good afternoon to you. i'm ari melber and welcome you to the breaking news coverage right now tracking in just a few moments we will have legal information that should provide the knowledge of whether or not three of the officers involved in the fatal killing of breonna taylor would face criminal charges or not. here's why we expect to know that. in just about 15 minutes, the formal grand jury in jefferson county, tennessee, will publicly present it first-ever report on this case which includes potential charges or not to the local judge. after that, i can tell you that we are told by local officials to then hear from kentucky's attorney general daniel cameron. he is holding a formal press conference on this matter. expets told nbc news it is highly unlikely, that is to say

they don't expect a decision that departs from whatever this grand jury finds in this long-awaited decision in this case. i say long-awaited because whatever you think of this case, the fact is it's been nearly 200 days since breonna taylor was killed by police in the no-knock raid on her apartment. after months of protests this case garnered attention locally and nationally. city officials made some moves but not a decision on the criminal charges. for example, the city now agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement with the taylor family for a wrongful death lawsuit. the city of louisville is bracing for this announcement in the criminal lane, that is whether or not there's criminal charges and whether the officers involved would basically face a criminal process, a trial or reckoning for that or not. i can also tell you in terms of what we track, the area's a state of emergency. we have seen roadblocks, bare

kids in certa -- barricades in certain parts of the city. they activated the national guard without knowing what this grand jury will do. moments ago he also announced a city-wide curfew tonight locally at 9:00 p.m. and called for unity and to the extent of protests that they be peaceful. it's a very big story. we expect to get breaking news as mentioned within moments and we have you covered. joining me is cal perry in louisville. blayne alexander and paul butler, joy reid, reverend al sharpton and an advocate in many such cases like this as well as derrick johnson president and ceo of the naacp. many experts who know this case well. i want to begin with blayne

alexander. your views on what today means and what your reporting shows. >> reporter: well today is significant. let me start by setting the scene for you. we are in front of the department of corrections. police headquarters. i can walk for blocks and blocks through downtown louisville and you would see pretty much the same thing. boarded up windows, barricades, large trucks blocking the street. the city is absolutely on edge and really preparing in many ways for the worst. i want to show you right back here. this is jefferson square park and shows you how close we are to where the police headquarters are, department of corrections. this is really kind of an epicenter where so many protesters have been gatherring, many more than 100 days now and there's this kind of almost eerie silence in the air. there's not what you would know as the usual singing, the usual chanting there and quiet, some applause every now and then but the roads are closed.

nobody's here. i do hear a chopper overhead and we've got to say that just even walking over here i saw several people gathered together in black and walking toward the park, three women with long guns strapped to them. in speaking with protesters today and over the past few weeks that, yes, there's the settlement, yes, the police reforms but what they're relentless on is to see the officers arrested and as a protester told me anything less is a gross miscarriage of justice. the other thing to say, ari, the wait, the wait is something that so many people have driven home, more than six months since this shooting happened. they said it's taken so long and whatever happens is there's emotion built into the response. ari? >> thank you. stay with us, of course. turning to the same question to

cal perry. >> reporter: you know, ari, i think what's important is you have the individual case of what happened to breonna taylor. you had what police call a no knock raid where they may not have announced themselves going through the door. neighbors told the family they burst in the door, they take gun fire from breonna taylor's boyfriend and presenting this idea that they acted in self defense. we have heard the police say that. the problem with that is, of course, you have somebody killed in her own home shortly after midnight on a no knock that's now illegal based on the city and doesn't fit with the national conversation, about what is happening to people of color at the hands of police. which is why you have the media, blayne gave you the perfect idea of what the city is preparred for. the international media is here. so many folks in this square, members of the media because it is such an important story for the country. but it is that sort of push and pull and i know that the guests

will get into that but looking at the charges that may come down in the next 15 to 20 minutes, got to keep in mind kentucky is a constitutional right to carry state. there are stand your ground laws and the idea to just charge the police officers with murder charges i think is difficult. it is why we heard the family say what they hope for is second-degree man slauslaughter charges. that comes with five to ten years in prison. will the leaders happy with something like that? obviously we'll know in the next few hours, ari. >> thank you, cal. paul butler, an experienced prosecutor, walk us through the process we expect today. >> so, the grand jury in kentucky consists of 12 people. it takes nine people to bring an indictment so it doesn't have to be unanimous. the standard is probable cause. if the jurors think that the defendants probably are guilty, the prosecutor himself will use

