ShareThis Page
Nation

Ex-sheriff admits withholding info in deputy killing

| Friday, July 15, 2016, 9:36 p.m.

TULSA, Okla. — A former Oklahoma sheriff who was friends with a reserve deputy who shot and killed an unarmed man last year pleaded no contest Friday to failing to release key information about how the officer was trained.

Stanley Glanz, who was sheriff in Tulsa County, entered his plea to a charge of refusal to perform official duty and was sentenced to a year of jail time, but the judge suspended it.

At the same hearing, he pleaded guilty to willful violation of the law for an unrelated incident in which he received a monthly vehicle stipend while having access to county-owned vehicles. That plea resulted in a suspended one-year sentence.

A special grand jury indicted Glanz last September, saying that in the days after Eric Harris was shot dead on a Tulsa street, the sheriff should have shared a 2009 memo that raised questions about reserve deputy Robert Bates' qualifications. Glanz had said the memo was a private personnel record not subject to Oklahoma's open records law.

Glanz, who resigned after being indicted, was longtime friends with Bates, who donated cash, vehicles and equipment to the sheriff's department.

Bates carried a badge and a gun despite questions being raised about his training.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me