|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot.
What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless.
Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements, nor do we know how evidence regarding how police executed the warrant was presented. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo
|
On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo
Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived.
|
Very fascinating and informative article about the particulars of the post-election process and how things can go wrong. Even if you don’t believe Trump will do these things; it does a good job of showing what may happen and what’s been happening already.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
TLDR, it’ll be a legal shitshow. Trumps plan:
1. Cast mail-in ballots in doubt as much as possible. Plan legal action tearing apart the validity of mail-in ballots (Repub lawyers have already been observing mail-in vote counts in county elections to find flaws to use in their legal arguments).
2. Repubs more likely to win with votes counted at Election Night, “blue shift” of overtime/mail-in votes likely to bring it to Biden. Discredit overtime/mail-in voting legally and culturally.
3. With the popular vote bogged down and inconclusive, and limited time until inauguration, state legislatures begin having to choose electors. Repubs control legislative branches in most battleground states and choose electors to back Trump regardless of public vote. These states that have democrat governors create an alternative slate of rival electors to send to Congress.
4. President of the Senate (Pence) has authority to preside over voting electors, will construe things to only choose the republican ones. Law requires that House be present for the count though, Pelosi moves to shut down proceedings until January 21st, where she’ll be acting President if no others are decided yet. Pence creates an impromptu meeting outside of Capitol Hill and invites House Repubs to complete the count in favor of Trump.
|
Looking forward to the US invasion to restore democracy
|
On September 25 2020 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
Looking forward to the US invasion to restore democracy
Interesting imagining a scenario where countries are tossing sanctions at the US. Maybe that would mean my student loans would go away if I move to Denmark?? xD
|
On September 25 2020 01:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived.
The point is that the factual details regarding police execution of the warrant are disputed, and the legality of no knock warrant execution in the general case is only proportionately relevant to whether police acted legally in performing the raid in question; police do things they are legally able to in an illegal manner all the time, that's a premise lurking beneath a lot of 4th-6th Amendment jurisprudence relative to qualified immunity defenses to civil suit. If police executed their no knock warrant here in a manner that legally comports with what constitutes a duly executed no knock warrant in Louisville, then you're right, there'd be nothing to take to trial. However, not only has the disposition of this matter by the AG raised significant questions regarding the knock/no knock nature of the warrant's execution, we have no public record on the issue of whether police followed the no-knock rules if in fact the warrant was executed in that manner. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are factual, usually face-of-the-warrant prerequisites to no knocking, and because of how grand juries work, we will likely never know if those prerequisites were met here.
|
On September 25 2020 01:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived.
(not directly targeted at IgnE, but just the readers in general asserting everything and the opposite)
For (insert your god, or just a fuck)'s sake, can we get to the FACTS instead of disgressing ? The boyfriend says he heard knocking, but no identification.
For each of his five warrants, Jaynes used identical language seeking to justify the no-knock entry: "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement."
Taylor's apartment, according to police, was considered a less volatile, "soft target." As such, police commanders decided in advance to have officers knock and announce their presence before entry. That decision was communicated in a pre-operational briefing, according to a source familiar with the details of the operation who requested anonymity due to the ongoing investigation.
So it was a no-knock warrant, with knocking.
Sometime after 12:30 a.m., Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly began pounding on the door. He later told investigators he believed Taylor was alone and he wanted to give her sufficient time to answer.
As officers waited for a response, a neighbor poked his head out to ask what was going on. One of the officers, Brett Hankison, extended his gun and told the neighbor to get back inside his apartment, Mattingly would later tell investigators.
The witness. (no identification at that point heard by the witness, we don't know what he testified about the rest of the events)
When there was no answer after repeated knocks, Mattingly said, he announced he was a police officer there to serve a search warrant.
"Police. Come to the door," he said.
Another officer on the search team said he heard movement inside and thought someone was about to answer the door.
"We kept banging and announcing," Mattingly said, but still no one answered.
Eventually, a lieutenant at the scene gave the order to "go ahead and hit" the door with the battering ram, Mattingly said.
The ramming.
Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door after midnight and his first thought was that it was Glover. He said he knew Taylor had dated the accused drug dealer during their on-and-off seven-year relationship. He was concerned there might be trouble.
