Breonna Taylor, the young black woman shot to death in her apartment by Louisville police officers in March of this year, was not the victim of racist police officers or systemic discrimination by the criminal justice system.

Sadly, the mischaracterization of the circumstances of her death, either due to simple ignorance, or more perniciously, as a result of the appropriation of Miss Taylor’s story in service of a certain political narrative, squanders an opportunity for genuine improvement in our society.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Courtesy of the New York Times reporting of Rukmini Callimachi, here is a basic summary of the case:

1. The police obtained a no-knock warrant to raid Taylor’s apartment based on allegations that a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover had received packages at Taylor’s home (Glover and Taylor had a previous relationship). The police sought the no-knock warrant out of a desire to preserve evidence.

2. Before the warrant was served, the police were directed to knock and announce rather than execute the warrant without knocking. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on March 13, the police pounded on Taylor’s door. Taylor was inside with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. He lawfully possessed a handgun.

3. At this point the facts are in dispute. Police claim that they knocked and announced they were police. A witness corroborates this account, but other witnesses dispute it, claiming they never heard the cops identify themselves. Walker claims that he was startled by the pounding, asked who was there, never heard a response, and was worried that it might be Glover. So he grabbed his gun.

4. The police then broke down the door to enter the apartment. Walker and Taylor saw them in the darkness, and Walker fired a single shot, striking one officer in the leg, severing his femoral artery and gravely injuring him. Under the available evidence (Walker hadn’t heard the police identify themselves and unknown individuals were violently entering his home), Walker had a legal right to shoot at the intruders, even if they were police. 

5. At the same time, the instant the officers saw that Walker was pointing his gun at them—and certainly when he pulled the trigger—they had their own legal right to shoot back. They were performing their official duties, and an armed man was quite plainly placing them in immediate, mortal danger.

6. They did not, however, have the right to use indiscriminate force. Two officers fired directly at Walker. They hit Taylor, who was standing nearby. But given the proximity of Taylor to Walker, it would be virtually impossible to prove that the officers’ startled response—aimed directly at the perceived threat—was reckless enough to be criminal.

LACK OF PROPER DISCRIMINATION

After looking at the available evidence, the fact is Miss Taylor was the victim of not enough discrimination…on the part police officers, judges, and legislators who were complicit in creating the conflicts of interest that led to her tragic death at the age of 26.

In its original sense, discrimination meant discernment-using one’s reason and judgment to distinguish between competing priorities to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Only in the last century or so has it taken on the meaning we commonly associate with it today: the prejudicial treatment of others based on categories of race, class, gender, etc. It was the failure of judgment and reason-not blind or callous prejudice-that ultimately led to Miss Taylor’s death.

I understand the desire to maintain the element of surprise. In general, law enforcement does not want to give the subject the opportunity to either escape, destroy incriminating evidence, or prepare an armed defense or barricade. However, it is incumbent upon the police, for their own safety as much as for the safety of the public, to plan each arrest or search warrant according to the best information available for that specific situation.

Simply conducting business as usual, just because that is the way ‘we have always done it’, is not good enough. Hard questions need to be asked each time law enforcement is contemplating using its awesome powers. Did anyone involved seriously consider the following questions:

1. Was the evidence possibly present at Taylor’s apartment significant enough to justify the risks inherent in executing a “no-knock” warrant at 12:40 a.m.?
2. Was the potential recovery of evidence in that manner and in this context reasonable in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

In the case of the tragic events that unfolded last March in Louisville, I recognize it is easy to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ the entire episode. It is clear now, to me at least, that the answers to the two questions posed above are an emphatic “NO”. However, it does no good to be right after the fact. In this case, the answers to those questions should have been “NO” prior to the operation. Why weren’t they?

BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS

David French, at The Dispatch, argues that Miss Taylor’s death was the tragic result of the confused and contradictory jurisprudence surrounding the legitimate interests of the government in enforcing the law and the competing right of the individual to be secure in his home. As a law enforcement professional for nearly twenty years, I believe French is correct. Something bad was bound to happen. It was only a matter of time.

The police and the courts got it wrong here, and it cost Miss Taylor her life. That is the simple fact. They were wrong not because they were discriminating against a particular group of people. They were wrong because they failed to be discriminating enough about their responsibilities to the public. The question now is, “How do we make sure they do better in the future?”

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by someone outside what the convention had produced. He famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin’s response intimates an inescapable truth of our system. We need to do the hard work of maintaining it. In the case of Breonna Taylor, we need to demand our elected officials look critically at the inherent tensions created by recent jurisprudence in the areas of search and seizure. We need to elect representatives who will reform the law, where necessary, so that we clarify the proper constitutional balance between individual liberty and the rule of law.

What we do not need is simplistic sloganeering and irresponsible rhetoric. Yes, being responsible citizens, just like being a responsible adult, is hard..much harder than making a sign and yelling through a bullhorn. If we really want to honor the memory of Breonna Taylor, we need to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and commit to the hard work of building a better republic. We owe it to her and to ourselves.

Oh My! as sportscaster Dick Enberg liked to say. So much going on, but here are just a few quick thoughts on the passing scene…

SUPREME TEMPER TANTRUM

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last weekend has added another piece of kindling to an already robust political bonfire. That this is so is the result of the Court’s unfortunate transformation over the last fifty years into a kind of supra-legislature. Both in the minds of most of the public, and sadly, in the minds of many of those who should know better, including some of the Justices themselves, the Supreme Court has come to be understood as a black-robed oligarchy, tasked with enlightening the less enlightened as to the laws they should be living under.

If one accepts this flawed conceptual framework, then the nomination process for Supreme Court justices necessarily morphs into the circus we have been witnessing since at least the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. If the Court is to act as a quasi-legislature, as a vehicle to enact political ends that have been thus far frustrated at the ballot box, then it is no surprise that persons invested in that view become so agitated whenever a vacancy arises. They fear their legislative policy goals will be thwarted, unjustly, by the appointment of justices who don’t share their political preferences.

Unfortunately, Justice Ginsburg, as Kevin D. Williamson notes, didn’t understand her job. Nor do the multitudes wailing and screaming about how unfair it is that the vacancy on the Court may be filled before “the people” have a chance to decide the issue in November. This is, as Joe Biden might say in another context, pure malarkey. Sadly, we have strayed so far from our Constitutional moorings that supposedly serious people are lending credence to the notion that the only proper thing to do in this situation is let the voters decide this coming November. Or, even more preposterously, that because it was Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish, that we allow the issue to be decided after the election (see here).

Sorry, but this is very simple. In our constitutional system, the President is empowered to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court. The Senate is empowered to either accept the nomination, reject the nomination, or simply ignore it. End of story.

I find it quite hilarious that the same people most ardently attached to the undemocratic and unconstitutional idea of rule by judicial fiat are the same people claiming this current situation is unfair and also undemocratic. It is not. The last time the people were given a choice, they chose this President and this Senate. In fact, many observers believe Donald Trump’s pledge to appoint justices who would uphold the Constitution’s original intent was a key factor in his victory. Now, some will protest that Donald Trump lost the popular vote and therefore he was illegitimately elected. But they betray their underlying anti-constitutionalism with this complaint because they are ignoring the fact that the gross total number of votes for President is…take a deep breath…irrelevant in our system. Their proposed solutions to the current situation..abolish the Electoral college, abolish the filibuster, pack the Court …are even more revealing of their profound antipathy toward the founding vision for this republic. At least these kind of controversies allow us to see through the veil of their publicly professed allegiance to the constitution, revealing more clearly the anti-constitutional project they are pursuing.

THE PRESIDENT WHO CRIED WOLF

Someone in the Department of Education (DOE), no doubt with a keen sense of humor, decided to take Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber at his word. The DOE launched an investigation of Princeton University for civil rights violations based on statements recently made by…Eisgruber. In the midst of this country’s “Great Awokening”, Eisgruber, eager to proclaim the complicity of his own institution in the rampant institutional racism decried by groups such as Black Lives Matter and their supporters, said:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.  Race-based inequities in America’s health care, policing, education, and employment systems affect profoundly the lives of our staff, students, and faculty of color. Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself.  For example, Princeton inherits from earlier generations at least nine departments and programs organized around European languages and culture, but only a single, relatively small program in African studies.Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself. 

Christopher L. Eisgruber (Excerpted from a letter to the Princeton Community, 9/2/ 2020) (Italics added)

Of course, upon reading the entirety of the letter, it is clear Eisgruber was simply intending to make sure the country was keenly aware of how “on board” Princeton is with the current cultural diktats. He, much like store owners in Minneapolis and Portland, was anxious to post in bold letters on the store front: Black Lives Matter. No doubt he hoped this prophylactic measure would ensure he and his Institution would be spared the ill-informed, know-nothing rage of the mob. Ironically, in his eagerness to step into a leading role in the current Kabuki theater of racial discourse, he instead stepped into his own woke pile of dung.

AUTUMN BLISS

I will end with a note of gratitude. As Chesterton noted:

When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude.

G. K. Chesterton

I am grateful for the Fall season and the heavenly weather it brings, particularly to the Northeast region of our beautiful country. How can there be a more glorious gift of the Almighty than the invigorating, intoxicating pleasure of the perfect Autumn day? The bright, radiant sun, warming without being wearisome; the calm, crisp air, inviting deep inhalations of its freshness and vitality; the rich, bold tapestry of colors, evoking a Mother Nature fashioned tie-dyed tee shirt . It is an absolute wonder to be alive on days such as these, and everyone needs to make sure he experiences as many of them as possible.