
Ex-officer who shot Breonna Taylor gets 3 years — but DOJ asked for zero?
Last night, that moment came again. A former Kentucky police officer, Brett Hankison, was sentenced to just under three years in prison for firing blindly into Breonna Taylor's apartment during the botched 2020 raid that ended her life.
Here's what activist and Attorney Benjamin Crump had to say about the sentencing: 'And even though it's not what we wanted — we thought that he should have gotten more time — we are grateful to Kristen Clark, Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice who had the courage for the first time in history to bring federal charges against a police officer for killing a Black woman in America/ And we are thankful that he is at least going to prison and has to think about Breonna Taylor and that her life mattered.'
The 33 month sentence came down after the judge outright rejected the Justice Department's recommendation that former officer Hankison should serve no prison time. Imagine that: the Justice Department, the department that we — Black communities and all Americans — are told to trust for justice, suggested this officer's crime was worth zero time behind bars.
I sat with that, because that's not just a legal decision. That's a message.
Breonna Taylor was a 26-year-old Black woman. An EMT. Someone whose literal job was to save lives. She could have been any of us. She was any of us.
She had plans. She had love in her life. She had a future. And all of that ended on March 13, 2020, because of a 'no-knock' warrant tied to someone who didn't even live at her address — because police fired without care or confirmation. She was killed because Kenneth Walker, her boyfriend, thought intruders were breaking in, and because our system didn't value her enough to get it right.
They didn't find drugs that they were supposedly looking for. They didn't find evidence. What they found were lives destroyed.
What hurts, in this moment, is not just the injustice — it's the pattern. It's the normalization. And what's more exhausting is having to explain why we're still yelling Breonna's name in 2025. We're not chanting her name out of rage. We're chanting it because we're begging people to see Black women not as strong Black women, not as superhuman, not as invisible victims, but as whole human beings who deserve to live freely and safely, just like everyone else.
Too often, America doesn't.
This country has always been a place where Black women's contributions are celebrated, but our lives are discounted. I have watched us hailed as 'backbones' and 'trailblazers,' while our disappearances go uncovered, our murders go unresolved, and our voices in the delivery room go unheard. We are either heroic or irrelevant — rarely human.
Even in Breonna's death, that played out. There wasn't outrage in every corner. There wasn't unanimous support. There was division. There were justifications. There were quiet dismissals. 'She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.' But no — she was in her own home. And still, it wasn't safe.
I think about how different that night could have been if a little bit of care had been shown — if due diligence had been done, if police had simply knocked, announced themselves, and handed her a warrant addressed to someone else. She and Kenneth could have gone back to bed. She would still be here today, probably working a shift, saving lives.
Instead, her mother had to bury her child.
I don't want to stand here, five years later, explaining this to our audience. But I have to, because the same country that tells me it's too 'divisive' to teach Black history in schools now tells me that Breonna's life didn't warrant accountability.
That's the message when federal agencies scrub the word 'oppression' from websites. That's the message when museums are criticized for acknowledging racism. That's the message when an officer who fired recklessly gets a recommended sentence of nothing.
And yet we're told to move on. I can't. We can't.
This isn't about anger. This is about humanity. Calling out Breonna Taylor's name today isn't a protest. It's a reminder that Black women are human beings — complex, vulnerable, powerful, flawed, loving, dreaming human beings. Not afterthoughts, not martyrs, but people who deserve to be protected, remembered. And most importantly, who deserve to live like everybody else.
