Charlotte police hit a woman 17 times during an arrest. We have concerns | Opinion

A disturbing video on social media Tuesday showed a Charlotte police officer repeatedly striking a woman who was pinned to the ground outside of a Bojangles in southwest Charlotte.

Two people — both Bojangles employees — were approached by CMPD officers because they were smoking marijuana in public. The woman, according to CMPD, “punched an officer in the face,” and both individuals reportedly refused arrest.

In the video, the woman is lying on the ground, restrained by multiple CMPD officers. Another officer repeatedly hits the woman, as witnesses plead with the officers to stop. CMPD claimed the woman was “‘laying on her hands and not allowing officers to arrest her” and the strikes were intended to get the woman to “stop resisting.”

“After several repeated verbal commands, an officer struck the female subject seven times with knee strikes and 10 closed fist strikes to the peroneal nerve in the thigh to try to gain compliance,” CMPD said in a statement.

At least seven officers were present when the woman was finally arrested and put inside a CMPD vehicle, according to WCNC Charlotte. The incident was enough to make national headlines in The New York Times.

The video invites a number of questions. First, was the use of force in this situation truly warranted? If the woman was already on the ground and restrained by officers, was it necessary to hit her 17 times? What actions, if any, were taken to de-escalate the situation?

CMPD Chief Johnny Jennings acknowledged in a statement that the video was “not easy to watch,” but said the bodycam footage “tells more of the story than what is circulating on social media.” CMPD has begun the legal process to release the bodycam footage, but that could take a few months.

While the bodycam footage may indeed provide additional clarity, it’s troubling to see such aggressive tactics used to subdue an unarmed woman, even if she was resisting arrest. Incidents like these can further damage the already frayed trust between CMPD and the communities it serves — especially the Black community. That makes answers to the community’s questions all the more important.

At a press conference Wednesday, Jennings said that the individuals were smoking marijuana at a bus stop before officers approached them. If they were merely smoking marijuana, though, why did CMPD see a need to intervene? The Mecklenburg County district attorney is no longer prosecuting non-violent simple possession charges. Jennings should explain whether CMPD has a different threshold for smoking marijuana, and why.

“From the very beginning, the police interacting with people over the smell of marijuana, we don’t think that was a big enough issue for the police to interact with,” Robert Dawkins, leader of SAFE Coalition NC, said. “The way to not have issues with the police is to limit the amount of interactions that are handled by police.”

SAFE is a police accountability effort that has advised the city on issues like its use of force policy and reforms to the Citizens Review Board.

Dawkins said that, from SAFE’s perspective, the police should have used de-escalating tactics and kept restraining the woman until she calmed down, instead of using strikes to get her to comply.

“They wouldn’t have lost the political and the neighborhood capital that they had to give up just to bring in this one small arrest,” Dawkins said. “Doing the strikes hurt them more than what would have happened if they had waited.”

An internal investigation is underway, and the officer involved in the situation has been reassigned. According to CMPD policy, officers may use “less-lethal force” when “reasonably necessary” to make an arrest. North Carolina law also permits the use of force in arrest. But CMPD’s policy also says that other factors must be taken into account, such as the number of officers present and whether the person poses an “imminent threat to the public.”

“If I look at this entire thing, are there things that we can do better? Absolutely. Are there things that I wish would have never happened? Certainly,” Jennings said at the press conference.

Going forward, Jennings said the department would consider changes to how officers address people smoking marijuana and whether it is necessary to deliver body strikes if “we have four officers subduing an individual.”

Good. We’re glad that Jennings is acknowledging that his department may not have handled the situation in the best way, and that he appears to be pursuing why. We urge him to follow through on that willingness to examine and improve, and be equally candid in his final analysis of what happened.