Being White in America

If we want to end racism, shouldn't we end all racism in its various forms? Some claim there is a systemic racism built into this country, going back to its foundation as a result of slavery. Yet, the Founding Fathers stopped the importation of slavery in 1808 (the country was just 20 years old at the time). Slavery itself ceased by 1865. Yet, in its place came the "Jim Crow" laws which sought to essentially undo what preceding history had accomplished.

As a result, America fought another phase of the war, albeit less bloody, but not without its casualties, through the 1960's when the Civil Rights Act became law and Jim Crow became a thing of the past. Since then, traces of racism have arisen, but to a large degree, were dealt with as quickly as the legal process permitted.

Today, just over 160 years after the Civil War, every vestige of slavery which matters has been eliminated. We've had black, Hispanic, and Asian federal judges and Supreme Court justices. We've had numerous black and other minority mayors, governors, chiefs of police, military generals (and head of the Pentagon), business leaders, professionals of every sort, and even a bi-racial U.S. President.

We have colleges and college programs dedicated to black students. We've instituted a whole litany of government programs with one aim; providing black and other minority students with a leg up. We've created programs designed to help single minority females and their children.

There are college funds aimed to help black students. Vocational programs to train black students, just as there are for Hispanic, Asian, and Native American students. There are academic organizations dedicated to help black and other minority students network  in college and professional organizations for minority owned business owners.

There are minority owned radio stations which cater to their niche audiences. There are television networks with exclusively black or Hispanic content. There are black and other minority oriented newspapers, magazines and social media sites. There are movies which cater to black audiences, not to mention music genres.

I don't think people really care all that much. However, given that these groups, associations, and so forth are directed at and for a specific segment of the population, could they be considered racist? If similar social outlets are applied to every racial group, it would be a false assertion. So, what basis would there be to claim "racism"? Well, let's first define what racism is.

"Racism" is when one group, usually one of numeric size and/or political and/or financial superiority dominates another, often smaller, race or group. In doing so, they deny the minority group something of value, be it access to a job, education, form associations, and so forth.  However, that's not what we have here. In the instances I mentioned above, it's the minority groups which have exclusivity. Need clarification? Okay.

How many academic associations can you name which are white only? I bet none. Do you know of any college or university which has a white history or culture major? How many offer Pan-African, Women, Asian, or Hispanic Studies? Quite a few I imagine. Some even offer LGBQT Studies.  How many white only scholarships do you know of? I'm only aware of one (if it still exists) and its maximum donation was under $500. It would be easier to find a scholarship for left handers!

Do you know of any white only business associations? By law, not a single one. But there are literally hundreds for minorities, such as the United States Black Chamber of Commerce, the Black Business Association, the National Association of Black Accountants, and so forth. There are similar organizations for Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities as well as ethnic groups.

Perhaps it's a good thing these type of organizations exist. They provide unique opportunities to seek out mutual support. It's natural that people seek out what's familiar to them. It makes them more comfortable. It enhances social and professional dealings. But what does it say when one and only one group is legally denied the same opportunity?

 Let's talk about social outlets like the media. There are currently around 7890 televisions stations in America and 15,330 radio stations. Of that, ten are black only TV networks; up from just one in 2017. In 1995, black content owners controlled just 2% of the radio market. Today it's 17% (11% FM and 6% AM). Nationally, there are around 52 black owned newspapers and 28 magazines.

There are five Hispanic networks, and 30 Spanish speaking "specialty" networks. There are over 90,000 Hispanic newspapers and magazines nationally.  Native Americans have approximately ten newspapers and magazines, 32 radio stations, and no television networks.

Asians have around 31 radio stations, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Indian, and Japanese.  There are about a dozen Asian centered television networks, mostly located on the West Coast. Lastly, there are ten or so Asian newspapers and magazines. 

Of course other groups, mainly ethnic, such as Polish, Ukrainian, German, and Turk, have their own media outlets not to mention religious oriented outlets. Most have their own specialty  professional associations. They also have their own unique awards programs. However, there are no television or radio stations, newspapers, awards, or  professional associations exclusively for whites.

There is the Miss Black America, Miss Asian America, Miss Latina, Miss Native American pageants, plus the YMCA Black Achievers, and more which are racial directed, but none for whites. I counted 52 black professional associations for everything from doctors, lawyers, and veterans to hygienists, cops, and fishermen. There are, for instance, 15 professional Hispanic associations with chapters nationwide.

