thestream--2020-09-27--Are Skeptics Right About This Gospel ‘Contradiction’?

Skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says that Mark and Luke tell two irreconcilably different stories about Jesus ’ death .
In his book Jesus , Interrupted , Ehrman describes Mark ’ s account : Ehrman says this stands in sharp contrast with Luke ’ s calm and collected version of Jesus : Did Jesus really not know why he had to die in Mark ’ s Gospel ?
But according to Mark , is Jesus all that doubtful about why he has to die ?
No , Jesus talks about his imminent demise repeatedly : • Mark 8:31 – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed , and after three days rise again.
” • Mark 9:31 – “ …for he was teaching his disciples , saying to them , “ The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men , and they will kill him .
And when he is killed , after three days he will rise.
” • Mark 10:32-34 – “ And taking the twelve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was to happen to him , saying , “ See , we are going up to Jerusalem , and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes , and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles .
And they will mock him and spit on him , and flog him and kill him .
And after three days he will rise.
” • Mark 10:45 – “ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life as a ransom for many.
” Other verses throughout Mark support that Jesus knew his mission was to suffer and ultimately be crucified .
( Mark 2:20 , 12:1-12 , 14:9 , 22-24 , 27-28 ) Why did Jesus quote Psalm 22:1 ?
Ehrman notes that Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 as an indication that Jesus ’ faith in his Father began to waver .
Let ’ s look at the text itself : Notice that Matthew includes this text in his version of the story as well , and we know Matthew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Testament .
( Matthew 27:45-50 ) He is always pointing to Jesus ’ Jewish context .
Matthew apparently didn ’ t see this “ cry of dereliction ” as problematic .
Why ?
In early Judaism , it was common to invoke a complete Psalm just by quoting the opening line .
For example , Mishna Taanit 2.3 reads , So to understand why Jesus is quoting 22:1 , we have to read the entire psalm .
Against the ‘ confused Jesus ’ theory , Psalm 22:5 speaks of how those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointed : “ To you they cried and were rescued ; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
” Psalm 22:23-24 talks about how God will ultimately not hide his face from his afflicted ones : “ For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted , and he has not hidden his face from him , but has heard , when he cried to him.
” So this isn ’ t all about Jesus feeling completely and forever abandoned on the cross , unsure of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see how Psalm 22 is just a psalm about one of David ’ s rough days .
Psalm 22:14-15 says : “ I am poured out like water , and all my bones are out of joint ; my heart is like wax ; it is melted within my breast ; my strength is dried up like a potsherd , and my tongue sticks to my jaws ; you lay me in the dust of death.
” While the psalmists are given to hyperbole , it takes a real stretch of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own sufferings and living to sing about it .
Let ’ s look and see why .
• “ I am poured out like water ” – This is certainly one way to describe someone bleeding out .
• “ All my bones are out of joint ” – In the crucifixion , physicians tell us that one ’ s full weight pulls down on their nailed wrists and both their shoulders and elbows dislocate .
In this position , the victim ’ s arms stretch to a minimum of 6 inches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Looks Like a Crucifixion • “ My heart is like wax , it is melted within my breast ” – This could be metaphorical for the psalmists ’ emotions , but given the context of physical suffering it ’ s unlikely .
Here ’ s one medical doctor ’ s description of what happens to the human heart of someone who has been crucified : • “ My strength is dried up .
My tongue sticks to my jaws ” – Medical science tells us that with great blood loss one ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blood volume .
• “ you lay me in the dust of death ” – All of these verses sound like someone who is in great physical agony .
They ’ re knocking on death ’ s door , not merely just having a really rough day .
This doesn ’ t really fit David at all but one can see why Jesus applied it to himself .
They pierced my hands and my feet Psalm 22:16 : “ For dogs encompass me ; a company of evildoers encircles me ; they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now here we have some controversy .
The charge is made that Christians changed a few letters in the Hebrew text to make it read “ they pierced my hands and feet.
” The Complete Jewish Bible reads “ like a lion [ at ] my hands and feet ” .
I ’ m not going to spend a ton of time here because I think the debate over this passage makes a mountain out of a molehill .
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint were both written before Jesus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pierced , or more accurately , bore through .
And even if the original wording is “ like a lion at my hands and feet ” , what follows exactly ?
The writer talks about the sufferer surrounded by fierce beasts , a metaphor for human enemies who are acting like savage animals .
Look at verse 13 : “ they open wide their mouths at me , like a ravening and roaring lion.
” These lines describe the ridicule , abuse , and execution of the psalmist and yet this didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is delivered and the nations praise God Psalm 22:18 : “ They divide my garments among them , and for my clothing they cast lots.
” The psalmist says this to show how close he is to death .
His enemies are expecting his death so much that they ’ ve already divided his clothes among themselves .
Both Mark and Luke describe this event .
( Mark 15:24 , Luke 23:34 ) .
Finally , Psalm 22 begins with the persecution and death of the king of Israel , and ends with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Psalm 22:26-31 : “ The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied ; those who seek him shall praise the Lord !
May your hearts live forever !
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord , and all the families of the nations shall worship before you .
For kingship belongs to the Lord , and he rules over the nations .
All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship ; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust , even the one who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall serve him ; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation ; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn , that he has done it.
” • The psalmist feels forsaken by God but puts his trust in Yahweh .
• He apparently dies or is dying but is rescued .
• He says that all of the offspring of Jacob should stand in awe of the deliverance that happened .
• All the ends of the earth ( the Gentiles ) will remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
• Future generations are told of this deliverance .
This is the psalm Jesus applies to himself on the cross !
In light of these facts , Jewish scholar Judith Newman remarks , “ Jesus ’ words on the cross from Psalm 22:1…may not thus simply lament divine abandonment , but point to the end of the psalm with its praise for divine restoration.
” Jesus understood his death as what would lead the Gentiles into the worship of the God of Israel .
That ’ s what starts to happen at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the first person who really gets the meaning of it all in Mark ’ s Gospel is a Roman soldier .
It seems then to be incorrect then to say that Jesus saw his death as a failure .
Instead , he saw it as a fulfillment of prophecy .
Through it , the Gentiles will worship the God of Abraham .
That ’ s exactly what ’ s happened for the past 2000 years .
Mission accomplished .
What about the cool and collected Jesus in Luke ’ s Gospel ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stoic in Luke ’ s Gospel .
In the Garden of Gethsemane , Luke says Jesus ’ sweat became like drops of blood because of his agony over going to the cross .
He writes : “ And there appeared to him an angel from heaven , strengthening him .
And being in agony he prayed more earnestly ; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
” ( Luke 22:43-44 ) To do away with this problem , Ehrman says that these verses were later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of the oldest manuscripts we have do not include these verses .
This passage is noted and bracketed in many translations .
On the other hand , we have tons of external evidence that these two verses are genuine .
Early church fathers like Justin Martyr , Hippolytus , Dionysus , Eusebius , Epiphanius , Chrysostom , Jerome , Augustine all quote these passages .
In The Dictionary of Jesus in the Gospels , noted New Testament scholars Joel B .
Green and Scott McKnight also provide several internal reasons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They write : For these reasons and others , scholars split on the inclusion of these passages in Luke ’ s Gospel .
We can ’ t say with confidence they aren ’ t original to the text , and they present a very human portrait of Jesus .
Elsewhere in Luke , Jesus shows that he ’ s hardly a Vulcan and weeps over Jerusalem .
( Luke 19:41 ) This alleged contradiction is hardly insurmountable .
Mark ’ s Jesus knows why he is dying and what it will accomplish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ underwent some very deep human emotions and needed divine assistance .
Bart seems to be overplaying his hand here .
• Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels edited by Joel B .
Green • The Case for Jesus : The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre

Skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says that Mark and Luke tell two irreconcilably different stories about Jesus’ death. In his book Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman describes Mark’s account:
Jesus is silent the entire time, as if in shock, until his cry at the end, echoing Psalm 22…Mark is trying to say something by this portrayal. He doesn’t want his readers to take solace in the fact that God was really there providing Jesus with physical comfort. He dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die. Jesus, Interrupted p 65-66
Ehrman says this stands in sharp contrast with Luke’s calm and collected version of Jesus:
In this account, Jesus is not at all confused about what is happening to him or why. He is completely calm and in control of the situation; he knows what is about to occur, and he knows what will happen afterward…This is a far cry from the Jesus of Mark, who felt forsaken to the end.
Did Jesus really not know why he had to die in Mark’s Gospel?
But according to Mark, is Jesus all that doubtful about why he has to die? No, Jesus talks about his imminent demise repeatedly:
Mark 8:31 – “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
Mark 9:31 – “…for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:32-34 – “And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Other verses throughout Mark support that Jesus knew his mission was to suffer and ultimately be crucified. (Mark 2:20, 12:1-12, 14:9, 22-24, 27-28)
Why did Jesus quote Psalm 22:1?
Ehrman notes that Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 as an indication that Jesus’ faith in his Father began to waver. Let’s look at the text itself:
And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-35
Notice that Matthew includes this text in his version of the story as well, and we know Matthew is quick to connect Jesus to the Old Testament. (Matthew 27:45-50) He is always pointing to Jesus’ Jewish context. Matthew apparently didn’t see this “cry of dereliction” as problematic.
