Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[rockinkt]

...why should the police be granted a warrant to conduct a potentially dangerous raid on a house in the middle of a night over packages that are literally of no interest?

The didn't. It's that simple.

(edited to add) The package(s) that may or may not be found at Taylor's residence was just one aspect of the reason for the warrant. The packages would be interesting to the police if they contained drugs. They were not searching for "interesting" packages - but "all" packages and anything else that they may find in the residence of a known associate of a drug dealer who was using (by the drug dealer's own claim) the person at that residence (Taylor) as a person who moved or held money and drugs for the drug dealer.
The raid was done to coincide with the raid on other residences. They were done simultaneously to stop one party possibly warning another party at a different residence.

 

[banquetbear]

They didn't. It's that simple.

...they didn't what?

 

[rockinkt]

...they didn't what?

Sorry - I shouldn't have been so abrupt.
I edited my post and gave a full (I think) explanation.

 

[banquetbear]

The package(s) that may or may not be found at Taylor's residence was just one aspect of the reason for the warrant.

...so this was a fishing expedition?

The packages would be interesting to the police if they contained drugs.

So these were Schrödinger's packages?

They were not searching for "interesting" packages - but "all" packages and anything else that they may find in the residence of a known associate of a drug dealer

So it was a fishing expedition.

Do you think the police be granted a warrant to conduct a potentially dangerous raid on a house in the middle of a night for a fishing expedition?

who was using (by the drug dealer's own claim) the person at that residence (Taylor) as a person who moved or held money and drugs for the drug dealer.

Was this information on the warrant?

The raid was done to coincide with the raid on other residences. They were done simultaneously to stop one party possibley warning another party at a different residence.

Well it looks like the police ****** this one up though, doesn't it? It ended with two people shot, one person dead. Do you think the police could have executed the search warrant in a way that nobody ended up dead?

From the Washington Post:

"Here’s what we can say: The portion of the warrant affidavit that requested a no-knock raid was the exact same language used in the other four warrants. It stated that drug dealers are dangerous and might dispose of evidence if police knock and announce. It contained no particularized information as to why Taylor herself was dangerous or presented such a threat. And that, according to the Supreme Court, is not sufficient to grant a no-knock warrant. Yet Shaw granted it anyway. Perhaps she provided more scrutiny to the other parts of the affidavit. But she did not ask for more evidence in the no-knock portion. And she should have.

The only possible defense of Shaw here is that, as regular readers of this page know, judges seem to grant no-knocks when they aren’t merited and in defiance of Supreme Court precedent with regularity. And there’s no harm done if the no-knock position of the warrant is illegal, because the same Supreme Court has said the Exclusionary Rule doesn’t apply. And that is precisely the problem."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Do you agree or disagree with that summation? The police considered Taylor a “soft target — not a threat, and not a major player in the drug investigation." The police thought they were going to find drugs and money in the house but they didn't. Perhaps they need to investigate a bit harder before they tell a judge that they need a no-knock warrant?

 

[PhantomWolf]

...so this was a fishing expedition?



So these were Schrödinger's packages?



So it was a fishing expedition.

Do you think the police be granted a warrant to conduct a potentially dangerous raid on a house in the middle of a night for a fishing expedition?




Was this information on the warrant?



Well it looks like the police ****** this one up though, doesn't it? It ended with two people shot, one person dead. Do you think the police could have executed the search warrant in a way that nobody ended up dead?

From the Washington Post:

"Here’s what we can say: The portion of the warrant affidavit that requested a no-knock raid was the exact same language used in the other four warrants. It stated that drug dealers are dangerous and might dispose of evidence if police knock and announce. It contained no particularized information as to why Taylor herself was dangerous or presented such a threat. And that, according to the Supreme Court, is not sufficient to grant a no-knock warrant. Yet Shaw granted it anyway. Perhaps she provided more scrutiny to the other parts of the affidavit. But she did not ask for more evidence in the no-knock portion. And she should have.

