vox--2020-09-23--The financial case for defunding the police

Part of The Great Rebuild Issue of The Highlight , our home for ambitious stories that explain our world .
The costs of bad policing are exacted in lives , in lost time , in terror , and in money — and present an interconnected moral and economic case for defunding the police .
Take the story of Daniel Prude , a Chicago man brought to his brother ’ s home in Rochester , New York , for help with mental illness .
After Prude left his brother ’ s house early one morning , his brother , worried , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naked in the middle of the street , seemingly in a state of great confusion .
As snow came down that March day , they did not clothe him , nor did they orient him ; instead , they handcuffed him and hooded him and put their bodies on him .
The 41-year-old died of asphyxiation .
Prude ’ s story — which came to light months after it occurred , thanks to the family ’ s petitions for the release of body camera footage — continues .
But others have reached their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2006 in Chicago while on her way home to California after exhibiting signs of a mental crisis ; officers released her in an unfamiliar neighborhood where she was raped and later fell from a seventh-floor window , causing serious brain injuries and paralysis .
She ultimately received $ 22.5 million from the city to settle a police misconduct case on the same day it agreed to pay $ 10.25 million to Alton Logan , who was sent to prison for a crime he didn ’ t commit due to testimony extracted by officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the most recent data available from the US Census Bureau , in 2017 , state and local governments spent $ 114 billion on police forces and $ 78.8 billion on prisons .
Policing can take up a large chunk of city budgets ; for instance , Chicago planned to spend $ 2 billion , 15 percent of its budget , on its police force in 2020 .
The aftereffects of bad policing only add to the financial strain on governments , even after negligent and criminal officers leave the force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago has spent more than half a billion dollars settling police misconduct cases , plus more than $ 200 million in lawyers ’ bills since 2004 defending police actions .
And Chicago isn ’ t alone ; police misconduct bills over the past five years in New York City have topped $ 300 million ; in the 2018–2019 fiscal year , Los Angeles spent $ 91.5 million .
No city can afford these sorts of costs in the best of times — and these are not the best of times .
Before Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities whose finances were in disarray began to use bonds to pay police misconduct settlements .
But these bonds put cities at financial risk : They find their credit ratings affected by them , and their ability to pay the bonds affects their ability to borrow in the future .
It has put taxpayers — the people most easily called upon to make up financial shortfalls — in jeopardy .
Taxpayers also bear the weight of police overtime , a cost exacerbated by our extraordinary times .
Cities across the United States have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so ; for instance , New York spent $ 115 million in overtime in just two weeks earlier this year .
But police across the country have also responded to those protesters with public displays of brutality , putting taxpayers in the position of paying to be beaten , tear-gassed , and , in some cases , arbitrarily detained — all raising the specter of future payouts to victims .
Cities don ’ t have this money .
The coronavirus has left them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the pandemic , the mayor of Phoenix , Arizona , which will fall $ 26 million short this year , told Vox that the Covid-19 recession “ feels like falling off a cliff.
” And other cities are faring far worse .
New Orleans has forecast between $ 130 million and $ 170 million in losses .
Boston is planning on $ 65 million in revenue losses for the next year .
States are in just as much danger ; Florida can expect a shortfall of $ 16 billion to $ 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; California has a $ 54 billion deficit .
Cities and states are being forced to take action through cuts .
“ We ’ re now shifting into this new paradigm of austerity , wherein a number of things will be de facto defunded , ” said Seft Hunter , director of Black-led organizing for the grassroots social justice organization Community Change .
“ We need to then have a conversation around where cities and states should deploy resources.
” Part of that conversation is whether cities should continue to fund policing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is wise to continue to spend millions of dollars on lawsuits ; whether it is a good idea to budget for overtime that might result in police acting in ways that cement resentment ; and whether it is a smart use of resources to force police to do the work of social workers and paramedics , without the same qualifications .
A number of cities are already beginning to defund police departments as a way of addressing budget shortfalls and the ringing alarm of protesters who , for months , have demanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent , biased , and ineffective .
Some of these cities have reinvested that money in programs that activists argue will save money — and lives — in the long run .
But there is also a case to be made that defunding the police could bolster the economy .
“ We do have a shortage of a range of jobs that are necessary and a vision of reinvestment in Black communities and providing what communities need : First responders , child care — teachers and providers , ” said Dorian Warren , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Community Change .
Defunding the police would , in theory , lead to the creation of new jobs in these areas .
And it could lead to spending on training people to fill those jobs , as well as on the infrastructure and support staff needed to make sure new social workers or mediators or paramedics are successful in their work .
Some of these new jobs would come at the expense of old ones in policing , but could also provide new opportunities and diversify the types of well-paying jobs available .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue , any strain on budgets in the short term could pay great dividends later .
In many ways , said activist and Pod Save the People co-host Brittany Packnett Cunningham , defunding provides both social and economic benefits : “ The long-term gains are really around the expanding of the political imagination that puts people first , and that recognizes that economic decisions have human costs.
” The public asks police to solve problems for them — through patrols , they are supposed to stop crimes from happening , and through investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes they do not prevent .
But data and anecdotal evidence indicate police forces are failing at both .
Instead , bias in patrolling has led minority communities to view police with suspicion — if not outright contempt — and an inability to solve crimes means most violent criminals are never caught When it comes to patrolling , studies have found a stark racial bias — that Black and Latinx Americans are stopped more often than white Americans .
And prominent work by researchers such as Harvard University economist Roland Fryer Jr. has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at those stops more often than white people do ; Fryer published a paper in 2019 that found Black and Latinx Americans are 50 percent more likely to suffer force from police than white Americans are .
More recent studies have found that figure to be an undercount , and the likelihood of biased violence to be far higher .
The results of this research are reflected in narratives from the policed .
“ I ’ ve always seen police mishandling me and my people , ” one Baltimore man told the Portals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from communities of color .
“ I ’ ve had evidence planted on me .
...
I ’ ve had money and evidence removed over the years .
I ’ ve had police get on the stand and flat-out lie.
” This research and these narratives serve as important reminders of the problem with executing patrols as they are currently conducted : Police can not be seen as protectors because they too often brutalize those they are meant to protect .
This leads to poor outcomes , reducing community trust and cooperation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be spent on proactive crime reduction and apprehending those who have committed crimes .
The Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks “ clearance rates ” — essentially , solved crimes .
The most recent data the FBI has is for 2018 , and that year , law enforcement either arrested or killed murder suspects 62.3 percent of the time .
Officers closed rape cases 33.4 percent of the time , robbery cases 30.4 percent of the time , and aggravated assaults 52.5 percent of the time .
And these figures likely overestimate officers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not reported and thus are not included in the FBI ’ s calculations .
