Major explosion in downtown Nashville

[rockinkt]

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.

I prefer to deal with reality when discussing real cases.

A report of bomb making may not be enough for search warrant and the idea that a vengeful ex-spouse is causing trouble is certainly a valid possibility. It still needs to be checked out.
The vast majority of people answer their door when a police officer knocks on it in the middle of the day. This person apparently did not answer his door and ignored the knocking. That is not normal behaviour.
Police look for abnormal behaviour. It is an indication that something is not right. Not proof - but an indication. It could also be that it was bad timing and there was some valid reason for the person not to come to the door at that specific time. That is why I stated that there should have been a follow up on another day and preferably at another time.
If the same type of abnormal behaviour happens on the following day - what are the odds that you caught the person at a bad time two days in a row?
So now the police have a report of bomb making and what appears to abnormal behaviour on two occasions. That would get the average person's spidey senses tingling. A good cop would be on his/her way to a judge to get a warrant and alerting the top brass to maybe get the bomb squad rolling.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I am supremely confident that, one year ago, in 2019, police had the authority to do more than try to knock on somebody's door - once - after somebody reported direct knowledge that person was building bombs.

It really does amaze me how far "probable cause" can wander.

One day having a bad ex-boyfriend means the police can storm in at midnight, while on another, two witnesses' statements can't overcome an informal property boundary.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

I wish I shared your optimism.

White extremists seem to engage in acts of tremendous violence in this country, over and over again, with little response from police. Lessons seem to be short lived.

 

[cosmicaug]

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?

What I somehow missed is that this incident report was dealing with two addresses. Police were called to the girlfriend's address. In that process there was a '... and by the way...' moment that happened where police were informed of alleged bomb making by the boyfriend who lived at a separate address. I had not understood this.

I suppose there must be a separate incident report for the mentioned "service call" and that the incident report linked in the previous post (as well as the lawandcrime article) is a separate, secondary one stemming from the '... and by the way...' moment.

 

[cosmicaug]

I prefer to deal with reality when discussing real cases.

A report of bomb making may not be enough for search warrant and the idea that a vengeful ex-spouse is causing trouble is certainly a valid possibility. It still needs to be checked out.
The vast majority of people answer their door when a police officer knocks on it in the middle of the day. This person apparently did not answer his door and ignored the knocking. That is not normal behaviour.Police look for abnormal behaviour. It is an indication that something is not right. Not proof - but an indication. It could also be that it was bad timing and there was some valid reason for the person not to come to the door at that specific time. That is why I stated that there should have been a follow up on another day and preferably at another time.
If the same type of abnormal behaviour happens on the following day - what are the odds that you caught the person at a bad time two days in a row?
So now the police have a report of bomb making and what appears to abnormal behaviour on two occasions. That would get the average person's spidey senses tingling. A good cop would be on his/her way to a judge to get a warrant and alerting the top brass to maybe get the bomb squad rolling.

There's no legal requirement to talk to police*. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge their presence. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge one's own presence. There's no legal requirement to open the door to them and certainly there's no legal requirement to let them in your house (any lawyer worth anything, in fact, is likely to tell you not to do this). There isn't even a legal requirement to be respectful to police (disrespect them at your own risk, however, as you can suffer much harm, up to and including death, for the pseudocrime of disrespecting the police).

Much of this changes the moment a warrant is issued and not before.

What you are suggesting is that in some non exigent circumstances due process should be ignored and availing oneself of 4th Amendment protections to the fullest extent possible should be considered grounds for establishing probable cause.

What the vast majority of people would do is irrelevant. The majority of people will go straight to consenting to searches (you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide). Basing probable cause on considering someone not waiving of 4th Amendment protections as suspicious because of the fact that cops are often good at getting people to waive their 4th Amendment protections is a sure way to dilute said 4th Amendment protections (to the point, ultimately, where they become meaningless).

Either you have probable cause grounds or you do not (and, honestly, in this specific case and based on that phone call from Throckmorton, I would lean toward this being grounds).




* Call me on the telephone and I will not answer unless your number is in my address book (too many spammers & telemarketers these days for me to reply to unknown numbers). If the police called me, I wouldn't even know it was the police unless the phone ID specifically identified as police.

