Black Lives Matter Co-Founder’s Swatting Lawsuit Crumbles: Police Cleared


Police Acted Appropriately in Response to Call at Melina Abdullah’s Home

In a recent court ruling, a jury found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) acted appropriately in response to a call at the residence of Black Lives Matter co-founder Melina Abdullah.

On Thursday, the jury ruled that the police were justified in their actions, despite Abdullah’s assertion that the call was a “swatting” incident – a prank call that falsely reports an emergency at a person’s residence to elicit a police response.

The Incident

Abdullah had sued the LAPD in 2020 after officers responded to a call at her home. During the incident, which was livestreamed on Abdullah’s social media, she called out to officers, “Do you know who I am?”

She argued that the police had prior knowledge that the call was a hoax but responded to her home regardless, intending to intimidate her due to her vocal criticism of law enforcement.

The Police Response

The LAPD, however, maintained that they acted appropriately. They asserted that the caller had claimed to have taken hostages inside Abdullah’s home and threatened to kill them if he did not receive a million payment.

Based on this information, officers responded to the scene, believing there was a real threat to human life. They asserted that they followed standard protocol and acted with reasonable force based on the potential danger they perceived.

The Ruling and Aftermath

The jury agreed with the police’s assessment of the situation, finding that their response was not excessive or unreasonable given the circumstances.

Abdullah expressed disappointment in the ruling, saying it was a result of an “unjust system” and vowed to appeal the decision.

Analysis and Implications

The case has sparked debate about police accountability and the use of force, particularly in situations involving individuals with high public profiles or who have made controversial statements.

Some have questioned whether the police overreacted in responding to the call, seeing it as an attempt to silence or intimidate Abdullah for her activism. Others defend the police, arguing that they had a duty to investigate the reported threat and protect the potential victims.

The ruling highlights the complex nature of police interactions and the balance between law enforcement’s responsibility to protect public safety and the rights of individuals, even those who may be vocal critics of the police.

Data sourced from: