Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[shuttlt]

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.

It would come down to the testimony of the officers vs the testimony of Walker with maybe a little ballistics. There is no appetite for that just now. If you listen to the statements from the first officer through the door, it sounds a lot like Walker should have seen that they were police. Walker's account is obviously different.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

If I have found the correct document:
https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/kentucky/2016/chapter-503/section-.055/section-.055.pdf

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

I think to invoke castle doctrine one would have to say that the police entry into the apartment was illegal. Maybe we think that it was, but it looks like that argument would have to be won in the never going to happen scenario where Walker is prosecuted and invokes castle doctrine.

 

[ponderingturtle]

See the prosecutor was never even looking for charges for killing her.

"Kevin Glogower, who represents the unidentified grand juror, said Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) framed responsibility for the charging decision differently Monday than when he announced it last week. Cameron initially said the jury agreed with prosecutors that the only warranted charges were for wanton endangerment against one officer, but he later said those charges were the only indictments his office recommended."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/28/breonna-taylor-grand-juror/

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

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

It will be interesting to see if racism is in any way relevant to this case. Because that hasn't been a major point of discussion here but that is the only thing all the rioting around the country has been about.

 

[banquetbear]

The packages are further evidence that a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment.

...based on everything we know now a drug dealer was NOT running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment. So its entirely fair to look back at the evidence the police provided and ask the question were the suspicions the police had reasonable, and was it enough to justify a no-knock warrant? On point (9) of the warrant it states that the

"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."

But here's the thing.

As a person who has happened to have moved houses a few times in my life that through training and experience it is not uncommon for me to not notify everyone that I've moved from one house to the next, that sometimes my mail gets delivered to my old address, and I get a phone call from them to come over and pick that mail up.

As a person who has happened to have a boarder live at my parents garage 15 years ago through training and experience it is not uncommon for mail for that boarder to still be posted to my parents house, in fact a letter addressed to that boarder arrived in the mail yesterday.

In real life **** happens. We all know that what the police put down on the warrant was default, boilerplate language that they probably use on almost every warrant. You state that it was "further evidence that a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment." But that really isn't true. The fact that Glover had been receiving packages from Taylor was only evidence that Glover had been receiving packages from Taylor. That "a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment" was merely supposition: supported by nothing else other than "training and experience". This process of relying on "training and experience, of "ticking the boxes" and "rubber stamping the warrant" got a policeman shot and a women killed. If you are going to be deliberately putting people in the firing line you have to have more than this.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

See the prosecutor was never even looking for charges for killing her.

"Kevin Glogower, who represents the unidentified grand juror, said Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) framed responsibility for the charging decision differently Monday than when he announced it last week. Cameron initially said the jury agreed with prosecutors that the only warranted charges were for wanton endangerment against one officer, but he later said those charges were the only indictments his office recommended."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/28/breonna-taylor-grand-juror/

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

no-bill from grand juries are rare. The way the grand jury works, all the cards are stacked in the prosecutor's hands. It's not even an adversarial system. The prosecutor chooses what evidence to present (or not) and asks the jury whether there is even a chance of a guilty verdict, which is a very low standard indeed. There's no defense attorney to challenge such evidence or to offer exonerating evidence. The prosecutor has complete narrative control.

A no-bill is a pretty strong indication that the prosecutor is either incompetent or is just taking a dive. I don't think this prosecutor is incompetent.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

Some states seem determined to pass laws protecting homeowners or residents in as many situations as possible - and in some cases allowing deadly force to protect property, not lives. In Florida there's a caveat that you can't shoot a police officer, but if you don't know it's a cop, or claim you didn't, it's probably OK. I think one effect of these laws is to give the cops/DA more discretion to either prosecute or make something go away based on local, unwritten standards. There could be a subtle (or not so subtle) double standard, depending on who shoots and who dies. The kind of injustices that fuel feelings of rage in some communities.

Given the erosion of political norms I worry about the social ones, as well. It seems like "feeling threatened" could come to encompass more and more justifications for when it 's OK to shoot someone.

I can imagine Mumbles chiming in and saying, "Now y'all are getting it."

 

[Minoosh]

As someone as mentioned the cops could have chosen to pick one protocol and stick to it instead of combining elements of knock/no knock to come up with a terrible outcome for everybody.

Yell "Police!" loudly and repeatedly, preferably with a bullhorn directly under a bedroom window, then break down the door almost immediately. "We are here to serve a search warrant on these premises" might be a good thing to say. Swarm the home and find naked, unarmed people.

Or, knock on the door loudly, say the same thing a few times, then fall back and give the residents some minutes to actually answer the knock. Better yet approach it in any number of less confrontational ways, such as catching her when she's returning home and presenting the search warrant. Or do it in the daytime, knock and wait. Yes, that gives someone to flush a small quantity of drugs. But that's true of practically any normal search warrant, as far as I can tell. Those get served all the time with police still coming away with useful evidence.

The adrenaline-pumped nature of a middle-of-the-night full-on assault lends itself to bad outcomes IMO. Especially with bad intel that she was alone in the apartment. They'd been watching her place for months, seems like they could have figured it out. "No resources" isn't a good excuse in this case. They expended tons of resources connecting her to Glover. It wasn't worth it to then risk lives on poor execution. It wasn't ever going to be worth it.

 

[Minoosh]

See the prosecutor was never even looking for charges for killing her.

"Kevin Glogower, who represents the unidentified grand juror, said Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) framed responsibility for the charging decision differently Monday than when he announced it last week. Cameron initially said the jury agreed with prosecutors that the only warranted charges were for wanton endangerment against one officer, but he later said those charges were the only indictments his office recommended."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/28/breonna-taylor-grand-juror/

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

What then is the remedy? The city is already paying out $12 million - that's "justice for Breonna," whatever that means. Cameron did make it sound that the grand jury "agreed" not to charge the 3 inside cops, despite the IMO dishonest framing of the case. I even think there's a rationale for not seeking indictments against the 3 cops in the apartment: They were under fire and shooting in the direction of a target. The guy outside was simply firing blind. I don't think that would be such a tough sell. Would it have made any difference if the grand jury had been asked to consider additional indictments? I doubt it.

I hope there aren't any more riots or shootings or worse yet deaths connected with this case. It's done. Prosecutors are manipulative bastards. Grand juries are there to be manipulated by prosecutors. That's just the process. The city screwed up; everyone knows it ... at this point IMO it's done. But here we are talking about it anyway.

One place to apply pressure at this point would be on higher-ups that influence the policy on seeking no-knock warrants to begin with. That might have been a stipulation of the settlement with Breonna's family. Something was said about training. Don't know if that will make any difference, but multimillion-dollar settlements do occasionally get officials' attention.

 

[shuttlt]

...based on everything we know now a drug dealer was NOT running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment.

His bank account was registered there, he gave out her phone number as his phone number, the police surveillance picked him up collecting a package from there, he says he picked up packages there, he says he stored tens of thousands of dollars with her. There is at least reason to think he may have been running aspects of his life from there. Maybe he wasn't, it doesn't matter, all that matters to my argument is that that was what the police argued based on the evidence. It doesn't convince you? That's not a problem.

So its entirely fair to look back at the evidence the police provided and ask the question were the suspicions the police had reasonable, and was it enough to justify a no-knock warrant? On point (9) of the warrant it states that the

"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."

But here's the thing.

As a person who has happened to have moved houses a few times in my life that through training and experience it is not uncommon for me to not notify everyone that I've moved from one house to the next, that sometimes my mail gets delivered to my old address, and I get a phone call from them to come over and pick that mail up.

Sure. It happens. There is no certainty here. I haven't looked into the standard of certainty needed for a no-knock warrant, so I'm not arguing about that.

