(Ed) Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Because we live in a country where you aren't supposed to get your door kicked in by armed agents of the state while you're asleep based on thin pretext.

There are many different life experiences in the geographic space the U.S. fills.

Please explain in detail using facts from the investigation how you come to your conclusion.
Please quote specific statements by the police officers involved in obtaining the warrant, the statements used to obtain the warrant, and the vetted evidence you have to the contrary.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Taylor's residence was one of five being searched that night. Why would you expect them to sit outside and wait for her, potentially giving her several hours to destroy evidence of criminal activity?

Why go in at night in the first place?

No, the point of these warrants is to shock&awe, to stop the occupants from calling their lawyers.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why go in at night in the first place?

No, the point of these warrants is to shock&awe, to stop the occupants from calling their lawyers.

Ummm... because that is the way to get evidence that may be gone in the morning?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Ummm... because that is the way to get evidence that may be gone in the morning?

or the night before ... or last Christmas ...

that reasoning allows cops to go into any house whenever.

[The Great Zaganza]

The basic fact is that in today's America, any interaction with the police can result in a shooting and death.


the expected weight of the evidence from a warrant and the subsequent benefit for society from a conviction better be worth that trade-off.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Beg to disagree, big time.

- why would not every future intruder shout "POLICE" the moment he sees movement in the house?
- the fact that you are being associated with criminals doesn't nullify all your constitutional rights.



No, the basic failure here was for the police not to investigate and surveilled more: they should have staked out the home and entered with
Taylor when she came home: going into an place where you do not know who is inside is needless reckless.
Police budgets are all screwed up to favor going hard instead of smart.
And results like in this case will happen again and again until the police will focus on detecting instead of gatecrashing.

So...you equate a number of police officers wearing their gear and who identified themselves as police long before they battered the door down with a lone intruder sneaking about a house? Seriously?

You seem to think police have unlimited resources and time. Perhaps in a utopian world where there is almost no crime and unlimited resources could police set up surveillance and wait for someone to enter a building before executing a search warrant in all cases. That would be nice.
But, in the real world while investigating and looking for evidence of drug dealing that could be tied to a murder - police do not always have that luxury. You do what you can do given the time and resources allocated.
It's called reality.

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

No, the point of these warrants is to shock&awe, to stop the occupants from calling their lawyers.

No, the point of these warrants is to gather evidence before it can be destroyed.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The basic fact is that in today's America, any interaction with the police can result in a shooting and death.


the expected weight of the evidence from a warrant and the subsequent benefit for society from a conviction better be worth that trade-off.

Yep. That is why it is important to obey the commands of a police officer and not give them reason to believe you are a danger to them.

There are a million or so police/citizen interactions in the US every day. The statistical odds of getting shot and killed by a police officer during one of these interactions is incredibly small.

[The Great Zaganza]

If the police has limited resources, than that's the issue that needs fixing.
Not having the time or manpower doesn't give you the right to use a constitutionally questionable shortcut.

Furthermore, crime, especially homicide, is way down, but police budgets are not.
Crime clearance rates are abysmal.
US Police is just plain bad at detecting, which is why they have to hope to catch people red-handed trying to hide or destroy evidence.

US policing needs to be completely overhauled with a focus on detective work before the fishing expedition with battering rams and guns starts.
That would be much safer for the cops, too.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bogative

No, the point of these warrants is to gather evidence before it can be destroyed.

nope.
The point is to have a reason to arrest the occupants for resisting arrest or trying to hide/destroy evidence.

There are much better and safer ways to execute a warrant, as can be seen with EVERY white-collar crime.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Who else stated this as fact besides the guy who opened fire on the police officers?

So they knocked and identified themselves (even though they felt they needed a no-knock warrant) and the boyfriend shot at them because it was so clear they were the cops.

Is that your position?

What if all the bullets that hit Breonna came from the cop that was shooting wildly? Is it your position they fired this guy because a round or two hit a neighbor's apartment even though the shooting itself was warranted?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Taylor's residence was one of five being searched that night. Why would you expect them to sit outside and wait for her, potentially giving her several hours to destroy evidence of criminal activity?

Wait a minute. She wasn't the subject. She wasn't associated with any criminal activity. Nobody was looking for her. The ex-boyfriend they were looking for was already in jail. What I expect from cops is that they do whatever they have to do so they don't kill people for no reason.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Please explain in detail using facts from the investigation how you come to your conclusion.
Please quote specific statements by the police officers involved in obtaining the warrant, the statements used to obtain the warrant, and the vetted evidence you have to the contrary.

She had no drugs, wasn't a user, but became a target merely because she visited the house where drugs were found when it was under surveillance. They did not see her buying drugs. It's not hard to do a minimum bit of checking to see who lived at Breonna's apartment and if they had any history of criminal offenses before they added her address to the warrant.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Ummm... because that is the way to get evidence that may be gone in the morning?

That is a straw man. Why would the drugs that were supposedly there earlier in the day be gone if they didn't bust in in the middle of the night?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Are you saying the one neighbor is lying?

Should the other neighbors have heard the police as well? If so, what do you base that expectation on?

According to the family's lawyer, at his first interview with police he said he didn't hear anything. At his second interview with the police, he said he didn't hear anything. He told reporters who talked to everybody in the building that he didn't hear anything. But at his third interview with police two months after the killing, he remembered hearing the cops announce themselves and wait to be admitted. Gee, what should we believe?

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

She had no drugs, wasn't a user, but became a target merely because she visited the house where drugs were found when it was under surveillance. They did not see her buying drugs. It's not hard to do a minimum bit of checking to see who lived at Breonna's apartment and if they had any history of criminal offenses before they added her address to the warrant.

They added her address to the warrant because Jamarcus Glover used it as his own on his bank account.
Packages with his name were shipped there regularly.
He was seen at that address regularly.
He gave her phone number to the police as his own.
He called her from jail regularly.
He was surveilled driving her car.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Two cops shot last night night during the Louisville protests. The state and the cops might not see the 100% avoidable killing of Taylor as reason to change their ways, perhaps they'll change their tune when they are the ones in danger

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

She had no drugs, wasn't a user, but became a target merely because she visited the house where drugs were found when it was under surveillance. They did not see her buying drugs. It's not hard to do a minimum bit of checking to see who lived at Breonna's apartment and if they had any history of criminal offenses before they added her address to the warrant.

You seem to be unaware of a major fact:

"But a judge had also signed a warrant allowing the police to search Ms. Taylor’s residence because the police said they believed that one of the men had used her apartment to receive packages. Ms. Taylor had been dating that man on and off for several years but had recently severed ties with him, according to her family’s lawyer."
https://www.nytimes.com/article/breo...or-police.html

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Just announced, one of the officers was indicted for “reckless endangerment” for apparently shooting into adjacent apartments.
None of the officers actually involved in the shooting were charged, the investigation showed they were acting properly.

This has been pretty apparent from the time that fairly detailed accounts of the incident became public.... The death of Taylor was a tragic accident but not criminal. The officers did not go to the wrong address, they were looking for Taylor’s boyfriend.
They did have a “no knock” warrant, and the boyfriend did open fire on them as they forced their way in.
They returned fire and Taylor caught a bullet. Tragedy, but no “murder”...

Yep when sleeping people get shot it is normal, hence why it is outrageous that face any consequence at all. They should be treated like great officers like Philip Brailsford when he was totally justified in his shooting of Daniel Shaver.

It is outrageous to think that cops should ever have to worry about where they bullets go.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Two cops shot last night night during the Louisville protests. The state and the cops might not see the 100% avoidable killing of Taylor as reason to change their ways, perhaps they'll change their tune when they are the ones in danger

Hilariously devoid of any rational thought!
Why not just come out and admit that you hate cops for whatever personal reasons you may hold?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Breona was a bystander.

People in other apartments were bystanders.