In government, we have the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. There's  even one for Asian and Pacific Islanders too. That is their sole concern. I have no doubt that similar political organizations exist at the state and local levels. Not voters in general, and not those whose district they're suppose to serve. I'm not begrudging a single one of these, but don't cry inequality when the only group excluded are white.What you do for one you should do for all.

I've long held that once elected to office, you were to serve the interests of voters in general and those of your district specifically. You are not there to represent any one group, be it a political party, religious organization, racial or ethnic group.  

When you fill out a form or application, you're asked if you're Hispanic, Native American (or Indigenous), Asian America, African American, or white. Of those, only "white" and Asian pertains to a race. Hispanic (or Latino/Latina) pertains to a language or culture which derives from Spain. 

Native American refers to any indigenous person; a member of the First Peoples. Racially speaking, Native Americans and some Hispanics are Caucasians (ie: white) while other Hispanics are a admixture of African, Indigenous, and/or European. 

Asian American is anyone who is of Asian ancestry and now living in this country. Asian is both a race and culture. Finally, African America means that your ancestors originated from Africa and you're now living in America. Neither African or American is a defined as a race. Both are continents.

"African" could pertain to the Arabic north,  central and west coastal Africa is Negroid (a race), or the Afrikaner south which was settled by the Portuguese, Dutch, English and other starting in the late 1400s (most of the land was settled was uninhabited at the time).  

I knew someone in college who, when completing his entrance application, identified as checked "African" and was given a scholarship as a foreign student to come here. When he arrived at the college, the admissions department was surprised to see that he was blonde, blue eyed, and, despite a nice tan, was definitely white. When asked what he checkmarked "African", he explained that he considered himself African. He was born there. Grew up there. Went to school there. So did his parents and grandparents. In fact, his family has lived in South Africa since the early 1500's. Guess he had a point!

In short, there are only four major races in the world. Caucasian or "white" which is mainly European and Middle Eastern. Next is Asian/Mongoloid, then Negroid (which is Spanish for "black") which is found throughout Africa, but is primarily in the central part of the continent, and Australoid, which is the native or indigenous inhabitants of Australia and the surrounding region. 

Let's look briefly at demographics. America used to be predominately white (European origin), upwards of 80%, until about a decade ago. Non-Hispanic whites today are only 53% of the population and declining. By 2045 or sooner, it will be under 50%. The next largest group are Hispanics. Within the next decade or so, there will be a near parity of whites and Hispanics. This will be followed by blacks and Asians, although in certain areas, Asians will exceed blacks.

White males were once the dominant demographic in the U.S.. For generations, everything was measured against "the white male". Not anymore. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, white males now only make up 31% of the population. They are, by most any measure, a minority in this country. Hispanic males are the new alpha male. With declining birth rates, America's white majority will, within the next two decades, totally and forever disappear in this country.

So, let's go back to where we started. Groups like BLM and Antifa oppose systemic racism which they claim exist in this country. I couldn't agree more that racism, in any form, needs to end. However, as we've shown above, the systemic form of racism in this country is not what most people think.

Despite all the thousands of organizations, newspapers, magazines, associations, awards, radio stations, and television networks, not a single one exists which serves the interests of whites only. Not a single one. Every racial group is somehow represented but one. European Whites.

If every racial group is permitted to be represented in whatever form it chooses, then we have racial freedom. However, if there is a single exception, for whatever reason, when do we have racial equality? The logical answer is no, whether we like that answer or not because of who it applies to.

Programs and legislation aimed at helping minorities will have to be readjusted to include whites. How this will play out is anyone's guess. Historically, it's been largely white middle class taxpayers who've footed the bill. So, while systemic racism of a sort does exist. It's just not in the form we think of.

 

Black Professional Associations and Organizations

Top Black and Minority Business Organizations

Pew: Hispanic and Black News Media Fact Sheet

The nation is diversifying even faster...

 

The Seeds We Plant Today

 ***Due to Blogger's new format change, there are random changes font size and colors***

As many of you know, I'm a lifelong student of history and the social sciences. I've written about it, spoken about, and taught it from sophomore level in college all the way up to graduate school. I've been lucky enough to even receive a few national and regional awards for my efforts.

I have a keen interest in trends as well. One such interest is whether the U.S. can continue on its present path and survive as a country. There's an old saying that every revolution contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. I think that's proving to be true now.