As a person who has happened to have a boarder live at my parents garage 15 years ago through training and experience it is not uncommon for mail for that boarder to still be posted to my parents house, in fact a letter addressed to that boarder arrived in the mail yesterday.

Sure, that's happened to me too. I think it would be a little different if the home owner had been in a relationship with the boarder who had been a drug dealer at the time of the relationship and the boarder was still off again on again sleeping with the home owner while collecting their mail there and the homeowner was speaking to the drug dealer in jail and helping to get hold of members of the drug dealers gang at the drug houses. That feels like a closer, and more suspicious relationship.

In real life **** happens. We all know that what the police put down on the warrant was default, boilerplate language that they probably use on almost every warrant. You state that it was "further evidence that a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment." But that really isn't true. The fact that Glover had been receiving packages from Taylor was only evidence that Glover had been receiving packages from Taylor. That "a drug dealer was running parts of his life from Taylor's apartment" was merely supposition: supported by nothing else other than "training and experience". This process of relying on "training and experience, of "ticking the boxes" and "rubber stamping the warrant" got a policeman shot and a women killed. If you are going to be deliberately putting people in the firing line you have to have more than this.

I'm not talking about whether the warrant was justified. I don't know what the standard of certainty is that warrants are supposed to require, and it's really not particularly interesting to me at the moment. I have seen legal opinion that I've found convincing in the past describe the warrant as "thin", so I certainly don't have a fixed idea in my head that the warrant should have been granted. I do think you are greatly underplaying the links between Taylor and Glover in you analogy though.

 

[banquetbear]

His bank account was registered there,

...there was nothing on the warrant about a bank account.

he gave out her phone number as his phone number,

There was nothing on the warrant about a phone number.

the police surveillance picked him up collecting a package from there,

Sure. But we've already talked about this. Picking up the package isn't, by itself, inherently suspicious. It suspicious because the police stated that in their training and experience that it isn't uncommon for drug dealers to do this. But we all know that the police got it wrong here. So perhaps "training and experience" shouldn't be enough to grant a no-knock warrant.

he says he picked up packages there,

This wasn't on the warrant.

he says he stored tens of thousands of dollars with her.

This wasn't on the warrant, he has since withdrawn that claim, and the police did not find thousands of dollars with her.

There is at least reason to think he may have been running aspects of his life from there.

And almost every single thing that lead you to believe that he "may have been running aspects of his life from there" wasn't on the warrant. That matters. You can't make a case retrospectively that a no-knock warrant on Taylors house was justified. All they presented was the fact that they claim a US postal inspector stated that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylors address and that they witnessed him once pick up a package from her address. The claim about the US postal inspector is in dispute. So that just leaves picking up a package once.

Maybe he wasn't,

He wasn't.

it doesn't matter,

It does.

all that matters to my argument is that that was what the police argued based on the evidence.

What matters is what the police presented to the judge to obtain a no-knock warrant.

It doesn't convince you? That's not a problem.

Its only not a problem if you think that no-knock warrant's should be granted based on ******** evidence. Its entirely reasonable to look at what happened here and say "yes, there is a problem, lets fix it so that it doesn't happen again." But declaring that "that's not a problem" isn't the way forward.

Sure, that's happened to me too. I think it would be a little different if the home owner had been in a relationship with the boarder who had been a drug dealer at the time of the relationship and the boarder was still off again on again sleeping with the home owner while collecting their mail there and the homeowner was speaking to the drug dealer in jail and helping to get hold of members of the drug dealers gang at the drug houses.

It sure as **** looks to me as if you are trying to make Breonna Taylor look guilt of something here. But we have zero evidence that she did anything wrong. So no: I don't think it would have made a difference. Because you can easily twist the narrative to make anyone, even my parents or the boarder, look guilty. Maybe the boarder smoked weed in the back garden. So now you can claim my parents were harbouring a known drug criminal. That is exactly what you have done here. Its a disingenuous tactic.

That feels like a closer, and more suspicious relationship.

Not really. Certainly not something worthy of a late-night-no-knock warrant.

