Pastor Michael Jennings of Vision of Abundant Life Ministries in Sylacauga was, as one would suspect, a good guy, meaning that he was engaged in a good deed and perceived himself to be on the correct side of the good guy curve, where a pastor ought to be. And to be as fair as humanly possible to Pastor Jennings, he was not wrong. But he wasn’t quite right either.
It all started with Jennings being a good neighbor, according to Georgia-based civil rights attorney Harry Daniels, one of three attorneys representing Jennings.
Daniels said Jennings’ long-time neighbor asked him to water his yard while the neighbor was out of town but while he was performing his neighborly duties, police say someone reported a suspicious vehicle and person on the property.
In the video, Jennings can be heard telling police the gold SUV didn’t belong to him. Jennings told officers his name and said his home was across the street.
And, indeed, it appears that everything Pastor Jennings told the police was correct, that he was there to water his neighbor’s garden and that the gold SUV wasn’t his, and he wasn’t the person named as its owner. But a neighbor called the police.
“Y’all racially profiled me,” Jennings said in the video.
“We’re not racially profiling you,” the unidentified officer responded.
“Yes, you did,” replied Jennings.
“No sir, no sir,” the arresting officer rebutted. “We’re not about that okay?”
Assuming the police received a call about a suspicious person, there was only one appropriate response, which was to determine why the “suspicious” person was there, what authority they had to be there and whether he was engaged in any criminal activity. The stop was not racial profiling, but a normal, and proper, response to a person calling in a report.
When Jennings told them he lived across the street, he knew it to be true, but the police did not, anymore than they knew that he was Jennings as opposed to the gold SUV’s owner. Had he been that suspicious person about whom the report came in, and they neglected to ascertain his identity and the accuracy of the information he provided, and then Jennings went on to ransack the house, would the police have not been remiss in their duty?
From the police perspective, they needed verification of the information Jennings provided. Not so much because they didn’t believe him, but their duty isn’t to believe anyone. Trust, but verify is a fine slogan, but there is no reason for the police to trust when responding to a call.
Jennings, however, “knew” his rights, that if he wasn’t doing anything wrong, then he had no obligation to show the police his identification, and they had no authority to demand he do so. And from his perspective, his position on the good guy curve, this all made enormous sense. Indeed, this has become an increasingly regular phenomenon, people approached by police who demand answers to question and verification, such as identification, to conform the truthfulness of their statements. And people are increasingly suffering for it.
The error in the calculation here is that Jennings may well have been aware of the fact that he’s doing nothing wrong and engaged in no conduct that would justify police making a Terry stop. While the police had reasonable suspicion based upon the report by a neighbor of suspicious activity, justifying their investigation and determination that no crime was afoot, Jennings didn’t know that. But the police did. Jennings may have believed that the cops were there because he was black, but the cops knew they were there because of the report.
At this point, one might inquire why the police didn’t just explain this to Jennings to obtain his cooperation in clearing matters up. And that’s an entirely fair question, although there are countervailing factors, bearing in mind that the police still didn’t know whether they’re dealing with a good Samaritan or a heinous burglar. Do they seize control of the situation from a good guy or do they make simpering excuses to a burglar to get him to play nice?
Could this entire situation have been cleared up with little fuss by merely providing an ID? And if the problem was that he didn’t have it on him, the solution was to offer to go to his home and retrieve it, or if there was someone home, to ask them to bring it. The point is that this could have ended the inquiry and its inherent unpleasantness.
But Pastor Jennings believed himself to be righteous in his refusal, and it’s hard to fault him for believing that given much of what people are informed these days about their rights and the limits on police demands, particularly when it comes to black people who, like Jennings, presume themselves to be profiled when they haven’t done anything wrong.
As noted long ago, police rarely grasp that the reaction to their commands tends to differ wildly when the person with whom they’re interacting is a good guy. Bad dudes know why they’re being stopped. Good guys have no clue. Bad dudes know not to make a bad situation worse. Good guys are outraged that they are being treated so shabbily by police. And police tend to be oblivious to any of this.
