Fri. Feb 14th, 2025

Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Interim Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson

Denial and Dysfunction: Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson Embarrass Themselves Addressing DOJ Findings

Public Affairs Staff on December 9, 2024

Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Interim Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson

 

MEMPHIS, TN ——- In a deeply troubling display of denial, Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Interim Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson have collectively rejected the possibility of a federal consent decree following the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) scathing report on systemic constitutional violations by the Memphis Police Department (MPD). Their statements, riddled with flawed logic and dismissive rhetoric, demonstrate not only a lack of accountability but also an alarming unwillingness to confront the systemic issues that plague the city.

The DOJ report, released after a 17-month investigation, found that the MPD engages in a “pattern or practice” of excessive force, unlawful stops and arrests, and discriminatory policing against Black residents. It also revealed failures in responding to people with behavioral health disabilities and troubling practices in interactions with children. Despite this damning evidence, Memphis leadership insists that the city can reform itself without federal oversight. Their statements are not just misguided—they are a masterclass in denial and an affront to the constitutional rights of Memphis residents.

 

The Guilty Cannot Determine Their Own Sentencing

Memphis Mayor Paul Young, Interim Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson seem to believe they should be both the accused and the judge when it comes to the DOJ’s findings. Their refusal to accept federal oversight is akin to a criminal demanding leniency while dismissing the authority of the court. The DOJ’s investigation, built on extensive evidence, has made it clear that the MPD and the City of Memphis have engaged in unconstitutional practices that harm the very residents they are sworn to protect. Yet, these leaders insist they are capable of self-correcting—a preposterous notion when they are the very architects of the broken system.

The idea that the guilty can determine their own sentencing defies logic. Consent decrees exist precisely because local governments have failed to address systemic abuses on their own. By rejecting this oversight, Memphis leadership is essentially saying, “Trust us to fix the problems we’ve long ignored.” This is not only absurd but also a betrayal of the public trust. True accountability cannot come from those who are unwilling to admit the full scope of their wrongdoing.

 

The Case for Federal Oversight

The DOJ report is a clarion call for systemic change. Memphis residents cannot afford to wait for their leaders to “collaborate” their way out of this crisis. The violations outlined in the report are too severe, too entrenched, and too damaging to be addressed without federal enforcement.

Mayor Young, Chief Davis, and City Attorney Gibson’s statements reveal a leadership more concerned with maintaining the status quo than protecting the rights and safety of Memphis residents. Their denial is not just embarrassing—it is a constitutional failure. If Memphis is to move forward, federal oversight is not just necessary—it is essential.

The statements from Young, Davis, and Gibson are a stark reminder of why systemic change cannot be left in the hands of those who allowed the system to fail. Their illogical defenses and refusal to accept accountability highlight the need for federal intervention. Memphis residents deserve better than this hollow rhetoric—they deserve justice, accountability, and meaningful reform. If city leadership refuses to step up, the federal government must step in.

 

The Consent Decree Is Rehab

Memphis leaders are like an alcoholic who insists he can quit drinking without rehab. Mayor Young and Chief Davis claim that federal oversight would be a “hindrance” to progress, much like an addict who believes he can self-rehabilitate without external intervention. This is not just naive—it’s dangerous. The DOJ’s findings prove that Memphis has been on a destructive path for years, with systemic abuses and constitutional violations entrenched in its policing practices. To think the same leadership that allowed this to happen can now fix it without outside help is a delusion.

A consent decree is not a punishment—it is a form of rehabilitation. It provides a structured framework for reform, ensuring that changes are not just promised but implemented and enforced. Just as an addict needs a structured program and accountability to recover, Memphis needs the DOJ’s oversight to rebuild trust and protect the rights of its citizens. Without it, the city risks perpetuating the same harmful practices while pretending progress is being made.

The refusal to accept a consent decree reveals a leadership unwilling to confront its failures and afraid of the transparency and accountability that federal oversight would bring. Like an addict in denial, Memphis leadership is clinging to the illusion of control while the city’s residents continue to suffer the consequences. It’s time for Memphis to enter “rehab” and embrace the consent decree as a necessary step toward recovery.

 

Paul Young’s Illogical Rejection of Federal Oversight

Mayor Young’s claim that Memphis can make “more effective and meaningful change” without federal intervention is both illogical and embarrassing. He argues that a federal consent decree would be “bureaucratic, costly, and complicated” and suggests that community engagement and local collaboration can address the DOJ’s findings. However, his own administration has failed to address these systemic issues by keeping on board the very police chief whose leadership has failed Memphis for years. The MPD’s violations of constitutional rights, as outlined in the DOJ report, occurred under the city’s existing framework of “community engagement.” The idea that the same leadership responsible for these failures can now suddenly reform itself is pure fantasy.

Furthermore, Young’s assertion that federal oversight would hinder improvement efforts ignores the reality that consent decrees are specifically designed to enforce systemic change. Without enforceable mechanisms, Memphis residents are left to rely on the same inept leadership that allowed these violations to fester.

 

CJ Davis: A Chief in Denial

Interim Police Chief CJ Davis takes denial to another level by criticizing the DOJ for a lack of “transparency” during its investigation. This is a puzzling complaint, given that the city fully cooperated and provided access to interviews, ride-alongs, data, and bodycam footage. Davis’s insistence on questioning the DOJ’s findings, despite overwhelming evidence, underscores her reluctance to take accountability for MPD’s failures. Her focus on defending the department’s image rather than addressing the systemic abuses outlined in the report is deeply troubling.

Moreover, Davis’s claim that MPD is committed to “continuous improvement” rings hollow. The DOJ investigation itself was prompted by the horrific death of Tyre Nichols, an unarmed Black man beaten to death by MPD officers during a traffic stop. If such a tragedy couldn’t prompt meaningful change, what hope is there without federal enforcement?

 

Tannera Gibson’s Misguided Defense

City Attorney Tannera Gibson’s argument that the DOJ investigation was “rushed” because it lasted 17 months instead of the “average” 2–3 years is a flimsy and desperate attempt to undermine the report’s findings. The DOJ’s thorough review included thousands of documents, hundreds of hours of bodycam footage, and input from community members and police officers. Gibson’s focus on the timeline rather than the substance of the findings reveals her priority: deflection over accountability.

Even more egregiously, Gibson dismisses the need for federal oversight, ignoring the fact that local leadership has repeatedly failed to address these issues. Her argument that federal intervention would be a “hindrance” to reform is baseless; the DOJ’s findings make it clear that Memphis cannot self-correct. Gibson’s position is not just illogical—it’s unconstitutional, as it seeks to sidestep the enforcement mechanisms necessary to protect the civil rights of Memphis residents.

 

A System Incapable of Reform

The combined positions of Young, Davis, and Gibson illustrate a city leadership that is fundamentally incapable of addressing its own failures. Their refusal to embrace federal oversight not only undermines the gravity of the DOJ’s findings but also perpetuates the systemic abuses that have eroded public trust in Memphis.

Self-reform is impossible when those in power deny the scope of the problem. Consent decrees are not punitive—they are tools to enforce accountability and transparency in systems that have proven resistant to change. By rejecting this mechanism, Memphis leadership is signaling that they prioritize their own authority over the constitutional rights of their residents.

 

Familiar Excuses: The Playbook of Denial

The statements from Mayor Paul Young, Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson are nothing more than recycled excuses we’ve all heard in other contexts of denial and accountability avoidance. Their refusal to embrace a consent decree mirrors the classic pattern of individuals or organizations attempting to downplay serious issues while claiming they can self-regulate. Here are some all-too-familiar examples of such behavior:

  1. The Man Who Assults His Wife

Imagine a man caught in the act of domestic abuse who insists, “I can fix myself. I don’t need therapy or intervention.” This excuse is as hollow as it is dangerous. Without external oversight and accountability, cycles of harm continue unchecked, just as systemic abuses within the Memphis Police Department will persist without federal oversight.