Police can not be seen as protectors because they too often brutalize those they are meant to protect .
This leads to poor outcomes .
These clearance rates have remained fairly stable for several decades despite increases in police budgets , suggesting that giving departments more money does not necessarily result in better outcomes .
And in an economy that has been devastated by Covid-19 lies an opportunity for smarter — rather than more — spending on police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have for centuries called for radical changes to policing and the criminal justice system .
Post-Reconstruction , W.E.B DuBois made what has become a familiar argument against policing , writing that police forces were an enforcement arm of a larger white supremacist system meant to ensure “ no power was left in Negro hands.
” He gave examples , writing of police officers harassing Black communities while affording them none of the policing benefits white communities enjoyed .
Demands for better policing have been closely linked to the struggle for civil rights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police killings , people of color disproportionately bear the economic , mental , and physical weights of unfair and callous police action .
As a result , some activists have called for the abolition of police — an idea recently explained in detail by Josie Duffy Rice for Vanity Fair .
This is exactly what it sounds like : a world without police .
Instead of law enforcement , state and local governments would fund new groups mandated to solve mental health crises and domestic disputes , to enforce speed limits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate crimes and unravel mysteries .
And for many , abolishing police would go hand in hand with the abolition of prisons and a reimagining of what constitutes justice .
Immediately abolishing the police would radically change the lives of many of America ’ s people of color and free up hundreds of billions of dollars , giving cities and states freedom to allocate resources and plug budget shortfalls in new ways .
But abolition is not an idea that has been accepted by politicians — or by most Americans .
What has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many police abolitionists see as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal — is defunding the police , or reducing police departments ’ budgets , and reallocating money toward other programs meant to encourage crime prevention , community cohesion , and social welfare .
As Packnett Cunningham put it , “ the seeds are starting to bloom.
” The push to defund has been spurred by a series of prominent police killings this year , like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , but also by violent — and sometimes deadly — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Prude .
Money taken from police departments would be used in part to build up cities ’ capacity for crisis care , but also to hire public servants better suited to many of the tasks that consume police officers ’ time , from dealing with traffic problems to assisting with substance dependency issues .
While giving departments more money hasn ’ t increased the clearance rate , by redistributing officer duties , more crimes could perhaps be solved .
It would then be possible to reduce negative interactions with police as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A number of cities have begun some limited experiments in defunding the police .
The city council of Austin , Texas , recently voted to slash its department ’ s funding by $ 150 million — a third of the department ’ s budget — and proposed moving some of the money to programs aimed at expanding health care , access to food , and preventing violence .
The cuts would be made possible by not filling vacant positions , moving some nonpolicing duties to other city agencies , and canceling plans for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s council approved cuts in similar areas and plans to redistribute $ 1 billion to youth programs , education , internet connection programs , and social services .
In a reminder that making the cuts is only the first step , it has been noted that the feasibility of actually enacting and maintaining these approved cuts remains an open question .
Los Angeles ; San Francisco ; Baltimore ; Washington , DC ; Hartford , Connecticut ; Portland , Oregon ; Salt Lake City ; Seattle ; and Philadelphia are among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut police budgets .
And the Minneapolis City Council has promised to work to “ dismantle ” its police department and rebuild it from the ground up , with some of its funding going to other programs .
These cities are just getting started , but there are a few prominent examples of how dismantling and defunding can work .
Camden , New Jersey , dramatically reformed its police department in 2013 , and despite some criticism , has seen some positive outcomes .
And Eugene , Oregon , has moved much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called CAHOOTS , which , at a cost of $ 2.1 million per year , serves residents having problems with mental health , homelessness , and substances .
The program ’ s coordinator claims that $ 2.1 million investment saves his community more than $ 15 million per year .
Given their financial constraints and the fact that no federal aid for state and local governments appears to be forthcoming , some cities now defunding police would have made cuts to their police programs anyway .
However , without the pressure from national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have reinvested that money — and might have failed to reap the future dividends of these reinvestments .
Defunding police departments successfully would create a virtuous cycle , in which communities reap social and political benefits that translate into economic benefits for cities , states , and the communities themselves .
An example might be found in one of the ways police departments do bring in money .
A number of cities use police departments to generate revenue through ticketing , fines , court fees , and asset seizures ; a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sances , and Hye Young You found that 80 percent of US cities benefit from police this way and that 6 percent of cities — mostly smaller ones — rely on funds generated by their police departments for more than 10 percent of their revenue .
A prime example is the small city of Ferguson , Missouri .
Following the uprising in 2014 , the US Department of Justice found the city ’ s police department was under pressure to generate revenue through tickets and court fees , and that it responded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petty , ways to ticket and arrest citizens .
That initiative was enacted largely on the city ’ s minority population , depleting the resources of an already disadvantaged population and further souring the community ’ s perception of officers .
Defunding the police could reduce the amount of money cities cull from these activities — and full abolition certainly would .
But communities of color would then have more funds to invest in themselves and to inject into their local economies .
Cities would be able to reap the benefits of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales taxes made on purchases or investments in homes .
A common critique of defunding the police is that officers would lose their livelihoods .
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot made a related argument in the New York Times : “ You are eliminating one of the few tools that the city has to create middle-class incomes for black and brown folks.
” Activists have argued , however , that it is morally wrong to allow many people of color to suffer so that some may be allowed entry into the middle class .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — especially for people who want to do right by their community , ” Packnett Cunningham said .
Options would include new jobs like those Warren imagined : new positions in mental health and educational services , in health care and at city hall .
If those jobs had pay structures similar to police work , for which the median annual wage is $ 65,400 , they would also be a path to the middle class .
And as Hunter pointed out , with overtime , take-home pay for civil servants who respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sometimes , you see a line firefighter making more than the mayor , ” he said .
Repurposing officers could also lead to the direct economic empowerment of others , Warren said .
For instance , police could be put to work addressing wage theft — a crime mostly committed against low-wage workers ( who are disproportionately people of color ) that causes several billion dollars of lost income per year .
“ We know that employers flout the law all the time , and there ’ s no penalty , ” Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redirect police officers , hire them in the city labor department to enforce employers who are cheating Black workers out of wages.
” In so doing , Warren said , cities can begin to think “ differently about who gets enforced and who doesn ’ t. ” And it could have a political benefit as well .
Research by Vesla Weaver and Amy Lerman , as well as others , has found that civic engagement — including voting — declines not just following arrests but after police contact .
The studies also suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declines .
These declines , Owens and Walker found , could be countered through positive engagement with community organizations .
This research suggests eliminating — or even reducing — those negative encounters would increase civic participation and strengthen the public trust in government .
It could ensure “ that democracy is actually responsive to the aspirations and calls of the people , ” Hunter said .
The benefits of defunding the police are limited only by imagination , the activists Vox spoke with said .