 

[dasmiller]

Basing probable cause on considering someone not waiving of 4th Amendment protections as suspicious because of the fact that cops are often good at getting people to waive their 4th Amendment protections is a sure way to dilute said 4th Amendment protections (to the point, ultimately, where they become meaningless).

(hilite mine)

Actually, the 4th Amendment becomes instantly meaningless in that scenario. If refusal of a warrantless search is grounds for a warrant, then the warrant process has become meaningless and the 4th Amendment doesn't protect anyone from anything.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

There's no legal requirement to talk to police*. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge their presence.

One exception may be traffic accident investigation. At least in Florida, you are required by law to provide information pertaining to the accident. The good news is, none of the information you provide is admissible in court, since it is compelled. If the officer wishes to transition from an accident investigation to a criminal investigation, he or she will then Mirandize - at that point you can choose to remain silent.

But outside of that exception, you are generally correct.

 

[rockinkt]

There's no legal requirement to talk to police*. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge their presence. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge one's own presence. There's no legal requirement to open the door to them and certainly there's no legal requirement to let them in your house (any lawyer worth anything, in fact, is likely to tell you not to do this). There isn't even a legal requirement to be respectful to police (disrespect them at your own risk, however, as you can suffer much harm, up to and including death, for the pseudocrime of disrespecting the police).

Much of this changes the moment a warrant is issued and not before.

What you are suggesting is that in some non exigent circumstances due process should be ignored and availing oneself of 4th Amendment protections to the fullest extent possible should be considered grounds for establishing probable cause.

What the vast majority of people would do is irrelevant. The majority of people will go straight to consenting to searches (you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide). Basing probable cause on considering someone not waiving of 4th Amendment protections as suspicious because of the fact that cops are often good at getting people to waive their 4th Amendment protections is a sure way to dilute said 4th Amendment protections (to the point, ultimately, where they become meaningless).

Either you have probable cause grounds or you do not (and, honestly, in this specific case and based on that phone call from Throckmorton, I would lean toward this being grounds).




* Call me on the telephone and I will not answer unless your number is in my address book (too many spammers & telemarketers these days for me to reply to unknown numbers). If the police called me, I wouldn't even know it was the police unless the phone ID specifically identified as police.

I am well aware of what the legalities are regarding responding to anything a police officer says or does. Your discussion points are valid - but not relevant to this particular discussion as there was certainly probable cause for a warrant given all the factors.

The vast majority of people do not have your particular hang ups. To say your behaviour is not the norm is not an opinion - it is a fact. No-one is saying it is illegal or immoral or anything else other than not normally what most people do.
Like I said - police look for things outside of the norm. It is not normal to have a report of bomb making and then have someone ignoring the police and not answering the door. It is not proof of anything and no-one is saying that it is. It is, however, a fact pattern that indicates something may be going on that endangers the lives of a lot of people and that is grounds enough for a warrant.

 

[Mike!]

There's no legal requirement to talk to police*. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge their presence. There's no legal requirement to acknowledge one's own presence. There's no legal requirement to open the door to them and certainly there's no legal requirement to let them in your house (any lawyer worth anything, in fact, is likely to tell you not to do this). There isn't even a legal requirement to be respectful to police (disrespect them at your own risk, however, as you can suffer much harm, up to and including death, for the pseudocrime of disrespecting the police).

Much of this changes the moment a warrant is issued and not before.

What you are suggesting is that in some non exigent circumstances due process should be ignored and availing oneself of 4th Amendment protections to the fullest extent possible should be considered grounds for establishing probable cause.

What the vast majority of people would do is irrelevant. The majority of people will go straight to consenting to searches (you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide). Basing probable cause on considering someone not waiving of 4th Amendment protections as suspicious because of the fact that cops are often good at getting people to waive their 4th Amendment protections is a sure way to dilute said 4th Amendment protections (to the point, ultimately, where they become meaningless).

Either you have probable cause grounds or you do not (and, honestly, in this specific case and based on that phone call from Throckmorton, I would lean toward this being grounds).




