Connect with us

Politics

Read Now: Why the Justice Department made a move in the police killing of Breonna Taylor – 101 Latest News

Published

10 months ago

on

Why the Justice Department made a move in the police killing of Breonna Taylor

#Justice #Department #move #police #killing #Breonna #Taylor

More than two years after Breonna Taylor’s death, the police officers involved in seeking the warrant that led to her killing have finally been charged — by the federal Justice Department.

In an unexpected announcement on Thursday, the department charged four current and former Louisville Metro Police Department officers with federal crimes in connection with the police shooting of Breonna Taylor.

Police officers shot and killed the 26-year-old Black woman in her home on March 13, 2020, in Louisville, Kentucky, while executing a search warrant connected to a drug investigation. Taylor was asleep when the officers barged into her apartment that night with a “no-knock warrant” and fired 32 shots.

The police killing incited national protests that have continued for more than two years. Kentucky prosecutors did not charge any of the police officers with Taylor’s death. One officer was indicted for wanton endangerment for firing into a neighboring apartment, but in March a jury found him not guilty. The city settled a $12 million lawsuit with Taylor’s family in 2020, and in 2021, the Justice Department launched an investigation into allegations of systemic misconduct on the part of the Louisville Police Department.

Now the Justice Department alleges that members of the Louisville Metro Police Department Place-Based Investigations Unit, which police say was formed to reduce violence in a high-crime area but has faced scrutiny for being an alleged “rogue police unit,” falsified the affidavit that was used to obtain the search warrant of Taylor’s home. To get the search warrant, the officers made false statements, omitted facts, and relied on stale information, the department argues. Then, prosecutors say, after Taylor was killed, they conspired to cover up their actions.

At a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that this act violated federal civil rights laws. “Breonna Taylor should be alive today,” Garland said.

The first indictment charges former detective Joshua Jaynes and current sergeant Kyle Meany with federal civil rights and obstruction offenses for preparing and approving a false search warrant affidavit.

The second indictment charges former detective Brett Hankison with civil rights offenses for firing his service weapon into Taylor’s home through a covered window and covered glass door. The department is also charging current detective Kelly Goodlett with conspiring with Jaynes to falsify the search warrant and cover up their actions afterward.

Social justice activists called the announcement a victory, though many acknowledged the criminal charges would never be able to undo the harm done. Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, wrote, “They said it couldn’t and wouldn’t be done but they didn’t know I could and would stand for 874 days,” noting the number of days that have passed since Taylor’s death.

Since police are rarely prosecuted for shooting civilians while on the job, the Justice Department’s decision to charge the officers is uncommon. Here’s what the decision could mean for the fight for justice for Breonna Taylor, and for the four current and former officers.

What the charges mean

On March 13, Louisville police had a warrant to enter and search Taylor’s home because they believed a suspect in their drug investigation was receiving packages at Taylor’s home. However, the man they were searching for, Jamarcus Glover — a man Taylor dated years ago but did not maintain a friendship with — did not reside in Taylor’s apartment and was detained elsewhere.

The Justice Department alleges that the search warrant was invalid. Jaynes and Meany willfully deprived Taylor of her constitutional rights when they drafted and approved a false affidavit to obtain a search warrant for Taylor’s home, according to the department.

The indictment alleges that both men knew the affidavit “contained false and misleading statements, omitted material facts, relied on stale information and was not supported by probable cause,” according to the DOJ’s statement. It also alleges that because Jaynes and Meany knew the search warrant would be carried out by armed officers, they also knew that it could create a deadly situation for the officers and anyone inside Taylor’s home.

On March 12, 2020, officers from the Place-Based Investigations Unit sought five search warrants that they claimed were related to suspected drug trafficking in the West End area of Louisville. Four of the search warrants were for that neighborhood, but the fifth was for Taylor’s home, located 10 miles away from the West End, according to the Justice Department.

The indictment goes on to allege that the affidavit falsely claimed the officers had verified their target in the alleged drug trafficking operation, Glover, had received a package at Taylor’s apartment.

The first indictment also charges Jaynes with conspiracy to cover up the false warrant affidavit after Taylor’s death and making false statements to investigators. Jaynes allegedly worked with Goodlett to do so, whom the Justice Department has also charged with conspiracy. The department alleges that the two officers met in a garage in May 2020 and agreed to tell investigators a false story.

And when the warrant was served, the situation turned deadly.

The officers who conducted the search were unaware of the false and misleading statements used to obtain the warrant, according to the Justice Department. When they arrived at Taylor’s apartment that night, they broke down the door. Taylor was at home with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who owned a handgun. Believing an intruder was entering the apartment, he fired one shot and struck the first officer at the door. Two officers — Jonathan Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove — then immediately fired a total of 22 shots into the apartments, one of which struck Taylor in the chest and killed her.

The Justice Department has brought charges against just one of the officers — Hankison — who fired that night. The two civil rights charges against Hankison contained in the second indictment allege that he used “unconstitutionally excessive force” when he fired his weapon into Taylor’s apartment.