The only possible defense of Shaw here is that, as regular readers of this page know, judges seem to grant no-knocks when they aren’t merited and in defiance of Supreme Court precedent with regularity. And there’s no harm done if the no-knock position of the warrant is illegal, because the same Supreme Court has said the Exclusionary Rule doesn’t apply. And that is precisely the problem."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Do you agree or disagree with that summation? The police considered Taylor a “soft target — not a threat, and not a major player in the drug investigation." The police thought they were going to find drugs and money in the house but they didn't. Perhaps they need to investigate a bit harder before they tell a judge that they need a no-knock warrant?

You realise that you are arguing that there was no danger to the police at an address where a person in-residence picked up a gun and started shooting at the police when they attempted entrance, right?

 

[banquetbear]

You realise that you are arguing that there was no danger to the police at an address where a person in-residence picked up a gun and started shooting at the police when they attempted entrance, right?

...I didn't make this argument at all. Did you quote my post by mistake?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

That is exactly the point that ShutIt is making!

Do you see the words "suspicious" or "drugs" or "illegal" or "interesting" or "good"or "bad" in your quote that I highlighted?

The police stated that there were "packages" being delivered to Taylor's address.
There was no adjectives or descriptors used in front or after the word "package" by the police in their search warrant application. Packages. Period.

The postal inspector qualified the term "packages" by using the phrase "packages of interest". That is totally different than the word "package" all by itself.

"Packages of interest" implies that the packages were known by the postal service to be something other than normal ordinary packages containing normal legal things.

"Packages" and "packages of interest" are two different things. It's just that simple.

This doesn't follow, though. If the police asked about packages delivered to Taylor's address for Glover, with Glover's name on them, then they are interested in packages delivered to Taylor's address with Glover's name on them. They are not interested in packages delivered to Taylor's address with hers or the other resident's names. Glover's packages are the only "packages of interest", regardless of if they contain drugs or comic books. The police are interested in the packages themselves, and the post office can't distinguish between normal ordinary packages containing normal legal things and packages that aren't. The police don't and shouldn't care about "packages" being delivered to Taylor's address, when those packages don't bear their target's name! Packages aren't suspicious. Packages addressed to those other than residents may be suspicious. They still might not be "packages of interest [to the police]". it's just that simple.

 

[Minoosh]

There are many reasons not hear or know what is going on outside your door. That is why a blanket "right" to shoot anyone who enters your house is absurd.

There is a widespread doctrine in the U.S. that people have exactly that right. You can claim self-defense even for shooting through a door if someone is trying to get in. It would work better in some states than others.

 

[rockinkt]

...so this was a fishing expedition?



So these were Schrödinger's packages?



So it was a fishing expedition.

Do you think the police be granted a warrant to conduct a potentially dangerous raid on a house in the middle of a night for a fishing expedition?




Was this information on the warrant?



Well it looks like the police ****** this one up though, doesn't it? It ended with two people shot, one person dead. Do you think the police could have executed the search warrant in a way that nobody ended up dead?

From the Washington Post:

"Here’s what we can say: The portion of the warrant affidavit that requested a no-knock raid was the exact same language used in the other four warrants. It stated that drug dealers are dangerous and might dispose of evidence if police knock and announce. It contained no particularized information as to why Taylor herself was dangerous or presented such a threat. And that, according to the Supreme Court, is not sufficient to grant a no-knock warrant. Yet Shaw granted it anyway. Perhaps she provided more scrutiny to the other parts of the affidavit. But she did not ask for more evidence in the no-knock portion. And she should have.

The only possible defense of Shaw here is that, as regular readers of this page know, judges seem to grant no-knocks when they aren’t merited and in defiance of Supreme Court precedent with regularity. And there’s no harm done if the no-knock position of the warrant is illegal, because the same Supreme Court has said the Exclusionary Rule doesn’t apply. And that is precisely the problem."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Do you agree or disagree with that summation? The police considered Taylor a “soft target — not a threat, and not a major player in the drug investigation." The police thought they were going to find drugs and money in the house but they didn't. Perhaps they need to investigate a bit harder before they tell a judge that they need a no-knock warrant?

The answers to your questions about the warrant are in the thread.
Do yourself and everybody else a favor and read the thread.
Posting questions that have already been answered in the thread is not productive or helpful.

