Black Lives Matter protesters verbally assault young children at a cheerleading competition

Share:

LOUISVILLE, KY- According to reports, Louisville protesters verbally attacked families and young children as they attempted to enter a cheerleading competition in downtown Louisville.

Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) said that at least one person has been arrested during the protests that took place in downtown Louisville on Saturday, March 6th. LMPD said that officers conducted several traffic stops after a mobile caravan began around 2 p.m.

The protesters attempted to lead the protest caravan throughout the city, but only made it about one block before LMPD officers intercepted the vehicles in an attempt to stop the caravan.

Police said they issued several traffic citations for no insurance, running a red light, and an improper turn. A crowd then formed around 4th and Jefferson Streets, however, police did not provide additional details on the number of citations issued there or the arrest that happened. 

For several hours the protesters tried to regroup and once they did, they stopped in front of the Louisville International Conventional Center, where a cheerleading competition was taking place.

Reportedly, once the protesters were stopped in front of the Convention Center, they began yelling at school-aged cheerleading competitors as they walked in and out of the competition. A video that was posted on social media showed what the protesters were saying to the young cheerleaders. 

In the video, protesters using a mega-phone can be heard telling the young children, “Do something black today with your white privilege besides cheer.” The protester also said:

“Black mothers are burying their babies while white mothers take their children to cheer competitions. Do something black today with your white privilege, thank you.”

The children the protesters appeared to be yelling at were between the ages of 3 and 15-years-old. Reportedly, the protests were taking place in downtown Louisville in light of it being nearly one year since the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor.

Earlier in the week, on March 2nd, a caravan of at least 40 cars showed up to the Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfort rallying in front of the building and then doing a lap around it to show their support for House Bill 21, also known as “Breonna’s Law.”

The bill, which was proposed by Rep. Attica Scott would ban all no-knock warrants across the state of Kentucky. The bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee back on February 26th, but has not yet received a hearing.

At the end of February, the Kentucky Senate passed legislation that would ban many no-knock warrants, but not all of them. That bill, Senate Bill 4, was introduced by Senate President Robert Stivers (R-Manchester).

In Frankfort, about 100 protesters gathered on the steps of the Capitol chanting, “Whose law? Breonna’s Law.” Tyler Walker, co-chair of the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression said that he goal of the caravan was for legislators to hear the concerns of their constituents. He said in a statement:

“We want Breonna Taylor’s Law to come out of committee and we want it on the floor of the House and we want it voted on. We don’t want a shell of bill, we want a bill that has some content to it.”

After several speeches, protesters got in the cars and drove around the capitol honking and chanting. Officers who were present, blocked cars from continuing to go around the building and the caravan proceeded to leave the Capitol’s grounds. 

Reportedly, the caravan then tried to block traffic at an intersection in Frankfort, but several police officers responded and the caravan was unable to continue moving. 

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Kentucky bill would make it a crime to insult, taunt police officers to the point of a ‘violent response’

March 6th, 2021

KENTUCKY– During the months of Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots, police officers fell victim to both physical and verbal assaults, with little to no ability to retaliate. 

While some may think that they can verbally abuse police officers without repercussion, especially in today’s era of always filming cell phones, lawmakers in Kentucky clearly disagree.

On Thursday, March 11th, a bill is advancing out of a Kentucky Senate committee that would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer to the point where the taunts provoke a violent response.

According to reports, Senate Bill 211 passed by a 7-3 vote. The bill’s sponsor, retired police officer Senator Danny Carroll, said this bill was in direct response of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots that took place last Spring and Summer. 

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Carroll said:

“In these riots, you see people getting up in officers’ faces, yelling in their ears, doing everything they can to provoke a violent response,” 

He went on to say:

“I’m not saying the officers do that, but there has to be a provision within that statute to allow officers to react to that. Because that does nothing but incite those around that vicinity and it furthers and escalates the riotous behavior,” 

As Law Enforcement Today continuously reported, Louisville Kentucky saw numerous instances of riots and unrest in the streets, which the protesters claimed was a direct response to the police shooting death of Breonna Taylor.

Carroll noted the bill wasn’t about limiting lawful protest “in any way, shape, form or fashion.”

He said:

“This country was built on lawful protest, and it’s something that we must maintain — our citizens’ right to do so. What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts,”  

The bill kept language making a person guilty of disorderly conduct — a Class B misdemeanor — if they accost, insult, taunt, or challenge:

“a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”

FOX reported that State Sen. David Yates, a Louisville Democrat, criticized the bill’s language, saying police officers he knows are too professional to retaliate violently simply because of words. 

