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

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Calling them keystone cops and incompetent gives them a cover of stupidity and ignorance that they do not deserve. 
they purposefully lied to get the warrant that they purposefully chose to execute via night time raid, and they purposefully tried to smear the man that defended his home, along with purposefully trying to get the drug runner ex boyfriend to implicate her after the fact.

this wasn’t bungled. 

I thought the cops who secured the warrant were different than the ones who executed it.

[drt 637]

That’s what I thought, but from those interviews in the vice news video it seems the cop that was shot was involved in not confirming packages were being sent to the apartment. 

[Pato del Muerto 52323]

Doesn’t even really matter. Would just mean more cops that did the wrong thing. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  They are sounding more and more alike.

I'd have no problem with making it a law that any police action that is based on a warrant that was found to be procured in any material part by perjury is not entitled to ANY legal protection -- the actors are not acting under color of law, they have no legal justification for the entry, and they are not entitled to the defense of self-defense.  Put the onus on cops not to fucking LIE on the sworn statements to procure a warrant.

Or, alternatively, the crime of perjury on a warrant will be punished as the highest level offense that occurred in the course of executing the warrant, with no defenses available.  If you lie on a warrant (and such perjury is proven), and that results in someone dying, you are guilty of a homicide offense.

I mean, I guess you could argue the felony murder rule applies right now. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I mean, I guess you could argue the felony murder rule applies right now. 

You could.  If you are ignorant of the law.

[Huckleberry 32685]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You could.  If you are ignorant of the law.

Yeah, what is he, a cop? 

[Dahobbs 17420]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You could.  If you are ignorant of the law.

I didn't say it wasn't a stretch. The primary difficulty is the attenuation and time between commission of felony and the death. The felony of perjury is complete once the affidavit is sworn to, so it would be difficult to say that the death occurred in the course of the felony. Although, I could throw together some argument about a continuing felony since the purpose of the affidavit was to allow the search/raid. Admittingly, I don't practice criminal law or know every variation of the felony murder rule. But applying it in this circumstance wouldn't be, in my view, significantly more morally outrageous than other instances when the rule has been applied. It is stupid rule. But, so long as we are going to have stupid rules, it would be nice if they could be occasionally turned on those that abuse them. 

[Pato del Muerto 52323]

48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You could.  If you are ignorant of the law.

Wait, you are only allowed to argue within the boundaries of the law, or if you are ignorant of it?

[TwiceHorn 31187]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't say it wasn't a stretch. The primary difficulty is the attenuation and time between commission of felony and the death. The felony of perjury is complete once the affidavit is sworn to, so it would be difficult to say that the death occurred in the course of the felony. Although, I could throw together some argument about a continuing felony since the purpose of the affidavit was to allow the search/raid. Admittingly, I don't practice criminal law or know every variation of the felony murder rule. But applying it in this circumstance wouldn't be, in my view, significantly more morally outrageous than other instances when the rule has been applied. It is stupid rule. But, so long as we are going to have stupid rules, it would be nice if they could be occasionally turned on those that abuse them. 

Also, the common law felony murder rule has been supplanted by statutes in most cases.  Sometimes worded as broadly as the common-law rule, most often not.  It appears to have been abolished in Kentucky, entirely, subject to the language of the murder statute, which encompasses some felony-murderish scenarios.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't say it wasn't a stretch. The primary difficulty is the attenuation and time between commission of felony and the death. The felony of perjury is complete once the affidavit is sworn to, so it would be difficult to say that the death occurred in the course of the felony. Although, I could throw together some argument about a continuing felony since the purpose of the affidavit was to allow the search/raid. Admittingly, I don't practice criminal law or know every variation of the felony murder rule. But applying it in this circumstance wouldn't be, in my view, significantly more morally outrageous than other instances when the rule has been applied. It is stupid rule. But, so long as we are going to have stupid rules, it would be nice if they could be occasionally turned on those that abuse them. 

Perjury isn't an underlying felony to support the felony murder rule in Maryland.

Maryland Criminal Law Code, Section 2-201: Murder in the First Degree

(a) A murder is in the first degree if it is:

(1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing;

(2) committed by lying in wait;

(3) committed by poison;  or

(4) committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate:

(i) arson in the first degree;

(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house, warehouse, or other outbuilding that:

1. is not parcel to a dwelling;  and

2. contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;

(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;

(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;

(v) escape in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local correctional facility;

(vi) kidnapping under § 3-502 or § 3-503(a)(2) of this article;

(vii) mayhem;

(viii) rape;

(ix) robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of this article;

(x) sexual offense in the first or second degree;

(xi) sodomy;  or

(xii) a violation of § 4-503 of this article concerning destructive devices.

(b)(1) A person who commits a murder in the first degree is guilty of a felony and on conviction shall be sentenced to:

(i) imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole;  or

(ii) imprisonment for life.

(2) Unless a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is imposed in compliance with § 2-203 of this subtitle and § 2-304 of this title, the sentence shall be imprisonment for life.

[Captainant 27317]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Perjury isn't an underlying felony to support the felony murder rule in Maryland.

Maryland Criminal Law Code, Section 2-201: Murder in the First Degree

(a) A murder is in the first degree if it is:

(1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing;

(2) committed by lying in wait;

(3) committed by poison;  or

(4) committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate:

(i) arson in the first degree;

(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house, warehouse, or other outbuilding that:

1. is not parcel to a dwelling;  and

2. contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;

(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;

(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;

(v) escape in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local correctional facility;

(vi) kidnapping under § 3-502 or § 3-503(a)(2) of this article;

(vii) mayhem;

(viii) rape;

(ix) robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of this article;

(x) sexual offense in the first or second degree;

(xi) sodomy;  or

(xii) a violation of § 4-503 of this article concerning destructive devices.

(b)(1) A person who commits a murder in the first degree is guilty of a felony and on conviction shall be sentenced to:

(i) imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole;  or

(ii) imprisonment for life.

(2) Unless a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is imposed in compliance with § 2-203 of this subtitle and § 2-304 of this title, the sentence shall be imprisonment for life.

I think it's more that the officers do not get qualified immunity if they were executing a warrant that they lied to get. So therefore they do not have an affirmative self defense argument. Because they had no legal right or obligation to raid Taylor's apartment.

The officers were home invaders who killed an innocent woman sleeping in her own bed.

[JBJ 3647]

3 hours ago, drt said:

That’s what I thought, but from those interviews in the vice news video it seems the cop that was shot was involved in not confirming packages were being sent to the apartment. 

My understanding was:

Warrant said: I confirmed with postal service that there were no unusual packages.

Reality: I talked with the undercover officer who already confirmed with the postal service that there were no unusual packages.

Edited October 9, 2020 by JBJ

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think it's more that the officers do not get qualified immunity if they were executing a warrant that they lied to get. So therefore they do not have an affirmative self defense argument. Because they had no legal right or obligation to raid Taylor's apartment.

The officers were home invaders who killed an innocent woman sleeping in her own bed.

I don't believe the officers who shot and killed her had anything to do with the warrant.  Even if they did, your response has nothing to do with the felony murder rule being discussed.

And she was not "sleeping in her bed" when she was shot.  The officers entered the apartment, she was in the hall next to her boyfriend who fired at the officers, they returned fire and killed her.

[drt 637]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

My understanding was:

Warrant said: I confirmed with postal service that there were no unusual packages.

Reality: I talked with the undercover officer who already confirmed with the postal service that there were no unusual packages.

I thought the warrant said he was getting packages?

[JBJ 3647]

20 minutes ago, drt said:

I thought the warrant said he was getting packages?

Fuck me.  The warrant affidavit said there were no packages.  The undercover officer said there weren't to the officer on the affidavit.

I.E. the guy who was later shot was honest about it, so not really involved in the warrant.

Edited October 9, 2020 by JBJ

[Brisketexan 104466]

29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I think it's more that the officers do not get qualified immunity if they were executing a warrant that they lied to get. So therefore they do not have an affirmative self defense argument. Because they had no legal right or obligation to raid Taylor's apartment.

The officers were home invaders who killed an innocent woman sleeping in her own bed.

This is the angle that may be worth a creative shot.  You only have the legal right to gain entry with a legally obtained warrant.  A warrant obtained based on material perjury is not a legally obtained warrant.  Thus, you lose your status as "cops making lawful entry," and you now just become "people busting down someone's door."  Adios, right of self-defense.  The "felony murder" rule is a dead-end here.  The legal status of their entry and actions -- an important fact in determining whether "self-defense" is an available defense -- is not a dead-end.  I think it offers an opportunity for a novel application of existing law.

