Lyoya supporters criticize decision for no Schurr retrial
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — Demonstrators gathered outside the Kent County Courthouse Thursday evening after the prosecutor decided not to retry the murder case against a former Grand Rapids police officer who shot and killed Patrick Lyoya following a traffic stop in 2022.
Phrases like 'Justice for Patrick' and 'Who do you call when the police murder?' appeared on signs held up by demonstrators, who chanted 'No justice, no peace' and 'Justice for Patrick.'
Joshua Ferguson, a member of the Grand Rapids Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression led the demonstrators in chants as they gathered in downtown Grand Rapids. Ferguson expressed support for the Lyoya family expressed resolve to keep pushing city council for reforms to the police system.
'I think a lot of us were extremely troubled by this case in the sense that, if this isn't clearly not OK, if shooting someone in the back of the head is not clearly illegal, that is a large indictment on our judicial system, … it should not make any resident of Grand Rapids feel safe — Black, brown, white or otherwise,' Ferguson said.
Grand Rapids Mayor LaGrand was there and said he came out to ensure things went well. He said he was grateful people were expressing themselves and that event organizers were keeping things peaceful.
'I wanted to be sure that this crowd felt safe, they were able to express themselves without interference, without danger and I'm happy to say that this is clearly a peaceful event. … I think we all have work to do to make Grand Rapids a place where everyone feels like justice is delivered and we have a goal and we have a mandate to continuously improve how we live together in this community,' LaGrand said.
The trial against Christopher Schurr ended May 8 when it was because the jury said it could not reach a verdict. On Thursday, Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker said he Schurr.
'I did not arrive at (the decision) lightly,' Becker said. 'Basically, what it boils down to is I don't think we reach a different verdict if I do do a retrial in this case.'
Becker said he looked at the case, arguments and jury selection process but said he ultimately did not believe his case would be presented any different in a second trial. The jury deliberated for about 21 hours before telling the judge it was hopelessly deadlocked. Becker commented that he thought the trial had 'a really good jury' and could not see another jury's opinion changing.
A juror on the trial there was one main holdout from keeping Schurr from being acquitted — the jury foreperson. Becker has said the jury voted 10-2 in favor of acquittal. The defense attorney said it was 11-1 for acquittal.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
The political analyst and former New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow shares his thoughts about our nation's newest federal holiday, Juneteenth: Last month I visited Emancipation Park in Houston, a park established in 1872 by the formerly enslaved as a space to celebrate Juneteenth, the day in 1865 that the news of emancipation was proclaimed in Galveston, Texas. Ramon Manning, the board chair of the park's conservancy, told me that his corporate sponsors had grown skittish about supporting Juneteenth-related activities and anything with words like "culture," "heritage" or "Black History" – words nearly impossible to omit in this park. This, for Manning, is a bit of a whiplash. Four years ago, in the wake of the massive protests following the killing of George Floyd, and in a Senate riven by partisanship, the bill to make Juneteenth a national holiday passed unanimously. Biden signs bill making Juneteenth a federal holidayWhat is Juneteenth? Learn the history behind the federal holiday's origin and name A year before that, in the closing months of his reelection bid, Donald Trump himself had proposed making it a national holiday in his so-called Platinum Plan for Black America. In fact, in 2019, Trump's statement commemorating Juneteenth ended by saying that on Juneteenth, "... we pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of African Americans." Now, the mood of the country has shifted. Pluralism and racial justice have been demoted in the zeitgeist, as Trump has returned to office on a mission to purge the government, and much of society, of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Trump administration threatens public schools' federal funding over DEI initiativesTrump's DEI undoing undermines hard-won accommodations for disabled peopleCompanies could face Trump repercussions over DEI This has spurred an erasure of Black history and Black symbols in some quarters, a phenomenon that I call "The Great Blackout" – from an executive order condemning the direction of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, to the National Park Service removing - but being forced to restore - Harriet Tubman's image and quote to a page about the Underground Railroad. There are, unfortunately, countless examples. That chill is having a dampening effect on the upcoming observation of Juneteenth, far beyond Emancipation Park, as multiple cities have cancelled Juneteenth celebrations altogether. 2025 Indianapolis Juneteenth parade canceled San Luis Obispo Juneteenth event canceled In this sad new reality, America's youngest national holiday is now caught in the crossfire of America's raging culture wars. For more info: Charles M. Blow on Instagram Story produced by Robbyn McFadden. Editor: Chad Cardin. See also: Passage: The story of Juneteenth ("Sunday Morning")Decades after a mob destroyed her house, Opal Lee is returning home ("Sunday Morning") Dad says son "may never be the same" after alleged hazing Nature: Mating grebes From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Battle over SEPTA funding continues in Harrisburg: This Week in Pennsylvania
(WHTM) – The fight over funding SEPTA continues to brew in the State Capitol with the budget deadline looming. The transportation authority has thousands of stops across five southeastern counties. However, some lawmakers in Harrisburg say if funding keeps going toward SEPTA, there needs to be more funding for roads statewide where residents don't ride SEPTA. Scott Sauer, General Manager for SEPTA, joins This Week in Pennsylvania to discuss the ongoing structural deficit, SEPTA's biggest needs, and how SEPTA impacts all of Pennsylvania. Every week, This Week in Pennsylvania gives a comprehensive look at the week's biggest news events in Pennsylvania, provided by the abc27 News team, along with the latest updates on local stories. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Check your local listings for weekly air times. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory.
