3 arrested after large crowds swarm Bardstown Road for second straight weekend
Antayvia Brown, 22, and Jakaya Snyzer, 20, were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct after the incident broke out in the 1000 block of Bardstown Road. A 16-year-old girl was also arrested, officials said.
Brown also faces a trespassing charge for being found on the property of a Chipotle location on Bardstown Road, according to an arrest citation.
Louisville Metro Police spokesperson Dwight Mitchell said Fifth Division officers responded to large crowds on Bardstown Road at around 1 a.m. As the situation escalated, multiple fights occurred which required involvement from the department's rapid response team.
"We recognize the disruption this caused to residents and businesses in the area and appreciate the public's cooperation and patience," Mitchell said. "Our officers remain committed to maintaining peace and protecting the safety of all community members."
Brown and Snyzer are set to appear in court June 4.
The recent incident follows crowds of hundreds blocking roadways and causing disturbances over Memorial Day weekend after several bars closed in the area. Nearby establishments include Highlands Tap Room, Atomic Sound Club & Game Yard and The Hub Louisville, with some staying open until 4 a.m.
While crowds dispersed with no violence and the roads quickly reopened, the incident sparked conversations around public safety. Councilman Ben Reno-Weber, whose district includes the Highlands, previously said he was working with LMPD to assign a detail squad to Bardstown Road on Friday and Saturday nights when large groups are in the area.
LMPD also said the department would take the initiative to increase police presence and deter crime in the neighborhood, including closing and limiting access to select parking lots, installing additional surveillance cameras and working with local business owners to prevent trespassing.
Business owners are encouraged to file a Trespass Enforcement Request Form, which authorizes officers to address trespassing without an on-site complaint, LMPD said.
Reporter Molly Gregory contributed. Reach Marina Johnson at Marina.Johnson@courier-journal.com.
This story has been updated to add video.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Hundreds gather on Bardstown Road for 2nd weekend; 3 arrested
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump a Free Template to Win by Losing
On Friday, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions. The decision in Trump v. CASA deprives the judiciary of a vital tool in checking the most egregious abuses of executive power. But it also does something more pernicious, creating a blueprint for the Trump administration to win by losing. Universal injunctions are an extraordinary and controversial remedy because they cover everyone harmed or threatened by a defendant's conduct, not just the individual plaintiffs. But sometimes extraordinary lawlessness requires an extraordinary remedy. That core truth animates the centuries-old English tradition of equity, which developed as a system to do justice when courts of law weren't up to the task. In the United States, equity has evolved to address ingenious and diabolical attempts by government officials to evade their legal obligations. From the early 20th century through the Civil Rights era and beyond, equity provided new, meaningful relief when the existing legal order came up short. To take just one of many examples, Southern school boards resisting desegregation often forced Black plaintiffs to bring individual lawsuits, but piecemeal litigation barely made a dent in massive resistance until equity stepped in. A new class action device—an equitable innovation—allowed Black families to harness their collective power and sue on behalf of all aggrieved people to realize the promise of Brown v. Board of Education. This past still echoes through the current political moment as the Trump administration invents ever more devious ways to skirt the law. One might think its sheer brazenness, the way it almost relishes violating the law, would lead courts to intervene more aggressively. But often the administration's goal is not to win in court. The point is instead to inflict maximal pain and chaos that courts, especially after CASA, are largely powerless to undo. Consider several examples. The Trump administration has tried to prevent Harvard University from enrolling any international students. A federal judge quickly blocked that effort, calling the administration's arguments 'absurd.' But the loss doesn't really matter. The administration's saber rattling has driven numerous institutions, including Columbia University, to the bargaining table as President Donald Trump has threatened to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants. And on the same day that the Supreme Court decided CASA, the Department of Justice succeeded in demanding that the president of the University of Virginia resign. The administration didn't even need to file a lawsuit to make UVA bend to its will. What a court ultimately might have said about the legality of that effort is now irrelevant. Think about federal employees whom the administration illegally fired or threatened to fire. Even if some of them ultimately win in court, the administration will have succeeded in driving many others into retirement or other jobs. The cultivated chaos has proved far more powerful than any adverse judicial decision ever will. Some of the most devastatingly successful efforts made headlines for months as the Trump administration simply ignored certain migrants' due process rights and even federal court orders. Although a handful of wrongfully deported immigrants might be returned to the United States in the hope that their rights and the rule of law can be vindicated, the vast majority will not, no matter what any court says. And perhaps the clearest example of how the Trump administration can win by losing comes from the executive orders that seek to punish disfavored law firms. Every firm that has actually challenged those executive orders has scored a quick legal victory, and, tellingly, the Trump administration has not bothered to appeal those losses. Yet most firms have bent the knee, agreeing to settlements with Trump and collectively agreeing to provide billions of dollars' worth of pro bono legal services to causes he supports. The executive orders' blatant illegality is beside the point. Trump has exacted his pound of flesh, forcing some of the world's most powerful law firms to apologize for crossing him and sending a chilling message to anyone else who would do the same. By rejecting every use of universal injunctions, the Supreme Court in CASA tacitly blessed this lawlessness. Universal injunctions had been a potent weapon against Trump's indifference to the rule of law because they essentially flipped the presumption about who should receive the benefit of the doubt. Normally, when a plaintiff challenges a governmental action as unlawful, the government gets that benefit. It may continue to enforce its policy while the suit plays out, especially as to people who aren't involved with the litigation. But when the government acts in bad faith by disregarding clear legal obligations—rewriting the 14th Amendment, jawboning universities and law firms, ignoring due process—it should lose that presumption. Universal injunctions gave ordinary people the benefit of the existing legal rules. The government could still attempt to justify its actions in court, but it didn't get the time and space to sow chaos and demand submission while court cases dragged on. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court seemed to recognize that we as a country had found ourselves in uncharted territory. It had gotten wise to the Trump administration's deliberate evasions of court orders as the government tried to deport people with hardly any notice or even a semblance of due process. Over Easter weekend, the court intervened with extraordinary speed to prevent one group of Venezuelan migrants from being rendered to El Salvador. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the court's haste ignored all the usual deliberate procedures when, in his view, there was no good reason to do so. It turned out that the majority of seven justices was right to worry that the Trump administration was playing fast and loose with the law. A bus of migrants was already on its way to the airport when the Supreme Court intervened. If the justices had adhered to conventional procedures, the migrants would have been gone, perhaps forever. The majority of the court showed both creativity and courage in the face of lawlessness, at least in this one case. That light has dimmed. A court that seemed alive to these threats has surrendered a powerful tool in upholding the rule of law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's poignant dissent in CASA captures the point. By eliminating universal injunctions, the court 'has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law' and 'has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Post Office IT scandal destroyed my health'
A woman thought to be the oldest victim of the Post Office's Horizon IT scandal said the ordeal "destroyed" her health. Betty Brown, 92, from County Durham, ran the Annfield Plain branch with her late husband Oswall in the 1990s and early 2000s and they spent more than £50,000 of their savings to cover shortfalls that did not exist. Ms Brown was speaking on the day the first volume of the report from the official inquiry into the scandal was published - revealing the scale of the suffering caused to hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly prosecuted over money said to be missing from their accounts. The Post Office apologised "unreservedly" and said it would carefully consider the report. Overseen by Sir Wyn Williams, it found the situation had a "disastrous" impact on those accused with at least 59 people having contemplated suicide at various points. Ten attempted to take their own lives and more than 13 people may have killed themselves due to the scandal. Recalling her own situation, Ms Brown said: "We had a nice office, nice atmosphere, nice customers and everything was fine, no problem. "And then we were told about this wonderful advancement in technology and we would get a system put in called Horizon that would half the workload. "Then the very first night, the balance was £500 short, but they thought something had been missed in the accounts or whatever and that was just let go. "Then it began eventually that there were so many mistakes in the system that it was concerning, and these losses were coming out in amounts of £1,500, £1,600 every week, and we were having to put this money in and make it good because that's what you sign up for." Post Office scandal had 'disastrous' impact on victims Five things we now know about the Post Office scandal Exhausted, angry, heartbroken: Postmasters react as horror of scandal laid bare Ms Brown said the ordeal caused her to lose her voice while the anxiety disrupted her husband's cancer treatment. He died a year after they sold the post office, which Ms Brown said they felt forced to do. "The stress was unbelievable," she said. "You would go to bed at night and you couldn't sleep." Ms Brown and her husband moved away to Consett after the ordeal, saying there had been a "stigma" and that it forced them to keep "a low profile". When people asked the couple what they had previously done for work, they