Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[banquetbear]

Quite true, though him registering her apartment on multiple databases was.

...cite?

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.

You may be getting confused: but I'm not. This is a messageboard, if you want an exclusive discussion with johnny karate then email or PM is available. You are welcome to stop replying.

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

I'm not actually.

This is ridiculous. It reduces down to picking up packages isn't suspicious unless you have reason to believe picking up packages is suspicious.

Yes it is ridiculous. I'm glad you agree with me.

The police claim that their experience gives them reason to believe the picking up of the packages is suspicious.

And we have every reason not to trust the police in this case.

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?

As I've already cited, 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."

It isn't about being 100% certain. The warrant contained no "particularized information as to why Taylor herself was dangerous or presented such a threat." Remove the disputed postal inspectors statement from the warrant and all we have is a single package picked up from the property.

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.

If the police did indeed lie about the postal inspector statement then the only thing they presented to the judge to justify the no-knock warrant was the observation that a single package got picked up from the address.

This doesn't matter since he did indeed make the claim on the prison phone.

Which specific claim are you talking about? Are you talking about the money? Because it sounded like he was clearly bull-******** to me.

Sure, he now denies all the self incriminating stuff he said to his co-conspirators on the recorded line. He would, wouldn't he.

He was facing 10 years in jail and was given the opportunity to possibly plead it down if he implicated her. So why do you think that "he would, wouldn't he?" He denies what he said about Taylor. But I haven't heard that he denied everything else.

Breonna talks about the trap house and agrees to track down member of Glover's gang.

I spent the better part of half an hour trying to track down more information about your claim but I can't find anything. Can you provide a cite?

That's a little bit more involved than your example of the former tenant who just hadn't updated some of his mailing addresses.

You do understand what an analogy is right?

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.

I don't see any reason to be charitable to the police here. They made a claim in the warrant. That claim can't be independently verified, the police could make moves to verify the statement but they haven't done so. So if someone wants to characterize that statement as a lie then I don't think that would be unfair. Because we need to consider what the alleged postal inspectors was intended to do. The police stated they observed a single package being picked up. The claim was that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylors address. Multiple packages could be seen as more suspicious than a single package. It wasn't incidental to the warrant and if the police lied about it then its a big ******* deal.

I'm not.

But here's my point. Almost everything you've bought up here again, doesn't really matter. Its the job of the police to investigate suspected crimes. There is nothing inherently wrong with suspecting that Taylor may have been involved in drug dealing. But Taylor isn't dead because the police suspected her of drug dealing. She is dead because the police provided information for a warrant, that warrant was granted, and that warrant was used to justify the raid Taylor's place of residence in the middle of the night. If it wasn't on the warrant then it doesn't matter. Either the police didn't feel that evidence was strong enough, it was gathered retroactively, or they were simply being lazy and used boilerplate language on the warrant. But the only evidence that is relevant is what they decided to put on the warrant. Everything else is just an attempt to retroactively justify the police actions.

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

So I'm looking this up as well. I'm finding this:

"The warrant cited five pieces of information establishing what the police said was probable cause: Mr. Glover’s car making repeated trips between the trap house and Ms. Taylor’s home; her car’s appearance in front of 2424 Elliott on multiple occasions; surveillance footage of him leaving her apartment with a package in mid-January; a postal inspector’s confirmation that Mr. Glover used her address to receive parcels; and database searches indicating that as of late February, he listed her apartment as his home address."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html

And this:

"Six days later, detectives from the Place Based Investigation team verified through a database that Glover was using Taylor's home address -- 3003 Springfield Drive -- as well. The PBI squad was the group of detectives assigned to investigate Glover."

https://www.wkyt.com/2020/08/26/war...ylors-ex-boyfriend-amid-leaked-new-documents/

And this:

"The warrant application also says Glover listed her address as his, and that police confirmed that with "multiple computer databases."

https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...d-no-ties-drugs-ex-boyfriend-says/5641151002/

I can't find any other references to databases outside of this context. So the way I'm reading it the police checked multiple databases and that Glover had Taylor's residence listed in all of them. Which would be the case for anyone who either hadn't bothered or thought to fill out a change-of-address form: multiple databases would contain the incorrect information. Are you reading this differently? Or do you have another cite?

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.

You sure are writing a lot of words if this is all you are arguing at the moment.

Maybe also that you are underplaying her connection with Glover's drug operation.

