(Ed) Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Wow.
Just, Wow!

One would need a telescope to see the point from the distance you are from it.

You’re right, I did miss your point.

But in fairness to me, it was a stupid and irrelevant point. So if anything, I’m at fault for expecting better from you. My bad. It won’t happen again.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’re right, I did miss your point.

But in fairness to me, it was a stupid and irrelevant point. So if anything, I’m at fault for expecting better from you. My bad. It won’t happen again.

Look on the bright side.
Your being wrong gave you yet another chance to be insulting.
So I guess it wasn't all bad.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

The police have at least one witness that supposedly corroborates their claim that they announced themselves first.

There are 11 more who dispute it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Look on the bright side.
Your being wrong gave you yet another chance to be insulting.
So I guess it wasn't all bad.

Once again, you are correct. I shouldn’t be so critical.

When someone asks a semi-rhetorical question about whether or not police treat rich white people the same way they treat poor black people, “No, because rich people can move” is a genius response that demonstrates amazing clarity of thought and a firm grasp of the issue being discussed.

[portlandatheist]

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

This is the logic of terrorism. It won't work. Whatever we need to do to fix problems in our justice system, it isn't going to involve reforming the thugs and racists cops and judges by beating them into submission with a "taste of their own medicine". It is going to involve removing the thugs and the racists and preventing them from being cops in the first place. It is going to be up to us on how to figure out how to prevent search warrants like this being issued in the first place. I see that the judge, Mary M. Shaw, hardly gets mentioned and she is a big reason this *********** happened in the first place.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Once again, you are correct. I shouldn’t be so critical.

When someone asks a semi-rhetorical question about whether or not police treat rich white people the same way they treat poor black people, “No, because rich people can move” is a genius response that demonstrates amazing clarity of thought and a firm grasp of the issue being discussed.

You assume a subtext that was unstated in the original posters' statement.
(that "this kind of crap" does not happen in rich neighborhoods)
One that you only just now care to outline. Yet you feel confident enough to insult a poster who does not automatically assume the veracity of that subtext prior to it being stated.

You do not desire a discussion, you wish to shout into an echo chamber.
Carry on.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

You assume a subtext that was unstated in the original posters' statement.
(that "this kind of crap" does not happen in rich neighborhoods)
One that you only just now care to outline. Yet you feel confident enough to insult a poster who does not automatically assume the veracity of that subtext prior to it being stated.

You do not desire a discussion, you wish to shout into an echo chamber.
Carry on.

What discussion would you like to have? Please be specific.

[portlandatheist]

Change.org has a petition to remove Judge Mary Shaw

Quote:

In March 2020 Judge Mary Shaw signed a number of no-knock warrants in aid of a narcotics case. She failed to do her due diligence in authorizing such dangerous and aggressive police tactics. She signed five warrants in 12 minutes source. Due to her haste and disregard for public safety 26 yearl old EMT Breonna Taylor was killed by police.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

This is the logic of terrorism. It won't work. Whatever we need to do to fix problems in our justice system, it isn't going to involve reforming the thugs and racists cops and judges by beating them into submission with a "taste of their own medicine". It is going to involve removing the thugs and the racists and preventing them from being cops in the first place. It is going to be up to us on how to figure out how to prevent search warrants like this being issued in the first place. I see that the judge, Mary M. Shaw, hardly gets mentioned and she is a big reason this *********** happened in the first place.

I get that you don’t like the riots and associated violence. Neither do I. It’s tragic that it’s come to this.

But when it comes to the underlying issues, all you do is mouth vague platitudes.

People are angry. And they have a right to be angry. They’re dealing with literal oppression.

What specific remedy do you offer these people?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Like failing to be sure of your target before you open fire? Like I said, let a jury decide.

Didn't the grand jury already decide this? In any case, it clearly depends on the circumstances. One can't just say that if somebody shot you in a hallway and you defend yourself and hit somebody standing behind the person who shot you that it was necessarily negligent. That would be a ludicrous position.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The place to resolve disputes of fact is a trial. A women is dead. Let a jury decide whether the cops were justified.

And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by cmikes

And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?

You seem to think that the prosecutor wanted the indictment instead of the political cover for dropping the charges.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Didn't the grand jury already decide this?

The reason we had to make lynching laws was because racist juries "kept deciding" that extra-judicial murdering of black people was okay.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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.

To be fair, your chances of getting shot and killed by a police officer increases substantially if you shoot at a police officer first.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by cmikes

And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?

The prosecutor couldn't get what he didn't want in the first place. If you or I had shot Breonna, the prosecution would not have argued on our behalf in in the grand jury hearing.

This is not an example of a well-functioning system.

[JoeMorgue]

Black people: "The system is broken!"
White people: "Well we keep asking the system if it's broken and it keeps saying no."

