. There was lots of time for 'thinking'...and Arnold did think about what he was going to do. Arnold shot someone who was unarmed, even as the altercation was all but ended and Whitehead was beginning to leave the scene.

Okay...bias ROCKS! So does The Examiner...keep pushing and pushing until this A#$%ole is introduced to justice.

Well, the fact is that every

Well, the fact is that every witness does have a differing testimony of what Arnold has. Each one did state that Whitehead went to his car. Each one did agree, Arnold never identified himself as a police officer.

Also, the video testimony stated that his son was in jail for possession. He was on probation and couldn't come to Orange County.

Biased Reporting

I just read the article in this week's Examiner about the arbitration hearing of Officer Arnold. I have read most, if not all of the coverage your paper has given this matter. It does not take an overly intelligent person to guess who the paper is biased against. You completely reported the cost of Officer Arnold's expert witness, as if to imply that his testimony was biased because he was on the payroll. Normally, you do not usually pay an expert to negate what you are claiming, but it was obvious what agenda the reporter was trying to drive home. I only have one question. Why didn't the reporter also note that one of the witnesses that had testimony differing from Officer Arnold's version of the shooting, gave that testimony via a video because he was in jail on a charge of possession of crack cocaine? That way your reader could also understand his possible bias for Mr. Whitehead. I'm sure a "crackhead" serving time, will gladly tell the truth on behalf of a police officer. If you are going to report on a story, report everything. If you are going to point out the possibility for a witness to be biased for one reason or another, do it equally.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.