Killing Breona: not wrong.

Potentially harming or killing anyone else: wrong.

The law is funny sometimes.

Breona's death is less of an offense than some distress and anxiety the neighbors were placed in.

White Drywall matters.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Cops lied. Breonna died.
And thats just fine with 40% of America .

Cops are allowed to lie in court and official statements, that is one of the powers that will never be questioned by those like Bikewer. Lying to the judge to get a warrant, that is normal and expected by anyone familiar with the cops.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep when sleeping people get shot it is normal, hence why it is outrageous that face any consequence at all. They should be treated like great officers like Philip Brailsford when he was totally justified in his shooting of Daniel Shaver.

It is outrageous to think that cops should ever have to worry about where they bullets go.

Taylor and her boyfriend were not shot while they were asleep.
They were both awake and standing in the hall when her boyfriend started shooting at the cops who announced themselves long before they entered the house.
I cannot imagine anyone thinking that police returning fire after they have been shot at and one of their members hit while conducting a perfectly legal search is somehow not justified. Such an irrational thought process that flies in the face of the evidence seems to only come from people who hold a deep and irrational hatred of police.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

You seem to be unaware of a major fact:

"But a judge had also signed a warrant allowing the police to search Ms. Taylor’s residence because the police said they believed that one of the men had used her apartment to receive packages. Ms. Taylor had been dating that man on and off for several years but had recently severed ties with him, according to her family’s lawyer."
https://www.nytimes.com/article/breo...or-police.html

We're all aware of it. And?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Taylor and her boyfriend were not shot while they were asleep.
They were both awake and standing in the hall when her boyfriend started shooting at the cops who announced themselves long before they entered the house.
I cannot imagine anyone thinking that police returning fire after they have been shot at and one of their members hit while conducting a perfectly legal search is somehow not justified. Such an irrational thought process that flies in the face of the evidence seems to only come from people who hold a deep and irrational hatred of police.

I mean they made up the evidence and claimed the post office said things they didn't but that is normal police procedure. You need to put your thumb on the scales of justice sometimes. That is perfectly normal and allowed in america.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Cops are allowed to lie in court and official statements, that is one of the powers that will never be questioned by those like Bikewer. Lying to the judge to get a warrant, that is normal and expected by anyone familiar with the cops.

You have made a completely irrational and non-factual statement that smears all police officers. You need to apologize to the countless good cops around the world you have just insulted and accused of something that the vast majority would never do.


(BTW - If you have the statistics and evidence based on investigations and studies conducted over a period of years that prove your statement - I will apologize for stating that you are making an irrational statement based on irrational and one-sided opinions that have no facts to back them up.
I'll not be holding my breath.)

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I mean they made up the evidence and claimed the post office said things they didn't but that is normal police procedure. You need to put your thumb on the scales of justice sometimes. That is perfectly normal and allowed in america.

It's too much work for the Prosecutor to force a Plea otherwise.
And the judges are happy not to have to actually hear a case.
Everyone is happy, right?

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I mean they made up the evidence and claimed the post office said things they didn't but that is normal police procedure. You need to put your thumb on the scales of justice sometimes. That is perfectly normal and allowed in america.

What are you babbling about?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

You have made a completely irrational and non-factual statement that smears all police officers. You need to apologize to the countless good cops around the world you have just insulted and accused of something that the vast majority would never do.


(BTW - If you have the statistics and evidence based on investigations and studies conducted over a period of years that prove your statement - I will apologize for stating that you are making an irrational statement based on irrational and one-sided opinions that have no facts to back them up.
I'll not be holding my breath.)

The Supreme Court literally decided that Cops don't have to know the law.
It has also decided that cops can never be charged directly unless the circumstances are 100% identical to a previous case decided against a cop.

In short, there is no downside for cops to lie. And every criminal defense lawyer will tell you that they do.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's too much work for the Prosecutor to force a Plea otherwise.
And the judges are happy not to have to actually hear a case.
Everyone is happy, right?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's too much work for the Prosecutor to force a Plea otherwise.
And the judges are happy not to have to actually hear a case.
Everyone is happy, right?

