Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[rockinkt]

I would say killing somebody who shouldn't have been killed is negligence on its face. Certainly enough so to file charges. Let the cops tell the jury why it's not.

The test for filing charges in both the United States and Canada is whether there is a likelihood of conviction.

Please outline your case for prosecution. Please be specific as to the charge(s) and how you would use the evidence available to prove your case.
Remember to go over each element of the case and how your evidence proves each element. I do not expect you to prove identity and jurisdiction as those elements are not in question.

 

[rockinkt]

You haven't contradicted anything I said. She had been dating a drug dealer. A body turned up in the car she rented for him. She let him use her address. She let him use her phone number. There is a recording of him saying that she looked after money for him. There is a recording of her saying to him that another friend had gone to a trap house. When they arrest him, it isn't a huge surprise that they raided her apartment also.


Sure, I'm quite willing to believe that the paperwork wasn't 100% in order. I wouldn't necessarily take legal advice from the Washington Posts Opinion Section, but this could be true. Maybe that's why the cops on the scene decided not to do a no knock raid after all? It's still not outrageous that she got raided. It's still clearly not murder, or manslaughter.

Well said.

I think the point that a lot of people are missing is that the failure to find the evidence that the warrant specifies does not mean that the warrant was not legally justified.
Cops can be wrong when they think that they might find something somewhere. That does not mean that they were malicious or incompetent when they obtained the warrant.
Trust me - if it was your mother or brother or father or sister they found dead in that car she rented - I'm sure you would have wanted the cops to follow every lead they had to find the person might be responsible for their death. Just like they were doing in this case.

BTW - why isn't anybody calling out for justice for the person who was found dead in the car that Breonna Taylor rented?

 

[RolandRat]

Or they only can defend themselves if they can guarantee 100% that an unintended target is not hit, even if that target is standing right next to the shooter?

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.

 

[shuttlt]

They talked to her about the dead body in 2016. Someone was arrested in 2017. Neither Glover nor Taylor were arrested. The "dead body in the car" was dredged up by LMPD in a report compiled after her death to document her ties to Glover. Which I don't blame LMPD for doing, BTW. But that body was not in play in the legal case against Glover.

Sure.

Well, they were wrong.

Sure. The raid didn't go according to plan. Necessarily some other things went wrong to get us to that outcome.

Besides: By the time you finish flushing your stash, cash and electronic devices, you're going to have one clogged toilet.

That sounds like an argument against raids.

It's an argument for considering other tactics, like screening her mail. Bringing her in for questioning.

What makes you think they didn't consider other tactics?

Any outcome where an officer is firing multiple gunshots from outside the scene is ... not good.

Sure, but the fact that there was a bad outcome doesn't in and of itself mean that the raid itself wasn't a reasonable course of action, or that it wasn't competently planned.

Not very effectively, apparently.

Not much in life is 100% effective.

I'm not a big fan of emotion-drenched pleas of "justice for Breonna" or whoever because there's not going to be any justice for her. She's beyond the reach of justice. She was in the middle of a ******-up situation and it should never have happened. In retrospect it sure looks like that raid was poorly planned and executed but hindsight is 20-20 and all that.

I'll go with some of this. The thing that jumps out at me is getting a no-knock warrant and then changing their mind. What do I know? Maybe they had their reasons? Maybe this kind of change is normal? In my completely different sphere of competence, things often go wrong when you start changing the plan on the fly.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

"If it is possible" is a high bar. Wouldn't that mean that police would be unable to use their guns in residential properties, even to defend themselves from somebody shooting them, and I would have thought many other situations besides.

 

[rockinkt]

What that means is the landlord can't "helpfully offer" or even "begrudgingly comply" to invade your privacy without a warrant.

On the other hand, they can be required to cooperate with authorities carrying out a court order.

ETA: from the link: "They are also allowed to enter a property without permission from the tenant if they have a proper search warrant signed by a judge."

READ YOUR OWN ******* 2 SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT BEFORE YOU SHARE IT!

Why should people try and find out facts when their entire argument is based on emotion? It is obvious that most of the people posting in this thread are hopelessly ignorant regarding criminal law in their own country - but that doesn't stop them from ranting and raving.

 

[rockinkt]

We're all aware of it. And?

That was one of the justifications for the warrant that the judge signed off on. Please pay attention.

 

[rockinkt]

Look up what "partial immunity" is.

Then, look up "testilying".

I do not have to look up either. I would like you to explain - in detail - what either of those phrases has to do with this case. Be specific.

 

[Minoosh]

Trust me - if it was your mother or brother or father or sister they found dead in that car she rented - I'm sure you would have wanted the cops to follow every lead they had to find the person might be responsible for their death. Just like they were doing in this case.

No, that's not what they were doing. That 2016 case had nothing to do with the 2020 case against Glover.

BTW - why isn't anybody calling out for justice for the person who was found dead in the car that Breonna Taylor rented?

Maybe because an arrest was made two months later?

Two months after loved one's murder, family 'grateful' for arrest

 

[RolandRat]

"If it is possible" is a high bar. Wouldn't that mean that police would be unable to use their guns in residential properties, even to defend themselves from somebody shooting them, and I would have thought many other situations besides.

If the police believe there could be innocent people who might get hit then yes, I don't believe they should be discharging their weapons. Yes I do believe the police should have a high bar to reach before opening fire. They are police officers, they are there to protect the public.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't see that that makes any difference to it not being surprising that she got raided.


