Ma'Khia Bryant didn't make the 911 call that led to her death, her grandmother said, appearing to contradict earlier claims

Mia Jankowicz
·2 min read

Ma'Khia Bryant did not make the 911 call that dispatched police the day that she was killed by an officer, her grandmother said.

Jeanene Hammonds told The Washington Post that the initial call about disruption in Bryant's foster home came from her younger sister, who was also being cared for there.

ma'khia bryant police bodycam footage columbus shooting
A screenshot of the scene recorded on police bodycam moments before the shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant on April 20, 2021. Columbus Police

Officials in Columbus, Ohio, have yet to say definitively who made the call, which resulted in officer Nicholas Reardon arriving and killing Bryant.

Bodycam video lasting only a few seconds showed Reardon arriving at the scene, Bryant running past him, Bryant swinging a knife at another girl, and Reardon shooting her dead.

Ma'Khia and her mother, Paula
Ma'Khia Bryant smiles next to her mother, Paula. Provided by the Bryant family

Other members of the Bryant family have said that Ma'Khia made the call herself. Her mother, Paula Bryant, told local news station 10TV that "my daughter dispatched Columbus police for protection, not to be a homicide today."

An NPR report citing an interview with Ma'Khia's aunt, Hazel Bryant, also reported the claim that the call-out came from Ma'Khia herself.

Police released audio from the initial 911 call in which a female voice said someone was "trying to stab us," but the caller did not identify herself.

In a second call, a female voice gets through to dispatchers as Reardon arrived, and hangs up after seeing him. Her identity is also unclear.

Read the original article on Insider

Recommended Stories

  • Why didn't onlookers stop Derek Chauvin? Here's what research really shows about bystanders getting involved

    An image from a police body camera shows bystanders including Darnella Frazier, third from right, filming a Minneapolis police officer pressing his knee on George Floyd's neck. Minneapolis Police Department via AP, FileThe most powerful evidence for the prosecution at the trial of Derek Chauvin was a video showing the then-Minneapolis police officer pinning a pleading George Floyd to the ground by kneeling on his neck until he grew silent and then died. On the witness stand, the teenager who captured the incident on her smartphone, 17-year-old Darnella Frazier, expressed regret for not doing more on the day of the crime. As a professor whose major field of research is the application of psychology and game theory to ethics, I believe that Frazier’s regret about not physically intervening illuminates two major points: First, a witness to a troubling situation who is in a group may feel a lesser sense of personal responsibility than a single individual. Second, someone in a group of people who can see one another may nonetheless feel responsible to act. The bystander effect The sense of diminished personal responsibility for people in a group has become known as the “bystander effect” – a phenomenon first described in the wake of a celebrated, infamous case. In a 1964 front-page story headlined “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police; Apathy at Stabbing of Queens Woman Shocks Inspector,” The New York Times related the gruesome story of the middle-of-the-night sexual assault and murder of Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old bartender, near her apartment building. In recent years, academics and The New York Times itself have concluded that the report had significant errors – the number of witnesses was fewer than 37 and multiple people phoned the police. Reflecting on the notorious case long before these errors were known, social psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley wondered if it would be possible to study failure of bystanders to act in lab experiments. In a 1970 book, Darley and Latane summarized that the chances of any one individual acting in a pro-social or helpful way is lower when responsibility is diffused among a number of people. Subsequent studies also confirmed that individuals are more likely to act when they feel they have the sole responsibility to do so. The bystander effect has been reformulated by game theorists as the “volunteer’s dilemma.” In the volunteer’s dilemma, a person, or a group of people, will avoid discomfort if any one of them takes a pro-social action with a small cost, such as performing first aid or fixing a clogged drain. Any one individual acting alone has good reason to take action – but if there is a crowd of, say, 20 people, the chance that they will do nothing and let someone else volunteer goes up. In the case of George Floyd, the bystander effect was complicated by the power dynamics at play. Chauvin was an armed white police officer, and Frazier and the other bystanders were unarmed civilians who were mostly Black, like George Floyd himself. Given that, it is reasonable to ask whether Frazier, if she had been the sole civilian witness, would have gone beyond recording a video to physically intervene – such as trying to pull Chauvin off Floyd. And it is also reasonable to ask whether she or any bystander should physically intervene in a situation where doing so might be extremely risky. What makes people act After Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murder and manslaughter, people gathered on the street where he killed George Floyd. Brandon Bell/Getty Images What needs to be explained in Frazier’s behavior – and that of a number of other witnesses who also recorded videos or called out to Chauvin to stop – is not why they didn’t take drastic, risky physical action, but why they did take the steps to record videos and yell for Chauvin to stop. To explain their pro-social action, an advancing line of research on the behavior of witnesses to troubling scenes is helpful. That research suggests that having more witnesses increases rather than decreases the chance of intervention and that pro-social intervention by at least some in a group is the norm. A 2008 analysis by social psychologist Daniel Stalder of previous studies found that although the bystander effect is real, larger group size increased the probability that at least one person in the group would make a pro-social intervention. More recently, a 2019 article by psychologist Richard Philpot and four co-authors found that there is a greater chance that someone will act when there are larger numbers of witnesses to public conflicts. They also found that intervention is the norm: 90.7% of public conflicts featured one or more witnesses making a pro-social intervention, with an average of 3.8 witnesses intervening in each conflict. Compared with earlier research, their study is particularly persuasive, as it relied not on lab studies, but on examining surveillance camera footage of actual public conflicts between civilians (not between police and civilians) taking place in crowded urban street settings. The research was conducted in three countries – South Africa, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] As Philpot and his co-authors put it, in a line that presages what Frazier and several others near her did: “We found that in nine-out-of-10 conflicts, at least one person – but typically several – did something to help.” In trying to understand bystander ethics, the troubling phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility remains relevant. But it is also important to understand the more positive finding that pro-social intervention like Frazier’s by one or more people in groups who witness public conflicts is common.This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Wayne Eastman, Rutgers University. Read more:Police officers accused of brutal violence often have a history of complaints by citizensDerek Chauvin trial: 3 questions America needs to ask about seeking racial justice in a court of law Wayne Eastman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

  • St. Louis couple who confronted protesters back in court

    A St. Louis couple accused of waving guns at racial injustice protesters last summer are due back in court Friday, when a judge will consider whether to send the case back to a grand jury to decide if they should have been indicted in the first place. A St. Louis grand jury indicted Mark and Patricia McCloskey in October on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence. Their attorney, Joel Schwartz, filed a motion this month seeking to remand the case to the grand jury, citing “bias” in St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office that he said tainted the grand jury process.

  • Bride faces backlash over 'insane' menu at her wedding reception: 'I want to skip the event'

    The bride thinks it’s cute, but I’m heated and want to skip the event. What should I do?

  • Atlanta news crew spots Arizona murder suspect, films arrest

    A local television news crew spotted an Arizona murder suspect near the Atlanta airport and flagged police, resulting in the man being taken back into custody after a daylong search. The reporter and photojournalist with WSB-TV said they saw Jsaan Carlos Strover, 20, as they were driving down a road near Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport around 11:15 p.m. Thursday. Reporter Matt Johnson said he and photojournalist Joe Booker were in their live truck when Strover ran by and into some bushes.

  • Sheriff: Deputies who didn't fire at Black man back on duty

    A North Carolina sheriff said Thursday that he has put four deputies involved in the case of a Black man who was fatally shot last week back on active duty after a review of body camera video showed they did not fire their weapons. Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten announced in a news release that he has reinstated four of the seven deputies who were placed on administrative leave after the shooting death of Andrew Brown Jr. The other three deputies will remain on leave until investigations are completed, Wooten said. “After reviewing the preliminary conclusions of the independent investigators conducting the internal review, and after carefully examining the body camera footage of the incident with my own staff, it’s obvious that four of the deputies never fired their weapons and deserve to be reinstated to active duty," Wooten said.

  • Josh Duggar Arrested in Arkansas, Sister Jill Calls Situation ‘Very Sad’ (Exclusive)

    Josh Duggar was arrested in Arkansas on Thursday. Jill, Josh’s sister, and her husband Derek Dillard told ET exclusively: ‘We just learned this information. It is very sad.’ Duggar was arrested in Washington County and TMZ reports he’s currently being held in a detention center without bail. The outlet has also reported that Duggar’s car dealership in Arkansas was raided in 2019 in connection to a federal probe. Duggar's arrest follows his and wife Anna’s announcement last week that they’re expecting their seventh child together.

  • Man fined $12m for police station arson during George Floyd protests

    Dylan Shakespeare Robinson will serve four years in prison for his role in last year's riots.

  • Najee Harris got drafted by the Steelers, and Ravens CB Marcus Peters was already there to trash talk him

    Your new rival's biggest trash talker is always a fun draft party invite.

  • Mario Lopez on the 'Traumatic' Moment When His Daughter, 10, Walked in on Him Having Sex

    "I was like lightning with the covers," Mario Lopez said, recalling the time that his daughter walked in on the intimate moment with his wife, Courtney

  • The Chicago cop who fatally shot a Latino man asked another officer to cuff him as he lay bleeding. The officer gave the man medical aid instead.

    Body-camera video shows the Chicago cop who shot Anthony Alvarez asked another officer to cuff the dying man. That officer provided aid instead.

  • Oregon Man Allegedly Threatens to Kill Asian Father and Sexually Assault Son in Grocery Store

    A man in Oregon was charged with bias crimes after he allegedly threatened an Asian man and his young son at a grocery store. Adam Christopher Graham, 35, is accused of harassing a father and son who were about to pay for their groceries at Fred Meyer in Scappoose on April 24, KPIC reported. Based on court documents, the victims were by the self-checkout aisle when Graham threatened to not only slit the man’s throat but also kidnap and sexually assault his son.

  • People in India are being cremated in parking lots, with so much demand that families have to take tickets and wait

    India is buckling under a devastating COVID-19 surge. Some 370,000 positive tests were reported Thursday alone, and thousands are dying every day.

  • Attorney calls for probe into Ma'Khia Bryant death

    A lawyer representing Ma'Khia Bryant's family is calling for a federal investigation into the shooting death of the teen, along with a probe into the handling of her foster care placement. (April 28)

  • Michael B. Jordan and the 'Without Remorse' cast on diversifying the Tom Clancy universe: 'Actors of color have so long been erased'

    The 'Black Panther' star explains why he intends to keep diversifying Hollywood blockbusters, even if he's not going to be playing a Black Superman.

  • Sergei Polunin: I think everybody, all the older ballet generation, should be in jail

    Sergei Polunin is covered in tattoos, an eccentric autobiography of sorts inked across the ballet superstar’s body. “I have my teacher, I have my cat, I have Mickey Rourke,” says the Ukraine-born 31-year-old, who made headlines a decade ago by becoming the youngest ever principal at the Royal Ballet – and then, just two years later, by quitting. Tattoos, back then, were an obvious sign of rebellion, along with lots of drinking and drug-taking, and he has accumulated more body art since. His most notorious tattoo now is of Vladimir Putin: a full portrait of the Russian president adorns Polunin’s broad chest. Yet if you really want to know Polunin, the key detail is that he is now removing them all – having looked at them while under the influence of LSD, and realised they meant “absolutely nothing”. “It’s, like, 40 times I’ve been, and the blistering…” he sighs, sitting in the home of one of his powerful friends in one of the wealthiest corners of west London. “And every time I go there” – he means Russia – “and I get a thankful letter from Putin, it’s like: ‘Oh.’” He makes a naughty-schoolboy face, and laughs nervously. “And I’m removing it.” These days, though, he thinks it’s the inside of a person that’s important. “I’m just curious to see who I am.” Who is Sergei Polunin? He has spent a lifetime looking, and even if he found an answer, I’m pretty sure he would immediately ditch it. Pure contradictoriness, a refusal ever to be one thing in one place, is at his heart. Ever since he quit the Royal Ballet in 2012, slightly bored by the achievement of being the best ballet dancer in the world, he has positively rollercoastered about: rehabilitating himself, dance-wise, in Russia, before ditching that too, and encountering a whole other level of fame thanks to the YouTube video he made of himself dancing to Hozier’s song Take Me to Church, a viral phenomenon that now boasts nearly 30 million views. A 2016 film, Dancer, traced his extraordinary trajectory – the huge sacrifices made by his family in the Ukraine to help him fulfil his talent (his father went to Portugal to work, his grandmother to Greece), and the huge cost, as his parents split and Polunin felt ever more responsible and miserable in London. Everyone calls Polunin “the bad boy of ballet”, but he is also something of a little boy lost. If the film hoped to draw a line under all that, Polunin undid it all again a few years ago, with a flurry of furious, erratic, apparently homophobic and sizeist Instagram Stories. Many new admirers cut their ties with him; he had to pay back some £100,000 in advances to those who now deemed him “cancelled”. And here we are, post-pandemic, and he is re-emerging as the happy and responsible father of a baby boy, Mir, born in January last year to Polunin and his partner, ice skater Elena Ilinykh, and with a new book that seems to be intended as a full-stop, a thank-you note and a request for parole. “A big part of creation is destruction,” he tells me today. No kidding.

