(Ed) Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[Minoosh]

Dup

ETA: Sometimes transparency can be pretty disarming. The black police chief in Decatur, Ga., a seemingly very chilled-out human being, gave a news conference after one of his cops had broken the jaw of a black man who called police to report a shoplifter in his liquor store. Problem was, he would not put down his weapon when cops showed up. I don't think he was actually holding it when he was hit, but he had emptied it and reloaded it for some reason and it was lying on the counter and he made some fiddly move as if about to pick it up and BAM! He got socked hard in the jaw. The police chief just said, well, he's not dead; a perceived/potential threat was met with proportional force. IOW, "At least we didn't shoot him." As far as I know that worked out OK. Maybe some kind of settlement was worked out to pay his hospital bills or whatnot, I can't research it right now.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't know. Neither do you. Why on Earth would we expect to have this level of detail? You are the one asserting that they lied. If you know so much, you tell me!

I’m not the one making or defending the claim. Why should I be the one to substantiate it?

The police claim that they received verification from the U.S. Postal Inspector.

The local U.S. Postal Inspector denies that.

You claim that they possibly received verification from another office.

Based on what evidence?

Quote:

No you didn't. You inaccurately summarized the warrant in the post I was responding to.

I quoted the warrant. I’ll be doing it again later in this post.

Quote:

The police claimed that the packages were addressed to Glover in the warrant. They would further prove she was handling Glover's mail. Glover admits that there were packages. The police make no claim that the packages had any remarkable or interesting properties other than that they were addressed to Glover. Obviously if something illegal had been found in the mail, that would have been nice for the police, but they don't claim to have proof of that. You can't call them liars based on claims they didn't make.

If the packages were not believed to be criminal in nature, why were they of interest to the police and mentioned in the search warrant?

Quote:

No it isn't and no you haven't. The Postal Inspector had been asked to monitor Taylor's mail. The postal inspector says no packages of interest were found. The postal inspector does not say that no packages to Glover were found. It could be that packages of interest = packages for Glover, but unfortunately the Postal Inspector doesn't clarify this. The postal inspector does not say that who ever asked for the monitoring of Taylor's mail wasn't informed about packages for Glover. Glover tells us that there were indeed packages. The police do not claim that they personally were the ones in contact with the Postal Inspector. There isn't necessarily a contradiction here between all the statements.

From the warrant: “Affiant verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages at [Breonna Taylor’s home]”.

The affiant for the warrant is Louisville PD Detective Joshua Jaynes.

So yes, the police absolutely did claim they were in contact with the U.S. Postal Inspector.

Quote:

It's not a question of taking them at their word, but until somebody dumps the contents of the case file and/or the internal investigation online, people's word is basically all we have in a lot of the case. Since nobody is contradicting the cops on this point, the fact that she was receiving Glovers mail seems to be confirmed by several sources, and it in any case doesn't seem like the most critical point, I don't see that the default stance should be that they lied.

The police have been contradicted by the U.S. Postal Inspector. This has been pointed out numerous times.

And what should be the default position regarding the claims made by the police?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

If the alleged packages were not believed to be criminal in nature, why were they of interest to the police and mentioned in the search warrant?

The warrant didn't say the packages were criminal in nature. You can't add that claim in in order to show they were lying when it turns out they can't prove it. Maybe you don't find the argument in the warrant that her house was part of Glover's criminal operation convincing without the packages containing something illegal? The warrant doesn't make the claim though.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It’s not that it’s so hard to believe - it’s that the one agency that might be able to piece things together with ballistics reports, analyses of angles etc. has steadfastly refused to release any information that might shed light on the situation and help clear up questions of fact. Almost everything I know about this case I’ve only learned yesterday or today, and the more I know, really the more effed-up the situation seems. Somewhere along the way I’ve seen it suggested that cops thought Breonna was the shooter. I do hope FOIA requests have already been filed to pry some of facts of the case loose.

Regarding ballistics and autopsy's, I'm happy taking the boyfriend's word for what happened. I don't doubt that some level of information control and ass covering is going on.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m not the one making or defending the claim. Why should I be the one to substantiate it?

You said he lied. That is a positive assertion. Please support it. I have not claimed that they are telling the truth, my positive assertion is that none of the evidence I have seen has shown them to be lying. I have discussed that evidence and shown how it doesn't necessarily conflict.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The police claim that they received verification from the U.S. Postal Inspector.

No they didn't. Again, you are rephrasing things to make the police claims conflict with statements from USPI. They said that they had verified through a US Postal Inspector that Glover had been receiving mail at Taylor's address.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The local U.S. Postal Inspector denies that.

