One cop indicted on 3 counts in Breonna Taylor killing
26 Sep 2020, 7:48 pm
TheRobotLives wrote:
The latest news is that Rittenhouse is trying to fight extradition.
Kyle Rittenhouse Attorneys Plan to Fight Extradition to Wisconsin
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kyle-ritte ... 1601050319
Which is weird and futile, however, there must be some reason.
Delay? Milk more donations? Keep it in the news?
Kyle Rittenhouse Attorneys Plan to Fight Extradition to Wisconsin
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kyle-ritte ... 1601050319
Which is weird and futile, however, there must be some reason.
Delay? Milk more donations? Keep it in the news?
Yes rather strange if he's so confident that he's innocent.
26 Sep 2020, 7:57 pm
cyberdad wrote:
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?
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?
Without knowing too many details, I suspect the no knock warrant gives police wide liberties to employ force especially in presumptive self-defense. I suspect any "injustices" in this case stem from poor laws not inappropriate application of them.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
26 Sep 2020, 8:11 pm
Brictoria wrote:
I'm sorry you have such a low opinion (and understanding) of the general public, and such a poor grasp of the facts and laws related to what occurred...Have you considered getting out and meeting people from outside your bubble to find out what the real world is like?
Not sure which world you are choosing to live in Bric, but in the world I live children should not be allowed to go into a volatile protest armed with a loaded weapon. Do you have kids? would you be happy for your son to be running around with a loaded weapon risking his life and other people's lives?
Sorry but I can't cross over to your thought processes and they are certainly not mainstream
Brictoria wrote:
There were protesters. There were rioters. The rioters hid behind the protesters and the protesters did nothing to stop them, making them accomplices (wiling or otherwise) to the actions of the rioters.
Projecting your own flaws onto others isn't a good sign, you need to learn how to stop doing this.
Projecting your own flaws onto others isn't a good sign, you need to learn how to stop doing this.
You seem to be the one attributing cause where there is no evidence. You are casting the protestors as culpable for rioting and the victims as responsible for their deaths. Again your purpose seems to be forcing the narrative to fit your goal.
Last edited by cyberdad on 26 Sep 2020, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
26 Sep 2020, 8:12 pm
Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
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?
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?
Without knowing too many details, I suspect the no knock warrant gives police wide liberties to employ force especially in presumptive self-defense. I suspect any "injustices" in this case stem from poor laws not inappropriate application of them.
Yeah I agree, this isn't the first time such laws have been used to get police out of a sticky situation with regard to innocent bystanders. What is annoying me is an attempt by some posters to paint Breonna Taylor as somehow responsible for her death.
26 Sep 2020, 11:46 pm
Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
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?
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?
Without knowing too many details, I suspect the no knock warrant gives police wide liberties to employ force especially in presumptive self-defense. I suspect any "injustices" in this case stem from poor laws not inappropriate application of them.
The difference between a warrant and a no-knock warrant is in the name...
The only difference being that no-knock permits entry without prior annoncement, whereas a standard warrant requires police to announce their presence before attempting entry.
Quote:
A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. Such warrants are issued where an entry pursuant to the knock-and-announce rule (ie. an announcement prior to entry) would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.
According to the Department of Justice, "Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant."
According to the Department of Justice, "Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant
27 Sep 2020, 12:03 am
cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
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?
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?
Without knowing too many details, I suspect the no knock warrant gives police wide liberties to employ force especially in presumptive self-defense. I suspect any "injustices" in this case stem from poor laws not inappropriate application of them.
Yeah I agree, this isn't the first time such laws have been used to get police out of a sticky situation with regard to innocent bystanders. What is annoying me is an attempt by some posters to paint Breonna Taylor as somehow responsible for her death.
I don't recall anyone saying she was responsible for what happened...I do recall seeing irresponsible people ignoring evidence and making accusations that her race was was why she was shot (or that had she been of a different race she wouldn't have been shot). What happened was an accident: They do happen.
Or, to put it into simple terms for you...
* Her ex-boyfriend had listed her address as his residence.
* He was known to be involved in the drug trade.
* Packages were being delivered to her address for him.
* He was seen travelling from a drug house to hers, collecting parcels, then returning to a drug house.
* A magistrate\judge agreed that the police had enough "probable cause" to permit a warrant to search her house at the same time as several drug houses connected to her ex boyfriend were also being searched, presumably in order to ensure evidence there would not be destroyed if the occupant(s) were warned of other raids.
* Police knocked at her door and announced themselves.
* Her current boyfriend did not hear the announcement, but (as I recall seeing) heard something and dialled 911.
* The police, on not getting a responce entered the appartment.
