Rankin County residents demand accountability after sheriff comments about settlement
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents used public comment at the Rankin County Board of Supervisors meeting to criticize remarks by a county official about a recent settlement and to call for accountability and resignations.
A string of Rankin County residents used the board’s public comment period to criticize remarks attributed to a county official about a recent civil settlement and to demand greater accountability from local leaders.
Residents said the official’s comments — in which they interpreted him as boasting about a settlement — reopened wounds for families who say they were harmed by law-enforcement conduct. “They poured salt on the wounds,” one speaker said, describing news reports and recordings about the settlement and expressing outrage that involved deputies remained in position. Leon Seals, who identified himself by name, urged accountability across the county, saying, “If all citizens get held accountable for anything, then people in position should be held accountable, too.”
Avi Harvey, identifying himself with Aviress Baptist Church, urged the official to resign, saying the county needs new leadership and a “serious, sincere apology.” Harvey said the phrase “we are back,” used in audio he described as circulating in media reports, was “reprehensible” and persuaded him that trust between the sheriff’s office and the community remained strained. Michael Pounders also urged resignation and raised separate concerns about land ownership and foreign LLCs in Rankin County.
Speakers tied their remarks to a widely reported settlement and to media-aired audio. Several asked whether the comments referred to named individuals who had received settlement payments; an organizer asked the official to clarify whom he meant when he said “we are back.” No member of the board responded during the public-comment period.
The public-comment segment lasted more than an hour and featured multiple callers and in-person speakers. Board members moved on to the published agenda after the time allotted for comments expired.
The board took no immediate action during the meeting on the complaints raised in public comment; residents asked the board and the sheriff’s office to respond outside the meeting. The concerns raised will likely resurface in future public hearings or as formal complaints if residents pursue them.
