Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[portlandatheist]

The warrant remains technically legal. That doesn’t automatically render factual the information in it. And at least one key piece of information in the warrant has already been disputed.

Just to reiterate a point I made earlier:
Jefferson Circuit Judge Mary Shaw signed all five[warrants] within 12 minutes

The fact this warrant was approved and rubber stamped without any due dilegence in the first place should give us all pause. And like Minoosh has been saying, drug dealing at this level isn't worthy of this type of response.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So do we have this right? One indictment for a cop that shot at Breonna, but the indictment was for the shots that actually missed her?

nope.

No indictment for the cops who shot Taylor, some indictment for the cop who just shot blindly at the windows in her place, barely missing a family in the next apartment.

 

[Thermal]

nope.

No indictment for the cops who shot Taylor, some indictment for the cop who just shot blindly at the windows in her place, barely missing a family in the next apartment.

Minor rewording then: the indictment was for the shots fired by police that missed Breonna.

Oh that's much better.

 

[Minoosh]

Minor rewording then: the indictment was for the shots fired by police that missed Breonna.

Oh that's much better.

Not really fair IMO: The indictment was for an officer who fired off 10 shots absolutely blind from outside the apartment and into a different apartment. The shots that hit Breonna, though, were fired by police returning fire from Walker.

They're given a pass for self-defense; the other shooter had no such claim.

 

[Thermal]

Not really fair IMO: The indictment was for an officer who fired off 10 shots absolutely blind from outside the apartment and into a different apartment. The shots that hit Breonna, though, were fired by police returning fire from Walker.

They're given a pass for self-defense; the other shooter had no such claim.

Secondary minor rewording then: the indictment was for the one cop who was too incompetent to hit Breonna.

 

[Mumbles]

Just to reiterate a point I made earlier:
Jefferson Circuit Judge Mary Shaw signed all five[warrants] within 12 minutes

The fact this warrant was approved and rubber stamped without any due dilegence in the first place should give us all pause. And like Minoosh has been saying, drug dealing at this level isn't worthy of this type of response.

I'd be okay if SWAT teams were reserved for actual emergencies - say, armed gunmen take hostages or some such. This crap where they shoot people in the head or blow holes into toddlers' chests, or even shoot their dogs for that matter, because of some quantity of drugs small enough to be easily flushed down the toilet without leaving a trace?

**** that, it's not worth a single life.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

People who are saying the system failed here are essentially saying that if police officers executing a legal warrant to investigate a drug dealing location for evidence, are fired upon as they enter, and then they return fire - that those officers need to somehow face punishment for that? That is insane.

How can you tell an officer that? That they can be asked to go execute a search warrant, and if they get shot at, they can't defend themselves? 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?

People are talking about this case as though the officers charged in, found Bryanna quaking in fear under her comforter, and emptied mags into her later saying "I saw a figure under the sheets, how do I know she doesn't have a gun under there? Better safe than sorry!"

Actually, under your imaginary scenario where Breowna was hiding under a comforter, quaking in fear, and the officers kicked in the door and ordered her to remove the comforter and raise both hands in the air so the officers could be assured that she was unarmed and that there were no weapons within reaching distance and she did not immediately comply, the officers would have been negligent to not empty their magazine into her, reload, and continue shooting if she was still twitching.

I usually agree with you, Mr. Tank, but sometimes your empathy, open-mindedness, compassion, and concern for the underdog clouds your thinking.

Considering the facts of what actually happened, as soon as Briiowynnna's booty call pointed a gun at a police officer and pulled the trigger, nobody in the apartment had any reasonable expectation of leaving that apartment alive. The tragedy here, and the reason that Louisville should be burned to the ground is that Kenneth Walker is not dead.

 

[portlandatheist]

I'd be okay if SWAT teams were reserved for actual emergencies - say, armed gunmen take hostages or some such. This crap where they shoot people in the head or blow holes into toddlers' chests, or even shoot their dogs for that matter, because of some quantity of drugs small enough to be easily flushed down the toilet without leaving a trace?

**** that, it's not worth a single life.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Planigale]

I think this is a situation where command responsibility should apply; the sheriff or equivalent and the department should be prosecuted for (corporate) negligent homicide. There should have been effective systems in place to have prevented this. In most countries an armed raid of this sort would have required approval at a senior level. A risk analysis would have been required and justification as to why no alternative is possible. I am sympathetic that once underway the cops at the front line were in a no win situation, I do not think they should be prosecuted.

The other issue is the judicial. Warrants are required to ensure that rights of individuals are protected against the actions of the state. Judges should have sufficient time to assess these rather than rubber stamp them, they are there to defend the constitution. They should review the risk analysis. The judicial authorities should ensure that appropriate time is allocated rather than the process being fitted into breaks.

 

[Roboramma]

Once again, you are correct. I shouldn’t be so critical.

When someone asks a semi-rhetorical question about whether or not police treat rich white people the same way they treat poor black people, “No, because rich people can move” is a genius response that demonstrates amazing clarity of thought and a firm grasp of the issue being discussed.

I think he's saying that rich people don't live in areas with a lot of crime, so we should expect less police activity near rich people, not because they're rich, but because there is less crime where they live.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Roboramma]

She wasn't asleeping, she was standing in the hallway behind he boyfriend who shot the cop. It clearly wasn't murder. Of course a jury shouldn't convict them.

Her boyfriend was protecting himself from people breaking in to his house. They shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think he's saying that rich people don't live in areas with a lot of crime, so we should expect less police activity near rich people, not because they're rich, but because there is less crime where they live.

Seems reasonable.

No, it does not.

The amount of crime cops discover is proportional to the number of cops in an area, not the number of crimes committed.
The Rich break the law all the time, but because cops only show up when the Rich want them to, they don't get arrested and charged.

 

[The Don]

No, it does not.

The amount of crime cops discover is proportional to the number of cops in an area, not the number of crimes committed.
The Rich break the law all the time, but because cops only show up when the Rich want them to, they don't get arrested and charged.

Mrs Don mentioned a Facebook post to this effect this morning.

A white guy who grew up in a nice suburb saying that if he and his buddies were pulled by the police all the time when they were young then the police would have found drugs and the kids would have ended up in jail - instead they got to go to college.

 

[Roboramma]

No, it does not.

The amount of crime cops discover is proportional to the number of cops in an area, not the number of crimes committed.
The Rich break the law all the time, but because cops only show up when the Rich want them to, they don't get arrested and charged.

Wikipedia disagrees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour#Socioeconomic_factors

Socioeconomic status (usually measured using the three variables income (or wealth), occupational level, and years of education) correlates negatively with criminality, except for self-reported illegal drug use. Higher parental socioeconomic status probably has an inverse relationship with crime. Unstable employment and high frequency of unemployment correlate positively with criminality.

Do you have some support for your claim?

 

[Matthew Best]

Don't the words "except for self-reported illegal drug use" mean that what that's actually saying is - if you ignore the crimes the rich commit, they don't commit many crimes.

 

[Roboramma]

Mrs Don mentioned a Facebook post to this effect this morning.

A white guy who grew up in a nice suburb saying that if he and his buddies were pulled by the police all the time when they were young then the police would have found drugs and the kids would have ended up in jail - instead they got to go to college.

Sure, I think that's an important factor. But there are some crimes that aren't just going undiscovered, murder for instance. It's still true that those crimes happen more often in underprivileged neighborhoods.

There are socioeconomic drivers for that I think we should be doing something about.

 

[Roboramma]

Don't the words "except for self-reported illegal drug use" mean that what that's actually saying is - if you ignore the crimes the rich commit, they don't commit many crimes.

No, it means that there is a category in which it's not true, but for all other categories it is. Seems to me meaningful to point out that caveat, but it also doesn't change the fact as it relates to the total.

But just to be clear, we're actually arguing about whether or not crime is more common in lower income areas?

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not arguing. I can't speak for you.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, it means that there is a category in which it's not true, but for all other categories it is. Seems to me meaningful to point out that caveat, but it also doesn't change the fact as it relates to the total.

But just to be clear, we're actually arguing about whether or not crime is more common in lower income areas?

Drug use comes with a host of other crimes.
And if you can afford a decent lawyer, the chance that you are actually getting indicted or convicted drop dramatically - a person with less means would have to plea out.


And if we go down this road, there are plenty of laws that in effect criminalize poverty.

So yes, I would argue that the main reason we see more crime in poor areas is because that is where cops are looking; if they were told to fill their quota of crime detecting in rich areas, they could.

 

[Roboramma]

Drug use comes with a host of other crimes.

Crimes which would actually show up in the statistics.

And if you can afford a decent lawyer, the chance that you are actually getting indicted or convicted drop dramatically - a person with less means would have to plea out.

Sure, I can see how that might be a factor.

And if we go down this road, there are plenty of laws that in effect criminalize poverty.

If so, then while those laws should be changed, in the meantime you'd expect poverty to be associated with criminality (and not just biased enforcement).

So yes, I would argue that the main reason we see more crime in poor areas is because that is where cops are looking; if they were told to fill their quota of crime detecting in rich areas, they could.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting hypothesis. I think it probably explains some of the difference. But it's not the only factor.