* Breonna and her boyfried were standing in a hallway when her boyfriend saw the police, and thinking it was her ex-boyfriend, fired a shot at the first person he saw.
* This shot hit one policeman, who returned fire, as did his colleague who was behind/beside him.
* A third policeman fired randomly into the building from the outside.
Thus far, the only "reason" given that it was not an accident has been "She was black" (with or without "the police were not"), or the wrong address was raided, yet those making these claims can provide no evidence to support these claims, relying on others being ignorant of the facts, or hoping for an emotional rather than an intellectual responce.
27 Sep 2020, 12:21 am
cyberdad wrote:
I think we have to face the situation that the police officer (Hankison) is being charged for everything except for shooting her (Taylor).
And the reason he isn't being charged for shooting her would (based on known evidence) be that none of his shots actually hit her, otherwise he would have had additional charges placed related to this.
Shooting down a hallway at 2 people will be more likely to cause a person in the hallway to be hit than shooting from outside a building into it at random angles, even more so if the hall runs perpendicular to the location the person shoooting into the building is standing.
I don't know if there s anything available regarding the floorplan and location of those involved, but even if the external window the officer fired through was parrallel to the hallway, there is still a much lower chance of him hitting a person he could not see the location of than the other officers who had a direct view of the 2 occupants.
09 Oct 2020, 10:46 pm
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
If I were Breonna Taylor's family I'd have mixed emotions,an indictment but not murder or even manslaughter.
The charges have nothing to do with her, they're about her neighbours. This is deeply disappointing, utterly nothing resembling justice for her has occurred yet.
Breanna Taylor died,how are charges not about her,am I missing something.
As I understand it, the only charges laid were related to one officer firing shots which went into a different appartment.
I'm not sure 'in vain' is relevant, she was shot inside of her own home while doing nothing wrong based on police lying to obtain a warrant they never should have been granted. Of course it was for nothing, she didn't choose to die for a cause and no justice has been served.
The people who shot her in her own damn home for no good reason have yet to face any repercussions for murdering her, so far one of only one of them faced repercussions for something else related to that incident. No charges have been laid directly related to what was done to her though.
No justice has yet to occur
Retribution is not justice...
Do you have evidence of the police "lying to obtain a warrant"? Otherwise it is just wishful thinking to make (or believe) baseless claims such as yours, which leads people into getting worked up over your own lies.
Did she deserve to die? no.
Did the police have a warrant, independently approved? yes.
Did the police provide notice that they were there? According to neighbours, yes.
Did a person inside the appartment open fire on police without warning? yes.
Did the police return fire? yes.
In all of this, the person most responsible is the boyfriend, who opened fire on the police, and who (as far as I can tell) was the target of the warrnts for drugs related reasons.
You would be better served by focussing your disappointment on this person, as without his presence, actions, or potential illicit activities, Breonna would still be alive.
News has reported on local postal officials disputing the claim that 'suspicious packages' were ever received at her address, undermining the excuse used by police to obtain the warrant. No probable cause means they had no right to be there to conduct a raid.
It wasn't her boyfriend's fault men who appeared to be robbers were breaking into their home, he responded as he was within his rights to.
Define "suspicious packages"...
As I understood it, the boyfriend was involved in some drug related issues and parcels were being sent to him at Beonna's address, which was the reason for the warrant. The fact that the packages may not have contained what the police thought was in them does not make the reason behind the warrant a lie, merely that they were relying on incorrect information.
The fact that it was confirmed that the police had identified themselves before entering lowers the chance of his having cause to believe it was "robbers"...Had they not provided warning, and entered as permitted under the no-knock warrant they had, Breonna would likely be alive as he would have had less time to prepare (find gun and fire) than was provided by their knocking and announcing their presence.
The entire issue comes down to her boyfriends actions, both regarding his alleged drug related activities and his firing on the police.
If he was involved in 'drug related activities' why have no charges been filed against him Bric? You're defaming the man needlessly and dishonestly.
Quote:
Jamarcus Glover, Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend, was arrested on drug charges Thursday, a day after telling a local Kentucky newspaper Taylor had no involvement in any alleged drug trade.
Glover was a focus in a narcotics probe by Louisville police that eventually led officers to execute a "no-knock" warrant on Taylor's home in March. He told the Louisville Courier Journal on Wednesday that police used misleading and wrong information to obtain that warrant, during which Taylor, an EMT and aspiring nurse, was fatally shot. No drugs were found in her apartment.
Glover was a focus in a narcotics probe by Louisville police that eventually led officers to execute a "no-knock" warrant on Taylor's home in March. He told the Louisville Courier Journal on Wednesday that police used misleading and wrong information to obtain that warrant, during which Taylor, an EMT and aspiring nurse, was fatally shot. No drugs were found in her apartment.
