Only one officer charged in Breonna Taylor's killing

[Grumps 3,704]

24 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I completely agree. This government has waged war on the black community and they have every right to fight back against what they can only see as violent tyranny. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Even if they serve our stand or federal government. 

Are you saying that the shooting of the police officers was justified because "this government has waged war on the black community"???

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that the shooting of the police officers was justified because "this government has waged war on the black community"???

I’m saying that I’m not surprised that the officers were shot, because the black community clearly feels like they have been backed into a corner and will get no justice from our government. No I don’t condone shooting and killing anyone. But that goes for cops as well. And they should be held to AT LEAST the same standard as the citizens they are paid to protect. It’s awful that those two officers were killed. I feel for their families. But their lives are no more sacred than Breonna Taylor’s. Every police officer who read that headline and immediately became enraged and heartbroken, should keep that in mind when they are on duty and standing up for their fellow officers who have unjustly killed someone.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I’m saying that I’m not surprised that the officers were shot, because the black community clearly feels like they have been backed into a corner and will get no justice from our government. No I don’t condone shooting and killing anyone. But that goes for cops as well. And they should be held to AT LEAST the same standard as the citizens they are paid to protect. It’s awful that those two officers were killed. I feel for their families. But their lives are no more sacred than Breonna Taylor’s. Every police officer who read that headline and immediately became enraged and heartbroken, should keep that in mind when they are on duty and standing up for their fellow officers who have unjustly killed someone.

Your comment, "they have every right to fight back" is disturbing. Do you think the legal system has done a poor job with this case so far? How the black community "feels" and how the white community "feels" should never be used as an excuse to break the law. Communities don't have feelings and don't have legal obligations. Individuals do, though. There is a big difference.

"Every police officer who read that headline and immediately became enraged and heartbroken, should keep that in mind when they are on duty and standing up for their fellow officers who have unjustly killed someone." This sentence seems to say the police officers today, who just found out that two Louisville police officers were shot last night, should remember that they may also get shot if they defend their fellow police officers. Is that what you are saying? Please explain.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

31 minutes ago, Grumps said:

 This sentence seems to say the police officers today, who just found out that two Louisville police officers were shot last night, should remember that they may also get shot if they defend their fellow police officers. Is that what you are saying? Please explain.

No. What I’m saying is when they read the headline that 2 officers in their police community were shot and killed unjustly, they should keep that feeling in mind when they think about how Taylor, Floyd, Etc’s communities feel. Essentially, it doesn’t feel good to wake up and see that people who you care about and respect have been killed unjustly, so everyone should keep that in mind.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

39 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Your comment, "they have every right to fight back" is disturbing. Do you think the legal system has done a poor job with this case so far? How the black community "feels" and how the white community "feels" should never be used as an excuse to break the law. Communities don't have feelings and don't have legal obligations. Individuals do, though. There is a big difference.

 

The black community is outraged because black people are getting murdered by police officers and the PO’s aren’t being accountable by the government. So essentially, in their mind, the government is condoning the killing of people that are the same ethnicity as them. And why wouldn’t they think that? So if a race of people feel like the government is systematically killing them, they have a right to find against that. 
 

Communities do have feeling. I don’t agree with you in that. That’s like saying that the Jewish community didn’t feel threatened by the Nazi’s actions against them. That only individual Jewish people were feeling threatened. If the overwhelming majority of individuals in a community feels something, I think it’s safe to say that the community feels it. 
 