I do think you are greatly underplaying the links between Taylor and Glover in you analogy though.

I think you are greatly overplaying the links between Taylor and Glover in real life. The analogy really isn't that important. What actually happened is what actually matters.

 

[rockinkt]

...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.



I've read it.



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



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.



Completely beside the point.



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.



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



But not in this case, you would agree?



I'm sorry you lost your friend.



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.

I answered your questions previously in the thread and again in my latest responses to you. I didn't comment specifically on the article because the article was full of half-truths and outright bogus statements - things I or others had already addressed.

Your highlighted statement is such a stretch as to defy belief.
Taylor was once intimately involved with a drug dealer who stated to other drug dealing associates that Taylor was still involved in his drug dealing business.
Taylor's new boyfriend gave a reason as to why he thought the police were not police. He thought they were bad guys going to rob them.
Now, why he would think that criminals would choose to make an armed home invasion into a home that was occupied by law abiding people living on the lower end of the income spectrum with tons of neighbors around is beyond me.

Criminals go for high scores when they do home invasions. Home invasions are high risk. After all, they could get shot as they go through the door. Home invaders go for wealth in the form of lots of cash and jewellery. Or, they go for drugs and/or cash from illegal drug sales. The only thing that Taylor would have been known for on the street would have been her association with a drug dealer and that the drug dealer was telling people she still held his cash.
It's logical to surmise that the boyfriend might have thought he had good reason for having a loaded gun while living at Taylor's place and that had a lot to do with her previous or current relationship with a known drug dealer. What else would he think bad guys would want to take from them?

The boyfriend was the first one to fire without taking time to even identify his target. He purposely moved from the relative safety of the bedroom with his firearm and girlfriend into the hallway in direct line of the door. His girlfriend was either beside him or slightly behind him in a hallway where she could not get out of the way of the gunfire that was sure to come back from whoever his imagination told him was coming through the door.
My first instinct and the instinct I heard from others involved in shootings or potential shootings would be to get innocent people or loved ones out of the potential line of fire if there was time. His priorities were elsewhere. He didn't want to stay with his girlfriend in the bedroom down behind the bed or in a closet. He wanted to take his gun and girlfriend out into the hallway in direct line of fire and open up on whoever came through that door.
And that's what happened. His gunfire started the ball rolling and the police shot back in self-defence. Unfortunately - like the vast majority of shootings in confined spaces with multiple people in the line of fire - innocent non-combatants got hit.
Horrible and tragic - but don't expect police officers to do anything but fire as many rounds as they can at the shooter as fast as they can, and miss many times. It's not the movies - it's real life.
Tactical firearm training is very time consuming and very, very expensive. It has to be ongoing so that adds to the already huge expense.
Do not blame the individual police officers for the lack of training that they received. I'm sure both of them fervently wish their rounds would have not hit Taylor.
As to the cop who was charged - he is properly charged for what he did and I hope he is dealt with severely.

Nope, the blame is not on the police asking for a no-knock warrant. The death was due to an unfortunate series of events that produced a shootout in the apartment that resulted in the tragic death of a young lady.

 

[banquetbear]

I answered your questions previously in the thread and again in my latest responses to you. I didn't comment specifically on the article because the article was full of half-truths and outright bogus statements - things I or others had already addressed.

...the article I cited from the Washington Post was not full of half-truths and outright bogus statements.

Your highlighted statement is such a stretch as to defy belief.

Not a stretch at all.

Taylor was once intimately involved with a drug dealer who stated to other drug dealing associates that Taylor was still involved in his drug dealing business.

None of this information was on the warrant.

Taylor's new boyfriend gave a reason as to why he thought the police were not police. He thought they were bad guys going to rob them.

Who else would be breaking down the door in the middle of the night?

Now, why he would think that criminals would choose to make an armed home invasion into a home that was occupied by law abiding people living on the lower end of the income spectrum with tons of neighbors around is beyond me.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Just because you consider it "beyond you" doesn't actually mean that the what you postulate is unreasonable.

Criminals go for high scores when they do home invasions. Home invasions are high risk. After all, they could get shot as they go through the door. Home invaders go for wealth in the form of lots of cash and jewellery. Or, they go for drugs and/or cash from illegal drug sales. The only thing that Taylor would have been known for on the street would have been her association with a drug dealer and that the drug dealer was telling people she still held his cash.

LOL.

This is real ******* hilarious. None of this is relevant. This is a fantasy. A distraction. Or to use your words: a stretch.

It's logical to surmise that the boyfriend might have thought he had good reason for having a loaded gun while living at Taylor's place and that had a lot to do with her previous or current relationship with a known drug dealer.

They live in the United ******* States of America, where it is your god-given right to keep and bear arms. It shouldn't be surprising that the boyfriend had a loaded gun. It would have been surprising if he didn't own a gun.

What else would he think bad guys would want to take from them?

As a non-American that's a question that could be directed at every single gun owner in America. Do you own a gun? Do you use it for self-protection, and/or to protect your home? What do you think the "bad guys" want to take from you?

The boyfriend was the first one to fire without taking time to even identify his target. He purposely moved from the relative safety of the bedroom with his firearm and girlfriend into the hallway in direct line of the door. His girlfriend was either beside him or slightly behind him in a hallway where she could not get out of the way of the gunfire that was sure to come back from whoever his imagination told him was coming through the door.

And now we've reached the "victim blaming" stage.

My first instinct and the instinct I heard from others involved in shootings or potential shootings would be to get innocent people or loved ones out of the potential line of fire if there was time.

You said you lost a police officer friend who you trained with, yes? So I'm assuming you are either current or former police? So these other people "involved in shootings or potential shootings" would be people with people with similar life experiences/police as well?

Because your instincts would most probably be completely different to the instincts of millions of other people around the world. I don't know how I would react if somebody tried to break down my door in the middle of the night. I would probably purposely move from the relative safety of the bedroom to the hallway to see what was going on. I'd be half-asleep, confused, probably more angry than scared because that's how I'm wired. If someone was with me they would probably stay with me because why the **** not?

Again you argue from incredulity.

His priorities were elsewhere.

Can you blame him?

He didn't want to stay with his girlfriend in the bedroom down behind the bed or in a closet.

Who the **** would climb into a closet?

He wanted to take his gun and girlfriend out into the hallway in direct line of fire and open up on whoever came through that door.

From everything I've heard about the case they didn't do anything extraordinary.

Here's the reality. Humans are predictably unpredictable. What is predictable is that people will often act in an unpredictable way. The more chaotic and confusing the situation: the more likely people will act in ways that defy what you call "your instinct."

And breaking down the door in the middle of the night creates a chaotic and confusing situation. The chain of events that ultimately lead to a police officer getting injured and another person killed started when it was decided to obtain a no-knock warrant on the basis of a single package.

And that's what happened.

And that, for the ladies and gentlemen, (and those that are in between) is not how it happend.

His gunfire started the ball rolling and the police shot back in self-defence.

The decision to obtain a no-knock warrant on the weakest of pretexts was what started the ball rolling.

Unfortunately - like the vast majority of shootings in confined spaces with multiple people in the line of fire - innocent non-combatants got hit.

Unfortunately - because the police ****** up: innocent non-combatants got hit.

Horrible and tragic -

Horrible and tragic and preventable.

but don't expect police officers to do anything but fire as many rounds as they can at the shooter as fast as they can, and miss many times. It's not the movies - it's real life.

Except I haven't said anything about what happened after the shooting started. So don't give me a lecture about "this isn't the movies." Especially after you delivered a fantasy scenario about how Breonna and her boyfriend should have just jumped in the closet. This is real life. Not a ******* game.

Tactical firearm training is very time consuming and very, very expensive. It has to be ongoing so that adds to the already huge expense.