a different standard, whether he thinks he can win the case. so i think the options before the grand jury are homicide charges, murder, manslaughter or reckless homicide. the second option is wanton endangerment and a no true bill, that is no charges at all. we know the lore about the control that prosecutors have over grand juries so in many ways this will be a decision that's looked at as a decision by the prosecutor himself. his name is daniel cameron. he is african-american, a conservative republican who spoke at the republican national convention. >> yeah, paul. build on that point briefly because this is exactly what we will go through. i'm eager to get to the other experts on civil rights and you know both. but what you just dejiscribed i

important. there's a presentation of the grand jury as you say. it would require nine votes or more for any charge whatever it may be but you are giving us insight of what we'll first see there is a grand deal of impact on that grand jury by the lawyer who presents. explain. >> the prosecutor's the only lawyer in the room. defense attorneys aren't allowed. if the defendants or targets request the grand jury can allow them to testify but that almost never happens and so it will be interesting to see the proceedings are secret and reportedly the two people who are actually doing the work before the grand jury are two extremely experienced prosecutors who have convicted police officers in lexington before. reportedly they're very sympathetic to defendants. this will be a difficult case if a charge is brought. theself defense case i don't think is irrefutable but

persuasive. a difficult decision for the attorney general is even if there's probable cause to think that the officers did it, can he compel a kentucky jury of 12 people chosen from the community to unanimously agree on a conviction? >> understood. very important. i want to turn to my colleagues joy reid and reverend sharpton. good to see you both of you. a very big and important news day. joy reid, you have covered this case. you have discussed its import in a national context. what is on your mind as we prepare to watch the long-awaited developments and potential of criminal charges or no true bill, no charges? >> we have been doing this a very long time. you can go all the way back, you know, to all of these black lives matter cases, and i tend to be very pessimistic that there will be charges. the freddy gray case was quite a surprise to me that there were

charges against those officers there because use of force guidelines are written for a broad anlt to use force against civilians. and it is i think something that we as a public policy matter, as americans need to revisit the breadth of that ability to use force against us. in this case, breonna taylor was in bed. her boyfriend kenneth walker heard a noise. there is a 911 call in which he's calling her mom saying somebody shot breonna. he didn't say a police officer shot breonna and clear he was rattled by someone busting into their apartment and starting to shoot and he shot back. initially police tried to charge him with a crime, tried to charge him. as we heard cal perry, this is an open carry state and defending his rights, castle, in terms of castle doctrine but tried to charge him with a crime. the former boyfriend, an attempt to get him to implicate breonna

in a crime to get it to look like he had committed a crime in that apartment that would have justified that no knock raid. so there's a lot of behavior, the fact that aid was not rendered to young woman when these police officers shot her. she is laying bleeding on the floor, no attempt to render aid. there's a lot here that does not look like a legitimate shooting in which police officers played it by the book. what it looks like is that officers attempt to defend themselves and to make sure that they would have a defense for what they did. that doesn't look good for them but even with that, even with all of that and the tragedy of this 26-year-old first responder, let's be reminded, she was a first responder, she was responding to covid in a community where as in all of the country covid is hurting african-americans more and here she is doing her job. she goes home, go to bed and ends up dead and yet with all of

that i'm still very pessimistic. i have sat on grand juries. they're very much about what the attorney, what the prosecutor wants and daniel cameron is an accolite of mitch mcconnell. i don't expect much. >> i appreciate your candor on the way they have gone in the past and your views of what may transpire here. reverend sharpton, same question to you, sir. >> when you look at this case, and i have watched this case from the beginning, in fact, breonna taylor's mother did our show "policies nation," the first show with her attorney ben crump and she spoke at the march on washington, and it's been clear not only from the activists on the ground, many of whom we know and work with in louisville, but from the family is that they've said despite the policy changes, despite the

settlement and the police reform, they want to see criminal charges. and that is what is going to be looked at by the family and by the activists and by those of us nationally watching this case. because if they come back a no bill then they are saying that these policemen who were going in with a no knock law after a suspect that was not there, that did not have body cameras filming this, right to shoot 20 times, 1 shooting just recklessly from outside and that is all right legal and acceptable which is a threat to everyone in that county as well as around that state. i do not have a lot of faith in mr. cameron. he is a protege of mitch mcconnell. he is a person that spoke at the convention. but you would hope that with the family even saying publicly that they would look for at least

