Excerpt from a transcript of the July 23 As It Happens podcast from the CBC:
[Acey Rowe, host]: You may have seen the cellphone video -- a Black man in Jacksonville, Florida is punched in the face, pulled from his car and beaten by police during a traffic stop. This follows an exchange where he repeatedly asks the officers why he's been pulled over and asks to speak to a supervisor, as they demand he leave the car. His name is William McNeil Jr. and today the 22-year-old college student spoke about what happened to him -- as his lawyers demand accountability. Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters, however, urged people not to rush to judgement. He says the cellphone video, quote, "does not comprehensively capture the circumstances." Unquote. Mr. McNeil was with his parents and their lawyer, Ben Crump, when he spoke to reporters today. Here's what they had to say, beginning with his mother Latoya Solomon.SOUNDCLIPLATOYA SOLOMON: The day I seen that video, I couldn't finish it past the window breaking. It wasn't until maybe a few months ago I finally finished the whole video. But I'm thankful to God for protecting him, because I know what the outcome could have been. But I believe in faith in God is protected my only son.ALTON SOLOMON: Morning. I'm Alton Solomon, the father, stepfather. But I can't call him my stepson, because this is my son. I've been through what he's been through. To see that video made me go back to the moment when I was 22. It hurt. It made me upset. But I've seen what my son did that I had to do, and he sat right, and he did right. To see that, [deep breathing] it's a hurting feeling to be a father that loved God first. And to see all my kids not being able to wake up in the morning, get my phone call saying your child is gone. That's a hurting feeling, but I thank God. Because God got him.BEN CRUMP: William's just gonna make a few remarks. And keep this family in prayer, because as his mother and father both said, they knew he could have been the next hashtag. It could have a different result had he not kept his demeanour.WILLIAM MCNEIL JR.: First of all, I want to thank God for bringing everybody here together. And thank y'all for supporting me. That day, I just really wanted to know, you know, why I was getting pulled over, and why I needed to step out of the car when I knew I didn't do nothing wrong. I was really just scared. Yeah, that's it.
Police pulled him over because his headlights were off during "inclement weather," lol. Yes, he gave them lip and slammed the door, but as an initial matter it was pretty obviously a DWB violation.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
In the latter part of the video, the driver is seen wearing his seat belt. But it's not a stretch to imagine he put the belt on after he closed the car door--easy enough. Violation of the seat belt law was one of the two reasons offered for why he was detained. If he was not wearing his seat belt, the police officer had a valid reason for making the stop, even as the other reason--the headlights--seems unreasonable. Stopping and ticketing a driver for failing to a wear seat belt is very common. Regardless, when stopped for a violation (which the driver is free to dispute in court) a driver is required to provide his license, etc. Slamming the door shut and refusing to cooperate is an additional violation; if it was acceptable to shut the door and refuse to comply, 95% of drivers would probably do so, thereby routinely avoiding citations and arrests. The driver was not within his rights when he failed to comply. At that point the police could either drive away or take further action, which is their job. Extracting the man from the car was the alternative to driving away. I see one serious problem with the police response: the punch to the face. The officer who punched the driver should lose his job and face an assault charge. (To the question of race: What does the data say about Jacksonville and traffic stops? Are the police disproportionately targeting one race? If so, this stop is arguably an example of discrimination; if not, it isn't. If a young white man was detained for not wearing his seat belt and he failed to comply in a similar manner, would the police have extracted the man from his vehicle? Yes. Would the police have used excessive force? Often yes, especially in the case of a low income, young white male. Happens every day.)
ReplyDeleteI didn’t even see Mr. Mist or Mr. Fog. I didn’t see him “giving them lip,” either. He closed his door to protect himself from thugs. This is a young, educated man asking for basic human rights. They clearly had no answer to why they were pulling him over, so the assumption here is that he was pulled over because he was DWB.
ReplyDeleteI was just in Florida, and I saw many signs saying that it is state law that you must have your lights on when it is raining. And the way storms develop from the humidity, it can be pouring rain in one spot and completely dry a short distance away. The officer gave two laws the driver was allegedly breaking when he asked.
ReplyDeleteIt's not raining and the street is dry, so it hasn't been raining. And you don't need lights on for "inclement weather" as the officer claims. The law states lights must be on if windshield wipers are on.
DeleteIt is common for a driver and police officer to differ on the facts leading to a traffic stop (was the weather inclement, was I speeding, was I obviously "drunk driving," did I use my turn signal, did I come to a full stop...). For obvious reasons, police are not inclined to debate the facts. Were police required to "win" arguments before citing motorists traffic laws would be impossible to enforce. This is why, as I understand it, signing a citation is not an admission of guilt and the accused is entitled to argue the matter in court--as opposed to on the shoulder of the road. The driver in the video had a very poor understanding of the process. Racism, or no racism, a poor understanding of the law can lead to poor outcomes. (If the driver was trying to make a moral statement by not cooperating, that falls in the realm of civil disobedience. But if that was the case, he did not articulate the nature of his resistance. He attacked the legitimacy of the stop on the basis of the causes for the stop. Here's the way a civil disobedience stance might be articulated: "I agree that you may have had reason to detain me for the infractions you stated, and though the law requires that I do XY&Z, I will not cooperate with you as a matter of principle: this is a racist country and this is likely a racially targeted act of enforcement and I refuse to submit. Do with me what you will." That's a very different video.)
DeleteCrowboy, no one will say what he did was right. And all the things you say are technically right in ideal circumstances. The police often target those that likely cannot afford the time or lawyer to "win" arguments in court. You also did not get to feel his previous experiences with police. They were going to rough him up or deprive him of his liberties regardless. Doesn't make what he did right or legal. But not having basic dignities that should be bestown upon a grown individual can cause them to act out of sorts.
DeleteI have personally had guns drawn on me simply being on the side of the road with hazards on behind my friends broke down car trying to call AAA. You could try to disect the situation a hundred ways, but its pretty basic: respect not shown can lead to respect not given.
@ Dinepo: The criminal justice system is largely dedicated to controlling those below the poverty line on behalf of those above the poverty line. Since the black population is disproportionately poor, the criminal justice system falls disproportionately on that population. It's important to keep in mind that the same system also lands on the poor white population, which is roughly double the size of the poor black population. It's also important to keep in mind the fact that criminality (the illegal kind, as opposed to the kind that made Trump rich) increases as income decreases and that while policing is a class-on-class enterprise, it's therefor not entirely arbitrary in focus. Those on the left erode their credibility when they rationalize the clearly unlawful in search of solidarity in the identity arena. Bottom line: Those who can afford it the least are not well served by narratives rationalizing and/or promoting illegal non-compliance. Because excessive force was used in the course of this arrest, the driver may perhaps be inclined to imagine himself blameless. IMO, that would be a less than fully informed and helpful perspective on this episode.
Delete