Strawman. You aren't arguing with anything I've said.

Do not blame the individual police officers for the lack of training that they received.

The warrant was issued on the basis of the officers "training and experience". So am I going to blame the individual police officers who got this completely wrong in the first place? Yes I am.

I'm sure both of them fervently wish their rounds would have not hit Taylor.

I really don't give a **** what they think.

Nope, the blame is not on the police asking for a no-knock warrant.

Yeah it is.

The death was due to an unfortunate series of events that produced a shootout in the apartment that resulted in the tragic death of a young lady.

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.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

You’re making up arguments on behalf of the police, and you’re doing it without providing a shred of evidence. This already bit you in the ass once, so it’s weird that you would continue with this course of action.

 

[autumn1971]

If I have found the correct document:
https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/kentucky/2016/chapter-503/section-.055/section-.055.pdf


I think to invoke castle doctrine one would have to say that the police entry into the apartment was illegal. Maybe we think that it was, but it looks like that argument would have to be won in the never going to happen scenario where Walker is prosecuted and invokes castle doctrine.

I think that walker “had reason to believe” that Glover might be trying to gain entry. His account mentions it, so he has cleared the bar for self defense

 

[shuttlt]

...there was nothing on the warrant about a bank account.

Quite true, though him registering her apartment on multiple databases was. We are getting confused here talking about what we know, what the police knew and what was on the warrant. My discussion with johnny karate that you responded to was about whether the statements of the postal inspector conflicted with the statements of the police. I haven't been expressing an opinion on whether the warrant should have been approved.

There was nothing on the warrant about a phone number.

I agree. You are arguing about whether the warrant was justified, I'm not.

Sure. But we've already talked about this. Picking up the package isn't, by itself, inherently suspicious. It suspicious because the police stated that in their training and experience that it isn't uncommon for drug dealers to do this.

This is ridiculous. It reduces down to picking up packages isn't suspicious unless you have reason to believe picking up packages is suspicious. The police claim that their experience gives them reason to believe the picking up of the packages is suspicious.

But we all know that the police got it wrong here. So perhaps "training and experience" shouldn't be enough to grant a no-knock warrant.

I don't think they claimed to have 100% cast iron proof that there was drugs or anything else illicit in the apartment. Do warrants demand 100% certainty?

This wasn't on the warrant.

I agree. You are arguing about whether the warrant was justified, I'm not. I am arguing with johnny karate about whether the police lied on the warrant with respect to the statements from the USPI.

This wasn't on the warrant, he has since withdrawn that claim, and the police did not find thousands of dollars with her.

This doesn't matter since he did indeed make the claim on the prison phone. Sure, he now denies all the self incriminating stuff he said to his co-conspirators on the recorded line. He would, wouldn't he. Breonna talks about the trap house and agrees to track down member of Glover's gang. That's a little bit more involved than your example of the former tenant who just hadn't updated some of his mailing addresses.

And almost every single thing that lead you to believe that he "may have been running aspects of his life from there" wasn't on the warrant. That matters.

No it doesn't since I am not arguing that the warrant was justified. I am arguing that the USPI statement doesn't necessarily mean that the warrant contained lies.

You can't make a case retrospectively that a no-knock warrant on Taylors house was justified.

I'm not.

All they presented was the fact that they claim a US postal inspector stated that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylors address and that they witnessed him once pick up a package from her address.

And that he had registered her address as his home address in multiple databases.

The claim about the US postal inspector is in dispute. So that just leaves picking up a package once.

I'm arguing about whether or not the USPI statement means that the police statements about the USPI are a lie. That is pretty much all I am arguing at the moment. Maybe also that you are underplaying her connection with Glover's drug operation.

He wasn't.

You don't know that he wasn't running parts of his life out of her house. All you know is on that night, nothing was there.

It does.

Not to me since the argument that you inserted yourself into was about whether the USPI's statements meant that the police's claims about the USPI were a lie.

What matters is what the police presented to the judge to obtain a no-knock warrant.

