Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents demand release of body-cam footage and accountability after Daquan Johnson’s death
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents used public comment to demand release of unedited body-cam footage, independent review and criminal charges in the death of Daquan (Dequan) Johnson; city officials said the investigation is with the Michigan State Police and that formal policy reviews are planned.
A wave of public commenters flooded the Grand Rapids City Commission on March 17 with demands for transparency and accountability after the police killing of Daquan (Dequan) Johnson.
“Release the unedited body cam footage, name, fire, and convict the officer,” one organizer said, summarizing a demand repeated by multiple speakers. Residents argued the public has seen only edited video and internal reviews and urged independent oversight, release of all body- and dash-cam footage, and prosecutorial action from Kent County.
Chloe Mulder, who identified herself as a long-time Grand Rapids resident, said the family and community deserve answers: “The lack of urgency, the lack of transparency and accountability shown by the city is truly unfortunate… Call for the death report to be given to the mother.”
Speakers connected the Johnson case to a broader pattern they described as disproportionate use of force by GRPD; multiple public commenters cited past officer-involved deaths and asked for structural reforms including independent civilian review, audit of policies on K-9 and pursuit use, and sanctuary-like protections for immigrants.
Several speakers criticized the release of edited footage and said internal reviews were inadequate. A number of callers urged the Kent County prosecutor’s office to file charges; one speaker provided a script and the prosecutor’s number for residents to call.
City officials responded in part: the city manager said the investigation is currently with the Michigan State Police and noted a planned review of departmental policies later in the summer. The clerk and the city manager reiterated that some investigatory materials fall under the state police and prosecutor’s processes and that the city must avoid tainting criminal proceedings.
Commissioners acknowledged the grief and frustration in the room and said they expected additional policy reviews and administrative follow-ups. The commission did not take a formal vote on any of the public demands during the meeting; staff and the Michigan State Police retain investigatory authority at this stage.