But isn’t the cluelessness a two-way street, where both the good guy and the cop are mistaken in their lack of appreciation of what the other is doing and why? Well sure, and the good guy would save himself a great deal of aggravation by cooperating rather than asserting what he believes to be his rights. As the old mantra goes, comply now, grieve later. On the other hand, the police are trained and equipped to handle various interactions with the public, whereas the public isn’t trained to appreciate the unknowns involved in their interaction with police. Let the trained public servant carry the weight of accommodation, just as he gets to carry the gun and shield. But it would still be wiser to comply than be on the television the next day, hopefully still alive.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People also used to know their neighbors. Sadly in this internet age we no longer know the people around us and are fearful of everyone.
Two issues with your analysis. Alabama code Title 15 15-5-30 says …may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
While we can argue whether the officers had RAS based upon a suspicious person call from an unverified source. When they came upon a man watering flowers did get additional information giving them RAS? Given the totality of the circumstances I believe they lacked the RAS to demand the information per 15-5-30.
Regardless, the pastor did provide his name, where he lived (while not specifically his street address he did identify with clarity a location which the police could infer the address) and an explanation of his actions. The police had no right to request an ID under the statute. He had fulfilled his obligations.
I do agree that the police having been called, were free to continue investigating by contacting the original complainant to ascertain if this man was the suspicious person, whether there was another suspicious person about that the police needed to address or any other information to satisfy them that criminal activity was not afoot. The police had a myriad of investigative possibilities that they failed to use. The pastor was under no obligation to further assist them.
This is a clear example of poorly trained police that don’t understand the limits of their authority or how to properly conduct an investigation who then violated the pastors rights due to their ignorance of there authority. The pastor on the other hand complied with the law and should have been free to go about his day free from further bother. The police had no exigency to escalate like they did and they failed to complete any further investigation to determine if any crime had, was or was going to be committed.
Why did they they believe the white lady?
Putting aside that the cop clearly had suspicion, you’re missing the point. Childish args like this are what get people killed. Show the license and everybody goes home. Argue about something extremely minor and pointless and get your head blown off. Is this unclear to you?
The cops is wrong. Send a letter. Call the mayor. Tell the TV news. But don’t get killed over this sort of pedantic psychotic bullshit. Nobody feels great about being right when they’re in the grave.
The cops clearly had a reason to be there. No, the cops said they had a call. Unfortunately, the cops lie all the time.
Just show the license. Then, just submit to a search of your person and your house. Don’t worry it’s just a protective sweep. Their protection, not yours.
How many times do you submit to this before it starts to wear on you? How many cops do you have to lick to get home safely?
Sadly, delusions like this are becoming common and a lot of stupid people will end up dead for it. And nutjobs like you will blame the cops and believe it proves your delusions correct.
This kid needs help. He sounds like a cop killer in the making.
How many letters must be written, how many calls to the mayor must be placed, how many TV news stories must be televised before we can expect the police to abide by the legal limits of their authority during our interactions with them instead of eschewing our rights and acceding to their every unlawful demand?
This also smacks of the swatting phenomenon. All the police need is some unknown individual to call 911 to complain about a “suspicious person” to allow them to confront said person and demand their ID, sit on the curb, pat them down, demand that they juggle while hopping on one leg…..and if you don’t, you’re stupid and pedantic and just asking for the police to live up to their reputation as hotheads?
In this situation, the cops shouldn’t have even gotten out of the car. They saw someone watering plants. Investigation complete, suspicion alleviated.
It’s frustrating that there are no simple solutions to complex problems, but it’s better to stay alive to fight them than to die a martyr.
This is why there are lots of folks doing the yoeman’s work teaching police to adhere to the fucking law.
J-Rock
I’ll fight before I think the government is right Scott.
I hope you kill no one and no one kills you, and you receive the psychiatric care you critically need.
Jesse, I offer this for you to think about, not discuss, because I don’t want to see you harmed or you harm anyone else.
You are not the center of the universe. You do not get to decide whether the government, the police, the court are “right,” and if you decide they are not, you get to “fight.”
We resolve our disputes, including those with the govt, in courts and voting booths. It’s imperfect, but far better than either killing or being killed because the voices in your head tell you that you’re right no matter what.
And please get help. You are mentally ill and a danger to yourself and others.