* Call me on the telephone and I will not answer unless your number is in my address book (too many spammers & telemarketers these days for me to reply to unknown numbers). If the police called me, I wouldn't even know it was the police unless the phone ID specifically identified as police.

Sadly, these days, caller ID meaningless since scammers have found ways to "spoof" known numbers, including the local police departments. We only answer our land line if we know the number. We recently got a call from the local PD, I used to do all the police car graphics in our community, so I recognised it along with the ID saying it was the police. It wasn't them, it was a car warranty sales call. I called my friends at the station to let them know, and they were already aware it was happening.

 

[No Other]

I find it amazing when people are readily accepting speculation as a baseline for facts. Already, if you challenge any finding outside of: 1) distraught man 2) suicide 3) the explosion is anything other than a bomb from the RV 4) family dispute.

Many fact checks (ie: Reuters) have "debunked" anything outside of the above as FALSE. If we wish to rely on a news agency for what we need to believe, then we have spiraled completely into the abyss. No longer is it considered "investigative journalism" to question narratives that are not matching with what is printed. If these "fact checks" are so accurate, why do we even have an investigative department within the police force? Plus, how can the "fact checkers" get conclusive information prior to the law enforcement agencies?

I do not have an opinion on anything regarding the event in Nashville, I only wish for those who do have an opinion stated it as such and not as fact.

 

[Bob001]

I find it amazing when people are readily accepting speculation as a baseline for facts. Already, if you challenge any finding outside of: 1) distraught man 2) suicide 3) the explosion is anything other than a bomb from the RV 4) family dispute.

Many fact checks (ie: Reuters) have "debunked" anything outside of the above as FALSE.
....

So what's your point? Unless you think somebody tied him up in his RV, he killed himself. That would indicate pretty strongly that he was distraught/disturbed. There are videos of the RV exploding. "Family dispute" is a little vague, and maybe subject to interpretation. But there is no dispute about the key facts.

What do you think needs to be challenged, and on what basis?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It really does amaze me how far "probable cause" can wander.

One day having a bad ex-boyfriend means the police can storm in at midnight, while on another, two witnesses' statements can't overcome an informal property boundary.

This ^

And police could have gone in that backyard without a warrant by claiming they believed there was a crime in progress.

 

[William Parcher]

I wonder if he had the RV rigged to blow up if he got busted on his property. Maybe he decided that he would choose suicide over going to jail.

Cops find out he has a bomb and he blows it up killing everyone around including himself. Or he blows it up and then shoots himself dead. Maybe he had a trigger inside his home.

He may have had a backup plan in case the cops or SWAT stormed the RV to take him into custody when he was parked downtown.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

From comments by Police Cheif Drake reported in the Tennessean:

After receiving the report from Warner's girlfriend, officers knocked on the door of his home at 115 Bakertown Road, but he didn't answer. Police didn't see him at the residence when doing driving by his home. Officers didn't smell any explosives when outside his residence, Drake said.

Without speaking to Warner, officers had no evidence, Drake said. Investigators at that time had a statement from Warner's girlfriend and attorney, who told police that although Warner knew how to build bombs, he wasn't violent. Drake called the bomber "squeaky clean" when officers looked into his background.

Drake repeatedly said Metro officers didn't have enough evidence to seek a search warrant of Warner's home or RV, and said Warner's attorney told officers they would not be able to search the property.

"I believe officers did everything they could legally," he said. "Maybe we could've followed up more. Hindsight is 20/20."

That certainly wasn't everything they could have done legally. And probably not all they should have done considering this was a tip from the guy's own lawyer.

They could have asked the ex-girlfriend what she saw or heard that led her to believe that he was building a bomb, what type of bombs, did she see him building it or just hear about it, what materials were being used, how long had he been working on it, why was he building it, did he mention any specific targets, did he mention this to anyone else, did he belong to any radical groups, etc.

The whole thing with the ex-girlfriend was because she had two of Warner's guns that she didn't want in the house. Notify Warner that you have his guns and make arrangements to drop them off, giving an opportunity to talk to him.

Make another attempt to contact him and see if he will answer questions or maybe consent to a search.

