Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[shuttlt]

It sounds like you are suggesting she got what she deserved, and no one should find it shocking?

No. Deserve has nothing to do with it. She could have been helping the drug dealer in order to save money for starving orphans and blind kittens in some selfless, morally courageous act, and it still wouldn't make it any less non-surprising that she got raided.

 

[shuttlt]

*circumstantial slander*

"...and so obviously she deserved it."

I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone I've known in my adult life who died that I couldn't have made a short novel of worst-possible-light interpretations of things they did in their lives.

And that's just what I witnessed or they shared.

If any of those people dated a drug dealer, allowed the drug dealer to use their house for a mail drop and use their phone number, rented a car that they allowed the drug dealer to use that a dead body turned up in and looked after the drug dealers money... then they would have to be congenitally naïve not to see getting raided by the cops as a risk.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

"She allowed..."

"She let..."

Did she? Like willingly and happily? After being violently coerced?

Just to be clear, we're taking the drug dealer's claims as evidence ("police evidence" is misleading and applies gravitas to "**** someone made up that made a cop's job easier")?

So much for all the pearl clutching about the sacred and unblemished "law."

That nobody on the investigation (and beyond....) can see her as "victim" but rather "gleeful accomplice" is telling.

 

[rockinkt]

It's basically "Well we'll ask a jury if juries value black lives less" and then taking that answer as the factual truth.

Of course a jury wasn't going to bring down meaningful consequences against a white cop who murdered a sleeping black woman.
THAT'S THE WHOLE ******* BLOODY GODDAMN PROBLEM.

You couldn't miss the point more if you had an automatic Missing the Point Machine and were using it on the Point Missing Equinox during the Point Missing Festival if you look at this situation and your response is "Well the jury said..."

Why do you keep repeating this lie? She was standing in the hallway beside her boyfriend when her boyfriend opened fire on the police. Those are unimpeachable facts shown conclusively by the evidence.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It occurs to me: it's a darn apartment!

Present the warrant to the property manager. Obtain a key. Enter the property while unoccupied.

Duh.

How in the living **** did they present an exhaustion argument for this warrant? Did they try anything else?

 

[shuttlt]

"She allowed..."

"She let..."

Did she? Like willingly and happily? After being violently coerced?

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

Just to be clear, we're taking the drug dealer's claims as evidence ("police evidence" is misleading and applies gravitas to "**** someone made up that made a cop's job easier")?

So much for all the pearl clutching about the sacred and unblemished "law."

That nobody on the investigation (and beyond....) can see her as "victim" but rather "gleeful accomplice" is telling.

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.

 

[shuttlt]

It occurs to me: it's a darn apartment!

Present the warrant to the property manager. Obtain a key. Enter the property whole unoccupied.

Duh.

How in the living **** did they present an exhaustion argument for this warrant? Did they try anything else?

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.

 

[Bob001]

It occurs to me: it's a darn apartment!

Present the warrant to the property manager. Obtain a key. Enter the property while unoccupied.
....

That's not the way it works. An apartment building is not a hotel or high school locker. The lawful resident of an apartment has the same rights as he would if he owned a condo.
https://rentprep.com/legal/can-landlords-give-consent-police-search/

 

[shuttlt]

That's not the way it works. An apartment building is not a hotel or high school locker. The lawful resident of an apartment has the same rights as he would if he owned a condo.
https://rentprep.com/legal/can-landlords-give-consent-police-search/

That seems like a distraction. They could have kicked the door in when they didn't think anybody was in. It does seem a bit armchair quarterback though to say coordinating the arrests and the kicking in of the doors when none of them were home would be workable.

 

[autumn1971]

So...you equate a number of police officers wearing their gear and who identified themselves as police long before they battered the door down with a lone intruder sneaking about a house? Seriously?

You seem to think police have unlimited resources and time. Perhaps in a utopian world where there is almost no crime and unlimited resources could police set up surveillance and wait for someone to enter a building before executing a search warrant in all cases. That would be nice.
But, in the real world while investigating and looking for evidence of drug dealing that could be tied to a murder - police do not always have that luxury. You do what you can do given the time and resources allocated.
It's called reality.

It’s called thuggery.
Cut the electric and water, announce yourselves and don’t be cowards.

There.

Problem solved without the brutality that occurred.

I concede that there are instances where an intrusion like this could be justified.
If the authorities are sure that the sought items are in the house; they are absolutely certain who is in the house, and the only occupants are not steadily employed or going to school or otherwise moving in predictable patterns.

Other than those conditions being met, attacks like this are much worse than the Boston Massacre and should be met with equitable violence

 

[rockinkt]

From what I've read, there is some question whether the police announced themselves or not. The police claim they did, and have at least one corroborating witness. The boyfriend who fired shots claims he didn't hear the announcement and other neighbors didn't hear the announcement. I will say it's probable that they did announce, but, for whatever reason (maybe asleep until they broke down the door) he didn't hear it. While I can't say that the officers on the raid were wrong to return fire, I do have to question the necessity of doing a middle of the night no-knock search in the first place. Although I won't say that such tactics are never justified, IMO, they are way over-used, and are extremely dangerous to both law enforcement and citizens. A middle of the night no-knock raid should be near the bottom of the list of options, and shouldn't be conducted on the basis of a wild guess, based on past associations, the a certain person might be there.

I agree that the entire no knock warrant thing is terribly overused. I have posted in other threads about the inherent dangers of the use and abuse of such warrants.
I also agree that the search warrant might have been a stretch but judges are the ones charged to ensure that a search warrant is only granted when there are reasonable and probable grounds that the warrant is justified. The search warrant was granted by a judge and that make it legal.
If there were false statements by the police officers to obtain the warrants there certainly has been no factual and vetted evidence in support of that claim that I am aware of.
We cannot blame the police officers who did not apply for the warrant and who were just there doing their job and got shot at by the boyfriend which resulted in the terrible calamity that ensued. Accurate return fire at close quarters is notoriously difficult and I challenge anyone who has not been there before that claims they could have done better.
The police officer that fired blindly into the neighboring apartment has been rightfully charged - IMHO.

 

[Bob001]

Only if it resulted from negligence.

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.

 

[rockinkt]

It’s called thuggery.
Cut the electric and water, announce yourselves and don’t be cowards.

There.

Problem solved without the brutality that occurred.

I concede that there are instances where an intrusion like this could be justified.
If the authorities are sure that the sought items are in the house; they are absolutely certain who is in the house, and the only occupants are not steadily employed or going to school or otherwise moving in predictable patterns.

Other than those conditions being met, attacks like this are much worse than the Boston Massacre and should be met with equitable violence

 

[CaptainHowdy]

It occurs to me: it's a darn apartment!

Present the warrant to the property manager. Obtain a key. Enter the property while unoccupied.

Duh.

How in the living **** did they present an exhaustion argument for this warrant? Did they try anything else?

Yeah, enter the property when nobody is home and take all the drugs and other evidence. Then when the occupants return and see all their drugs and money missing, they'll call the police to file a burglary report and then the police can arrest them.

Brilliant. Why don't all police departments do this?

 

[Bob001]

It's not about some nobody getting their stash delivered by the mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to use her house for his mail. She was allowing a drug dealer to user her phone number. She let him use her rental car and the body of one of his associates turned up in it. He says she was looking after money for him. If you do that, you'd be a fool not to think you might get raided if the police try to take down the drug dealer.

No.

The Times reported that according to friends, family and Taylor’s social media posts, she was on and off again with both Glover — who friends, family and Taylor herself thought was bad for her — and Walker, who they say treated her well and was, by all accounts, a good and decent man. Glover was in and out of jail, and Taylor paid his bail more than once. She seemed to genuinely care for him, even as

she was trying to extricate herself from his life. (She had blocked him on her cellphone.)