Funds taken from the police could serve as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and controlled at the local level — stimulus badly needed , given the federal government ’ s failure to craft a new aid package .
Using funds this way would allow cities to give “ resources to people who need them now , [ people ] who can not put food on the table , who can ’ t access basic services , whose water is getting shut off , whose electricity is getting shut off because they can ’ t make their payments because they ’ ve lost their jobs , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common forms of wealth in the US is a family ’ s home , but Black families have struggled with homeownership , particularly following the Great Recession .
And many of the 40.6 percent of Black families who do own homes live in devalued neighborhoods ; according to Andre M. Perry , a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution , the average Black home is devalued by $ 48,000 .
Higher home values brought on by community development would be good for cities as well , opening the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are myriad ways employment might be affected as well .
Economists such as Jhacova Williams and Valerie Wilson at the Economic Policy Institute have detailed why Black Americans have higher rates of underemployment than white Americans .
One reason is that Black people do not have the capital — such as from a home — that would allow for extended periods of unemployment ; instead , they are forced to accept subpar opportunities out of an immediate need to pay bills .
If cutting police budgets leads to fewer police encounters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentences , “ there is a greater possibility for living wages , ” Packnett Cunningham said .
“ The amount to which we see people pay unlivable wages , and the excuse is ‘ You have a record ’ — that excuse disappears.
” Looking at defunding the police from this perspective , the question becomes less about what cities and communities lose when police are taken out of the equation , and more , Packnett Cunningham said , “ How much more can we gain in human brilliance and creativity and innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor at Vox , and reports on civil rights protests , the Trump administration , and the 2020 presidential election .
This story is part of The Great Rebuild , a project made possible thanks to support from Omidyar Network , a social impact venture that works to reimagine critical systems and the ideas that govern them , and to build more inclusive and equitable societies .
All Great Rebuild coverage is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Part of The Great Rebuild Issue of The Highlight, our home for ambitious stories that explain our world.
The costs of bad policing are exacted in lives, in lost time, in terror, and in money — and present an interconnected moral and economic case for defunding the police.
Take the story of Daniel Prude, a Chicago man brought to his brother’s home in Rochester, New York, for help with mental illness. After Prude left his brother’s house early one morning, his brother, worried, called 911. The police found Prude naked in the middle of the street, seemingly in a state of great confusion. As snow came down that March day, they did not clothe him, nor did they orient him; instead, they handcuffed him and hooded him and put their bodies on him. The 41-year-old died of asphyxiation.
Prude’s story — which came to light months after it occurred, thanks to the family’s petitions for the release of body camera footage — continues. But others have reached their conclusion.
Christina Eilman was arrested in 2006 in Chicago while on her way home to California after exhibiting signs of a mental crisis; officers released her in an unfamiliar neighborhood where she was raped and later fell from a seventh-floor window, causing serious brain injuries and paralysis. She ultimately received $22.5 million from the city to settle a police misconduct case on the same day it agreed to pay $10.25 million to Alton Logan, who was sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit due to testimony extracted by officers known for torturing and framing Black men.
According to the most recent data available from the US Census Bureau, in 2017, state and local governments spent $114 billion on police forces and $78.8 billion on prisons. Policing can take up a large chunk of city budgets; for instance, Chicago planned to spend $2 billion, 15 percent of its budget, on its police force in 2020.
The aftereffects of bad policing only add to the financial strain on governments, even after negligent and criminal officers leave the force. Over the past 10 years, Chicago has spent more than half a billion dollars settling police misconduct cases, plus more than $200 million in lawyers’ bills since 2004 defending police actions. And Chicago isn’t alone; police misconduct bills over the past five years in New York City have topped $300 million; in the 2018–2019 fiscal year, Los Angeles spent $91.5 million.
No city can afford these sorts of costs in the best of times — and these are not the best of times. Before Covid-19 shuttered parts of the economy, some cities whose finances were in disarray began to use bonds to pay police misconduct settlements. But these bonds put cities at financial risk: They find their credit ratings affected by them, and their ability to pay the bonds affects their ability to borrow in the future. It has put taxpayers — the people most easily called upon to make up financial shortfalls — in jeopardy.
Taxpayers also bear the weight of police overtime, a cost exacerbated by our extraordinary times. Cities across the United States have responded to anti-racist uprisings by deploying extra police, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so; for instance, New York spent $115 million in overtime in just two weeks earlier this year. But police across the country have also responded to those protesters with public displays of brutality, putting taxpayers in the position of paying to be beaten, tear-gassed, and, in some cases, arbitrarily detained — all raising the specter of future payouts to victims.
Cities don’t have this money. The coronavirus has left them in dire financial shape; early on in the pandemic, the mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, which will fall $26 million short this year, told Vox that the Covid-19 recession “feels like falling off a cliff.”
And other cities are faring far worse. New Orleans has forecast between $130 million and $170 million in losses. Boston is planning on $65 million in revenue losses for the next year. States are in just as much danger; Florida can expect a shortfall of $16 billion to $23 billion in the next three fiscal years; California has a $54 billion deficit. Cities and states are being forced to take action through cuts.
“We’re now shifting into this new paradigm of austerity, wherein a number of things will be de facto defunded,” said Seft Hunter, director of Black-led organizing for the grassroots social justice organization Community Change. “We need to then have a conversation around where cities and states should deploy resources.”
Part of that conversation is whether cities should continue to fund policing as usual. City leaders must answer whether it is wise to continue to spend millions of dollars on lawsuits; whether it is a good idea to budget for overtime that might result in police acting in ways that cement resentment; and whether it is a smart use of resources to force police to do the work of social workers and paramedics, without the same qualifications.
A number of cities are already beginning to defund police departments as a way of addressing budget shortfalls and the ringing alarm of protesters who, for months, have demanded disinvestment of resources in policing that is violent, biased, and ineffective. Some of these cities have reinvested that money in programs that activists argue will save money — and lives — in the long run.
But there is also a case to be made that defunding the police could bolster the economy. “We do have a shortage of a range of jobs that are necessary and a vision of reinvestment in Black communities and providing what communities need: First responders, child care — teachers and providers,” said Dorian Warren, Hunter’s colleague and president of Community Change.
Defunding the police would, in theory, lead to the creation of new jobs in these areas. And it could lead to spending on training people to fill those jobs, as well as on the infrastructure and support staff needed to make sure new social workers or mediators or paramedics are successful in their work. Some of these new jobs would come at the expense of old ones in policing, but could also provide new opportunities and diversify the types of well-paying jobs available. And in making that reallocation, advocates argue, any strain on budgets in the short term could pay great dividends later.
