A noted civil rights attorney encouraged Memphis residents to vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election to potentially deconstruct the policies that have allowed the National Guard to occupy the city.
Adanté Pointer, a national civil rights attorney, said although President Donald Trump called for the presence of federal troops around the country, Gov. Bill Lee is responsible for the occupation of the guard in Memphis.
“What you see happening in Memphis is that the guard is activated under the governor’s control,” Pointer said.
Pointer’s comments come in response to recent shootings by the National Guard in Memphis. He encouraged Memphians to vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election as a way to dismantle systems that allowed these events to happen.
“When you do vote, whether you’re voting for your president or governor, you’re voting for these type of policies,” Pointer said. “Your vote directly affects the environment, you, your kids, and your grandkids are going to grow up under.
“Is it going to be a police state, or will we have true freedom, justice and liberty for all? That’s what you’re deciding when you either cast your vote [or] when you stay home and let somebody else make the decision for you.
Pointer has practiced law for over 21 years and takes cases around the country, specializing in police use-of force cases and shootings. He represented Oscar Grant’s family, following his fatal shooting by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officer in 2009.
The Flyer spoke with Pointer about the presence of federal troops in Memphis, the proposed lasting impact of the National Guard, and more.
Memphis Flyer: How would you describe the unique situation Memphis is in with the occupation of the Memphis Safe Task Force?
Pointer: What we’re seeing right now is pretty unprecedented in modern times. You have the National Guard not responding to a natural disaster, like Katrina, or things that most people are used to seeing a National Guard activated for. Instead, you’re seeing the National Guard activated for what has been purported to be for crime suppression — which is really thinly veiled immigration enforcement under the current presidential administration.
You see citizens being confronted, chased, pursued, surprised by a police force that’s a mix of federal agents, National Guard, and local police officers, whom all have different training, and all have a different foundation as to how they’re supposed to go about doing police duties in a civilian setting.
Could you talk about the differences in a police brutality case and one where a National Guard officer shoots a civilian?
For a Memphis police officer, if they’re accused, or if they’re being evaluated, as to whether or not the use of force that they use — choking somebody, punching somebody, shooting someone — was within policy of the police department? Therefore, was it also, within the law, was it lawful? We would be looking to Tennessee state law, and then you could also look to federal law that would dictate whether or not it was excessive force. So there would be two bodies of law that you could potentially hold somebody responsible under. A citizen could look at Tennessee law to see, ‘Hey, was that a reasonable use of force?’ [To] hold a police officer accountable, they have to choose [whether] to hold an officer accountable under Tennessee state law, or federal law under our typical 4th Amendment, constitutional right.
If you have a federal officer, if you have someone who’s federalized, like the National Guard, there’s a much narrower body of law that you can use, which is under Bivons, which is a [1983] federal law, but it’s a much narrower doorway for someone to be able to hold the officer accountable, because federal officers have many more immunities than they enjoy under state law.
We have a lot of different citizen groups who record different interactions with the MSTF. Do you have any advice for citizens as they surveil?
We see and we hear many, many reports of ICE agents in this kind of gumbo pot of police officers, who are being very aggressive and combative, and confronting people who are exercising their 1st Amendment right, which is to observe, report, and record police activity.
We know that in Memphis, officers are coming up to people and they’re either blocking them or they’re ordering them to step 25 feet away or further, which is more than they have to.
We would just tell people to be very careful, and to maintain a safe distance, because at the end of the day, you do have a constitutional right to film and record the police. They’re trying to intimidate and retaliate against people for doing it.
For those people who are on the front lines, defending, protecting, and exercising their 1st Amendment, constitutional right, to film and observe the police they’re doing, they’re doing a public service. And so as opposed to them being confronted, retaliated upon, and accosted by police, they really should be being protected by the police.
We don’t see that in Memphis. Instead, we see them essentially suffering for what they’re doing. I would say that we want them to be safe. We want them to get home, back to their families, but at the same time, we appreciate their service. So, if police are directing them to step back, we would tell them not to challenge the police on that, [because] in that moment they could wind up being, unfortunately, one of the next victims of police brutality. And instead, if something like that were to happen. They’d be better off trying to challenge them in a court of law where they could have some rules of engagement.
Essentially, they have a better opportunity to hold them accountable and not hopefully face the type of retaliation or retribution that we’ve been hearing about happening there in Memphis.
Do you foresee the National Guard leaving an impact on what our police department has the authority to do?
It will be up to judges to decide, but unless the state legislature, or the police department changes their policies, their training, and ultimately the laws regarding how the use-of-force scenario is evaluated, they should return back to those original policies that the police department follows.
There is a danger that police departments, [the] state legislature, and lawmakers can bend towards allowing or permitting policies that are much more harmful, dangerous, and potentially deadly, to be widely used and accepted in Memphis. It’s a tragedy, and in my opinion, a miscarriage of justice.
This interview was edited for clarity and space.
