During the Minneapolis protests following George Floyd’s murder in May 2020, Jaleel Stallings, a Black Army veteran, fired at police after he mistook them for attackers. Officers beat him, and he was charged with attempted murder. He was eventually acquitted at trial on self-defense grounds, and awarded a $1.5 million settlement for the police misconduct.
Last week, his past was thrust back into the public eye in a political attack by former President Donald Trump’s campaign. In two posts on X, formerly Twitter, the campaign attempted to tie Vice President Kamala Harris to Stallings’ case. In 2020, Harris had encouraged people to support a fund that helped bail Stallings out of jail while he awaited trial.
It is not the first time Stallings’ case has been cited for political purposes. Trump’s reelection campaign in 2020 tweeted that Stallings was a “would-be cop killer” who was freed “thanks in part to Biden campaign officials who donated to pay bail fees.”
I caught up with Stallings to find out how he felt about his case being thrown around in the political landscape once more, after his years-long campaign to clear his name. Following his acquittal, one of the officers involved in Stallings’ arrest pleaded guilty to assaulting him, and Stallings started the Good Apple Initiative to foster dialogue on police reform. We told his story in partnership with The Washington Post last month.
The conversation below has been edited for brevity and clarity. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment this week about its posts and Stallings comments below.
Jamiles Lartey: The last time you and I met in person, in Minneapolis this past October, there was a sense of finality about your story. All the court cases were over, and we spoke about looking back on something that was done, in order to look forward. Were you surprised to — all of a sudden — have your case thrust back into the spotlight?
Jaleel Stallings: I wouldn’t say surprised as much as I would say disappointed. I kind of had that feeling like, oh God, here we go again.
It was disappointing for a few reasons. The bigger-picture reason is that I condemn lying and smear tactics to drum up political support and funding in our politics.
For me, a great example of two men who were running [for president] and displayed grace and class is John McCain versus Barack Obama. On multiple occasions, you could see John McCain answering questions from a crowd, and there would be someone making personal attacks on Obama.
John McCain didn’t stand for it. It would be: “I respect him. He’s a great man. We just have different views.” To me, that’s befitting of someone who is looking to lead the free world and be the leader of this country.
Then my personal reasons for being upset with it is that the campaign is smearing my name and destroying my image — the innocence that I’ve worked so hard to gain back, talking to different media outlets and trying to clear my name, and essentially undermining the work that I’ve been doing for the last four years.
JL: When the Trump campaign tweeted about you in the summer of 2020, a lot was still unknown about your case. You told me about how that hurt, but I can imagine on some level you could also make sense of why they would describe you and describe the incident the way they did. Does this time feel different?
JS: Yeah, it’s frustrating — the willingness to smear my name, especially after the facts have come out, especially after there’s been so many stories presenting things exactly how they happened. At this point, I’m left with two options to believe: Either you posted this, and you didn’t fact-check and you just threw it up, which to me, means you and your campaign don’t cross your t’s and dot your i’s.
Or you did know exactly what happened. And if you knew exactly what the story is and the truth behind it, and still choose to smear to drum up political support and funding, then that’s an even bigger issue. You’re willing to throw an innocent man under the bus for personal gain. You’re not displaying integrity, you’re not displaying class, you’re not displaying any of the qualities that would be befitting of the leader of this country.
I don’t believe that represents the majority of the citizens of this country, though. I believe the majority of our citizens want to rise above this kind of hate and divisiveness, which is why I created the Good Apple Initiative in the first place.
JL: How has this affected your family and friends? Have people reached out?
JS: I received probably 20 different texts and 15 different phone calls from people letting me know that they saw it, and asking me, “Why would they post this?” Because at this point, the people who have contact with me have followed the story from beginning to end, so they know the facts.
JL: Did you look at the comments on the post?
JS: Yeah, and that puts a bigger spotlight on it. Why was it that they posted it Monday, and then you see those types of comments — dozens of comments from people telling you got the story wrong — and then you double down the next day and post it again? It’s kind of confusing to me, but leads me to believe that they knew what they were doing.
Not only was I proven innocent, but I got the civil judgment, and then an officer admitted his guilt and was charged with a felony. So after all these facts and knowing the exact story, you still are willing to skew things for your personal gain, and to me that is unacceptable.
JL: How do you see a tweet like this impacting the work you’re trying to do with the Good Apple Initiative?
JS: I’ve worked for the last four years trying to establish and build trust between me and law enforcement, so I can be viewed as someone who is making an effort to be collaborative, to bring us together and do better for our community. His post paints me in the exact opposite light.
There may be officers out there that are not familiar with my story. And those tweets, it’d be the first thing they see. They may or may not do research on me, but now, they’ve formed some type of opinion, and have a preconceived notion before I even approach. So I’m met with skepticism or written off undeservingly.
JL: The Trump campaign is trying to tie Kamala Harris to the Minnesota bail fund that paid part of your bail. What is your sense of what would have happened to you without the bail fund?
JS: There’s no telling, but I imagine I would have been in jail quite a bit longer. Without what the Minnesota Freedom Fund did for me, there’s no way for me to continue to go to work. So now I lose my job, which, in turn, means I can’t pay my mortgage. I lose my home.
My truck that they’re holding for the entire year as evidence — I can’t make payments on that. So it would have basically led to a downward spiral of everything in my life. After losing my job, housing and transportation, I may have felt like I didn’t have the means or the time to fight this case, so I’d just want to plead out so I could be done with it and then start my life anew. But the Minnesota Freedom Fund doing what they did allowed me to get my bearings and really buckle down and prepare for what was to come.
And it’s not just me, there’s countless other people that the Minnesota Freedom Fund helped as well. And we have to take into account the fact that in the court of law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
JL: One of the tweets from the Trump campaign starts with, “Meet Jaleel Stallings.” If someone were really going to have an opportunity to meet you, what would they experience?
JS: In my opinion, they get a kind person who’s goofy and outgoing. I feel like I’m easy to talk to, I’m understanding, I listen. I’m just a regular guy. Instead of that picture that says, meet Jaleel Stallings: a psychopath who wants to murder people. That’s two completely different people.
Learn about how The Marshall Project is covering the 2024 election’s criminal justice and immigration issues across the U.S. and in our local news teams’ cities.
