Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[johnny karate]

How about if the "intruders" are firemen who have broken down your door to get into your house to rescue you and your children?

Excellent point. You have convinced me that it should be made illegal to defend your home with deadly force.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How about if the "intruders" are firemen who have broken down your door to get into your house to rescue you and your children?

I haven't heard of plain clothes firefighters, then tend to prefer non-flammable turnout gear. Usually it's obvious who's coming in because the big red truck with the siren, plus the firefighters screaming about the building being on fire. Even if you did shoot at them, they probably aren't going to turn the whole apartment into swiss cheese in response.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Personally I would say yes, the police should not open fire if they don't know if it is possible an unintended target would get hit. We are talking about a residential property not a warzone.

The courts disagree allowing the police to open fire on non threatening dogs regardless of the children behind the dog. That is within the legally recognized scope of police authority.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/18/cop-who-accidentally-shot-10-year-old-when-aiming-for-family-dog-cant-be-sued-federal-court-rules/#52bdf6523987

 

[johnny karate]

No. That isn't how this works. I have been saying that you didn't have evidence to support your claim that the police lied. That isn't me pulling it out of my ass, that is you not supplying evidence to support your claim. You have now found a newspaper that summarizes a report we haven't seen in a way you like. OK, that's an improvement.

I’ve made my case why I believe the police lied and provided the supporting evidence repeatedly in this thread.

You, on the other hand, make up crap to support your predetermined narrative without bothering to check to see if it is factually-supported.

That I am the one who had to do the actual research to determine the veracity of your claim is a clear demonstration of how lazy your approach is and how little you care for the truth.

We see here that they have changed the statement of the postal inspector. The postal inspector said that no "packages of interest" were going to Taylor. Glover says that his packages were going there, so it isn't clear that the newspapers are summarizing things correctly. The postal inspector does not say that no packages for Glover were going to Taylor. Maybe it is somehow the case that no parcels for Taylor were going there? The Postal Inspector doesn't say it. The newspaper summaries of the case are too unreliable and too loosely written to make the inferences you are making.

You have no evidence!

*provides evidence*

I reject your evidence!

I have spent some time looking for the report they are relying on and can't find it. If anybody has it, I would be grateful for a link.

Why do you need to see it?

You can just skip right to part where you make up a bunch of plausibility-defying garbage to defend the police and dismiss the report.

It’s where we’re headed regardless.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you really wanna make that case? That police don't have to know who or what they're shooting at? Especially in a crowded apartment complex? Does "retreat and regroup" have a place?

Police policy is much more WWLJD(what would leeroy jenkins do).

 

[ponderingturtle]

In a state like Kentucky where there are stand your ground laws that explicitly allow shoot first at night when someone breaks down your door, and more than half (54%) of households possess guns - that would seem the most utterly imbecilic protocol imaginable. And oh look, it was.

On the pluss side we have a good example of a lot of totally legal exchange of fire where no one did anything wrong.

 

[shuttlt]

I haven't heard of plain clothes firefighters, then tend to prefer non-flammable turnout gear. Usually it's obvious who's coming in because the big red truck with the siren, plus the firefighters screaming about the building being on fire. Even if you did shoot at them, they probably aren't going to turn the whole apartment into swiss cheese in response.

Walker said he fired the warning shot without seeing who it was. He also said that they wouldn't have heard the announce from the far end of the apartment. If we take Walker's description of the event, it seems debatable that he wouldn't have shot this hypothetical firefighter.

 

[Bob001]

How about if the "intruders" are firemen who have broken down your door to get into your house to rescue you and your children?

Now this is just silly. You can hear firefighters' sirens and airhorns from blocks away, you'll see their flashing lights from your windows, they'll be shouting "fire" in the halls and pounding on every door. And they wear pretty distinctive attire. Has that ever happened? And you're really swimming against the right-wing stream if you think someone shouldn't be able to defend his home.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Excuses? For murder? I go by intention

Why are you firing your gun at someone if you are not intending to kill them? That seems rather a strange idea really.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Walker said he fired the warning shot without seeing who it was. He also said that they wouldn't have heard the announce from the far end of the apartment. If we take Walker's description of the event, it seems debatable that he wouldn't have shot this hypothetical firefighter.

If only there were some lights and sirens on state vehicles that made it clear they were official agents of the state to everyone within earshot.

The chances of being mistaken as a home invader goes way down when cops make their official presence well known. There's a reason why this isn't a problem for firefighters, because they don't play these games.

 

[shuttlt]

I’ve made my case why I believe the police lied and provided the supporting evidence repeatedly in this thread.

You, on the other hand, make up crap to support your predetermined narrative without bothering to check to see if it is factually-supported.