manslaughter 2 that he would have the respect of the law to say that there was no legal reason to go and continue the continual shooting because you're talking about over 20 shots, 1 policemen outside firing, firing recklessly. if that's found to be legal by the grand jury then you have to put this at the feet of the prosecutor who has said here who is the only one that could bring evidence or bring anything to the grand jury. there's a former new york state chief judge that said you cannen diet a ham sandwich if you want and you cannot indict a ham sandwich if you don't want to. the process shows there's probable cause here for at least that and let a jury decide on the innocence or guilt. but i have to go along with joy. i think that optimism is not something that i have here but hope i always have that somehow

they would do the right thing. we have a woman who did nothing but go to bed in her own house who then they tried to smear, tried to get the ex-boyfriend to in some way ensnare her in criminal enterprise, they tried to dig her up and kill her again. this is outrageous at best. i want to also say, ari, that we have said to all that listen to us that don't be provoked into violence. if there is a no bill, we must protest and we must also make mitch mcconnell who's in a tight race for the senate and a mentor of this prosecutor understand we don't want that. the galvanize that community could cost mitch mcconnell his seat and will not bring justice to breonna taylor if there is not criminal charges in my judgment from knowing the case from the attorney from the family and members of the family. >> reverend sharpton, interesting to hear you, of

course, remind everyone of the context including what we are reporting allegations against the police separate from the original incident, an effort to impugn ms. taylor just to state the legal baseline is the potential victim if any charges are returned today and as you say highly suspect according to those allegations in addition, the reverend using his bully pulpit to remind people not to turn to violence whether they agree or disagree with the decision. i want to bring in derrick johnson from the naacp who's been patiently with us as we have so many experts on this important news. mr. johnson, i want to turn to you and remind the audience we are waiting for the scheduled start time of this presentation by the grand jury of whether there will or will not be charges in their report in the police shooting death of breonna taylor. we are about 90 seconds past the starting time. the court and government press conference type events and

announcemen announcements as i think viewers know start late. your views on all of this? >> i should mention, mr. johnson, who's joining us we have a little bit of audio issues and will work on that directly with him. i'll bring back in joy reid as we look at this. joy, we have tried to give the viewers some context here and folks will see where we have a tracking of one of the aspects of today, we have the long-awaited presentation of the grand jury and then we have this kentucky attorney general press conference, two thing that is both go to the same question whether or not there will be charges. i'm curious if you had reaction to the point that is our colleague rev sharpton raised. >> yeah. i think about the michael brown

case. i think about the tamir rice case. right? two previous grand juries in which the decision is made whether or not prosecution is made. it is in part obviously a legal decision. that's important but there is a political piece to this and david cam ran i think, an elected official, has to think about the public good, right, and what a charge versus a no charge would do in the public square. we can go back through the 1960s where the majority of what were called riots, uprising in cities, a lot of them had to do with the brutality by police against black bodies. this is something that happened repeatedly from miami to watts and all over this country, to new jersey, to harlem. because there has been a consistent experience of black people that our lives are less valued by police, that police are much more free wheeling with the use of force when it comes to black people.

one cannot imagine police officers, forren stance, busting into the home of a 26-year-old white woman and just -- >> joy, i'm -- joy, as mentioned, we're going to intercede to go to this news. let's listen to the court proceeding in the grand jury case. >> select a number. the case will then be assigned to the courtroom or division that corresponds with the number selected by the foreperson and the courtroom will -- that case or those cases will then proceed in those courtrooms assigned. for further proceedings. the indictment itself, that is to say the charging document, will be transmitted to the jefferson county clerk's office, recorded and made publicly available through that office. and so i will begin the report of the jefferson county grand jury. in the matter of common wemt of

kentucky versus brett hankerson, the grand jury charges as follows. count one, wanton endangerment in the first degree, on or about march 13th, 2020, in jefferson county, kentucky, the above named defendant committed the offense of wanton endangerment in the first degree when under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life he wantonly shot a gun, a gun, excuse me, into the apartment occupied by initials ce. count two, wanton endangerment in the first degree. on or about march 13th, 2020, in jefferson county, kentucky, the above named defendant brett hankerson committed the offense of endangerment in the first degree when under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life he shot a gun into the apartment occupied by initials cn.

count three, wanton endangerment in the first degree. on or about march 13th, 2020, the jefferson county, kentucky, the above named defendant brett hankerson committed the offense of wanton endangerment in the first degree when in circumstances of indifference to human life he wantonly shot a gun into an apartment occupied by initials zf. against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of kentucky. mr. foreperson, is that the decision of the grand jury? >> yes, it is. >> thank you. sir, if you would, please, randomly select a number. >> division 13. >> division 13. thank you, sir. the case will be asooned to jefferson county decision 13. do you have a motion with respect to bond?

