Cops break into EMT’s apartment and kill her while searching for a suspect they already had in custody

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not enough to say "she's dead, someone must be charged with murder."    Sorry, that's idiot-speak.

Why?

If the person saying "someone must be charged" is saying, "the current statutes demand it" then I guess it's ignorant of the current law, but the moral imperative behind "someone must be charged" is just fine on its own as an indictment of how corrupt the current system is.

Step 1) Rig the rules in my favor.
Step 2) Play the game where I win because of rigged rules.
Then, when someone complains I just say, "Hey, those are the rules dumbass."

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, that prosecution and conviction was highly politicized and massive overkill.  Inexcusable.

I'm sure people would be more content had he been charged with reckless homicide, but the penalty is the same.

Perhaps, I don't know everything that went into the case but I know comparing cases (which is what Twitter wants to do) is silly. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

5 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

"Is more insulting". You are a "TV writer", so I assume you have some comprehension of the English language. 

[Brisketexan 104572]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Step 1) Rig the rules in my favor.
Step 2) Play the game where I win because of rigged rules.
Then, when someone complains I just say, "Hey, those are the rules dumbass."

Which is -- AT BEST -- where we are here.

At worst, we had a politically motivated AG present a shit case, purposefully omitting material evidence, to a grand jury, so that they wouldn't clear even the LOW standard of proof bar at the indictment level.  So, you know, actual injustice under the law as it stands.

At best, we have a state of the law that effectively establishes a threshold for charging cops with homicide offenses of damned near requiring written statements of the cops beforehand saying "I'm going to murder this guy," and then video of the killing wherein the cop says "here I am, murdering this guy."  Yes, hyperbole....but not by a wide margin at all.  A cop has to be caught on video killing a completely defenseless person, with video of at least the ten minutes before the murder, to show that nothing happened that excused the killing, to be charged with a homicide offense.

We stacked the deck - legally - so that it turns up all aces for the cops, and when the people lose to them time after time because the cops turn out to have a hand of 4 aces, the response is just that -- "hey, those are the rules, and these are our cards. Tough luck, you lose."

Imagine playing poker against that guy....when you didn't even want to be in the game....and when you are required to wager your life, your livelihood, your freedom, or all three.  After getting fucked, hand after hand.....wouldn't you just end up flipping over the poker table and going apeshit?

Edited September 23, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Perhaps, I don't know everything that went into the case but I know comparing cases (which is what Twitter wants to do) is silly. 

Hahahahaha

[Buzzrock 14870]

Which is -- AT BEST -- where we are here.
At worst, we had a politically motivated AG present a shit case, purposefully omitting material evidence, to a grand jury, so that they wouldn't clear even the LOW standard of proof bar at the indictment level.  So, you know, actual injustice under the law as it stands.
At best, we have a state of the law that effectively establishes a threshold for charging cops with homicide offenses of damned near requiring written statements of the cops beforehand saying "I'm going to murder this guy," and then video of the killing wherein the cop says "here I am, murdering this guy."  Yes, hyperbole....but not by a wide margin at all.  A cop has to be caught on video killing a completely defenseless person, with video of at least the ten minutes before the murder, to show that nothing happened that excused the killing, to be charged with a homicide offense.
We stacked the deck - legally - so that it turns up all aces for the cops, and when the people lose to them time after time because the cops turn out to have a hand of 4 aces, the response is just that -- "hey, those are the rules, and these are our cards. Tough luck, you lose."
Imagine playing poker against that guy....when you didn't even want to be in the game....and when you are required to wager your life, your livelihood, your freedom, or all three.  After getting fucked, hand after hand.....wouldn't you just end up flipping over the poker table and going apeshit?

Why isn’t “at best” that it played out like they said it did in court? They executed a legal warrant, boyfriend shot first and hit one of them, they returned fire striking and killing her by accident?

It’s absolutely horrible but isn’t that the best case scenario?

I’m sure cooler heads will prevail tonight. Jesus.

[Buzzrock 14870]

Here’s a good thread on how fucked up Kentucky law is:

[CowboyFred 1151]

8 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Why isn’t “at best” that it played out like they said it did in court? They "executed" a legal warrant, boyfriend shot first and hit one of them (after failing to announce their presence which has been corroborated by witness statements), they returned fire recklessly striking and let her bleed out on the floor

It’s absolutely horrible but isn’t that the best case scenario?

I’m sure cooler heads will prevail tonight. Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

fixed it 

Why is it that the only ones saying they identified themselves as police are the police?  

[TwiceHorn 31266]

16 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Here’s a good thread on how fucked up Kentucky law is:
 

I was prophetic then.

I don't think matters of justification should usually be presented to a grand jury.  They are in the nature of affirmative defenses, or pleas in avoidance.  Which means that the evidence shows that the offense was committed, and without anything further, a guilty verdict is in order.  Such "defenses" concede that the offense occurred, but present legal reasons why the defendants should not be convicted.

The grand jury's job is to determine whether there is probable cause that a criminal offense was committed.  Not to determine whether that offense was justified.  That's a jury's job, or the prosecutor's (to dismiss or plead down) if the justification case is sufficiently strong.

I still think the ballistics report is a key piece of evidence.  If the bullets from the uncharged cops guns didn't strike Taylor, then they didn't cause her death and I find it hard to indict for a homicide offense.  Maybe some kind of accessory or attempted homicide, but even that may be a stretch.

Also, Kentucky law isn't that "fucked up."  Most jurisdictions have self-defense and justification provisions.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31266]

Just now, CowboyFred said:

fixed it 

Why is it that the only ones saying they identified themselves as police are the police?  

I don't think the announce/no-knock evidence is very important.  It was a no-knock warrant.  Right or wrong, they were legally entitled not to announce themselves.  Whether they did or didn't doesn't bear on whether there was a homicide.

Evidence like whose bullets struck/killed her, whether they ever saw her and had reason to believe she was unarmed, that kind of thing has bearing on whether some form of homicide was committed.  Otherwise, I think it's just a completely reckless shitshow and I can't really disagree with "wanton endangerment."

Maybe there needs to be a special category of offenses for police misconduct that are more tailored to things like this, and the Guyger deal.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Those armed cunts will result in someone needlessly getting killed. smh

[Brisketexan 104572]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was prophetic then.

I don't think matters of justification should usually be presented to a grand jury.  They are in the nature of affirmative defenses, or pleas in avoidance.  Which means that the evidence shows that the offense was committed, and without anything further, a guilty verdict is in order.  Such "defenses" concede that the offense occurred, but present legal reasons why the defendants should not be convicted.

The grand jury's job is to determine whether there is probable cause that a criminal offense was committed.  Not to determine whether that offense was justified.  That's a jury's job, or the prosecutor's (to dismiss or plead down) if the justification case is sufficiently strong.

I still think the ballistics report is a key piece of evidence.  If the bullets from the uncharged cops guns didn't strike Taylor, then they didn't cause her death and I find it hard to indict for a homicide offense.

Also, Kentucky law isn't that "fucked up."  Most jurisdictions have self-defense and justification provisions.

Yeah, I don't think I agree with his take on the law.  The justification statute ties back to the use of force statutes (to protect life, home, and property), and all of those involve a question of fact as to whether the use of force was reasonable.  There is an embedded fact question that the trier of fact has to decide.

[CowboyFred 1151]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think the announce/no-knock evidence is very important.  It was a no-knock warrant.  Right or wrong, they were legally entitled not to announce themselves.  Whether they did or didn't doesn't bear on whether there was a homicide.

Evidence like whose bullets struck/killed her, whether they ever saw her and had reason to believe she was unarmed, that kind of thing has bearing on whether some form of homicide was committed.  Otherwise, I think it's just a completely reckless shitshow and I can't really disagree with "wanton endangerment."

Maybe there needs to be a special category of offenses for police misconduct that are more tailored to things like this, and the Guyger deal.