The term “fight” doesn’t mean violence. Good grief. Scott “fights” for clients. I don’t take that to mean he’s gonna take the prosecutor out back. Same here.
There is no equivalent for fighting with cops, Jesse.
The statute authorizes a police officer who has reasonable suspicion to “demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.” Is there caselaw that says the cop can’t demand documentation, and must accept the person’s oral answers? Seems absurd if that’s the case, since anybody can give a false name and address. I assume there’s caselaw addressing this, but you didn’t mention it and I’m not getting paid to research it.
But even if what you say it accurate, doubtful as that may be, why would you want people to refuse to do something as simple as show their license rather than get arrested (which is the only alternative) or worse? Do you want people dead in the street over this?
This pseudo-pedantic adherence to the law gets people killed. Cops need to do better, but this simplistic insistence on refusing to do as ordered is dangerously stupid. And they will be outraged when more people are arrested, beaten or killed over stupid crap like this.
Alabama law doesn’t require that someone show a government issued ID, just provide name, address, and an explanation of their actions, all of which Jennings provided. Police may prefer an actual physical ID, but it’s not required unless the person is operating a motor vehicle, and the police know that, but want their job made easy. If the person decides to show their ID, but it is in the person’s house, as seems to be the case here, are the police going to allow the person to enter their house unaccompanied to retrieve the ID? Or will the police insist on going into the house, because reasons, giving them an opportunity to look around and maybe see something suspicious?
So if he’d said he was Steve Harvey and gestured at a house where he said he lived, cops should be satisfied and leave.
Perhaps if police could move away from a culture of “everybody not an officer is a criminal – some just haven’t been caught yet?”
People have a right to not speak with police (or pretty much anybody, for that matter). But like all rights, sometimes the exercise comes with consequences. And while “comply now, grieve later” is generally good advice, rights-exercisers need to understand that sometimes the remedy for their “grieve” may be nothing beyond a story that makes both sides look a tad … thoughtless.
That’s a terrible mindset problem of us and them, but when they’re there to respond to a suspicious person call, it’s not the same as any guy walking down the street minding his own business.
This seems like a semantic argument. Watering your neighbors flowers is a pretty small step from actually walking down the street. Had the nosey neighbor called the cops on a “suspicious” black guy literally walking down the street what would have been different? The cops still come and demand ID, which he is not even legally required to carry.
Hardly. What’s the difference between being on a public street and being on someone’s property when that someone’s neighbor calls the cops? And what makes you think the nosey neighbor wasn’t just as black as the pastor? What’s with these baseless flagrant racist assumptions?
I’m sorry, are you asking what the odds are that a call to police in Alabama, that claims that a black man watering flowers is suspicious, is made by a white person?
While I prefer facts to speculation, if you want to play that child’s game, do it right: What are the odds that the nosy neighbor in a black neighborhood was also black? There are such things as stupid questions.
There certainly is a difference between a public street and a private yard, but if the police are called for a suspicious person will they not stop and ID the person regardless?
The race of the caller is irrelevant. I did not assume anything about their race. The race of the person reported as suspicious certainly is, as “existing while black” is something that has come up on this site before, as well as being pretty relevant to the current social climate.
What good are rights when you can’t exercise them, just hope you might win a few bucks in a lawsuit later?
You can deal with the facts as known or whatever wild racist fantasies pop into your head. I will not suffer the latter.
Very true. “Better safe than sorry” is not unreasonable human behavior, and as a responding officer, believing a Good Guy to be a possible Villain is a lot safer than getting suckered by a Villain pretending to be a Good Guy. Worse, it’s a no-win situation for them: if the pastor HAD been a burglar and had pillaged the place after they’d accepted his story and left, they’d be catching no end of flak for “not doing their jobs.”
While there are plenty of ideal solutions to the problem, “ideal” is simply Latin for “good luck with THAT in the Real World!” I can’t think of much of anything more practical than the long standing sound advice of “comply now, grieve later.” Along with its obvious corollary: “grieve now AND grieve later.”
ETA: And you’re correct – it’s not a “casual conversation on the street” thing. They’re there investigating a possible crime in progress. Burglary. Crim Trespass. Hard to say. Exercising a right to impede their investigation is … fraught with peril.
.