No, the USPI doesn't deny it. The USPI confirms that they were asked to monitor the address by another agency. Denies that his office had been in touch with the Louisville PD and denies that packages of interest were found. Neither of the things denied are quite what the Louisville PD claimed in their warrant.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You claim that they possibly received verification from another office.

Based on what evidence?

You are the one making the positive claim - that they lied. I don't have to prove that they told the truth in order to show you don't have a basis for asserting that they lied.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I quoted the warrant. I’ll be doing it again later in this post.

You incorrectly summarized the warrant.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

If the packages were not believed to be criminal in nature, why were they of interest to the police and mentioned in the search warrant?

Read the warrant. The warrant doesn't claim that they were criminal in nature. The warrant links Glover to the house through his getting his mail there, it suggests that it is common for drug traffickers to use multiple houses to store illegal ****, it then suggests he may be using Taylors house for this purpose. Maybe they thought illegal stuff was getting posted to her, I don't know... he was dumb enough to talk about his illegal business on a recorded prison phone, so anything is possible. They don't claim that anything illegal was posted to her though, so you can't get them in a lie there.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

From the warrant: “Affiant verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages at [Breonna Taylor’s home]”.

The affiant for the warrant is Louisville PD Detective Joshua Jaynes.

So yes, the police absolutely did claim they were in contact with the U.S. Postal Inspector.

No it didn't. They say they verified it through the USPI. They didn't say that it was directly the Louisville PD who spoke to the USPI. The USPI confirm that they were monitoring Taylor's mail on behalf of "another agency". Is it so unlikely that that "other agency" was working with the Louisville PD on the drug case? You are claiming they lied, so you need to show that they didn't get the information that was verified through the USPI via this "other agency".

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The police have been contradicted by the U.S. Postal Inspector. This has been pointed out numerous times.

No they haven't. The claim, which wasn't made in the warrant, that the Louisville PD were in direct contact with the USPS has been denied. The claim, which wasn't made in the warrant, that parcels of interest were found has been denied.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And what should be the default position regarding the claims made by the police?

We should maintain some level of doubt about everybody's claims.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The warrant didn't say the packages were criminal in nature. You can't add that claim in in order to show they were lying when it turns out they can't prove it. Maybe you don't find the argument in the warrant that her house was part of Glover's criminal operation convincing without the packages containing something illegal? The warrant doesn't make the claim though.

I’m not adding any claim. I’m asking you the following question based on your claim:

If neither the police nor the warrant are claiming the packages were criminal in nature, then why were they of interest to the police and mentioned in the warrant?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You said he lied. That is a positive assertion. Please support it. I have not claimed that they are telling the truth, my positive assertion is that none of the evidence I have seen has shown them to be lying. I have discussed that evidence and shown how it doesn't necessarily conflict.

That’s incorrect.

You claimed that police might have received verification from a different U.S. postal service office than they’re local one.

It’s your claim to substantiate or at least provide evidence to support a reason to believe it might be true.

Quote:

No they didn't. Again, you are rephrasing things to make the police claims conflict with statements from USPI. They said that they had verified through a US Postal Inspector that Glover had been receiving mail at Taylor's address.

Yes, and the postal inspector refuted this claim.

Quote:

No, the USPI doesn't deny it. The USPI confirms that they were asked to monitor the address by another agency. Denies that his office had been in touch with the Louisville PD and denies that packages of interest were found. Neither of the things denied are quite what the Louisville PD claimed in their warrant.

The police claimed they received verification from the U.S. postal inspector.

The U.S. postal inspector denies that.

I don’t know what semantic game you think you’re playing, but it’s not a very good one and doesn’t get you past these inconvenient facts.

Quote:

You are the one making the positive claim - that they lied. I don't have to prove that they told the truth in order to show you don't have a basis for asserting that they lied.

I’m not interested in a semantic debate about what “lying” means or your attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

It is the police making a positive claim and you defending that claim.

I believe the police are lying because of the evidence already presented that contradicts their claims.

What evidence do you have to believe otherwise?

Quote:

You incorrectly summarized the warrant.

I quoted the warrant. Multiple times.

Quote:

Read the warrant. The warrant doesn't claim that they were criminal in nature. The warrant links Glover to the house through his getting his mail there, it suggests that it is common for drug traffickers to use multiple houses to store illegal ****, it then suggests he may be using Taylors house for this purpose. Maybe they thought illegal stuff was getting posted to her, I don't know... he was dumb enough to talk about his illegal business on a recorded prison phone, so anything is possible. They don't claim that anything illegal was posted to her though, so you can't get them in a lie there.

They literally go on in the same paragraph in which they make the false statement about the postal inspector to say they suspect narcotics or the proceeds of narcotics were sent to Breonna Taylor’s home.

Your ignorance of that fact aside, if the police didn’t think the packages were criminal in nature why would they be of interest to them and mentioned in the search warrant?

Quote:

No it didn't. They say they verified it through the USPI. They didn't say that it was directly the Louisville PD who spoke to the USPI. The USPI confirm that they were monitoring Taylor's mail on behalf of "another agency". Is it so unlikely that that "other agency" was working with the Louisville PD on the drug case? You are claiming they lied, so you need to show that they didn't get the information that was verified through the USPI via this "other agency".

I don’t actually, because the police didn’t claim another agency was involved.

Crap you throw against the wall to see if it will stick is not something I need to disprove.

Quote:

No they haven't. The claim, which wasn't made in the warrant, that the Louisville PD were in direct contact with the USPS has been denied. The claim, which wasn't made in the warrant, that parcels of interest were found has been denied.

Yes, but these denials are based on speculation with no evidence to support them.

Quote:

We should maintain some level of doubt about everybody's claims.

You don’t seem to doubt the claims the police are making. Based on what evidence?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m not adding any claim.

Yes, you are. You are adding the claims that the Louisville PD had been in direct contact with the USPI, and that the packages that USPI verified were "items of interest". The Louisville Police didn't claim either of those. Without those, you haven't caught them in a lie.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m asking you the following question based on your claim:

If neither the police nor the warrant are claiming the packages were criminal in nature, then why were they of interest to the police and mentioned in the warrant?

My claim is that they do not say that anything was illegal in the packages inspected by the USPI in the warrant. If I am incorrect about that, show me where they say it. That is my claim.

The only assertion the police make about the packages is "Affiant verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages at 3003 Springfield Drive #4." Where do they say anything about the content of the packages? Nowhere do they claim they know the content of a single package.

[Delphic Oracle]

It's got to be strange for police apologists that the person most cited in the campaign to smear Breonna is the one who was the target of the police investigation.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Regarding ballistics and autopsy's, I'm happy taking the boyfriend's word for what happened. I don't doubt that some level of information control and ass covering is going on.

What Louisville is doing is well outside the norm in terms of clamping down on information. Maybe now that her family has settled that case and one cop charged they will do a document dump. It's not normal to have this little information 6 months after an incident. I don't particularly doubt Walker, I just hate to see police trying to withhold information from the people who pay their salaries. Accountability or at least a decent attempt at it can sometimes affect public reaction.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Yes, you are. You are adding the claims that the Louisville PD had been in direct contact with the USPI, and that the packages that USPI verified were "items of interest". The Louisville Police didn't claim either of those. Without those, you haven't caught them in a lie.

I’m going by what’s stated in the warrant.

You’re the one inventing intermediaries that the warrant does not mention to claim that police did not speak to the U.S. Postal Inspector directly.

Quote:

My claim is that they do not say that anything was illegal in the packages inspected by the USPI in the warrant. If I am incorrect about that, show me where they say it. That is my claim.

The warrant does not state that the postal inspector inspected any packages at all. Only that that they verified that packages were being sent to Breonna Taylor’s home.

It is the police who go on to allege in the warrant that the packages might be criminal in nature. This contradicts what the actual postal inspector investigation determined.

Quote:

The only assertion the police make about the packages is "Affiant verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages at 3003 Springfield Drive #4." Where do they say anything about the content of the packages? Nowhere do they claim they know the content of a single package.

They claimed what they suspected to be in those packages, in contradiction to what the postal inspector investigation determined.

[johnny karate]

This goes one of two ways:

1) The police didn’t actually receive verification from the U.S. postal inspector, either directly or indirectly, of packages being delivered to Breonna Taylor’s home.

2) If they did receive that verification (which is questionable), then the police failed to disclose what the postal inspector determined about those packages and made an allegation in the warrant that was in contradiction to that.

Either way, it doesn’t look good for the integrity and honesty of the police.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That’s incorrect.

If you are going to assert that something IS a lie, that is a positive assertion from you that you have to defend.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You claimed that police might have received verification from a different U.S. postal service office than they’re local one.

It’s your claim to substantiate or at least provide evidence to support a reason to believe it might be true.

It might be true because the USPI specifically ruled it out of their denial.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No they didn't. Again, you are rephrasing things to make the police claims conflict with statements from USPI. They said that they had verified through a US Postal Inspector that Glover had been receiving mail at Taylor's address.

Yes, and the postal inspector refuted this claim.

No, the postal inspector did not. Neither the postal inspector, nor the Louisville PD have excluded the possibility that Louisville was working with another agency on the case and that the communications with the USPI went through that other agency. The USPI confirm that another agency was in contact with them regarding monitoring the mail at the apartment. Otherwise, are we thinking that maybe the FBI were monitoring Taylor's apartment for an entirely unrelated reason?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The police claimed they received verification from the U.S. postal inspector.

To the extent that that implies direct communications between the Louisville PD and the USPI rather than via other agencies, the police have not claimed this.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The U.S. postal inspector denies that.

The USPI denied that there had been any direct communications between the Louisville PD and the USPI, a claim which the Louisville PD did not make. The USPI confirmed they they had been in contact with "another agency" on monitoring Taylors apartment. Nobody has yet confirmed or denied whether that "other agency" was working with the Louisville PD on the case. It seems a bit unlikely that a nobody like Taylor was being monitored separately by two unrelated law enforcement agencies working different cases.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I don’t know what semantic game you think you’re playing, but it’s not a very good one and doesn’t get you past these inconvenient facts.

I am reading what is actually written in the warrant and what has actually been said by the USPI rather than reading into them things I believe to be the case.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m not interested in a semantic debate about what “lying” means or your attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

Lying is when you knowingly assert things that are untrue. We aren't even talking about lying though. You haven't shown that what the police said was untrue. As for burden of proof. If you are going to claim that they lied, that is a positive claim and the burden of proof is on you not me.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

It is the police making a positive claim and you defending that claim.

They aren't involved in this discussion. Can I call any from Taylor or Glover or Walker a lie because the burden of proof is on them? That's not how it works. The burden of proof within the discussion sits with the person making the assertion in the discussion. Otherwise, none of us have a burden of proof on any of these threads. You claimed it was a lie, the burden of proof is on you. That is how it works.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I believe the police are lying because of the evidence already presented that contradicts their claims.

It does not contradict them. The Louisville PD do not say that they were talking directly to the USPI. The USPI confirm they were handling the monitoring of Taylor's apartment and were in touch with "another agency" (maybe it is the USPI's burden of proof to explain what agency they mean?). The USPI say there were no items of interest found going to Taylor's house. The police didn't claim items of interest, they claimed packages for Glover. It isn't clear that there is a conflict between the statements of the PD and the USPI.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What evidence do you have to believe otherwise?

If you are talking about the statements of the USPI and the warrant, you haven't yet found anything that is definitely contradictory. If it turns out that "items of interest" means "anything for Glover", then I'd be more doubtful here. You don't have that though.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I quoted the warrant. Multiple times.

That doesn't mean you haven't also incorrectly summarized it. This is just like the debate over the warrant. You are claiming a fact refutes something that, even if I accept the fact, doesn't refute the thing you claim it does.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

They literally go on in the same paragraph in which they make the false statement about the postal inspector to say they suspect narcotics or the proceeds of narcotics were sent to Breonna Taylor’s home.

Read more carefully, they don't say that they think the narcotics were sent. Perhaps they think that, but they do not say they think that. Even if they had been talking about the narcotics being sent.... those sentences are talking about what the police believe. They aren't claiming to know it. They aren't claiming to have been told it by the USPI.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Your ignorance of that fact aside,

I wasn't ignorant of those sentences. Those sentences aren't relevant because they are talking about what the police believe is likely based on their experience. They make no claim about the interaction with the USPI that you are claiming they lied about.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

if the police didn’t think the packages were criminal in nature why would they be of interest to them and mentioned in the search warrant?

Read the sentences you just accused me of being ignorant of. They are trying to show that there is reason to believe that her apartment is being used as part of the criminal enterprise and that evidence of this may be in the apartment. Their argument is based on the pattern of behaviour of a drug dealer with multiple trap houses using other houses to store drugs and money and probably other things besides. They don't claim that anything illegal went through the mail. Again, you may think they believed enough drugs for all these trap houses are streaming through the post to her apartment, but that isn't the argument that they make.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I don’t actually, because the police didn’t claim another agency was involved.

Good. We agree on something at least.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Crap you throw against the wall to see if it will stick is not something I need to disprove.

You need to rule out the obvious ways in which somebody might be telling the truth before you say they are lying. It doesn't seem remotely implausible that the Louisville PD would get what ever information there was on Taylors mail from the USPI via the other agency rather than have parallel lines of communication. The USPI don't rule this out.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yes, but these denials are based on speculation with no evidence to support them.

That isn't how it works. You have claimed that they are lying. You don't have enough evidence to show that they are lying. At the moment they live in the land of might-be-lying-might-be-telling-the-truth. Burden of proof is with you.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You don’t seem to doubt the claims the police are making. Based on what evidence?

I don't say that they are telling the truth. It seems like a pointless lie if it was a lie since they already had evidence that the mail was going to her apartment, and the argument that followed could still have been made. I guess the overly specific nature of the denial from the USPI make me slightly suspicious, but only at the keep an eye on it for later level.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

What Louisville is doing is well outside the norm in terms of clamping down on information. Maybe now that her family has settled that case and one cop charged they will do a document dump. It's not normal to have this little information 6 months after an incident. I don't particularly doubt Walker, I just hate to see police trying to withhold information from the people who pay their salaries. Accountability or at least a decent attempt at it can sometimes affect public reaction.

These are hardly normal times though. Even ignoring the police usual conflicted motivations, any document release has the potential for a wider political impact just now.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m going by what’s stated in the warrant.

You’re the one inventing intermediaries that the warrant does not mention to claim that police did not speak to the U.S. Postal Inspector directly.

The warrant doesn't say that they did or did not deal with the postal service directly. You are adding the requirement that the contact be direct that is not in the warrant.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The warrant does not state that the postal inspector inspected any packages at all. Only that that they verified that packages were being sent to Breonna Taylor’s home.

Yes.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

It is the police who go on to allege in the warrant that the packages might be criminal in nature. This contradicts what the actual postal inspector investigation determined.

They do not say anything about the content of the packages in the warrant. You are again reading into the warrant things that it does not say. Maybe the police thought this, but they did not write it in the warrant.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

They claimed what they suspected to be in those packages, in contradiction to what the postal inspector investigation determined.

They do not say anything about the content of the packages.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

This goes one of two ways:

1) The police didn’t actually receive verification from the U.S. postal inspector, either directly or indirectly, of packages being delivered to Breonna Taylor’s home.

2) If they did receive that verification (which is questionable), then the police failed to disclose what the postal inspector determined about those packages and made an allegation in the warrant that was in contradiction to that.

Either way, it doesn’t look good for the integrity and honesty of the police.

They do not make allegations about the packages inspected by the USPI that contradict the USPI. They make no statement about the content of the packages.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Indeed. It should be made explicitly legal to use lethal force to kill armed intruders, regardless of their purported status.

You do realise that this would have the exact opposite effect you are hoping for? Unless you are actually hoping for a lot more dead people.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It is amazing that Kenneth Walker could shoot the cop in self defense, and the cop shoot Breonna Taylor in self-defense, with neither side being indicted.

How is it amazing? This is how US self-defense law works. Walker can claim that he fired at the cops because he feared for his life believing that they were criminals breaking in. The Cops clearly have a self-defence claim since they came under fire while lawfully conducting their business (regardless of whether you like it or not, they had a legal search warrant and were conducting the raid under that warrant in a manner the law prescribes, you don't like it get the law changed.) Both sides have valid self-defence claims to the point that indicting either would be a waste of taxpayer money.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

....
Both sides have valid self-defence claims to the point that indicting either would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Lawyers for Taylor's family contend that Kentucky self-defense law does not protect killing a bystander in an act of self-defense. She wasn't the threat.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Lawyers for Taylor's family contend that Kentucky self-defense law does not protect killing a bystander in an act of self-defense. She wasn't the threat.

First, IANL either here or in Kentucky.

Second - Or course the lawyers for her family are going to say that, they want to make a case, you can't do that if you don't make that claim. Making the claim doesn't mean it is true and going to win in court.

Third - Taking a look at the laws involved.

The two areas are Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.050 and Ky Statues Chapter 507 - CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.

In Chapter 507, each section contains something similar to "he causes the death of such person or of a third person".

Beonna is clearly a third person, and so is covered by the statues of Chapter 507 (regardless of if it would be murder, manslaughter (1st or 2nd degree), or reckless homicide).

§ 503.050 is on justification or:

Quote:

Section 503.020 - Justification - A defense
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense.

so 503.50 is a defense to any prosecution of Homicide. Since the prosecution of Homicide includes third parties, then the justification against that prosecution holds against third parties.

Now having said that, the law doesn't specifically state that the killing of a third party by accident while defending oneself against deadly force is justified, but I think that it would certainly be a hard push. I certainly don't see a Prosecutor trying to get a conviction based on what would really be a twisted reading of the law, and to be honest I don't think that is a precedent we want to see set as it would open up a whole can of worms where prosecutors could start filing charges based on perceived gaps in the law.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

They do not make allegations about the packages inspected by the USPI that contradict the USPI. They make no statement about the content of the packages.

U.S. Postal Inspector: “There’s no packages of interest going there”.

The police, in the paragraph of the warrant referring to the packages “Mr. J Glover may be keeping narcotics and/or proceeds from the sale of narcotics at [Breonna Taylor’s home] for safe keeping.”

Either the police failed to disclose what the postal inspector determined about the packages, or are somehow too incompetent to bother to find out the basic facts of the case they’re supposedly investigating.

Pick your poison.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

These are hardly normal times though. Even ignoring the police usual conflicted motivations, any document release has the potential for a wider political impact just now.

The problem, though, is that not releasing documents *also* carries the risk of wider political impact.

I haven’t in my life found the police to be massively untrustworthy but I’m talking from a pretty privileged situation (white, middle class, more or less middle aged). Cops have actually cut me some slack a couple of times. That’s my frame of reference. Other groups have massively different interactions with the police, so have a completely different frame of reference. Kind cops and cruel cops are sometimes the same ******* cops.

NOT cool to shoot any of them except in self-defense.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

U.S. Postal Inspector: “There’s no packages of interest going there”.

The police, in the paragraph of the warrant referring to the packages “Mr. J Glover may be keeping narcotics and/or proceeds from the sale of narcotics at [Breonna Taylor’s home] for safe keeping.”

They didn't say anything about the contents of the packages though.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Either the police failed to disclose what the postal inspector determined about the packages, or are somehow too incompetent to bother to find out the basic facts of the case they’re supposedly investigating.

Pick your poison.

They didn't claim there was anything illicit in the packages. You are adding that in.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

What Louisville is doing is well outside the norm in terms of clamping down on information. Maybe now that her family has settled that case and one cop charged they will do a document dump. It's not normal to have this little information 6 months after an incident. I don't particularly doubt Walker, I just hate to see police trying to withhold information from the people who pay their salaries. Accountability or at least a decent attempt at it can sometimes affect public reaction.

This is one situation where I think the US could take something of value from the English judicial system. In England even a legitimate shooting by the police would result in a coroners court enquiry into the circumstances of the death (as are all 'unnatural deaths e.g. RTA). The police involved would be called to give evidence under oath. The postal inspector could be called. Documents would have been made available. The families lawyer, or the judge on behalf of the family could put questions to the supervising officer etc. The jury would return a verdict likely justified homicide. The coroner could issue and the jury could recommend certain actions be taken by the police to prevent similar circumstances occurring in future. All this in a public court. The problem with Grand juries (which is surprising in the US) is that they are secret. In general the process of justice should be open not secret.

If every police fatal shooting was subject to judicial review (and equally every fatal shooting of a police officer) I think improvements in policy would have happened. It also makes it easier to amend law as judicial recommendations can be seen as less political and so easier to gain bipartisan support than if they are brought forward by one party. (I realise that the US has politicised its judicial system, unlike the rest of the common law world, so this is less true in the US.)

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

They didn't say anything about the contents of the packages though.

They didn't claim there was anything illicit in the packages. You are adding that in.

Here’s that section of the warrant in full:

Quote:

Affiant verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages at [Breonna Taylor’s home]. Affiant knows through training and experience that it is not uncommon for drug traffickers to receive mail packages at different locations to avoid detection from law enforcement. Affiant believes through training and experience, that Mr. J Glover may be keeping narcotics and/or proceeds from the sale of narcotics at [Breonna Taylor’s home] for safe keeping.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisv...341bd2866.html

It’s three sentences in a single paragraph.

The police were obviously alleging that packages being sent to Breonna Taylor’s were tied to narcotics.

To claim otherwise displays either profound dishonesty or a profound ignorance of how human language works.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Yes, you are. You are adding the claims that the Louisville PD had been in direct contact with the USPI, and that the packages that USPI verified were "items of interest". The Louisville Police didn't claim either of those. Without those, you haven't caught them in a lie.

Regarding the highlighted:

Quote:

It was Mattingly, the officer who was shot at Taylor's apartment, who asked the postal service whether Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's apartment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/5706161002

So there’s at least one of the bogus claims that you pulled out of your ass definitively refuted by the facts.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Here’s that section of the warrant in full:

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisv...341bd2866.html

It’s three sentences in a single paragraph.

The police were obviously alleging that packages being sent to Breonna Taylor’s were tied to narcotics.

To claim otherwise displays either profound dishonesty or a profound ignorance of how human language works.

They didn't say that. You are adding it in. Nowhere in the warrant do the claim the narcotics are being sent through the mail. Their argument that he is using her house in a suspicious manner and therefor should be searched for evidence of Glover's criminal enterprise does not depend on or claim that there was anything illicit in the packages inspected by the USPI.

They claim he had his bank account registered to her address as evidence of a link. That isn't because they are claiming the bank is sending him drugs through the post. They don't claim anything illegal came through the post. If the use of her address for non-illegal banking correspondence is suspicious enough to mention without necessarily implying that the letters from the bank were illegal... so can the other packages.

I agree that if they said the USPI had found that pallets of crystal meth were being delivered daily to her house that the warrant would have been stronger. They can't claim this though and don't claim it. They don't claim any drugs came through the mail.

You can't call them a liar based on what you think they believed, but did not say.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

They didn't say that. You are adding it in. Nowhere in the warrant do the claim the narcotics are being sent through the mail. Their argument that he is using her house in a suspicious manner and therefor should be searched for evidence of Glover's criminal enterprise does not depend on or claim that there was anything illicit in the packages inspected by the USPI.

They claim he had his bank account registered to her address as evidence of a link. That isn't because they are claiming the bank is sending him drugs through the post. They don't claim anything illegal came through the post. If the use of her address for non-illegal banking correspondence is suspicious enough to mention without necessarily implying that the letters from the bank were illegal... so can the other packages.

I agree that if they said the USPI had found that pallets of crystal meth were being delivered daily to her house that the warrant would have been stronger. They can't claim this though and don't claim it. They don't claim any drugs came through the mail.

You can't call them a liar based on what you think they believed, but did not say.

Again, it was three sentences in a single paragraph. The basic rules of human language tell us that those three sentences are connected and discussing the same topic. You want to pretend that each sentence in that same paragraph is somehow completely unrelated to the other two and discussing something completely different. A child would understand that’s not how it works.

You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

[Delphic Oracle]

"Using the house (address) in a suspicious manner" is a vague, non-specific assertion.

What is the activity?

What evidence supports the assertion?

"Probable Cause" is a problematic enough area on its own, a warrant needs more than "these people are bad, so please your honor, let me violate their privacy."

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Planigale

This is one situation where I think the US could take something of value from the English judicial system. In England even a legitimate shooting by the police would result in a coroners court enquiry into the circumstances of the death (as are all 'unnatural deaths e.g. RTA). The police involved would be called to give evidence under oath. The postal inspector could be called. Documents would have been made available. The families lawyer, or the judge on behalf of the family could put questions to the supervising officer etc. The jury would return a verdict likely justified homicide. The coroner could issue and the jury could recommend certain actions be taken by the police to prevent similar circumstances occurring in future. All this in a public court. The problem with Grand juries (which is surprising in the US) is that they are secret. In general the process of justice should be open not secret.

If every police fatal shooting was subject to judicial review (and equally every fatal shooting of a police officer) I think improvements in policy would have happened. It also makes it easier to amend law as judicial recommendations can be seen as less political and so easier to gain bipartisan support than if they are brought forward by one party. (I realise that the US has politicised its judicial system, unlike the rest of the common law world, so this is less true in the US.)

That all sounds good to me. In the U.S., there are no inquests. But in many police shootings, there is at least the starting point of the cops' official version, supplemented by the release of various reports that give the general public a better understanding of what happened through the physical evidence. Sounds to me, though, like the Louisville Police Department is not releasing even basic information. Where I live, typically at least portions of the autopsy report would be released to the public. When bits and pieces are just kind of leaked different groups cherry-pick parts to build their own narrative. It is very frustrating.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Again, it was three sentences in a single paragraph. The basic rules of human language tell us that those three sentences are connected and discussing the same topic. You want to pretend that each sentence in that same paragraph is somehow completely unrelated to the other two and discussing something completely different. A child would understand that’s not how it works.

You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

Cops don't want to lie on the warrant if they think they might be caught. If each individual sentence is factually true, they're less likely to have the whole thing tossed out of court, but they write the sentences as suggestively as they can, and judges usually go along with it. It's a connect-the-dots kind of exercise.