We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world (most notably Western Europe) were instrumental in creating the foundation of this nation and for building it very structure. What they created was based on Classical Greek democracy, the Roman Republic, the Enlightenment and its emphasis on rational inquiry, Judeo-Christianity morality, and other esoteric philosophies which encouraged free thinking as well as critical and open debate (as in Freemasonry).

We incorporated into our national charter---the Constitution and Bill of Rights---that all men were free and equal; that we each had a Divine or natural right to the pursuit of happiness, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of expression.  To safeguard these and other "natural rights" (that is, rights we inherit by virtue of our birth and/or imparted on us by Providence), the right to bear arms. Not so much for providing food for ourselves or our families. Not to protect us from predators. No. We have this natural right to protect ourselves and others from a different type of predator--a tyrannical government.  

And yet, here we are in the first half of the 21st century engaged in a slow motion civil war over these very issues. We are a nation of immigrants, but we oppose illegal immigration because we are foremost a nation of laws. Among those laws is the establishment of our nation and the securing of our borders. They are part of what constitutes our national sovereignty. 

The majority of illegal immigrants are what is termed as "economic immigrants". They are coming here to seek a better economic life. They want a piece of what this country offers but they don't want to take the legal steps we ask of all potential immigrants. They want to skip ahead of the line.  We support their drive; we all want a better economic life, but we reject their refusal to follow the law.

Others come here as "political" or "social" immigrants. They are trying to evade some tin pot despot or fleeing ethnic or religious persecution. We tend to have more sympathy for these individuals than we do for the economic immigrants but why? The former want to work. The latter's lives are endangered because of their origin or their beliefs (one they can change the other they can't).

We say that all men are created equal, and yet women were essentially second class citizens until the early part of the 20th Century. Some would argue they are and cite wage parity and other issues. Many argue that the inequality doesn't end with the workplace. We still debate the "right" to an abortion or not; at what point does a woman's right over her body begins and ends when it comes to pregnancy?

We argue the right to terminate a pregnancy if she doesn't want to have a child at that point in her life while others claim that the unborn fetus has a right to a life all its own. Some try to interject their religious beliefs onto the issue irrespective of the expectant woman's beliefs. One person's faith, no matter how sincere, doesn't extend to the next person. That too was bequest to us by our right of religious freedom, yet we don't allow human or animal sacrifices or so-called "honor killings".  

Of course, some see the issue of abortion as poor decision making. Don't want children? No problem. Use contraceptives. They are readily available and fairly cheap (or free as most clinics), or consider the totally unrealistic option of simply not having sex. Others cite different alternatives such as adoption.

What about the issue of slavery? Certainly it was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. Many of them owned slaves (albeit most inherited them and many freed them upon their owner's deaths, often with farmland and equipment). Nevertheless, slavery was not part of the equality tenet of which they wrote.

However, theirs was as much an economic consideration as it was a political or moral one. The colonial South was where most of the successes of the revolution had come from, and they depended on slavery to power their economic engines which also powered a growing industrialized North. If they withdrew their support for the revolution, the revolution would fail. That would have meant the Founding Fathers, as Benjamin Franklin so aptly stated, would have "hanged separately" by not hanging in their together.

Despite steps taken to nullify slavery such as restricting and finally ending the importation of slaves or outlawing it in some communities and eventually in states, it continued  until 1861, which marked the beginning of the bloodiest war in the nation's history. It's true that the Civil War wasn't fought solely over the issue of slavery, but an issue it remained. In the end, four years later, some 620,000 lay dead and another million or so went missing, were wounded, or died of disease resulting from the war (by comparison just over 405,000 died in WWII and around 58,000 in Vietnam).

Nevertheless, despite the frightful cost of the war and the devastation it did to the South (which in many ways, remains), the equality of former slaves didn't come about in 1865...or 1925...or 1945. Although there were some exceptions, full integration didn't begin until 1965, but it did happen. This wasn't a simple matter of legislatively mandating change. This had to be a fundamental shift in society and it's mindset.

In World War II, it was believed blacks couldn't or wouldn't fight. They did and magnificently so. It was said  they couldn't lead or follow orders. They did no matter how desperate the circumstances. They said they couldn't fly. They did so spectacularly (the same thing was said of the women too and with the same results). It wasn't long before the military was fully integrated. But when they came home, they faced the same old divisions. It took twenty more years before there was equality.