Just because that is what has got your activist tail up, doesn't mean I am arguing one way or the other on that question beyond the issue with the USPI.

Its only not a problem if you think that no-knock warrant's should be granted based on ******** evidence.

I didn't say it wasn't a problem. Whether the warrant should have been granted isn't a question I have considered.

Its entirely reasonable to look at what happened here and say "yes, there is a problem, lets fix it so that it doesn't happen again." But declaring that "that's not a problem" isn't the way forward.

Go look at it then. Maybe somebody on the forum wants to argue the contrary position with you.

It sure as **** looks to me as if you are trying to make Breonna Taylor look guilt of something here. But we have zero evidence that she did anything wrong.

Depends what you mean by anything wrong. Her statements on the recorded phone certainly make it look like she was aware of Glover's activities and was willing to run errands in connection with them.

So no: I don't think it would have made a difference. Because you can easily twist the narrative to make anyone, even my parents or the boarder, look guilty. Maybe the boarder smoked weed in the back garden. So now you can claim my parents were harbouring a known drug criminal. That is exactly what you have done here. Its a disingenuous tactic.

If your parents are on and off again sleeping with the boarder who smoked weed, one of whose associates turned up dead in the car your parents let the weed smoking boarder borrow, the weed smoking boarder was running multiple drug houses in the neighbourhood and your parents were on record acknowledging that they knew about the drug houses and agreeing to run errands with respect to the drug houses for the weed smoking boarder.

None of that means that she deserved what happened to her, but it does kind of look like she had some knowledge of and potential involvement with his business.

Not really. Certainly not something worthy of a late-night-no-knock warrant.

I'm not arguing about whether the warrant should have been granted or not.

I think you are greatly overplaying the links between Taylor and Glover in real life. The analogy really isn't that important. What actually happened is what actually matters.

I'm listing the links between them. You are giving analogies to innocent weed smokering boarders who happened not update there details on a few mailing lists. Sure, some of those links may turn out not to hold up. I don't see how her statements on the phone are going to evaporate though.

 

[shuttlt]

I think that walker “had reason to believe” that Glover might be trying to gain entry. His account mentions it, so he has cleared the bar for self defense

I'm not so sure. There is an "and" connecting 1(a) and 1(b). It reads to me like the person you shoot both has to be unlawfully entering your dwelling, and you have to have reason to believe it. It looks like it was written to exclude this defence if you mistakenly shoot law enforcement.

 

[shuttlt]

You’re making up arguments on behalf of the police, and you’re doing it without providing a shred of evidence. This already bit you in the ass once, so it’s weird that you would continue with this course of action.

You asked me:

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?

I gave you my view of the police's thinking in the warrant. If you don't want me to give you my view of the thinking of the police, then I won't. In that case, we are back to simply saying that the police did not claim in the warrant (or to the best of my knowledge anywhere else) that there was anything suspicious inside the packages. Why they didn't think there was anything suspicious or what conclusions they may have drawn from that you are unwilling to let me speculate on.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

The self defence law in Kentucky doesn't look to protect you if you shoot somebody who is lawfully entering your property regardless of questions of reasonable belief.

 

[johnny karate]

You asked me:

I gave you my view of the police's thinking in the warrant. If you don't want me to give you my view of the thinking of the police, then I won't. In that case, we are back to simply saying that the police did not claim in the warrant (or to the best of my knowledge anywhere else) that there was anything suspicious inside the packages. Why they didn't think there was anything suspicious or what conclusions they may have drawn from that you are unwilling to let me speculate on.

You can speculate all you want, and everyone else can look at your speculation and call it the steaming pile of crap that it is.

Your previous position was that we cannot speculate about the nefarious motives of the police unless it is based on something explicitly stated in the warrant. “Adding claims” was your term for it, and you have argued repeatedly that it wasn’t to be done.

And yet here you are now, manufacturing an entire narrative out of thin air for the benefit of the police and their motives.

Funny how that works.