That's why I keep saying her name: 'Breonna Taylor.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Was dropping atomic bombs on Japan justified? 80 years later, views have changed
American public opinion toward the atomic bombing of Japan has changed significantly over time. The latest poll from the Pew Research Center reveals that less than half of Americans currently view the bombings as justified, marking a notable drop from earlier years. The survey was conducted ahead of the 80th anniversary of the bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two nuclear blasts killed around 200,000 people, many of whom were children, and left survivors with debilitating side effects, including higher rates of cancer and chronic illness. The attacks — which took place on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945 — were quickly followed by Japan's surrender to the U.S., which brought an end to World War II. They also signaled the dawn of the nuclear age, sparking a worldwide arms race that has led at least nine countries to develop atomic arsenals. In the recent Pew survey, 35% of respondents said the bombings were justified, while a slightly smaller share, 31%, said they were not justified. An additional 33% said they were not sure. The results appear to follow a trend of declining support for the nuclear attacks. In 1945 — in the immediate aftermath of the bombings — a Gallup poll found the vast majority of Americans, 85%, approved of the U.S. decision to drop the newly invented weapons on Japanese cities. Many years later, in 1990, another Gallup survey revealed that a much smaller share of respondents, 53%, approved of the attacks. And, in four subsequent Gallup surveys conducted between 1991 and 2005, approval fluctuated between 53% and 59%. In 2015 — on the 70th anniversary of the bombings — a Pew poll found 56% of Americans believed the attack was justified, while 34% said it was not. However, this survey did not include a 'not sure' option, unlike the most recent one. The latest survey — which sampled 5,044 U.S. adults June 2-8 — also revealed noticeable differences in views based on gender, partisanship and generational lines. For example, 51% of men said the bombings were justified, while just 20% of women said the same. Similarly, 51% of Republicans and those who lean Republican said the attacks were justified, while just 23% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents said the same. Older Americans were also more likely than their younger counterparts to approve of the U.S. bombings. Nearly half of those 65 and older, 48%, said they were justified, while just 27% of 18- to 29-year-olds agreed. The poll — which has a margin of error of 1.6 percentage points — also asked respondents whether they believe the development of nuclear weapons has made the world more or less safe. The vast majority, 69%, said the creation of atomic weapons has made the world less safe. Just 10% said it's made the global community more safe, and 21% said they were not sure. When asked if nuclear weapons made the U.S. in specific safer, 47% said no and 26% said yes. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say both that the development of nuclear weapons has made the world and the U.S. more safe.


WIRED
22 minutes ago
- WIRED
Tornado Cash Developer Roman Storm Guilty on One Count in Federal Crypto Case
Aug 6, 2025 2:27 PM A federal jury found crypto developer Roman Storm guilty of operating an unlicensed crypto business, but cleared him of sanctions violations and deadlocked on a money laundering charge. The facade of the Department of Justice building is seen in Washington, D.C. Photograph:Roman Storm, one of the developers of crypto anonymizing tool Tornado Cash, has been found guilty of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business by a jury in a court in New York. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison. In 2023, the US Department of Justice charged Storm with three violations: conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to violate sanctions, and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. On Wednesday, at the end of a four-week trial and a deliberation period spanning five days, the jury returned a partial verdict: It found Storm guilty of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and not guilty of sanctions evasion. It failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the money laundering count, which carries a far greater penalty of up to 20 years in prison. 'We are grateful the jury did not convict Roman for violating sanctions or laundering money. There are serious legal issues with the sole remaining count involving unlicensed money transmission,' says Brian Klein, partner at law firm Waymaker, one of Storm's representatives at trial. 'We will not stop fighting for Roman and expect him to be fully vindicated.' Storm intends to file for the single conviction to be dismissed in a post-trial motion, his counsel tells WIRED. Tornado Cash was developed in 2019 by Storm and two others, Alexey Pertsev and Roman Semenov. The idea was to conceal the ownership of crypto coins, by pooling funds belonging to various different parties, then dishing them into brand-new wallets, thereby interrupting the public trail of transactions recorded on a blockchain. Services like Tornado Cash are marketed as essential to improving the level of privacy available to crypto owners. Privacy has long been a preoccupation among crypto ideologues, but the issue is especially pertinent at present, after a string of violent kidnappings targeting people known to possess large amounts of crypto. 'Privacy is a very pragmatic thing for basic safety,' Vitalik Buterin, co-creator of the Ethereum crypto network, told WIRED before the start of the trial. 'If someone knows who has the coins, someone knows who to target.' But the US government saw Tornado Cash differently—as a tailor-made vehicle for money laundering. When it brought charges in 2023, the DOJ argued that Storm had built and profited from a tool that allowed criminals to launder at least $1 billion in crypto, among them hackers with ties to North Korea. 'Claiming to offer the Tornado Cash service as a 'privacy service,' the defendants in fact knew that it was a haven for criminals to engage in large-scale money laundering and sanctions evasion,' the indictment alleged. At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that they claimed proved that Tornado Cash was designed for money laundering from the outset. Their witnesses included a scam victim whose stolen funds were said to have passed through Tornado Cash—though this account was contested online by prominent members of the crypto industry—and a convicted fraudster who used the service to launder ill-gotten gains. 