Cross posted to the MRC's NewsBusters blog
In the aftermath of announcement that three police officers involved in killing Louisville resident Breonna Taylor would not face state murder charges for her death, the taxpayer-funded PBS NewsHour went right to a liberal legal analyst from the stridently left-wing MSNBC as their only guest to react to the case.
Interviewed by PBS correspondent Amna Nawaz, the far-left Butler preposterously likened the three cops involved in the raid to "gang bangers" breaking into an innocent person's home and killing them, and declared that they should similarly face murder charges:
I think homicide charges against all three officers would have been appropriate. Imagine if three gang members had broken into a house in the middle of the night, and were met by a gun used by the home owner, a legal gun, in self-defense, and, in response, the gang bangers shot up the whole complex. I think that those gang bangers would be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. I think when police officers do the same thing, it's still a crime.
Nawaz did not bother to point out the obvious that, unlike gang members, police officers have a legal justification for forcing their way into a suspect's home as long as they have a legally obtained search warrant.
It was also not mentioned that investigators had reason to believe Taylor was assisting her ex-boyfriend who was arrested for drug dealing.
As the segment concluded, Nawaz cued up her liberal guest to blame racism for the decision not to charge the officers for killing Taylor. The PBS correspondent asked: "What would you say to the many people out there who say this is another example of black Americans who are disproportionately effected by violence from police officers not getting justice?"
Butler took her up on the suggestion as he responded:
I would say that they're exactly right. What the Kentucky prosecutors said today is that when three police officers barge into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you six times, that's not a crime. I think that that's a legal prosecutorial way of saying black lives don't matter. Sometimes the problem is systemic -- this isn't a systemic issue -- this is a problem of bad apple cops. You don't need reform -- it's against the law to do what they did, in my opinion, and yet these officers are now above the law.
Butler has notably been one of the more stridently liberal analysts on MSNBC. Last year, after it was pretty well confirmed that actor Jussie Smollett had staged a hate crime against himself, the MSNBC liberal clung to defending him and suggested the Chicago police were lying.
He has also incorrectly claimed that most police killing victims are minorities.
This episode of PBS NewsHour was paid for in part by Consumer Cellular. You can fight back by letting advertisers know how you feel about them sponsoring such content.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, September 23, PBS NewsHour:
AMNA NAWAZ: The fact that the only criminal charges to come out of the investigation and out of the grand jury are not related to Breonna Taylor's death at all -- what is your reaction to that?
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I think homicide charges against all three officers would have been appropriate. Imagine if three gang members had broken into a house in the middle of the night, and were met by a gun used by the home owner, a legal gun, in self-defense, and, in response, the gang bangers shot up the whole complex. I think that those gang bangers would be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. I think when police officers do the same thing, it's still a crime.
NAWAZ: Well, let me ask you about those charges, though, because when you heard the attorney general say that the shooting by Officers Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified because Kenneth Walker -- Breonna Taylor's boyfriend -- fired first and they were responding, they were therefore justified, and he said that barred him from pursuing criminal charges. The grand jury said the evidence didn't support that. You say it does, so is that a difference in legal interpretation? Why the difference?
BUTLER: I think there's a credible self-defense claim, but it's one that a jury should have decided, and if the suspects had been anybody other than police officers as a case, that would have been prosecuted for a jury to decide. The evidence suggests that the officers continued to fire even after they were no longer in danger. Someone called 911 to report gunfire -- 68 seconds into that call, you can still hear the gunfire. Also, the law in Kentucky is you can't claim self-defense if your actions put innocent people in danger, which is exactly what the police did here. Breonna Taylor posed no threat to these officers -- she was shot six times. The person who had the gun who fired at the police was not harmed at all.
(...)
NAWAZ: What would you say to the many people out there who say this is another example of black Americans who are disproportionately effected by violence from police officers not getting justice?
BUTLER; I would say that they're exactly right. What the Kentucky prosecutors said today is that when three police officers barge into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you six times, that's not a crime. I think that that's a legal prosecutorial way of saying black lives don't matter. Sometimes the problem is systemic -- this isn't a systemic issue -- this is a problem of bad apple cops. You don't need reform -- it's against the law to do what they did, in my opinion, and yet these officers are now above the law.