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

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Nicole44 said:

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

Both Walker and Taylor were up. The warrant had been changed to “knock and announce.” 
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.

 

 

If true I bet changed after the fact that people got killed. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The warrant was for no knock. 

People got killed.

The police now claim they “modified” the warrant to claim “knock and announce” to make it look better.

It don’t make a shit because the cops went in guns a blazing killing people because drugs are bad.

Fox News claims it was not a no knock warrant. And around and around we go.

 

[Nicole44 22024]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

If true I bet changed after the fact that people got killed. 

They used a battering ram so if it is true that they warrant was changed it actually makes the police look worse. I mean it’s totally likely it was changed after the fact to justify their shooting BUT it makes them look worse. Jmo. Allegedly a neighbor heard them call out police. If true it happened simultaneously with them breaking down the door. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Nicole44 said:

They used a battering ram so if it is true that they warrant was changed it actually makes the police look worse. I mean it’s totally likely it was changed after the fact to justify their shooting BUT it makes them look worse. Jmo. Allegedly a neighbor heard them call out police. If true it happened simultaneously with them breaking down the door. 

Well at least they stopped the drugs from getting to the streets. So all of it was worth it.

[Nicole44 22024]

From the same NY Times article I posted above:

 

Jamarcus Glover, Ms. Taylor’s ex-boyfriend whose alleged packages led the police to her door that night, was arrested on Aug. 27 in possession of drugs, according to a charging document. He told The Courier Journal that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in the drug trade. “The police are trying to make it out to be my fault and turning the whole community out here, making it look like I brought this to Breonna’s door,” he said.

[clapclapclap 9000]

49 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

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.

 

 

Careful, that NY Times article purposely and dishonestly left out that the upstairs neighbor said he heard police identify themselves before knocking down the door.  It was prominently mentioned in the news conference that they elsewhere quote.

The 'no-knock' claim is a central tenet being used to incite insurrection, it's a pretty big deal to squelch a witness that shoots down that myth.

Elsewhere in the 'media', still 'mostly peaceful':

Creating food deserts one small business at a time:

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Nicole44 22024]

1 minute ago, clapclapclap said:

Careful, that NY Times article purposely and dishonestly left out that the upstairs neighbor said he heard police identify themselves before knocking down the door.  It was prominently mentioned in the news conference that they elsewhere quote.

The 'no-knock' claim is a central tenet being used to incite insurrection, it's a pretty big deal to squelch a witness that shoots down that myth.

Elsewhere in the 'media':

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1308948243187937280

I understand what you are saying. I was trying to find some information that would answer the questions that were posed earlier in the thread. Obviously, no one article is going to answer all the questions. Truthfully or not. It’s a shame important details are purposefully left out though. This whole thing has been such a tragedy and a clusterfuck. We will likely never learn all the details. It’s sad and maddening at the same time. It can be said that Walker heard aggressive knocking. Knocking did occur. And within short order entry was made. And we know how that turned out. Just trying to find accounts that matchup with what we know to be true.

 

[clapclapclap 9000]

I understand.  When I Googled in mid-afternoon to look up a detail on Ms. Taylor's case that NYT article was one of the 3 recommended up top. 

And when even the NY Times admits to some of the facts it makes it harder for some to continue the myths.

 

Meanwhile, I have a question to others (those who speak CR).  When we had weeks of chanting "Defund the police!" and there was a backlash we were then told they didn't actually mean defund.  Today they marched with signs saying, "Abolish the police."  What is your spin interpretation of what they actually mean by "abolish"?

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Helobious 9477]

10 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Careful, that NY Times article purposely and dishonestly left out that the upstairs neighbor said he heard police identify themselves before knocking down the door.  It was prominently mentioned in the news conference that they elsewhere quote.

The 'no-knock' claim is a central tenet being used to incite insurrection, it's a pretty big deal to squelch a witness that shoots down that myth.

Curious as to why you believe the one upstairs neighbor is correct and not the multiple other neighbors that said they didn’t hear the cops identify themselves? 
 

Just my own opinion... given what a clusterfuck the raid turned out to be, I’d bet they yelled “police!” as they were battering the door or busting through. Which is not the correct way to do it, because it’s not easy for people to hear or process over the noise.

[Brisketexan 104466]

I understand.  When I Googled in mid-afternoon to look up a detail on Breonna's case that NYT article was one of the 3 recommended up top. 
And when even the NY Times admits to some of the facts it makes it harder for some to continue the myths.
 