Why? In early Judaism, it was common to invoke a complete Psalm just by quoting the opening line. For example, Mishna Taanit 2.3 reads,
These are they [the six additional benedictions]: Zikhronot, Shofarot, “In my distress I called to the Lord and He answered me” (Psalm 120), “I turn my eyes to the mountains” (Psalm 121).“Out of the depths I call you, O Lord” (Psalm 130), “A prayer of lowly man when he is faint” (Psalm 102).
So to understand why Jesus is quoting 22:1, we have to read the entire psalm.
Psalm 22 is Messianic
Against the ‘confused Jesus’ theory, Psalm 22:5 speaks of how those who trust in God are delivered and not disappointed: “To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.”
Psalm 22:23-24 talks about how God will ultimately not hide his face from his afflicted ones: “For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.” So this isn’t all about Jesus feeling completely and forever abandoned on the cross, unsure of his mission.
Secondly, it is difficult to see how Psalm 22 is just a psalm about one of David’s rough days.
Psalm 22:14-15 says: “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
While the psalmists are given to hyperbole, it takes a real stretch of the imagination to see David applying this to his own sufferings and living to sing about it. Let’s look and see why.
“I am poured out like water” – This is certainly one way to describe someone bleeding out.
– This is certainly one way to describe someone bleeding out. “All my bones are out of joint” – In the crucifixion, physicians tell us that one’s full weight pulls down on their nailed wrists and both their shoulders and elbows dislocate. In this position, the victim’s arms stretch to a minimum of 6 inches longer than their original length.
It Looks Like a Crucifixion
“My heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast” – This could be metaphorical for the psalmists’ emotions, but given the context of physical suffering it’s unlikely. Here’s one medical doctor’s description of what happens to the human heart of someone who has been crucified:
“The difficulty surrounding exhalation leads to a slow form of suffocation. Carbon dioxide builds up in the blood, resulting in a high level of carbonic acid in the blood. The body responds instinctively, triggering the desire to breathe. At the same time, the heart beats faster to circulate available oxygen. The decreased oxygen (due to the difficulty in exhaling) causes damage to the tissues and the capillaries begin leaking watery fluid from the blood into the tissues. “This results in a build-up of fluid around the heart (pericardial effusion) and lungs (pleural effusion). The collapsing lungs, failing heart, dehydration, and the inability to get sufficient oxygen to the tissues essentially suffocate the victim. The decreased oxygen also damages the heart itself (myocardial infarction) which leads to cardiac arrest. In severe cases of cardiac stress, the heart can even burst, a process known as cardiac rupture. Jesus most likely died of a heart attack.”
“ My strength is dried up. My tongue sticks to my jaws” – Medical science tells us that with great blood loss one’s thirst increases greatly. Drinking water increases blood volume.
– Medical science tells us that with great blood loss one’s thirst increases greatly. Drinking water increases blood volume. “you lay me in the dust of death” – All of these verses sound like someone who is in great physical agony. They’re knocking on death’s door, not merely just having a really rough day. This doesn’t really fit David at all but one can see why Jesus applied it to himself.
They pierced my hands and my feet
Psalm 22:16: “For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet”. Now here we have some controversy. The charge is made that Christians changed a few letters in the Hebrew text to make it read “they pierced my hands and feet.” The Complete Jewish Bible reads “like a lion [at] my hands and feet”. I’m not going to spend a ton of time here because I think the debate over this passage makes a mountain out of a molehill.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint were both written before Jesus, and they both contain the word for pierced, or more accurately, bore through. And even if the original wording is “like a lion at my hands and feet”, what follows exactly? The writer talks about the sufferer surrounded by fierce beasts, a metaphor for human enemies who are acting like savage animals. Look at verse 13: “they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.” These lines describe the ridicule, abuse, and execution of the psalmist and yet this didn’t happen to David.
The sufferer is delivered and the nations praise God
Psalm 22:18: “They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” The psalmist says this to show how close he is to death. His enemies are expecting his death so much that they’ve already divided his clothes among themselves. Both Mark and Luke describe this event. (Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34).
Finally, Psalm 22 begins with the persecution and death of the king of Israel, and ends with the pagan nations turning to God:
Psalm 22:26-31: “The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the Lord! May your hearts live forever! All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.”
So to recap:
The psalmist feels forsaken by God but puts his trust in Yahweh. He apparently dies or is dying but is rescued. He says that all of the offspring of Jacob should stand in awe of the deliverance that happened. All the ends of the earth (the Gentiles) will remember this deliverance and turn to the Lord! Future generations are told of this deliverance.
This is the psalm Jesus applies to himself on the cross! In light of these facts, Jewish scholar Judith Newman remarks, “Jesus’ words on the cross from Psalm 22:1…may not thus simply lament divine abandonment, but point to the end of the psalm with its praise for divine restoration.” Jesus understood his death as what would lead the Gentiles into the worship of the God of Israel. That’s what starts to happen at the foot of the cross.
Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:37-39)
Notice that the first person who really gets the meaning of it all in Mark’s Gospel is a Roman soldier. It seems then to be incorrect then to say that Jesus saw his death as a failure. Instead, he saw it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Through it, the Gentiles will worship the God of Abraham. That’s exactly what’s happened for the past 2000 years. Mission accomplished.
What about the cool and collected Jesus in Luke’s Gospel?
Jesus wasn’t all that of a stoic in Luke’s Gospel. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Luke says Jesus’ sweat became like drops of blood because of his agony over going to the cross. He writes: “And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:43-44)
To do away with this problem, Ehrman says that these verses were later scribal interpolations, and to be fair, some of the oldest manuscripts we have do not include these verses. This passage is noted and bracketed in many translations. On the other hand, we have tons of external evidence that these two verses are genuine. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Dionysus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine all quote these passages.
Genuine
In The Dictionary of Jesus in the Gospels, noted New Testament scholars Joel B. Green and Scott McKnight also provide several internal reasons for accepting these two verses as genuine. They write:
“Others, however, observe the impressive Lukan character of these verses, which speaks for their originality to the Third Gospel. In addition to (1) the inclusion of characteristic Lukan vocabulary, one may also observe (2) the Lukan emphasis on the appearance of an angel (e.g., 1:11, 26; 2:13, 15; Acts 5:19; 7:30; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7), (3) Luke’s interest in simile (“his sweat was like drops of blood,” v. 44; cf. e.g., 3:22; 10:18; 11:44; 22:31) and (4) Luke’s fondness for physical manifestations (like sweat) accompanying extramundane events (e.g., 1:20; 3:22; Acts 2:2–3; 9:18). “These data, along with the fact that the presence of these verses is of a piece with Luke’s interpretation of this scene as a whole, point clearly to the originality of 22:43–44. Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine a rationale for the early exclusion of these verses in the manuscript tradition. The portrait of Jesus contained therein—human, agonizing, needful, requiring angelic support—would have been problematic to some. Accordingly, they may have been dropped for doctrinal reasons. There is thus good reason for taking these verses as original to Luke.”
For these reasons and others, scholars split on the inclusion of these passages in Luke’s Gospel. We can’t say with confidence they aren’t original to the text, and they present a very human portrait of Jesus. Elsewhere in Luke, Jesus shows that he’s hardly a Vulcan and weeps over Jerusalem. (Luke 19:41)
Conclusion
This alleged contradiction is hardly insurmountable. Mark’s Jesus knows why he is dying and what it will accomplish. And Luke’s Jesus shows he underwent some very deep human emotions and needed divine assistance. Bart seems to be overplaying his hand here.
Sources and recommended resources:


thestream--2020-09-27--President Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump nominated federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States on Saturday .
“ Over the past week our nation has mourned the loss of a true American legend , ” Trump said , calling the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a “ legal giant ” and pioneer.
” “ If confirmed , Justice Barrett will make history as the first mother of school age children ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court , ” he added .
Trump encouraged lawmakers to quickly confirm Barrett , and to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett will replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died Sept. 18 at the age of 87 due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer .
Barrett ’ s pro-life stances contrast sharply to Ginsburg ’ s fierce defense of abortion access in the United States .
“ I ’ m truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court .
Should I be confirmed , I will be mindful of who came before me , ” Barrett said .
“ The flag of the United States is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great American life.
” “ Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession , ” the nominee added .
“ But she not only broke dealings she smashed them .
For that , she has won the admiration of women across the country and indeed , all over the world.
” The Supreme Court nominee has been frank about prioritizing her Catholic faith .
“ If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer , but to know , love and serve God , ” Barrett said during a 2006 commencement address to Notre Dame law students , “ you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.
” Trump considered nominating Barrett to replace former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018 but ultimately chose Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
“ I ’ m saving her for Ginsburg , ” Trump said of Barrett in 2019 , Axios reported .
“ This confirmation process will be nasty , ” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement Saturday .
“ Why ?
Because too many on the left ( and sadly some on the right as well ) want judges who will substitute their own will for the law.
” “ Judge Barrett is not that kind of judge , ” he added .
“ She believes her duty isn ’ t to arbitrarily slop applesauce on stone tablets and declare new laws — her duty is to cloak her personal views under a black robe and to faithfully uphold the Constitution .
That makes her a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rule of law.
” The president appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 , according to the New York Times .
Her confirmation hearings gained national attention when Democratic lawmakers questioned her about her Catholic beliefs , suggesting that Barrett ’ s Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge .
“ The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you , ” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told her .
“ And that ’ s of concern.
” Feinstein is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s views make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court .
Ahead of Trump ’ s announcement , media outlets linked a Catholic group associated with Barrett to the fictional dystopian novel “ The Handmaid ’ s Tale , ” falsely reporting that the Catholic group People of Praise was the inspiration for the book .
Filmmaker Arlen Parsa also called Barrett a “ Catholic extremist with 7 children ” in a since-deleted tweet , criticizing the nominee for her pro-life views .
Parsa noted that he will vote for 2020 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic .
“ Her religious convictions are pro-life , and she lives those convictions , ” Barrett ’ s longtime Catholic mentor , Judge Patrick J. Schiltz , told the Times .
“ The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.
” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said in statement Tuesday : “ These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity .
People of Praise is basically a Bible study — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , Judge Barrett reads the Bible , prays , and tries to serve her community.
” “ Senators should condemn this wacky McCarthyism , ” he added .

President Donald Trump nominated federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States on Saturday.
“Over the past week our nation has mourned the loss of a true American legend,” Trump said, calling the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a “legal giant” and pioneer.”
For the last three years, Judge Barrett has served with immense distinction,” the president said. “She’s more than a stellar judge but profoundly devoted mother. Her family is a core part of who Amy is. She opened her home and her heart and adopted two beautiful children from Haiti. Her incredible bond with her youngest child, a son with down syndrome, is a true inspiration.
“If confirmed, Justice Barrett will make history as the first mother of school age children ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added. Trump encouraged lawmakers to quickly confirm Barrett, and to do so with dignity and without personal attacks.
“Truly Humbled”
Barrett will replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18 at the age of 87 due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Barrett’s pro-life stances contrast sharply to Ginsburg’s fierce defense of abortion access in the United States.
“I’m truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court. Should I be confirmed, I will be mindful of who came before me,” Barrett said. “The flag of the United States is still flying at half-staff in memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great American life.”
“Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession,” the nominee added. “But she not only broke dealings she smashed them. For that, she has won the admiration of women across the country and indeed, all over the world.”
The Supreme Court nominee has been frank about prioritizing her Catholic faith.
“If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God,” Barrett said during a 2006 commencement address to Notre Dame law students, “you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”
Trump considered nominating Barrett to replace former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018 but ultimately chose Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said of Barrett in 2019, Axios reported.
“This confirmation process will be nasty,” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement Saturday. “Why? Because too many on the left (and sadly some on the right as well) want judges who will substitute their own will for the law.”
“Judge Barrett is not that kind of judge,” he added. “She believes her duty isn’t to arbitrarily slop applesauce on stone tablets and declare new laws — her duty is to cloak her personal views under a black robe and to faithfully uphold the Constitution. That makes her a problem to rabid partisans, and an ally to the rule of law.”
Attacks on Her Faith
The president appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, according to the New York Times. Her confirmation hearings gained national attention when Democratic lawmakers questioned her about her Catholic beliefs, suggesting that Barrett’s Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge.
“The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told her. “And that’s of concern.”
WATCH: Sen. Feinstein to appeals court nominee Amy Barrett, @NotreDame law prof/#Catholic mother of 7: "The dogma lives loudly within you." pic.twitter.com/mpDgNZGRsa — Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) September 6, 2017
Feinstein is not the only critic to suggest that Barrett’s views make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Ahead of Trump’s announcement, media outlets linked a Catholic group associated with Barrett to the fictional dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” falsely reporting that the Catholic group People of Praise was the inspiration for the book.
Filmmaker Arlen Parsa also called Barrett a “Catholic extremist with 7 children” in a since-deleted tweet, criticizing the nominee for her pro-life views. Parsa noted that he will vote for 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, who is also Catholic.
“Her religious convictions are pro-life, and she lives those convictions,” Barrett’s longtime Catholic mentor, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, told the Times. “The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.”
Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said in statement Tuesday: “These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity. People of Praise is basically a Bible study — and just like billions of Christians around the world, Judge Barrett reads the Bible, prays, and tries to serve her community.”
“Senators should condemn this wacky McCarthyism,” he added.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-28--It’s Not Barrett. It’s Roe.

It’s Not Barrett. It’s Roe.

The hostility leveled at Justice Brett Kavanaugh was disgusting and unhinged .
It will pale in comparison to what ’ s coming against Amy Coney Barrett .
The fury being unloaded on her is hellish already .
She may be the most hated , most vilified nominee in history , and the attack will come largely from liberal feminists .
Barrett is utterly intolerable to them .
Her very existence is bile in their throats and boils on their faces .
They will hiss and scratch and claw at her like possessed feral cats .
Not the Right Kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposes their lies for what they are : empty , destructive , and bitter .
She has achieved everything they claim they want for women , but she did it the wrong way .
She is supposed to either be divorced or single or living with her “ partner.
” She is supposed to despise the “ patriarchy ” and know that men are inherently toxic .
She is supposed to champion the ERA .
She was supposed to have had one or two children at most , and hopefully have had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( even if she keeps that detail private ) .
She is absolutely supposed to support and defend Planned Parenthood as the true house of worship .
She is supposed to have a magazine-worthy adherence to the politically acceptable version of Christianity , if a Christian she must claim to be .
She is supposed to be the right kind of devout Catholic , the kind that resembles Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden , not the kind that resembles Elizabeth Ann Seton or Zellie Martin .
She is supposed to champion same-sex “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry known as surrogacy .
She is supposed to demand free birth control for women and “ comprehensive sex education ” starting in Kindergarten .
She is not supposed to be happy , successful , whole , content , or prosperous while living within the moral “ constraints ” and “ oppression ” of the despised “ traditional ” norms that feminism has worked so tirelessly to destroy .
She is not supposed to achieve any measure of greatness without adhering to the modern feminist creed .
Rather , she ought to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpless , and stupid .
But most of all , above all else , feminists will hate Amy Coney Barrett because she has not joined them in their blood pact .
She does not despise her own femininity , is not at war with her own fertility , and does not believe she must be able to kill her own child in order to be free and equal to men .
It ’ s not Barrett .
It ’ s Roe .
Nothing else but Roe .
Stream editor David Mills recently pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ginsburg ’ s views about abortion really were .
Her belief , he showed , was that abortion isn ’ t about a woman ’ s privacy but about correcting the inherent disadvantage of being female in order to achieve real equality with men .
Yes , she viewed pregnancy as an impediment to equality that women require the ability to eliminate at will .
Nothing , not financial cost , not weeks of gestation , nor any consideration for the life of the baby must stand in the way of eliminating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ginsburg wasn ’ t a sentimentalist , obviously .
She cared only about control , and about women having what she considered the necessary means to totally control their own lives .
That is the belief at the core of abortion dogma .
Pregnancy is a crippling impediment to equality , and women must have control .
Therefore , they must have every ability to “ terminate ” that unwanted impediment at any moment they choose , without any restriction whatsoever .
Forget the euphemisms about “ choice ” and “ reproductive health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ rare ” nonsense these days in exchange for full support of abortion-on-demand til birth and beyond .
The battle between mother and child now extends even outside the womb .
Because control .
Control achieved by killing the innocent powerless is the cruel method of tyrants .
Legal abortion corrupts and wounds every soul who participates in it , especially mothers , for the powerless ones they kill are their own children .
There is no freedom in that .
Amy Coney Barrett is the embodiment of the reversal of Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at peace with her biology , finding joy and fulfillment in what the world calls oppression .
A mother who will not require her child ’ s death for her own life .
Nothing could be more revolting to the demonic spirit of abortion , so the attacks against her will be mercilessly vicious .
Hell hath no fury like abortion threatened and scorned .
St. Michael the Archangel , defend the Barrett family in this battle .
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream .
You can follow her at @ @ @

The hostility leveled at Justice Brett Kavanaugh was disgusting and unhinged. It will pale in comparison to what’s coming against Amy Coney Barrett. The fury being unloaded on her is hellish already.
She may be the most hated, most vilified nominee in history, and the attack will come largely from liberal feminists.
Barrett is utterly intolerable to them. Her very existence is bile in their throats and boils on their faces. They will hiss and scratch and claw at her like possessed feral cats.
Not the Right Kind of Woman
Feminists will hate her because she exposes their lies for what they are: empty, destructive, and bitter.
She has achieved everything they claim they want for women, but she did it the wrong way. She is supposed to either be divorced or single or living with her “partner.” She is supposed to despise the “patriarchy” and know that men are inherently toxic. She is supposed to champion the ERA.
She was supposed to have had one or two children at most, and hopefully have had an abortion at some point in her life (even if she keeps that detail private). She is absolutely supposed to support and defend Planned Parenthood as the true house of worship.
But above all else, feminists will hate Amy Coney Barrett because she has not joined them in their blood pact. She does not despise her own femininity, is not at war with her own fertility, and does not believe she must be able to kill her own child in order to be free and equal to men.
She is supposed to have a magazine-worthy adherence to the politically acceptable version of Christianity, if a Christian she must claim to be. She is supposed to be the right kind of devout Catholic, the kind that resembles Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, not the kind that resembles Elizabeth Ann Seton or Zellie Martin.