I agree with what you say about the no knock warrants and no need to really announce.  the main problem I have with it in this specific instance is that they are using it as a defense to justify their actions in basically saying we announced we were police but they still shot at us so we returned fire.  the boyfriend has said that they were standing in the hallway when they broke through and asked who they were with no answer and then fired a shot.  

interesting note I read earlier but don't really feel like looking for the link is that the boyfriend is seeking evidence in his lawsuit against the pd of which bullet exactly was the one that struck the injured officer.  their defense is that the boyfriend's bullet was not the one that struck the officer and it came from the fire of another officer (perhaps the officer firing from the back patio don't know for sure).

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was prophetic then.

I don't think matters of justification should usually be presented to a grand jury.  They are in the nature of affirmative defenses, or pleas in avoidance.  Which means that the evidence shows that the offense was committed, and without anything further, a guilty verdict is in order.  Such "defenses" concede that the offense occurred, but present legal reasons why the defendants should not be convicted.

The grand jury's job is to determine whether there is probable cause that a criminal offense was committed.  Not to determine whether that offense was justified.  That's a jury's job, or the prosecutor's (to dismiss or plead down) if the justification case is sufficiently strong.

I still think the ballistics report is a key piece of evidence.  If the bullets from the uncharged cops guns didn't strike Taylor, then they didn't cause her death and I find it hard to indict for a homicide offense.

Also, Kentucky law isn't that "fucked up."  Most jurisdictions have self-defense and justification provisions.

agreed with all of the bolded (well all of it but the bolded in particular)

[TwiceHorn 31266]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, I don't think I agree with his take on the law.  The justification statute ties back to the use of force statutes (to protect life, home, and property), and all of those involve a question of fact as to whether the use of force was reasonable.  There is an embedded fact question that the trier of fact has to decide.

Yep.  And, all those justification/self defense statutes involve a shifting of the burden of proof or production.  The grand jury really shouldn't have much say on that.  

That is, if the prosecution can't even make the murder (or whatever) case, the justification defense doesn't even come up.  The GJ is just saying that there's enough evidence to allow a prosecution to proceed.  Considering an "affirmative defense" turns everything upside down.

The only real question for the GJ is, are there reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offense was committed by the defendant before the GJ.  I note that some formulations of probable cause state it as reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is guilty of the offense.  That might justify taking into account justifications and defenses.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104572]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.  And, all those justification/self defense statutes involve a shifting of the burden of proof or production.  The grand jury really shouldn't have much say on that.  

The only real question for the GJ is, are there reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offense was committed by the defendant before the GJ.  I note that some formulations of probable cause state it as reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is guilty of the offense.  That might justify taking into account justifications and defenses.

It might.  But if there's any reasonable fact question as to those....you have probable cause to move forward and send the case to an actual jury.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It might.  But if there's any reasonable fact question as to those....you have probable cause to move forward and send the case to an actual jury.

Can the DA change the charge prior to trial or is it done once it passes the Grand Jury?

[Brisketexan 104572]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Can the DA change the charge prior to trial or is it done once it passes the Grand Jury?

The DA can absolutely reduce the charge later (I say this with zero knowledge of Kentucky law, this is just how it is everywhere else I'm aware of) -- he could offer a plea deal, upon development of evidence, he could see that the charges wouldn't hold up, all sorts of things.  And DAs SHOULD do those things -- the goal isn't to get a conviction for the highest possible charge in every case -- it is to see that justice is done.

[hornmpa96 2598]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think the announce/no-knock evidence is very important.  It was a no-knock warrant.  Right or wrong, they were legally entitled not to announce themselves.  Whether they did or didn't doesn't bear on whether there was a homicide.

Evidence like whose bullets struck/killed her, whether they ever saw her and had reason to believe she was unarmed, that kind of thing has bearing on whether some form of homicide was committed.  Otherwise, I think it's just a completely reckless shitshow and I can't really disagree with "wanton endangerment."

Maybe there needs to be a special category of offenses for police misconduct that are more tailored to things like this, and the Guyger deal.

Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that the AG reported in the announcement that ballistics demonstrated that the two officers who entered the apartment were the only ones to actually hit Breonna. The other officer who decided to spray bullets through the patio door which was in front of closed blinds didn't actually hit her and therefore couldn't be charged with homicide.