One thing that strikes me is how many resources seemed to be directed at IMO a relatively petty dealer. I guess with pole cams they don't need anyone staking out a joint, they can just spy on people for months until they come up with enough dots to connect. A provocative claim by the family is that:

Breonna Taylor warrant connected to Louisville gentrification plan, lawyers say

Quote:

Lawyers for Taylor's family allege in court documents filed in Jefferson Circuit Court Sunday that a police squad — named Place-Based Investigations — had "deliberately misled" narcotics detectives to target a home on Elliott Avenue, leading them to believe they were after some of the city's largest violent crime and drug rings.

The complaint — which amends an earlier lawsuit filed by Taylor's mother against the three Louisville officers who fired their weapons into Taylor's home — claims Taylor was caught up in a case that was less about a drug house on Elliott Avenue and more about speeding up the city's multi-million dollar Vision Russell development plan.

I have no idea if that is true.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"Using the house (address) in a suspicious manner" is a vague, non-specific assertion.

What is the activity?

Getting packages from Amazon. Very suspicious....

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How is it amazing? This is how US self-defense law works. Walker can claim that he fired at the cops because he feared for his life believing that they were criminals breaking in. The Cops clearly have a self-defence claim since they came under fire while lawfully conducting their business (regardless of whether you like it or not, they had a legal search warrant and were conducting the raid under that warrant in a manner the law prescribes, you don't like it get the law changed.) Both sides have valid self-defence claims to the point that indicting either would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Sure, but that means that cops do something fundamentally wrong when they let it come to this.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Sure, but that means that cops do something fundamentally wrong when they let it come to this.

Does Walker bear none of the responsibility for this?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Does Walker bear none of the responsibility for this?

no, he literally doesn't.

If you believe in the right to defend your home from intruders, then Walker did everything right.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

no, he literally doesn't.

If you believe in the right to defend your home from intruders, then Walker did everything right.

This is the big if. Is it a good idea to start shooting at possibly armed intruders in an apartment complex? What if his bullets had gone out the door and into a neighbour's apartment killing them? What if the intruders were armed and so fired back and killed the person next to him?

I would also point out that Kentucky law does specifically state that opening fire on people you know or should know are peace officers making a lawful entry into your home is illegal, so shouldn't you at least identify who is making that entry before blasting away?

When you are hunting you need to identify your target, do you not think that you should do the same before opening fire in an apartment?

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"Using the house (address) in a suspicious manner" is a vague, non-specific assertion.

What is the activity?

What evidence supports the assertion?

"Probable Cause" is a problematic enough area on its own, a warrant needs more than "these people are bad, so please your honor, let me violate their privacy."

Tell that to the Judge that approved the warrant. I'm sure your knowledge of the law far outweighs hers.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

no, he literally doesn't.

If you believe in the right to defend your home from intruders, then Walker did everything right.

How about if the "intruders" are firemen who have broken down your door to get into your house to rescue you and your children?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Regarding the highlighted:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/5706161002

So there’s at least one of the bogus claims that you pulled out of your ass definitively refuted by the facts.

No. That isn't how this works. I have been saying that you didn't have evidence to support your claim that the police lied. That isn't me pulling it out of my ass, that is you not supplying evidence to support your claim. You have now found a newspaper that summarizes a report we haven't seen in a way you like. OK, that's an improvement.

Quote:

It was Mattingly, the officer who was shot at Taylor's apartment, who asked the postal service whether Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's apartment. Jaynes wrote in a March 12 sworn affidavit for a search warrant that he had verified that Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's home through a postal inspector (a Louisville postal inspector later told WDRB news that wasn't true).

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...me/5706161002/

We see here that they have changed the statement of the postal inspector. The postal inspector said that no "packages of interest" were going to Taylor. Glover says that his packages were going there, so it isn't clear that the newspapers are summarizing things correctly. The postal inspector does not say that no packages for Glover were going to Taylor. Maybe it is somehow the case that no parcels for Taylor were going there? The Postal Inspector doesn't say it. The newspaper summaries of the case are too unreliable and too loosely written to make the inferences you are making.

I have spent some time looking for the report they are relying on and can't find it. If anybody has it, I would be grateful for a link.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Tell that to the Judge that approved the warrant. I'm sure your knowledge of the law far outweighs hers.

I’m sure the FBI investigators are up to the task:

Quote:

Attorney General Daniel Cameron, whose office handled the state investigation, said on Wednesday that federal law enforcement is looking at how the police department obtained the search warrant for Taylor's apartment.