  1. The Bank That Mismanages Funds

A financial institution caught embezzling millions tells regulators, “We’ve already made some changes internally, and we’re committed to doing better.” Of course, without audits and regulatory enforcement, the same institution continues its unethical practices in secret. This is no different from Memphis officials claiming they can reform themselves while refusing the safeguards of a consent decree.

  1. The Company with Unsafe Working Conditions

A corporation responsible for numerous workplace injuries insists, “We’ve already implemented better safety measures,” while continuing to cut corners for profit. This false assurance is no different from Memphis officials touting minor reforms as a substitute for the structural changes a consent decree would enforce.

In each of these examples, the guilty party avoids accountability by promising vague, self-directed improvements while resisting meaningful intervention. Mayor Young, Chief Davis, and Attorney Gibson’s excuses fall squarely into this category, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the depth and scope of the problems they are charged with addressing. Without external oversight, their assurances ring hollow and place the people of Memphis at continued risk.

 

Cracks in the Foundation of Their Arguments 

The arguments presented by Mayor Paul Young, Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson against entering a federal consent decree are riddled with logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions. Their reasoning demonstrates a lack of accountability and a misunderstanding of both the gravity of the DOJ’s findings and the role of federal oversight. Here are the key flaws in their arguments:

  1. “We Can Fix Ourselves”

Mayor Young claims that the city can achieve meaningful reform through community input and collaboration with national experts, without the need for federal oversight. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If Memphis could have fixed its systemic issues on its own, it would have done so long before the DOJ investigation was necessary. The existence of the DOJ report itself is a testament to the city’s inability—or unwillingness—to address these problems effectively without external pressure.

  1. Denial of Accountability

Chief CJ Davis argues that the DOJ’s findings lack transparency because MPD wasn’t privy to the identities of those interviewed or the data analysis underlying the report. This is an absurd deflection. The DOJ conducted an exhaustive 17-month investigation, reviewed thousands of documents, hundreds of hours of body cam footage, and engaged with the community. The idea that the findings are invalid because MPD didn’t control the process shows a refusal to accept external accountability, a critical flaw in reasoning for any public institution.

  1. The Financial Burden Excuse

Both Young and Davis cite the potential financial cost of a consent decree as a primary reason for resistance, framing it as an “undue burden” on Memphis residents. This argument fails to recognize that systemic misconduct and unconstitutional policing already impose a significant financial and social cost on the community. Settlements for police misconduct lawsuits, loss of public trust, and ongoing harm to marginalized communities are far more expensive—both in dollars and human lives—than implementing sustainable reforms under federal oversight.

  1. “We’ve Already Made Changes”

The city touts its cooperation during the DOJ investigation and points to recent changes as evidence of progress. However, these incremental adjustments do not address the deep structural issues identified in the DOJ findings, including excessive force, discriminatory policing, and unlawful arrests. Without enforceable accountability mechanisms, any changes remain superficial and reversible, making this argument not just weak but dangerously misleading.

  1. A Misunderstanding of Federal Oversight

Mayor Young’s assertion that a federal consent decree would be “overly bureaucratic, costly, and complicated” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose. Consent decrees are not intended to micromanage; they are designed to provide a framework for accountability, transparency, and meaningful reform. Rejecting this tool undermines the city’s credibility and suggests an unwillingness to prioritize the safety and constitutional rights of its residents.

  1. “We Take This Seriously” While Refusing Serious Solutions

All three officials claim to take the DOJ findings seriously, yet their refusal to embrace a consent decree contradicts this sentiment. If the violations outlined in the DOJ report are as concerning as they claim to believe, then rejecting a proven method of reform undermines their stated commitment to improvement.

By resisting a consent decree with these flawed arguments, Mayor Young, Chief Davis, and Attorney Gibson send a clear message: they are more concerned with maintaining control than addressing the systemic failures harming Memphis residents. This resistance not only perpetuates harm but also undermines public trust, proving once again why external oversight is not only necessary but long overdue.