Meanwhile, I have a question to others (those who speak CR).  When we had weeks of chanting "Defund the police!" and there was a backlash we were then told they didn't actually mean defund.  Today they marched with signs saying, "Abolish the police."  What is your spin interpretation of what they actually mean by "abolish"?
 

I’ll take a guess as to what it means. If you’re making a pot of chili, and realize the cat just walked by and took a big shit in it....do you fish it out and call it good? Do you add more chili powder to drown out the stench? Or do you actually accept that the batch is unfixable, it’s ruined, and you toss it out, and start over to make a new pot?

While I get the sentiment, the challenge is that we can’t just toss current PDs out on their ass and install a new one. It’s not practicable, even though it might actually be the best move in numerous places. So, we’re stuck with broken systems, and we have to try to fix them.

But we won’t, because BLM are communists or something. Which means we have to keep backing the same shitty and racist police.

[Updawg 2260]

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.

That’s insane. How much did that cost

[Buzzrock 14867]

Where is the “multiple other neighbors” story coming from? I’ve heard one out of twelve said they heard the police announce. I’d like to read the source on that since the grand jury testimony is sealed. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

14 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Curious as to why you believe the one upstairs neighbor is correct and not the multiple other neighbors that said they didn’t hear the cops identify themselves? 

Because:

1.  What incentive does the upstairs neighbor have to lie about hearing the police announce themselves?  Easier to just say he didn't hear it.  Unless he was coerced by police.  (Was the neighbor an illegal immigrant?  Someone on probation?  etc.)  But with all the media/corporate/one political party's efforts to paint this the other way, it is far more likely that he would be coerced or intimidated by them into refuting his testimony.

 2.  It was the middle of the night.  I can believe that some 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.

Though as I noted in a similar reply 2 pages ago,  having only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.  The sloppy initial police reports certainly give pause, but I think the followup outside investigations would have, or at trial will, perhaps bring some clarity on how long it was.  Maybe.

Edited September 24, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Brisketexan 104466]

“Maybe.” Seems like the varying witness stories (again, ONE witness who said he heard police, and hasn’t been cross examined by ANYONE) should be tested at trial....not tossed out without them even getting to be vetted because the grand just no billed on the homicide charges.

[hobbes2702 12772]

10 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Because:

1.  What incentive does the upstairs neighbor have to lie about hearing the police announce themselves?  Easier to just say he didn't hear it.  Unless he was coerced by police.  (Was the neighbor an illegal immigrant?  Someone on probation?  etc.)  But with all the media/corporate/one political party's efforts to paint this the other way, it is far more likely that he would be coerced or intimidated by them into refuting his testimony.

 2.  It was the middle of the night.  I can believe that some 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.

Though as I noted in a similar reply 2 pages ago,  having only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.  The sloppy initial police reports certainly give pause, but I think the followup outside investigations would have, or at trial will, perhaps bring some clarity on how long it was.  Maybe.

Everything you just said is exactly why we charge people and have trials with juries. That’s literally the point.

[Mole 4319]

34 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Because:

1.  What incentive does the upstairs neighbor have to lie about hearing the police announce themselves?  Easier to just say he didn't hear it.  Unless he was coerced by police.  (Was the neighbor an illegal immigrant?  Someone on probation?  etc.)  But with all the media/corporate/one political party's efforts to paint this the other way, it is far more likely that he would be coerced or intimidated by them into refuting his testimony.

I’ll admit to only marginally keeping up with all of this, since how much horrifying stuff can we individually keep track of at once, but I think you left off one option — he either heard an announcement, he’s lying, or he’s wrong. Just because there doesn’t seem to be a good motive to lie doesn’t mean it’s an accurate recounting, it just means it’s more likely that the witness thinks it’s an accurate recounting.

[B00M 6278]

Good for Louisville to ban the no knock raid, hopefully that goes national.

Why the fuck do they have police at this riot not wearing helmets and face shields? The fake militia looks better equipped. 

[DanRydell 799]

6 hours ago, DanRydell said:

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

 

Turns out the answer is yes, KRS 503.120

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.

It doesn't matter if everybody within 10 square miles could hear them say they were the police. The cops who shot her wouldn't even be permitted to argue self-defense at trial so it's absolutely ludicrous that it was presented to the grand jury. The only questions for the jury would be whether the cops killed her by acting wantonly (second-degree manslaughter) or recklessly (reckless homicide).

