Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[johnny karate]

But nobody is saying that, not even me.

What is being said is more like this:

"and therefore, this person was living the kind of life where they were a criminal and surrounding themselves with other criminals, and when leading that kind of life - the way their life ended is not entirely unforseeable and is the kind of fate that sometimes does befall the criminally inclined. This may not mean they 'deserved it' in some karmic sense, but it does mean that their fate was tied to their choices and that they probably aren't a great candidate for martyrhood / sainthood as they're being presented."

If we're going to be burning down the country over someone, I insist they not be a POS. Is that so much to ask?

Well, you are actually already on record advocating mass murder, so it’s not much of a stretch to think that the violent fantasies of you and likeminded people might not be bound by anything like reason or compassion.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Ah yes, the perfectly unfalsifiable belief. Every piece of information - no matter how contradictory or nonsensical - fits conveniently into your predetermined narrative.

OK, now you're just a caricature of yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

If you have evidence on that score, please feel free to present it. It is predictable, however, that you are not interested in talking about the lie that we have heard repeated ad nauseum that the cops had the wrong address. It is quite clear that they had a warrant for Breona's address and that there was no mistake.

And this bit about "and therefore she deserved to die" is just crap. I would like to know why I was lied to repeatedly about the cops going to her address by mistake. It's a pretty important point. Then we could get to the fact that she was not in bed when she was shot (another common claim that turned out to be false). Her lawyer apologized for saying that she had not been involved romantically with the dealer for two years; turned out there were some texts that contradicted him.

So what appeared to be an open and shut case of cops murdering a black woman turns out not to be quite that open and shut. But the Breonna Truthers of course didn't start from the evidence, so the fact that a lot of their claims turned out to be false doesn't matter. They knew the cops were guilty the moment Breonna's race was revealed.

I’m not aware that anyone here is even making the claim you’re alleging. Why should I feel compelled to address it or discuss it?

As far as my claims, the evidence for them has been presented repeatedly in this thread. It’s seems like someone interested in having an actual discussion would have known that.

 

[johnny karate]

OK, now you're just a caricature of yourself.

I’m devastated that you think so. Your opinion is of great value to me.

 

[Mumbles]

Mrs Don mentioned a Facebook post to this effect this morning.

A white guy who grew up in a nice suburb saying that if he and his buddies were pulled by the police all the time when they were young then the police would have found drugs and the kids would have ended up in jail - instead they got to go to college.

Likely false. The police would likely have shook their fingers at them, or reported them to their parents for discipline, but seen them as "good kids who made a bad choice".

This assumes, of course, that the drugs were completely obvious. If they had time to hide them, they'd likely get away with it had they been pulled over.

 

[Mumbles]

It would be better if it was in here.

Please proved links to corroborate your claims.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for you:
Louisville postal inspector: No ‘packages of interest’ at slain EMT Breonna Taylor’s home.

A more damning writeup is in the Washington Post, by Radley Balko, which this sentence links to. He points out, among other things, the fact that the police basically used the exact same language for each of the search warrants they obtained, all of which were predicated on "dangerous" drug dealers being in the homes (notably false in Taylor's case), that their observation was so keen that they completely missed the fact that her boyfriend was in the home at the time, and the observation that Louisville police time their "Police!" announcement to be in time with the first battering ram strike when they serve no-knock warrants. - good luck hearing the announcement over the pounding, particularly if you have no reason to expect either one.

 

[shuttlt]

A more damning writeup is in the Washington Post, by Radley Balko, which this sentence links to. He points out, among other things, the fact that the police basically used the exact same language for each of the search warrants they obtained, all of which were predicated on "dangerous" drug dealers being in the homes (notably false in Taylor's case), that their observation was so keen that they completely missed the fact that her boyfriend was in the home at the time, and the observation that Louisville police time their "Police!" announcement to be in time with the first battering ram strike when they serve no-knock warrants. - good luck hearing the announcement over the pounding, particularly if you have no reason to expect either one.

Isn't this at least somewhat rendered moot since the police decided not to go with a no knock raid?

 

[Sherkeu]

It would be better if it was in here.

Please proved links to corroborate your claims.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for you:
Louisville postal inspector: No ‘packages of interest’ at slain EMT Breonna Taylor’s home.

I'm not providing second hand info- you can decide if you believe what is out there and it is NOT hard to find it.
No 'packages of interest' is a pretty tame statement. Glover listed his address at Breonnas many times. Why would it be on some record 'of interest'?
All they needed to know is that things meant for him were mailed to her address, perhaps with her name, and that he went and picked them up.

Are you saying he did not pick up packages from her place? And there was NO reason at all to go there? Even in the daytime?

 

[Ranb]

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

Aren't grand jury hearings closed? It is the DA's show right? If the DA isn't trying to get an indictment, it's not going to happen?

Ranb

 

[Skeptic Tank]

No, it's because the matter was resolved 4 years ago to LMPD's satisfaction.

