One cop indicted on 3 counts in Breonna Taylor killing

Post Reply New Topic

We don't know what the grand jury even looked at, so we cannot make conclusions like, "the police didn't murder her".

She was the target of the warrant, it says in the above link.

Her name was on the warrant.

They suspected her of drug activity.

Can't access article (paywall)...

However:

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/breonna-taylor-jamarcus-glover-arrest/index.html

It appears that the ex-boyfriend had been using Breonna's address and claiming it was his. Based on this, the warrant may have been for her (receiving packages), or she may have been incidental, as the ex-boyfriend had claimed to be living there, been seen there, and so was therefore believed to be involved.

As a civil liberties lawyer, where does lawyer Barnes stand?

It seems like he would have a big problem with police entering an innocent person's home and killing the person?

Silly as it is I'm reminded of a bit in A Series of Unfortunate Events that pokes fun at the phrase no news is good news. It points out reasons you might not hear any news can range from perfectly fine to a person is in such a terrible situation they have no way of contacting anyone. Therefore you can't assume no news is good news. However, you also can't assume that no news is bad news. The only reasonable conclusion is that no news is no news.

Without knowing what the grand jury saw, and which parts of the vast legal code are applicable we can't assume the grand jury decided incorrectly. We also can't assume the grand jury decided correctly.

It was her ex involved in the illicit activities, not the boyfriend she was currently living with. Also, he fired one shot...seems a excessive to blast the whole apartment to s**t because a single un-lethal shot was fired. Did they even bother to tell him to stand down and give him the oppurtunity before blasting the apartment up?

Trying to justify that her ex's involvement with drugs somehow justifies the killing of Breonna Taylor is like a SWAT team justifying murdering a woman sleeping in her bed who was abused by ex on the basis they thought her abusive ex-partner still lived in the same house.

Its still a horrifying dereliction of duty on the part of the police to not do the proper checks,

Initial video from 2 months ago:


An updated one from today (Discussion of case between 4 lawyers (one an ex police officer), of whom one is Robert Barnes, and starts at 3:47 running for around 45-50 minutes):


It will be interesting to look at Nate Broady's video regarding this when he puts it up.

If you read up on the facts, rather than the narrative presented in the media:
* The police had a warrant (no knock) for her house as her ex boyfriend had been having parcels sent there which he would later collect from the house, or she would deliver to him.
* The police had knocked and identified themselves.
* The current boyfriend had fired at the police.
* The police had returned fire (2 were together, I believe, and were the target of the shot, whilst another was elsewhere - this third officer was the one charged)

So, they announced (it seems he did not hear\understand that it was the police). He fired in what he believed was "self defence". 2 officers returned fire (for the same reason) and a third because he (presumably) thought he was helping.

Some more information about the warrants and events:

The local state laws appear to support both Breonna Taylor's boyfriend to stand his ground but they also support the police. So in this case intent is the crucial reason for why Brett Hankison is not being charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. This is not surprising since hundreds of cases of police injuring or killing innocent bystanders has never resulted in the officers serving jail time. Seems to be a problem with the laws.

What's interesting is how the law has been interpreted in Hankinson's favor Vs two other famous cases involving Somali cop Mohamed Noor who shot Australian Justine Diamond in Minnesota. In his case he drew his weapon and fired from his car claiming Diamond was about to act in a dangerous manner (she was actually reporting a crime to the police). The other is the case of officer Amber Guyger who shot Botham Jean in his own apartment. Guyger shot Jean on the pretext she thought he was in her apartment and he walked toward her in an aggressive manner.

Both Guyger and Noor went to jail. So how is the law interpreted differently in these two cases? weren't they both standing their ground? or is police incompetence interpreted differently?

You may notice that in each of those cases, it was the person who fired first (or only person who fired) who was prosecuted...

A slightly inconvenient piece of information if trying to imply the officers who returned fire (the 2 not charged) were incompetent...

Based on what information is available, it seems likely the people in the appartment did not hear the police knock and announce, but woke to the door being "opened" (or weren't awake enough to register what the police were saying).

The fact that the media left out a lot of the important facts such as why the warrant was issued and that police had knocked rather than entering without knocking, in order to "sell" a story rather than to inform the public shows a much greater level of incomptenece on their part...The disappointing thing is there are so many "low information" people who believe anything they read which supports their assumptions, rather than being skeptical of something which so closely mirrors their beliefs\desires.

Correct address but Brianna was with the wrong person and was still in touch with him even though they were no longer together as a couple. Her house got put on the "naughty list" because of guilt by association.

Police break into the house and Briana and her new partner knew nothing about it and he fights in self defense, she gets shots as a result because she was there at the wrong time and in the wrong spot.

Sounds like a whole misunderstanding based on everything he had said there. Now the question is if the officers should be fired. There were gun shots being shot at them and the police didn't know he thought they were intruders because they never shouted they were the police. They are not mind readers.

The one who was outside (and so not fired at, nor aware of where the shot aimed at his colleague came from) should be (It seems likely his shots did not hit her, as otherwise that type of action would likely have led to murder\attempted murder charges). The one who was shot had a legitimate reason (self defence), and the one with\near him seems to have likely fired in a combination of defending himself as well as his colleague who had been hit.

Slightly off topic: You have a case where the occupant fired in what could be considered "self defence", given he apparently did not hear the police annoncing themselves (I heard that he may have dialled 911 to report an intruder), and the police were also firing in "self defence" as a result of the shot fired at them.

It would have been nice if more of the information which would have been available (warrant reasons, etc.) were published in the media rather than being ignored, as people would have been in a better position with regards to understanding evens and what led up to them, rather than being shocked by the outcome through having minimal and incorrect information given to them.

The "guilt by association" is an interesting opinion: The question would be how recently and how regularly the trips by her ex boyfriend between her appartment and the "trap houses" were. In the video, details including photographs of one visit are shown, but he does mention that "trips" (plural) were made, so it is possible that her appartment was being used (willingly or unknowingly) as either a temporary storage location, or somewhere for deliveries to be made through. We may never find out if this was not the case, or whether it was happeneing but all "stock" had been removed prior to the warrant being executed.

The police might have been on the case about trap houses so they were following them around. The ex may have stopped at Briana's for a visit but it had nothing to do with any drugs so they assumed it was another trap house. So hence guilty by association I came up with.

The incompetence here was the choice of house. As League_Girl mentioned they mucked it up. Perhaps if the boyfriend had cooperated rather than shoot things might have been different but the inconvenient truth is that he was standing his ground and is probably more justified in standing his ground than "vigilante hero" Kyle Rittenhouse (whom you seem to be fiercely defending) who seems to have gone out of his way to put himself and other people in harms way and likely reacted out of panic in shooting people who didn't deserve to be shot.

Would be nice if you understood the last point that Grosskreutz, Huber, Rosenbaum and Taylor never deserved to be shot despite your implications that their background somehow makes them responsible for their deaths (yes I know Grosskreutz was injured but for all Kyle knew he also was dead).