I will summarize:

Posts in this thread show that it was not carried out as a no-knock warrant. The thread also has posts definitively showing that the no-knock was cancelled by radio before they entered the apartment block.
There is a witness who testified that the police announced themselves well before they entered.

I discussed no-knock previously in this thread and in others. It is terribly overused and should be almost eliminated except for the most serious of cases with the highest amount of probability that it is absolutely needed.
They are needed though.
I lost a police officer friend whom I trained with back in the day to a search warrant gone wrong. The drug dealer had a rifle and was barricaded behind some furniture in his house. He shot Sgt. Larry Young as he entered the home. The scumbag dealer was killed but not before he wounded another friend - Cst. Al Cattley - in the leg.

The situation that resulted in the death of Ms. Taylor was not caused by a no-knock warrant.

 

[rockinkt]

This doesn't follow, though. If the police asked about packages delivered to Taylor's address for Glover, with Glover's name on them, then they are interested in packages delivered to Taylor's address with Glover's name on them. They are not interested in packages delivered to Taylor's address with hers or the other resident's names. Glover's packages are the only "packages of interest", regardless of if they contain drugs or comic books. The police are interested in the packages themselves, and the post office can't distinguish between normal ordinary packages containing normal legal things and packages that aren't. The police don't and shouldn't care about "packages" being delivered to Taylor's address, when those packages don't bear their target's name! Packages aren't suspicious. Packages addressed to those other than residents may be suspicious. They still might not be "packages of interest [to the police]". it's just that simple.

Do you honestly think that criminals would address things to their own name if they are using someone else's house as a drop?

 

[shuttlt]

Do you honestly think that criminals would address things to their own name if they are using someone else's house as a drop?

These same criminals talked about their illegal **** repeatedly on a recorded prison phone, so who knows?

 

[rockinkt]

There is a widespread doctrine in the U.S. that people have exactly that right. You can claim self-defense even for shooting through a door if someone is trying to get in. It would work better in some states than others.

You can claim anything you want. Proving it in court is another matter.

 

[rockinkt]

These same criminals talked about their illegal **** repeatedly on a recorded prison phone, so who knows?

I would have caught a lot fewer bad guys if they were half as smart as they thought they were!

 

[banquetbear]

The answers to your questions about the warrant are in the thread.

...the questions weren't directed at the police, nor the judge who signed the warrant. They were directed at you. You are welcome to choose not to answer.

Do yourself and everybody else a favor and read the thread.

I've read it.

Posting questions that have already been answered in the thread is not productive or helpful.

Pretending you've answered these questions to my satisfaction is not productive or helpful.

I will summarize:

Posts in this thread show that it was not carried out as a no-knock warrant.

I will summarize:

Posts in this thread have shown that while the police claim it wasn't carried out as a no-knock warrant: the case they presented to the judge was enough for the judge to sign a no-knock warrant, and the warrant they used in order to conduct the raid was a no-knock warrant. Regardless of what they actually did when they got to the door, these facts are still important and relevant.

The thread also has posts definitively showing that the no-knock was cancelled by radio before they entered the apartment block.

Completely beside the point.

There is a witness who testified that the police announced themselves well before they entered.

The only independent witness who stated they heard the police announce themselves had in their initial interview stated that he didn't hear the police announce themselves. Posting statements like this that have already been clarified in the thread is not productive or helpful.

I discussed no-knock previously in this thread and in others. It is terribly overused and should be almost eliminated except for the most serious of cases with the highest amount of probability that it is absolutely needed.

So you concur with the statement made by the Washington Post? Yes or no?

They are needed though.

But not in this case, you would agree?

I lost a police officer friend whom I trained with back in the day to a search warrant gone wrong. The drug dealer had a rifle and was barricaded behind some furniture in his house. He shot Sgt. Larry Young as he entered the home. The scumbag dealer was killed but not before he wounded another friend - Cst. Al Cattley - in the leg.

I'm sorry you lost your friend.

The situation that resulted in the death of Ms. Taylor was not caused by a no-knock warrant.