Also, you don't know jack about my motives for concluding that she was not involved in that killing.

This car thing is part of a posthumous list police cobbled together to make her look bad. Someone asked why I think white supremacists are using this as part of a smear campaign and here you are, implying she must be guilty of more than renting a car for someone else's use. The cops don't even think that.

If someone decided they wanted to cobble together a list to make me look bad, they'd have to settle for things that didn't include having a dead drug dealer end up in my rental car, having another drug dealer moving packages and money at my house, etc.

Hearing she was "allowed to resign" as an EMT under suspicion of taking drugs from work, too, by the way. Not sure if true, but that list of stuff to make me look bad wouldn't even include an accusation of that sort.

Maybe if such a list CAN be assembled about a person, that says something in and of itself?

 

[Mumbles]

Isn't this at least somewhat rendered moot since the police decided not to go with a no knock raid?

Well, that's what the police are saying. You know, the same ones that didn't turn their body cams on, that lied to get a judge to rubber-stamp a copy-and-pasted search warrant, and that falsely claimed that the USPS inspector general had notified them of "suspicious packages" going to her house.

 

[shuttlt]

Even if every single lie told about Breonna Taylor in this thread and the media were true, even if every single unverified variable is stacked against her, she should still be alive.

You are analysing this as if the police have a Gods eye view of the situation and the bonny hand of the police points at Breonna Taylor and a voice calls out "YOU BREONNA TAYLOR HAVE BEEN JUDGED WANTING" and then bullets ring out. Like I said before, it wouldn't matter if she spent her days raising money for blind kittens.... once her boyfriend had fired, the police had a self defence justification for firing back.

The whole "Oh I'll care about police violence as soon as you give me a 'pure' victim to worry about" thing is obvious for what it is.

What has the purity of the victim got to do with whether or not their house getting raided, or the victim getting shot was justified? The things about her that have come out give us an idea of why her house got raided, but that's not based on counting the number of blemishes on her soul.

 

[RolandRat]

RolandRat seemed to be disputing that in the case that possible couldn't rule out the possibility that bystanders might get hit.

Correct. In my opinion, police have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of innocent people. Even if this puts their own safety at risk.

If they are allowed to put their own safety above that of innocent people then just let them nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, that's what the police are saying.

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.

You know, the same ones that didn't turn their body cams on,

Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?

that lied to get a judge to rubber-stamp a copy-and-pasted search warrant, and that falsely claimed that the USPS inspector general had notified them of "suspicious packages" going to her house.

We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

 

[portlandatheist]

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.


Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?


We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

From the wikipedia article:

This warrant states that this event was verified "through a US Postal Inspector". In May 2020, the U.S. postal inspector in Louisville publicly announced that the collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they concluded, "There's [sic] no packages of interest going there." The public revelation put the investigation and especially the warrant into question and resulted in an internal investigation.[19]

 

[shuttlt]

Correct. In my opinion, police have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of innocent people. Even if this puts their own safety at risk.

If they are allowed to put their own safety above that of innocent people then just let them nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

You have very black and white thinking. Either police can not shoot if there is anything greater than 0% risk of error, or they can just kill who they like. Nonsense, they need to take reasonable care and act on reasonable belief and with an amount of force proportionate to the threat as they perceive it. This isn't just an US thing. European Human Rights Law says the same thing about use of force by police. I would be stunned if law enforcement anywhere in the world operated on the idealized platonic principles that you want US police to follow.

 

[Sherkeu]

Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?


We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

The EMT-ish cop that arrived to assist had on a bodycam. There is video of him helping out the officer shot in the leg. Maybe you all can scour it for bodycams.

You can see him arrive and then break down a fence to get to the location and within seconds he has additional medical supplies.

 

[shuttlt]

From the wikipedia article:

Does that disagree with warrant? When he says there were no "packages of interest" going there, is he saying that there were no packages going there for Glover, or no "packages of interest" going there for Glover? Are packages from Glover and packages of interest for Glover identical sets? Glover says he received packages there. The police saw him pick up packages from there. Do you have a better quote? Otherwise, I don't see how you make the leap to them lying.

 

[shuttlt]

The EMT-ish cop that arrived to assist had on a bodycam. There is video of him helping out the officer shot in the leg. Maybe you all can scour it for bodycams.

You can see him arrive and then break down a fence to get to the location and within seconds he has additional medical supplies.

I don't see one on the cop who got shot, but who knows, the video is chaotic and dark.

 

[portlandatheist]

Does that disagree with warrant? When he says there were no "packages of interest" going there, is he saying that there were no packages going there for Glover, or no "packages of interest" going there for Glover? Are packages from Glover and packages of interest for Glover identical sets? Glover says he received packages there. The police saw him pick up packages from there. Do you have a better quote? Otherwise, I don't see how you make the leap to them lying.

the warrant says it was verified "through a US Postal Inspector" but the Postal Inspector refutes that statement.