 

$500M RICO Lawsuit: A Crushing Indictment of Memphis Leadership

As if the DOJ’s damning findings weren’t enough, the City of Memphis faces a $500 million federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit filed last week by Monique Wade, a pro se plaintiff and resident. The lawsuit, naming the City of Memphis, Councilman JB Smiley, and Councilwoman Jerri Green in their official capacities, accuses the defendants of orchestrating a systemic scheme of fraud, viewpoint discrimination, conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment tied to the controversial “More for Memphis” fiscal agent ordinance.

Wade’s lawsuit specifically highlights the lack of verifiable proof behind the ordinance’s claim that $100 million in philanthropic funding had been “secured,” which served as the foundation for passing the ordinance. The suit asserts that the ordinance was a premeditated scheme designed to funnel taxpayer money to politically connected organizations, including Seeding Success and Tennessee Prosperous. These allegations were compounded by the City Council’s conduct during the November 26, 2024, meeting, where dissenting voices were suppressed, mocked, and outright silenced—flagrant violations of First Amendment rights.

 

Exposing Leadership’s Delusional Defense

Wade’s legal action not only shines a light on the systemic corruption that plagues Memphis but also makes the excuses offered by Mayor Paul Young, Interim Police Chief CJ Davis, and City Attorney Tannera Gibson appear utterly delusional. The trio’s claims that Memphis can fix itself without federal oversight crumble under the weight of the RICO allegations. How can a leadership that allegedly conspired to defraud taxpayers claim it is capable of self-reform?

Mayor Young’s assertion that federal oversight would be “bureaucratic, costly, and complicated” rings especially hollow in light of Wade’s lawsuit, which accuses city officials of prioritizing political self-interest and donor enrichment over constitutional governance. Interim Chief Davis’s complaints about the DOJ’s transparency seem laughable when juxtaposed with the systemic abuses outlined in both the DOJ’s report and Wade’s lawsuit. Meanwhile, Gibson’s attempt to dismiss the DOJ investigation as “rushed” looks increasingly desperate and unconvincing when faced with the detailed RICO allegations of fraudulent concealment and racketeering.

 

DOJ’s Role: The Essential Enforcer

The DOJ findings and Wade’s RICO lawsuit are deeply intertwined. Both paint a picture of systemic abuse, corruption, and constitutional violations that demand federal oversight. Wade’s lawsuit provides the DOJ with an opportunity to extend its findings into actionable legal accountability by joining the case as a party. Doing so would bolster efforts to expose the full scope of corruption in Memphis, hold its leaders accountable, and ensure meaningful reforms are enforced.

The DOJ’s findings and Wade’s claims of racketeering reinforce each other, exposing the city’s leadership as both unwilling and incapable of self-correcting its systemic failures. Federal involvement in the RICO case would highlight the broader implications of Memphis’s corruption and ensure that the city cannot continue to evade accountability with empty promises of reform.

 

Why Wade’s Lawsuit Demands DOJ Support

Wade’s lawsuit has already struck a chord in Memphis, amplifying the voices of disenfranchised residents who have suffered from unconstitutional policing and government mismanagement. By joining her case, the DOJ would not only validate her claims but also solidify its commitment to addressing systemic abuses in Memphis. Wade’s RICO allegations serve as a direct counterpoint to the hollow defenses offered by Mayor Young, Chief Davis, and Attorney Gibson.

Together, the DOJ findings and Wade’s lawsuit underscore the urgent need for federal oversight. Without it, Memphis risks perpetuating the same systemic corruption and constitutional violations that have already done so much harm. Wade’s lawsuit provides a powerful legal framework for change, and the DOJ’s involvement would ensure that justice is not just sought but achieved.

 

Conclusion

The $500 million RICO lawsuit is not just a challenge to the status quo; it is a direct indictment of the leadership failures that have brought Memphis to the brink. Mayor Young, Chief Davis, and Attorney Gibson’s refusal to embrace federal oversight looks increasingly indefensible as evidence mounts against their administration. Wade’s lawsuit, combined with the DOJ’s findings, makes clear that Memphis’s leadership cannot be trusted to reform itself. It’s time for the DOJ to step in, join Wade’s case, and ensure that systemic reform is not just promised but delivered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect With Us

Stay Connected Everywhere With Us