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

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We have built a system that protects shitty, shitty cops at the expense of the people.

The cops are a tool. If you want to fix the system, go after the people who wield the tool.

[Cajun 11675]

One thing this should teach every single person watching, if you don't have a video system in your residence, GET ONE ASA fuckin' P.  If you don't, you're fuckin' insane in this day and age.

Take the plausible deniability right out of the "Heroes" bag of tricks.

[Cajun 11675]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

The cops are tools. If you want to fix the system, go after the people who wield the tools.

Slight modification.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Cajun

[hayden_horn 11360]

the attorney general is punting to the grand jury a whole bunch during this presser, without referring to the fact that many grand juries are steered. he also said he will not release the grand jury report.

 

[Brisketexan 104540]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

yes, this is the problem. she was an innocent civilian who got caught in a completely unnecessary crossfire created based on the timing and effect of their raid. this was not a search warrant, it was a fucking raid. they also did not have bodycams. this is a travesty. when the cops start shit, they should not be exonerated for the shit that happens as a result. 

Yep.  And you are discussing a lot of things that relate to how the law SHOULD be, not necessarily how it IS.  So, who can change how the law currently is?

We can.  We can demand change from our elected voices/representatives.  We can and should make it a determinative issue in our voting.  But here's the problem, the dirty, shameful truth: the law is this way because MOST OF US WANT IT THIS WAY.  We want to err on the cops' side, because we have to be protected from "thugs," and don't you like "law and order?"  Why don't you "back the blue?"

So, here's the SUPER shitty truth: 1) this is the system functioning exactly as designed, and 2) as a society as a whole, we'd prefer that it stay this way.  Because, I mean, I, Whitey McWhiterson, am probably not gonna get caught up in a stupid-ass violent raid gone bad....only "those people" will, so no skin off my nose.  The current situation works fine for me, Whitey McWhiterson, so I'll just keep it the way it is, thank you very much.

[Cajun 11675]

Yeah, this guy is Hot Potato Bob if I've ever seen one.

Gotta a fantastic "Banana in the tailpipe" speaking style though.

I'll give him that.

[Captainant 27411]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

the attorney general is punting to the grand jury a whole bunch during this presser, without referring to the fact that many grand juries are steered. he also said he will not release the grand jury report.

Smells like a good ol AG intentionally spiking the case and presenting it in as confusing a way as possible. I don't doubt that they provided all the evidence to the GJ, but I do doubt that the AG presented it in a coherent and just manner

[Brisketexan 104540]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

The cops are a tool. If you want to fix the system, go after the people who wield the tool.

Sure.  But your problem is that you think the people who wield the tool are elected officials.  They aren't.  We the people are at the top of the org chart.  The elected officials do what it takes to be elected and re-elected -- that is, they do what the bulk of the voters demand of them.  They've designed exactly the system we've asked them to.  And they are preserving it because that's what enough of the voters want them to do.

Denying it, and pretending that the problem isn't a society where the majority thinks that this sort of shit is an acceptable outcome, will just ensure that we keep on keeping on, as-is.  The problem isn't that the system exists -- it's that we wanted it to be that way, and still do.

[Captainant 27411]

Jesus this is a rough statement. "The criminal law is not built to address every injustice" is basically just saying that the law doesn't exist to protect black people. 

[Captainant 27411]

No further prosecutions from this matter. 

[Brisketexan 104540]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Jesus this is a rough statement. "The criminal law is not built to address every injustice" is basically just saying that the law doesn't exist to protect black people. 

And....he's right.  When it comes to how it balances things between cops and the people, particularly vulnerable people, the law is really, really shitty at justice/injustice.

We should fix that.  We should demand it.

[clapclapclap 9000]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

AG dodging the question of "if none of the cops were responsible for her death, why did she die?" And refusing to answer any question about the grand jury. Really reassuring that they aren't playing a shell game of "nobody was responsible, we're sowwwwwie"

Stop lying.  

He actually said that police encountered a man and woman standing next to each other, the man fired his gun and hit an officer in the leg, and he named the 2 officers that then fired back (the one hit and another next to him), as well as mentioning that the indicted officer also then fired from a different position.  He said that there could find no evidence that any of the indicted officer's bullets hit her, but rather only bullets from the other 2 officers he named.  He stated that since those 2 were fired upon and one was hit, those two he named were justified in shooting back in self-defense.  He said of the 6 shots that hit her, 1 was fatal.  So again, he named the 2 officers that shot her, then explained why they were not charged.

As to the indicted officer, he didn't shot through a wall from the outside, he shot through a sliding glass door/window.  However some of those shots then penetrated another uninvolved and occupied apartment, hence the indictment by the grand jury.

[StassneyHorn 6535]

Only 1 out of 12  witnesses said they knocked and identified themselves if I heard right.

any idea how long they waited after knocking? 

[TwiceHorn 31246]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

One could even postulate that a system that allows the wanton murder of innocent citizens is fundamentally broken and in need of reform. What a load of horse shit, I bet they used the split second reasoning that cops always fall back on after they create the dangerous situation in the first place. 

It is fucked that the AG is playing defense for the homicidal officers, but that's our system. If you don't like it, you hate america. Or are a troll from the cabal or something like that

Statutory definitions aside, this wasn't "wanton murder."  There's no evidence that I am aware of that any of these slapdicks intended to kill Breonna Taylor, or Kevin Walker or anyone.

It was, however, negligent to the point of reckless.

This wouldn't qualify as murder in Texas, which has a pretty loose definition of it.

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

AG dodging the question of "if none of the cops were responsible for her death, why did she die?" And refusing to answer any question about the grand jury. Really reassuring that they aren't playing a shell game of "nobody was responsible, we're sowwwwwie"

One can be cosmically, or even legally, responsible for a death without being criminally responsible for it.  Legal responsibility, in the civil sense, seems to have been established by the civil settlement.

Not all homicides are the result of criminal acts.

This sucks, the system sucks in multiple ways.

But the guy who did the most reckless thing, and I guess the one who shot her, has been charged with three counts of something that carries the same penalty as reckless homicide.

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, StassneyHorn said:

Only 1 out of 12  witnesses said they knocked and identified themselves if I heard right.

any idea how long they waited after knocking? 

none.

also, i think it was a journalist who said it was only just 1 out of 12 that they interviewed in this apartment complex. i'm sure to police interviewed the same 12. wonder how many of those 12 were presented to the grand jury.

[Captainant 27411]

I guess my issue is that this police department has already lied about multiple facts and demonstrated they are unreliable narrators. But yet, the grand jury was fed all of the evidence generated by the police investigating themselves. And somehow they find that the police did nothing wrong after killing an innocent woman sleeping in her own home in the dead of night. 

That's how fucking riots happen. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Captainant

[Brisketexan 104540]

Just now, clapclapclap said:

Stop lying.  

He actually said that police encountered a man and woman standing next to each other, the man fired his gun and hit an officer in the leg, and he named the 2 officers that then fired back (the one hit and another next to him), as well as mentioning that the indicted officer also then fired from a different position.  He said that there could find no evidence that any of the indicted officer's bullets hit her, but rather only bullets from the other 2 officers he named.  He stated that since those 2 were fired upon and one was hit, those two he named were justified in shooting back in self-defense.  He said of the 6 shots that hit her, 1 was fatal.  So again, he named the 2 officers that shot her, then explained why they were not charged.

As to the indicted officer, he didn't shot through a wall from the outside, he shot through a sliding glass door/window.  However some of those shots then penetrated another uninvolved and occupied apartment, hence the indictment by the grand jury.

And it all skips over the question of whether their entry into the apartment was legitimate, announced, or was an intrusion.  They have ONE witness who says he heard them say "police," and his statement is vague and confused as shit.

I think it is highly likely that they busted in without announcing, and if/when they eventually shouted "police," it was after shit was already going down.  They busted into someone's apartments, like fucking criminals, and got fucking shot.  A criminal doesn't have a right of self-defense then, neither should they.  But the AG surely decided to emphasize the hell out of the one piece of evidence that might create any possible doubt that that is exactly what they did, instead of letting a petit jury decide the fact question.  

Of course, it all comes back to a simple legal fix we can make: a police entry into property, without announcing themselves with police and allowing a reasonable period for realization/compliance by the occupant, and such fact MUST be proven by video recording, shall not entitle the police to any defenses based on their status as law enforcement.  The only exception should be where human life is at immediate risk, and identification of the cops would create further risk (so, SWAT doesn't have to announce themselves if they bust in someplace to save hostages).

We won't make that fix.  Because we can't deny our heroes all the tools they demand to stomp down the thugs who threaten our sacred suburban way of life.

[Brisketexan 104540]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I guess my issue is that this police department has already lied about multiple facts and demonstrated they are unreliable narrator's. But yet, the grand jury was fed all of the evidence generated by the police investigating themselves. And somehow they find that the police did nothing wrong after killing an innocent woman sleeping in her own home in the dead of night. 

That's how fucking riots happen. 

This.  If the AG just fed the grand jury the police version, and those facts selectively favorable to the cops -- and they can and do just that, all the time -- then it's a farce.  

As a society, we seem intent on tossing lit match after lit match into standing pools of gasoline, and then we have the gall to bitch about the fire that follows.  We are so fucking stupid.

[TwiceHorn 31246]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Smells like a good ol AG intentionally spiking the case and presenting it in as confusing a way as possible. I don't doubt that they provided all the evidence to the GJ, but I do doubt that the AG presented it in a coherent and just manner

Eh, on the one hand, the AG is not part and parcel of the local law enforcement cabal.  That's probably a good thing.

On the other, he's an elected official that hasn't practiced much law or taken a case to a grand jury in forever, if ever.

Checking, Daniel Cameron has never been a prosecutor or practiced criminal law.  So he's really out of his depth.  I don't know if this militates for or against him sandbagging the grand jury.

It is interesting that "Wanton Endangerment" apparently was presented to the grand jury, presumably along with homicide offenses.  The penalty is the same as "Reckless Homicide."

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29213]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And it all skips over the question of whether their entry into the apartment was legitimate, announced, or was an intrusion.  They have ONE witness who says he heard them say "police," and his statement is vague and confused as shit.

I think it is highly likely that they busted in without announcing, and if/when they eventually shouted "police," it was after shit was already going down.  They busted into someone's apartments, like fucking criminals, and got fucking shot.  A criminal doesn't have a right of self-defense then, neither should they.  But the AG surely decided to emphasize the hell out of the one piece of evidence that might create any possible doubt that that is exactly what they did, instead of letting a petit jury decide the fact question.  

Of course, it all comes back to a simple legal fix we can make: a police entry into property, without announcing themselves with police and allowing a reasonable period for realization/compliance by the occupant, and such fact MUST be proven by video recording, shall not entitle the police to any defenses based on their status as law enforcement.  The only exception should be where human life is at immediate risk, and identification of the cops would create further risk (so, SWAT doesn't have to announce themselves if they bust in someplace to save hostages).

We won't make that fix.  Because we can't deny our heroes all the tools they demand to stomp down the thugs who threaten our sacred suburban way of life.

We should establish an evidentiary rule presuming that any police testimony is a lie unless they can corroborate it with video recording.

[clapclapclap 9000]

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

they found one witness to corroborate that they announced police and knocked, and they concluded that because of that, and because they were fired upon first, the shooting was justified.  

One is all you need.  Why would they lie about it?  The witness who heard it lived upstairs, obviously very close.  

It was the middle of the night.  You really can't believe that people asleep might not be awoken by or recognize the first loud noise (yelling "Police") but then hear a likely significantly louder volley of gunfire?

A better argument would be that only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.

[Brisketexan 104540]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, on the one hand, the AG is not part and parcel of the local law enforcement cabal.  That's probably a good thing.

On the other, he's an elected official that hasn't practiced much law or taken a case to a grand jury in forever, if ever.

Checking, Daniel Cameron has never been a prosecutor or practiced criminal law.  So he's really out of his depth.

He's also a super-political animal with a clear and well-known agenda.  In the current discussion of social and racial justice....the side he's taken isn't exactly a mystery.  It's not hard for even a green prosecutor to present a case favorable to the cops, purposefully omitting material evidence from the presentation.  It's actually quite simple.

[Captainant 27411]

Just now, clapclapclap said:

One is all you need.  Why would they lie about it?  The witness who heard it lived upstairs, obviously very close.  

It was the middle of the night.  You really can't believe that people asleep might not be awoken by or recognize the first loud noise (yelling "Police") but then hear a likely significantly louder volley of gunfire?

A better argument would be that only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.

Ah well then the homicide of an innocent person sleeping in their own home is just spilled milk then, carry on. 

[wildcat09 29213]

 

Cops need to send these morons home.

 

[Brisketexan 104540]

3 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

One is all you need.  Why would they lie about it?  The witness who heard it lived upstairs, obviously very close.  

It was the middle of the night.  You really can't believe that people asleep might not be awoken by or recognize the first loud noise (yelling "Police") but then hear a likely significantly louder volley of gunfire?

A better argument would be that only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.

Maybe allow for those witnesses to be presented and cross-examined at an open jury trial.  Because, you know, sometimes, it turns out that on cross, it is revealed that a witness and his/her perception was quite mistaken, or his statement was construed incorrectly.

 

11 0f 12 witnesses reported hearing nothing until the gunfire.  Which story do you think is most likely to be inaccurate....that of the 11, or that of the 1?  And determining the accuracy and credibility of any witness testimony should be the job of the trial jury.  To refuse to indict because there might possibly be some doubt, if that single witness's story holds up at trial, is not the standard for indictment.  The standard is generally "probable cause" to proceed with charges -- a very LOW standard of proof.  In fact, under that standard of proof, it's very difficult to see how an 11-1 witness story that supports proceeding is overcome.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Brisketexan

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

He's also a super-political animal with a clear and well-known agenda. 

Unlike yourself

[TwiceHorn 31246]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

He's also a super-political animal with a clear and well-known agenda.  In the current discussion of social and racial justice....the side he's taken isn't exactly a mystery.  It's not hard for even a green prosecutor to present a case favorable to the cops, purposefully omitting material evidence from the presentation.  It's actually quite simple.

I take your word for it.  I don't know a thing about him except what I just read on wikipedia.

Aside from their politics, I'm not sure what I'd make of a Texas AG (any of the past ones) taking a case to a grand jury.  None that I can recall has been any kind of real prosecutor.

[Brisketexan 104540]

2 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Unlike yourself

Yes, my clearly-stated and long-known agenda of "everyone should be subject to the Rule of Law, equally and fairly applied" is super political.  The fact that such a stance is super political these days tells us everything we need to know.

What about your misapplication of the burden of proof at the grand jury stage?  Care to address that?

[Js1 85085]

4 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Unlike yourself

[Buzzrock 14870]

My gut tells me this is wrong.
My lawdog tells me, as they were acting pursuant to a warrant that apparently was not falsely obtained, that it's about what you could hope for.
Cops killing people in the course of an arrest for something minor, or even something major, are going to be vulnerable to homicide charges.
Those acting pursuant to a facially legal warrant, without major shenanigans (e.g. HPD style flagrant lies) in its issuance, are going to be harder to nail every time.
We clearly need to tighten up warrant procedures and laws.

This is about where I’m at. I am glad that they passed a new law to ban no-knock warrants because of this. I’m glad her family gets significant restitution. None of that makes it any better for Breonna.

It seems like there is room for some sort of criminal negligence charges since it was the wrong damn house and they already had the guy they were looking for. But IANAL.

[Captainant 27411]

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. 

[elfenix 34170]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We should establish an evidentiary rule presuming that any police testimony is a lie unless they can corroborate it with video recording.

i was tempted to poison a venirepanel when the (judge?  prosecutor?) asked something about whether we would give greater weight to the testimony of the cop, who'd allegedly been attacked, just because he was a cop.   could have easily blurted out i'd trust him less. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by elfenix

[Zepol87 9168]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

This is about where I’m at. I am glad that they passed a new law to ban no-knock warrants because of this. I’m glad her family gets significant restitution. None of that makes it any better for Breonna.

It seems like there is room for some sort of criminal negligence charges since it was the wrong damn house and they already had the guy they were looking for. But IANAL.

 

I just don't understand how this is a thing. We can discuss whatever bullshit or witness testimony all we want but the fact that they had the guy in custody and all this happened is beyond fucked. 

[TwiceHorn 31246]

According to this article, https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/12/breonna-taylor-case-louisville-police-officers-charged/3461551001/, the grand jury was presented with all of the homicide offenses, as well as the wanton endangerment charge.

So that kind of answers that.

We know that the guy that was charged fired wildly into the apartment.  Do we know if they all discharged their weapons?  Do we know whose bullet caused the death?

I have been bemoaning the whole incident without really considering the legal ramifications of it.

[Rip76 4912]

5 minutes 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. 

This all just seems strange to me.

Like tinfoil hat strange.

[Buzzrock 14870]

We won't make that fix.  Because we can't deny our heroes all the tools they demand to stomp down the thugs who threaten our sacred suburban way of life.

They passed the Breonna Taylor law banning no-knock warrants.

[clapclapclap 9000]

17 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

It seems like there is room for some sort of criminal negligence charges since it was the wrong damn house and they already had the guy they were looking for. But IANAL.

 

It was the correct house.  They were looking for evidence that her off and on boyfriend for years had been using the house as part of his drug dealing.  

I can see how the warrant was issued, it is reasonable to suspect someone dating a drug dealer off an on for years might be an accomplice in some way.  Whether there was enough to justify a raid?  I don't know what was presented to the judge.

Edited September 23, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Brisketexan 104540]

7 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

They passed the Breonna Taylor law banning no-knock warrants.

 

Not even close to enough.  A start, for sure.  But a measure the cops will get around in record time -- "exigent circumstances required our immediate entry.  Oops, sorry we don't have any video proof of that, you'll have to take our word for it."

A cop wouldn't make entry without checking and re-checking whether his weapon worked, because his life depends on it.

He shouldn't be allowed to make entry without checking an re-checking whether his video equipment is on and working, because OUR lives depend on it.

[Buzzrock 14870]

It was the correct house.  They were looking for evidence that her off and on boyfriend for years had been using the house as part of his drug dealing.  
I can see how the warrant was issued, it is reasonable to suspect someone dating a drug dealer off an on for years might be an accomplice in some way.  Whether there was enough to justify a raid?  I don't know what was presented to the judge.

You’re right, I wasn’t very clear. It was the wrong damn house if they wanted the house where the suspect was actually located. The had already visited the right damn house and apprehended the guy.

[Buzzrock 14870]

It was the correct house.  They were looking for evidence that her off and on boyfriend for years had been using the house as part of his drug dealing.  
I can see how the warrant was issued, it is reasonable to suspect someone dating a drug dealer off an on for years might be an accomplice in some way.  Whether there was enough to justify a raid?  I don't know what was presented to the judge.

You’re right, I wasn’t very clear. It was the wrong damn house if they wanted the house where the suspect was actually located. The had already visited the right damn house and apprehended the guy.

[Brisketexan 104540]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

According to this article, https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/12/breonna-taylor-case-louisville-police-officers-charged/3461551001/, the grand jury was presented with all of the homicide offenses, as well as the wanton endangerment charge.

So that kind of answers that.

We know that the guy that was charged fired wildly into the apartment.  Do we know if they all discharged their weapons?  Do we know whose bullet caused the death?

I have been bemoaning the whole incident without really considering the legal ramifications of it.

The GJ was presented with all possible charges.  But were they presented with all of the witness statements?  Or just those that best served the cops?  Evidence matters.  Like, a lot.  

[hayden_horn 11360]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not even close to enough.  A start, for sure.  But a measure the cops will get around in record time -- "exigent circumstances required our immediate entry.  Oops, sorry we don't have any video proof of that, you'll have to take our word for it."

A cop wouldn't make entry without checking and re-checking whether his weapon worked, because his life depends on it.

He shouldn't be allowed to make entry without checking an re-checking whether his video equipment is on and working, because OUR lives depend on it.

i mean that attorney general just called the shooting justified, because they found one guy to say that police announced themselves, and then they were under fire, so it was okay to murder breonna taylor. but it was a tragedy.  

that really was his message.

that is not good enough.

[Captainant 27411]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i mean that attorney general just called the shooting justified, because they found one guy to say that police announced themselves, and then they were under fire, so it was okay to murder breonna taylor. but it was a tragedy.  

that really was his message.

that is not good enough.

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

 

[TwiceHorn 31246]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The GJ was presented with all possible charges.  But were they presented with all of the witness statements?  Or just those that best served the cops?  Evidence matters.  Like, a lot.  

Of course it does.

I just don't know a lot of the facts and was curious what the GJ was legally presented with. It was curious to me why a GJ would go with wanton endangerment rather than reckless homicide, although the penalty difference is nonexistent.

It appears that there was an FBI ballistics report issued at the end of August.  If I had to guess, I'd imagine the charged guy's bullets caused the death and the other two guys' did not.  I presume they all discharged their weapons?  I don't know.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DigglerontheHoof 21045]

Color me shocked.  More cops get away w/ murder.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't give a rat's ass when a cop gets killed.  He/she likely deserved it. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

11 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Mason was on supervised release, similar to probation, for a federal felony conviction related to tax fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/20/crystal-mason-texas-upholds-sentence-voter-suppression

 

Twitter is not the best place to get your news...

[TwiceHorn 31246]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending any aspect of the cops or their execution of this warrant.

I am trying to get at what could rationally be expected out of the legal system, notwithstanding huge biases one way or the other.

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

[TwiceHorn 31246]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Mason was on supervised release, similar to probation, for a federal felony conviction related to tax fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/20/crystal-mason-texas-upholds-sentence-voter-suppression

 

Twitter is not the best place to get your news...

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.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[4th&Five 41457]