Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[Sherkeu]

I don't see one on the cop who got shot, but who knows, the video is chaotic and dark.

The cop on the ground who has a hole in his thigh is the one shot.
He is the only one in the video that is shot.

 

[Minoosh]

If someone decided they wanted to cobble together a list to make me look bad, they'd have to settle for things that didn't include having a dead drug dealer end up in my rental car, having another drug dealer moving packages and money at my house, etc.

Hearing she was "allowed to resign" as an EMT under suspicion of taking drugs from work, too, by the way. Not sure if true, but that list of stuff to make me look bad wouldn't even include an accusation of that sort.

Maybe if such a list CAN be assembled about a person, that says something in and of itself?

Knowing the circles you hang out in it doesn't surprise me that you "hear" things. The fact that you're keen to amplify this rumor tells me more about you than her.

The list tells us she dated a petty criminal. Someone who was released on a whopping $1,000 bail after being arrested the same night she was killed. It tells us he visited her. One time he came out with a package. She does sound tolerant to a fault for letting him use her address and phone number but there you go, women sometimes do things for men they probably shouldn't.

 

[shuttlt]

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

They aren't just going into random households though. They raid places where they expect to find armed criminals in this way. If I understand it correctly, the entire point is to take control of the situation before the occupant has a chance to defend themselves. Obviously that can go wrong, but so can knocking on the door of a drug dealer and telling him you'd like to arrest him. There are tens of thousands of no knock raids across the US every year and have been for decades. I'm not going to argue that perverse incentives and incompetence can't lead authorities to do counter productive things, but no knock raids don't look to be the mission of mutually assured destruction that perhaps it appears.

 

[shuttlt]

The cop on the ground who has a hole in his thigh is the one shot.
He is the only one in the video that is shot.

Yes, I know this. I think they wear the cameras on their shoulders. I don't see one on him. The cameras aren't huge, so it might be there but I just don't see it. It's impossible from the video to tell more than that.

 

[Sherkeu]

Yes, I know this. I think they wear the cameras on their shoulders. I don't see one on him. The cameras aren't huge, so it might be there but I just don't see it. It's impossible from the video to tell more than that.

Oh sorry. I thought you didnt even see HIM on the video. So I went and checked how dark it was. Sometimes my links get wonky when I paste...so I checked and wrote back.

 

[shuttlt]

the warrant says it was verified "through a US Postal Inspector" but the Postal Inspector refutes that statement.

I don't see that. The postal inspector confirms that they were asked to monitor the mail going to that address and then says that there were no packages of interest. Maybe that is the same thing as saying that there were no packages for Glover and maybe it isn't. I don't know, do you? Who was the agency that the postal inspector referred to requesting the monitoring of the mail? Did the police get told about what if any packages there had been for Glover from that other agency?

I don't see that we are at the point yet of saying that the police lied about this is a matter of fact.

 

[shuttlt]

Oh sorry. I thought you didnt even see HIM on the video. So I went and checked how dark it was. Sometimes my links get wonky when I paste...so I checked and wrote back.

No problem. I appreciate your efforts in posting primary sources to the thread. Old school JREF

 

[Minoosh]

This is weird. From the Louisville Courier Journal, June 10:

Louisville police release the Breonna Taylor incident report. It's virtually blank

And it lists her injuries as "none," even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.

It lists the charges as "death investigation — LMPD involved" but checks the "no" box under "forced entry," even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor's apartment door.

But the most important portion of the report — the "narrative" of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words: "PIU investigation."

And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all.

It does seem that police knocked, but whether they audibly announced who they were is in dispute. I also don't know if they gave any time to answer the knock before breaking the door down.

Cops say it was a glitch that generated a nearly empty report. I don't see a link on the newspaper's website for an updated report. But there's a lot of info in this story that indicates LMPD is crap at "transparency." It sounds like getting any info at all is like pulling teeth. I don't think the autopsy report has been released either.

 

[RolandRat]

You have very black and white thinking. Either police can not shoot if there is anything greater than 0% risk of error, or they can just kill who they like. Nonsense, they need to take reasonable care and act on reasonable belief and with an amount of force proportionate to the threat as they perceive it. This isn't just an US thing. European Human Rights Law says the same thing about use of force by police. I would be stunned if law enforcement anywhere in the world operated on the idealized platonic principles that you want US police to follow.

I understand that. What police shouldn't be doing is just blasting away without consideration if they encounter a threat or a perceived threat. Which is what happened in this case. And yes, if there is a possibility of an innocent getting caught in the crossfire I believe they should back off and reassess.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

This is weird. From the Louisville Courier Journal, June 10:

Louisville police release the Breonna Taylor incident report. It's virtually blank





It does seem that police knocked, but whether they audibly announced who they were is in dispute. I also don't know if they gave any time to answer the knock before breaking the door down.

Cops say it was a glitch that generated a nearly empty report. I don't see a link on the newspaper's website for an updated report. But there's a lot of info in this story that indicates LMPD is crap at "transparency." It sounds like getting any info at all is like pulling teeth. I don't think the autopsy report has been released either.

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

That is utter madness. And what makes you think you'd dance away?

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day

.....
The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

The choice is not killer crooks or killer cops. How 'bout responsible, restrained professional police services who don't kill people they don't have to? Why do some U.S. police forces have a reputation for brutality and corruption, and others have broad public support as assets to their communities? There are different ways to do the job.

 

[Minoosh]

I understand that. What police shouldn't be doing is just blasting away without consideration if they encounter a threat or a perceived threat. Which is what happened in this case. And yes, if there is a possibility of an innocent getting caught in the crossfire I believe they should back off and reassess.

This may be asking too much. They're probably trained to return fire. But this wasn't very disciplined fire, as they shot Breonna 8 times (I've seen different numbers) but never managed to even clip the guy who shot at them. It's like they don't aim at all. Or maybe they were aiming at Breonna. Some kind of atavistic cop thing - empty your weapons at the target you've already hit.

ETA: USA Today reports police may have thought it was Taylor who fired at them.

 

[Minoosh]

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

What law did Breonna break?

Under the scenario you propose, the police ARE criminals. Which you're OK with. smh

 

[Mumbles]

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.

False - he claimed that the two heard "a banging noise" at the door, which sounds to me like the battering ram they used to bash the door in, and not some polite rapping at the door followed by a clear announcement.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

This was quite funny and had me laughing out loud for real.

Btw, I didn't spell her name incorrectly as some sort of dig or on purpose, I lapsed back into the spelling of the name I am more familiar with.

Glad you enjoyed it.

btw, I did spell her differently on purpose as a way of mocking it.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not providing second hand info- you can decide if you believe what is out there and it is NOT hard to find it.
No 'packages of interest' is a pretty tame statement. Glover listed his address at Breonnas many times. Why would it be on some record 'of interest'?
All they needed to know is that things meant for him were mailed to her address, perhaps with her name, and that he went and picked them up.

Are you saying he did not pick up packages from her place? And there was NO reason at all to go there? Even in the daytime?

I’m saying that you made a garbage claim that I’ve already refuted with actual evidence, and now you’re just spinning your wheels with a bunch of blathering nonsense.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't see that. The postal inspector confirms that they were asked to monitor the mail going to that address and then says that there were no packages of interest. Maybe that is the same thing as saying that there were no packages for Glover and maybe it isn't. I don't know, do you? Who was the agency that the postal inspector referred to requesting the monitoring of the mail? Did the police get told about what if any packages there had been for Glover from that other agency?

I don't see that we are at the point yet of saying that the police lied about this is a matter of fact.

The police claim in the warrant that a U.S. postal inspector determined Breonna Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious packages.

The U.S. postal inspector denies this.

No corroboration of the police’s claim has been presented.

Why should that claim be believed?

 

[johnny karate]

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

Fun fact: The mass murder you advocate for here is actually against the law:

I wish the police were just straight up opening fire on these groups of protestors at this point

Also, here’s you defending the illegal actions of a racist murder.

It seems that there might be some wiggle room in your “We don’t need criminals” position.

 

[RolandRat]

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

You don't have a problem with criminals it seems. You actually want to give them a badge, gun and allow them to run around committing crime.

 

[shuttlt]

The police claim in the warrant that a U.S. postal inspector determined Breonna Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious packages.

That isn't what the warrant says. It says that a postal inspector confirmed she was receiving packages for Glover. It doesn't say anything about suspicious packages.

The U.S. postal inspector denies this.

Like you, the postal inspector adds in a qualifier to what is being denied over and above what the police claim.

No corroboration of the police’s claim has been presented.

It depends what part of the claim you are talking about. The police saw Glover collect at least one package from there. He had registered her address as his mailing address in multiple different places. Glover says he picked up packages there. The police claim that somebody a postal inspector validated the fact that Glover was receiving packages there. The postal service has confirmed that somebody asked them to monitor the mail at Breonna's apartment, presumably that is connected to the raid or it would be a very odd coincidence.

It seems to me that we have the following possibilities:
1. Glover was not receiving packages to the apartment, in which case we have a conflict with Glover's testimony, the police surveillance, and him registering her apartment as his mailing address.
2. Glover was receiving packages, but not during that period. In that case, the police are either wrong or lying. By the sound of it they may have been communicating with the postal inspector indirectly.
3. Glover was receiving packages there, but they were not packages of interest. In that case, nobody is lying.

Why should that claim be believed?

I don't know about "believe", but it's not clear that anything the postal inspector has said contradicts what the police claimed. What I object to is people saying that the police lied. We don't know that.