She is supposed to champion same-sex “marriage” and the legal human trafficking industry known as surrogacy. She is supposed to demand free birth control for women and “comprehensive sex education” starting in Kindergarten.
She is not supposed to be happy, successful, whole, content, or prosperous while living within the moral “constraints” and “oppression” of the despised “traditional” norms that feminism has worked so tirelessly to destroy. She is not supposed to achieve any measure of greatness without adhering to the modern feminist creed. Rather, she ought to be backwards, awkward, unattractive, rather helpless, and stupid.
But most of all, above all else, feminists will hate Amy Coney Barrett because she has not joined them in their blood pact. She does not despise her own femininity, is not at war with her own fertility, and does not believe she must be able to kill her own child in order to be free and equal to men.
It’s not Barrett. It’s Roe. Nothing else but Roe.
Stream editor David Mills recently pointed out how truly radical the late Justice Ginsburg’s views about abortion really were. Her belief, he showed, was that abortion isn’t about a woman’s privacy but about correcting the inherent disadvantage of being female in order to achieve real equality with men. Yes, she viewed pregnancy as an impediment to equality that women require the ability to eliminate at will. Nothing, not financial cost, not weeks of gestation, nor any consideration for the life of the baby must stand in the way of eliminating that obstacle if any women so chooses.
Ginsburg wasn’t a sentimentalist, obviously. She cared only about control, and about women having what she considered the necessary means to totally control their own lives.
That is the belief at the core of abortion dogma. Pregnancy is a crippling impediment to equality, and women must have control. Therefore, they must have every ability to “terminate” that unwanted impediment at any moment they choose, without any restriction whatsoever.
Forget the euphemisms about “choice” and “reproductive health care.” Abortion advocates have cast off the “rare” nonsense these days in exchange for full support of abortion-on-demand til birth and beyond. The battle between mother and child now extends even outside the womb. Because control.
… No Fury Like Abortion Scorned
Control achieved by killing the innocent powerless is the cruel method of tyrants. Legal abortion corrupts and wounds every soul who participates in it, especially mothers, for the powerless ones they kill are their own children. There is no freedom in that.
Amy Coney Barrett is the embodiment of the reversal of Ginsburg’s corrupt philosophy: a woman at peace with her biology, finding joy and fulfillment in what the world calls oppression. A mother who will not require her child’s death for her own life.
Nothing could be more revolting to the demonic spirit of abortion, so the attacks against her will be mercilessly vicious. Hell hath no fury like abortion threatened and scorned.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend the Barrett family in this battle.
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream. You can follow her at @jenniehartline.


thestream--2020-09-28--The Case for Quick Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett

I think we know the outcome already .
Republicans control the Senate , and unless something very unexpected pops out of Amy Coney Barrett ’ s history , they ’ ll confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice .
With a foregone conclusion like that , why prolong the process ?
Why even hold hearings ?
The Senate confirmed Abe Fortas in just two weeks in 1965 , and Warren Burger in 17 days in 1969 .
It took just 19 days to confirm John Paul Stevens in 1975 .
What would happen if Republicans made a similar lightning-quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the Senate Rushes the Vote The aftermath would be predictably explosive , that ’ s what .
Democrats would be spitting mad .
They ’ d cry foul .
They ’ d accuse Republicans of ramrodding the process .
They ’ d make dark accusations of swamp gas spilling out Barrett ’ s basement windows , but “ the Republicans wouldn ’ t let us call the witnesses we needed !
” They ’ d fume over the Court ’ s takeover by conservatives , calling it the end of the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we know it .
Major media will echo all that .
They ’ ll call for investigations , amidst dark , unsubstantiated rumors of illegal activities behind the scenes .
The streets will erupt in leftist anger .
November ’ s election will be called into question .
That ’ s what I expect if Senate Republicans rush the decision .
It won ’ t be pretty .
The Process , If the Senate Drags It Out Democrats want the process to drag on as long as possible .
They can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of this Congress , but that won ’ t stop them from trying .
Meanwhile they ’ ll do to Amy Coney Barrett what they did to Brett Kavanaugh .
They ’ ll spend megabucks on private investigators digging up dirt on her .
If that fails — as I certainly expect it to — they ’ ll spend more bucks on investigators finding people who ’ ll invent dirt on her .
They ’ ll call her virtues dirt — her motherhood and her religious beliefs .
They ’ ll take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water over it until it becomes an opaque , incomprehensible , muddy mess .
We Americans watching it will come close to drowning again in a rancid river of mud .
Barrett herself will be beat as close to metaphorical death as they can legally beat her , and when they can ’ t beat her any more , they ’ ll take off after her husband , children , and friends .
Nevertheless , since the Republicans hold the majority , Judge Barrett will be confirmed and seated as Justice Barrett , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll go on to the next thing , the election .
The Aftermath , If the Senate Drags It Out Still for all that , the aftermath will be predictably explosive .
Democrats will be spitting mad .
They ’ ll cry foul .
They ’ ll accuse Republicans of ramrodding the process .
They ’ ll make dark accusations of swamp gas spilling out of Barrett ’ s basement windows , but “ the Republicans wouldn ’ t let us call the witnesses we needed !
” They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by conservatives , calling it the end of the rule of law , the demise of democracy as we know it .
Major media will echo all that .
They ’ ll call for investigations , amidst dark , unsubstantiated rumors of illegal activities behind the scenes .
The streets will erupt in leftist anger .
November ’ s election will be called into question .
That ’ s what I expect if Senate Republicans let the decision drag on for weeks , as they did with Kavanaugh .
It won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
No , you ’ re not seeing double .
Long , draw-out hearings or lighting-quick confirmation , I expect exactly the same aftermath either way .
Except there ’ d be more , if the Senate lets the Democrats do again what they did to Kavanaugh .
Motherhood would be called into question .
Religion itself would be dragged through a swamp .
In fact , all of America would be dragged through muck , especially the family of a qualified woman whose one great desire is to serve her country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that part .
Let ’ s go straight to the aftermath and get it over with .
We ’ ll come out cleaner for it .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

I think we know the outcome already. Republicans control the Senate, and unless something very unexpected pops out of Amy Coney Barrett’s history, they’ll confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice. With a foregone conclusion like that, why prolong the process? Why even hold hearings?
The Senate confirmed Abe Fortas in just two weeks in 1965, and Warren Burger in 17 days in 1969. It took just 19 days to confirm John Paul Stevens in 1975. What would happen if Republicans made a similar lightning-quick decision this time?
The Aftermath, If the Senate Rushes the Vote
The aftermath would be predictably explosive, that’s what. Democrats would be spitting mad. They’d cry foul. They’d accuse Republicans of ramrodding the process. They’d make dark accusations of swamp gas spilling out Barrett’s basement windows, but “the Republicans wouldn’t let us call the witnesses we needed!” They’d fume over the Court’s takeover by conservatives, calling it the end of the rule of law, the demise of democracy as we know it.
Major media will echo all that. They’ll call for investigations, amidst dark, unsubstantiated rumors of illegal activities behind the scenes.
Either way, it won’t be pretty.
The streets will erupt in leftist anger. November’s election will be called into question.
That’s what I expect if Senate Republicans rush the decision. It won’t be pretty.
The Process, If the Senate Drags It Out
Democrats want the process to drag on as long as possible. They can’t expect to push it past the end of this Congress, but that won’t stop them from trying. Meanwhile they’ll do to Amy Coney Barrett what they did to Brett Kavanaugh.
They’ll spend megabucks on private investigators digging up dirt on her. If that fails — as I certainly expect it to — they’ll spend more bucks on investigators finding people who’ll invent dirt on her. They’ll call her virtues dirt — her motherhood and her religious beliefs. They’ll take all that dirt into Committee and pour water over it until it becomes an opaque, incomprehensible, muddy mess.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
We Americans watching it will come close to drowning again in a rancid river of mud. Barrett herself will be beat as close to metaphorical death as they can legally beat her, and when they can’t beat her any more, they’ll take off after her husband, children, and friends.
Nevertheless, since the Republicans hold the majority, Judge Barrett will be confirmed and seated as Justice Barrett, and if the country holds together, we’ll go on to the next thing, the election.
The Aftermath, If the Senate Drags It Out
Still for all that, the aftermath will be predictably explosive. Democrats will be spitting mad. They’ll cry foul. They’ll accuse Republicans of ramrodding the process. They’ll make dark accusations of swamp gas spilling out of Barrett’s basement windows, but “the Republicans wouldn’t let us call the witnesses we needed!” They’ll fume over the Court’s takeover by conservatives, calling it the end of the rule of law, the demise of democracy as we know it.
Major media will echo all that. They’ll call for investigations, amidst dark, unsubstantiated rumors of illegal activities behind the scenes. The streets will erupt in leftist anger. November’s election will be called into question.
That’s what I expect if Senate Republicans let the decision drag on for weeks, as they did with Kavanaugh. It won’t be pretty.
Why Drag It Out?
Let’s go straight to the aftermath and get it over with.
No, you’re not seeing double. Long, draw-out hearings or lighting-quick confirmation, I expect exactly the same aftermath either way. Except there’d be more, if the Senate lets the Democrats do again what they did to Kavanaugh.
Motherhood would be called into question. Religion itself would be dragged through a swamp. In fact, all of America would be dragged through muck, especially the family of a qualified woman whose one great desire is to serve her country.