Yates said:

“I don’t believe that any of my good officers are going to be provoked to a violent response because somebody does a ‘yo mama’ joke, or whatnot,” 

Unsurprisingly, the ACLU of Kentucky does not agree with the bill. Corey Shapiro, an attorney with the ACLU of Kentucky, said:

“the idea that the legislature would be criminalizing speech in such a way is offensive.”

Shapiro told the Courier-Journal:

“Verbally challenging police action — even if by insult or offensive language — is a cornerstone of our democracy,”

He continued:

“And the First Amendment protects people’s ability to express themselves, even if it’s using offensive words to the police.”

According to FOX, other provisions in SB 11 would push back against the “defund the police” movement and make a person who “knowingly” provides supplies at a riot — that can be used as weapons or “dangerous instruments” — subject to a riot-in-the-second-degree charge. 

The bill states:

“Governmental entities responsible for the funding of the various law enforcement agencies shall maintain and improve their respective financial support to the Commonwealth’s law enforcement agencies,”

According to the paper, the bill will now go to the full Senate and could be passed as early as next week, though not much time will remain in the 30-day session to also make it through the House.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

City prepares for potential riots after prosecutor rules fatal shooting of “unarmed” black man was justified

March 4, 2021

KANSAS CITY, MO – Nearly one year after the fatal police shooting of Donnie Sanders back in March of 2020, prosecutors have now ruled that the shooting was justified based upon the situational circumstances and actions of Sanders during the incident. 

Prosecutors announced their findings regarding the investigation of the police-involved shooting of Donnie Sanders that occurred back on March 12th of 2020, saying the evidence points to the shooting being justified. 

According to officials, the incident started at approximately 11:17 p.m. on March 12, 2020 after a Kansas City Police officer witnessed someone driving a Chevy Tahoe erratically on Prospect Avenue. 

The officer began to pursue the driver, and reportedly hit their lights behind the Tahoe in an alley that runs parallel to Wabash between 51st and 52nd Street. 

Said driver of the Tahoe, later identified as Sanders, continued driving to the end of the alley – and then exited his vehicle and began to flee the area on foot. 

Dashcam video had captured the events, showing the officer exiting their cruiser and giving chase to Sanders on foot. As both the suspect and the officer continued on foot, the visibility of the incident provided by the dashcam diminished.

However, some audio was still able to be picked up, which the officer could be heard yelling “hey stop,” to the suspect. 

Commands from the officer could continue to be heard from the dashcam video, with the officer repeatedly telling Sanders to stop and show his hands. 

Sanders apparently afforded verbal responses to the officer’s commands – but prosecutors say that those statements were unintelligible from the audio picked up from the dashcam video. 

From what the officer claimed of the incident, Sanders was allegedly threatening to “kill” the him, with Sanders reportedly saying: 

“I’m gonna shoot you! I’m gonna get you! Better kill me, I’m gonna kill you!”

The officer told investigators that Sanders had one of his hands extended toward him from a distance – with the officer believing that Sanders was pointing a weapon at him. 

Sanders then allegedly started moving toward the officer, with his hand still extended toward him – which the officer says that he opened fire on the suspect based upon those circumstances. 

Nearby witnesses reportedly corroborated the series of events as relayed by the officer, with one witness having said that it looked as though Sanders was pointing what could have been a gun at the officer. 

Another witness claimed to have seen the suspect first pointing something toward his own head and then pointing it at the officer. 

As it turns out, investigators say that there was no weapon recovered from the scene after the officer shot Sanders – instead only finding a cell phone inside of the suspect’s jacket pocket. 

But the prosecutor’s report said that it’s not a matter of whether Sanders actually possessed a weapon at the time of the shooting, but whether there was ample evidence available in the moments preceding the shooting that could lead a reasonable person to believe that Sanders was armed at the time: 

“It is an undisputed fact that the Civilian was unarmed at the time of the shooting.”

“But the law restricts this Committee to evaluating only what was known or reasonably believed prior to or at the time of the shooting.”

“Thus, the fact that the Civilian was found to be unarmed after the shooting is not, by itself, determinative of whether charges should be filed against the Officer.”

Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker found that based upon what witnesses observed during the incident, in concurrence with the report of the incident furnished by the officer, there simply wasn’t evidence to charge the officer with any crime related to the shooting:

“The Use of Force Committee finds that the statements corroborate each other.”

“None of the three described the Civilian’s actions leading up to the shooting as communicating a desire to surrender, or an assurance that he meant no harm.”

“Both civilian witnesses reported that, after the multiple commands, as the Civilian proceeded towards the Officer with his hand up, the back-pedaling Officer fired multiple shots.”

“Accordingly, we do not believe the facts and law support charges here.”

You can watch the dashcam video from the incident here: 

_

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  
 

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Related Posts