By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey is supporting the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency’s decision to withhold body camera footage related to the fatal police shooting of Jabari Peoples, citing the need for a thorough investigation. The shooting occurred when a Homewood Police Department officer approached Peoples, an 18-year-old Black college freshman, at a soccer complex. Peoples’ family and girlfriend dispute the police’s account of the events, particularly the claim that Peoples reached for a gun, leading to demands for the video’s release from the family, local leaders, and Homewood residents. Despite these calls, the agency has not released the video as protests and threats of boycotts are made by the public.
Read the original article here
The governor’s backing of withholding the video of the officer-involved shooting is raising a lot of questions, and it’s hard not to feel a sense of unease when transparency is met with resistance. When the release of body camera footage is delayed, it naturally makes you wonder what’s being hidden. If the video supported the police’s narrative, wouldn’t it be released swiftly to quell any doubt? The fact that it’s being withheld suggests something more complex is at play, and it’s easy to understand why the family, local leaders, and residents are clamoring for its release. They want to know what truly happened to Jabari.
The police department’s version of events, that the officer shot Jabari Peoples after he allegedly reached for a gun, needs scrutiny. An independent autopsy, conducted at the family’s request, is already adding fuel to the fire because they could not find the bullet. If the officer’s actions were justified, why the secrecy? It’s only natural to feel skeptical. Especially when you hear the account of Jabari being shot in the back, but the absence of an exit wound and the missing bullet raises serious doubts about the official story. This is where it’s important to remember that if the video shows the police looking competent, or backing their story, it is often released quickly.
The situation becomes even more concerning when considering the potential motives for withholding the video. Perhaps the officer’s account isn’t entirely accurate, or maybe the shooting itself was questionable. You have to think, is this just the way it goes sometimes? It’s a pattern that’s sadly familiar: allegations of wrongdoing, followed by a defensive posture and delayed release of crucial evidence. It makes you wonder about the system’s flaws. It’s hard not to be disgusted, appalled even, but not surprised.
The silence surrounding the video raises the possibility of a cover-up, or at least an attempt to control the narrative. When the state’s leadership gets involved, does that mean the buck stops there? Are charges even a possibility? In states with deeply ingrained histories and practices, this withholding of evidence feels like a betrayal of justice. You might even wonder if there is a level of bad faith involved.
It’s easy to speculate about potential biases and the history of the state involved. It is as if the governor’s decision gives a green light to protecting the officer, potentially at the expense of finding the truth. There’s certainly a reason to be skeptical of any self-investigation carried out by the police department. The pattern of the police investigating themselves, and finding no wrongdoing, is a well-worn path. It’s just “Alabama doing Alabama things.”
Then comes the broader context. If the federal government doesn’t step in with charges, how can this become an FBI case? It is an investigation that could be slow and fraught with obstacles. Even though the state and federal authorities could come to different conclusions, the path to accountability may be blocked. It is also important to remember that we are not always dealing with one standard across the states. While some states, like Florida, have laws promoting transparency, others may not, which would make the fight for the video all the more challenging.