Where are you getting the "gleeful accomplice". I don't see that on the warrant. She was clearly involved, for what ever reason you think she was unwillingly involved. For myself, I don't care whether it was willingly or unwillingly. If a drug dealer is using your house for a mail drop, using your phone number, using the car you rented to keep a corpse in, it is non-surprising if the police raid you. Doesn't matter if the drug dealer has pressured you into it.

Strange that the police had to resort to falsifying the warrant with so much rock-solid evidence at their disposal.

 

[rockinkt]

No, that's not what they were doing. That 2016 case had nothing to do with the 2020 case against Glover.

Maybe because an arrest was made two months later?

Two months after loved one's murder, family 'grateful' for arrest

The fact that an arrest was made in the murder does not mean that the case is closed and that nobody can be tied to the murder or the criminal conspiracies (such as drug dealing) that may surround that murder.
That makes the car rental and dead body relevant forever.


My plea for justice in the murder of the scumbag drug dealer that was found in her rental car was an attempt at satire. It obviously missed the mark.

 

[Minoosh]

That sounds like an argument against raids.

Some of them, yeah. They are high-adrenaline situations, often for relatively little reward. After all this, for example, Glover was released on $1,000 bail after being arrested the night Breonna Taylor was killed.

Sure, but the fact that there was a bad outcome doesn't in and of itself mean that the raid itself wasn't a reasonable course of action, or that it wasn't competently planned.

Here's how it often goes in civil suits: If it turns out that there's a high risk associated with a certain approach, it's not hard to argue that such an approach is too dangerous to use except in exceptional situations. The city's willingness to settle up for $12 million indicates they kind of know they don't want to go to court on this.

I'll go with some of this. The thing that jumps out at me is getting a no-knock warrant and then changing their mind. What do I know? Maybe they had their reasons? Maybe this kind of change is normal? In my completely different sphere of competence, things often go wrong when you start changing the plan on the fly.

They still broke down the door with a battering ram. I'm sure there's some detail I'm missing but that's close enough to no-knock for me. There's a reason charges against Walker are not being pursued. He says he would not have knowingly fired at an LEO and the city knows it can't prove he knew they were cops.

 

[rockinkt]

Strange that the police had to resort to falsifying the warrant with so much rock-solid evidence at their disposal.

Perhaps it was an unofficial report by someone in the office of the postal inspector? It wouldn't be the first time that police have obtained confidential information and then mistakenly believed or reported it came through official channels.
Perhaps there is a reason why somebody does not want to confirm his part in the Breonna Taylor investigation given that two police officers who were not involved in the death were shot by rioting slime buckets?
Considering that people in this thread have justified innocent police officers being shot in the name of justice for Taylor - it seems like a good self preservation for everybody to deny any connection to the case. Breanna Taylor? Who's she?

Besides - that was also not the only reason for the warrant and no-one has made the case that the warrant would not have been issued without that information.

 

[rockinkt]

If the police believe there could be innocent people who might get hit then yes, I don't believe they should be discharging their weapons. Yes I do believe the police should have a high bar to reach before opening fire. They are police officers, they are there to protect the public.

Hilarious!

 

[autumn1971]

Hilarious!

More gunfire in residential areas is good?

 

[johnny karate]

The warrant explains that the drug traffickers they were after had a history of destroying evidence, have cameras at the location that might compromise the detectives when they approached, and had a history of fleeing law enforcement. I would have thought that catching them all at home at a time in the middle of the night that the cops have pre-arranged is a heck of a lot simpler to coordinate than trying to find a time when none of them are home and then simultaneously arresting the potentially armed criminals in public. Logistically that seems borderline unworkable.

The information contained in the warrant is facing serious scrutiny, and the circumstances surrounding its issuance are currently under investigation by the FBI because of that.

So why do you keep citing it as if it were factual?

 

[rockinkt]

Some of them, yeah. They are high-adrenaline situations, often for relatively little reward. After all this, for example, Glover was released on $1,000 bail after being arrested the night Breonna Taylor was killed.

Here's how it often goes in civil suits: If it turns out that there's a high risk associated with a certain approach, it's not hard to argue that such an approach is too dangerous to use except in exceptional situations. The city's willingness to settle up for $12 million indicates they kind of know they don't want to go to court on this.

They still broke down the door with a battering ram. I'm sure there's some detail I'm missing but that's close enough to no-knock for me. There's a reason charges against Walker are not being pursued. He says he would not have knowingly fired at an LEO and the city knows it can't prove he knew they were cops.

Yes, there is a reason Walker is not being charged. It's because the person who recommended charges would be lynched by the same insane people who are rioting and have shot two innocent police officers because the correct legal decision has been made exonerating the two police officers of criminal charges in the death of Taylor.
Paying out 12 million was a hope to stop the rioting and civil unrest. It didn't work.

 

[Minoosh]

Hilarious!

All this no-knock business was in service of arresting a petty drug dealer who would be released on $1,000 bail shortly afterward.

Do you think it is worth endangering the lives of dozens of people to catch a petty drug dealer?

I'm not arguing they were wrong to return fire, but why put themselves in that situation to begin with? Bunch of guys in plainclothes take a battering ram to an apartment door in the dead of night?

 

[Minoosh]

Yes, there is a reason Walker is not being charged. It's because the person who recommended charges would be lynched by the same insane people who are rioting and have shot two innocent police officers because the correct legal decision has been made exonerating the two police officers of criminal charges in the death of Taylor.
Paying out 12 million was a hope to stop the rioting and civil unrest. It didn't work.

I'm not going to defend the shooting of the officers. I'm glad they're not dead. I'm not one of the people who thinks targeting cops in the street is going to be an effective strategy.