He picked up a single package from her house. That's literally it. Her entire connection with Glover's drug operation. I'm not underplaying anything.

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.

I think that Glover was running parts of his life out of your house. You certainly seem to know a lot about this case that I can't find being reported in the news. What is it you are hiding?

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.

Participating on a message board is not "inserting myself" into a conversation. And when you choose to reply to me, then we are having a conversation.

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.

If I'm an activist then you are a police apologist. Are you happy with that label, or should we cut the personal stuff and just continue to just debate?

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

If the warrant wasn't granted then Taylor would still be alive. Its a shame that's something you haven't even considered.

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

I can bring it up with you. If you don't want to consider it then that's on you.

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.

Can you be specific about which phone call you are talking about?

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.

This is how conspiracy theories start. You are so invested in your narrative that you see it everywhere you look.

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.

No it doesn't.

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

Then what you are arguing is merely incidental to the death of Breonna Taylor. Of trivial importance. Not worthy of debate.

I'm listing the links between them.

For the sole reason of blaming the victim.

You are giving analogies to innocent weed smokering boarders who happened not update there details on a few mailing lists.

Nothing like them smokering boarders!!!

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.

Which statements?

 

[shuttlt]

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.

This seems a little confrontational. You asked me why the police were suspicious of the packages. As you well know, the police don't say why the were suspicions beyond the "in our experience" statement, so what is there other than speculation? If you don't want speculation, don't ask for it.

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.

It's not a question of the motives of the police. You said they lied in the warrant on the basis that they'd made false claims that they hadn't in fact made, but you thought they believed/wanted to claim.

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

You asked me a question about the motives of the police that the police themselves don't answer. I'm certainly not claiming to be an authority on what the police thought. I might be wrong. I'm happy to go forward on the basis that the police haven't made any claim about the content of the packages being suspicious and no statement about the packages being suspicious beyond their experience of drug traffickers which they don't expand on. That's where we were before you started pushing me to unpack the polices thinking.

Funny how that works.

Isn't it. You are making the claim - "the police lied on the warrant". That introduces an asymmetry that puts the burden of proof on you.

 

[shuttlt]

...cite?

You should get familiar with the case if you are going to throw your weight around like this.

On the warrant:
"13.) Affiant verified through multiple computer databases that as of 02/20/2020, Jamarcus
Drive #4 as his current home address. "

You may be getting confused: but I'm not. This is a messageboard, if you want an exclusive discussion with johnny karate then email or PM is available. You are welcome to stop replying.

Sure, but you are arguing with me about claims I'm not making - that the warrant should/shouldn't have been granted. I was discussing whether the police statement on the warrant about the USPI was a lie. That does not automatically give me a position on whether the warrant was good for you to argue the part of the case that interests you against.

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

I'm not actually.

And yet here you are arguing about whether the warrant was justified:

...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.

Your interests on this topic aren't mine. Whether or not the police had enough evidence to justify the search just isn't part of the case that interests me.

Yes it is ridiculous. I'm glad you agree with me.

That was your argument.

And we have every reason not to trust the police in this case.

We don't have to. All they said on the section of the warrant that I am interested in is that packages were getting delivered in Glover's name to Taylor's and that the source of that information is the USPI. Our confidence in the LMPD doesn't really matter. That statement is yet to be proved false.

As I've already cited, 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.

<cropping a few more paragraphs arguing the same point>

But, let me get this straight, you aren't trying to have an argument about whether the warrant was justified?

If the police did indeed lie about the postal inspector statement then the only thing they presented to the judge to justify the no-knock warrant was the observation that a single package got picked up from the address.

"If" is the whole question. You can take any line or every line on the warrant and dismiss it on this basis. In any case, they also have Glover registering her apartment as his "home address" on multiple databases.

Which specific claim are you talking about? Are you talking about the money? Because it sounded like he was clearly bull-******** to me.

Maybe he is ********ting? We don't know.

He was facing 10 years in jail and was given the opportunity to possibly plead it down if he implicated her. So why do you think that "he would, wouldn't he?" He denies what he said about Taylor. But I haven't heard that he denied everything else.

He can't unsay it. It is still evidence that she was involved with him. Maybe we think it isn't particularly reliable evidence? Her talking about the trap seems a little trickier.

I spent the better part of half an hour trying to track down more information about your claim but I can't find anything. Can you provide a cite?

https://tatumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Breonna-Taylor-Summary-redacted.pdf
You'll find text from this quoted in various newspapers.

1123 – J. Glover calls 502-457-4235 (Breonna Taylor) from booking:
J. Glover says to B. Taylor, “Call Doug (Adrian Walker) on Facebook
and see where the **** Doug at. He’s got my ****** money, riding
around in my ************* car and he ain’t even where he’s supposed
to be at.”
B. Taylor says to J. Glover, “You said Doug?”
J. Glover says to B. Taylor, “Yeah, Big Doug.”
B. Taylor says to J. Glover, “I’ll call him…Why can’t I find him on
Facebook? What’s his name on here?”
J. Glover says to B. Taylor, “Meechy Walker.”
1318 – J. Glover calls 502-457-4235 (Breonna Taylor) from booking:
J. Glover says to B. Taylor, “You talk to Doug (Adrian Walker)?”
B. Taylor says to J. Glover, “Yeah I did. He said he was already back
at the trap… then I talked to him again just a minute ago to see if you
had contacted him. They couldn’t post bond till one.”

You do understand what an analogy is right?

Sure, your analogy underplayed the connection between Taylor and Glover.

I don't see any reason to be charitable to the police here. They made a claim in the warrant. That claim can't be independently verified, the police could make moves to verify the statement but they haven't done so. So if someone wants to characterize that statement as a lie then I don't think that would be unfair.

It isn't the police's job to answer all of our questions to our satisfaction just now. There are investigations going on. Perhaps further documents will be released? We don't yet know that they lied here.

Because we need to consider what the alleged postal inspectors was intended to do.

Johnny Karate isn't going to like that kind of speculation.

The police stated they observed a single package being picked up. The claim was that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylors address. Multiple packages could be seen as more suspicious than a single package. It wasn't incidental to the warrant and if the police lied about it then its a big ******* deal.

"if"

But here's my point. Almost everything you've bought up here again, doesn't really matter. Its the job of the police to investigate suspected crimes. There is nothing inherently wrong with suspecting that Taylor may have been involved in drug dealing. But Taylor isn't dead because the police suspected her of drug dealing. She is dead because the police provided information for a warrant, that warrant was granted, and that warrant was used to justify the raid Taylor's place of residence in the middle of the night. If it wasn't on the warrant then it doesn't matter. Either the police didn't feel that evidence was strong enough, it was gathered retroactively, or they were simply being lazy and used boilerplate language on the warrant. But the only evidence that is relevant is what they decided to put on the warrant. Everything else is just an attempt to retroactively justify the police actions.

I'm not arguing about whether the warrant was justified. You said earlier that you weren't either.

So I'm looking this up as well. I'm finding this:

"The warrant cited five pieces of information establishing what the police said was probable cause: Mr. Glover’s car making repeated trips between the trap house and Ms. Taylor’s home; her car’s appearance in front of 2424 Elliott on multiple occasions; surveillance footage of him leaving her apartment with a package in mid-January; a postal inspector’s confirmation that Mr. Glover used her address to receive parcels; and database searches indicating that as of late February, he listed her apartment as his home address."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html

And this:

"Six days later, detectives from the Place Based Investigation team verified through a database that Glover was using Taylor's home address -- 3003 Springfield Drive -- as well. The PBI squad was the group of detectives assigned to investigate Glover."

https://www.wkyt.com/2020/08/26/war...ylors-ex-boyfriend-amid-leaked-new-documents/

And this:

"The warrant application also says Glover listed her address as his, and that police confirmed that with "multiple computer databases."

https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...d-no-ties-drugs-ex-boyfriend-says/5641151002/

I can't find any other references to databases outside of this context. So the way I'm reading it the police checked multiple databases and that Glover had Taylor's residence listed in all of them. Which would be the case for anyone who either hadn't bothered or thought to fill out a change-of-address form: multiple databases would contain the incorrect information. Are you reading this differently? Or do you have another cite?

You are having a one sided argument here. I am not arguing that the warrant should have been granted. That is your focus. You need to find somebody to argue with who wants to defend the complementary side of the argument.

You sure are writing a lot of words if this is all you are arguing at the moment.

You keep directing walls of text at me. I am replying to the walls of text and correcting any factual errors that I notice in them.

He picked up a single package from her house. That's literally it. Her entire connection with Glover's drug operation. I'm not underplaying anything.

That is just not true.

I think that Glover was running parts of his life out of your house. You certainly seem to know a lot about this case that I can't find being reported in the news. What is it you are hiding?

When I bail him out of jail and talk to him on a recorded line talking to him about his drug operation, then maybe we have something to talk about.

Participating on a message board is not "inserting myself" into a conversation. And when you choose to reply to me, then we are having a conversation.

I'm correcting a few things here and there in your posts and providing you with links to the prison phone transcripts that you seem to be lacking. You are keen to argue about whether the warrant was justified. I don't have a position on that.

If I'm an activist then you are a police apologist. Are you happy with that label, or should we cut the personal stuff and just continue to just debate?

No, since I am not worked up about the case and don't have a position on whether the police were justified/unjustified honest/dishonest about the warrant. That's why I'm content to wait for the evidence to appear, or not.

If the warrant wasn't granted then Taylor would still be alive. Its a shame that's something you haven't even considered.

This is an issue in an argument I'm not having. That is a point somebody defending the other side of your argument about the warrant being justified might have to deal with.

I can bring it up with you. If you don't want to consider it then that's on you.

It's not a relevant point, since I'm not arguing about whether the warrant was or wasn't justified.

Can you be specific about which phone call you are talking about?

See the pdf linked to above.

This is how conspiracy theories start. You are so invested in your narrative that you see it everywhere you look.

You are underplaying the evidence of her involvement with him.

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

Then what you are arguing is merely incidental to the death of Breonna Taylor. Of trivial importance. Not worthy of debate.

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

I'm not actually.

You seem conflicted about what you are arguing about. Be that as it may, your priorities in the case are not mine. You need to find somebody who is arguing that the warrant was justified if you want to have an argument about whether the warrant was justified.

For the sole reason of blaming the victim.

Not at all. Blame has nothing to do with understanding the facts of the case. It's not blaming her to say that it seems to be the case that she talked about trap houses with him in jail. You are starting with a conclusion that you feel very strongly about and getting angry that my view of some of the facts doesn't support the conclusion you want in the way that you'd like. The conclusion doesn't particularly interest me.

Which statements?

See pdf above.

 

[banquetbear]

You should get familiar with the case if you are going to throw your weight around like this.

On the warrant:
"13.) Affiant verified through multiple computer databases that as of 02/20/2020, Jamarcus
Drive #4 as his current home address. "

...I am aware of this. Do you know who the affiant is? I'll give you a clue: it isn't Glover.

Sure, but you are arguing with me about claims I'm not making - that the warrant should/shouldn't have been granted. I was discussing whether the police statement on the warrant about the USPI was a lie. That does not automatically give me a position on whether the warrant was good for you to argue the part of the case that interests you against.

You can stop arguing any time you like.

And yet here you are arguing about whether the warrant was justified:

And right after I posted all of that you responded to it.

It takes two to tango.

Your interests on this topic aren't mine. Whether or not the police had enough evidence to justify the search just isn't part of the case that interests me.

Says the person who literally can't stop responding to me.

That was your argument.

No, that was the police's argument.

That statement is yet to be proved false.

The statement remains in dispute. I have no reason to believe it.

But, let me get this straight, you aren't trying to have an argument about whether the warrant was justified?

This was in answer to your question "Do warrants demand 100% certainty?" Did you want an answer to that question? I gave it to you. Can I offer a suggestion? If you don't want me to answer your questions perhaps don't ask me any questions.

"If" is the whole question. You can take any line or every line on the warrant and dismiss it on this basis.

Well, yes, if is the question here. I haven't dismissed the claim they observed a package being picked up by Glover because that isn't in dispute. The statement from the postal inspector is in dispute.

In any case, they also have Glover registering her apartment as his "home address" on multiple databases.

You do understand what this means right? Glover didn't register her home address in multiple databases. All this means is that the police ran a search on his name.

Maybe he is ********ting? We don't know.

There is zero evidence that what he said is true. There was no money. The transcript sounded like a guy making something up. I think we know enough.

He can't unsay it.

He can withdraw it. And he has.

It is still evidence that she was involved with him.

It was evidence that he claimed she was involved with him, not that she was actually involved with him.

Maybe we think it isn't particularly reliable evidence?

What do you think?

Her talking about the trap seems a little trickier.


https://tatumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Breonna-Taylor-Summary-redacted.pdf
You'll find text from this quoted in various newspapers.

LOL.

Are you ******* serious?

No wonder I couldn't find that text quoted in various newspapers. What a load of ********. And its ******** to re-contextualize that conversation into the statement that she is talking about "the trap house and agrees to track down member of Glover's gang." There is nothing in that conversation that is evidence that she is involved in the drug dealing operation. What a stretch.

Sure, your analogy underplayed the connection between Taylor and Glover.

It was a ******* analogy. You do understand the purpose of an analogy?

It isn't the police's job to answer all of our questions to our satisfaction just now.

You seem to have a different view on accountability to most everyone else. The police is a public service, they are accountable to the people in their community.

There are investigations going on. Perhaps further documents will be released? We don't yet know that they lied here.

We've literally just had a grand jury. And something funky went on with that grand jury, we have one of the jury coming out to say something funky went on with the grand jury, the attorney general has requested a delay in the release of the secret grand jury proceedings because a judged ordered the release.

Johnny Karate isn't going to like that kind of speculation.

I think its clear that you aren't into that kind of speculation.

"if"

Yes. I used the word if. Congratulations on being able to find that word amongst all the other words that I used!

I'm not arguing about whether the warrant was justified. You said earlier that you weren't either.

And I'm not.

You are having a one sided argument here. I am not arguing that the warrant should have been granted. That is your focus. You need to find somebody to argue with who wants to defend the complementary side of the argument.

I'm arguing against your use of all the other information you have bought to the thread. Because the only possible reason to introduce it is to attack the victim. None of it was used by the police to action the warrant. And after examining it more closely none of it even closely ties her to the drug operation.

You've got nothing.

But you are pretending you've got something.

You keep directing walls of text at me.

I keep responding to the things that you say.

I am replying to the walls of text and correcting any factual errors that I notice in them.

You haven't corrected any errors as of yet.

That is just not true.

This is, indeed true.

When I bail him out of jail and talk to him on a recorded line talking to him about his drug operation, then maybe we have something to talk about.

You simply don't seem to know how the real world works. Its like in New Zealand almost everyone knows where the local "tinny house" is. But knowing where the local tinny house is doesn't make you part of a drug operation.

I'm correcting a few things here and there in your posts and providing you with links to the prison phone transcripts that you seem to be lacking. You are keen to argue about whether the warrant was justified. I don't have a position on that.

You still haven't corrected anything.

No, since I am not worked up about the case and don't have a position on whether the police were justified/unjustified honest/dishonest about the warrant. That's why I'm content to wait for the evidence to appear, or not.

You seem pretty worked up about the case to me. And you seem to have a rock solid position on Breonna Taylor. So if you aren't going to withdraw that label I suppose Police Apologist for you it is.

This is an issue in an argument I'm not having. That is a point somebody defending the other side of your argument about the warrant being justified might have to deal with.

"I'm not having an argument" says the person in the middle of an argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

So was this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?

It's not a relevant point, since I'm not arguing about whether the warrant was or wasn't justified.

I'M NOT ARGUING ARGUED THE ARGUER.

See the pdf linked to above.

Thanks for that. You have completely mis-characterised what was said in the phone call.

You are underplaying the evidence of her involvement with him.

You are overplaying the evidence of her involvement with him.

You seem conflicted about what you are arguing about. Be that as it may, your priorities in the case are not mine. You need to find somebody who is arguing that the warrant was justified if you want to have an argument about whether the warrant was justified.

I'M NOT ARGUING ARGUED THE ARGUER.

Not at all. Blame has nothing to do with understanding the facts of the case.

Then why are you spinning the facts to make Taylor look more culpable than she actually was?

You are starting with a conclusion that you feel very strongly about and getting angry that my view of some of the facts doesn't support the conclusion you want in the way that you'd like.

It looks to me that you are starting with a conclusion that you feel very strongly about and getting angry that my view of some of the facts doesn't support the conclusion you want in the way that you'd like.

The conclusion doesn't particularly interest me.

LOL.

See pdf above.

So those statements that don't incriminate her and don't link her to the drug operation?

 

[johnny karate]

This seems a little confrontational. You asked me why the police were suspicious of the packages. As you well know, the police don't say why the were suspicions beyond the "in our experience" statement, so what is there other than speculation? If you don't want speculation, don't ask for it.


It's not a question of the motives of the police. You said they lied in the warrant on the basis that they'd made false claims that they hadn't in fact made, but you thought they believed/wanted to claim.


You asked me a question about the motives of the police that the police themselves don't answer. I'm certainly not claiming to be an authority on what the police thought. I might be wrong. I'm happy to go forward on the basis that the police haven't made any claim about the content of the packages being suspicious and no statement about the packages being suspicious beyond their experience of drug traffickers which they don't expand on. That's where we were before you started pushing me to unpack the polices thinking.


Isn't it. You are making the claim - "the police lied on the warrant". That introduces an asymmetry that puts the burden of proof on you.

The evidence that supports the belief that the police lied has been presented over and over again.

That you wish to use the tired and tedious debate tactic of demanding definitive proof doesn’t change that.

We have no reason to believe the claims made by the police and plenty of reasons not to believe them. That your whole position boils down to “Well, you can’t prove they lied!” is a tacit acknowledgement of that.

If you could defend their claims with actual evidence, you would.

But you can’t.

So you have to resort to sophistry and baseless speculation because it’s literally all you have.

 

[johnny karate]

“In any case, they also have Glover registering her apartment as his "home address" on multiple databases.”

This... isn’t a thing.

 

[shuttlt]

The evidence that supports the belief that the police lied has been presented over and over again.

That you wish to use the tired and tedious debate tactic of demanding definitive proof doesn’t change that.

We have no reason to believe the claims made by the police and plenty of reasons not to believe them. That your whole position boils down to “Well, you can’t prove they lied!” is a tacit acknowledgement of that.

If you could defend their claims with actual evidence, you would.

But you can’t.

That isn't how you failing to prove your claim that they lied works. I don't have to provide evidence that they told the truth. You have to show that they lied. Your method of showing that they lied involves adding in additional claims that they didn't in fact make.

So you have to resort to sophistry and baseless speculation because it’s literally all you have.

We don't actually know lots of the facts of the case at the moment. You asked me a question about part of the case that we don't know. I'm not trying to prove that they told the truth. You have failed to prove that they lied.

 

[shuttlt]

“In any case, they also have Glover registering her apartment as his "home address" on multiple databases.”

This... isn’t a thing.

Forgive my poor phrasing. You know perfectly well what I meant.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Without proof of her willing complicity, the evidence seems to be the ex-boyfriend committing some various forms of administrative fraud.

Anything else?

 

[banquetbear]

That isn't how you failing to prove your claim that they lied works. I don't have to provide evidence that they told the truth. You have to show that they lied. Your method of showing that they lied involves adding in additional claims that they didn't in fact make.

...in the real world people are free to make assessments of character, of past form, of credibility and can make a personal judgement on whether or not somebody is telling the truth or a lie. This happens all the time. It even happens in court. Sometimes you will never have enough information to determine if someone has objectively lied or not. So no, we are under zero obligation to meet your threshold of what is and isn't a lie.

We don't actually know lots of the facts of the case at the moment. You asked me a question about part of the case that we don't know. I'm not trying to prove that they told the truth. You have failed to prove that they lied.

And you have failed to prove they have told the truth.

Forgive my poor phrasing. You know perfectly well what I meant.

No we didn't. And even now I still don't know exactly what you meant. When you said "Glover registered her apartment as his "home address on multiple databases" what was it exactly that you meant?

 

[Minoosh]

“In any case, they also have Glover registering her apartment as his "home address" on multiple databases.”

This... isn’t a thing.

The warrant doesn't say Glover registered her apartment as his home address on multiple databases.

Affiant verified through multiple computer databases that as of 02/20/2020, Jamarcus
Drive #4 as his current home address. "

The way I read that, they checked multiple databases and found he had registered her apartment as his home address on, presumably, at least one database.

I'm quoting from someone else's quote; I don't know if the dropped word (probably "listed" or registered") was from the original warrant or not.

Besides which - have you ever ordered something from a catalog and all of a sudden find you're swamped with mail from different companies? It's annoying AF. Being on multiple database doesn't mean much, but it sounds vaguely nefarious and somewhat scientific, making it good language for search warrants.

ETA: I'm checking the warrant language.
ETA2: Weird, big black circles obscure the exact phrase on the search warrant affidavit.

 

[shuttlt]

And you have failed to prove they have told the truth.

You've probably missed the bit where almost every post I explain how I am not attempting to prove that the police were telling the truth, since that isn't my claim. I don't know how this is such a struggle to understand, but if it helps, I will explain it again... I do not know if the police told the truth about their interaction with USPI, I do not claim that the police told the truth about their interaction with USPI, Johnny Karate made a claim that they lied, Johnny Karate is the one who needs to evidence his claim.

No we didn't. And even now I still don't know exactly what you meant. When you said "Glover registered her apartment as his "home address on multiple databases" what was it exactly that you meant?

Seriously? I am referring to the statement in the warrant about being registered in multiple databases. Sure, yes... Glover isn't a DBA and didn't register himself directly on multiple databases. The police are checking multiple databases that record instances where he has given his home address as hers. We are aware that at least one of the places he used her address was with his bank.

 

[shuttlt]

The warrant doesn't say Glover registered her apartment as his home address on multiple databases.

The way I read that, they checked multiple databases and found he had registered her apartment as his home address on, presumably, at least one database.

I'm quoting from someone else's quote; I don't know if the dropped word (probably "listed" or registered") was from the original warrant or not.

Besides which - have you ever ordered something from a catalog and all of a sudden find you're swamped with mail from different companies? It's annoying AF. Being on multiple database doesn't mean much, but it sounds vaguely nefarious and somewhat scientific, making it good language for search warrants.

ETA: I'm checking the warrant language.
ETA2: Weird, big black circles obscure the exact phrase on the search warrant affidavit.

This is exactly correct.

 

[johnny karate]

Forgive my poor phrasing. You know perfectly well what I meant.

In the same way that you know perfectly well what the police meant when you insist on an overly-pedantic interpretation of their statements in the warrant?

 

[johnny karate]

The warrant doesn't say Glover registered her apartment as his home address on multiple databases.

The way I read that, they checked multiple databases and found he had registered her apartment as his home address on, presumably, at least one database.

I'm quoting from someone else's quote; I don't know if the dropped word (probably "listed" or registered") was from the original warrant or not.

Besides which - have you ever ordered something from a catalog and all of a sudden find you're swamped with mail from different companies? It's annoying AF. Being on multiple database doesn't mean much, but it sounds vaguely nefarious and somewhat scientific, making it good language for search warrants.

ETA: I'm checking the warrant language.
ETA2: Weird, big black circles obscure the exact phrase on the search warrant affidavit.

People don’t “register” their addresses. There exists no official database where this is done or required.

 

[shuttlt]

In the same way that you know perfectly well what the police meant when you insist on an overly-pedantic interpretation of their statements in the warrant?

I don't see that. In the case of the officer who wrote the warrant, we have a pretty much just that document to go on. If you read it as a lie, that's because of beliefs you brought with you. In the case of this discussion, I was entirely unaware of you before hand and had no preconceived notions.

 

[johnny karate]

That isn't how you failing to prove your claim that they lied works. I don't have to provide evidence that they told the truth. You have to show that they lied. Your method of showing that they lied involves adding in additional claims that they didn't in fact make.

First of all, yes you do have to provide evidence that they told the truth. That’s exactly how this skepticism thing works.

Secondly, my evidence does not consist of “additional claims” (so far, you’re the only one who’s been caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar), it consists of pointing out the contradictions and deceptive language in their claims.

We don't actually know lots of the facts of the case at the moment. You asked me a question about part of the case that we don't know. I'm not trying to prove that they told the truth. You have failed to prove that they lied.

The evidence for my belief has been provided. So, so many times. You just choose to hand-wave it away with plausibility-torturing narratives that you have concocted out of thin air.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't see that. In the case of the officer who wrote the warrant, we have a pretty much just that document to go on. If you read it as a lie, that's because of beliefs you brought with you. In the case of this discussion, I was entirely unaware of you before hand and had no preconceived notions.

I read it as a lie because it’s been contradicted and zero evidence has been provided to substantiate it.

I’m not the one desperately clinging to a narrative to the point of making things up to support that narrative. That’s what you’ve been doing.

 

[shuttlt]

I read it as a lie because it’s been contradicted and zero evidence has been provided to substantiate it.

I’m not the one desperately clinging to a narrative to the point of making things up to support that narrative. That’s what you’ve been doing.

It hasn't been contradicted. There has been a statement that may, once it is clarified, contradict it. You are in too much of a hurry to come to conclusions.

 

[lobosrul5]

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?

Actually, Kenneth Walker stated he thought it could be Taylor's ex-boyfriend breaking down the door.

"Mr. Walker later told the police he feared it was Ms. Taylor’s ex-boyfriend trying to break in."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html


Also, he may not have even hit the police officer, it may have been self-inflicted gunshot.

https://www.fox23.com/news/trending...es-suit-her-death/USNLHXVM4JAGFMYS5JBOZI2CMU/