I say, let’s skip that part. Let’s go straight to the aftermath and get it over with. We’ll come out cleaner for it.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-09-28--Military Photo of the Day: Soaring with the Saudis

A U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker , F-15C Eagles , F-15E Strike Eagles , and Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SAs @ @ @ @ @ participating in a large formation exercise on September 10 , 2020 .

A U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, F-15C Eagles, F-15E Strike Eagles, and Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SAs fly over Saudi Arabia while participating in a large formation exercise on September 10, 2020.
Have a safe week, everyone!
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-09-28--Was the Grand Jury’s Breonna Taylor Decision Unjust? What You Need to Know

Was the grand jury ’ s decision not to indict any of the three police officers for Breonna Taylor ’ s death just ?
Why was there a warrant for the 26-year-old medical professional ’ s home in the first place , and why was it a no knock warrant ?
What do we know about what really happened that night ?
Amy Swearer , a legal fellow at the Meese Center in The Heritage Foundation , joins us to break down all this and more .
Listen , or read the lightly edited transcript below .
Katrina Trinko : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal fellow in the Meese Center at The Heritage Foundation .
Amy , thanks for joining us .
Amy Swearer : Thank you so much for having me .
Trinko : So right now we ’ re again seeing massive protests , unrest over the grand jury ’ s decision not to charge any of the three police officers with Breonna Taylor ’ s death .
Now , for those who haven ’ t been following the case closely , Breonna Taylor was a 26-year-old black woman and an emergency room technician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three police officers had a warrant to enter her residence , and in the course of that , she was shot by one of the police officers .
So I want to get into the grand jury , its decision on this case , but let ’ s start with the beginning .
Why was there a warrant for Taylor ’ s residence in the first place ?
Swearer : Right .
So I think this is the thing that has been confusing to a lot of people .
So when we break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version is it was sort of a questionable guilt by association type issue .
So you have Breonna Taylor who , by all accounts , was a completely upstanding citizen .
You talked about the incredible medical career that she had as a technician , had been awarded for that and , by all accounts , has done nothing criminal .
Then there is her ex-boyfriend … The details are a little sketchy , but apparently , this ex-boyfriend had been caught up in some sort of either , not drug trafficking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of thing .
So they were really focused on this ex-boyfriend and trying to collect evidence to get a warrant for him .
In the course of this , Breonna Taylor apparently still had some sort of friendship or relationship with this individual , so they see her dropping this ex-boyfriend off a couple of times .
It turns out that the ex-boyfriend may still have been picking up mail at Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment , but nothing from what I can tell at least , seemed to indicate that Breonna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or form was connected to any illegal activity that the ex-boyfriend may have been doing other than again , this sort of guilt by association .
So basically what happens is there are two warrants issued : one for the ex-boyfriend ’ s place , because again , he is the one suspected of this drug trafficking , this narcotic stealing , and then one issued for Breonna Taylor ’ s residence .
From what I can tell , the argument seems to be that , “ Well , the ex-boyfriend was picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been related to his drug business , ” and because they still had this sort of friendship , relationship thing happening that maybe she was caught up in this too .
So they get a warrant for her apartment as well , trying to , I guess , find evidence against the ex-boyfriend .
Now , those warrants were both served on the same night , so both against the ex-boyfriend and against Breonna Taylor , and that ’ s how Breonna Taylor got caught up in all of this … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think most of us think , “ Wow , getting a warrant and having the police come when you haven ’ t done anything is such a terrifying thought.
” Is it common for judges to allow warrants in situations where it doesn ’ t appear that the person themselves is involved , but they might know someone , or as you said , she seemed to be getting mail that was going to her ex-boyfriends who might ’ ve been involved ?
Is that a stretch for a warrant or is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : So again , it ’ s hard because I don ’ t have all the information , but from what I can tell , there didn ’ t seem to have been more , that the premise itself was there ’ s mail for the ex-boyfriend at the apartment and that they didn ’ t have any hard proof that anything in this mail had anything to do with illegal activity .
People allow other people , for a variety of reasons , to pick up mail at their place , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickup if that person doesn ’ t have package service or something .
So that in and of itself , I think is questionable , unless there ’ s something that either I have not seen or something that is sort of hidden in these warrants somewhere that no one else has really picked on to really draw that connection .
… If this had been a situation where the police had evidence , not just that the ex-boyfriend was picking up packages or had been to her place , but that out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to further his illegal drug activity , then maybe I think a warrant is reasonable , but it is a bit of a stretch absent that hard connection to say , “ Oh , well , he ’ s picking up packages there , so it might be drugs.
” Normally , you need a little bit more than that .
Trinko : This was a no-knock warrant .
Now , there is dispute about whether the police ultimately did this as a no-knock warrant or not .
The Kentucky attorney general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves as police before they came into the apartment .
I believe one neighbor heard that .
The other neighbors , my understanding is , say they didn ’ t hear that , but putting aside that dispute , let ’ s get into what is a no-knock warrant and when is it appropriate ?
Swearer : Right .
So a no-knock warrant , in some respects , is self-explanatory .
It is a warrant that is served without the police having to knock on the door , announce themselves .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CSI or crime show on TV , you ’ ll see them knocking at the door , going , “ Police , open up .
We have a warrant.
” Normally , that is something police have to do … knock and announce themselves .
Now , with a no-knock warrant , generally , those are reserved for situations where it would either put the police in danger to have to announce themselves … that if they know the police are coming , they ’ ll either be prepared to harm the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very easy for them to get rid of evidence , that if the police knock and say , “ Hey , it ’ s the police , ” that they ’ ll flush drugs or somehow or another get rid of that evidence .
But generally speaking … it ’ s not normally how warrants are served .
So the argument for a long time has been that that those types of warrants … should need to meet a considerably higher bar of showing that the officers are going to be in danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from what happened with this incident with Breonna Taylor , it can go very , very poorly , very , very quickly because there are a lot of risks to civilians , to the officers themselves with these no-knock warrants .
So they have been quite controversial .
I think part of the reason they ’ ve been so controversial is because they have been used quite often in these sorts of scenarios where it ’ s very questionable whether they were needed in the first place .
Trinko : So Taylor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , is not the same as the ex-boyfriend who is potentially involved with this drug situation , so her current boyfriend allegedly fired the first shot at the police officers .
So how does it work in situations with a warrant ?
What if someone is genuinely confused , thinks they ’ re being attacked ?
You ’ ve got three officers with guns .
I ’ m not sure what they were wearing or what they were saying .
How does the law deal with situations like that ?
Swearer : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actually important to back up first and talk about sort of the discrepancies between what the boyfriend is saying happened and what the police are saying happened .
So the police version of this , and again , it ’ s hard because there are no body cameras .
We don ’ t have video of this .
We just are piecing together what various witnesses are saying .
So the police version was that , even though they had a no-knock warrant , they knocked and announced themselves for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knocked and said , “ Police , open up , ” and that Breonna Taylor ’ s boyfriend at that point opened fire on them .
They clearly thought that a criminal was firing at them .
And at that point , they had a right to defend themselves as any officer would when someone has opened fire on them .
But then you flip that around and you have the boyfriend saying , Look , we don ’ t think that they ever announced themselves .
We never heard this .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asleep and we had no idea that these were officers at our door .
We thought someone was trying to break in .
And in fact , we shouted , ’ Who ’ s there ?
and no one answered .
There are a number of neighbors who now have said that , We never heard police anywhere .
So there ’ s this discrepancy about whether or not they really knew it was police .
So Breonna Taylor ’ s boyfriend thinks someone ’ s breaking in , fires what he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that point , the officers opened fire on him , ended up killing Breonna in her bed .
The boyfriend then , and this is on record , so this is verifiable , then calls 911 and says , There ’ s someone trying to break in .
Someone just shot my girlfriend .
I don ’ t know what ’ s happening .
That would seem to indicate that he very truly did not know that these were police at the door .
So in that scenario , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought they were acting in self-defense .
Now , you had the boyfriend who quite reasonably , if he didn ’ t understand that these were police and frankly , even if he did hear them say , “ police , ” I can think of off the top of my head , several instances from just the last year or two in our defensive gun use database where you had criminals committing armed robbery by pounding on the door shouting in the middle of the night , “ Police , open up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just criminals trying to break in .
Swearer : Yeah , absolutely .
And again , you want to talk about some of the dangers of these middle of the night no-knock raids , that ’ s one of the dangers inherent to them .
But then on the other side , you have law enforcement officers who are serving a warrant that has been granted to them .
They went through the correct legal process .
We can debate whether or not that warrant should have been granted , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warrant , they were doing their job and they got fired at .
In that scenario , most cops are going to fire back .
So it ’ s really this sort of gray area where both parties can theoretically legitimately say , “ We were acting in self defense.
” So I think that complicates this in a way that you don ’ t see in a lot of other scenarios of police shooting .
Trinko : So let ’ s talk about the grand jury process .
What is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was it used in this case ?
Swearer : Sure .
So a grand jury is a process that a lot of states use as a way of weeding out and seeing whether there is probable cause before someone is charged with a crime .
So it ’ s sort of protection against flagrant abuses of charging somebody with a crime .
Most times , they ’ re not open to the public .