There were a few other incidents in the warrant that some have said implicated Taylor. In December 2016 she rented a car, then loaned it to Glover. He then loaned it to a man involved in his drug dealing — and that man was later found dead in the car. [HILITE]But police who investigated were satisfied that Taylor had no knowledge of the murder, or of how Glover had used the car when she loaned it to him. [/HILITE][HILITE]The other incident occurred two months before the raid, when Glover retrieved a package he had ordered delivered to Taylor’s home. The police claimed a postal inspector told them this package was “suspicious.” The postal inspector later said he had no record of that. According to attorneys for Taylor’s family, the package contained clothes and shoes.[/HILITE][/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/[/url]

So an incident involving a rental car four years ago, and accepting an innocent  package two months before she was killed, somehow justifies a no-knock raid that got her killed? Even after the cops determined that she had done nothing wrong? Trashing her memory with lies doesn't make the cops look better.

And about that warrant from that judge, from the same link:
[QUOTE]Here’s what we can say: [HILITE]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.[/HILITE] 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.[/QUOTE]

So the judge signed what amounted to a form letter. None of this is defensible at any level.

 

[rockinkt]

"She allowed..."

"She let..."

Did she? Like willingly and happily? After being violently coerced?

Just to be clear, we're taking the drug dealer's claims as evidence ("police evidence" is misleading and applies gravitas to "**** someone made up that made a cop's job easier")?

So much for all the pearl clutching about the sacred and unblemished "law."

That nobody on the investigation (and beyond....) can see her as "victim" but rather "gleeful accomplice" is telling.

Please provide the evidence that shows the officer(s) who were involved in that investigation used the term "gleeful accomplice".
There would be no way to establish whether Ms. Taylor was an accomplice or victim without possibly jeopardizing the investigation.
It is incredibly naive to think that all women are coerced into helping their boyfriend's criminal endeavors. As a matter of fact - many women are willing participants in criminal activities involving their male partners.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

No, that is not what negligence is. Negligence is not that same as somebody's actions having a bad outcome. There needs to be negligence.

Also, what is it with you folks and talking about whether she "deserved" to be killed or that she "shouldn't" have been killed? Those simply aren't the questions at hand.

 

[Minoosh]

Where they just looking for drugs. He had been using her house as a postal address. Bank, car etc... were all registered there. The warrant talks about seizing money, paperwork, electronic media etc as well as drugs. They have prison recordings of Glover talking about her looking after money for him. Glover says he had mail sent there. A dead body was found in the car she rented and let him use. It doesn't seem to unreasonable for them to think there might be evidence of the illegal stuff he'd been doing at her apartment.

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.

If they go and arrest Glover they need to go around the other locations where they might want to collect evidence in short order otherwise it is hardly likely to be there. They had done some level of surveillance of the property before hand and were under the impression she was home alone.

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

This sounds like it would be an argument against almost all police raids.

It's an argument for considering other tactics, like screening her mail. Bringing her in for questioning. Etc. Any outcome where an officer is firing multiple gunshots from outside the scene is ... not good.

Are you sure they hadn't watched the apartment for a few hours?

Not very effectively, apparently.

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.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's not the way it works. An apartment building is not a hotel or high school locker. The lawful resident of an apartment has the same rights as he would if he owned a condo.

https://rentprep.com/legal/can-landlords-give-consent-police-search/

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!

 

[shuttlt]

No.

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

So an incident involving a rental car four years ago, and accepting an innocent package two months before she was killed, somehow justifies a no-knock raid that got her killed? Even after the cops determined that she had done nothing wrong? Trashing her memory with lies doesn't make the cops look better.

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.

And about that warrant from that judge, from the same link:


So the judge signed what amounted to a form letter. None of this is defensible at any level.

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.