ETA: Hell it's even more stupid than that. It's arguing that the system not working is proof that the system is working.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Black people: "The system is broken!"
White people: "Well we keep asking the system if it's broken and it keeps saying no."

ETA: Hell it's even more stupid than that. It's arguing that the system not working is proof that the system is working.

"An internal review found no evidence..." is the bureaucratic version of "I am not a racist, but..."

*I know that's not really applicable to this thread

[JoeMorgue]

It's basically "Well we'll ask a jury if juries value black lives less" and then taking that answer as the factual truth.

Of course a jury wasn't going to bring down meaningful consequences against a white cop who murdered a sleeping black woman.

THAT'S THE WHOLE ******* BLOODY GODDAMN PROBLEM.

You couldn't miss the point more if you had an automatic Missing the Point Machine and were using it on the Point Missing Equinox during the Point Missing Festival if you look at this situation and your response is "Well the jury said..."

[tyr_13]

It's worth noting that the two officers who where shot were not at the protests themselves and it is unclear those shootings are even tied to the protests at all.

'Officers shot after the announcement' is not the same as 'because of the announcement'. 'Shot during the protests' is also not the same as 'at the protests'.

[CaptainHowdy]

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 evidence did the police make up? What did the police say the post office said that the post office says they did not say?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

What evidence did the police make up?

"LOL could you start the discussion at the beginning again, repeating things which are already well established and have been discussed again? I super-promise I won't just not listen and ask you to repeat them again later."

[CORed]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

First and foremost - the shooting WAS justified. That makes the need to discover who fired the fatal shot moot. Therefore, the fact that they could not identify who fired the shot was not a factor in deciding whether murder charges were laid.

Anybody that thinks someone is justified in shooting at police officers who first knock, identify themselves, and then are forced to batter the door down to legally enter a house under a search warrant, are dreaming in technicolor.
Wildly shooting at police officers who identified themselves as police officers with your girlfriend standing beside you in a hallway is incredibly stupid and dangerous.
What did he think was going to happen? Did he think he was going to kill all the police officers before they returned fire?
He obviously was seriously deluded and/or hated police. He certainly did not care for the safety of his girlfriend.
The only person responsible for the death of Breana Taylor was her idiot police hating boyfriend.
Legally justified shooting. Period.

From what I've read, there is some question whether the police announced themselves or not. The police claim they did, and have at least one corroborating witness. The boyfriend who fired shots claims he didn't hear the announcement and other neighbors didn't hear the announcement. I will say it's probable that they did announce, but, for whatever reason (maybe asleep until they broke down the door) he didn't hear it. While I can't say that the officers on the raid were wrong to return fire, I do have to question the necessity of doing a middle of the night no-knock search in the first place. Although I won't say that such tactics are never justified, IMO, they are way over-used, and are extremely dangerous to both law enforcement and citizens. A middle of the night no-knock raid should be near the bottom of the list of options, and shouldn't be conducted on the basis of a wild guess, based on past associations, the a certain person might be there.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The reason we had to make lynching laws was because racist juries "kept deciding" that extra-judicial murdering of black people was okay.

Go argue with Bob001. He's the one who wanted a jury to decide.

[Skeptic Tank]

People who are saying the system failed here are essentially saying that if police officers executing a legal warrant to investigate a drug dealing location for evidence, are fired upon as they enter, and then they return fire - that those officers need to somehow face punishment for that? That is insane.

How can you tell an officer that? That they can be asked to go execute a search warrant, and if they get shot at, they can't defend themselves? Or they only can defend themselves if they can guarantee 100% that an unintended target is not hit, even if that target is standing right next to the shooter?

People are talking about this case as though the officers charged in, found Bryanna quaking in fear under her comforter, and emptied mags into her later saying "I saw a figure under the sheets, how do I know she doesn't have a gun under there? Better safe than sorry!"

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

What evidence did the police make up? What did the police say the post office said that the post office says they did not say?

The warrant can be found here (https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws....1589401546.pdf). I think the claim is that point 9 on page 5 is false. They say that they verified with the US postal inspector that Glover had received packages there. I can't find a direct quote, but news media is saying that somebody with the Louisville Postal Service says that his office wasn't used to do the verification. That seems like a more specific denial than the question at issue. It seems like there are quite a few possibilities there other than that they lied on the warrant.

It seems like an odd thing to lie about given that he was using her apartment as a postal address.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Of course a jury wasn't going to bring down meaningful consequences against a white cop who murdered a sleeping black woman.

She wasn't asleeping, she was standing in the hallway behind he boyfriend who shot the cop. It clearly wasn't murder. Of course a jury shouldn't convict them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

To be fair, your chances of getting shot and killed by a police officer increases substantially if you shoot at a police officer first.

