Former Detective Robinson Wants Job Back

Former Detective K.W. Robinson, who has been twice fired from the Abemarle County Police Department for beating suspects, wants his job back. Robinson was first fired 11 years ago for kicking a man in the face while arresting him, but had his job reinstated by an appeals board. Then, in August of 2001, he was caught on video tape beating severely (requiring in a broken rib) 21-year-old Corey Faison while Faison was being interrogated. Robinson was convicted of assault in August and fired in September. Then, on Friday, the charges against him were dismissed by substitute Judge James Kulp, who ruled that the attack on Faison was merely “an unlawful touching.” Now, Robinson wants his job back, complaining that “[his] name has been slandered,”and says that he thinks “about those hugs and those letters from those children [he] helped,” and wonders what they think of him now. Liesel Nowack has the story in today’s Daily Progress.

7 Responses to “Former Detective Robinson Wants Job Back”

  • I really had to fight the urge to title this story "Former Detective Has Huge Balls," which would pretty much set the tone for the rest of the blurb.

    Robinson…what a maroon.

  • Robinson has shown his true colors. However, what interests me most is the psychological makeup of Judge James Kulp.

  • Is my calendar wrong? Is this an April Fool’s joke?

  • I mean really- that comb over is horrible. Does he think anyone really thinks he has hair?

  • Never fear – Trust the justice received in our courts and all will be well. If one doesn`t like the verdict get another judge.

    I guess this will bring hope to the defendants in the Robinson case.

  • Not sure if this is the same as the print edition, but online the headline states “Innocent detective denied old job.”

    Isn’t there a significant difference between “had a conviction thrown out” and “innocent?” That’s an incredibly slanted headline. Calling Robinson “innocent” stretches more than just the truth – it stretches reality.

  • I had the same thought–isn’t it more accurate to call him "not-found-guilty" detective?

    I wonder if the headline writer is just not very careful.

Comments are currently closed.