He fired 10 more shots after Taylor had already been shot. His bullets traveled through Taylor’s apartment and through the wall to her neighbor’s apartment. Hankison’s actions “involved an attempt to kill,” the department alleges.

Why all of the officers previously walked free

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, the special prosecutor who led the state’s investigation of the police shooting, only recommended charges of wanton endangerment to the grand jury for Hankison, one of three officers who fired shots into Taylor’s apartment.

As I wrote in 2020, “that single charge was the only one jurors were allowed to consider” and it was about endangering the neighbors, not Taylor or her boyfriend. Jurors weren’t asked to consider whether any of the officers committed murder or manslaughter in regard to Taylor. While the grand jury indicted Hankison on the wanton endangerment charges in September 2020, a jury found him not guilty of all three counts.

The Justice Department’s new charges against Hankison alleged excessive use of force with respect to Taylor and her boyfriend, which was not included in Kentucky’s case. The Justice Department has already been leading a civil investigation into the Louisville Metro Government and the Louisville Metro Police Department, which Garland announced in April 2021, to examine allegations of systemic police misconduct.

Taylor’s name became, and remains, a rallying cry for racial justice efforts across the world. The killing also renewed focus on the #SayHerName movement, which seeks to draw attention to the many Black women who are killed at the hands of police but are typically ignored in the fight for justice.

The $12 million settlement between Louisville and Taylor’s family included a set of policing reforms, such as sending social workers to assist police and incentivizing police officers to live in the communities that they patrol. In the wake of the killing, the Louisville Metro Council also unanimously voted to pass “Breonna’s Law,” which bans the use of no-knock warrants.

The civil rights charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison if the violation involves an attempt to kill or results in death. The obstruction counts carry a maximum sentence of 20 years, and the conspiracy counts and false-statements charge carry a maximum sentence of five years.


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Read Now: Jeffries Hasn’t Spoken to McCarthy Since Agreement – 101 Latest News

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 29, 2023

By

Quote of the Day

#Jeffries #Hasnt #Spoken #McCarthy #Agreement

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Fox News the debt ceiling deal contained no wins for Democrats, claiming that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told him that himself.

Said McCarthy: “One thing Hakeem told me: there’s nothing in the bill for them. There’s not one thing in the bill for Democrats.”

But Jeffries told CBS News it’s not true: “I have no idea what he’s talking about, particularly because I have not been able to review the actual legislative text. I talked to him yesterday afternoon… I haven’t spoken to him since that point and time.”

LoadingSave to Favorites


Continue Reading

Politics

Read Now: Conservatives continue to rage against debt limit deal, while eyes turn to Progressive Caucus – 101 Latest News

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 29, 2023

By

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 18: Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Building on November 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. DC. Democratic leaders in the House are waiting on the final Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for President Joe Biden's Build Back Better before scheduling a vote on the $1.75 trillion social benefits and climate legislation. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

#Conservatives #continue #rage #debt #limit #deal #eyes #turn #Progressive #Caucus

Let’s start with the Democrats, who had been pretty quiet as the early details leaked. The Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal told CNN earlier today that she was waiting on the legislative text to make a final voting decision, “That’s always, you know, a problem, if you can’t see the exact legislative text. And we’re all trying to wade through spin right now.” That said, she mocked Republicans for not getting what they claimed to want—a reduction in the deficit. Hard to do that when they increased Pentagon spending and removed IRS funding designed to collect unpaid tax revenues.

x

With the legislative text out, House Democratic leaders sounded optimistic late in the day about Progressive caucus support. 

x

That is the standard reaction after expecting the worst—relief, mixed with surprise, like new food-stamp access for the homeless and veterans—a huge progressive win. (I can’t believe that wasn’t already a thing.)

Aside from question marks about the Progressive Caucus membership, the bulk of the party remained supportive. Insofar as I’m seeing any reaction, it’s simply parroting the White House’s talking points. If anything, any celebrations are muted, lest they add fuel to conservative efforts to scuttle the deal.

But as the Semafor headline noted, “The Democrats (mostly) won the debt ceiling fight.” Or as progressive journalist Josh Marshall put it, Republicans walked into a Deny’s at gunpoint, demanded money, and walked out with nothing more than breakfast. It’s okay to both be disappointed at some of the concessions, while also celebrate Biden’s major negotiating victory in a government in which Republicans, with the House, unfortunately do have a say. 

Many conservatives remain furious.

Rep. Chip Roy continues his tirade against the deal, tweeting at one point that “it’s worse than I thought every minute that goes by.” 

x

And Roy understands the leverage Republicans are losing in the regular budget appropriations process, tweeting that “If you want the border to be secure – no member of the @HouseGOP can vote for this #debtceiling ‘deal’ because it will remove all leverage we have to force action on the border.” 

Of further conservative ire, Roy tweeted that the deal threw out the $131 billion House Republicans cut in their debt limit show bill, designed to get spending back to pre-COVID levels, and replaced them with “what appears to be effectively flat spending […] at the bloated 2023 Omnibus spending level, jammed through in a rush in December…”

In response, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee tweeted, “With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?”