[immortal13 4059]

8 hours 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.

Quit using so much logic and common sense. 

[South Austin 52039]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If you’re making a pot of chili, and realize the cat just walked by and took a big shit in it....do you fish it out and call it good? Do you add more chili powder to drown out the stench? Or do you actually accept that the batch is unfixable, it’s ruined, and you toss it out, and start over to make a new pot?

[Doug E. Fresh 452]

6 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Because:

1.  What incentive does the upstairs neighbor have to lie about hearing the police announce themselves?  Easier to just say he didn't hear it.  Unless he was coerced by police.  (Was the neighbor an illegal immigrant?  Someone on probation?  etc.)  But with all the media/corporate/one political party's efforts to paint this the other way, it is far more likely that he would be coerced or intimidated by them into refuting his testimony.

First time I’ve heard this, but on CNN Walker’s lawyer said the one witness initially told investigators the next day that police did not announce themselves before entering but then changed his story after two more interviews.

[Reagan1k 3011]

16 hours 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.

Maybe a little off topic here but the point made above is where I keep being led with regard to no-know warrants.  In today's world with the level of technology and surveillance techniques that are afforded to law enforcement, I think that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the no-knock warrant approval process.

In many cases where we have seen evidence of these go wrong, it appears to me that simply slowing the roll of law enforcement and using no-knock warrants only where innocent life is in immediate peril would be prudent.

I'm no lawdog and don't know how you revamp the system, but it would appear that a specially appointed panel or overseer should be the go/no go decision as to whether a no-know warrant (and the likely use of force that follows) is justified.  Their task would be to obviously determine whether a warrant is justified, but more importantly whether it meets the threshold of meriting a violent entry.

To me, simple drug crimes like this one do not meet the threshold of being necessary to risk the lives of all involved; LEO, suspects, and innocents alike.

Ted Bundy has 5 kids locked in his basement and is torturing them - Go.  Joe Smith is moving meth out of an apartment and has been doing so for years - let's wait until he comes outside and makes a run to HEB.

These no-knock warrants amplify the warrior mentality, create the us against them mindset, and don't seems to SERVE the greater good in many cases - when weighing the risk vs. reward. 

[TwiceHorn 31187]

9 hours ago, Helobious said:

Curious as to why you believe the one upstairs neighbor is correct and not the multiple other neighbors that said they didn’t hear the cops identify themselves? 
 

Just my own opinion... given what a clusterfuck the raid turned out to be, I’d bet they yelled “police!” as they were battering the door or busting through. Which is not the correct way to do it, because it’s not easy for people to hear or process over the noise.

Yup.  And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

It is pretty clear that they began knocking down the door before receiving any kind of response to whatever announcement they may have made.  And that makes it more "no-knock" than "knock and announce."  And it was the banging down the door that provoked the initial gunshot.

[Brisketexan 104466]

Getting to the point of whether the law failed, or whether the real failure here is that the law worked as designed, an acquaintance of mine shared this thought that I think captures the really shitty place we've ended up: Through hero-worship, bigotry, neglect & antipathy we have created a super-class of citizen that can literally get away with murder.

That seems like a really bad policy decision.  We should change that.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Brisketexan

[TwiceHorn 31187]

22 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

Maybe a little off topic here but the point made above is where I keep being led with regard to no-know warrants.  In today's world with the level of technology and surveillance techniques that are afforded to law enforcement, I think that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the no-knock warrant approval process.

In many cases where we have seen evidence of these go wrong, it appears to me that simply slowing the roll of law enforcement and using no-knock warrants only where innocent life is in immediate peril would be prudent.

I'm no lawdog and don't know how you revamp the system, but it would appear that a specially appointed panel or overseer should be the go/no go decision as to whether a no-know warrant (and the likely use of force that follows) is justified.  Their task would be to obviously determine whether a warrant is justified, but more importantly whether it meets the threshold of meriting a violent entry.

To me, simple drug crimes like this one do not meet the threshold of being necessary to risk the lives of all involved; LEO, suspects, and innocents alike.

Ted Bundy has 5 kids locked in his basement and is torturing them - Go.  Joe Smith is moving meth out of an apartment and has been doing so for years - let's wait until he comes outside and makes a run to HEB.

These no-knock warrants amplify the warrior mentality, create the us against them mindset, and don't seems to SERVE the greater good in many cases - when weighing the risk vs. reward. 

This is educated speculation, but in most jurisdictions, obtaining a no-knock warrant is based on an allegation in the warrant application that surprise is necessary to avoid either destruction of evidence or flight of the suspect.

Whether the warrant-issuing judge accepts that allegation or inquires further to require the popo to state the basis for this belief and whether there is a better way, is probably left to the discretion of the judge.  And you can bet that the popo doesn't go to the hardass judges for a warrant if they can possibly avoid it.

The circumstances under which a no-knock warrant is really necessary, as opposed to merely expedient, seem to me to be vanishingly rare.  The glaringly obvious dangers to the public and to LEO posed by such warrants seem to dictate that they go away.

It will make cops job's harder.  No question.  But we have spent decades making cops' jobs easier and you can see what it has gotten us.  The notion of unduly burdening law enforcement needs to go away.

[Saint Tacky 1609]

20 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Taint Sacky is a way funnier name.

Sure, if you're 11-yrs old

[lemonlime 5503]

Even if they “knocked and announced” someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night when I’m sleeping, says “police” a second later which I may or may not have heard, and another second later knocks down my front door with a battering ram, and you expect me to act rationally and also not think it’s a criminal breaking in 2 seconds after being woken up in the middle of the night. Fuck anyone trying to defend this or that the cops only got charged for the bullets that missed.

[CowboyFred 1151]

11 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

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.

well yea lawyers will probably be held more accountable...

[Cody2422 264]

You can go back through my posts (except the first 50, those don’t count) and see that I’m about as pro police as they come, but I cannot see the value of a no knock warrant in all but the most extreme cases.  There is too much to lose and too little to gain.  Everyone has been woken up by a bump in the night, most of the times it’s your mind trick fucking you, but when you wake up from a dead sleep, you immediately go into self defense mode.  So say the cops bust through your door in the middle of the night and announce themselves as police, but in the confusion, you’ve already grabbed your .45 out of the nightstand, and then they enter your room, your hands are up but you’re still holding your gun, because after all, it’s the middle of the fucking night and you’re confused.  Too late, you’re dead, and in my case my wife and 2 year old who sleeps with us is probably dead too.  “Whoops, our bad, we had the wrong house, but he did have a gun”

If each side was being authentic, and Lord knows, neither is at this point, this would and should be such an easy fix.  I know you can now say, well they were awake.  It still doesn’t change the fact that for such a low level “crime”, there are better ways to handle this.  In my opinion, the judge who signed off on the warrant is more at fault then the cops who killed her.  Judges should be better than the run of the mill cop executing search warrants.  

[Armybrat 40678]

Well, most judges seem to be lawyers, so why isn’t that corrected?

[Brisketexan 104466]

8 minutes ago, Cody2422 said:

You can go back through my posts (except the first 50, those don’t count) and see that I’m about as pro police as they come, but I cannot see the value of a no knock warrant in all but the most extreme cases.  There is too much to lose and too little to gain.  Everyone has been woken up by a bump in the night, most of the times it’s your mind trick fucking you, but when you wake up from a dead sleep, you immediately go into self defense mode.  So say the cops bust through your door in the middle of the night and announce themselves as police, but in the confusion, you’ve already grabbed your .45 out of the nightstand, and then they enter your room, your hands are up but you’re still holding your gun, because after all, it’s the middle of the fucking night and you’re confused.  Too late, you’re dead, and in my case my wife and 2 year old who sleeps with us is probably dead too.  “Whoops, our bad, we had the wrong house, but he did have a gun”

If each side was being authentic, and Lord knows, neither is at this point, this would and should be such an easy fix.  I know you can now say, well they were awake.  It still doesn’t change the fact that for such a low level “crime”, there are better ways to handle this.  In my opinion, the judge who signed off on the warrant is more at fault then the cops who killed her.  Judges should be better than the run of the mill cop executing search warrants.  

We should also make a law/rule that telling a material lie on a police report is 1) a terminable offense that 2) disqualifies the person from every holding a licensed peace officer job.

We disqualify pedophiles from working at a daycare.  We should disqualify proven liars from a job where their lies can do things like put an innocent person in prison, or justify the assault or murder of a person.

Being a cop is a job of public trust.  Breach that trust, lose your job.