would evade giving an answer, she said. Ms Brown was one of the original 555 victims who took part in the landmark group legal action led by Alan Bates against the Post Office. She is campaigning for full compensation after originally being offered less than a third of what she had claimed for. Earlier this year she said she received a new offer of 60%, which she also rejected. Praising the report, she said Sir Wyn had "done a wonderful job". She added: "He has felt the pain, he's felt the anxiety, he's felt the agony, he's felt everything that sub-postmasters felt and he has been able to bring that with all his skill into a meaningful book. "I hope that the Post Office will take this on board." Chris Head, who became the youngest sub-postmaster when he took over the branch in West Boldon, South Tyneside, at the age of 18 was falsely accused of stealing more than £80,000 in 2006 before the criminal case against him was dropped. He said he was concerned about how the government would respond to the report. "It's a great day for everybody being here listening to it and obviously being vindicated. "The problem is, will it be acted upon? And that is a huge concern because it'll take the government many months to respond to these recommendations." Mr Head believes the Post Office "hasn't addressed the wrongs of the past" and warned there was "no trust". He added: "I think you can't get closure until people are held accountable for their actions. But at the same time that is so slow. "So what we need to do in the meantime is get this redress paid out to people, get it as full and fair as what has been promised, and allow people the opportunity to try and rebuild their lives while that accountability process takes place." A Post Office spokesperson said: "The inquiry has brought to life the devastating stories of those impacted by the Horizon Scandal. "Their experiences represent a shameful period in our history. "Today, we apologise unreservedly for the suffering which Post Office caused to postmasters and their loved ones. "We will carefully consider the report and its recommendations." Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram Post Office scandal had 'disastrous' impact on victims Five things we now know about the Post Office scandal Oldest Post Office scandal victim rejects higher payout as 'still not good enough' Post Office
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
SEC seeks SolarWinds settlement in reversal for agency under new leadership
This story was originally published on Cybersecurity Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Cybersecurity Dive newsletter. The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a settlement with SolarWinds and the company's chief information security officer, Timothy Brown, to resolve charges stemming from the Russian-backed cyberattack on the company's systems. The parties 'have reached a settlement in principle that would completely resolve this litigation,' the SEC said in a filing last week with the federal judge in New York who is overseeing the commission's lawsuit against the company. The judge quickly approved the SEC's request to stay deadlines in the case, including oral arguments previously scheduled for July 22. 'The Court congratulates counsel and the parties on this productive development,' the judge said. He gave SolarWinds, Brown and the SEC until Sept. 12 to either file settlement paperwork or provide a status update on the settlement process. Russian state-linked hackers breached SolarWinds starting in late 2019 and injected malicious code into its Orion IT monitoring software as part of an operation to penetrate the networks of SolarWinds' customers. The attack was not discovered and revealed to the public until December 2020. The supply-chain attack led to one of the worst cyber espionage campaigns in history, compromising at least nine U.S. federal agencies and more than 100 private companies. The SolarWinds attack prompted widespread government and private-sector reassessments of supply chain cyber risks, as well as new attention to the security of software development environments. In October 2023, the SEC sued SolarWinds and Brown, arguing that they 'defrauded investors by overstating SolarWinds' cybersecurity practices and understating or failing to disclose known risks.' (A judge dismissed most of the original charges last year.) The commission also charged four SolarWinds customers for allegedly misleading investors about the extent of their exposure to the breach. It is unclear why the SEC chose to settle the SolarWinds case, and an agency spokesperson declined to comment on its rationale. But when the then Democratic-led commission brought the charges, the two Republican appointees dissented, later criticizing the commission for 'playing Monday morning quarterback' by second-guessing SolarWinds' decisions. After President Donald Trump took office and appointed a new SEC chair, those two commissioners became part of the agency's Republican majority. SolarWinds declined to disclose the terms of the settlement. 'We are pleased with the potential resolution and happy to focus on driving our business forward without distraction,' a spokesperson said. Adam Hickey, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former federal prosecutor handling cyber and national security cases, said an examination of the eventual settlement terms would reveal 'whether and to what extent the SEC is abandoning certain theories or allegations.' 'So far, the SEC has not moved to rescind the rule requiring cybersecurity disclosures in annual and periodic reports,' he said. 'The settlement may or may not point in that direction.' Recommended Reading Five Guys discloses hack of 2 employees' emails Sign in to access your portfolio