And how could any death that result from that kind of illegal action ever be thought of through a vein of felony murder. I mean holding cops accountable when they have a criminal conspiracy is right out.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The Supreme Court literally decided that Cops don't have to know the law.
It has also decided that cops can never be charged directly unless the circumstances are 100% identical to a previous case decided against a cop.

In short, there is no downside for cops to lie. And every criminal defense lawyer will tell you that they do.

Hell watch the news where they put out official statements that then get contradicted by the video evidence. Yet none of them are ever charged with obstruction of justice.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The Supreme Court literally decided that Cops don't have to know the law.
It has also decided that cops can never be charged directly unless the circumstances are 100% identical to a previous case decided against a cop.

In short, there is no downside for cops to lie. And every criminal defense lawyer will tell you that they do.

No cop can know all the laws and can be perfect in every case involving judgement of conflicting facts. That is not surprising since we do not hold lawyers to that standard either.

Got any cities to backup your other assertions?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

No cop can know all the laws and can be perfect in every case involving judgement of conflicting facts. That is not surprising since we do not hold lawyers to that standard either.

Got any cities to backup your other assertions?

Look up what "partial immunity" is.

Then, look up "testilying".

[SuburbanTurkey]

Is there any evidence that either Breonna or the man who shot at home invaders had any idea that it was cops busting down the door in the dead of night?

The cops are claiming that they announced before knocking the door in. Yelling "police" and then immediately breaking down the door in the dead of night is not meaningfully different than not announcing. The occupants were sleeping. It's unreasonable to think that they are aware enough to understand that police are there.

What purpose does announcing serve if the people it is intended for are sleeping?

The 911 call from within the apt is pretty clear that the man who opened fire had no idea who was there or why. The announcement, real or police fabrication, did not exist in any practical sense

An experiment you can do at home. Stand outside the home and yell a code word, then storm in. If the sleeping resident can't tell you the code word, they also would have got shot at by the cops.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

No cop can know all the laws and can be perfect in every case involving judgement of conflicting facts. That is not surprising since we do not hold lawyers to that standard either.

Got any cities to backup your other assertions?

https://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/37099...=1600946691773

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...nforcing.shtml


and cops have no duty to protect anyone:


https://mises.org/power-market/polic...irms-yet-again

[SuburbanTurkey]

The grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

There's no defense attorney. The prosecutor hand picks the evidence and doesn't have to provide exculpatory evidence that benefits the accused.

Grand juries are often used by protectors to obfuscate the decision not to prosecute by passing the buck. It should be clear though, if the AG wanted to try this case, they easily could have got an indictment.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

There's no defense attorney. The prosecutor hand picks the evidence and doesn't have to provide exculpatory evidence that benefits the accused.

Grand juries are often used by protectors to obfuscate the decision not to prosecute by passing the buck. It should be clear though, if the AG wanted to try this case, they easily could have got an indictment.

yes, but it would have been thrown out on appeal.

The AG isn't the relevant here, the Board of Commerce is: if peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests continue to cripple the local economy, the Board Members will pressure the PD to undertake radical reform.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

yes, but it would have been thrown out on appeal.



The AG isn't the relevant here, the Board of Commerce is: if peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests continue to cripple the local economy, the Board Members will pressure the PD to undertake radical reform.

There's no appeal for grand jury indictment. Why bother, the trial is the place to make a defense.

I agree that the police will never reform simply because it is the right thing to do. Hitting the city where it hurts is likely a better strategy. If reform is the price to pay to end unrest that is sustained and intense enough, the powerful may just do it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

What are you babbling about?

ponderingturtle is talking about the fact that the warrant used to enter Breonna Taylor’s home was premised on a collaborative investigation with a U.S. postal inspector. The existence of this collaboration was refuted by the post office.

How do you not know this?