[PilotsError 2281]

The purpose of no knock warrants is not to save evidence or anything to do with officer safety.  The purpose is to put the suspect in a position where they act aggressively and the police can shoot and kill them.  That is the purpose.  If you doubt me, you haven't spent enough time around cops.

 

[Cajun 11675]

@Brisketexan That would be a tectonic shitf.

When a cop writes a police report w/o lying, trust me, it's accidental.

Love all their bullshit tricks - Cop on DWI stop - "Are you intoxicated on anything besides beer?"  

"No sir!"

Report - "Suspect admitted to being intoxicated on beer."

Edited September 24, 2020 by Cajun

[Cajun 11675]

3 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

The purpose of no knock warrants is not to save evidence or anything to do with officer safety.  The purpose is to put the suspect in a position where they act aggressively and the police can shoot and kill them.  That is the purpose.  If you doubt me, you haven't spent enough time around cops.

 

Yep.

Intant escalation.  They jab that shit striaght into their veins.

[Brisketexan 104466]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Well, most judges seem to be lawyers, so why isn’t that corrected?

Between 1) many judges being lazy, cowards, or both (and thus they just accept what a cop says at face value), 2) having the time -- each warrant application contains a crapload of statements; if a court subjected the affirming officer to detailed examination on each statement in each warrant application, the court would gum up to the point of paralysis.

Credibility in a courtroom matters -- as lawyers, it's one of our most valuable assets.  I have had judges expressly tell me that - "counselor, I know you need me to act on this today, and I simply don't have the time to read your entire application here -- you haven't led me astray before, so I'm asking you -- are all of the statements here on the conclusion page accurate?"  I answer yes. "Okay, I'm doing this based on the fact that I can trust you  - I'm sure you don't want to lose that trust."  And I don't.  Because if I hoodwink a judge, every other judge in town will know about it within a week, and my name will be mud, and they won't trust anything I tell them.

The point is, the workload of a court is almost always heavy enough that they have to simply trust people, particularly "repeat players" before them.  And in the abstract, it's definitely not ideal.  The court SHOULD read every word on every page. The court SHOULD subject a cop to examination on any statement that reads like it's canned, seems suspicious, etc.  Whether because of practicality, cowardice, laziness, or corruption (and they all look the same, when you're looking up at the bench), it doesn't happen, and really can't happen the way things are structured.

Personally, I would like to see some significant reforms to the way that warrants are issued, particularly any warrant that involves creating a dangerous situation (no-knocks aren't the only ones, but they're the glaring ones).

[Armybrat 40678]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We should also make a law/rule that telling a material lie on a police report is 1) a terminable offense that 2) disqualifies the person from every holding a licensed peace officer job.

We disqualify pedophiles from working at a daycare.  We should disqualify proven liars from a job where their lies can do things like put an innocent person in prison, or justify the assault or murder of a person.

Being a cop is a job of public trust.  Breach that trust, lose your job.

Nothing happened to Antonio Buelher’s uniformed assailant when he lied on his police report . That was under Art Acevedo’s watch, and the DA & local judges did nothing.

 

[Cajun 11675]

Judges lazy?  No wai!

Oh, and some are just complete morons.  Had one at a hearing in Gillespie County spend 10 minutes lecturing us (Mom, myself, our attorneys) about how we need to understand how his decision was based on "...what's in the best interest of the child", blah blah blah.  Really ramped up the condescension to drive his point home too.

His pivot, literally after finishing the last word of stroking his ego peen?  Looked at his watch and said, and I quote, "We're going to have to move for another date, I've got a Permian Pipeline case to get to".  

Dude couldn't get the facts straight to save his life either.

Yeah, you were telling us about the "Best interest of the child" there your "honor"?  And could you explain with the same smugness and condescension how your hearing a Permian Pipeline case before your afternoon tee time benefits this kid?   Man, I wish that I would have had the nads to say that on record.

Thank God he's out of the game now. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Cajun

[TwiceHorn 31187]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Between 1) many judges being lazy, cowards, or both (and thus they just accept what a cop says at face value), 2) having the time -- each warrant application contains a crapload of statements; if a court subjected the affirming officer to detailed examination on each statement in each warrant application, the court would gum up to the point of paralysis.

Credibility in a courtroom matters -- as lawyers, it's one of our most valuable assets.  I have had judges expressly tell me that - "counselor, I know you need me to act on this today, and I simply don't have the time to read your entire application here -- you haven't led me astray before, so I'm asking you -- are all of the statements here on the conclusion page accurate?"  I answer yes. "Okay, I'm doing this based on the fact that I can trust you  - I'm sure you don't want to lose that trust."  And I don't.  Because if I hoodwink a judge, every other judge in town will know about it within a week, and my name will be mud, and they won't trust anything I tell them.

The point is, the workload of a court is almost always heavy enough that they have to simply trust people, particularly "repeat players" before them.  And in the abstract, it's definitely not ideal.  The court SHOULD read every word on every page. The court SHOULD subject a cop to examination on any statement that reads like it's canned, seems suspicious, etc.  Whether because of practicality, cowardice, laziness, or corruption (and they all look the same, when you're looking up at the bench), it doesn't happen, and really can't happen the way things are structured.

Personally, I would like to see some significant reforms to the way that warrants are issued, particularly any warrant that involves creating a dangerous situation (no-knocks aren't the only ones, but they're the glaring ones).

One thing is that warrants don't really "come back" on the issuing judge, or even the applying officers, very often.  Usually the worst thing that happens with a warrant is that it is found to be somehow invalid and the evidence obtained is excluded.  That "hurts" the applying officer to some degree, but not very badly, and has about zero effect on the issuing judge.  They are probably unaware of it entirely.

In Dallas County, I believe the city municipal judges and maybe also JPs are used to issue warrants.  There are also magistrates appointed by the chief elected district and county judges that issue warrants.  These people are judicial "bottom feeders."  I'm sure they're mostly fine people striving to do a decent job, but they have little or no visibility or accountability to the electorate.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104466]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Nothing happened to Antonio Buelher’s uniformed assailant when he lied on his police report . That was under Art Acevedo’s watch, and the DA & local judges did nothing.

 

Yep.

And I think that was bullshit.  Want to fix that shit?  The DA calls the chief into her office.  She lays out in front of him not just that report, but a dozen others on which one of his cops told a brazen lie.  She tells him "you've got a problem -- your cops think it's okay to lie.  You need to fix this, and fast.  Here's what's waiting for you if you don't: I'm going to spoon feed every one of these stories, and 50 others, to the press.  It will include individual officer names.  It will include a discussion of this meeting, and the fact that I gave you a chance to clean things up, and you didn't take it.  And it will finish with my office prosecuting every one of those officers for perjury.  Do your job.  Do it honestly.  I don't ever want to see any of your officers submit false statements to this office again.  I presume you don't either, right?  Good.  Then you'll do what needs to be done, and we won't have to have the next conversation about this.  Have a nice weekend."

That requires some spine.  Haven't seen a whole lot of that.  Because, what do you think the cops' reaction to that will be?  How much you want to bet that the reaction will include tailing the DA wherever she goes, looking for her to do anything that gives you cause to arrest or hassle her?  Or maybe they'll do that to her kids, or her spouse, etc.  

When you understand that you're dealing with a criminal gang, the dynamic is really, really different.

[Armybrat 40678]

Well, to be fair, Rosemary was probably too drunk to notice what was happening.

[Brisketexan 104466]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Well, to be fair, Rosemary was probably too drunk to notice what was happening.

Yeah.....her tenure was not our finest hour.

[Armybrat 40678]

Yeah, and she brought shame to her Taylor Duck schoolmates.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The point is, the workload of a court is almost always heavy enough that they have to simply trust people, particularly "repeat players" before them.  And in the abstract, it's definitely not ideal.  The court SHOULD read every word on every page. The court SHOULD subject a cop to examination on any statement that reads like it's canned, seems suspicious, etc.  Whether because of practicality, cowardice, laziness, or corruption (and they all look the same, when you're looking up at the bench), it doesn't happen, and really can't happen the way things are structured.

Maybe ending the failed war on drugs would allow our legal system to actually function

[Brisketexan 104466]

1 minute ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Maybe ending the failed war on drugs would allow our legal system to actually function

Would go a long, long, long way.  I know I've related this before, but a couple of years ago, had a candid discussion with a federal judge, and he disclosed that around 80% of his docket was what he called "border related," and almost all of that was drug cases (some human trafficking, but mostly drugs).  Later, I commented on how I thought it would be cool to try a case at the new Federal Courthouse in Alpine, it's really beautiful:

He chuckled.  "They don't try cases down there -- they built that just to arraign drug smuggling defendants."  Before, they had to keep buses running in the parking lot, with the AC on, because there wasn't room inside the old small structure for all the defendants each day.