'Washy, washy,' the fraudster supposedly wrote to his girlfriend, in a message about Tornado Cash. When the government closed its case last week, prosecutors dismissed the topic of privacy as a convenient distraction. 'The real money wasn't in so-called 'privacy' for normal people,' Benjamin Gianforti, one of the prosecutors, is quoted as saying. 'It was in hiding dirty money for criminals.' Storm and the other developers even took to wearing a Tornado Cash-branded t-shirt emblazoned with an image of a washing machine, prosecutors noted. Storm's attorneys, meanwhile, sought to argue that although their client had developed the technology exploited by bad actors, he had not engaged in any criminality himself, nor handled any dirty money. 'You'll never hear any evidence that Roman or the [other] co-founders participated in any hacks,' said Keri Curtis Axel, partner at law firm Waymaker and counsel to Storm, in her opening remarks. Storm was powerless to prevent the abuses of Tornado Cash, the defence reportedly argued, because he and the other developers had relinquished the ability to modify or disable the underlying code, in the spirit of decentralization. The defence called to the stand a number of witnesses that spoke to the potential legitimate uses for Tornado Cash. But Storm did not testify, which would have opened him up to cross-examination by the prosecution. Ultimately, despite finding Storm guilty of the lesser money transmitting violation, the jury proved receptive to the defense's line of reasoning. 'The jury split the proverbial baby,' says Mark Bini, partner at law firm Reed Smith's crypto practice and former federal prosecutor. 'While they likely credited the defense's compelling arguments that there are legitimate privacy uses for mixers and that Storm was not directly involved in any of the crimes in which Tornado Cash was used, they felt uncomfortable with the steps that Tornado Cash took or didn't take to prevent illicit uses.' Storm now awaits sentencing, which usually takes place a few months after a conviction. Meanwhile, the DOJ must decide whether to retry the money laundering count on which the jury could not agree. 'The government could choose to retry Storm on the hung count, but based on the notes that were coming back from the jury, I expect that they will go to sentencing based upon the conviction they secured,' says Bini. 'While they are likely to argue for a stiff sentence, the jury's verdict appears to take a lot of the sting out of the government's case.'

Miami Herald
38 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Google quietly doubles down on a controversial workplace trend
Google (GOOGL) , operated by Alphabet, raised eyebrows earlier this year when it sent a memo to employees notifying them that it was scaling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. In the memo, sent to employees in February, Google Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi said that "recent court decisions and U.S. Executive Orders" prompted the company to make this change, since it is a federal contractor. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter "In 2020, we set aspirational hiring goals and focused on growing our offices outside California and New York to improve representation," said Cicconi. "We'll continue to invest in states across the U.S. - and in many countries globally - but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals." Related: Google sends a harsh message to employees after layoffs Google's decision came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2023 to end affirmative action in college admissions, raising legal questions about DEI programs in workplaces nationwide. Then, on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump issued an executive order dismantling the federal government's diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In the order, he claims that the programs enforce "illegal and immoral discrimination." In addition to scaling back its DEI goals, Google also scrubbed 58 DEI-related groups from its list of nonprofit organizations that receive the company's "most substantial contributions," according to a recent report from the Tech Transparency Project. The report indicates that the change took place around February, and the groups that were removed had mission statements that contained the words "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion," and other terms the Trump administration advised federal agencies to purge. Related: Intel announces a drastic decision to fix its struggling business Some of the organizations that were removed from the list include the African American Community Service Agency, which aims to "empower all Black and historically excluded communities;" the Latino Leadership Alliance, which is dedicated to "race equity affecting the Latino community;" and the National Network to End Domestic Violence, which spreads awareness about violence against women. The revelation comes after Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said in an interview with The Verge in May that diversity is still "a foundational value" for the company, despite recent cuts. "What we are doing in the company is constantly at our scale," said Pichai. "We look at that first - see what works, what we can scale up better. All I can say is we probably have more resources invested in diversity now than at any point in our history as a company, in terms of the scale and the resources we put in." Many companies in corporate America committed to implementing DEI policies in their workplaces in 2020 after George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer who assisted in his arrest. The incident brought to light many inequities Black people face in America. These policies aimed to advance workplace opportunities for people of various backgrounds. However, when the U.S. Supreme Court ended affirmative action in college admissions, which aimed to improve educational opportunities for minorities, companies began questioning the legality of these policies. More Labor: Amazon CEO warns employees of a harsh new reality IRS sends stern warning to employees after layoffsGoogle sends a harsh message to employees after layoffs Also, DEI policies later became the source of backlash from conservative consumers who began boycotting companies that adopted them. Large companies such as Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon, and Lowe's have either scaled back or completely axed their DEI policies over the past few months. Despite recent cuts to DEI across corporate America, a recent survey from culture and inclusion platform Paradigm found that only 19% of companies/organizations plan to decrease their DEI funding in 2025, while 23% plan to increase their funding, and 58% plan to make no changes. Related: Meta quietly plans rude awakening for employees after layoffs The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.