No I don't since I don't have a predetermined narrative. The police could have lied, or been in error on the warrant. That may well come out of the FBI investigation. You on the other hand are willing to read certainty into the word choice of particular newspaper articles that are clearly not accurately summarizing other aspects of the story.

That I am the one who had to do the actual research to determine the veracity of your claim is a clear demonstration of how lazy your approach is and how little you care for the truth.

It is YOUR claim. YOU are the one who is claiming the police lied. If I have a claim it is that you haven't proved your claim. I have been providing first hand sources to the thread, you have posted the first newspaper article that you thought supported your cause. It's not my fault that you hadn't even bothered to look for that level of support for your claims before you made them.

You have no evidence!

*provides evidence*

I reject your evidence!

Yes, because your evidence is terrible.

Why do you need to see it?

What I don't need is another newspaper article saying that the police lied based on the same statement from the USPI that doesn't actually say that the police lied.

You can just skip right to part where you make up a bunch of plausibility-defying garbage to defend the police and dismiss the report.

You seem to be quite emotionally invested in this case. It's just a discussion on the Internet. The primary sources don't yet show that the police lied. A lot of junk newspaper articles assert it, but incorrectly summarize the source they base the claim on. If you want to trust the summaries of newspaper articles that contradict the primary sources we have available to us, knock yourself out. I don't find it persuasive. We are still at an early stage in this case. There is no need or justification for the level of certainty you are showing with respect to the case. Your same methodology would have led us to conclude that she was shot in her bed and that the police had come to the wrong house if we were having this same discussion a few months ago. You are too willing to accept things that appeal to your bias.

It’s where we’re headed regardless.

Where we are heading is a period of uncertainty until further releases of reliable information into which the press will probably pour a bunch of half truths and opinion.

 

[shuttlt]

If only there were some lights and sirens on state vehicles that made it clear they were official agents of the state to everyone within earshot.

That only helps if you hear or see them. They were in the back of the house watching TV/asleep. Do the sirens stay on when the fire engine has stopped? The door opened side on to the road, I'm not sure the lights would have been too visible.

The chances of being mistaken as a home invader goes way down when cops make their official presence well known. There's a reason why this isn't a problem for firefighters, because they don't play these games.

Maybe. We are talking about a rather edge case hypothetical here where firefighters are urgently breaking into a home where the occupants are simultaneously conscious enough to be a threat, but unaware of a fire so they think firefighters are breaking in.

I's not like cops getting shot as home invaders is routine. If getting shot as a home invader is rare for cops, it's going to be rarer still for firefighters.

 

[johnny karate]

No I don't since I don't have a predetermined narrative. The police could have lied, or been in error on the warrant. That may well come out of the FBI investigation. You on the other hand are willing to read certainty into the word choice of particular newspaper articles that are clearly not accurately summarizing other aspects of the story.

You manufactured a narrative in which the police might have been playing some inter-agency game of telephone to get around the fact that the postal inspector stated no one from the Louisville PD contacted anyone from his office about this case.

I provided evidence that contradicts your manufactured narrative.

It is YOUR claim. YOU are the one who is claiming the police lied. If I have a claim it is that you haven't proved your claim. I have been providing first hand sources to the thread, you have posted the first newspaper article that you thought supported your cause. It's not my fault that you hadn't even bothered to look for that level of support for your claims before you made them.

I’m not the one who just had one of my claims disproven. That was you.

Yes, because your evidence is terrible.

Right, because the police tell the unvarnished truth. Everyone else is lying.

What I don't need is another newspaper article saying that the police lied based on the same statement from the USPI that doesn't actually say that the police lied.

I didn’t cite the article to prove the police lied.

I cited it to disprove one of your bogus claims. Which it did.

You seem to be quite emotionally invested in this case. It's just a discussion on the Internet. The primary sources don't yet show that the police lied. A lot of junk newspaper articles assert it, but incorrectly summarize the source they base the claim on. If you want to trust the summaries of newspaper articles that contradict the primary sources we have available to us, knock yourself out. I don't find it persuasive. We are still at an early stage in this case. There is no need or justification for the level of certainty you are showing with respect to the case. Your same methodology would have led us to conclude that she was shot in her bed and that the police had come to the wrong house if we were having this same discussion a few months ago. You are too willing to accept things that appeal to your bias.

No one has argued that there is a primary source proving the police lied. How could such a thing even exist? Even if the warrant was determined to contain erroneous information, apologists like yourself would just argue that the police made a mistake. You know, like you’re already doing in anticipation of such a determination.

This is the game that people like you play.

No matter how much evidence there is that the warrant contained false information, your position will be that unless it can be definitively proven that the police lied, then nothing has been proven at all.

It’s a cheap and transparent rhetorical tactic used by dishonest people to deny facts and reality.