The situation that resulted in the death of Ms. Taylor was the result of police over reach in order to obtain a no-knock warrant. The police ****** up here.

And you've still left some of my questions unanswered. Please don't assume I haven't read the thread or am unfamiliar with the case. I have reasons for my questions: you don't have to answer them but I didn't ask them for ***** and giggles.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A motion has been filed to publish the grand jury records. If it's successful, odds are good we'll see proof that the AG spiked the case and is using the anonymity of the grand jury as a political shield.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...kentucky-ag-used-jurors-shield-seeks-n1241294

 

[johnny karate]

That is exactly the point that ShutIt is making!

Do you see the words "suspicious" or "drugs" or "illegal" or "interesting" or "good"or "bad" in your quote that I highlighted?

The police stated that there were "packages" being delivered to Taylor's address.
There was no adjectives or descriptors used in front or after the word "package" by the police in their search warrant application. Packages. Period.

The postal inspector qualified the term "packages" by using the phrase "packages of interest". That is totally different than the word "package" all by itself.

"Packages of interest" implies that the packages were known by the postal service to be something other than normal ordinary packages containing normal legal things.

"Packages" and "packages of interest" are two different things. It's just that simple.

That wasn’t even remotely the argument I was making in the post you quoted, and honestly, I’m not sure how you got it so wildly wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

The didn't. It's that simple.

(edited to add) The package(s) that may or may not be found at Taylor's residence was just one aspect of the reason for the warrant. The packages would be interesting to the police if they contained drugs. They were not searching for "interesting" packages - but "all" packages and anything else that they may find in the residence of a known associate of a drug dealer who was using (by the drug dealer's own claim) the person at that residence (Taylor) as a person who moved or held money and drugs for the drug dealer.
The raid was done to coincide with the raid on other residences. They were done simultaneously to stop one party possibly warning another party at a different residence.

The postal inspector determined there were no packages of interest going to Breonna Taylor’s home.

The police claimed to have spoken to the postal inspector about packages going to Breonna Taylor’s home.

Why were the police then suspicious of these packages?

 

[Minoosh]

You can claim anything you want. Proving it in court is another matter.

If it even goes to court. In many states it wouldn't. The U.S. is not Canada.

I mean, what are we talking about here? Walker had the right to shoot at anyone busting down the door, if he didn't know they were cops. So he wasn't charged. Now, maybe because that's because there was no political appetite for it in the aftermath of Breonna Taylor's death. But in many less fraught situations, people have never even been charged. Someone rattles your doorknob at 3 a.m. - BOOM! Depending on the state, this may never go to court.

Though technically the burden of proof is on the person claiming self-defense, as soon as that claim is made, it's the state that has to prove you weren't afraid for your life or your family's.

 

[shuttlt]

The postal inspector determined there were no packages of interest going to Breonna Taylor’s home.

The police claimed to have spoken to the postal inspector about packages going to Breonna Taylor’s home.

Why were the police then suspicious of these packages?

They don't say that they were suspicious of the packages beyond that they were for Glover and addressed to Taylor. The packages are further evidence that a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment. On that basis, they argue that there may be evidence of the drug dealers illegal drug dealing at the apartment.

The thing that is suspicious is that a drug dealer seems to be running his life out of her home while living somewhere else.

Maybe you think that really they did think that the packages contained drugs? Fine, but they don't claim it in the warrant. Maybe you think that without finding anything illegal in the packages there is no reason to search her apartment, or at least not to do it in the middle of the night..? All fine. None of that alters the fact that they don't claim to believe the content of the packages is anything illegal.

 

[Bob001]

You can claim anything you want. Proving it in court is another matter.

Most U.S. states support a form of the castle doctrine. It would be up to a prosecutor to prove that a defendant knew or should have known that he was shooting at cops, not up to the defendant to prove otherwise. In this particular case, when unknown parties were smashing down the door in the middle of the night, and when the resident thought that the "visitor" could be Taylor's ex-boyfriend, it's hard to imagine a jury would convict. People have been acquitted or not even charged when they've mistaken their own family members for intruders and killed them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Those psycho-killer cops, on the other hand, better pray they never stand in front of a jury.