News
New details in shooting of 11-year-old Aderrien Murry emerge from 911 calls
Copies of the 911 calls placed by 11-year-old Aderrien Murry and his grandmother to the Indianola Police Department were released Friday. The calls raise questions about the May 20, 2023, incident and how the situation was handled by authorities. Here, an image from the body camera footage shows the moment Sgt. Greg Capers fired his weapon at Aderrien.
Mississippi Bureau of Investigation
hide caption
toggle caption
Mississippi Bureau of Investigation
Copies of the 911 calls placed by 11-year-old Aderrien Murry and his grandmother to the Indianola Police Department were released Friday. The calls raise questions about the May 20, 2023, incident and how the situation was handled by authorities. Here, an image from the body camera footage shows the moment Sgt. Greg Capers fired his weapon at Aderrien.
Mississippi Bureau of Investigation
A Mississippi 911 dispatcher was told that a man allegedly trying to enter a home last May was unarmed and that there were children inside the residence — where one officer shot and wounded 11-year-old Aderrien Murry, who had called police for help.
Carlos Moore, the attorney representing the Murry family, says the recordings he released on Friday “directly contradict the initial police account and raise serious questions about the handling of the situation that led to the tragic shooting.”
“This crucial information should have been known to the responding officers and should have informed their approach to the situation,” Moore said in a statement.
Moore released the five minutes of audio recordings to reporters after the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation originally declined to do so.
Earlier this week, body camera footage from the incident was also released and obtained by NPR.
Neither the Indianola Police Department nor the dispatcher, Jada Rush, responded to NPR’s requests for comment following the release of the body camera footage and the recording of the 911 call placed by Aderrien.
Last month, a grand jury in Mississippi determined that there was no criminal conduct by the officer, Sgt. Greg Capers, and no further action or charges will be taken against him.
On May 20, Aderrien called 911 at the request of his mother, Nakala Murry, to ask for help after a still-unidentified man arrived at their house. A 911 dispatcher, Jada Rush, received his call, confirmed his address and then sent police officers to the house.
On one of the tapes, Rush can be heard calling Aderrien back to notify him about the officers’ arrival. Aderrien said the man wasn’t allowing his family to go outside. Aderrien also confirmed to the dispatcher that the unidentified man involved in the domestic dispute with his mother had no weapons.
“OK, [officers] are asking if they have your permission to kick the door in?” Rush then said.
“Yes,” Aderrien said.
For several seconds during the call as officers began to enter the home, the audio went silent — except for Aderrien’s breathing, while he stayed on the phone with 911.
In the background of the call, Sgt. Greg Capers, one of the officers responding to the incident, is heard saying, “Come out, sir — don’t make us come in.” (This portion of audio matches what is seen and heard in the body camera footage released by the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation.)
“Police! If you got any weapons, you better put them down,” Capers says.
Around five seconds after Capers asked the question, he opened fire, shooting the 11-year-old in the chest, the body camera footage shows. The conversation between officers and those in the home is faintly heard in the background as the 911 dispatcher was still on the line with Aderrien.
Another recording contains a 911 call from Aderrien’s grandmother, telling Rush to send police to the Murry’s home after Aderrien called her. Rush confirmed this in her statements to the MBI.
The recordings provide more clarity into what happened the night of May 20 — particularly since Rush’s accounting of the events seems to have changed. In documents from an interview with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation dated May 20, 2023, Rush told investigators that she had been on the phone with the 11-year-old.
Photos of two handwritten statements signed by Rush in the MBI files obtained by NPR show that Rush revised her statement.
In the first statement dated May 20, she said Nakala Murry called in the domestic dispute, and not Aderrien or his grandmother. But a second, revised statement, dated May 25, did not name Nakala Murry as the caller.
It is still unclear whether Rush asked the callers whether there were children present at the home.
Aderrien survived the shooting. He suffered a collapsed lung, a fractured rib and a lacerated liver from the incident.
The Indianola Police Department did not respond to NPR’s request for comment regarding the release of the body camera footage or the 911 call placed by Aderrien.
Aderrien’s mother, Nakala Murry, told NPR prior to the release of both the bodycam footage and the 911 audio recording that the shooting could have been avoided.
“Things need to change. People need to show more accountability. Laws need to be [changed],” Murry said.
Capers has since returned to work with the Indianola Police Department.
In May, the Murry family filed a $5 million federal lawsuit, saying that the police officers who responded to the incident acted in a way that was “so outrageous that it shocks the moral and legal conscience of the community.”
The lawsuit filed by Carlos Moore, the family’s attorney, accuses the police of violating Aderrien Murry’s civil rights — specifically the Fourth Amendment’s protection against the use of excessive force and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
News
Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
News
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Arizona3 seconds agoArizona State Adds Alabama Assistant Michael White To Coaching Staff
-
Arkansas5 minutes agoArkansas driver’s licenses and state IDs now available in Apple Wallet
-
California12 minutes agoCalifornia’s race for governor and other key primaries remain unsettled as vote count continues
-
Colorado15 minutes agoColorado community reels after police say driver with revoked license hits three pedestrians, killing one
-
Connecticut20 minutes agoNight forecast for June 2
-
Delaware27 minutes agoThomas Jefferson University to run Delaware’s first medical school
-
Florida30 minutes agoMan accused of kidnapping woman at Wawa in Central Florida
-
Georgia35 minutes ago5 things to know about Georgia mosquito problem amid heat, drought