Police Arrest Alabama Pastor for ( No Joke) Watering Flowers

The fact that they didn't ask the white woman for her ID is part of the problem here.

 

I don't see why that's remotely an issue, or a very tiny one at best. She was sent outside by the police operator to talk to the police, so they knew where she lived and that she was the one who called...

 

Seriously, do you think that if this man was a 60+ white man, the outcome wouldn't have been different?

 

I would hope a 60+ white man would cooperate a lot better and defuse the situation.... I would hope just about anybody would do better..

 

I would venture to say the officers' approach would have been totally different, and that is what is motivating Pastor Jennings, especially if he indeed was a former cop.

Think about the fact, that all the police officers would have to do is just wait till he finished watering the flowers and this whole thing would have ended peacefully.

 

If he is a former cop, then he should be completely ashamed... How would he have liked his cop self to have to deal with him that day??

It's really not the job of the police to wait out people doing stuff....In fact, Rule #1 in dealing with police is to stop doing what you are doing and FOCUS on defusing the situation.

 

Must show ID if you didn't commit a crime? Sounds like a dystopian military state.

 

You're offended by his behavior, but he is completely within his rights to behave that way. I get it, it's how we are interpreting his actions, and we see it differently.

You know who could really contribute to this discussion is @MJ Davies? He used to be a cop. I think his perspective on this would be interesting.

 

Nothing wrong with his behavior. He was watering flowers. Who in their right mind would see him and think, prowler? If that's what a prowler is, please send a few to my house!

 

It's state law that you have to show an ID upon request. In this scenario, it's just common sense that the cops confirm who Jennings was.

 

I'm not "offended" by it and he's within his rights to behave that way, but you have to allow for the probability that it lead directly to him being driven off in handcuffs, even if that final result was unwarranted... A fully cooperative suspect simply doesn't get driven off in that scenario. Frankly, it seems like that was almost his goal from the get-go. Several times he dared the police to arrest him, and then they screwed up and did.

I'd love to see MJ's comments, after he watches the video like we did...

 

Not sure why someone needs to ask if it is right or wrong to arrest someone for watering a garden/lawn/et al.

 

heres a problem; claiming to be a pastor and then acting this way and daring them to arrest him doesn’t say much for his story to be true. This guy is acting like his worst enemy with this behavior. If he were actually a former leo he should have gone straight to getting them ID as fast as possible and gone back to watering the damned flowers. Being cooperative beats being contentious even if you’re in the right, that’s called being an adult.

 

So, are you saying that cops in Alabama can't investigate a suspected robbery, or trespass? Why, of course they can. That's exactly what they were doing in this scenario.

 

I got that too. I does just seem to be a font file (that's what woff2 files are for) so there's probably some obscure font used on the site somewhere (possible complicated by it linking via Yahoo). It shouldn't be downloading it like that but I suspect it was more incompetence than anything malicious. I was able to get to the page and there was nothing really special there. You can find plenty of other sources for the story by searching the Pastors name.

 

How many people water their lawns with their ID in their pocket?

 

Public place and public property are two different things. A "public place" is anywhere that is open to the public. That means an open area that the public has access to, whether they're there legally or not.

Under your logic, the police would only be able to identify people who are stopped on the street, in publicly owned buildings, or on the sidewalk. The police would have no authority to identify anyone, anywhere else. The vast majority of places everyone is in are privately owned. Your claim would make it impossible for the police to identify and capture anyone. There would be no point in investigating a crime if all the criminal had to do was to get into a home and claim that they're on private property, so they can't be identified.

The officers clearly had reasonable suspicion of the crime of trespass. They had every right to identify the person. The pastor failed to adequately identify himself. He said, "I'm Pastor Jennings." That is not giving one's "name and address." In fact, he never gave his address. That, in and of itself, is another crime. He was clearly being detained at the outset of the conversation. He failed to provide his full and truthful name, which is a violation of Alabama Code 13-2412. This is a class 2 misdemeanor, in and of itself.

Pastor Jennings caused the entirety of this incident, by refusing to identify himself, initially. He was lawfully detained and arrested. The fact that the charges have since been dropped does not mean that the charges were improper, at the time of the arrest. It simply means that the prosecutor chose to drop them. It happens all the time in every state. Pastor Jennings was incorrect in his assertion that he did not need to identify himself. The arrest was objectively reasonable.

All that being said, that doesn't mean that the city won't pay him money. Improper settlements happen all the time. City Councils are quick to give away money that isn't theirs to make lawsuits go away.

Knight

 

No, you misunderstand how it works. The police still has every right to arrest and detain people if they believe a crime has been committed. If someone is robbing the bank the police do not ask for identification before arresting them. They arrest them based on the suspicion that they robbed the bank because the bank and the evidence they have that the suspect did it. If there is no evidence you cannot arrest them. If they say have a bag of money, have a ski mask or some other evidence that the person robbed the bank they do not need to ask for ID before arresting them. We have a bank on the main floor of our office tower. The police cannot just come up to our floor and start asking people for ID without any evidence or suspicion. We do not live in a police state.

You say the officers had reasonable suspicion of the crime of trespass then they can arrest him for trespass. You do not need to see ID if they believe someone committed a crime. If they believe Pastor Jennings committed murder they do not have to ask for ID first. BTW Pastor Jennings was NOT arrested for trespassing. He asked the police questions and based on those answers the police decided NOT to charge him with trespassing. He said he will not answer question and the police can arrest him if he wants. He is correct the police can arrest him but not because he didn't want to answer questions. They should arrest him for the crime they think he committed. If they thought he was trespassing or robbing the place arrest him for it.

Police are free to detain people if they suspect them of committing a crime. You can asked the police officer "am I being detained and what crime am I being detained for". If they do not tell you, you are free to leave. They did not arrest him on any charges of a crime committed on the private property. They charged him with obstruction of operations which they later dropped because they knew the charge would not stick. That crime had nothing to do with him being on the property or watering plants. It had everything to do with the cops felt disrespected.

 

One of us is misunderstanding how it works, and it ain't me. If the police have reasonable suspicion of a crime, they have every right to identify you. I said nothing about an ID. A "suspicious person" complaint is reasonable suspicion that a crime is, or may be about to be, being committed. In this case, the crime that the "suspicious person" might have been committing was trespass. Specifically, Criminal Trespass 3rd, which is what gave rise to the officer's ability to approach the suspect and question him, in the first place. They did not arrest him based on suspicion. It is illegal to arrest someone based on suspicion. One must have probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. If someone in the bank called the police and reported someone in a mask coming into the bank of the main floor of your office tower; then the police would have enough reasonable suspicion to stop said person, identify them, and determine what their business is, in the bank. They would have more options for the crime, from robbery, to burglary. Those are the basic tenants of police work.

No I did not say they could arrest him base on suspicion. I said they could investigate and detain him based on reasonable suspicion. In that detention, they can demand that he identify himself. If he fails to do so, he can be arrested for failing to identify himself, as I stated. Failing to identify oneself, in Alabama, is a crime, when the officers have reasonable suspicion, as I already stated. He cannot be arrested for simply not answering questions. He can be arrested for not identifying himself, as I already said. They did arrest him for the crime they had probably cause that he committed, which was not trespassing. The officers in the video cited obstruction of governmental operations. AL Code § 13A-10-2 (2020) They could also have cited refusing to identify himself.

Yes. The police are free to detain people they suspect of committing a crime. You can ask if you are being detained. If they say no, you are free to leave. If they say you are being detained, you are not free to leave. They are not required to give you the answer as to what you are being detained for. He was on private property when he was arrested. That's what 10-15 means. He illegally refused to identify himself, while on private property. He was originally detained based on the suspicion that he was committing the crime of trespass 3rd. The suspicion was reasonable, based on the call that the police got reporting him as a suspicious person that did not live at that home. The fact that he was not committing the crime does not mean that the suspicion was not reasonable, based on the totality of the circumstances.

Whether or not the officers "felt disrespected" is entirely irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that he committed a crime when he failed to identify himself. He mistakenly believed that he did not have to. He was wrong. Again, the charges being dropped does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the charges "would not stick." He did, in fact, commit the crimes cited. The prosecutor decided to drop the charges. Valid charges are dropped every day in every courthouse across this country for a myriad of reasons. The prosecutor could've just looked at the case and said, "nope. his day was ruined and that's enough." Your incapability to understand that doesn't make it false.

Knight[/QUOTE]

 

Any burglar could say that. Less than a minute in and the man was already getting snotty and resisting the officer carrying out his job to protect our property. A simple here you go see I live across the street and helping a neighbor and it would have ended. Were it me I would have gladly showed him my ID and thank him for answering the call and doing his job to protect our property.

 

So you can be arrested in Alabama just for not getting a state ID?

 

You people are experts at making **** up...lol

 

No. You can be arrested in Alabama for failing to provide your real, and full, name. You are not required, by law, to have an ID. You are required, by law, to give your full name, when you're being detained. The officers can also demand you give you address and state your purposed for being in that location.

 

Sorry but my mind went there

There is watering flowers and then there is “watering the flowers” now anyone can be caught short but…….