>> yes, your honor. asks for $15,000 full cash bond for the defendant. >> i will grant the motion and assign bond in the amount of $15,000 full cash. and issue a warrant. that concludes the business of the grand jury sitting for jefferson county in september 2020. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. you may be excused. i'm going off the record. >> we have been listening to the jefferson county proceedings as announced by the local judge there. and it would appear that there is charges against a single officer for wanton endangerment in the police shooting death of breonna taylor. you saw the proceeding as far as we understand it, that is to say, the judge spoke with the grand jury as you heard, discussed those three counts and

then ended the proceedings. it is a zoom proceeding. i have a panel of experts here to respond and i want everyone to understand we're awaiting a press conference from the local -- the prosecuting attorney general who acts as prosecutor in this case and we'll turn to that when that begins. we are monitoring that press conference. reverend sharpton, i go to you first on your response on the announcement of counts against a single officer. >> i think it's grossly insufficient. it does not deal with the fact that the life of breonna taylor was taken. it does not address her being a victim of being killed. the value of her life is not at all addressed in these charges. you could get endangerment if you shot in the air at nothing. you took a woman's life. a woman who was in no way should have everyone been in that

situation because the person you were pursuing was not there. she committed no crime. she went to bed that night and she is dead. then dimt does not address the life when we say black lives matter, this indictment says it does not matter. to say that we've given some indictment which would be equivalent if you fired outside a house in the air is to really in my opinion devalue the life of bre onna taylor and does not answer what the family would have said that they would have been in a way belatedly accepted a manslaughter 2 because manslaughter at least addresses a life. her life is not addressed at all in these charges. i think they're grossly insufficient and i think they're absolutely something that falls far below what they could have legally charged and could have won in a court of law. >> let's take that exact

question to paul butler. six months into the breonna taylor, many reports of questions about the propriety and independence of the investigation as well as we have reported the officers defending themselves and arguing this was even if it's a raid gone bad it wasn't an intentionally planned killing. paul butler, reverend sharpton said this is far less than what was legally possible. can you walk us through what this is, the count of wanton endangerment and how it compares to what was on the table so viewers understand where this fits in? >> three officers fired guns into breonna taylor's house, killing her with five bullets. they were is ubt to being charged with homicide. they're not being charged with any homicide crime. there will be a sense from the activists that two have gotten away with murder or sman laugter and the other officer charged

with wanton endangerment is receiving a slap on the wrist. the maximum penalty is five years, many people will think that that punishment does not meet the crime in the event that the officer is convicted so -- >> paul -- >> it is a charge that's usually applied to people who shoot in the air. if a drunk driver -- >> right. >> puts other people at risk, then she is charged with wanton endangerment. it is not a crime that seems to apply to these hanks. >> paul, paul, i'm only going to slow you down because you're such a good legal analyst, you're fast. this is a lot of state law jargon. i'm going to hand you the mic back but there were potential charges against three officers and this is one out of three faces charges and that is as you put it potential charges related to killing, that is to say, a homicide or murder related charges.

and none of those according to this grand jury count, just wanton endangerment. correct? >> that's right, ari. none of these officers will be prosecuted or punished or causing the death of breonna taylor even though the medical examin examine ruled that the cause of death is killing. it's not applied when people kill others. so it doesn't seem to fit the tragic facts of this face. she was an innocent woman, she was sleeping in her home and the police barged into her house and killed her. the person who they say threatened them, her boyfriend, he wasn't harmed at all. the officer who's been charged with wanton endangerment, ari, it is incredible to think what he did. he didn't go inside the house.