Where we are heading is a period of uncertainty until further releases of reliable information into which the press will probably pour a bunch of half truths and opinion.

So far, the only person here caught making things in contradiction to the facts is you.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That only helps if you hear or see them. They were in the back of the house watching TV/asleep. Do the sirens stay on when the fire engine has stopped? The door opened side on to the road, I'm not sure the lights would have been too visible.


Maybe. We are talking about a rather edge case hypothetical here where firefighters are urgently breaking into a home where the occupants are simultaneously conscious enough to be a threat, but unaware of a fire so they think firefighters are breaking in.

I's not like cops getting shot as home invaders is routine. If getting shot as a home invader is rare for cops, it's going to be rarer still for firefighters.

I doubt there's good statistics on this. I don't have any idea what frequency these type of high risk searches occur. How many times a year do cops execute raid search warrants that involve battering down the door, for example? How many times do such raids lead to mutual gunfire?

There have been other examples of police being shot during such raids, and examples where the shooter is cleared of criminal liability under a self-defense claim.

 

[shuttlt]

You manufactured a narrative in which the police might have been playing some inter-agency game of telephone to get around the fact that the postal inspector stated no one from the Louisville PD contacted anyone from his office about this case.

I provided evidence that contradicts your manufactured narrative.

It's not a manufactured narrative. Unless you are supposing that another agency on an entirely different case was also talking to the USPI about Taylors mail, we know another agency was the one communicating with the USPI on the case. The only question is whether the LMPD was checking on the findings of the USPI via that other agency or not.

I’m not the one who just had one of my claims disproven. That was you.

Nobody's claims have been disproven since we don't have any detailed knowledge of the internal communications within the investigation. The USPI have all but confirmed that the investigation was in touch with them (via another agency), the only question was whether the LMPD made use of the information provided to the investigation or not.

Right, because the police tell the unvarnished truth. Everyone else is lying.

It's not clear at this point that anybody needs to be lying.

I didn’t cite the article to prove the police lied.

I cited it to disprove one of your bogus claims. Which it did.

Your claim was that the police lied. I claimed you hadn't proved it. If your article doesn't prove the police lied, it certainly doesn't refute my views on your claim.

No one has argued that there is a primary source proving the police lied.

OK, so we don't know that the police lied.

How could such a thing even exist?

Well, if the USPI records showed that no packages for Glover had been Taylor's house... that would go a long way, I guess the USPI could attest to that. Presumably if it turned out that the "other agency" wasn't working with the LMPD, that could be evidenced pretty easily. I would imagine that the LMPD will be asked about this by the FBI and explain to them how they confirmed this with the LMPD. The "eight page report" that your news story mentions is supposed to have some kind of internal account on this, so we will know some more if that comes to light. What I don't think is any good is articles where we get the opinion of a journalist. The opinions of journalists aren't proof of anything.

Even if the warrant was determined to contain erroneous information, apologists like yourself would just argue that the police made a mistake. You know, like you’re already doing in anticipation of such a determination.

I'm not going to quibble too much about the difference between a lie and a mistake. I do think that you are reading malice into places where incompetence might lie, but why don't we just change the battle into whether that statement in the report is correct or not? That way you win if it turns out that they didn't have any basis for saying that the USPI had found mail for Glover going to Taylor.

This is the game that people like you play.

No it isn't. I'm really not that fussed about what the final truth ends up being. They might have lied. I don't know.

No matter how much evidence there is that the warrant contained false information, your position will be that unless it can be definitively proven that the police lied, then nothing has been proven at all.

See above.

It’s a cheap and transparent rhetorical tactic used by dishonest people to deny facts and reality.

Your method of analysing the case would have had us asserting as facts that she was shot in her bed, and that the police went to the wrong house. You are too ready to be certain about things.

So far, the only person here caught making things in contradiction to the facts is you.

I'm not aware of you catching me saying anything contradicted by facts in the case.

 

[johnny karate]

It's not a manufactured narrative. Unless you are supposing that another agency on an entirely different case was also talking to the USPI about Taylors mail, we know another agency was the one communicating with the USPI on the case. The only question is whether the LMPD was checking on the findings of the USPI via that other agency or not.


Nobody's claims have been disproven since we don't have any detailed knowledge of the internal communications within the investigation. The USPI have all but confirmed that the investigation was in touch with them (via another agency), the only question was whether the LMPD made use of the information provided to the investigation or not.


It's not clear at this point that anybody needs to be lying.


Your claim was that the police lied. I claimed you hadn't proved it. If your article doesn't prove the police lied, it certainly doesn't refute my views on your claim.


OK, so we don't know that the police lied.