I like your idea of preventing grand juries from considering defenses such as self-defense and justification. That should be a question for an actual jury to decide.

Also, while no-knock warrants were eliminated, I also think consideration should be given to the laws regarding the execution of a warrant such as this. This warrant was executed in the most dangerous manner (e.g., late at night, without body cameras on, ambulance sent home, etc.).

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The DA can absolutely reduce the charge later

I was curious if it could be increased, not reduced.

[Brisketexan 104572]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I was curious if it could be increased, not reduced.

Generally, no -- if the law requires that the offense be prosecuted pursuant to an indictment, you need an indictment.  Not all offenses require it, and in some cases, even when it's not required, a DA may seek one just to cover his ass.  But now, I'm really commenting out of my depth -- others around here understand it better, and can correct me if I'm wrong here.  Which I may be.

[TwiceHorn 31266]

9 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that the AG reported in the announcement that ballistics demonstrated that the two officers who entered the apartment were the only ones to actually hit Breonna. The other officer who decided to spray bullets through the patio door which was in front of closed blinds didn't actually hit her and therefore couldn't be charged with homicide.

I like your idea of preventing grand juries from considering defenses such as self-defense and justification. That should be a question for an actual jury to decide.

Also, while no-knock warrants were eliminated, I also think consideration should be given to the laws regarding the execution of a warrant such as this. This warrant was executed in the most dangerous manner (e.g., late at night, without body cameras on, ambulance sent home, etc.).

I missed that about what the ballistics report said.  I am generally unfamiliar with the actual evidence of what happened in gory detail.

That is weird, then.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DanRydell 799]

Does Kentucky not have a corollary to Section 9.05 of the Texas Penal Code?

Quote

Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

 

[TwiceHorn 31266]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Generally, no -- if the law requires that the offense be prosecuted pursuant to an indictment, you need an indictment.  Not all offenses require it, and in some cases, even when it's not required, a DA may seek one just to cover his ass.  But now, I'm really commenting out of my depth -- others around here understand it better, and can correct me if I'm wrong here.  Which I may be.

I believe you are correct.  The constitutional requirement of a grand jury indictment for felonies would preclude the DA from "raising" the charges (without securing another indictment from a grand jury).  Nothing would preclude a DA from taking a plea or reducing the charges to a lesser-included or other offense.  A DA is stuck with going to trial on lesser-included offenses, but is not so limited on taking a plea.

The federal system, however, has a charging "memorandum" (first the Ashcroft Memo, abrogated by Holder and then reinstated by Sessions), that requires US Attorneys to charge, and not to accept pleas lower than, the highest charge "supported by the evidence," without approval from within the DOJ.  That tends to mean the worst offense in the indictment, unless there is a documentable serious failure of proof.

Of course none of this applies to the Roger Stones and Michael Flynns of the world.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Helobious 9480]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

"Is more insulting". You are a "TV writer", so I assume you have some comprehension of the English language. 

She was talking about the DA making an effort to think of charges that would be more insulting than simply filing no charges. Insinuating that the DA was out to insult Taylor’s memory. Probably an incorrect assumption, but not a grammatically incorrect statement 

Try to nail down your own comprehension of English before insulting someone else’s.

[South Austin 52133]

6 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Try to nail down your own comprehension of English before insulting someone else’s.

*you're

[Helobious 9480]

3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

*you're

No, your. Unless my sarcasm meter is broken.

[Captainant 27444]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

*you're

*yore

[CowboyFred 1151]

just to piggy back off of what brisket and twice said about "raising" or elevating a charge, in Texas to possibly do that would be by amendment at any time before trial provided that the defendant is given notice.  If objected to, then the indictment may not be amended if the amended indictment charges that defendant with an additional or different offense or if the new charge would be prejudicial to the defendant.  You might most likely see this happening when someone is charged with an assault and the victim ends up dying so the charge is elevated to homicide.  

I *think* thats correct lol.  I just wanted to add that tidbit because I'm currently studying criminal (and civil) P&E questions and think I remember that tidbit. 