he fired outside the house through a screen door that was closed and covered. he literally could not see what he was shooting. he fired shots and the other officers fired shots in eight different rooms and in the apartment next door. if they have been charged with homicide i think they have a difficult self defense claim because in kentucky as in most states you can't use self defense if you're blindly shooting at any target and that's exactly what these three officers were doing. >> paul butler, walking us through the charges. i want to turn to cal perry on the ground as we await the attorney general's press conference. the news just breaking here. we are just digesting it. a count against only a single officer out of the three facing potential charges in the breonna taylor shooting. your thoughts? >> reporter: i think people are going to feel exhausted, like it doesn't matter what they say or

do. and people are upset. people are already throwing bottles towards the media. they're angry and started to yell $15,000. only $15,000. and word still hasn't spread here it's only one of the officers that was charged. i do think everything that everyone is saying is absolutely true. there is an exhaustion in this city about the way that the police interact with the community and it goes far beyond what happened to her that night. there's a sense here that the police are dirty, they plant things on people and try to turn breonna's ex-boyfriend against her and cut a deal. that feeds into the narrative and you will see more and more people gathering and a dynamic here to keep an eye on is people are coming down here with battle rattle, helmets, with long guns. there's a lot of people in flack jackets, bullet-proof vests, there's a lot of folks now in

the road, there's a man saying a prayer in the road. so this is a dynamic scene. ma'am? do you have a minute to chat? no? it's a dynamic scene. word is just spreading here of what happened. there's some more anger here. keeping an eye on this spot. this is where the protests have started in the past. you can expect this is where they'll start again, ari. >> the news that just broke, as we have been monitoring the case in the breonna taylor police shooting, throw officers were facing a review under this grand jury process, two of them were not charged at all. i want to add to our panel britney packet-cunningham who's an expertise on many of these issues and worked as an activist. joining us, as well, is derrick johnson from the naacp.

mr. johnson, your reaction? >> you know, 191 days since breonna was killed sleeping in her bed and the response is one person charged with a crime that's truly does not recommegn her murder. this is aen dimt on the criminal justice system across this country. why do you have a grand jury system? why are we allowing police officers to operate like gangs in the black community and refusing for the dignity of black lives to exist? this is something that must be addressed at the ballot box, in november, so these officers who are still subjected to federal charg charges can be brought to justice. the taylor family, the louisville, kentucky, should not continue to experience this injustice, nor should black folks across the country. >> mr. johnson, again, i'm trying to focus in on what this is versus what was on the table.

do you view this as effectively a win for two officers who had faced potential charges under this review and a partial win for officer hankison who's not facing any charges related to homicide? >> i view this as political expediency. this state attorneys tried to split a baby that you cannot split. he was trying to appease a partisan lens around supporting law enforcement agencies that had continued to be able to carry out these conducts without any kind of accountability and yet tried to say we have given you something. there's nothing that's given to -- in terms of justice to the breonna taylor family, nothing gimp to the louisville, kentucky, community. more importantly we continue to see the scenario play out in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. we have to have a true criminal

justice reform packet that's federal in scope and local in nature so that we can really examine how are we providing justice primarily for african-americans and communities who are impacted by law enforcement agencies. >> britney, having joaned ined your response? >> i'm disappointed but not surprised. this is the way black communities continue to be let down by systems designed to continue and expand our oppression over and over again. this is not nearly enough compared to what her family demanded and asked for and we have to be thinking critically as derrick has already said about just how much it took to get here. nearly two months after breanna was killed to everyone get her name to be said nationally in part because she is a black woman and we saw often do not include black women in conversations about police

violence. it tooke even more weeks for he mother to hear from the mayor of louisville. it took even more weeks for the case to be handed to the attorney general daniel cameron for an external investigation and we know that he is a protege of mitch mcconnell, not someone who stood traditionally on the side of issues offen justice, protests for public pressure around the globe to get any movement at all and the entire system across the state of kentucky and the city of louisville most certainly the louisville metropolitan police department fought the efforts every single step of the way. this is a bare minimum indictment here that we know will likely not result in a conviction when you look at the stats of just how few officers are convicted for killing anyone, black or not in this country. this is not a system that works

for black lives. this is a system that needs to be defunded and replaced while we actually invest in the communities that continue to endure harm. jonathan mattingly, one of the officers who's responsible for what happened that night, but has not seen charges today, wrote an email to his colleagues in the louisville police department and said that they did the ethical thing that night, the ethical thing that night. there is nothing ethical about taking an innocent life and unfortunately this grand jury has just confirmed the wanton disrespect that jonathan mattingly and the other officers showed on that night and in that email. >> appreciate your perspective here and your work on these issues. stay with us in the panel. joy reid, building on a point that she is raising, a fact this is not just an outcome of a neutral process in her view or a

process with some incompetence or holes or problems but rather the systemic critique of americans heard about this summer, that basically this is a system as she put it that is designed to do this and thus even when dragged and pressured to point, there was a multimillion dollar settlement under tremendous national pressure that this process came under problem, and i know you have strong expertise in what does and doesn't happen, this charge refers to and reading from the state law, quote, substantial danger of physical injury or death. end quote. joy, as paul butler pointed out earlier, that charge is lesser because it's generally used in situations where there's doing

er but not a killing. this is the only one in what the state did find was a homicide. >> yeah. ari, as i was listening to the charges i was taking notes so i'm -- hopefully you can correct me if i'm incorrect. count one regarded wanton endangerment in the domicile of the home of somebody whose initials are cd. i heard the initial ce. i heard the initial zf. what i don't think i heard is the initial bt which is breonna taylor. wernd check that and double check that. i don't want to been accurate but what this sounds like because we do know that the bullets that were wantonly fired potentially or allegedly by officer hankison entered other apartments. so that what he did was to

endanger not just the people in the apartment but people in neighboring apartments. it feels to me like these charges entirely delete the murder, entirely ignore the killing of breonna taylor. even if one of those three is about her because what they're saying and i think people need to think about this because we're talking about from a larger policy issue, we have to think bigger, what thissen dimt says of just this one officer leaving the other two officers completely innocent, apparently? did nothing wrong according to this indictment. it means that if you live in the state of kentucky, if you were ever associated in any way with somebody who was caught in the criminal justice system, even if they are no longer associated with you and no longer live in

your home, police have the full right and are fully within the law to bust into your apartment while you're asleep after midnight and start shooting and can kill you as long as they aim. say it again. as long as they aim their weapon at you or at anyone in the apartment. they are within the law according to this indictment. according to ag daniel cameron. police then have the full right to kill you because they're investigating an association that doesn't have anything to do with you committing a crime. they're not accusing you. i'm not sure they're sure who was in the apartment. they're saying that apartment is associated with someone who was soer associated. sorry if you're killed, your

death is irrelevant to the law in the state of kentucky. your death and life doesn't matter. this is a black lives don't matter ruling because they said that her life was irrelevant, that the life of her boyfriend who was in the apartment with her didn't matter, that he attempting to defend her was the crime, the potential crime was him trying to deaf hfend his ca so the castle doctrine is wiped away you don't have the right to defend yourself. don't have the right to survive. you don't have the right to have medical attention applied to you. the officers don't have to try to save you. they can just shoot you. that is what i heard in this. didn't surprise me. i lost the capacity to be surprised. because here's the problem. the authority who will decide if your life is worth pursuing a case over is the partner of the

police. their partner who works with them to make cases, who works with them every day, who knows them by first name, probably sends them christmas cards, knows who their kids are, their friend, their partner, the prosecutor will decide if your life matters. in 99% of those cases they will say it doesn't. that's what this ruling said this afternoon. >> joy, appreciate your breakdown. i want to just explore one of the points you raised. as you referred to and i'm looking at the triptd sense yan this is the transcript of a brief proceeding from the final legal determination on the ground from local officials, federal would be different, about whether there's charges in the police killing of breonna taylor, two not charged at all, one charged with this wanton endangerment count, three

counts. joy. i'm following the transcript. i do not see in the review of the transcript, i don't see breonna taylor or bt referred to in the charges. references are basically by this grand jury to the offense and then they refer to shooting a gun in the apartment occupied by and then there are initials of various individuals. there is no breonna taylor initial. to your point, joy, this charge in its writing and waiting to hear from the kentucky attorney general about all of this, but the charge in the writing, in its presentation does not assert legally or literally anything about the death and homicide of ms. breonna taylor. >> correct. >> this is shooting into the air, into the apartments. so to your analysis as you were

presenting viewers with your view, and the evidence for it, that sometimes these entire cases are built to insulate the potential defendant, in this case a single officer out of three rather potentially going after them so i think the legal point you're drawing among others is by writing it this way this officer is completely sidelined or one might even say legally protected by the allegations of the death of ms. taylor written about shooting the gun generally but not the bullets that entered her body and killed her. >> exactly. extreme indifference to human life. okay? wanton endangerment. but whose lives? sounds like what this one officer, officer hankison, is charged with is extreme

indifference to the lives of everyone but breonna taylor. that the extreme indifference applies the neighbors so what they're saying is, officers, aim at the people in the apartment. as long as you don't wantonly aim so that the neighbors are in danger, you're good. there's nothing in this charge that mentions breonna taylor, nothing that accounts for her life or the value of it. there's nothing in this charge that says to the other officers that maybe if you don't render aid to this person you have shot who clearly isn't the boyfriend, that is not a man, that's not the person you were trying to find, he's in custody. but there's no charge here that says you need to at least care about in the conduct of your investigation the lives of the