Of particular interest is former Trump budget director Russ Vought, who is currently rallying opposition to the deal:

While we wait on text, let’s take the numbers as the GOP is claiming w/o knowing the gimmicks (Dems are claiming higher spending). Deal provides $1.59 trillion in FY24 v. $1.602 in FY23. You gave Biden $4 trillion for $12 billion in cuts largely coming from unspent COVID$?

Or take “It cuts nondefense spending to 2022!” No it doesn’t. FY22 nondefense spending was $689 billion. GOP numbers claim FY24 will be $704 billion. You don’t get a dog biscuit for that.  

Reviewing the text now. Confirms that there only 2 years of actual caps and then 4 years of meaningless language that binds only Congress & easily waived.

 The “administrative PAYGO” is totally worthless. It’s not just that it can be gamed with plans for fake offsets in exchange for real spending. Its that the OMB Director has complete waiver authority in Section 265 if “necessary for program delivery”

So I’m not a budget expert, but what that tells me is that whatever budgetary restrictions exist in the deal, they can easily be waived. 

Furthermore, responding to a seemingly sensible conservative noting that McCarthy’s leverage was limited given that Democrats control the White House and the Senate, Vought furiously responded, “What exactly did [McCarthy] deliver on? You can’t build on it because he gave every leverage point away for the remainder of Biden’s tenure. The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.”

Savor that.

The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.

I actually don’t know if that’s true, to be sure. But I desperately hope it is. 


Continue Reading

Politics

Read Now: Biden CBP Denies Government is Providing Financial Support to Illegal Immigrants, Gets Immediately Slapped With Fact Checks – 101 Latest News

Published

7 hours ago

on

May 29, 2023

By

Biden CBP Denies Government is Providing Financial Support to Illegal Immigrants, Gets Immediately Slapped With Fact Checks

#Biden #CBP #Denies #Government #Providing #Financial #Support #Illegal #Immigrants #Immediately #Slapped #Fact #Checks

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied that the federal government provides help or financial assistance to illegal immigrants, prompting a torrent of fact-checkers to come along and state that they are lying.

“NOTICE: Claims that migrants will be provided free travel and transportation to their destination are false,” the CBP’s official Twitter feed posted Thursday. “The U.S. government does not provide help or financial support for noncitizens.”

It is the second time they have made such a claim, posting a duplicate tweet roughly one month ago.

It is unclear what “claims” they are referencing or if the group was simply trying to get out in front of a situation in which illegal aliens coming in are expecting travel and transportation to new locations to be provided.

Regardless, several sources were quick to jump all over the CBP’s claims calling them alternately misleading, false, or a flat-out lie.

RELATED: Invasion Begins: Video Purportedly Shows Illegal Aliens Opening DHS Packets With Smartphones, Some Court Dates Not Until 2035

CBP Gets a Brutal Fact Check or Two

The Heritage Foundation think tank came along and, not pleased with the length of time Twitter’s Community Notes was taking to correct the CBP statement, provided their own fact check.

“Since @CommunityNotes hasn’t shown up yet, we’ll say it. This is a lie,” they wrote. “The U.S. Government pays NGO’s to do the work for them.”

The Heritage Foundation provided a link to their research showing the federal government uses charities “to hide the true cost of the border crisis.”

The report calls the funding of NGO’s through taxpayer funds Biden’s “dirty little secret” and describes them as “charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits but who spend most of their money and time helping illegal immigrants settle in the United States.”

That’s right. Your money helping to resettle illegal aliens into America so they can take even more of your money through social services or by taking jobs from Americans or legal immigrants.

RELATED: Texas Blocks Border Crossing Where Soldier Was Seen Opening Gate for Illegal Immigrants

More Call Out CBP’s Lies

Twitter’s Community Notes did catch up to the situation and slapped the CBP’s tweet with a little fact-check of their own.

“This statement by CBP is misleading as the federal government funds non-government organizations such as Catholic charities to assist in the travel, food, and shelter for illegal aliens and is coordinated by FEMA,” the label reads.

They provide a link to FEMA’s website promoting over $332 million in grants to provide “food, shelter, and services to individuals and families … who entered through the Southwestern Border and who are now awaiting their immigration court proceedings.”

Oh, good. So they’re only providing help and financial assistance until their court dates. Well, at least that shouldn’t take long, right?

Except, as The Political Insider reported earlier this month, documentation provided to illegal immigrants at the border had some being provided with court dates set as late as 2032 and 2035 in Chicago and Florida.

Potentially twelve years of financial assistance and the CBP wants you to believe that nah, we don’t provide financial support for illegal immigrants.

Fox News national correspondent Bill Melugin also called the CBP out over their statement.

“This is blatantly false,” he tweeted.

“The U.S. government indirectly provides financial support for migrants by giving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to NGOs via FEMA’s Emergency Food & Shelter Program,” Melugin continued. “The NGOs then assist migrants w/ transportation around U.S & other services.”

Melugin just weeks ago posted a video showing a female National Guard soldier opening a gate and allowing a large crowd of illegal immigrants across the border onto private property in Texas.

The soldier did so, Melugin reported, because she “was following CBP directives to open the gate because the migrants had already crossed onto US soil and needed to be processed.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Continue Reading

Latest