Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[shuttlt]

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

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

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

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

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

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

"affiant knows through training and experience that it is not uncommon for drug traffickers to receive mail packages at different locations to avoid detection from law enforcement."

But here's the thing.

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

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

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

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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

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

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

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

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

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

 

[Minoosh]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Minoosh]

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

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

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

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

 

[Minoosh]

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

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

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

He was clearly just using the grand jury for cover.

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

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

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

"affiant knows through training and experience that it is not uncommon for drug traffickers to receive mail packages at different locations to avoid detection from law enforcement."

But here's the thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

His bank account was registered there,

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

he gave out her phone number as his phone number,

There was nothing on the warrant about a phone number.

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

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

he says he picked up packages there,

This wasn't on the warrant.

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

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

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

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

Maybe he wasn't,

He wasn't.

it doesn't matter,

It does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That feels like a closer, and more suspicious relationship.

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

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

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

 

[rockinkt]

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



I've read it.



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



I will summarize:

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



Completely beside the point.



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



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



But not in this case, you would agree?



I'm sorry you lost your friend.



The situation that resulted in the death of Ms. Taylor was the result of police over reach in order to obtain a no-knock warrant. The police ****** up here.
And you've still left some of my questions unanswered. Please don't assume I haven't read the thread or am unfamiliar with the case. I have reasons for my questions: you don't have to answer them but I didn't ask them for ***** and giggles.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[banquetbear]

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

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

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

Not a stretch at all.

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

None of this information was on the warrant.

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

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

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

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

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

LOL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again you argue from incredulity.

His priorities were elsewhere.

Can you blame him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's what happened.

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

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

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

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

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

Horrible and tragic -

Horrible and tragic and preventable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah it is.

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

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

 

[johnny karate]

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

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

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

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

 

[autumn1971]

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


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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

There was nothing on the warrant about a phone number.

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

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

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

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

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

This wasn't on the warrant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not.

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

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

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

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

He wasn't.

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

It does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

You asked me:

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

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

Why were the police then suspicious of these packages?

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

 

[shuttlt]

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

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

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

 

[johnny karate]

You asked me:

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

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

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

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

Funny how that works.

 

[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/