Talk to neighbors to see if they have noticed any suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

Do what police do when they have the slightest suspicion of drugs. Bring out the dogs. Get a bomb sniffing dog to walk around the property and look for a signal.

There are a number of things they could have done to get more information and possibly build a case for probable cause.

 

[quadraginta]

Sure, and the highlighed is my point. Even something that was actually about the incident has more or less lost that connection in many people's minds.

I would say very few people under the age of 40, if they even hear the song, would make the connection to a forgotten incident.

I remember when the song first came out, and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that even at that time quite a few people did not make any connection with the school shooting it was written about.

 

[rockinkt]

From comments by Police Cheif Drake reported in the Tennessean:



That certainly wasn't everything they could have done legally. And probably not all they should have done considering this was a tip from the guy's own lawyer.

They could have asked the ex-girlfriend what she saw or heard that led her to believe that he was building a bomb, what type of bombs, did she see him building it or just hear about it, what materials were being used, how long had he been working on it, why was he building it, did he mention any specific targets, did he mention this to anyone else, did he belong to any radical groups, etc.

The whole thing with the ex-girlfriend was because she had two of Warner's guns that she didn't want in the house. Notify Warner that you have his guns and make arrangements to drop them off, giving an opportunity to talk to him.

Make another attempt to contact him and see if he will answer questions or maybe consent to a search.

Talk to neighbors to see if they have noticed any suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

Do what police do when they have the slightest suspicion of drugs. Bring out the dogs. Get a bomb sniffing dog to walk around the property and look for a signal.

There are a number of things they could have done to get more information and possibly build a case for probable cause.

Yep. As I mentioned above - lazy policing.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yep. As I mentioned above - lazy policing.

Yes, I can see that and agree. But note that "get a warrant" is not top of his list. Some of us are wondering what it takes to get a warrant and this poster and the authority he cites seems to think the police would have needed to build probable cause, not that they already had probable cause.

 

[Matthew Best]

I remember when the song first came out, and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that even at that time quite a few people did not make any connection with the school shooting it was written about.

I mean, who does like Mondays?

 

[whoanellie]

Yes, I can see that and agree. But note that "get a warrant" is not top of his list. Some of us are wondering what it takes to get a warrant and this poster and the authority he cites seems to think the police would have needed to build probable cause, not that they already had probable cause.

The 'authority' whose statement is summarized in the Tennessean article is the police chief in Nashville, not an independent unbiased expert.

If you're wondering if the police had probable cause ask yourself 2 questions:
1) What would the police had done if the girlfriend had said AQW was cooking meth in his camper?
2) Compare the probable cause that the police had - and could have further developed - to search AQW's camper to the evidence they presented in their warrant to search Breonna Taylor's apartment including the false evidence they included.
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Breonna-Taylor-search-warrants.pdf

An argument could be made that the police did everything they SHOULD have done to investigate the statements of the girlfriend and the attorney. For example, the police could say that they get dozens of these accusations and they never pan out so it is not a good use of our resources to pursue them.
Instead I've seen three lines of argument that focus on whether the police COULD have done more:
1) The girlfriend was 'crazy'. The police couldn't rely on what she told them.
2) The attorney told us not to search.
3) We did not have probable cause.

Blaming the outcome here on the girlfriend or the attorney (#1 and #2) is both unfair and potentially dangerous. Both the girlfriend and attorney did the right thing. Blaming them will not encourage others to come forward in future cases. The attorney denies that #2 is true and as he has noted it is illogical. #2 is only supported by police 'recollection'. #3 is self-serving and as Delphic Oracle has noted the police conception of probable cause seems to wander around quite a bit. As others have noted here, clearly the police COULD have done more.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The 'authority' whose statement is summarized in the Tennessean article is the police chief in Nashville, not an independent unbiased expert.If you're wondering if the police had probable cause ask yourself 2 questions:

I'm not an expert, never mind an unbiased one. I, mercifully, have precious little experience with this kind of crazy. So me answering those questions is pointless.

Blaming the outcome here on the girlfriend or the attorney (#1 and #2) is both unfair and potentially dangerous. Both the girlfriend and attorney did the right thing.

I haven't seen anyone blaming the girlfriend and not many blaming the attorney. You are correct that blaming them is wrong.