In many ways, said activist and Pod Save the People co-host Brittany Packnett Cunningham, defunding provides both social and economic benefits: “The long-term gains are really around the expanding of the political imagination that puts people first, and that recognizes that economic decisions have human costs.”
The public asks police to solve problems for them — through patrols, they are supposed to stop crimes from happening, and through investigations, they are supposed to solve the crimes they do not prevent.
But data and anecdotal evidence indicate police forces are failing at both. Instead, bias in patrolling has led minority communities to view police with suspicion — if not outright contempt — and an inability to solve crimes means most violent criminals are never caught
When it comes to patrolling, studies have found a stark racial bias — that Black and Latinx Americans are stopped more often than white Americans. And prominent work by researchers such as Harvard University economist Roland Fryer Jr. has found Black and Latinx people face violence at those stops more often than white people do; Fryer published a paper in 2019 that found Black and Latinx Americans are 50 percent more likely to suffer force from police than white Americans are. More recent studies have found that figure to be an undercount, and the likelihood of biased violence to be far higher.
The results of this research are reflected in narratives from the policed.
“I’ve always seen police mishandling me and my people,” one Baltimore man told the Portals Policing Project, which collects policing stories from communities of color. “I’ve had evidence planted on me. ... I’ve had money and evidence removed over the years. I’ve had police get on the stand and flat-out lie.”
This research and these narratives serve as important reminders of the problem with executing patrols as they are currently conducted: Police cannot be seen as protectors because they too often brutalize those they are meant to protect. This leads to poor outcomes, reducing community trust and cooperation with police, and draining time that could be spent on proactive crime reduction and apprehending those who have committed crimes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks “clearance rates” — essentially, solved crimes. The most recent data the FBI has is for 2018, and that year, law enforcement either arrested or killed murder suspects 62.3 percent of the time. Officers closed rape cases 33.4 percent of the time, robbery cases 30.4 percent of the time, and aggravated assaults 52.5 percent of the time. And these figures likely overestimate officers’ success, given that most violent crimes are not reported and thus are not included in the FBI’s calculations.
Police cannot be seen as protectors because they too often brutalize those they are meant to protect. This leads to poor outcomes.
These clearance rates have remained fairly stable for several decades despite increases in police budgets, suggesting that giving departments more money does not necessarily result in better outcomes. And in an economy that has been devastated by Covid-19 lies an opportunity for smarter — rather than more — spending on police.
In the United States, activists have for centuries called for radical changes to policing and the criminal justice system. Post-Reconstruction, W.E.B DuBois made what has become a familiar argument against policing, writing that police forces were an enforcement arm of a larger white supremacist system meant to ensure “no power was left in Negro hands.” He gave examples, writing of police officers harassing Black communities while affording them none of the policing benefits white communities enjoyed.
Demands for better policing have been closely linked to the struggle for civil rights. Although people of all ethnicities are victims of police killings, people of color disproportionately bear the economic, mental, and physical weights of unfair and callous police action.
As a result, some activists have called for the abolition of police — an idea recently explained in detail by Josie Duffy Rice for Vanity Fair. This is exactly what it sounds like: a world without police. Instead of law enforcement, state and local governments would fund new groups mandated to solve mental health crises and domestic disputes, to enforce speed limits and prevent stampedes at large gatherings, to investigate crimes and unravel mysteries. And for many, abolishing police would go hand in hand with the abolition of prisons and a reimagining of what constitutes justice.
Immediately abolishing the police would radically change the lives of many of America’s people of color and free up hundreds of billions of dollars, giving cities and states freedom to allocate resources and plug budget shortfalls in new ways. But abolition is not an idea that has been accepted by politicians — or by most Americans.
What has gained more immediate traction — and what many police abolitionists see as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal — is defunding the police, or reducing police departments’ budgets, and reallocating money toward other programs meant to encourage crime prevention, community cohesion, and social welfare.
As Packnett Cunningham put it, “the seeds are starting to bloom.”
The push to defund has been spurred by a series of prominent police killings this year, like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but also by violent — and sometimes deadly — incidents involving people suffering from mental illness, like Prude.
Money taken from police departments would be used in part to build up cities’ capacity for crisis care, but also to hire public servants better suited to many of the tasks that consume police officers’ time, from dealing with traffic problems to assisting with substance dependency issues. While giving departments more money hasn’t increased the clearance rate, by redistributing officer duties, more crimes could perhaps be solved.
It would then be possible to reduce negative interactions with police as well as opportunities for police misconduct.
A number of cities have begun some limited experiments in defunding the police. The city council of Austin, Texas, recently voted to slash its department’s funding by $150 million — a third of the department’s budget — and proposed moving some of the money to programs aimed at expanding health care, access to food, and preventing violence. The cuts would be made possible by not filling vacant positions, moving some nonpolicing duties to other city agencies, and canceling plans for new cadet classes. New York City’s council approved cuts in similar areas and plans to redistribute $1 billion to youth programs, education, internet connection programs, and social services. In a reminder that making the cuts is only the first step, it has been noted that the feasibility of actually enacting and maintaining these approved cuts remains an open question.
Los Angeles; San Francisco; Baltimore; Washington, DC; Hartford, Connecticut; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City; Seattle; and Philadelphia are among the other cities that have already voted to cut police budgets. And the Minneapolis City Council has promised to work to “dismantle” its police department and rebuild it from the ground up, with some of its funding going to other programs.
These cities are just getting started, but there are a few prominent examples of how dismantling and defunding can work. Camden, New Jersey, dramatically reformed its police department in 2013, and despite some criticism, has seen some positive outcomes. And Eugene, Oregon, has moved much of its crisis response to a separate agency called CAHOOTS, which, at a cost of $2.1 million per year, serves residents having problems with mental health, homelessness, and substances. The program’s coordinator claims that $2.1 million investment saves his community more than $15 million per year.
Given their financial constraints and the fact that no federal aid for state and local governments appears to be forthcoming, some cities now defunding police would have made cuts to their police programs anyway. However, without the pressure from national uprisings and hardworking activists, they may not have reinvested that money — and might have failed to reap the future dividends of these reinvestments.
Defunding police departments successfully would create a virtuous cycle, in which communities reap social and political benefits that translate into economic benefits for cities, states, and the communities themselves.
An example might be found in one of the ways police departments do bring in money. A number of cities use police departments to generate revenue through ticketing, fines, court fees, and asset seizures; a recent study by Rebecca Goldstein, Michael W. Sances, and Hye Young You found that 80 percent of US cities benefit from police this way and that 6 percent of cities — mostly smaller ones — rely on funds generated by their police departments for more than 10 percent of their revenue.
A prime example is the small city of Ferguson, Missouri. Following the uprising in 2014, the US Department of Justice found the city’s police department was under pressure to generate revenue through tickets and court fees, and that it responded to this pressure by finding novel, often petty, ways to ticket and arrest citizens. That initiative was enacted largely on the city’s minority population, depleting the resources of an already disadvantaged population and further souring the community’s perception of officers.