Today Black Americans, like other minorities, have no limitations except those they place on themselves, but the notion of "equality" has changed. Equality came to mean a preference; a quota to be filled. It came to mean having those things which others were either forbidden by law or by social pressure  from having such as dedicated colleges, academic funding, business and social associations, political caucuses, media including magazines, radio stations, or television networks, not to mention specific genres of music, TV programming, contests, and pageants. That is not equality.

Nowadays, we have demands for "reparations"; something that even those who suffered under slavery never demanded. They want the U.S. Government to pay them for something they never experienced; for something that few even understand. Why not demand "reparations" from the British, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch or Arabs? They introduced and actively engaged in slavery.  Why not from the African tribes which captured and sold them into slavery? Perhaps that's too close to home.

They claim "institutional" or "systemic" racism, and yet we never heard of it from their parents or grandparents. They cite police brutality, and yet run from the police when confronted, or worse, assault the police. They know they will lose that fight every time. Why not instill respect for the law instead?

Why not teach them while they are young to respect authority figures, even the ones they disagree with? If they want change, there are plenty of nonviolent ways to bring it about. Today the definition of "equality" is to make one side more equal at the expense of others to paraphrase the quote from George Orwell's "Animal Farm". Become the change they want; become lawyers, scientists, teachers, cops, or influencers.

Lastly religion. In the days of our Founding Fathers, countries had state religions which everyone had to support regardless of what they believed. America has been from almost the beginning a nation of religious tolerance with a few notable exceptions. Nevertheless, our Founding Father's supported the radical idea of no state religion. They didn't oppose religious symbols on public property as some claim today. They just didn't believe it was limited to one faith alone. What's good for one was good for all.

Now, however, we have religions which oppose our collective moral beliefs---"honor killings", child marriage, female genital mutilation, and pedophilia, secondary status for women (including suppression of their right to free speech). They oppose a woman's legal right to vote, to drive, to own property, and so on. How do we respond when religious and cultural beliefs conflict with ours? 

What if, as in Europe, they demand that certain food products, alcohol, and tobacco be removed because it "offends" their religious sensibilities?  What do we do when they claim a "religious obligation" to stamp out all other religious beliefs up to and including murdering them? How should we respond?

Obviously, murder is a big "no no" regardless if it comes from some "divine" entity or the voices in your head with few exceptions such as self defense or wars (which is state sanctioned murder). Yet, for some it's a fundamental religious mandate.  Do we cite our man-made civil laws? Do we seek some counter justification in a religious text?  In this increased globalization, religious and cultural conflicts are going to become all the more common and all the more violent.

Take a look at Europe, where religious and cultural conflicts have resulted in a increase in rapes, assaults, and murder. Governments cower and "encourage" changes in dress codes so as not to "offend" the new immigrants who demand that society conform to them and not the other way around. Stores are harassed into removing "offensive" products. Restaurants are threatened with violence for displaying pork products or liquor on their menus. Patrons who order the taboo items almost have to hide while consuming their meals or drink. Is that coming to an American city soon?

Every revolution brings with it the seeds of its own destruction. These are just a few of ours. If we continue to allow an elite few to divide us, these seeds will grow much faster than our ability to cope with them. Should that happen, America will cease to exist not just as a country, but even as an idea. These seeds will grow and envelop the achievements this wonderful nation has given the world. There are those things which we, as a nation, must conserve in order to remain a free nation.

We can't change the past, but we can learn from it, and in doing so, perhaps influence the future. Who knows, maybe we can make this a better world for all. If we choose to join the partisan charade (or worse, to do nothing), we will surely turn this world into a nightmare for our children and their children.

United States Military Casualties of War

Number of military fatalities in all major wars involvingthe United States

Another Senseless Shooting: Kenosha Wisconsin and Patience Wanes in Louisville

It's not a particularly large community; just under 100,000 residents. It's about two and half hours and 156 miles up I-43 from its better known and slightly larger neighbor, Green Bay. Like its more famous neighbor, Kenosha Wisconsin sets on the edge of Lake Michigan.

However, Kenosha has recently burst onto the national scene in a way no city wants to---a shooting. The video, taken by a bystander across the street, has been seen all over America and perhaps through much of the world by now, followed by the inevitable protests and riots, and sadly, more shootings.

Kenosha Wisconsin has typically been, up until now, a relatively quiet Midwestern community, much like a similar city, Louisville Kentucky which springs to life the first Saturday in May for one of the most famous horse racing events in the world, the Kentucky Derby, but not this year.

This year the Derby was postponed due to the COVID virus until September. Due to the shooting death of Breonna Taylor in March and the continued threats of more protests, riots, lootings, vandalism, carjackings, and physical violence, the Derby may again be postponed if not outright cancelled.

Many businesses have been forced to closed (some for good) while downtown has come to look like a city rocked by a natural disaster amid the boarded up buildings and empty streets. Even the police headquarters and court house are boarded up in what appears to be a subliminal symbol of surrender; a reflection of the city's failure of leadership.
The death of Breonna Taylor triggered widespread protests for justice has devolved into riots, looting, arson, and assaults, not to mention the destruction of historic statues and monuments as the protests were subtly hijacked by those more interested in anarchy than justice.

In the case of George Floyd, who died while being taken into custody by the Minneapolis Police on May 25, only added fuel to the fire amid claims of "systematic racism" not just in police departments nationwide, but embedded within society as a whole.

We don't know much about what happened in Kenosha, but it couldn't have happened at a worse time given the country's current racial tensions, as well as frustration over the continuing COVID-19 restrictions and vitriol political hatred which has infected the nation worse than the virus itself.

The footage appears to show an attempted murder by a police officer. But as we all know, appearances are often deceiving. We're seeing only one angle of the event making it all that more important to look at the facts than to react emotionally.

We know that police were called to the 2800 block of 40th Street at about 5:11 PM over what was reported to be a "domestic incident", which could be anything from an argument to a knock down drag out brawl or something involving a weapon. Those involved could be drunk or on drugs while the incident itself could range from something petty to something long standing. The police officers simply don't know until they arrive on the scene.

The video shows two officers following Jacob Blake, age 29, away from a house to his car with guns already drawn. Obviously "something" has already occurred to put the officers on alert. Guns don't typically get pulled unless there is a potential danger.

Blake is shown opening the driver's side door; his three children (ages 8, 5, and 3) are in the backseat. At this point things quickly goes awry. An officer tugs on Blake's shirt and almost simultaneously fires seven shots in quick succession into Blake's back at near point blank range. Why?

Nothing in the video suggests any aggressive acts by Blake (did he say something?). He doesn't appear to be going for a weapon. Some individuals on social media have said that there appears to be something (a possible gun maybe?) on the ground just by the car door. However, it's hard to say if that's a weapon or not. The video just doesn't give us enough detail to say one way or the other.

Despite multiple shots at near point blank range, Blake wasn't killed. He was airlifted to the Froedtert Memorial Hospital in Milwaukee where he underwent hours of surgery to remove the bullets and (hopefully) repair any damage to internal organs. His post-op condition is still listed as critical.

Meanwhile, in accordance with standard police procedure, the officers involved have been placed on administrative leave pending completion of an internal investigation. Nevertheless, word spread quickly after the incident. It didn't take long before crowds turned into protests, which by nightfall, had turned into riots. A car lot and a church with a "BLM" sign were among the property burned to the ground.

Since the shooting, the protests and riots have spread to neighboring communities including Appleton (birthplace of Harry Weiss aka "Harry Houdini"), Oshkosh, Fon du Lac, Manitowoc, and to Milwaukee. Government officials, reacting rather than being proactive given the current racial tensions nationwide, posture for the media (and voters) by promising a comprehensive review of not just the incident, but whether any "systematic racism" exists with any government departments.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (D), promised to call a special session of the Legislature to review police accountability and transparency and would call out the National Guard if the situation got out of hand.

Kentucky's Governor Andy Beshear (D) has refused to deploy his state's National Guard despite the destruction and appearance of heavily armed groups such as the Black Panthers inspired group, "Not Fucking Around Coalition" or NFAC and Antifa, not to mention BLM and the Until Freedom group (as an aside, BLM has shown a tendency towards violence as well).

In expected hyperbolic partisanship, Wisconsin's Democratic Party chairman, Ben Wilker, has called the shooting "a symptom of the deadly disease of white supremacy and racism that must be confronted and defeated". Wilker is a Harvard educated white guy from a upper middle class family. Both of his parents are academics. His father teaches medical ethics at Harvard while his mother is a senior scientist at the Wisconsin Center for Educational Researcher and is a consultant for the United Nations. Huh.

Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Police Association issued a statement asking officials to hold off until the matter can be reviewed and there is clearer understanding of events. They want to avoid any actions which would acerbate the already tense situation. However, not everybody was listening.

A white 17 year old, Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch Illinois was arrested for the shooting deaths of two individuals and the wounding of a third at a protest in Kenosha. Dead are a 26 and 36 year old while another 36 year was wounded. Rittenhouse voluntarily surrendered to police immediately after the shootings, was identified as a lifeguard and an avid police supporter. He claimed the shootings were in self defense, which begs the question as to why he was out there to begin with?

So, while the nation copes with another tragic shooting, a federal grand jury has charged the four officers involved with the death of George Floyd with possible criminal civil rights violations. Typically, federal authorities wait until the state concludes its investigation and legal actions before moving forward. However, in what's considered to be a highly unusual move (and perhaps in doing so, sending a signal to state officials), federal authorities have jumped out in front of the state.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis authorities are continuing their investigation. As it now stands, Derek Chauvin, the lead officer, is facing second and third degree murder and manslaughter charges. Chauvin, as you'll recall, was the officer who kneeled on George's neck which resulted in his death. Chauvin is currently being held in the Oaks Park Heights State Prison, a "Level 5" maximum security prison.

The remaining three--now former--officers, J. Alexander Kueng, Toa Thao, and Thomas Lane, are each facing charges as accomplices in George's death. Trial isn't expected until next year (Chauvin's trial date is in March). The three are free on bail for the time being.

While matters are moving swiftly in Minnesota, the same can't be said of the Breonna Taylor case. Initially, the police provided little in the way of information, and much of that was incomplete or inaccurate. They acted as if this was just another botched raid, and despite the accidental and unfortunate death of Taylor, the matter would simply blow over. Well, it didn't. What it did was blow up in their faces.

So, here we are, some five, almost six months after the shooting death of Ms. Taylor by some of "Louisville's finest", all but stuck in place. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Louisville has suffered (and I do mean "suffered") from a utter lack of leadership by the city's mayor. The Chief of Police, Steve Conrad, was fired just after this incident for a whole host of reasons, but for brevity's sake, we'll just call it ineptitude. Metro Council too has shown very little in terms of leadership.

Kentucky's Attorney General, Daniel Cameron (R), recently said that his investigation is still ongoing. Part of the reason was the painfully slow response of the LMPD's Public Integrity Unit providing information which should have provided originally. For some reason, the police department continues to drag its feet. The ballistics report remains incomplete. Supposedly, the FBI is involved with that, and have made repeated trips back to Ms. Taylor's apartment looking for further information.

As for the three officers involved in the shooting, Brett Hankison, Jonathan Mattingly, and Myles Cosgrove, none have been charged. It's been suggested that Hankison could be charged with wanton endangerment. Acting Police Chief, Robert Schroeder, did fire him for "extreme indifference to the value of human life" for firing ten shots blindly into Ms. Taylor's dark apartment (and the one door). Regarding the other two officers, Mattingly and Cosgrove, it's about the search warrant.

The AG, Daniel Cameron, must prove they knew or suspected that the warrant to search Taylor's apartment was obtained fraudulently by another officer, Detective Joshua Jaynes. However, they can't be charged with Taylor's death since they were allegedly acting in self defense.

Jaynes obtained the no knock warrant based upon a statement from a U.S. Postal Inspector that drugs were supposedly being sent to Ms. Taylor's apartment. However, the inspector later stated in a interview with WDRB News that he said no such thing. What does this mean?

Jaynes could be charged with obtaining a warrant illegally. If Mattingly and Cosgrove knew this, it was an illegal search but that's a big "IF". They could face anything from a reprimand to possible disciplinary action plus a possible civil lawsuit. Meanwhile, Mattingly and Cosgrove are on desk duty.

Therefore, it appears that none of the three officers could be charged with Ms. Taylor's death. A far cry from the protestors are demanding. Perhaps it's not surprising since Louisville officers are rarely charged to begin with. That may be the real reason for the delay by LMPD and with the November election approaching, why Cameron and the other politicians aren't in any hurry for a quick resolution either.



Kenosha Shooting and Protests: Here's What We Know

17 year old arrested in shooting death of 2 at Kenosha protest

Federal grand jury investigating civil rights charges in the police killing of George Floyd

The countdown for answers in Breonna Taylor case looks as patience wavers in Louisville