  • Firing of U.S. Ambassador Is at Center of Giuliani Investigation

    Two years ago, Rudy Giuliani finally got one thing he had been seeking in Ukraine: The Trump administration removed the U.S. ambassador there, a woman Giuliani believed had been obstructing his efforts to dig up dirt on the Biden family. It was a Pyrrhic victory. Giuliani’s push to oust the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, not only became a focus of President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, but it has now landed Giuliani in the cross hairs of a federal criminal investigation into whether he broke lobbying laws, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The long-running inquiry reached a turning point this week when FBI agents seized telephones and computers from Giuliani’s home and office in Manhattan, the people said. At least one of the warrants was seeking evidence related to Yovanovitch and her role as ambassador, the people said. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times In particular, the federal authorities were expected to scour the electronic devices for communications between Giuliani and Trump administration officials about the ambassador before she was recalled in April 2019, one of the people added. The warrant also sought his communications with Ukrainian officials who had butted heads with Yovanovitch, including some of the same people who at the time were helping Giuliani seek damaging information about President Joe Biden, who was then a candidate, and his family, the people said. At issue for investigators is a key question: Did Giuliani go after Yovanovitch solely on behalf of Trump, who was his client at the time? Or was he also doing so on behalf of the Ukrainian officials, who wanted her removed for their own reasons? It is a violation of federal law to lobby the United States government on behalf of foreign officials without registering with the Justice Department, and Giuliani never did so. Even if the Ukrainians did not pay Giuliani, prosecutors could pursue the theory that they provided assistance by collecting information on the Bidens in exchange for her removal. One of the search warrants for Giuliani’s phones and computers explicitly stated that the possible crimes under investigation included violations of the law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, according to the people with knowledge of the matter. Giuliani has long denied that he did work at the behest of the Ukrainians, or that he accepted any money from them, and he has said that he did not expressly urge Trump to fire the ambassador. Giuliani’s work to oust Yovanovitch was part of a larger effort to attack Joe Biden and tie him to corruption in Ukraine, much of which played out in public. But intelligence officials have long warned that Giuliani’s work in Ukraine had become ensnared with Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation about the Biden family to weaken Trump’s election rival. The FBI stepped up its warnings about Russian disinformation before the 2020 election, including giving a defensive briefing to Giuliani, cautioning him that some of the information he was pushing on the Biden family was tainted by Russian intelligence’s efforts to spread disinformation, according to a person briefed on the matter. The FBI’s defensive briefings are given by its counterintelligence officials and are separate from the criminal inquiry of Giuliani’s activities. The defensive briefing was reported Thursday by The Washington Post. But the warnings to Giuliani are not surprising. Senior officials had warned Trump in late 2019 that Giuliani was pushing Russian disinformation, and the intelligence community had warned the American public that Moscow’s intelligence services were trying to hurt Biden’s election chances by spreading information about his family’s work in Ukraine. On Wednesday, after FBI agents seized his devices, Giuliani again denied any wrongdoing. He said the search warrants demonstrated a “corrupt double standard” on the part of the Justice Department, which he accused of ignoring “blatant crimes” by Democrats, including Biden. Asked about the search warrants Thursday, Biden told NBC’s “Today” show that he “had no idea this was underway.” He said he had pledged not to interfere in any investigation by the Justice Department. Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, said his client had twice offered to answer prosecutors’ questions, except those regarding Giuliani’s privileged communications with the former president. The warrants do not accuse Giuliani of wrongdoing, but they underscore his legal peril: They indicate a judge has found that investigators have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the search would turn up evidence of that crime. The investigation grew out of a case against two Soviet-born businessmen, who had helped Giuliani search for damaging information about Biden and his son, Hunter. At the time, Hunter Biden served on the board of an energy company that did business in Ukraine. In 2019, the businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were charged in Manhattan, along with two others, with unrelated campaign finance crimes. A trial is scheduled for October. In the Giuliani investigation, the federal prosecutors have focused on the steps he took against Yovanovitch. Giuliani has acknowledged that he provided Trump with detailed information about his claim that she was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump, and that Trump put him in touch with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. After a few aborted attempts to remove her, Yovanovitch was ultimately recalled as ambassador in late April 2019 and was told that the White House had lost trust in her. Giuliani said in an interview in late 2019 that he believed the information he had provided the Trump administration did contribute to Yovanovitch’s dismissal. “You’d have to ask them,” he said of the Trump officials. “But they relied on it.” He added he never explicitly requested that she be fired. The prosecutors have also examined Giuliani’s relationship with the Ukrainians who had conflicts with Yovanovitch, according to the people with knowledge of the matter. While ambassador, Yovanovitch had taken aim at corruption in Ukraine, earning her quite a few enemies. The investigation has zeroed in on one of her opponents, Yuriy Lutsenko, the top prosecutor in Ukraine at the time, the people said. At least one of the search warrants for Giuliani’s devices mentioned Lutsenko and some of his associates, including one who helped introduce him to Giuliani. The relationship had the potential to become symbiotic. Lutsenko wanted Yovanovitch removed, and as the personal lawyer to the president, Giuliani was positioned to help. Giuliani wanted negative information about the Bidens, and as the top prosecutor in Ukraine, Lutsenko would have had the authority to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden’s dealings with the energy company. Giuliani also saw Yovanovitch as insufficiently loyal to the president, and as an impediment to the investigations. Lutsenko hinted at a potential quid pro quo in text messages that became public during the impeachment trial. In March 2019, Lutsenko wrote in a Russian language text message to Parnas that he had found evidence that could be damaging to the Bidens. Then he added, “And you can’t even bring down one idiot,” in an apparent reference to Yovanovitch, followed by a frowny-face emoji. Around that same time, Giuliani was in negotiations to also represent Lutsenko or his agency, The New York Times has previously reported. Draft retainer agreements called for Giuliani to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the Ukrainian government recover money it believed had been stolen and stashed overseas. Giuliani signed one of the retainer agreements, but he said he ultimately did not take on the work, because his representation of Trump at the same time could constitute a conflict of interest. When Yovanovitch testified during Trump’s impeachment hearings in late 2019, she told lawmakers that she had only minimal contact with Giuliani during her tenure as ambassador. “I do not know Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me,” she said. “But individuals who have been named in the press who have contact with Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal and financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.” This article originally appeared in The New York Times. © 2021 The New York Times Company