Defunding the police could reduce the amount of money cities cull from these activities — and full abolition certainly would. But communities of color would then have more funds to invest in themselves and to inject into their local economies. Cities would be able to reap the benefits of that activity through taxation, be it from sales taxes made on purchases or investments in homes.
A common critique of defunding the police is that officers would lose their livelihoods. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot made a related argument in the New York Times: “You are eliminating one of the few tools that the city has to create middle-class incomes for black and brown folks.”
Activists have argued, however, that it is morally wrong to allow many people of color to suffer so that some may be allowed entry into the middle class.
“There are so many other options — especially for people who want to do right by their community,” Packnett Cunningham said. Options would include new jobs like those Warren imagined: new positions in mental health and educational services, in health care and at city hall. If those jobs had pay structures similar to police work, for which the median annual wage is $65,400, they would also be a path to the middle class. And as Hunter pointed out, with overtime, take-home pay for civil servants who respond to emergencies can rise quickly: “Sometimes, you see a line firefighter making more than the mayor,” he said.
Repurposing officers could also lead to the direct economic empowerment of others, Warren said. For instance, police could be put to work addressing wage theft — a crime mostly committed against low-wage workers (who are disproportionately people of color) that causes several billion dollars of lost income per year.
“We know that employers flout the law all the time, and there’s no penalty,” Warren said. “If you want to redirect police officers, hire them in the city labor department to enforce employers who are cheating Black workers out of wages.”
In so doing, Warren said, cities can begin to think “differently about who gets enforced and who doesn’t.” And it could have a political benefit as well.
Research by Vesla Weaver and Amy Lerman, as well as others, has found that civic engagement — including voting — declines not just following arrests but after police contact. The studies also suggest repeated negative encounters lead to steeper engagement declines. These declines, Owens and Walker found, could be countered through positive engagement with community organizations.
This research suggests eliminating — or even reducing — those negative encounters would increase civic participation and strengthen the public trust in government. It could ensure “that democracy is actually responsive to the aspirations and calls of the people,” Hunter said.
The benefits of defunding the police are limited only by imagination, the activists Vox spoke with said.
Funds taken from the police could serve as an immediate form of economic stimulus created and controlled at the local level — stimulus badly needed, given the federal government’s failure to craft a new aid package.
Using funds this way would allow cities to give “resources to people who need them now, [people] who cannot put food on the table, who can’t access basic services, whose water is getting shut off, whose electricity is getting shut off because they can’t make their payments because they’ve lost their jobs,” Warren said.
One of the most common forms of wealth in the US is a family’s home, but Black families have struggled with homeownership, particularly following the Great Recession. And many of the 40.6 percent of Black families who do own homes live in devalued neighborhoods; according to Andre M. Perry, a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, the average Black home is devalued by $48,000.
Higher home values brought on by community development would be good for cities as well, opening the door for new sources of property tax revenue.
There are myriad ways employment might be affected as well. Economists such as Jhacova Williams and Valerie Wilson at the Economic Policy Institute have detailed why Black Americans have higher rates of underemployment than white Americans. One reason is that Black people do not have the capital — such as from a home — that would allow for extended periods of unemployment; instead, they are forced to accept subpar opportunities out of an immediate need to pay bills.
If cutting police budgets leads to fewer police encounters as well as fewer arrests and fewer sentences, “there is a greater possibility for living wages,” Packnett Cunningham said. “The amount to which we see people pay unlivable wages, and the excuse is ‘You have a record’ — that excuse disappears.”
Looking at defunding the police from this perspective, the question becomes less about what cities and communities lose when police are taken out of the equation, and more, Packnett Cunningham said, “How much more can we gain in human brilliance and creativity and innovation?”
Sean Collins is the weekend editor at Vox, and reports on civil rights protests, the Trump administration, and the 2020 presidential election.
This story is part of The Great Rebuild, a project made possible thanks to support from Omidyar Network, a social impact venture that works to reimagine critical systems and the ideas that govern them, and to build more inclusive and equitable societies. All Great Rebuild coverage is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-09-23--No police officers charged with killing Breonna Taylor

After a months-long investigation into the police shooting of Breonna Taylor , a Jefferson County grand jury announced on September 23 that it would indict a former officer in the shooting that resulted in the death of the 26-year-old EMT .
No one was charged with killing her .
Former Louisville Metro police officer Brett Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor ’ s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor ’ s apartment into theirs .
The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted .
“ The decision before my office as the special prosecutor in this case was not to decide if the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life was a tragedy .
The answer to that question is , unequivocally , yes , ” Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said at a press conference after the announcement in Louisville , where protesters had already gathered in the streets to mourn the grand jury decision that many deemed inadequate .
“ My job as a special prosecutor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and investigate the facts to determine if criminal violations of state law resulted in the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life.
” Benjamin Crump , one of the attorneys representing Taylor ’ s family , called the grand jury decision “ outrageous ” and “ offensive.
” “ If Brett Hankison ’ s behavior was wanton endangerment to people in neighboring apartments , then it should have been wanton endangerment in Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment too .
In fact , it should have been ruled wanton murder !
” he tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision in the criminal investigation all summer .
Cameron said he presented to the grand jury on Monday , which came up with its decision by noon on Wednesday .
It ’ s been nearly 200 days since Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13 .
When news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month , protests broke out across the country .
Over time , the phrase “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” became a rallying cry for activists — as well as the focal point of countless memes .
The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys .
Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don ’ t often receive as much attention , or justice , in matters of police violence , and now was the time to correct that .
Ahead of the announcement , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer instituted a 72-hour curfew beginning Wednesday at 9 pm , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schroeder announced a state of emergency for the police force on Tuesday in anticipation of protests and riots .
The police also restricted access to downtown Louisville beginning on Tuesday , according to the Courier-Journal .
The Kentucky National Guard was activated on Wednesday afternoon .
Organizers and activists , including Until Freedom ’ s Tamika Mallory , gathered in the street alongside protesters Wednesday afternoon .
Mallory urged the crowd to simultaneously be nonviolent and non-peaceful .
Some protesters cried in one another ’ s arms as others shouted , “ No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name !
Breonna Taylor !
” and waved Black Lives Matter flags .
In the days leading up to Cameron ’ s announcement , Taylor ’ s mother , Tamika L. Palmer , called on the attorney general to charge all of the officers involved in the shooting .
“ It ’ s crunch time , and we ’ re putting our faith and trust in you , ” Palmer wrote in an Instagram post directed at Cameron .
“ Do you have the power and courage to call my child yours , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my community ’ s cry is heard , and the power as part of a village who raises our children to do right by one of our daughters ?