Just because something is a law doesn’t mean that people can’t justify breaking it if they feel that it’s in their best interest. They obviously don’t feel that the laws mean anything, because they aren’t being protected by it when their neighbors are being killed and the law is being perverted to protect the people that kill them. Yes, in a perfect society, everyone would follow the laws and the laws would be the equal and fair for everyone. But the reality is that it’s not like that. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Interesting take from Townhall:

So much of the death and destruction over recent months could have been avoided if the liberal media simply told the truth when it comes to police shootings of Black suspects. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/09/23/draft-n2576803

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

30 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Interesting take from Townhall:

So much of the death and destruction over recent months could have been avoided if the liberal media simply told the truth when it comes to police shootings of Black suspects. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/09/23/draft-n2576803

So basically al of this death and destruction could have been avoided if the media would just tell people that George Floyd and Breanna Taylor deserved what they got. That Tamil Rice, a 12 year old with a toy gun, deserved to lose his life for having a toy gun in the presence of the police. That is an interesting take. 

[cole256 17,084]

The guy that was charged was charged for MISSING! Really let that sink in.....

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/16/breonna-taylor-fact-check-7-rumors-wrong/5326938002/

This article was first published back in June. It's been updated. It was 7 rumors originally but now's it's been updated to 8 rumors with more info coming out from yesterday.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 hours ago, cole256 said:

The guy that was charged was charged for MISSING! Really let that sink in.....

Actually, he would have been charged had one of his shots struck her. They cleared the other two officers because they were the one's that were trying to stop her boyfriend who shot at them. The officer that was charged, was not shot at. That's why he got charged.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

6 hours ago, cole256 said:

The guy that was charged was charged for MISSING! Really let that sink in.....

What could be worse? If the officer that missed has his charges dropped for suppressive fire while covering endangered officers. Talk about an uproar. 

[DKW 86 7,438]

Just take anything you hear with a grain of salt. There was so much wrong in all the reporting so far.

And why does it take 4 months to say she was shot 6 times and by whom? This should have been finalized within 2 weeks at the most.  

[cole256 17,084]

13 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Actually, he would have been charged had one of his shots struck her. They cleared the other two officers because they were the one's that were trying to stop her boyfriend who shot at them. The officer that was charged, was not shot at. That's why he got charged.

No actually he wouldn't have been

[Mikey 16,686]

On 9/23/2020 at 3:22 PM, TitanTiger said:

Well, it wasn't.  The warrant issued was a 'knock and announce.'

And those should be outlawed as well.

What search warrants should be issued then, none?

We don't know what the Grand Jury heard. I doubt they were in cahoots with the Police. After hearing all available evidence, they reached their conclusion. I was on a grand jury once. Thankfully, we didn't have to hear anything this consequential. But I can say that there were enough different people on my jury that the decisions were eventually boiled down to considering what facts were presented and bills were issued or not issued depending on the evidence presented. These findings aren't on the DA, police, or puppet master behind the curtain. The citizens on that jury heard the evidence and came to their conclusion. We may not like it, but we do have to remember that they learned much more about it than we have.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

What search warrants should be issued then, none?

Regular search warrants.

 

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

We don't know what the Grand Jury heard. I doubt they were in cahoots with the Police. After hearing all available evidence, they reached their conclusion. I was on a grand jury once. Thankfully, we didn't have to hear anything this consequential. But I can say that there were enough different people on my jury that the decisions were eventually boiled down to considering what facts were presented and bills were issued or not issued depending on the evidence presented. These findings aren't on the DA, police, or puppet master behind the curtain. The citizens on that jury heard the evidence and came to their conclusion. We may not like it, but we do have to remember that they learned much more about it than we have.

That's possible.  But I think an investigation into the folks who made the case for the no-knock warrant should be done.  Assuming none of the three cops who were there that night had any part in obtaining the warrant, they walked into a situation where this kind of warrant and level of force was not needed.  So I'd want to know how this warrant was obtained.   What evidence did they have?  What arguments did they make and evidence did they present to the judge to convince them to issue the warrant?  Things like that.  If they exaggerated the case or withheld exculpatory evidence from the judge, they should be held accountable.

[AUFriction 1,179]

Some questions came up here earlier, and I’ve done some digging to sort out the correct answers to them using several fact checking sites.
 