Look at the resources spent in terms of time and money....and your ability to get a bump of coke at the club is the same that it was 50 years ago.  We have broken ourselves, we did it on purpose, and we refuse to change.

[Chewbacca 7727]

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. 

I hate that i feel this way, but I'm with you on that.

[Buzzrock 14867]

This is educated speculation, but in most jurisdictions, obtaining a no-knock warrant is based on an allegation in the warrant application that surprise is necessary to avoid either destruction of evidence or flight of the suspect.
Whether the warrant-issuing judge accepts that allegation or inquires further to require the popo to state the basis for this belief and whether there is a better way, is probably left to the discretion of the judge.  And you can bet that the popo doesn't go to the hardass judges for a warrant if they can possibly avoid it.
The circumstances under which a no-knock warrant is really necessary, as opposed to merely expedient, seem to me to be vanishingly rare.  The glaringly obvious dangers to the public and to LEO posed by such warrants seem to dictate that they go away.
It will make cops job's harder.  No question.  But we have spent decades making cops' jobs easier and you can see what it has gotten us.  The notion of unduly burdening law enforcement needs to go away.

I saw an episode of one of those crime documentary shows where they caught a murderer using a single piece of glitter. They were able to determine the make model and color of the glitter and where it had been purchased and connect it to the killer. Glitter! The tiniest piece of evidence imaginable!

So the “they might destroy evidence” qualifier doesn’t fly with me, especially when the other side of the coin is “you might kill someone.”

[Brisketexan 104466]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I saw an episode of one of those crime documentary shows where they caught a murderer using a single piece of glitter. They were able to determine the make model and color of the glitter and where it had been purchased and connect it to the killer. Glitter! The tiniest piece of evidence imaginable!

So the “they might destroy evidence” qualifier doesn’t fly with me, especially when the other side of the coin is “you might kill someone.”

 

So.....was the stripper the murderer, or the victim?

[Buzzrock 14867]

We should also make a law/rule that telling a material lie on a police report is 1) a terminable offense that 2) disqualifies the person from every holding a licensed peace officer job.
We disqualify pedophiles from working at a daycare.  We should disqualify proven liars from a job where their lies can do things like put an innocent person in prison, or justify the assault or murder of a person.
Being a cop is a job of public trust.  Breach that trust, lose your job.

Now we’re talking. This is what I was trying to get at in the CR thread but I was (predictably) drummed out for the mortal sin of asking questions. I think this is a great idea and the analogy to predatory teachers is perfect. Guess what? Sometimes some good teachers get caught in that net. But it’s worth it.

[wildcat09 29193]

12 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Because:

1.  What incentive does the upstairs neighbor have to lie about hearing the police announce themselves?  Easier to just say he didn't hear it.  Unless he was coerced by police.  (Was the neighbor an illegal immigrant?  Someone on probation?  etc.)  But with all the media/corporate/one political party's efforts to paint this the other way, it is far more likely that he would be coerced or intimidated by them into refuting his testimony.

 2.  It was the middle of the night.  I can believe that some 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.

Though as I noted in a similar reply 2 pages ago,  having only 1 witness hearing police identifying themselves might suggest it was a very quick one yell and then knock the door down.  The sloppy initial police reports certainly give pause, but I think the followup outside investigations would have, or at trial will, perhaps bring some clarity on how long it was.  Maybe.

Others have already correctly pointed out that this is why we should have a trial, but I want to highlight how fucking dumb this is.  It's more likely that cops would coerce someone into testifying against fellow cops than that they would coerce testimony that supports their fellow cops' story? You really, truly, seriously think that?

[Buzzrock 14867]

One thing is that warrants don't really "come back" on the issuing judge, or even the applying officers, very often.  Usually the worst thing that happens with a warrant is that it is found to be somehow invalid and the evidence obtained is excluded.  That "hurts" the applying officer to some degree, but not very badly, and has about zero effect on the issuing judge.  They are probably unaware of it entirely.
In Dallas County, I believe the city municipal judges and maybe also JPs are used to issue warrants.  There are also magistrates appointed by the chief elected district and county judges that issue warrants.  These people are judicial "bottom feeders."  I'm sure they're mostly fine people striving to do a decent job, but they have little or no visibility or accountability to the electorate.

Yeah I’m sure Breonna Taylor’s family would be thrilled to learn that the warrant was invalid. All better!