They ’ re closed testimony .
This is not something where the defendant , the person who is accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself or herself .
Basically , a type of jury , a group of citizens called the grand jury , is presented with all of the evidence that the prosecutor has and their job is to make sure that based on all of this evidence , there is at least probable cause of a crime .
So that ’ s a very low bar .
This is not like an actual jury trial where both sides get to present evidence and there ’ s a very high bar for proving guilt .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] is there enough evidence here to go forward ?
Generally speaking , if a prosecutor is bringing something to a grand jury , they ’ re pretty confident that there ’ s enough evidence there .
There ’ s this old saying of you could indict a bologna sandwich or a ham sandwich in front of a grand jury because only one side is presenting evidence .
So it is a bit rare to see some of these situations like you see here where some of the individuals are not indicted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that from a legal standpoint , there wasn ’ t a whole lot to charge these other two officers with .
Trinko : On that , so obviously , the final decision by the grand jury was not to indict any of the three officers in Taylor ’ s death .
Although , one of the officers was indicted for , I don ’ t remember the formal version of the charge , but for essentially , not being careful enough and shooting and shots , I believe , went into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did you think about the grand jury ’ s decision ?
Did it strike you as appropriate , problematic or what ?
Swearer : So in many respects , I think this was… This type of outcome wasn ’ t unexpected because again , you have a scenario where these were not cops who were doing something that was per se illegal .
They had a warrant .
They went through the proper judicial system .
You can question the administrative aspect of it .
Should they have been granted a warrant ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursuing in the first place ?
But that ’ s not necessarily illegal , to seek and be granted a warrant that maybe shouldn ’ t have been granted , that ’ s not necessarily a crime .
So in many respects , they went through the legal correct processes to do their job .
At the end of the day , they didn ’ t do anything criminal with respect to that .
I don ’ t think that was very unexpected .
I think it was disappointing for a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you talk about the use of force , shooting at and killing someone who is lying in their bed .
The argument there is , again , they ’ re serving a warrant and someone shoots at them .
They don ’ t necessarily have a concept of , “ He ’ s shooting at us because he doesn ’ t know that we ’ re cops.
” They ’ re cops going , “ Someone ’ s shooting at us because we ’ re cops.
” And in that case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force against the person who is shooting at them .
The complicating factor here and where you ’ re seeing the one indictment come from is how they fired back .
This was something that even from the very beginning just didn ’ t make a whole lot of sense to a lot of people reading through the facts of what happened … one of the officers apparently fires blindly through the wall of the apartment , so not firing through an open door into the dark , but just starts firing through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see .
So that ’ s where he picked up the charge for essentially , reckless endangerment , but it wasn ’ t for recklessly endangering Breonna Taylor or the boyfriend , but because by blind firing through walls of an apartment , you ’ re recklessly endangering the other people in the apartment .
So that is something that again , from the very beginning , … .
didn ’ t feel right .
That was always one part of this story that , even if you ’ re on the side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were serving a warrant , ” why do you start firing blindly through walls ?
That is not generally something officers are trained to do or authorized to do .
So that ’ s where you get that reckless endangerment charge , but not any criminal charges as they relate to Breonna Taylor or the boyfriend .
Trinko : Obviously , police departments have different standards depending on which department .
I ’ m sure there ’ s … variations , but what you were just mentioning , that ’ s interesting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are times where they feel like they have to act in self-defense , but at the same time , the goal is not to kill anyone else , including the people shooting at them if possible .
Do you have any thoughts on how do most police officers , how are they recommended to navigate that ?
Does it seem that it was out of the ordinary what happened here ?
Swearer : Again , to me , what it comes down to in terms of what ’ s out of the ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the ordinary to seek a no-knock midnight warrant ?
Was this type of serving up the warrant necessary ?
And I think the answer is no , probably not .
I think the outcome of that is it was the seeking of that warrant , this idea of we ’ re going to use a process that is generally reserved for people who we know are dangerous , who we really have this extraordinary need to break into their home at midnight , using that type of mechanism in this scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no point accused of actually being involved in anything violent , anything criminal , much less violent .
It was maybe the ex-boyfriend had some packages here .
To look at that and say , “ Yeah , we need to bust into this home at midnight , either knocking or not knocking , ” that puts officers in danger .
That creates a scenario that is dangerous for everyone involved .
So to me , that ’ s the thing that is a bit unusual and sort of… I wish I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is all too common , in the sense that , that these are overly used in scenarios where they ’ re not supposed to be used or not needed to be used .
So that to me , is the thing that sticks out .
Then on top of that , yes , generally speaking , officers should not be hired blindly through walls , even if someone shoots at you .
You are trained to shoot at targets that you can identify , and if you ’ re shooting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you ’ re shooting at .
You don ’ t know what ’ s on the other side .
Even if someone is shooting at you , in that scenario , you don ’ t know , “ OK .
Do they have hostages ?
Do you have innocent children on the other side of that wall ?
” So that , again as you suggested , it ’ s something that is out of the ordinary as well .
But again , the biggest thing that sticks out is the misuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation that didn ’ t call for it .
That ultimately creates the scenario where everyone thinks that they are defending themselves .
Trinko : This case has gotten massive media attention , a lot of interest from the American public .
We ’ re seeing celebrities speak out .
We ’ re seeing a lot of social media posts .
And of course , we ’ re seeing protests across the country .
The overwhelming narrative here is—Amy , you ’ ve broken down some of this— … a woman was peacefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The police came in and they shot her while she was asleep .
What would you say to a Facebook friend of yours , or a protester who is saying that this case shows that we have a problem with justice in America ?
Swearer : On the one hand , I think that it is a valid concern for people to have that we have a system for obtaining warrants and carrying out those warrants where a woman who is an upstanding citizen , who really isn ’ t accused of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in a midnight no-knock raid like this .
That ’ s a valid criticism .
That is something that a lot of people in criminal justice reform have pointed out for years , that this is something to really look at … But unfortunately , I think that has not taken the spotlight that it should be taking , that this is more of an administrative error and not necessarily an error in terms of how the police executed this raid .
Again , they were doing something they were authorized to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with authorizing it in the first place .
Then on the other side , it ’ s difficult because out of all of the recent events involving—whether it ’ s police shootings or George Floyd—deaths in police custody .
I think there are plenty of other examples of very acute , very serious police misuses of force , like with George Floyd , where the officers did things that just simply can ’ t be justified .
Those actions can ’ t be justified , but I don ’ t think people … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the right reasons .
I think it ’ s leading to a lot of anger on both sides .
You have people who are angry at the death of an innocent woman , but they ’ re angry sort of for the wrong reasons at the wrong parts of what went wrong.Amy Then you have people who , on the other side , look at this and say , “ Oh , well , the problem wasn ’ t with what the officers did during the raid .
It was with what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fault , so we shouldn ’ t care about it essentially.
” So it ’ s sort of this mismatched anger , if you will , that I think sort of spirals out of control on both sides .
It ’ s disappointing because I think , specifically with this case , there are legitimate grievances , but we need to be specific about what those grievances are and how they should be fixed .
And again , that grievances , this type of warrant should not have been served in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this scenario where you have people legitimately claiming self-defense and appropriate action on both sides .
Trinko : So Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear told CNN , “ Throughout the last six months , there hasn ’ t been really any explanation of the process ; the evidence you ’ d have to secure , what it even takes to make certain charges .
And then the evidence itself to date has not been shared .
Certainly , I think that now is the time.
” Should the Kentucky attorney general , Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand jury had ?
Swearer : So generally speaking , you talk about the grand jury process .
That is not a public process , that is not open to the public in the same way that a jury trial would be .
Some of that has to do with the specifics and the differences between what gets admitted into a trial and what gets admitted into a grand jury process .
So that is not usually how things are done .
Some of that is to protect witnesses , to protect people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who testify openly .
You don ’ t want the mob , if you will , coming down on that because of something they said during the grand jury process , but the whole purpose of the grand jury process is for it to be open , that evidence to be out before the grand jury so that they have everything in front of them .
It wouldn ’ t be unprecedented for that information to be released .
That is something that does occasionally happen , especially in very controversial cases like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy , really appreciate you joining us and providing this analysis .
Is there anything else you ’ d like to add ?
Swearer : Yeah .
I think that the final thing that I would say is … the main takeaway from this is one , this was a tragedy .
Breonna Taylor should be alive .
There is no indication at all that she has done anything criminal in her life , much less in these circumstances .
And two , that we need to be intentional when tragedies like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was because I think when you get down to it , the problem here was administrative .
It was a deeper question of when and how we should use warrants .
Should we be treating every single instance of serving a warrant as though it is this life or death situation where cops have to bust down doors in the middle of the night ?
And I think the answer is no , especially not in situations like the one we see with Breonna Taylor .
When you start fixing those problems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a larger extent , you ’ ll avoid some of these more violent confrontations where you have people on both sides who are just mistaken about what ’ s happening .
You have the boyfriend who is thinking , “ I ’ m in fear for my life because someone ’ s breaking into my house.
” You have the cops who are thinking , “ Oh , he ’ s a criminal shooting at us , ” and it ’ s very unfortunate and it ’ s heartbreaking because all of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning by just using better judgment about how we ’ re going to serve those warrants .
Trinko : Amy , thank you so much for joining us .