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Fuck me.  The warrant affidavit said there were no packages.  The undercover officer said there weren't to the officer on the affidavit.

Like I said.  Material perjury -- double-layered, no less.  Lied about the info being first-hand, and lied about what the info itself was.  And it was perhaps THE material fact to justify the warrant.

 

[Captainant 27317]

23 minutes ago, drt said:

I thought the warrant said he was getting packages?

They lied on the warrant application. This was determined by the internal police investigation.

28 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't believe the officers who shot and killed her had anything to do with the warrant.  Even if they did, your response has nothing to do with the felony murder rule being discussed.

And she was not "sleeping in her bed" when she was shot.  The officers entered the apartment, she was in the hall next to her boyfriend who fired at the officers, they returned fire and killed her.

It was my understanding that the officers were shielded by the AG from felony murder/manslaughter charges because they were deemed justified in defending themselves in the execution of a lawful warrant. If they materially misrepresented facts to mislead a judge to issue the warrant, "just following orders" feels like a pretty shitty and hollow defense for the officers to hide behind.

[JBJ 3647]

It will matter to the civil case.

I hope there will be an inquiry launched into the misreprentations on the warrant affidavit.

I'm not sure it criminalizes the officers who were executing the warrant.  For all intensive porpoises they were still executing a warrant.

Whichever dude was shooting into the windows, it still seems like there's a crime somewhere in there.

Edited October 9, 2020 by JBJ

[Pato del Muerto 52323]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

It will matter to the civil case.

I hope there will be an inquiry launched into the misreprentations on the warrant affidavit.

I'm not sure it criminalizes the officers who were executing the warrant.  For all intensive porpoises they were still executing a warrant.

Are officers executing a warrant obligated to read it first to verify facts?  Is the warrant application part of the warrant issued it is that just who, where, how?

i presume not, since sometimes they don’t even bother to verify the address before they go safeties off.

[SquishMitten 10396]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, alternatively, the crime of perjury on a warrant will be punished as the highest level offense that occurred in the course of executing the warrant, with no defenses available.  If you lie on a warrant (and such perjury is proven), and that results in someone dying, you are guilty of a homicide offense.

That's an interesting point. It kind of already meets the definition of felony murder (at least based on my recollection from law school), assuming the officer who fraudulently obtained the warrant also participated in executing on it.

Edited October 9, 2020 by SquishMitten

[Brisketexan 104466]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It will matter to the civil case.

I hope there will be an inquiry launched into the misreprentations on the warrant affidavit.

I'm not sure it criminalizes the officers who were executing the warrant.  For all intensive porpoises they were still executing a warrant.

Whichever dude was shooting into the windows, it still seems like there's a crime somewhere in there.

Civil case is over, I thought?  $12 million settlement?

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Are officers executing a warrant obligated to read it first to verify facts?  Is the warrant application part of the warrant issued it is that just who, where, how?

i presume not, since sometimes they don’t even bother to verify the address before they go safeties off.

As for whether the act of the officer who committed perjury in obtaining the warrant criminalizes the other officers getting the warrant, I'm going to try to think of it via analogy.

Person 1 starts a transaction with a lie (not perjury, but a lie).  He says "hey, this is my uncle's house, he asked me to check it out while he's out of town, y'all come with me when I do so - he told me we could help ourselves to some of his beer."  It's really the house of someone he thinks has some cash, and he's gonna burglarize it with the key he found hidden under the mat.  Person 1 gets Persons 2 and 3 to join him to check it out, and pop open a coupla cold Bud Lights.  When they go inside, to Person 1's surprise, the occupant is there.  He jumps them, and Person 2 and 3 end up fighting back and killing him.

Who gets charged with murder?  I don't think that Persons 2 and 3 had any knowledge or intent to wrongfully enter.  They at all times thought that they were acting legally and within their rights.

And I don't think you can make a conspiracy charge stick because their was no agreement on an illegal purpose or act by more than one person (only Person 1 knew it was illegal).

But Person 1, through reckless (and in the case of perjury, illegal) conduct, created the situation that caused the death of another.

Quote

507.050 Reckless homicide. (1) A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person.

I think you've got a good shot at that charge against the perjuring cop.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Dahobbs 17420]

57 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Perjury isn't an underlying felony to support the felony murder rule in Maryland.

Maryland Criminal Law Code, Section 2-201: Murder in the First Degree

(a) A murder is in the first degree if it is:

(1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing;

(2) committed by lying in wait;

(3) committed by poison;  or

(4) committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate:

(i) arson in the first degree;

(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house, warehouse, or other outbuilding that:

1. is not parcel to a dwelling;  and

2. contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;

(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;

(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;

(v) escape in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local correctional facility;

(vi) kidnapping under § 3-502 or § 3-503(a)(2) of this article;

(vii) mayhem;

(viii) rape;

(ix) robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of this article;

(x) sexual offense in the first or second degree;

(xi) sodomy;  or

(xii) a violation of § 4-503 of this article concerning destructive devices.

(b)(1) A person who commits a murder in the first degree is guilty of a felony and on conviction shall be sentenced to:

(i) imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole;  or

(ii) imprisonment for life.

(2) Unless a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is imposed in compliance with § 2-203 of this subtitle and § 2-304 of this title, the sentence shall be imprisonment for life.

I was responding to Brisket's point about the law generally (and how to change it), I wasn't discussing a specific state's law. And, I certainly wasn't discussing Maryland law, which has no connection to this case whatsoever as far as I know. Having spent significant time in both Baltimore and Louisville, I assure you that they are not similar. 

[Brisketexan 104466]

4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

That's an interesting point. It kind of already meets the definition of felony murder (at least based on my recollection from law school), assuming the officer who fraudulently obtained the warrant also participated in executing on it.

I didn't think that he did participate in the raid itself, but maybe I missed that.  But in any case, there's a requirement of knowledge on the part of the other actors.

If all the other actors thought that they were acting legally, and had no knowledge of the illegality of the procured warrant, I don't think you can get them via felony murder, conspiracy, etc.  

But full confession - I just love legal questions, I ain't a criminal lawyer.

[Brisketexan 104466]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I was responding to Brisket's point about the law generally (and how to change it), I wasn't discussing a specific state's law. And, I certainly wasn't discussing Maryland law, which has no connection to this case whatsoever as far as I know. Having spent significant time in both Baltimore and Louisville, I assure you that they are not similar. 

I bet Kentucky crabcakes suck.

[Captainant 27317]

19 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I'm not sure it criminalizes the officers who were executing the warrant.  For all intensive porpoises they were still executing a warrant.

The officer who lied to get the warrant is part of the same "public integrity" unit that "investigated" this raid and found no wrongdoing by the executing officers.

This all feels like a shell game where they're passing responsibility so many times they're hoping that we get distracted from the actual issues. They (and johnny sack) don't want us to notice that they're arguing that nobody is responsible for the homicide of an innocent woman in her own home by the police under the guise of an illegally obtained warrant.

[Pato del Muerto 52323]

Are the cops crafty enough to always have a non-participant write up the warrant application, to break the chain of direct knowledge of wrongdoing?

[workswithseed 2033]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Are the cops crafty enough to always have a non-participant write up the warrant application, to break the chain of direct knowledge of wrongdoing?

This is my thought, why not just do that all the time.

[achooloco 1065]

18 minutes ago, achooloco said:

.

Too drunk but fuck Johnny sacks

[Dahobbs 17420]

10 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Too drunk but fuck Johnny sacks

That's what the rats are for.

[pacman 7312]

12 hours ago, drt said:

Narcotics units across the country seem to have a common theme. The more comes out the more this seems to have in common with the Tuttle raid in Houston.   

Of course, they all go with the intent to kill. They just need the excuse.

[SquishMitten 10396]

I didn't think that he did participate in the raid itself, but maybe I missed that.  But in any case, there's a requirement of knowledge on the part of the other actors.
If all the other actors thought that they were acting legally, and had no knowledge of the illegality of the procured warrant, I don't think you can get them via felony murder, conspiracy, etc.  
But full confession - I just love legal questions, I ain't a criminal lawyer.

No idea if he was at the raid. And I agree, the argument doesn’t work against any officers who had no knowledge/participation in getting the warrant. If it works at all, it’d have to be against an officer who obtained the warrant and executed on it.

[Captainant 27317]

On 10/10/2020 at 9:23 AM, SquishMitten said:

No idea if he was at the raid. And I agree, the argument doesn’t work against any officers who had no knowledge/participation in getting the warrant. If it works at all, it’d have to be against an officer who obtained the warrant and executed on it.

Imo, the officers executing the warrant share more culpability than just for failing to shoot a black person. There have to be personal stakes for executing those warrants - it's the only way to get those officers to take it seriously and not go play yeehaw door bash warrior cop. 

Policing is so toxic right now because officers are individually beyond reproach in their actions if they can convince a single juror that they *might* have been scared to be in a situation they instigated. 

Because right now we're in the first stages of the shell game where it's nobody's fault that Taylor is dead. That is how this story historically ends

[Brisketexan 104466]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Imo, the officers executing the warrant share more culpability than just for failing to shoot a black person. There have to be personal stakes for executing those warrants - it's the only way to get those officers to take it seriously and not go play yeehaw door bash warrior cop. 

Policing is so toxic right now because officers are individually beyond reproach in their actions if they can convince a single juror that they *might* have been scared to be in a situation they instigated. 

Because right now we're in the first stages of the shell game where it's nobody's fault that Taylor is dead. That is how this story historically ends

I agree philosophically.  But in terms of any legal or ethical culpability, if you set me up, and send me in on what I THINK is a valid warrant, and I start getting shot at.....then it's understandable that I shoot back.  Now, these guys were criminal in how they did that, I think -- random, crazy, disregard for human life.

But let's say they got shot at, returned fire with one clean shot and got the shooter.  I think they'd be legally clean.  They didn't know it was a bad warrant, that the shooter was defending his home.

There's a LOT of reform that needs to happen here, and it starts with the warrant process.

[Captainant 27317]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree philosophically.  But in terms of any legal or ethical culpability, if you set me up, and send me in on what I THINK is a valid warrant, and I start getting shot at.....then it's understandable that I shoot back.  Now, these guys were criminal in how they did that, I think -- random, crazy, disregard for human life.

Yeah, what I hyperbolically suggested isn't realistic at all - but it's beyond the pale that our police are going into situations so keyed up that everyone on the city block starts shooting the second they have the slimmest justification to do so

Fundamentally my issue is that I don't have any trust or belief in the police that their actions are in good faith or even based in fact and law. In this case - an officer lied to get a warrant which sent a hit squad tactical team to search for packages they knew weren't there. If officers had individual liability in these situations, I kind of don't give a shit if the serving officers could potentially be put into an impossible position by their fellow officers.

That's the burden they should have to bear when serving these warrants. They need stakes on the table to stop acting like an occupying force. We the people need a mechanism to fucking control the police that are extrajudicially killing innocent people. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree philosophically.  But in terms of any legal or ethical culpability, if you set me up, and send me in on what I THINK is a valid warrant, and I start getting shot at.....then it's understandable that I shoot back.  Now, these guys were criminal in how they did that, I think -- random, crazy, disregard for human life.

But let's say they got shot at, returned fire with one clean shot and got the shooter.  I think they'd be legally clean.  They didn't know it was a bad warrant, that the shooter was defending his home.

There's a LOT of reform that needs to happen here, and it starts with the warrant process.

Maybe the warrant process should be adversarial. Have a public defender or some other appointed lawyer whose job is to challenge the validity of a warrant. I'm not saying notify the target, but just have someone who puts a little pressure on everyone to not be so lazy and maybe flesh out bullshit like the "poorly worded" affidavit in the Taylor case. 

[Captainant 27317]

Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker: "I'm a million percent sure" police didn't identify themselves

Quote

Police claimed they identified themselves before entering the apartment. In an interview recorded the day of the shooting and later played for a grand jury, Louisville police Lieutenant Shawn Hoover said they "knocked on the door, said 'police,' waited, I don't know, 10 or 15 seconds, knocked again, said 'police,' waited even longer."

"So it was the third time that we were approaching, it had been like 45 seconds if not a minute," Hoover said. "And then I said, `Let's go, let's breach it.'"

But Walker tells a very different story.

"It was dead silent in the house," he explained to King. "And it was 12:00, 1:00 at night, or whatever time. So it was — it's always quiet. We live in a quiet place. So if somebody was on the other side of the door saying anything, we would hear them."

When pressed if he was certain, Walker said "I'm a million percent sure that nobody identified themselves." Walker, a licensed gun-owner, said this is what caused him to open fire. 

"That's why I grabbed the gun. Didn't have a clue," Walker said. "I mean, if it was the police at the door, and they just said, 'We're the police,' me or Breonna didn't have a reason at all not to open the door to see what they wanted."

No drugs were found in Taylor's apartment and Glover has said Taylor had never been involved in any drug trading.

"That's why I never thought it was the police. Because why would the police be coming here?" Walker said.

King's exclusive interview with Walker airs Wednesday on "CBS This Morning" at 7 a.m. on CBS.  

Full interview to be on CBS tomorrow morning

 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31187]

On 10/12/2020 at 9:16 AM, Dahobbs said:

Maybe the warrant process should be adversarial. Have a public defender or some other appointed lawyer whose job is to challenge the validity of a warrant. I'm not saying notify the target, but just have someone who puts a little pressure on everyone to not be so lazy and maybe flesh out bullshit like the "poorly worded" affidavit in the Taylor case. 

One of the more interesting criminal justice reform proposals I have seen is for a "defender general" whose office represents no specific defendant, but the integrity of the process from the defendant's POV.  I don't recall if being present in such ex parte things as warrants and even grand juries was part of the proposal, but it sounds good.

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the more interesting criminal justice reform proposals I have seen is for a "defender general" whose office represents no specific defendant, but the integrity of the process from the defendant's POV.  I don't recall if being present in such ex parte things as warrants and even grand juries was part of the proposal, but it sounds good.

The only thing I'd worry about adding such a person into the process is how courts might interpret that change in applying prior precedent. I'd want it to be 100% clear that doctrines like "fruit of poisonous tree" still apply and the "defender general" cannot waive rights or arguments for the defendant. This needs to be an additional protection, not a replacement one. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Dahobbs

[DanRydell 799]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:05 AM, aggie08 said:

I honestly wouldn't care if it was a totally valid warrant, they were on camera announcing themselves, and the suspect emptied his clip...shooting their weapons haphazardly and hitting an unarmed occupant is still murder. They don't get the luxury of treating everyone they see on a raid as expendable.

Differentiating between hostiles and civilians is literally 90% of their weapons training.

This has been inexplicably completely lost in this discussion. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the officers would have been justified in killing Walker in self defense, firing blindly into the dark and killing an innocent bystander is still homicide. You aren't entitled to assert self defense against charges or recklessly killing an innocent bystander.

[DanRydell 799]

[Captainant 27317]

2 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

Well what do you fucking know. Protected the pigs

[Captainant 27317]

Glad the courts are allowing public transparency on this. LMPD is protecting their bad apples

 

its like a bad joke at this point

[DanRydell 799]

I guess the failure to event present homicide charges explains why the grand jury purportedly found that self defense applied to homicide charges for which Kentucky law does not allow self defense to be asserted.

[Brisketexan 104466]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I guess the failure to event present homicide charges explains why the grand jury purportedly found that self defense applied to homicide charges for which Kentucky law does not allow self defense to be asserted.

Yeah.  There's no way to characterize this process as anything other than stinking to high-heaven.

[Pato del Muerto 52323]

Is the DA on the ballot?

what else can be done, was this action criminal?

[hayden_horn 11360]

WHAT A SURPRISE

[drt 637]

Should I be surprised by this?

[Doc Reeves 6434]

You guys seemed surprised that our legal system is an illusion rather than an institution. 
 

get money mother fuckers. 

[TwiceHorn 31187]

15 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I guess the failure to event present homicide charges explains why the grand jury purportedly found that self defense applied to homicide charges for which Kentucky law does not allow self defense to be asserted.

Can you elaborate on the bold?  Is there no separate self-defense in Ky?  Arguably, the murder statute itself encompasses both "sudden passion" and self-defense.

[Brisketexan 104466]

15 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is the DA on the ballot?

what else can be done, was this action criminal?

It was the AG.  Whose resume includes being former counsel to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell.  There's nothing to see here, move along.