Does the Jackson Police Dept have a “Dont ask, Don’t tell” policy?

While much debate and media attention has been given to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that bars gays from serving openly, another law enforcement agency may soon find itself also defending what some allege is a DADT policy.

Is this an accurate definition of the Jackson, Tennessee Police Department’s DADT policy?

“We don’t ask for the full story and we don’t want you or any witness to tell us what happened,” or

“Don’t ask us about your case because we don’t tell anyone but the media what we plan to do.”

Today, according to a media tip, the Jackson Police Department is slated to issue a press release, along with video, concerning a November 26  altercation outside the Kohl’s Department Store on Vann Drive.  A Humboldt woman, Akasha Adonis, suffered a broken jaw and had three teeth ripped out of socket following a verbal confrontation that turned physical as she and her mother awaited the store’s early morning opening.  Another woman standing nearby was also injured by the same man who attacked Akasha.

You can read the account of the incident, along with statements from Akasha and her mother here.

In phone conversations between Akasha and the JPD, she was told that the JPD would not pursue the case further because the surveillance video from the scene appears to show Akasha shoving first the large man who had joined in the verbal attack against her, her mother, and the unnamed customer.

Certainly in the course of investigating a possible criminal act, evidence is reviewed and witnesses are interviewed.  The final report takes those things into account.  In this case, the JPD believed in some way that she provoked the attack by shoving this very large man away from she and her mother.  Obviously, that is not how Akasha, her mother, or the other injured woman see it.

Since she was told that the review of the surveillance video was a key piece of evidence for their decision to not pursue the case, she wanted to see it for herself.  Eventually she was told that she could come review the tapes this week; however, calls to make arrangements to do so by both she and her attorney were not returned.  Now, instead of allowing her the opportunity to privately view this evidence, she will be seeing it for the first time on the news (assuming WBBJ’s facts were accurate.)  While in and of itself, failing to respond in a timely manner to a victim’s request for information doesn’t prove anything.   Given the nature of the case and Akasha’s concern that her treatment by the JPD has something to do with being transgender, it seems to me that they would want to take extra steps to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Additionally, there is a concern that the JPD is making conclusions based on incomplete information.  The female customer who was also injured during the altercation has allegedly made numerous requests to the JPD to give her written statement, to no avail.  This woman, who is of no relation to Akasha or her mother, not only witnessed exactly what happened, but she too was injured.  Why would they not want her statement?

We don’t ask, and you don’t tell?

This is the question Akasha and her supporters are asking: How can the JPD come to any sort of official conclusion (much less issue a press release) with incomplete information based on a video that no one has been allowed to see?  Furthermore, they wonder if the footage released will tell the whole story.  How much of the entire video will be shared?

Even if the video shows that Akasha shoved this man out of her face first, in what context is it appropriate for a large male to punch a female in the face, breaking her jaw and dislocating three of her teeth?  To onlookers at the moment Akasha was attacked, she appeared completely female. There is not any allegation that Akasha’s attack had anything to do with her gender identity. (Even if she didn’t look like a woman, is it legal to respond with extreme force? I’m clearly not a legal expert here, so I concede that my questions may not hold water legally.)

Her attorney called the JPD yesterday in response to the rumors that a release and video would be made public today.  Apparently, the person the attorney spoke to at the JPD was unaware that anything will be shared today.  If that is the case, then why tip off WBBJ, who then called several locals involved to get a reaction?

I have not seen the tape.  I was not there.  I haven’t interviewed witnesses.  I am only an outside observer trying to make sense out of what happened.  Admittedly, I am looking at this situation with a jaundiced eye; it is hard for me to not see it possible that the response, or rather lack of response, has something to do with Akasha’s gender identity.   It is difficult for me to believe that had I been the one beaten outside of Kohl’s, that I would have received the same treatment from the JPD.  My experience in dealing with the JPD has been very positive; and they were very responsive to me and my family following our home invasion.  It is not my intent to impugn the reputation of the JPD.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Who doesn’t want equal protection of the laws? What law enforcement agency wants to give the impression that equal protection applies to some, but not others?  Is it possible to be overly sensitive to a particular issue and to misjudge someone’s actions?  Sure.  Is it also possible to be dismissive, consciously or unconsciously, to someone because of our own personal biases?  Yes.  I see it happening every day while reading tweets from both my conservative and liberal friends on Twitter.  It is unfortunately human nature, and for me, because I do want to understand other’s points of view, I have to consciously guard against making a knee-jerk reaction. (I have not mastered this.)

Regardless of your personal views on whether the government should repeal the military’s DADT policy, it is my hope that if a DADT policy exists within the JPD, regardless of our race, religion, sex, socioeconomics, or sexual orientation, we will unanimously vote for its repeal.

Update: Many thanks to Erin O’Mallows (@polerin) who corrected me about my use of the word “sexuality” in reference to what Erin explained should have properly been “gender identity.”  I made those changes and I thank her for providing that point of clarification.

@jenciTN please keep in mind that it was likely not about sexuality, and more about gender identity. Please don't conflate the two.—
Erin O'Mallows (@polerin) December 10, 2010