Swearer : Thank you for having me .

Was the grand jury’s decision not to indict any of the three police officers for Breonna Taylor’s death just? Why was there a warrant for the 26-year-old medical professional’s home in the first place, and why was it a no knock warrant? What do we know about what really happened that night?
Amy Swearer, a legal fellow at the Meese Center in The Heritage Foundation, joins us to break down all this and more. Listen, or read the lightly edited transcript below.
Katrina Trinko: Joining me today is Amy Swearer, a legal fellow in the Meese Center at The Heritage Foundation. Amy, thanks for joining us.
Amy Swearer: Thank you so much for having me.
Trinko: So right now we’re again seeing massive protests, unrest over the grand jury’s decision not to charge any of the three police officers with Breonna Taylor’s death. Now, for those who haven’t been following the case closely, Breonna Taylor was a 26-year-old black woman and an emergency room technician. She was killed this March after three police officers had a warrant to enter her residence, and in the course of that, she was shot by one of the police officers. So I want to get into the grand jury, its decision on this case, but let’s start with the beginning. Why was there a warrant for Taylor’s residence in the first place?
Swearer: Right. So I think this is the thing that has been confusing to a lot of people. So when we break this down, I think the short version is it was sort of a questionable guilt by association type issue.
So you have Breonna Taylor who, by all accounts, was a completely upstanding citizen. You talked about the incredible medical career that she had as a technician, had been awarded for that and, by all accounts, has done nothing criminal.
Then there is her ex-boyfriend … The details are a little sketchy, but apparently, this ex-boyfriend had been caught up in some sort of either, not drug trafficking, but distribution of drugs, illegal narcotics type of thing.
So they were really focused on this ex-boyfriend and trying to collect evidence to get a warrant for him. In the course of this, Breonna Taylor apparently still had some sort of friendship or relationship with this individual, so they see her dropping this ex-boyfriend off a couple of times.
It turns out that the ex-boyfriend may still have been picking up mail at Breonna Taylor’s apartment, but nothing from what I can tell at least, seemed to indicate that Breonna Taylor in any way, shape, or form was connected to any illegal activity that the ex-boyfriend may have been doing other than again, this sort of guilt by association.
Those warrants were both served on the same night, so both against the ex-boyfriend and against Breonna Taylor, and that’s how Breonna Taylor got caught up in all of this.
So basically what happens is there are two warrants issued: one for the ex-boyfriend’s place, because again, he is the one suspected of this drug trafficking, this narcotic stealing, and then one issued for Breonna Taylor’s residence.
From what I can tell, the argument seems to be that, “Well, the ex-boyfriend was picking up packages there, and those packages might have been related to his drug business,” and because they still had this sort of friendship, relationship thing happening that maybe she was caught up in this too. So they get a warrant for her apartment as well, trying to, I guess, find evidence against the ex-boyfriend.
Now, those warrants were both served on the same night, so both against the ex-boyfriend and against Breonna Taylor, and that’s how Breonna Taylor got caught up in all of this …
Trinko: So on that point, I think most of us think, “Wow, getting a warrant and having the police come when you haven’t done anything is such a terrifying thought.” Is it common for judges to allow warrants in situations where it doesn’t appear that the person themselves is involved, but they might know someone, or as you said, she seemed to be getting mail that was going to her ex-boyfriends who might’ve been involved? Is that a stretch for a warrant or is stuff like this pretty common?
Swearer: So again, it’s hard because I don’t have all the information, but from what I can tell, there didn’t seem to have been more, that the premise itself was there’s mail for the ex-boyfriend at the apartment and that they didn’t have any hard proof that anything in this mail had anything to do with illegal activity.
People allow other people, for a variety of reasons, to pick up mail at their place, to essentially use their address as a package pickup if that person doesn’t have package service or something. So that in and of itself, I think is questionable, unless there’s something that either I have not seen or something that is sort of hidden in these warrants somewhere that no one else has really picked on to really draw that connection. …
If this had been a situation where the police had evidence, not just that the ex-boyfriend was picking up packages or had been to her place, but that out of that, these packages contain something to further his illegal drug activity, then maybe I think a warrant is reasonable, but it is a bit of a stretch absent that hard connection to say, “Oh, well, he’s picking up packages there, so it might be drugs.” Normally, you need a little bit more than that.
Trinko: This was a no-knock warrant. Now, there is dispute about whether the police ultimately did this as a no-knock warrant or not. The Kentucky attorney general, Daniel Cameron, said they did announce themselves as police before they came into the apartment. I believe one neighbor heard that. The other neighbors, my understanding is, say they didn’t hear that, but putting aside that dispute, let’s get into what is a no-knock warrant and when is it appropriate?
Swearer: Right. So a no-knock warrant, in some respects, is self-explanatory. It is a warrant that is served without the police having to knock on the door, announce themselves. If you’ve ever seen any sort of CSI or crime show on TV, you’ll see them knocking at the door, going, “Police, open up. We have a warrant.” Normally, that is something police have to do … knock and announce themselves.
Now, with a no-knock warrant, generally, those are reserved for situations where it would either put the police in danger to have to announce themselves … that if they know the police are coming, they’ll either be prepared to harm the police or in instances where it would be very easy for them to get rid of evidence, that if the police knock and say, “Hey, it’s the police,” that they’ll flush drugs or somehow or another get rid of that evidence.
But generally speaking … it’s not normally how warrants are served. So the argument for a long time has been that that those types of warrants … should need to meet a considerably higher bar of showing that the officers are going to be in danger.
Because again, as we see from what happened with this incident with Breonna Taylor, it can go very, very poorly, very, very quickly because there are a lot of risks to civilians, to the officers themselves with these no-knock warrants. So they have been quite controversial.
I think part of the reason they’ve been so controversial is because they have been used quite often in these sorts of scenarios where it’s very questionable whether they were needed in the first place.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Trinko: So Taylor’s then-boyfriend, who, to be clear, is not the same as the ex-boyfriend who is potentially involved with this drug situation, so her current boyfriend allegedly fired the first shot at the police officers. So how does it work in situations with a warrant? What if someone is genuinely confused, thinks they’re being attacked? You’ve got three officers with guns. I’m not sure what they were wearing or what they were saying. How does the law deal with situations like that?
Swearer: I think for this case, it’s actually important to back up first and talk about sort of the discrepancies between what the boyfriend is saying happened and what the police are saying happened.
So the police version of this, and again, it’s hard because there are no body cameras. We don’t have video of this. We just are piecing together what various witnesses are saying. So the police version was that, even though they had a no-knock warrant, they knocked and announced themselves for a minute or so at around midnight, knocked and said, “Police, open up,” and that Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend at that point opened fire on them.
They clearly thought that a criminal was firing at them. And at that point, they had a right to defend themselves as any officer would when someone has opened fire on them.
But then you flip that around and you have the boyfriend saying, Look, we don’t think that they ever announced themselves. We never heard this. Or if they did, we were half asleep and we had no idea that these were officers at our door. We thought someone was trying to break in. And in fact, we shouted,’Who’s there? and no one answered.
There are a number of neighbors who now have said that, We never heard police anywhere. So there’s this discrepancy about whether or not they really knew it was police.
So Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend thinks someone’s breaking in, fires what he says is a warning shot, and then at that point, the officers opened fire on him, ended up killing Breonna in her bed.
The boyfriend then, and this is on record, so this is verifiable, then calls 911 and says, There’s someone trying to break in. Someone just shot my girlfriend. I don’t know what’s happening. That would seem to indicate that he very truly did not know that these were police at the door.
So in that scenario, it’s this weird legal place where both parties thought they were acting in self-defense. Now, you had the boyfriend who quite reasonably, if he didn’t understand that these were police and frankly, even if he did hear them say, “police,” I can think of off the top of my head, several instances from just the last year or two in our defensive gun use database where you had criminals committing armed robbery by pounding on the door shouting in the middle of the night, “Police, open up,” and it turns out they were just criminals trying to break in.
Trinko: That’s terrifying.
Swearer: Yeah, absolutely. And again, you want to talk about some of the dangers of these middle of the night no-knock raids, that’s one of the dangers inherent to them.
But then on the other side, you have law enforcement officers who are serving a warrant that has been granted to them. They went through the correct legal process. We can debate whether or not that warrant should have been granted, but they had a warrant, they were serving a warrant, they were doing their job and they got fired at. In that scenario, most cops are going to fire back.
So it’s really this sort of gray area where both parties can theoretically legitimately say, “We were acting in self defense.” So I think that complicates this in a way that you don’t see in a lot of other scenarios of police shooting.
Trinko: So let’s talk about the grand jury process. What is it and how does it work and why was it used in this case?
Swearer: Sure. So a grand jury is a process that a lot of states use as a way of weeding out and seeing whether there is probable cause before someone is charged with a crime. So it’s sort of protection against flagrant abuses of charging somebody with a crime.
Most times, they’re not open to the public. They’re closed testimony. This is not something where the defendant, the person who is accused of the crime, gets to defend himself or herself. Basically, a type of jury, a group of citizens called the grand jury, is presented with all of the evidence that the prosecutor has and their job is to make sure that based on all of this evidence, there is at least probable cause of a crime. So that’s a very low bar.