!
” Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class-D felony in the state of Kentucky .
If convicted , Hankison could face up to five years in prison for each count .
Hankison could , conversely , also be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service .
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Kentucky law , Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , shot at them that night .
“ Use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves .
This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges , ” Cameron said .
Moreover , the charges brought against Hankison are solely connected to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor ’ s apartment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , according to the special investigation .
During the course of the investigation , the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “ displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life ” when he “ wantonly and blindly ” fired 10 rounds into Taylor ’ s apartment , according to his termination letter .
The reason for Hankison ’ s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury .
Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May .
On Tuesday , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , Mattingly wrote an email to about 1,000 law enforcement colleagues stating , “ Regardless of the outcome today or Wednesday , I know we did the legal , moral , and ethical thing that night.
” Mattingly called protesters “ thugs ” and slammed police department leaders and FBI “ who aren ’ t cops and would piss their pants if they had to hold the line ” for going after him for civil rights violations .
The grand jury announcement reveals a new version of what happened during the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months .
On the night Taylor was killed , police relied on a no-knock warrant to enter her apartment in search of two people suspected of selling drugs , neither of whom was Taylor .
While police say they announced themselves , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , who was inside the apartment at the time , disputes that claim .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular detail .
According to the attorney general , there was an independent witness ( a civilian ) near Taylor ’ s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves .
“ The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant , ” Cameron said .
When no one answered the door , officers breached it .
The first officer to enter was Mattingly , who , in a statement , said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — a male and a female — with the male holding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting stance .
“ Sergeant Mattingly saw the man ’ s gun fire , heard a boom , and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh , ” Cameron said .
According to the ballistics report , Mattingly was shot once by a 9 mm handgun , the gun that belonged to Kenneth Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend .
Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway .
Meanwhile , Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times , all in a matter of seconds .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cameron revealed , with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding that Detective Cosgrove fired the fatal shot ; her death certificate had noted she was shot five times .
Taylor ’ s lawyer said she was struck a total of eight times .
Determining who fired the fatal shot was integral to the investigation and extended the length of it , Cameron said .
But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force since they were fired upon by Walker , he would not be charged .
Detective Hankison , meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apartment , with some bullets going through the bedroom window , through Taylor ’ s apartment and into the neighboring one .
At the time , three residents of that apartment were at home , including a man , a pregnant woman , and a child .
“ There is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from Detective Hankison ’ s weapons struck Ms. Taylor , ” Cameron said .
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence , 911 calls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location .
They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner ’ s lab and the FBI crime lab in Quantico .
What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville A week ago , the city of Louisville announced that it had reached a $ 12 million settlement with Taylor ’ s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to a lawsuit that Taylor ’ s family filed in April , alleging excessive force and gross negligence on the part of the officers .
A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear out a block in Taylor ’ s neighborhood .
While the settlement included a list of police reforms , Mayor Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part .
On Tuesday , Cameron acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury ’ s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “ the truth ” and for elected officials to do whatever it takes to “ maintain law and order ” : Cameron also announced that he would create a task force of citizens , law enforcement officials , and elected officials to review the state ’ s process for securing , reviewing , and executing search warrants .
“ I believe conducting a top-to-bottom review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine if changes are required and establish best practices , ” Cameron said .
He added that his office would vigorously prosecute the criminal charges announced on Wednesday .
Cameron was assigned the case as special prosecutor in May and in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation .
Meanwhile , activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department .
While Louisville ’ s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants , it also approved a budget that wouldn ’ t even begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan will merely “ require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force , additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers , ” according to the Courier-Journal .
The FBI is still investigating Taylor ’ s killing for possible civil rights violations .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Kentucky attorney general’s office released about 20 hours of audio recordings from the Breonna Taylor grand jury on Friday, after being ordered by a judge to do so.
The highly anticipated audio files capture the full case that AG Daniel Cameron presented to the grand jury from September 21 to 23, including which witnesses they heard and the team’s presentation that led to the indictment of former Louisville Metro Police Department officer Brett Hankison.
On September 23, Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor’s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor’s apartment into theirs. The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night hitting Taylor — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and detective Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted.
Rallying cries across the nation turned from “arrest the cops” to “release the transcripts” of the grand jury proceedings shortly after the decision was announced, as many wondered why no officers were charged with actually killing Taylor and what the attorney general’s office specifically presented to the jury.
On Monday, a juror filed a motion criticizing Cameron’s public characterization of the case and demanding the release of the transcripts. According to the unidentified juror, Cameron did not give the panel the opportunity to indict the two officers who shot Taylor. In the motion, the juror said their request to have the recordings released is an effort to share “only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Cameron’s office confirmed on Monday that the only charge he recommended to the grand jury was wanton endangerment, not any of the six felony homicide charges under Kentucky law, according to the Washington Post. Cameron had previously declined to say what charges he presented to the grand jury.
At a Louisville press conference last Friday, Taylor’s family and their attorneys gathered to express their dissatisfaction with the grand jury’s decision and questioned what Cameron presented. “Did he present any evidence on Breonna Taylor’s behalf? Or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on the scales of justice?” attorney Benjamin Crump asked.
The nation had been awaiting the decision in the criminal investigation all summer. Cameron said he presented his findings to the grand jury beginning on Monday, September 21, and the jury made its decision by noon on Wednesday, September 23. The announcement came nearly 200 days after Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13. As news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month, protests broke out across the country.
Over time, the phrase “Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor” became a rallying cry for activists — as well as the focal point of countless memes. The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys. Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don’t often receive much attention, or justice, in matters of police violence, and now was the time to correct that.
The tapes might answer a number of questions that activists and the Taylor family’s attorneys have raised, like which witnesses Cameron’s office allowed to testify and whether the office presented pieces of evidence — sending the ambulance away before the raid, the many witnesses who have said they did not hear the police knock and announce themselves — that reportedly show the police violated protocol. As the tapes are parsed, the coming days may reveal new insight in the decision.
What is wanton endangerment?
The grand jury decision caused outcry across the nation over what many see as a weak indictment charge. Hankison was charged not with killing Taylor, but with endangering her neighbors.
Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony in the state of Kentucky. If convicted, Hankison could face up to five years in prison for each count. He could, alternatively, be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service.
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as:
A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.
While there are six charges of homicide under Kentucky law, Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, shot at them that night. “Use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges,” Cameron said.
Hankison, meanwhile, was only charged in connection to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor’s apartment to a neighboring residence where three civilians were at the time, according to the special investigation.
During the course of the investigation, the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life” when he “wantonly and blindly” fired 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment, according to his termination letter. The reason for Hankison’s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury. Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May.
The grand jury announcement revealed a new version of what happened during the early hours of March 13
Cameron’s version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months.
On the night Taylor was killed, police relied on a no-knock warrant to enter her apartment in search of two people suspected of selling drugs, neither of whom was Taylor. While police say they announced themselves, Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, who was inside the apartment at the time, disputes that claim.
In his grand jury announcement on September 23, Cameron announced developments on this particular detail. According to the attorney general, there was an independent witness (a civilian) near Taylor’s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves. “The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,” Cameron said.
When no one answered the door, officers breached it. The first officer to enter was Mattingly, who, in a statement, said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — Walker and Taylor — with the man holding a gun with his arms extended in a shooting stance. “Sergeant Mattingly saw the man’s gun fire, heard a boom, and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh,” Cameron said.
According to the ballistics report, Mattingly was shot once by a 9 mm handgun, the gun that belonged to Walker. Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway. Meanwhile, Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times, all in a matter of seconds.
In total, six bullets hit Taylor, Cameron revealed (her death certificate had noted she was shot five times, and Taylor’s lawyer had previously said she was struck a total of eight times), with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. Determining who fired the fatal shot was integral to the investigation and extended the length of it, Cameron said. But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force because they were fired upon by Walker, Cameron said, he would not be charged.
Hankison, meanwhile, fired 10 shots from outside the apartment, with some bullets going through the bedroom window, through Taylor’s apartment and into the neighboring one. At the time, three residents of that apartment were at home, including a man, a pregnant woman, and a child. “There is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from Detective Hankison’s weapons struck Ms. Taylor,” Cameron said.
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence, 911 calls, police radio traffic, and interviews. Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location. They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner’s lab and the FBI crime lab in Quantico.
At the September 25 press conference, the family’s attorney, Crump, cast doubt on Cameron’s investigation and demanded that the attorney general release the transcripts of the case he presented before the grand jury. Crump alleged that Cameron may have left out key details and witnesses in his presentation.
“Did he tell them about the 12 neighbors ... that live in close proximity of Breonna’s apartment that all said they did not hear the police knock and announce their presence — did he let him testify before the grand jury?” Crump said. “Did he let the cops who shot over 30 rounds of bullets in Breonna’s apartment ... testify before the grand jury? Did he allow Breonna’s boyfriend, Kenny Walker, to testify before the grand jury?”
He also raised concerns about policy lapses around the no-knock warrant, saying, “If he didn’t present these things to the grand jury, what kind of sham grand jury proceeding was this?”
Crump said the lack of transparency follows a pattern of “blatant disrespect and marginalization of Black people,” but especially Black women who have been killed by police.
At the press conference, attorney Lonita Baker also demanded that Cameron tell the public whether he recommended charges to the grand jury.
“I don’t want to hear that the grand jury determined this, if it’s your office that unilaterally determined not to charge any officers with the death of Breanna Taylor,” Baker said. “You can’t pawn this on the grand jury if your office made that decision. We the voters deserve to know who is it that we need to say got it wrong.”
Now that Cameron has confirmed he recommended the wanton endangerment charge for Hankison, this new information sheds light on some of the constraints the grand jury faced. As the jurors wrote in their motion, “Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors.”
As Anna North reports, many others wonder if the attorney general, a protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who spoke glowingly of President Trump at the Republican National Convention, truly did his best as a prosecutor to secure indictments in the Taylor case. (Cameron’s office has not responded to Vox’s request for comment.)
“There are questions as to whether he really did the job he could’ve done,” Dewey Clayton, a political science professor at the University of Louisville, told North.
Amy McGrath, who is running for McConnell’s Kentucky Senate seat, had also called on Cameron to be more transparent. “AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now, including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present,” McGrath tweeted on September 24. “We shouldn’t have to take his word for it.”
What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville
In the wake of the grand jury announcement, protests erupted in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Portland on September 23. In Louisville, where the decision was delivered, protesters didn’t let barricades, a curfew, the presence of police officers in riot gear, or the presence of the National Guard deter them from pouring out into the streets to say Breonna Taylor’s name. People marched around downtown declaring that the city and law enforcement officials had failed them.
By early the next morning, police had arrested 127 people in Louisville, according to the Courier-Journal, and one suspect was taken into custody in connection with the shooting of two city police officers, who sustained non-life-threatening injuries, according to interim Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder.
Later that night, protests continued throughout the country. In Louisville, at least two dozen more were arrested, according to the Courier-Journal. Among those arrested were Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott, who led the local effort to ban no-knock warrants, and activist Shameka Parrish-Wright of Louisville’s Bail Project. At First Unitarian Church, hundreds of protesters sought sanctuary to avoid being arrested for violating the city’s 9 pm curfew.
In Los Angeles, protesters took to the streets and police detained a man for reportedly driving his vehicle through a crowd of protesters. In Portland, after police declared the local Breonna Taylor protest a riot and used OC gas (similar to pepper spray) to disperse crowds the previous night, protesters returned. The same happened in Seattle, where an officer was captured on video rolling a bike over a protester’s head the night prior (the officer has since been placed on administrative leave). Protests also continued in Rochester, Baltimore, Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia and in other cities throughout the week and into the weekend.
On September 15, the city of Louisville announced it had reached a $12 million settlement with Taylor’s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a police misconduct suit. The settlement was in response to a lawsuit Taylor’s family filed in April, alleging excessive force and gross negligence on the part of the officers. A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot, and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear out a block in Taylor’s neighborhood.
While the settlement included a list of police reforms, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the city’s part. Cameron also announced he would create a task force of citizens, law enforcement officials, and elected officials to review the state’s process for securing, reviewing, and executing search warrants.
He also acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury’s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “the truth.” But with the recordings of the sessions set to be released this week, the public may get a fuller picture of the truth. According to critics, the truth requires that Cameron be more transparent with his process and accountable to the public.
Cameron was assigned the case as special prosecutor in May and in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation. Meanwhile, activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department. While Louisville’s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants, it also approved a budget that wouldn’t even begin to defund LMPD. The new spending plan will merely “require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force, additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers,” according to the Courier-Journal.
The FBI is still investigating Taylor’s killing for possible civil rights violations.


vox--2020-09-23--Mike Pompeo and Robert O’Brien, top US officials, are campaigning for Trump in crucial states

Two of President Donald Trump ’ s top national security officials delivered blatantly political speeches in battleground states seemingly to boost their boss ’ s chance of reelection — potentially in violation of federal law .
The Hatch Act of 1939 imposes strict limits on most federal civilian workers who want to engage in political activity .
Some Cabinet departments , including the State Department , augment these statutory limits with additional policies intended to maintain a clear wall of separation between partisan politics and nonpartisan government functions .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall on Wednesday .