Well, if the USPI records showed that no packages for Glover had been Taylor's house... that would go a long way, I guess the USPI could attest to that. Presumably if it turned out that the "other agency" wasn't working with the LMPD, that could be evidenced pretty easily. I would imagine that the LMPD will be asked about this by the FBI and explain to them how they confirmed this with the LMPD. The "eight page report" that your news story mentions is supposed to have some kind of internal account on this, so we will know some more if that comes to light. What I don't think is any good is articles where we get the opinion of a journalist. The opinions of journalists aren't proof of anything.


I'm not going to quibble too much about the difference between a lie and a mistake. I do think that you are reading malice into places where incompetence might lie, but why don't we just change the battle into whether that statement in the report is correct or not? That way you win if it turns out that they didn't have any basis for saying that the USPI had found mail for Glover going to Taylor.


No it isn't. I'm really not that fussed about what the final truth ends up being. They might have lied. I don't know.


See above.


Your method of analysing the case would have had us asserting as facts that she was shot in her bed, and that the police went to the wrong house. You are too ready to be certain about things.


I'm not aware of you catching me saying anything contradicted by facts in the case.

Cool.

Here’s you throwing crap against the wall to see if it will stick:

Yes, you are. You are adding the claims that the Louisville PD had been in direct contact with the USPI, and that the packages that USPI verified were "items of interest". The Louisville Police didn't claim either of those. Without those, you haven't caught them in a lie.

Here are the facts that you didn’t bother to research because you don’t care what the actual truth is:

It was Mattingly, the officer who was shot at Taylor's apartment, who asked the postal service whether Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's apartment.

 

[rockinkt]

See answer modified to answer multiple posts in following post...

 

[rockinkt]

Now this is just silly. You can hear firefighters' sirens and airhorns from blocks away, you'll see their flashing lights from your windows, they'll be shouting "fire" in the halls and pounding on every door. And they wear pretty distinctive attire. Has that ever happened? And you're really swimming against the right-wing stream if you think someone shouldn't be able to defend his home.

I haven't heard of plain clothes firefighters, then tend to prefer non-flammable turnout gear. Usually it's obvious who's coming in because the big red truck with the siren, plus the firefighters screaming about the building being on fire. Even if you did shoot at them, they probably aren't going to turn the whole apartment into swiss cheese in response.

You obviously haven't been to many fires or know many firemen. Firemen surprising the wits out of people happens fairly often.
Firemen do not always have the luxury of waiting for someone to answer a door. If they judge that they need to get in a house, or building, or apartment now - they go in now.
They have the right under law in all jurisdictions I am aware of (in the US and Canada) to not have to wait for anybody to give permission to enter if they are of reasonable opinion that someone's life might be in danger.
People in apartments that are in the back or off the front street do not hear fire trucks.
They also do not hear them if the apartments are fronting the street and on high floors. Many apartments brag about their structure's ability to mute sounds from the street.
Some people are elderly and hard of hearing, or the TV or radio is loud, or there is a party going on. Also, many people who are deaf or blind live in houses that catch fire.
There are many reasons not hear or know what is going on outside your door. That is why a blanket "right" to shoot anyone who enters your house is absurd.
If one is to believe that Walker and Taylor did not hear the word "police" because they were asleep - it is logical to conclude that they would not have heard the word "firemen" either.

 

[rockinkt]

<snip>
Here are the facts that you didn’t bother to research because you don’t care what the actual truth is:

It was Mattingly, the officer who was shot at Taylor's apartment, who asked the postal service whether Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's apartment.

That is exactly the point that ShutIt is making!

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

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

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

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

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

The didn't. It's that simple.

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

 

[banquetbear]

They didn't. It's that simple.

...they didn't what?

 

[rockinkt]

...they didn't what?

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

...so this was a fishing expedition?

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

So these were Schrödinger's packages?

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

So it was a fishing expedition.

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

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

Was this information on the warrant?

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

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

From the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

...so this was a fishing expedition?



So these were Schrödinger's packages?



So it was a fishing expedition.

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




Was this information on the warrant?



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

From the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

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

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

That is exactly the point that ShutIt is making!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Minoosh]

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

...so this was a fishing expedition?



So these were Schrödinger's packages?



So it was a fishing expedition.

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




Was this information on the warrant?



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

From the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

I will summarize:

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

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

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

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

I've read it.

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

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

I will summarize:

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

I will summarize:

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

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

Completely beside the point.

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

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

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

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

They are needed though.

But not in this case, you would agree?

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

I'm sorry you lost your friend.

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

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

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

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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

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

 

[johnny karate]

That is exactly the point that ShutIt is making!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[johnny karate]

The didn't. It's that simple.

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

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

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

Why were the police then suspicious of these packages?

 

[Minoosh]

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

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

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

Why were the police then suspicious of these packages?

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

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

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

 

[Bob001]

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

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

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