This is not like an actual jury trial where both sides get to present evidence and there’s a very high bar for proving guilt. This is just a bare minimum [answering] is there enough evidence here to go forward?
Generally speaking, if a prosecutor is bringing something to a grand jury, they’re pretty confident that there’s enough evidence there. There’s this old saying of you could indict a bologna sandwich or a ham sandwich in front of a grand jury because only one side is presenting evidence.
So it is a bit rare to see some of these situations like you see here where some of the individuals are not indicted. I think that speaks to … the fact that from a legal standpoint, there wasn’t a whole lot to charge these other two officers with.
Trinko: On that, so obviously, the final decision by the grand jury was not to indict any of the three officers in Taylor’s death. Although, one of the officers was indicted for, I don’t remember the formal version of the charge, but for essentially, not being careful enough and shooting and shots, I believe, went into a neighbor’s apartment. So what did you think about the grand jury’s decision? Did it strike you as appropriate, problematic or what?
Swearer: So in many respects, I think this was… This type of outcome wasn’t unexpected because again, you have a scenario where these were not cops who were doing something that was per se illegal. They had a warrant. They went through the proper judicial system.
You can question the administrative aspect of it. Should they have been granted a warrant? Should this have been something they were pursuing in the first place? But that’s not necessarily illegal, to seek and be granted a warrant that maybe shouldn’t have been granted, that’s not necessarily a crime.
So in many respects, they went through the legal correct processes to do their job. At the end of the day, they didn’t do anything criminal with respect to that. I don’t think that was very unexpected. I think it was disappointing for a lot of people.
Even if you’re on the side of the cop saying, “They were serving a warrant,” why do you start firing blindly through walls? That is not generally something officers are trained to do or authorized to do.
Then on top of that, you talk about the use of force, shooting at and killing someone who is lying in their bed. The argument there is, again, they’re serving a warrant and someone shoots at them. They don’t necessarily have a concept of, “He’s shooting at us because he doesn’t know that we’re cops.” They’re cops going, “Someone’s shooting at us because we’re cops.” And in that case, they have the right to use deadly force against the person who is shooting at them.
The complicating factor here and where you’re seeing the one indictment come from is how they fired back. This was something that even from the very beginning just didn’t make a whole lot of sense to a lot of people reading through the facts of what happened … one of the officers apparently fires blindly through the wall of the apartment, so not firing through an open door into the dark, but just starts firing through walls at things he can’t see.
So that’s where he picked up the charge for essentially, reckless endangerment, but it wasn’t for recklessly endangering Breonna Taylor or the boyfriend, but because by blind firing through walls of an apartment, you’re recklessly endangering the other people in the apartment. So that is something that again, from the very beginning, …. didn’t feel right.
That was always one part of this story that, even if you’re on the side of the cop saying, “They were serving a warrant,” why do you start firing blindly through walls? That is not generally something officers are trained to do or authorized to do. So that’s where you get that reckless endangerment charge, but not any criminal charges as they relate to Breonna Taylor or the boyfriend.
Trinko: Obviously, police departments have different standards depending on which department. I’m sure there’s … variations, but what you were just mentioning, that’s interesting. Obviously, officers are trained that there are times where they feel like they have to act in self-defense, but at the same time, the goal is not to kill anyone else, including the people shooting at them if possible. Do you have any thoughts on how do most police officers, how are they recommended to navigate that? Does it seem that it was out of the ordinary what happened here?
Swearer: Again, to me, what it comes down to in terms of what’s out of the ordinary is that question of, was it out of the ordinary to seek a no-knock midnight warrant? Was this type of serving up the warrant necessary? And I think the answer is no, probably not.
I think the outcome of that is it was the seeking of that warrant, this idea of we’re going to use a process that is generally reserved for people who we know are dangerous, who we really have this extraordinary need to break into their home at midnight, using that type of mechanism in this scenario where again, Breonna Taylor is at no point accused of actually being involved in anything violent, anything criminal, much less violent. It was maybe the ex-boyfriend had some packages here.
To look at that and say, “Yeah, we need to bust into this home at midnight, either knocking or not knocking,” that puts officers in danger. That creates a scenario that is dangerous for everyone involved. So to me, that’s the thing that is a bit unusual and sort of… I wish I could say out of character, but unfortunately, this is all too common, in the sense that, that these are overly used in scenarios where they’re not supposed to be used or not needed to be used. So that to me, is the thing that sticks out.
Then on top of that, yes, generally speaking, officers should not be hired blindly through walls, even if someone shoots at you. You are trained to shoot at targets that you can identify, and if you’re shooting for walls, you don’t know what you’re shooting at. You don’t know what’s on the other side. Even if someone is shooting at you, in that scenario, you don’t know, “OK. Do they have hostages? Do you have innocent children on the other side of that wall?” So that, again as you suggested, it’s something that is out of the ordinary as well.
But again, the biggest thing that sticks out is the misuse of this type of warrant in a situation that didn’t call for it. That ultimately creates the scenario where everyone thinks that they are defending themselves.
Trinko: This case has gotten massive media attention, a lot of interest from the American public. We’re seeing celebrities speak out. We’re seeing a lot of social media posts. And of course, we’re seeing protests across the country. The overwhelming narrative here is—Amy, you’ve broken down some of this— … a woman was peacefully asleep, minding her own business. The police came in and they shot her while she was asleep. What would you say to a Facebook friend of yours, or a protester who is saying that this case shows that we have a problem with justice in America?
Swearer: On the one hand, I think that it is a valid concern for people to have that we have a system for obtaining warrants and carrying out those warrants where a woman who is an upstanding citizen, who really isn’t accused of having done anything wrong, still gets caught up in a midnight no-knock raid like this. That’s a valid criticism. That is something that a lot of people in criminal justice reform have pointed out for years, that this is something to really look at …
But unfortunately, I think that has not taken the spotlight that it should be taking, that this is more of an administrative error and not necessarily an error in terms of how the police executed this raid. Again, they were doing something they were authorized to do. The error came before that with authorizing it in the first place.
Then on the other side, it’s difficult because out of all of the recent events involving—whether it’s police shootings or George Floyd—deaths in police custody. I think there are plenty of other examples of very acute, very serious police misuses of force, like with George Floyd, where the officers did things that just simply can’t be justified. Those actions can’t be justified, but I don’t think people … are picking the right things to criticize for the right reasons. I think it’s leading to a lot of anger on both sides. You have people who are angry at the death of an innocent woman, but they’re angry sort of for the wrong reasons at the wrong parts of what went wrong.Amy
Then you have people who, on the other side, look at this and say, “Oh, well, the problem wasn’t with what the officers did during the raid. It was with what happened beforehand and that’s not their fault, so we shouldn’t care about it essentially.” So it’s sort of this mismatched anger, if you will, that I think sort of spirals out of control on both sides.
It’s disappointing because I think, specifically with this case, there are legitimate grievances, but we need to be specific about what those grievances are and how they should be fixed. And again, that grievances, this type of warrant should not have been served in this instance, and that would have prevented this scenario where you have people legitimately claiming self-defense and appropriate action on both sides.
Trinko: So Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear told CNN, “Throughout the last six months, there hasn’t been really any explanation of the process; the evidence you’d have to secure, what it even takes to make certain charges. And then the evidence itself to date has not been shared. Certainly, I think that now is the time.” Should the Kentucky attorney general, Daniel Cameron, release the evidence that the grand jury had?
Swearer: So generally speaking, you talk about the grand jury process. That is not a public process, that is not open to the public in the same way that a jury trial would be.
Some of that has to do with the specifics and the differences between what gets admitted into a trial and what gets admitted into a grand jury process. So that is not usually how things are done. Some of that is to protect witnesses, to protect people who testify at a grand jury, who testify openly. You don’t want the mob, if you will, coming down on that because of something they said during the grand jury process, but the whole purpose of the grand jury process is for it to be open, that evidence to be out before the grand jury so that they have everything in front of them.
It wouldn’t be unprecedented for that information to be released. That is something that does occasionally happen, especially in very controversial cases like this.
We need to be intentional when tragedies like this happen with pinpointing what the real problem was because I think when you get down to it, the problem here was administrative.
Trinko: OK. Well, Amy, really appreciate you joining us and providing this analysis. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Swearer: Yeah. I think that the final thing that I would say is … the main takeaway from this is one, this was a tragedy. Breonna Taylor should be alive. There is no indication at all that she has done anything criminal in her life, much less in these circumstances.
And two, that we need to be intentional when tragedies like this happen with pinpointing what the real problem was because I think when you get down to it, the problem here was administrative. It was a deeper question of when and how we should use warrants.
Should we be treating every single instance of serving a warrant as though it is this life or death situation where cops have to bust down doors in the middle of the night? And I think the answer is no, especially not in situations like the one we see with Breonna Taylor.
When you start fixing those problems, you avoid the, at least to a larger extent, you’ll avoid some of these more violent confrontations where you have people on both sides who are just mistaken about what’s happening. You have the boyfriend who is thinking, “I’m in fear for my life because someone’s breaking into my house.” You have the cops who are thinking, “Oh, he’s a criminal shooting at us,” and it’s very unfortunate and it’s heartbreaking because all of that could have been avoided at the very beginning by just using better judgment about how we’re going to serve those warrants.
Trinko: Amy, thank you so much for joining us.
Swearer: Thank you for having me.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal