Major explosion in downtown Nashville

[whoanellie]

Warrants are signed everyday based on the word of far less credible informants. This isn't even close to a grey zone to my eye. If the cops wanted to search, a judge would have given them a warrant.
The simplest explanation is that the cops were lazy. The guy didn't answer the door when they knocked, and that was all the effort they were willing to put into this.

I agree with the hilited. None of us were there to observe the girlfriend's demeanor and hear exactly what she said. None of us know exactly what the lawyer said. Given the little information we have I can't say whether the police should have pursued this further but I do believe that the police could have obtained a warrant and that the warrant would have withstood any subsequent scrutiny by the courts.

 

[whoanellie]

Yeah. Credibility was the problem. They did investigate what they knew. To get a warrant they would need probable cause and the girlfriend was not very credible, unfortunately.

We don't know that. Apparently she was upset, upset people can be credible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
And come on: she was brought in for suicidal threats, and has a boyfriend she claims is a backyard bomb builder, who turns out to be actually suicidal and blows up streets. I think 'crazy' is factoring into the equation here.

Eta: ignorance: unless she turns out to have credible explosives experience, it's a safe bet she knows somewhere between little and nothing about IEDs. If you were to go into my workshop/Lab, you might think I was a bomb maker too, because I play with electronics and light pyrotechnics for Halloween stuff.

Her being a woman has nothing to do with anything. If he instead had a boyfriend, I'd put it the same way

People aren't aware of a lot of their biases.

Suicidal doesn't mean crazy, it means depressed. Are suicidal men crazy?

You don't need any explosives expertise to recognize someone is building a bomb. That's a foolish conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given the well documented trend of cops not really giving a **** about domestic violence issues, it's not shocking they would sooner believe the ex girlfriend to be hysterical than actually telling the truth about a dangerous man.

Compare this to the regular practice of squeezing drug addicts to name names as "confidential informants" as a predicate for no-knock drug raids, it's laughable to even suggest that these cops could not have gotten a search warrant given the very specific information the ex-girlfriend was providing.

It should be restated how much of a close call this was. The explosion was quite powerful, and easily could have been a mass casualty event had the bomber intended it. We are very fortunate that the bomber went out of his way to minimize injuring people.

Yes, police biases are more than just discounting women, they do dismiss domestic violence in a lot of departments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ignore me if you've already posted it, but do you have a link for this second witness? And if you mean the lawyer, I don't think the lawyer confirmed that he was actually making bombs, only that he talked about it.

IIRC, the police claimed they checked with the lawyer and the lawyer denied it and said he/she wasn't still the woman's lawyer at that time.

 

[cosmicaug]

Getting a warrant requires more than the claims of a suicidal ex-girlfriend. And a report could be made in a way that would make charges difficult: "I dunno what he's doing, but he talks a lot about building bombs, maybe it's just bs, but he acts kinda weird, maybe you should check it out...." No false report there. And your neighbor/co-worker/ex might be crazy enough to not understand or care whether they could be charged. The question is what standard the cops should have to meet to enter private property, and the law properly sets the standard pretty high.

Well sure, I can also make up some weak scenario with an ambiguous and unconfident statement about a vague suspicion and say "but, but, but". But that's not the kind of thing we're talking about here; we're talking about an ex-girlfriend stating, definitively, that she knows he is building bombs specifically inside a trailer on his property, and those statements being supported by an attorney who has represented the alleged bomb-builder, saying (essentially) "yes, I have often heard him talking about building bombs and am convinced he is absolutely capable of doing so". Police report

Is this the only report or is there a separate one somewhere? That is, do we have one report for the mental health crisis (not linked) and one report for the bomb making (referenced by the hyperlink) even if this was just one call?

If this is the only report, we have a vague report that is inconsistent with some of the reporting (including, apparently, by the Metro Police Department spokesman). Are we simply looking at poor, incomplete reporting? If so, where does the Metro Police Department spokesman get their additional information? Is it from the incident report supplemented by after the fact interviews with the reporting officers and/or the lawyer and or the girlfriend over a year later?

I know nothing about what the average police report looks like (or, ideally, what it should look like) so anyone with good information on this should chime in, ideally. It might be educational to learn how this works, "in the real world".

I will note:

1. Unlike the news story & Bob001's comment (based on the same), suicide, suicidality or mentions of references to suicide by the girlfriend are not being noted here.
2. In the news story, firearms are mentioned. However, they are mentioned as being unloaded and as having been removed from the house to be handed over to police for safe keeping. While such could be the actions of someone with suicidal ideation who wants to keep tools that may facilitate suicide away from themselves, they could also be the actions of a domestic abuse victim who wants to keep tools that may facilitate "heat of the moment" murder away from their abuser.
3. Said firearms are not mentioned at all in this report.
4. The bomber is referred to as a suspect. I understand that as meaning that the complaint was about Anthony Warner (how else would he be a suspect?). Or would he be considered a suspect after the fact? That is, was the call about something else ("my client is having a mental health crisis and threatening suicide...") and then he becomes a suspect after the incident response was initiated ("... and by the way, since you are already there, he sure seems to talk about manufacturing bombs an awful lot. Maybe you might want to look into that while you are at it..."). Or simply, they go to talk to the allegedly distraught girlfriend (not mentioned in this report like this) and that's what she talks about with the result of turning him into a suspect?
5. The lawyer is referred to as the complainant. The report makes is seem as if the lawyer is filing a report about possible bomb making. It seems odd that for a report by a lawyer concerned about threats of suicide by their client this this part would go unmentioned in the incident report (if this is the only incident response report).
6. The girlfriend is being mentioned as "other". She is not mentioned as a complainant. She is mentioned as someone who happens to be there and who happens to provide information.
7. The girlfriend talking about bombs is mentioned first. I assume that the implication is that the lawyer made the call, they found the girlfriend on site and they talked to her first (assuming the narrative is chronological). That is, unless there is another incident report out there & this one simply fails to capture the "facts on the ground". If this is the only report, what we have here is the girlfriend corroborating the lawyer's complaint, not the other way around.
8. Victim is listed as "government". I am understanding this as looking into whether the suspect might be a public threat of some sort.
9. The report notes that this was passed on to the Specialized Investigations Division (the responsibilities and scope of this unit are described starting on page 48 here). It seems like part of their responsibility description would be as a sort of contact with other relevant agencies such as at the federal level (which would be consistent with references to the FBI in the story).
10. The case status is listed as "unfounded". I suppose that could be interpreted as the complaint was investigated nothing was found (which is obviously not the case because they were unable or unwilling to investigate) or interpreted as the nature of the complaint being such that there was nothing actionable in it (for example, determining that a complaint that the dude for sure knows how to make bombs & likes to talk about it a lot does not rise to probable cause or exigent circumstance).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah. Credibility was the problem. They did investigate what they knew. To get a warrant they would need probable cause and the girlfriend was not very credible, unfortunately. It's unlikely a judge, presented the known facts, would issue a search warrant.

How would they know without presenting it? And presenting is as the girlfriend wasn't credible, what are you basing that on? Because the article said crazy girlfriend? Because she was suicidal?

Growing up I had a neighbor that regularly called the cops saying we were making bombs or something. She also said aliens were landing in our backyard. Cops have to make a call. They won't always get it right. But probable cause requires "probable," not possible. In this case it turns out they judged wrong. But what is the criteria? A 20% chance the girlfriend is right isn't probable.

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of weighted estimate. The danger associated with a 5% chance where the consequences are some mass casualty event is a lot different from a 51% chance of some typical criminal activity. But that's not the way the law works.

Given the current 'see something say something' how do you know this needed to be more than possible?

The cops screwed up. That we know. All the rationalizing why they made the correct call, I find specious.

I'll add my biased suspicion: It was too much trouble to request a warrant, and/or someone in charge said no based on that someone's crazy girl bias.

Hey, they called the FBI so it was no longer their problem after that. And maybe how they presented it to the FBI biased the case.

 

[cosmicaug]

... if the subject did not answer the door again that indication of paranoia or anti-social behaviour along with the statement from the girlfriend would have most likely been enough to get a search warrant.
[...]

That seems highly problematic. Next you'll tell us that not consenting to a search indicates one probably has something to hide & should therefore be considered grounds for obtaining a warrant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are stories he had a lot of material after all, and it showed paranoia about a lot of things.

More to come....

 

[whoanellie]

additional information including attorney's call to the police

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...n-warner-to-police-christmas-day-blast-audio/

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The police report says that supervisors were notified and that they notified SID detectives. We don't have any information on what they did, if anything, or why.

The lawyer says he was subsequently contacted and said Warner would not consent to a search. He also says he got information that law enforcement recorded that he was Warner's lawyer and denied a consent to search. But he says he wasn't actually Warner's attorney at the time and only meant that he knew that Warner would not consent. The lawyer is recorded as representing the suspect in the police report. I think there was a miscommunication there on whether the lawyer represented and was speaking for the suspect.

We don't know what other actions were taken. they may have done fuller investigation and came up with nothing and decided there was no basis for a warrant. Or not. I don't know what they did or why or what their policies are whether their decisions were reasonable at the time.

I do notice on Google Earth that the RV is always parked outside the fence except for 10/2019, which is between 4/2019 and 12/2019. That gives some credibility that he was building a bomb at the time. The fact that he put it back on the lot outside the fence by December may indicate that he temporarily stopped the project, possibly because he found out the police were checking him out.

 

[marting]

Given the current 'see something say something' how do you know this needed to be more than possible?

Because "probable cause" requires more than merely being possible. But it doesn't actually mean more than or even a 50% probability.

What should have been done, and it isn't clear if it was or not, is question the woman and atty. about exactly what they observed and the guy had said. That would go a long way to establishing probable cause - or not.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

additional information including attorney's call to the police

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...n-warner-to-police-christmas-day-blast-audio/

Seems like the police gave up way too early on this one. The claim from the suicidal ex-girlfriend doesn't carry much weight. But the claim also from what they at least believed was the suspect's own attorney saying that his client is emotionally unstable and is building bombs is a pretty solid tip. And then they go to the house and get no answer and there is an RV and it is in a fenced in yard and they can't see into it and the property is covered with "No Trespassing" signs and security camera and alarms...at some point a red flag should go up that this needs more than a cursory FBI and DOD check.

 

[whoanellie]

The police report says that supervisors were notified and that they notified SID detectives. We don't have any information on what they did, if anything, or why.

The lawyer says he was subsequently contacted and said Warner would not consent to a search. He also says he got information that law enforcement recorded that he was Warner's lawyer and denied a consent to search. But he says he wasn't actually Warner's attorney at the time and only meant that he knew that Warner would not consent. The lawyer is recorded as representing the suspect in the police report. I think there was a miscommunication there on whether the lawyer represented and was speaking for the suspect.

We don't know what other actions were taken. they may have done fuller investigation and came up with nothing and decided there was no basis for a warrant. Or not. I don't know what they did or why or what their policies are whether their decisions were reasonable at the time.

I do notice on Google Earth that the RV is always parked outside the fence except for 10/2019, which is between 4/2019 and 12/2019. That gives some credibility that he was building a bomb at the time. The fact that he put it back on the lot outside the fence by December may indicate that he temporarily stopped the project, possibly because he found out the police were checking him out.

Where are you getting the hilighted information from? It is not consistent with what I've read.

Here is what the attorney was quoted as saying yesterday.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/n...ice-he-was-building-bombs-in-his-rv-last-year

"I certainly would never have told them not to check it out when I'm the one who said go the hell over there and find out what's going on," Throckmorton said.

Police officers notified supervisors and detectives about the tip on Warner, but it's unclear if detectives ever followed up with Warner's girlfriend, who was not in a good mental state, or asked for search warrant.

"If somebody had checked Tony out and gotten him the help that he needed this would never have happened," Throckmorton said.

1) It was not up to the attorney who represented AQW in a civil matters some time prior to tell police whether or not AQW would consent to a search. Both the police and the attorney should have known that. 2) The police could have sought a search warrant obviating the need for AQW's consent.

Here is the Metro Nashville Police Department's statement detailing the actions they took.
https://www.nashville.gov/News-Medi...9/August-2019-MNPD-Anthony-Warner-Report.aspx

https://www.nashville.gov/News-Medi...olice-Response-Concerning-Anthony-Warner.aspx

 

[whoanellie]

Just imagine if the girlfriend had said that AQW was cooking meth in or selling cocaine from his RV and the attorney provided corroborating info. Do you think the police would have obtained a search warrant? Do you think they would have done a more thorough investigation?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Where are you getting the hilighted information from? It is not consistent with what I've read.

I don't recall the source and there are so many articles now it is hard to sift through him. One article quoting the lawyer had him saying something to the effect that the police had reported that he had told them he represented Warner and the lawyer said he would not consent to a search. The lawyer had said that police report was incorrect and that he was not actually representing Warner at the time but that he had been contacted by the police and said that from what he knew of his client he would not consent to a search.

The part about them contacting the lawyer and the police interpreting his statement as not allowing a search is in the police statement issued today: "[The attorney] would not allow his client to permit a visual inspection of the RV."

My recollection is that the attorney denied that and said he did not represent Warner at the time and only said Warner would not allow an inspection based on his experience. As I said, it appears there was a miscommunication (or the lawyer is lying for some reason, which doesn't seem likely).

 

[EHocking]

Should have just said he was black.
No warrant needed - that’s sufficient probable cause for US police.

 

[whoanellie]

I don't recall the source and there are so many articles now it is hard to sift through him. One article quoting the lawyer had him saying something to the effect that the police had reported that he had told them he represented Warner and the lawyer said he would not consent to a search. The lawyer had said that police report was incorrect and that he was not actually representing Warner at the time but that he had been contacted by the police and said that from what he knew of his client he would not consent to a search.



The part about them contacting the lawyer and the police interpreting his statement as not allowing a search is in the police statement issued today: "[The attorney] would not allow his client to permit a visual inspection of the RV."



My recollection is that the attorney denied that and said he did not represent Warner at the time and only said Warner would not allow an inspection based on his experience. As I said, it appears there was a miscommunication (or the lawyer is lying for some reason, which doesn't seem likely).

In the quote from today's police press release you left out 'The recollection ...' There is apparently no written report that has been released that includes anything about the consent issue. The entire paragraph about consent in the police press release is self serving and nonsensical. It is a red herring. 1) As the lawyer says in the quote I provided above the police position does not make sense. Why would a lawyer provide information to the police telling them where to search and what to search for and then tell them they can't search? 2) I don't believe that the lawyer had legal authority to tell the police that they couldn't ask AQW for consent to search. He had never representrd AQW in any criminal matter and was not representing him in this matter. 3) The police are pretty good at getting people to not follow lawyers advice. 4) Initially they did go to AQW's home with presumably the intention of requesting permission to search the camper. 5) The police could have sought a search warrant, questioned neighbors or employers, etc.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

In the quote from today's police press release you left out 'The recollection ...' There is apparently no written report that has been released that includes anything about the consent issue. The entire paragraph about consent in the police press release is self serving and nonsensical. It is a red herring. 1) As the lawyer says in the quote I provided above the police position does not make sense. Why would a lawyer provide information to the police telling them where to search and what to search for and then tell them they can't search? 2) I don't believe that the lawyer had legal authority to tell the police that they couldn't ask AQW for consent to search. He had never representrd AQW in any criminal matter and was not representing him in this matter. 3) The police are pretty good at getting people to not follow lawyers advice. 4) Initially they did go to AQW's home with presumably the intention of requesting permission to search the camper. 5) The police could have sought a search warrant, questioned neighbors or employers, etc.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

I don't follow what you are trying to get at. The lawyer was Waren's attorney at some time. At the time in question he may or may not have represented himself as Waren's attorney. The initial police report recorded that he did represent Waren.

But either way, I can't see how that affects anything in any significant way.

 

[Checkmite]

At any rate, whether or not one feels the police were justified in dismissing the two reports of the suspect's bomb-making or they dropped the ball by doing so, chances now are similar reports in the future will not be so capriciously ignored after only a token fact-finding attempt.