[South Austin 52133]

12 minutes ago, Helobious said:

No, your. Unless my sarcasm meter is broken.

[closetohumping 17392]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think the announce/no-knock evidence is very important.  It was a no-knock warrant.  Right or wrong, they were legally entitled not to announce themselves.  Whether they did or didn't doesn't bear on whether there was a homicide.

Evidence like whose bullets struck/killed her, whether they ever saw her and had reason to believe she was unarmed, that kind of thing has bearing on whether some form of homicide was committed.  Otherwise, I think it's just a completely reckless shitshow and I can't really disagree with "wanton endangerment."

Maybe there needs to be a special category of offenses for police misconduct that are more tailored to things like this, and the Guyger deal.

So it was a no knock, the cops still knocked and returned fire, is that correct?

[Homercles 10205]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Those armed cunts will result in someone needlessly getting killed. smh

I read that in Bricktop’s voice.  No thanks Turkish, I’m sweet enough 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

A single cop is being charged for the crime of NOT shooting Breonna Taylor. That's his reckless endangerment. Not the death of an innocent citizen in her own home in the middle of the night. 

That is American justice. 

The whole situation has seen more dicks than South Austin's mom, but outrage at the fact that someone wasn't indicted for shooting Breonna when they demonstrably (assumably) didn't shoot her is your indictment of American Justice? Do you want that standard applied equally accross all racial barriers, because, spoiler, that is what is happening right now. If you try and push BS charges against someone who is obviously not guilty of said BS charges, who do you think is going to suffer the most? I'd prefer we not set that precedent. Yeah, it sucks, but if the guy just fired recklessly into a bunch of apartments and didn't hit anything of consequence (funny how the law is worried more about the consequences than the intentions...) then the charge is appropriate. If there isn't any other accountability then we have a serious problem with the way the law is written. But that doesn't mean we should go about enforcing it in whatever way tickles our fancy.

[bolverk 29397]

Funny how there's no video evidence. Are they still saying they didn't have body cams even though they were photographed wearing them?

[TwiceHorn 31266]

1 hour ago, CowboyFred said:

just to piggy back off of what brisket and twice said about "raising" or elevating a charge, in Texas to possibly do that would be by amendment at any time before trial provided that the defendant is given notice.  If objected to, then the indictment may not be amended if the amended indictment charges that defendant with an additional or different offense or if the new charge would be prejudicial to the defendant.  You might most likely see this happening when someone is charged with an assault and the victim ends up dying so the charge is elevated to homicide.  

I *think* thats correct lol.  I just wanted to add that tidbit because I'm currently studying criminal (and civil) P&E questions and think I remember that tidbit. 

That is, I believe, correct.  Anything can be done if the defendant does not object.  We've seen a number of recent cases out of the Mueller investigation that proceeded on a complaint or information charging a felony without a grand jury indictment, when the defendant immediately pleads or contemporaneously with the filing of the complaint/information.

So, theoretically a defendant could plead to a higher or "worse" offense without being indicted for it, with the defendant's consent, but it would be a bizarre set of circumstances.

[Zepol87 9171]

2 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that the AG reported in the announcement that ballistics demonstrated that the two officers who entered the apartment were the only ones to actually hit Breonna. The other officer who decided to spray bullets through the patio door which was in front of closed blinds didn't actually hit her and therefore couldn't be charged with homicide.

I like your idea of preventing grand juries from considering defenses such as self-defense and justification. That should be a question for an actual jury to decide.

Also, while no-knock warrants were eliminated, I also think consideration should be given to the laws regarding the execution of a warrant such as this. This warrant was executed in the most dangerous manner (e.g., late at night, without body cameras on, ambulance sent home, etc.).

Wow I had not read or heard that about the ballistics. Any link? 

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[hornmpa96 2598]

48 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Wow I had not read or heard that about the ballistics. Any link? 

I’m terrible at interneting so no link. However, the Louisville Courier Journal has posted the entire statement from the Kentucky AG provided today in which discusses the results of both ballistics reports (FBI and Kentucky).

[InkaUtexas 25503]

Well shit. Hope this is not true. CNN saying they are hearing the same but will not confirm. 

 

[SpiralOut 1809]

And this is why the very idea of No-Knock warrants should have been painted as idiocy from the get go, much less make it into actual practice.  When you give law enforcement Gestapo-like powers, you will inevitably find yourself in completely fucked up situations such as this one.

You break down someone's door in the middle of the night.  They have no idea who it is and legally have a right to defend themselves and their home.  The cops are acting legally and they also have a right to protect themselves.  Now we're having shootouts in the dark where innocent sleeping people are being killed, bullets are flying into adjacent homes with pregnant women in them, cops are being shot, which all culminates in the taxpayers having to foot an enormous civil lawsuit bill and the city eventually burning to the ground from riots.  And no one can really be held accountable because everyone is technically doing the legal thing.

Or, ya know, we could just have police do actual fucking police work.  Stake the place out, wait until the suspect leaves the house, and then corner them at their vehicle, etc. in broad daylight where you almost entirely control the situation instead of barging into someone's home where you don't know what is waiting for you.  Then, after the suspect is in custody you can waltz in the front fucking door anytime you please. 

All these years later and I still remember this video of a poor schmuck getting murked in his own home holding a golf club for defense because the police busted down his door in the middle of the night.  He wasn't a violent criminal who had hostages in the basement or some shit.  He was a suspected drug dealer.  They could have gotten this guy at anytime with zero issues, but nah, lets just bust down the door in the dead of night and shoot first.  Who in the flying fuck thought those kind of tactics were acceptable in what is supposed to be the land of the fucking free?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

[Buzzrock 14870]

Things I have learned today:

It was not a no knock warrant.

Breonna and bf were not asleep.

The police were not looking for someone else who they already had in custody.

One witness heard the police announce themselves.

Do I have all that right?


And yes a Louisville police officer has been shot. Herewego.gif

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, SpiralOut said:

And this is why the very idea of No-Knock warrants should have been painted as idiocy from the get go, much less make it into actual practice.  When you give law enforcement Gestapo-like powers, you will inevitably find yourself in completely fucked up situations such as this one.

You break down someone's door in the middle of the night.  They have no idea who it is and legally have a right to defend themselves and their home.  The cops are acting legally and they also have a right to protect themselves.  Now we're having shootouts in the dark where innocent sleeping people are being killed, bullets are flying into adjacent homes with pregnant women in them, cops are being shot, which all culminates in the taxpayers having to foot an enormous civil lawsuit bill and the city eventually burning to the ground from riots.  And no one can really be held accountable because everyone is technically doing the legal thing.

Or, ya know, we could just have police do actual fucking police work.  Stake the place out, wait until the suspect leaves the house, and then corner them at their vehicle, etc. in broad daylight where you almost entirely control the situation instead of barging into someone's home where you don't know what is waiting for you.  Then, after the suspect is in custody you can waltz in the front fucking door anytime you please. 

All these years later and I still remember this video of a poor schmuck getting murked in his own home holding a golf club for defense because the police busted down his door in the middle of the night.  He wasn't a violent criminal who had hostages in the basement or some shit.  He was a suspected drug dealer.  They could have gotten this guy at anytime with zero issues, but nah, lets just bust down the door in the dead of night and shoot first.  Who in the flying fuck thought those kind of tactics were acceptable in what is supposed to be the land of the fucking free?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

Yeah but drugs are bad, mmkey.

[Zepol87 9171]

59 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Things I have learned today:

It was not a no knock warrant.

Breonna and bf were not asleep.

The police were not looking for someone else who they already had in custody.

One witness heard the police announce themselves.

Do I have all that right?


And yes a Louisville police officer has been shot. Herewego.gif

Fuck I hope not. Lot of cuck dress up militia walking around so it was only a matter of time

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:

Things I have learned today:

It was not a no knock warrant.

Breonna and bf were not asleep.

The police were not looking for someone else who they already had in custody.

One witness heard the police announce themselves.

Do I have all that right?


And yes a Louisville police officer has been shot. Herewego.gif

Lie.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-s-death-ignites-debate-no-knock-warrants-louisville-n1208156

They are now just claiming they knocked. They just rapped on the door gently and when no response was received, went in with all guns blazing instead.

Cops are expert liars and at semantics. Beat even lawyers at it.

[JimmyJames 12271]

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/06/11/louisville-metro-council-votes-ban-no-knock-warrants-after-breonna-taylors-death/5342907002/

[JimmyJames 12271]

Hey but at least the drugs didn’t make it to the street that night right?

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

1 hour ago, SpiralOut said:

And this is why the very idea of No-Knock warrants should have been painted as idiocy from the get go, much less make it into actual practice.  When you give law enforcement Gestapo-like powers, you will inevitably find yourself in completely fucked up situations such as this one.

You break down someone's door in the middle of the night.  They have no idea who it is and legally have a right to defend themselves and their home.  The cops are acting legally and they also have a right to protect themselves.  Now we're having shootouts in the dark where innocent sleeping people are being killed, bullets are flying into adjacent homes with pregnant women in them, cops are being shot, which all culminates in the taxpayers having to foot an enormous civil lawsuit bill and the city eventually burning to the ground from riots.  And no one can really be held accountable because everyone is technically doing the legal thing.

Or, ya know, we could just have police do actual fucking police work.  Stake the place out, wait until the suspect leaves the house, and then corner them at their vehicle, etc. in broad daylight where you almost entirely control the situation instead of barging into someone's home where you don't know what is waiting for you.  Then, after the suspect is in custody you can waltz in the front fucking door anytime you please. 

All these years later and I still remember this video of a poor schmuck getting murked in his own home holding a golf club for defense because the police busted down his door in the middle of the night.  He wasn't a violent criminal who had hostages in the basement or some shit.  He was a suspected drug dealer.  They could have gotten this guy at anytime with zero issues, but nah, lets just bust down the door in the dead of night and shoot first.  Who in the flying fuck thought those kind of tactics were acceptable in what is supposed to be the land of the fucking free?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

That's no fun and they don't get to play urban commando.  I've had the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department come to my house at 2:00 am with a pair of deputies armed with AR-15s at my front door and a pair armed with AR-15s at my back door.  They at leased knocked.  They were looking for the ex's nephew who had lived with us for a year three years previously.  They scared the fuck out of me, but at least my kids weren't home.  They were looking for him for a three year old warrant for vandalism.

Edited September 24, 2020 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Buzzrock 14870]

Is all of the above accurate?

That’s what I’m asking.

[Buzzrock 14870]

Lie.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-s-death-ignites-debate-no-knock-warrants-louisville-n1208156
They are now just claiming they knocked. They just rapped on the door gently and when no response was received, went in with all guns blazing instead.
Cops are expert liars and at semantics. Beat even lawyers at it.

The AG said “the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant.”

[Nicole44 22027]

10 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

That’s what I’m asking.

 

This article from The NY Times might help answer most of the questions. 

Both Walker and Taylor were up. they heard knocking at the door and he believed that it was her ex boyfriend trying to break in.

The warrant had been changed to “knock and announce.” Police day they identified themselves. Walker said he did not hear that. 

walker believed it was Taylor’s ex boyfriend—who the police believed was using her residence to receive/deliver packages. 
walker fired once shooting an officer in the leg.

there is a lot more detail in the article but honestly the absolutely most awful thing in there was the lack of medical attention she received after sustaining 5 shots while the officers rendered aid to their colleague. 20 minutes. Walker was the one who called 911 to get her aid. An ambulance had been on standby but had been sent away prior to the raid.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.amp.html

1. 

While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves.

The officers have said they did announce themselves, but Mr. Walker said he did not hear anything.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Nicole44

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

The AG said “the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant.”

 

Lawyer semantics. It was a no knock warrant that they now claim they (allegedly) knocked on so therefore is techincially a no knock warrant since they allegedly knocked.

Could be wrong. But would easily clear it up is for someone to get around to actually publishing a copy of the warrant. But the cops probably don’t want that and the media is too stupid to figure that one out. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by JimmyJames