- There was a question about whether the officers went to the right address. They did. Breonna was an ex of someone they were looking for in a drug case. Her address was at one point his official address. The warrant clearly lists her apartment, and her name as listed on the warrant. There is, however, some question about why her home was listed as a place to search. The investigator in the drug case claimed he saw drug packages dropped off there two months earlier. Others, including a postal worker, debate this claim. 

- There was a question posed about the role the three officers played in the investigation. The answer is none. There was a different officer handling the investigation. He was at a different site (they executed multiple search warrants at the same time on different residences). These officers were only brought into this drug case (involving her ex BF) to serve this no knock warrant.  They were briefed prior to serving the warrant. Otherwise, they had little knowledge of the case. 

- Someone on here mentioned that they thought the no knock warrant was a knock and announce. According to USA Today, it wasn’t. Best practice dictates that you should announce upon entry, especially serving a no knock at night, but the warrant they had did not have that requirement. They were, however, told to knock prior to using the no-knock because it was believed to be a low risk target. Even the boyfriend admits that they did, but there’s inconsistent information on whether or not they ever said who they were, which seems to have created the confusion. The boyfriend said they never heard who was at the door, and were concerned that it might be the aforementioned boyfriend. This is what led to the boyfriend grabbing his gun, and eventually firing the warning shot that the cops fired back from.
 

- The warrant shouldn’t have been valid. This was on the judge, the DA, and the investigating officer. They had multiple no knock warrants handed to the judge. They all used the same terminology in their justification, which included some generic statement about a drug dealer. This was apparently considered an invalid approach. Every no knock warrant is supposed to have very specific information on why the no knock is needed for that residence or location. The judge should never have signed the warrant.

-Some question was raised about body cameras being turned off. Apparently, the officers were plain clothes officers, and they don’t wear body cams. While I personally question this, the officers did not disregard body cam policy or do anything out of the ordinary.

- Some questions were raised about the 11 people interviewed in the building. This is still the most incomplete part of the story. The info on these 11 people mostly comes from an attorney representing Breonna’s family. The attorney said that 10 of the 11 people they talked to did not hear the cops announce. It is unclear what they heard. Did they hear the commotion clearly and are claiming that the officers did not announce (Evidence that the cops didn’t announce), or did they just not hear much of anything at all (tells us nothing). It is interesting that the one neighbor who claimed to hear something has changed their story several times. From what I can tell, the info obtained from the neighbors thus far is useless in figuring out what happened. 
 

-Regardless of whether or not they announced, that doesn’t seem to have any effect on criminal charges. They were carrying a no knock warrant. They could be terminated for not following orders, but they would be protected from prosecution. 

[AUFriction 1,179]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Regular search warrants.

 

That's possible.  But I think an investigation into the folks who made the case for the no-knock warrant should be done.  Assuming none of the three cops who were there that night had any part in obtaining the warrant, they walked into a situation where this kind of warrant and level of force was not needed.  So I'd want to know how this warrant was obtained.   What evidence did they have?  What arguments did they make and evidence did they present to the judge to convince them to issue the warrant?  Things like that.  If they exaggerated the case or withheld exculpatory evidence from the judge, they should be held accountable.

I kind of address this in my last comment, but I’ll speak to you directly. The three cops had no part in the investigation. They were brought in literally just to serve this warrant. They served multiple no knock search warrants at the same time. The lead investigator and those that had been involved previously were all at different locations, leaving three officers with very limited knowledge of the case to serve this warrant.
 

The evidence was sketchy as heck though. At one point, the person they were looking for did live with Breonna. She dated him on and off for the better part of the last decade. They had very little reason to believe they’d find anything there though, as they’d been broken up for quite a while prior to this incident. Instead of going after the 1 or 2 places he was most likely to be, they executed no knock warrants on any place he could have conceivably been, regardless of how likely it was. The case for visiting her house was so weak that, in the briefing, the cops going to that location were told that they would likely not even need to use the no knock part of the warrant. That’s why they knocked first. Her residence was considered by the investigating team as “relevant but low risk.” That warrant should have never been signed, which is why I’m shocked everyone is going after the cops that shot her rather than the 5 or so others that sent the cops to that address with a no knock warrant. 