In Wisconsin , a state Trump won in 2016 and is at risk of losing in 2020 , Pompeo addressed state lawmakers on the administration ’ s policies to confront China .
But he used the speech to touch on themes that could easily be construed as a broader campaign pitch .
“ The Trump administration is fighting to protect our wallets , hearts , minds , and our freedoms , ” he said .
“ Democrat or Republican , you have a friend in the Trump administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party ’ s ] exploitation of our open society.
” Norm Eisen , a government ethics expert at the Brookings Institution who represented House Democrats in the Trump impeachment hearings and now advises the Biden campaign , told me Pompeo ’ s appearance was definitely a problem .
“ By giving a speech in battleground state Wisconsin a few short weeks before the presidential election , Secretary Pompeo has not only departed from State Department tradition to stay out of domestic politics , but appears to be engaged in an aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position and taxpayer-funded resources to serve the president ’ s political interests , ” he said , noting the address “ raises serious questions under the rules.
” Hours after Pompeo ’ s speech , O ’ Brien spoke at Drake University in Iowa — an important state for the president to win — about Trump ’ s general foreign policy .
His comments , though , veered into the political .
“ The world is more peaceful and prosperous , we believe , because of the president ’ s policies , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more to come in a second Trump term.
” Those remarks , some experts say , went too far .
“ Certainly I think O ’ Brien ’ s comments are a kind of advocacy that runs afoul of the Hatch Act , ” said Donald Sherman , deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , a watchdog group .
The issue here isn ’ t that Trump administration officials openly boasted about the work of , well , the Trump administration .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue is they ’ re purposely giving pro-Trump speeches in states critical to the president ’ s reelection efforts — on taxpayers ’ dime — just weeks before Election Day .
Pompeo and O ’ Brien , then , may have openly flouted the law .
For the secretary , at least , that ’ s just another day at the office .
Pompeo , as secretary of state , is acting like a Trump campaign surrogate Pompeo ’ s address in Wisconsin shouldn ’ t have come as a surprise .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks to speak in support of Trump the president , and not the Trump administration .
During the Republican National Convention in August , Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem , Israel , to back Trump .
His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members , and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state , don ’ t engage in openly political and partisan activities .
It was a norm Pompeo ’ s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano , Texas , about the role of faith while serving in government .
However , he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today .
“ We need to return to the founders ’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world , and we must stand with it and we can ’ t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise , ” he told the audience .
“ It is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditions and continue to build them up .
It ’ s for our kids and for our grandkids .
It ’ s absolutely imperative.
” These aren ’ t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation ’ s top diplomat — to make , or normal forums for him to make them in .
That ’ s why experts like Eisen are concerned .
This all “ appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than to serve the public interest , ” Eisen told me .
There ’ s a further problem .
“ Pompeo ’ s politicking , especially in his official capacity , undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world , ” CREW ’ s Sherman said .
“ He ’ s either America ’ s chief diplomat or he ’ s a political crony for one political party.
” In effect , giving speeches like the one Pompeo gave in Wisconsin might cause foreign leaders to believe he represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on his recent actions and comments , that may just be right .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Two of President Donald Trump’s top national security officials delivered blatantly political speeches in battleground states seemingly to boost their boss’s chance of reelection — potentially in violation of federal law.
The Hatch Act of 1939 imposes strict limits on most federal civilian workers who want to engage in political activity. Some Cabinet departments, including the State Department, augment these statutory limits with additional policies intended to maintain a clear wall of separation between partisan politics and nonpartisan government functions.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien may have busted through that wall on Wednesday.
In Wisconsin, a state Trump won in 2016 and is at risk of losing in 2020, Pompeo addressed state lawmakers on the administration’s policies to confront China. But he used the speech to touch on themes that could easily be construed as a broader campaign pitch.
“The Trump administration is fighting to protect our wallets, hearts, minds, and our freedoms,” he said. “Democrat or Republican, you have a friend in the Trump administration to help you push back against the [Chinese Communist Party’s] exploitation of our open society.”
Norm Eisen, a government ethics expert at the Brookings Institution who represented House Democrats in the Trump impeachment hearings and now advises the Biden campaign, told me Pompeo’s appearance was definitely a problem.
“By giving a speech in battleground state Wisconsin a few short weeks before the presidential election, Secretary Pompeo has not only departed from State Department tradition to stay out of domestic politics, but appears to be engaged in an aggressive pattern of conduct to misuse his official position and taxpayer-funded resources to serve the president’s political interests,” he said, noting the address “raises serious questions under the rules.”
Hours after Pompeo’s speech, O’Brien spoke at Drake University in Iowa — an important state for the president to win — about Trump’s general foreign policy. His comments, though, veered into the political. “The world is more peaceful and prosperous, we believe, because of the president’s policies,” he stated, adding “there’s more to come in a second Trump term.”
Those remarks, some experts say, went too far. “Certainly I think O’Brien’s comments are a kind of advocacy that runs afoul of the Hatch Act,” said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group.
The issue here isn’t that Trump administration officials openly boasted about the work of, well, the Trump administration. That’s par for the course. The issue is they’re purposely giving pro-Trump speeches in states critical to the president’s reelection efforts — on taxpayers’ dime — just weeks before Election Day.
Pompeo and O’Brien, then, may have openly flouted the law. For the secretary, at least, that’s just another day at the office.
Pompeo, as secretary of state, is acting like a Trump campaign surrogate
Pompeo’s address in Wisconsin shouldn’t have come as a surprise. He’s used many appearances in recent weeks to speak in support of Trump the president, and not the Trump administration.
During the Republican National Convention in August, Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem, Israel, to back Trump. His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members, and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state, don’t engage in openly political and partisan activities. It was a norm Pompeo’s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important to uphold.
From Jerusalem, the City of David — see you soon! pic.twitter.com/KNPTIXfK0K — Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) August 26, 2020
And three days ago, the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano, Texas, about the role of faith while serving in government. However, he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today.
“We need to return to the founders’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world, and we must stand with it and we can’t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise,” he told the audience. “It is an absolute imperative that we stand on these traditions and continue to build them up. It’s for our kids and for our grandkids. It’s absolutely imperative.”
These aren’t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation’s top diplomat — to make, or normal forums for him to make them in. That’s why experts like Eisen are concerned.
This all “appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to benefit President Trump’s political interests rather than to serve the public interest,” Eisen told me.
There’s a further problem. “Pompeo’s politicking, especially in his official capacity, undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world,” CREW’s Sherman said. “He’s either America’s chief diplomat or he’s a political crony for one political party.”
In effect, giving speeches like the one Pompeo gave in Wisconsin might cause foreign leaders to believe he represents Trump more than he represents Americans. Based on his recent actions and comments, that may just be right.