Quote:
A CNN investigation found that detectives had linked Taylor's home to Glover, who was suspected of supplying a local drug house. Police said Glover had recently used Taylor's residence as his "current home address," according to an affidavit for a search warrant. The detective who wrote the affidavit said he saw Glover walk into Taylor's apartment in mid-January and leave with a package before going to a "known drug house."
Taylor's apartment on Louisville's South End was one of five locations police obtained search warrants for as part of the investigation.
One officer later told investigators he believed Taylor was alone. But in fact, she was asleep beside her current boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door and assumed it was Glover. Walker grabbed his gun, which was legally owned, per his attorney.
Taylor's apartment on Louisville's South End was one of five locations police obtained search warrants for as part of the investigation.
One officer later told investigators he believed Taylor was alone. But in fact, she was asleep beside her current boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door and assumed it was Glover. Walker grabbed his gun, which was legally owned, per his attorney.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/breonna-taylor-jamarcus-glover-arrest/index.html
It seems I may have been mistaken, in that it was packages for a prior boyfreind, not the one present during the raid, which were still being sent to her address. I had only seen "boyfriend" on reports previously, describing both males, and so hadn't realised there were 2 different people.
Well, it turns out that maybe I wasn't as mistaken in the belief her current boyfriend was involved in 'drug related activities' as I had thought...
Quote:
In the course of the investigation, police also recovered evidence that Walker was involved in the sale of drugs.
In police interviews, Walker said that he was not involved in serious criminal activity, but did say that he sometimes personally used marijuana.
However, a search of his phone 'found numerous conversations about drug trafficking,' investigators said in the newly released documents.
In several 'chats' described in the documents, Walker discusses selling 'pills' to Hooters waitresses.
In another conversation, he sent an image of a bag of marijuana, advertising it as 'Cali High Grade Premium Cannabis 1LB,' according to the documents.
In other messages, Walker offered to sell half ounces for $25, or two 'zips', slang for ounces, for $260, the documents state.
The messages with more than two dozen apparent customers span the fall of 2019 to March of this year, just prior to the raid.
In another group chat, Walker discussed robbing someone, the documents state. Walker asked how much 'bread' the target had, and another person replied that it was at least $25,000.
When someone in the chat asked if it was an easy target or whether they needed to to homework, Walker replied that he 'does his homework on every mission,' according to the documents.
In police interviews, Walker said that he was not involved in serious criminal activity, but did say that he sometimes personally used marijuana.
However, a search of his phone 'found numerous conversations about drug trafficking,' investigators said in the newly released documents.
In several 'chats' described in the documents, Walker discusses selling 'pills' to Hooters waitresses.
In another conversation, he sent an image of a bag of marijuana, advertising it as 'Cali High Grade Premium Cannabis 1LB,' according to the documents.
In other messages, Walker offered to sell half ounces for $25, or two 'zips', slang for ounces, for $260, the documents state.
The messages with more than two dozen apparent customers span the fall of 2019 to March of this year, just prior to the raid.
In another group chat, Walker discussed robbing someone, the documents state. Walker asked how much 'bread' the target had, and another person replied that it was at least $25,000.
When someone in the chat asked if it was an easy target or whether they needed to to homework, Walker replied that he 'does his homework on every mission,' according to the documents.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8816249/Louisville-police-release-details-Taylor-investigation.html
Looking at one of the photographs in the article, it also shows where the participants in the shooting were, making it clear that the charged officer (Mr Hankison) would have had no reason to fire his gun, nor would it have been likely he could see who he was shooting at.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,615
Location: Long Island, New York
06 Jan 2021, 12:48 pm
2 Louisville police officers fired over roles in fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor
Quote:
The Louisville Metro Police Department fired two officers involved in the botched raid that resulted in Breonna Taylor's death and, in part, launched a summer of protests, authorities said.
Detectives Joshua Jaynes and Myles Cosgrove learned last week that the department intended to fire them, and those terminations became official on Tuesday, according to a letter from Louisville Metro Police Department Chief Yvette Gentry to the officers.
Cosgrove violated standard operating procedures for deadly force and failure to activate his body-worn camera, the chief said.
Jaynes was was fired for two departmental violations tied to his work securing the search warrant for the deadly March 13 raid, according to Gentry.
Detectives Joshua Jaynes and Myles Cosgrove learned last week that the department intended to fire them, and those terminations became official on Tuesday, according to a letter from Louisville Metro Police Department Chief Yvette Gentry to the officers.
Cosgrove violated standard operating procedures for deadly force and failure to activate his body-worn camera, the chief said.
Jaynes was was fired for two departmental violations tied to his work securing the search warrant for the deadly March 13 raid, according to Gentry.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas
