Justice for breonna taylor: PART 2
November 26, 2021
The overall execution of no-knock raids in Louisville adds another layer to this case. According to the Louisville Courier Journal (the Courier), no-knock warrants are more frequently used against Black and Brown Americans. The Courier also found that from 2018 to 2020, at least 27 no-knock-warrants were approved for the Louisville Metro Police Department. 22 (82%) of these warrants were for Black Americans, and 86% were for addresses in a section of Louisville that is predominantly Black. In 17 of the no-knock warrants the Courier analyzed, LMPD officers cited a history of violence or the possibility of weapons as the reason for the warrant request—arguing the element of surprise was crucial so police didn’t walk into an ambush. In at least 15 searches, officers reported finding firearms or drugs, according to inventory logs attached to the warrants. Beyond this, SWAT teams are heavily utilized in raids. In a study of SWAT team deployment records from 2011 to 2012, the ACLU found that 79% of cases where SWAT teams deployed were for a search of someone’s home, mostly for low-level drug investigations. SWAT teams were also more likely to be deployed on Black and Latinos than on whites. Notably, searches in which police knock and announce are just as dangerous as no-knock entries.
The question here is why are no-knock warrants more frequently used for Black and Brown Americans in Louisville? The demographical information of Louisville doesn’t offer an explanation here. White people represent 69.92% of the population; Black people, 23.6%; and Asian, 2.67%. As such, it can’t be the case that no-knock warrants are used at higher rates on Black people because they make-up a greater percentage of the population. However, we also shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it’s systemic racism. This could be the case, but more information is needed to explain this. It could also be the case that violent crime among Black people or predominantly Black neighbourhoods in Louisville is higher than other demographics or predominantly white or Asian neighbourhoods. If this is true, then I would argue that the legacy of systemic racism played a role in high violent crime rates through marginalization of Black people. In any case, more information is needed here.
SWAT deployments are supposed to be reserved for “high-risk” situations, although high-risk is undefined. As a result, police use raids and SWAT teams in any situation where they perceive there’s any level of risk, which can have repercussions for both police and civilians. Analogous to the perception of risk with Breonna Taylor, take for example the case of Henry Magee, a white man, in 2013. Magee shot and killed a police officer during a pre-dawn, no-knock drug raid on his home. Magee argued that he thought there was an intruder in his home, and that he was protecting his pregnant girlfriend. A similar case happened in 2015 when a Black man named Marvin Guy shot and killed a police officer during a no-knock raid. Some of these officers were climbing through his window to execute the raid. But for Taylor, I wholeheartedly don’t consider her situation to have been high risk.
Indeed, in some raids they find drugs. But do the ends justify the means? I ask this because raids in these circumstances suggest a lack of value for human life, owed to the fact that things are more likely to go wrong even if the raid is well-planned. This lack of value for human life isn’t just a reference to the lives of the suspects or victims; it also speaks of the police officers as they have also died or been injured in some instances. The difference, however, is that police are well prepared. They have a planned attack and the benefit of wearing military gear, while civilians are unprepared and surprised. Being that most raids are executed on Black (and Latino) homes, it can be said that there is a lack of value placed on Black lives. On the other hand, it can be said that police are acting on well-founded evidence and that unfortunately, acts of violent crime and illegal gun ownership are unevenly distributed across racial groups and income bases (note that these high violent crime rates are attributed to impoverished conditions leading to greater police presence). In any case, Black people are constantly bearing the consequences of raids. The fact that the practice continues implies contentment with the outcomes and an unwillingness to find better approaches. I want to emphasize that this doesn’t mean they’re racist; although it could mean this, my assumption is that as long as police officers walk away from these situations unscathed, and drugs, criminals, and weapons are taken off of the street, that they accept the consequences. Unfortunately, these consequences are accepted at the expense of Black lives, not because they are Black (this may not be universally true). In any case, considering that the militarization of the police is a product of the war on drugs, it’s essential to note that the war on drugs has failed, and the militarization of the police and these raids simply put lives at risk.
Thus far, city officials have passed Breonna’s Law—a ban on no-knock-raids in Louisville which was deemed to be an important step in protecting civilians against increasingly an militarized police using tactics adopted during a failed war on drugs. But solutions in terms of banning no-knock raids aren’t as effective as it seems. Why? In reality there’s not a qualitative difference between no-knock raids and knock and announce raids, and it wasn’t a no-knock raid that led to Breonna’s killing. Further consider that in all cases raids are executed in the night by SWAT teams or police in military gear to maintain the element of surprise.
Sure, the officers were fired and charged, but months after Breonna was killed, a verdict was rendered for the police officers in the case. None of the police officers were charged with killing Breonna. Instead, Hankison was indicted with wanton endangerment—being conscious disregarding of a substantial or serious risk—of the neighbours whose apartments were hit when he shot without a clear line of sight. Hankison was the only officer indicted, and his trial is scheduled for 2022. If found guilty he’ll face up to five years in prison. So why were they fired to begin with? In many circumstances it’s not because the precincts believe that the officers were wrong. In actuality, the act of firing is merely a response to current or prospective public pressure—a kneejerk reaction that aims to quiet the cries of the masses. But the end result is the same; this being that these police officers walk away, free. And in this case, free, because they followed the procedures. Yes, Kenneth Walker did what anyone would have done in that situation, and he had a right to; but the police, being fired at first, had a legal right to shoot back. In all cases when police are fired at first, they return gunfire. They also had a warrant which allowed them not to knock, or here, announce and raid. So, although they killed Breonna, they legally can’t be held responsible for her death, as seen in the case. But this isn’t how it should be. Now, being that the other officers weren’t indicted we now hear of Mattingly writing a book about the situation, and Cosgrove battling to get his job back.
This is precisely why I’ve joined in the calls for justice for Breonna Taylor. To me, the details of the case indicate that Breonna was collateral damage considering that Glover was already in custody; yet, they decided to go to Breonna’s residence as well. I don’t, however, call for the justice that has been served through the eyes of legal system. What I call for is pure justice. It’s my belief that society continues to call for justice through our current legal system, but are disheartened when the verdict isn’t what they deem to be fair. They fail to recognize what justice is under the American system, or in general, most liberal democracies. Justice is often perceived as synonymous with morality, or a perception of how things should be—that is, justice as fairness. In this regard, justice as fairness, or justice as how things should be, is a subjective perception of what should happen, as fairness is subjective. What I mean here is that there is a constant tension between law as it is, and law as it ought to be. In this case, an innocent person was killed; and in this case, the perception is that the police officers should be convicted of murder. But is this justice? Under the grounds of the current legal system, it’s not. Justice is not fairness or a subjective perception of what should happen. In a utopian society this may be the case. But under the scope of the current legal system, justice isn’t a utopian ideal; in reality, it’s having the ability to be heard equally, not guaranteeing a specific judgement, and construing the facts of the case through legal principles and precedent. What this calls for is an assessment of credibility, as most evidence is circumstantial and requires an assessment. And what reigns in these cases is the presumption of innocence, despite what is already known to the general public. The administration of this form of justice—justice as it is—isn’t perfect. Police procedures and legal proceedings of a trial once followed through may reach a verdict that isn’t ideal, meaning one that doesn’t reflect the perceptions of society. But, justice, in the terms of the legal system, was executed if the facts of the case were heard and credibility was assessed; its simply that the ‘wrong’, that is, an unfair, outcome may be the result.
Some may call this an imperfect procedure, and I agree. Others may say the system is broken, but it’s not. Though flawed, the system is doing what it was made to do, and this isn’t to say that framers and legislators sat around trying to craft a system that penalized minorities. But I am saying that the system largely didn’t have minorities in mind, and also protects police by allowing them in certain cases to shape and rationalize their story as they see fit to avoid penalization. It protects them by allowing certain agencies to purge their files of their write-ups and complaints after a period of time. And considering they aren’t convicted in most scenarios where they have killed someone unjustifiably because of the system, the law, and their contracts and unions, the system protects them by increasing their discretionary powers for use of force.
So, when we become outraged in these cases where there is no conviction, understand that the system has followed the appropriate procedures and is doing what it was intended to do. As such, justice won’t always be what we want. It won’t always be, and most often isn’t, what we believe is fair. But under the legal system of a liberal democracy, this is what justice is. The problem here is clear. This form of justice allows for bad procedures and policies to fester and be perpetuated. To achieve our perception of justice, that is, pure justice where police officers are held accountable for their actions, it’s necessary to understand that the current system won’t consistently achieve these results (and quite possibly no system will). Accordingly, 98.3% of deaths by police officers from 2013-2020 have not resulted in charges, with even less being convicted. My interpretation of this data is that the likelihood of police being convicted in these cases, regardless of race, is low overall. Thus, the lack of convictions of police officers isn’t exclusively a Black issue, it seems to be a system-wide issue. Being so, change is necessary, primarily on the state and municipal levels.
Fairness is subjective. Being so, justice as fairness will never happen due to variances in subjectivity. Pure justice is my desire—a system that is consistent in how laws are applied and interpreted across geographical boundaries. A system that upholds accountability for police officers to a valid threshold, doesn’t allow for procedural short-cuts, and prioritizes the sanctity of life. Pragmatically, through the current legal system this is idealistic, indicating that strategic reforms and changes must take place.
In saying this, this is why I don’t join in the calls to arrest the police officers that killed Breonna Taylor, but I call for (pure) justice for Breonna, because I don’t see these as mutually constitutive or analogous demands. Walker was within his legal rights to do what he did, but so were the police. Being so, I can’t say that the action of justice is definitively the arrest and indictment of these police officers. Instead of definitively, maybe justice is arresting these police officers. It may be permanently firing these police officers so that they can’t just work in any other police institution. I will say that I believe it’s certainly about ending laws and policies stemming from the war on drugs. It may be the case that the practice of raids in situations with thin evidence, where there are low offences, or low risk will need to be abandoned overall considering that the war on drugs has failed and violent crime has significantly decreased since the 1980s. This isn’t saying that raids overall should be abandoned as there may instances where a raid is required. The issue is that they have largely been used the in low-offence cases. Justice is likely to be a mixture of these things. I don’t have the answers. But I know that an adjusted legal system and reimagined form of justice is required because from where I stand, something needs to change. True justice still needs to be served, and Breonna should still be here.
Justice for Breonna Taylor