  • Biden telling transgender youth ‘your president has your back’ prompts strong emotions: ‘Did I cry? Yes, I did’

    "To all the transgender Americans watching at home, especially the young people who are so brave, I want you to know that your president has your back,” he said, while urging Congress to pass the Equality Act. His words prompted a mixed LGBTQ response.

  • Man touched buttocks and crotch of male MRT commuter he found attractive

    In a bid to attract the attention of a younger man he found attractive on the MRT, a 43-year-old man touched the victim's buttocks fleetingly.

  • Elizabeth Hurley, 55, Is All Toned Abs And Legs In Her Latest Bikini Pic

    The queen of found fitness looks fitter than ever.

  • Man Who Says He Is Under Investigation For Baby’s Death Claims Doctors Told Him His Son Also Had Older Injuries

    Melissa says her son, Steven, was inconsolable after his infant son, Lucas, died but claims she’s never seen the child’s mother, Elke, shed a tear. “Not at his funeral, not the day after they got home - ever,” she says. The coroner ruled Lucas’s death a homicide after determining he suffered a fatal brain injury consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Melissa says she blames Elke, but Steven is currently the subject of an investigation into his son’s death. Steven and Elke adamantly deny hurting Lucas and say they don’t believe the other could have injured him either. Steven asserts that the doctors in the emergency department where Lucas was initially seen for his injuries told him his son had healing fractures on his ribs that were a couple of weeks old. He says the news came as a shock “He had never shown any signs of being in pain or being uncomfortable.” Steven says. When Dr. Phil notes that Lucas’s alleged previous injuries aren’t in the baby’s medical records, how does Steven respond? Part one of this two-part Dr. Phil, “’My 3-Month-Old Grandson Was Murdered; Who is To Blame?’” airs Thursday. And on Friday’s conclusion, “’Who Killed Baby Lucas?’,” Dr. Carole Jenny, Director of the Fellowship Program in Child Abuse Pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital joins the conversation. Check local listings to find out where you can watch. WATCH: Mother Of Dead Infant Says She Doesn’t Think Boyfriend Was Capable Of Harming Their Son TELL DR. PHIL YOUR STORY: Have you been accused and want to clear your name?