people in front of you. it's saying ignore their lives. care about the neighbors, care about what's through the wall. you might shoot, you know, the postman or someone nearby. but don't worry about the lives -- police officers are trained in a use of force matrix in which they're allowed to use a certain amount of force depending on the situation. verbal force, physical force. it goes to deadly force. i've talked about it on tv before. but the idea is that within that matrix, unfortunately, what the law is saying, at least in this case, and in lots of cases that we have done before, is that the matrix doesn't have any concern for the life of the person in front of you so long as you as an officer can come up with a justification for firing your weapon, you can kill at will. we need to think about as a

society do we want police officers to have the right to kill at will? do we want to be safe in our own homes homes and know that police cannot enter? we didn't want the british to bust into the homes and start shooting or quarter themselves in our homes. this is a castle doctrine for a reason. we need to decide whether we feel comfortable giving an officer the ability to kill at will anyone in front of him as long as he aims and as long as they're dead. because you don't get charged otherwise. right? we are not -- charging these officers is not just about punishing them. it is about setting a public policy baseline that says you just can't kill people. period. but apparently in the state of kentucky today you can. >> joy reid, walking us through alm of it. stay with us.

our continuing coverage. you can see in the corner of the screen monitoring the attorney general press conference. that's daniel cameron and the experts have given context on him. joining us is mark claxton, a retired nypd detective. bringing policing and civil rights experience. thank you for being here by phone, sir. >> thank you. >> first official response getting from the taylor family representatives, we have had guests and experts discuss why this wanton disregard for human life against one of the three officers is so much less than what was possible and no homicide charges today, having said that i want to report what the family attorney ben crump is saying. we're going to go right to the ag and bring that on the other side. let's listen to this press conference. >> i know that many in

louisville and across the commonwealth and country have been anxiously awaiting the completion of our investigation into the death of ms. breonna taylor. prior to this announcement i spoke with ms. palmer, breonna taylor's mother to share with her the results from the grand jury. many of you in this room know that i had the opportunity last month to meet in person with her and other members of ms. taylor's family, including ms. austin and ms. palmer. i want to once again publicly express my condolences. every day this family wakes up to the realization that someone they loved is no longer with them. there's nothing i can offer today to take away the grief and heartache this family is experiencing as a result of

losing a child, a -- >> we are monitoring the kentucky attorney general's press conference. that's daniel cameron opening with remarks to the family and we'll monitor that for you. i did have mark claxton of the black law enforcement alliance by phone as we see if the news comes out of the press conference, i wanted your first reaction on what was both provided today by the grand jury and whether you think it was sufficient. >> well, first of all, sadly predictable as many people have already indicated. i really want to touch on some of joy's brilliant finer points about how -- it's illustrative

of the systemic institutional dysfunction where we are witnessing and what we have witnessed historically through these processes is it lays waste to the use of the force continuum for black people, talk about the -- >> marq, i apologize. we think we're getting more news out of the press conference. let's listen to that. >> a human life was lost. we cannot forget that. my job as the special prosecutor in this case was to put emotions aside and investigate the facts to determine if criminal violations of state law resulted in the loss of ms. taylor's life. this included examining the actions of sergeant jonathan mattingly, detective brett hankison, and detective myles cosgrove. the three officers who fired their weapons in the early morning hours of march 13th. in working with our federal partners on this case, it was determined while we would share

information to advance our respective investigations, we must also maintain some level of separation to insure the integrity of each investigation. when examining issues regarding potential civil rights violations, we determined any such violations are better addressed through a federal-led investigation. and issues involving potential criminal acts concerning the shooting are better addressed by a state-led investigation. with this in mind, our investigation focused on the events that took place in ms. taylor's apartment on march 13th. in the months since taking this case, our dedicated team of prosecutors and investigators with more than 200 years of combined career experience conducted a thorough investigation to better understand the events that led to ms. taylor's death. the team is here with me today and i want to personally and

publicly thank them for their tireless work. these men and women are true public servants who for months have shown up every day with a desire for one thing, and that is to seek the truth. we decided while we would examine materials gathered by lnpd's public integrity unit, we would need to conduct our own independent investigation and start from scratch in the interest of thoroughness, fairness, and finding the truth. there was no video or body camera footage of the officers' attempted execution of a search warrant at ms. taylor's residence. video footage begins at the point that area patrol officers arrive at the location. therefore, the sequence of events from march 13th had to be pieced together through ballistics evidence, 911 calls, police radio traffic, and interviews.