That does show a troubling level of unconscious bias amongst police towards people who shoot at them.

[cmikes]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You seem to think that the prosecutor wanted the indictment instead of the political cover for dropping the charges.

You're kidding, right? In the current political climate it's worth thousands (at least) of votes for a prosecutor to have a couple of police officer's heads mounted on their wall. This isn't the old days of the Democratically controlled South.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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.

From USA Today:

Why were police at Breonna Taylor's home? Here's what an investigative summary says

Quote:

The report also shows that LMPD's new Place-Based Investigations Squad spent about 2½ months conducting heavy surveillance.

Taylor was linked to the suspects in that investigation, according to the report, because a car registered in her name stopped in early January at one of the properties being watched.

This ran Sept. 4. It sounds like the police did in fact use a lot of resources tracking down and targeting specifically her apartment when, it seems to me, she was a bit player in this drama - if even that. It seems to me like ramming people's doors open in the middle of the night is such an inherently dangerous procedure that its value should be weighed against the value of the evidence police hope to obtain. All the collateral crap that can happen is obvious. I'm not saying the cops are coldblooded murderers or anything like that. But I think there is some kind of tunnel vision going on - "there might be drugs there, so let's rely on this very risky procedure that clearly puts bystanders at risk of death or injury, because the greater good is served by seizing this evidence immediately." It's like judgment goes completely out the window.

Since quite a few resources had already been devoted to targeting her apartment I don't know why there couldn't be some resources spent trying to mitigate the risk that this kind of approach entails. I don't know the state of the art for determining if people are home or if additional people other than the primary resident are in the house. There could have been kids in there, right? Is there no other way to kind of finesse this investigation that doesn't involve blindly breaking down a door and having a bunch of heavily armed people swarm in not knowing if there are armed people inside, or who might be in adjacent apartments etc.? In my imagination they could come up with some excuse to sweat Taylor and maybe secure something like cooperation. That tactic may also be questionable; it's a little underhanded but it does not create an imminent risk of severe injury or death, as far as I can tell.

So a few months before a car registered to her had shown up at a suspected drug dealer's house. Then supposedly there was this postal inspector confirming that her apartment had been used as as an address to route a package to the suspected drug dealer - which allegation is factually contested by the postal inspector. When detained individuals lunge for a cop's gun and get shot, I always do wonder, "What did they think would happen?" But it's equally reasonable IMO to ask this question of the cops - "What did they think would happen? What was the value of this purported evidence? What were the risks involved? Were there alternative tactics that could have been used?"

I guess that's what civil suits are for. Defending those, and potentially paying out judgments, is a lot more expensive than watching the apartment for a few hours.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The warrant can be found here (https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws....1589401546.pdf). I think the claim is that point 9 on page 5 is false. They say that they verified with the US postal inspector that Glover had received packages there. I can't find a direct quote, but news media is saying that somebody with the Louisville Postal Service says that his office wasn't used to do the verification. That seems like a more specific denial than the question at issue. It seems like there are quite a few possibilities there other than that they lied on the warrant.

It seems like an odd thing to lie about given that he was using her apartment as a postal address.

Are cops allowed to put a trap on people's mail in circumstances like this? Is there anything like a provision that would allow a warrant to screen her packages and wait till one comes through with drugs in it, then act on that knowledge?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Like I said, let a jury decide. A DA's standard for prosecution is probable cause; only the jury applies "beyond reasonable doubt."

The DA couldn't get it past a grand jury, which is a low bar.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Are cops allowed to put a trap on people's mail in circumstances like this? Is there anything like a provision that would allow a warrant to screen her packages and wait till one comes through with drugs in it, then act on that knowledge?

Yes, they could get a warrant, I'm assuming from a federal judge, to screen packages that come through USPS.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

From USA Today:

Why were police at Breonna Taylor's home? Here's what an investigative summary says



This ran Sept. 4. It sounds like the police did in fact use a lot of resources tracking down and targeting specifically her apartment when, it seems to me, she was a bit player in this drama - if even that. It seems to me like ramming people's doors open in the middle of the night is such an inherently dangerous procedure that its value should be weighed against the value of the evidence police hope to obtain. All the collateral crap that can happen is obvious. I'm not saying the cops are coldblooded murderers or anything like that. But I think there is some kind of tunnel vision going on - "there might be drugs there, so let's rely on this very risky procedure that clearly puts bystanders at risk of death or injury, because the greater good is served by seizing this evidence immediately." It's like judgment goes completely out the window.

Where they just looking for drugs. He had been using her house as a postal address. Bank, car etc... were all registered there. The warrant talks about seizing money, paperwork, electronic media etc as well as drugs. They have prison recordings of Glover talking about her looking after money for him. Glover says he had mail sent there. A dead body was found in the car she rented and let him use. It doesn't seem to unreasonable for them to think there might be evidence of the illegal stuff he'd been doing at her apartment.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Since quite a few resources had already been devoted to targeting her apartment I don't know why there couldn't be some resources spent trying to mitigate the risk that this kind of approach entails. I don't know the state of the art for determining if people are home or if additional people other than the primary resident are in the house. There could have been kids in there, right? Is there no other way to kind of finesse this investigation that doesn't involve blindly breaking down a door and having a bunch of heavily armed people swarm in not knowing if there are armed people inside, or who might be in adjacent apartments etc.? In my imagination they could come up with some excuse to sweat Taylor and maybe secure something like cooperation. That tactic may also be questionable; it's a little underhanded but it does not create an imminent risk of severe injury or death, as far as I can tell.

If they go and arrest Glover they need to go around the other locations where they might want to collect evidence in short order otherwise it is hardly likely to be there. They had done some level of surveillance of the property before hand and were under the impression she was home alone.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

So a few months before a car registered to her had shown up at a suspected drug dealer's house. Then supposedly there was this postal inspector confirming that her apartment had been used as as an address to route a package to the suspected drug dealer - which allegation is factually contested by the postal inspector.

They had a little bit more evidence than that. Multiple database searches showing him using her address for his bank account and other things, surveillance showing him going to her apartment to pick things up, the corpse found in her rental car....

Originally Posted by Minoosh

When detained individuals lunge for a cop's gun and get shot, I always do wonder, "What did they think would happen?" But it's equally reasonable IMO to ask this question of the cops - "What did they think would happen? What was the value of this purported evidence? What were the risks involved? Were there alternative tactics that could have been used?"

This sounds like it would be an argument against almost all police raids.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I guess that's what civil suits are for. Defending those, and potentially paying out judgments, is a lot more expensive than watching the apartment for a few hours.

Are you sure they hadn't watched the apartment for a few hours?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Are cops allowed to put a trap on people's mail in circumstances like this? Is there anything like a provision that would allow a warrant to screen her packages and wait till one comes through with drugs in it, then act on that knowledge?

Is it exclusively drugs being delivered by mail that they are looking for there? I don't see anything in the warrant claiming this. Glover said she was looking after his money. His bank account was registered to her apartment. The rental car with the corpse in it was registered to her apartment. Packages were being left in and picked up from rock piles in front of the other property. The warrant makes it quite clear that they are on the lookout for documentation of Glovers activities and money associated with them, as well as drugs.

[portlandatheist]

Quote:

Minoosh-When detained individuals lunge for a cop's gun and get shot, I always do wonder, "What did they think would happen?" But it's equally reasonable IMO to ask this question of the cops - "What did they think would happen? What was the value of this purported evidence? What were the risks involved? Were there alternative tactics that could have been used?"

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This sounds like it would be an argument against almost all police raids.

Isn't it a very good argument against any police raid that has such a small reward? Getting drugs in the mail is a very common crime that doesn't require midnight raids with guns. Raids are risky and should only be done when the benefits outweigh the risks.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Isn't it a very good argument against any police raid that has such a small reward? Getting drugs in the mail is a very common crime that doesn't require midnight raids with guns. Raids are risky and should only be done when the benefits outweigh the risks.

It's not about some nobody getting their stash delivered by the mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to use her house for his mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to user her phone number. She let him use her rental car and the body of one of his associates turned up in it. He says she was looking after money for him. If you do that, you'd be a fool not to think you might get raided if the police try to take down the drug dealer.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I get that you don’t like the riots and associated violence. Neither do I. It’s tragic that it’s come to this.

But when it comes to the underlying issues, all you do is mouth vague platitudes.

People are angry. And they have a right to be angry. They’re dealing with literal oppression.

What specific remedy do you offer these people?

I started a thread on proposed police reforms for Portland. Concrete and specific reforms. Some of the ideas I believed to be good, others bad, others I didn't have any sort of strong opinion either way. Reform takes effort, thought, and work.

[Delphic Oracle]

*circumstantial slander*

"...and so obviously she deserved it."

I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone I've known in my adult life who died that I couldn't have made a short novel of worst-possible-light interpretations of things they did in their lives.

And that's just what I witnessed or they shared.

[wasapi]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's not about some nobody getting their stash delivered by the mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to use her house for his mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to user her phone number. She let him use her rental car and the body of one of his associates turned up in it. He says she was looking after money for him. If you do that, you'd be a fool not to think you might get raided if the police try to take down the drug dealer.

It sounds like you are suggesting she got what she deserved, and no one should find it shocking?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"...and so obviously she deserved it."

What part of nothing does "deserve" have to do with this?