[aubiefifty 16,863]

[SocialCircle 570]

22 hours ago, cole256 said:

The guy that was charged was charged for MISSING! Really let that sink in.....

He was going to be charged either way. He would have been charged with killing her had one of his recklessly fired bullets hit her. 

[aubearcat 2,138]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Regular search warrants.

Both knock and no-knock are regular search warrants. It’s just different labels for how they are served. In Alabama, your affidavit has to specify why you want a no-knock or dark (no sun light) warrant issued and of course the judge has to agree to it before you can serve it in either manner. There generally has to be some extreme circumstances articulated to receive the permission in either circumstance. 
Search warrants are generally served dynamically, which is where the structure is breached open using a variety of tools, and the structure is flooded with law enforcement quickly in an attempt to safely secure suspects/evidence. Slow and methodical is generally a SWAT type search warrant where a special circumstance exists such as a hostage. 

[homersapien 11,423]

This is another incident that is a consequence of using militarized tactics employed in the "war" on drugs. 

We need to decriminalize drug use and this sort of thing would happen less.  Make it a medical problem.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is another incident that is a consequence of using militarized tactics employed in the "war" on drugs. 

We need to decriminalize drug use and this sort of thing would happen less.  Make it a medical problem.

Easier said than done, which you already know. Too many players are making too much money on this "war" and they aren't going down easy. Which we will keep seeing more of this until something changes.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

We need to decriminalize drug use and this sort of thing would happen less.  Make it a medical problem.

Right. What harm could crack do? 

[AUFriction 1,179]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Right. What harm could crack do? 

This is kind of getting into my domain as a psychology person. There's actually quite a bit of evidence that we are handling the drug problem very poorly. Most of the anti-drug policy that has been implemented along with the war on drugs has actually done nothing to decrease the drug problem in the US. If anything, drug abuse has gone up since the crack down really got going. A good portion of the developed world doesn't attack drugs the way we do, and most of those countries have substantially lower rates of addiction and chronic abuse. Finally, locking up people with drugs honestly just makes them more likely to keep using drugs. Setting aside marijuana, a lot of people that regularly abuse drugs are dealing with something other than drug use. Take whatever problems they had before and add in the financial, social, and psychological outcomes of being arrested and potentially serving time. If they did serve time, they are likely to have a harder time getting a job once they get out. What do you think they are going to do? They are going to go right back to using whatever they were previously using to cope. 

[Mikey 16,686]

7 hours ago, AUFriction said:

This is kind of getting into my domain as a psychology person. There's actually quite a bit of evidence that we are handling the drug problem very poorly. Most of the anti-drug policy that has been implemented along with the war on drugs has actually done nothing to decrease the drug problem in the US. If anything, drug abuse has gone up since the crack down really got going. A good portion of the developed world doesn't attack drugs the way we do, and most of those countries have substantially lower rates of addiction and chronic abuse. Finally, locking up people with drugs honestly just makes them more likely to keep using drugs. Setting aside marijuana, a lot of people that regularly abuse drugs are dealing with something other than drug use. Take whatever problems they had before and add in the financial, social, and psychological outcomes of being arrested and potentially serving time. If they did serve time, they are likely to have a harder time getting a job once they get out. What do you think they are going to do? They are going to go right back to using whatever they were previously using to cope. 

I think we can all agree that drug control up to this point had been a failure. Addiction has led to all sorts of crimes and there's an entire economy built on the drug culture.

If this is in your domain, do you have a suggestion to correct the problem? It's way out of my domain and I don't have any idea of what actions, if any, can be taken to correct this.