we utilized information from the kentucky state police, local medical examiners, as well as working with the fbi crime lab in quantico to skrur a trajectory analysis and ballistics report. our team conducted interviews in this case and spent thousands of hours examining all of the available evidence. we concluded our last interview in this case this past friday and began our grand jury presentation on monday. as long as the case is making its way through our legal system, i can only speak in general terms about our independent investigation and findings. as the prosecutor, i am prohibited by the kentucky rules of professional conduct from making public comments that could in any way prejudice this case as it moves forward. each state has different rules about what prosecutors can and cannot say. the kentucky rules are clear

that i'm prohibited from making comments that could sway public opinion or heighten public condemnation of those involved in the case. these are crucial rules to insure due process under the constitution. when prosecutors prematurely release information about the case to the public, it can risk justice by poisoning the jury pool, violating the accused' rights to a fair trial, and even jeopardizing the final verdict. the success of our legal system is predicated on the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. despite passions, opinions, and desire for every detail to be known, the rule of law must apply. justice must be done. in the early morning hours of march 13th, officers from lnpd executed a search warrant at

3003 springfield drive, apartment 4. this was ms. breonna taylor's residence. the officers were advised by superiors to knock and announce their presence in serving this specific search warrant. the scope of our investigation did not include the obtainment of that warrant by lmpd's criminal interdiction division. federal law enforcement partners are conducting that investigation. sergeant mattingly and detectives cosgrove and hankison had no known involvement in the preceding investigation or obtainment of the search warrant. they were called in to duty as extra personnel to effectuate the service of the search warrant. they only had information conveyed to them during their prior briefing. evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their

presence at the apartment. the officers' statements about their announcement are corroborated by an independent witness who was near in proximity to apartment 4. in other words, the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant. when officers were unable to get anyone to answer or open the door to apartment 4, the decision was made to breach the door. after breaching the door, sergeant mattingly was the first and only officer to enter the residence. sergeant mattingly identified two individuals standing beside one another at the end of the hall. a male and a female. in his statement, he says that the male was holding a gun, armed extended in a shooting stance. sergeant mattingly saw the man's gun fire, heard a boom, and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his

upper thigh. kenneth walker fired the shot that hit sergeant mattingly, and there's no evidence to support that sergeant mattingly was hit by friendly fire from other officers. mr. walker admitted that he fired one shot and was the first to shoot. in addition to all of the testimony, the ballistics report shows that the round that struck sergeant mattingly was fired from a .9 millimeter handgun. the officers fired .40 caliber hand guns. sergeant mattingly returned fire down the hallway. mattingly fired six shots. almost simultaneously, detective cosgrove also in the doorway shot 16 times. this all took place in a matter of seconds. in total, six bullets struck ms. taylor.

including from an outside sliding glass door and through a bedroom window. some bullets traveled through apartment 4 and into apartment 3 before some exited that apartment. at the time, three residents of apartment 3 were at home, including a male, a pregnant female, and a child. there is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from detective hankison's weapon struck ms. taylor. the ksp ballistics analysis did not identify which of the three officers fired the fatal shot. after receiving that information, i asked the fbi crime lab to conduct its own analysis to see if they reached the same results. the fbi ballistics analysis concluded the fatal shot was fired by detective cosgrove.

our office looked at both reports to determine if there were major differences in the procedures used by each lab that would have led the fbi to identify who fired the fatal shot. both law enforcement agencies used similar equipment and analysis, and each lab is highly respected for their work. there was nothing our investigators could point to, nor anything provided by the respective agencies that directly explains why one lab made the call while another did not. i think it is worth repeating again that our investigation found that mattingly and cosgrove were justified in their use of force. after having been fired upon by kenneth walker. second indication, the ksp and fbi ballistics analysis reached different conclusions, creating a reasonable doubt in the evidence about who fired the

fatal shot. i certainly understand the public's desire for answers, and many have questioned the length of the investigation. simply put, we had to try every means necessary to determine who fired the fatal shot before the investigation could be completed. with a thorough and complete knowledge of all evidence collected in this case, lawyers with our office of special prosecutions presented the findings of our independent investigation before a grand jury comprised of jefferson county residents, beginning on monday and concluding today. in fletcher v. graham, the kentucky supreme court said that the grand jury has competing but balanced functions. on the one hand, its purpose is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. on the other,