Taylor, who had awoken, shouted, "Who is it"?
Walker said there was no response.
He said he and Taylor scrambled to get dressed and that he grabbed his gun, which his attorney said he legally owns.
The pounding at the door continued, he said.
"She's yelling at the top of her lungs — and I am too at this point — who is it?" he recalled. "No answer. No response. No anything."
As they made their way down a hallway toward the front door, Walker said, the door flew off its hinges.
"So I just let off one shot," he said. "I still can't see who it is or anything."
The banging was heard. The identification was not.
Both sides are in agreement that there was at least knocking.
A no-knock warrant is safer for the cops because inhabitants don't have the time to react and grab their weapons when being raided.
Full-on banging with no identification is more dangerous because people inside will be worried.
My guess is that the door is pretty heavy and blocks voices...
But the FACT that there was knocking is there. Both sides agree on that.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html
(And btw, this means Breonna was not in the bed nor sleeping, but probably close to Walker in the hallway when shit hit the fan. Still reckless targeting during the retaliation by officers, still an illegal killing to me)
|
On September 25 2020 01:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 01:28 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived. The point is that the factual details regarding police execution of the warrant are disputed, and the legality of no knock warrant execution in the general case is only proportionately relevant to whether police acted legally in performing the raid in question; police do things they are legally able to in an illegal manner all the time, that's a premise lurking beneath a lot of 4th-6th Amendment jurisprudence relative to qualified immunity defenses to civil suit. If police executed their no knock warrant here in a manner that legally comports with what constitutes a duly executed no knock warrant in Louisville, then you're right, there'd be nothing to take to trial. However, not only has the disposition of this matter by the AG raised significant questions regarding the knock/no knock nature of the warrant's execution, we have no public record on the issue of whether police followed the no-knock rules if in fact the warrant was executed in that manner. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are factual, usually face-of-the-warrant prerequisites to no knocking, and because of how grand juries work, we will likely never know if those prerequisites were met here.
So the theory is that they only had a knock warrant but executed a no-knock warrant and were therefore reckless? And that this wasn’t presented to the grand jury? Or that they executed a no-knock warrant incorrectly (although I must admit that my strong presumption is that there was a great deal of latitude in executing no-knock warrants—it would be something if it was reckless to knock and not announce yourselves properly but not reckless to just knock the door off its hinges without knocking at all)?
@Nouar
Ok thanks for the info. I am not really sure how that changes what I said though.
|
On September 25 2020 02:10 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 01:28 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived. (not directly targeted at IgnE, but just the readers in general asserting everything and the opposite) For (insert your god, or just a fuck)'s sake, can we get to the FACTS instead of disgressing ? The boyfriend says he heard knocking, but no identification. Show nested quote +For each of his five warrants, Jaynes used identical language seeking to justify the no-knock entry: "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement." Show nested quote +Taylor's apartment, according to police, was considered a less volatile, "soft target." As such, police commanders decided in advance to have officers knock and announce their presence before entry. That decision was communicated in a pre-operational briefing, according to a source familiar with the details of the operation who requested anonymity due to the ongoing investigation. So it was a no-knock warrant, with knocking. Show nested quote +Sometime after 12:30 a.m., Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly began pounding on the door. He later told investigators he believed Taylor was alone and he wanted to give her sufficient time to answer.
As officers waited for a response, a neighbor poked his head out to ask what was going on. One of the officers, Brett Hankison, extended his gun and told the neighbor to get back inside his apartment, Mattingly would later tell investigators. The witness. (no identification at that point heard by the witness, we don't know what he testified about the rest of the events) Show nested quote +When there was no answer after repeated knocks, Mattingly said, he announced he was a police officer there to serve a search warrant.
"Police. Come to the door," he said.
Another officer on the search team said he heard movement inside and thought someone was about to answer the door.
"We kept banging and announcing," Mattingly said, but still no one answered.
Eventually, a lieutenant at the scene gave the order to "go ahead and hit" the door with the battering ram, Mattingly said. The ramming. Show nested quote +Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door after midnight and his first thought was that it was Glover. He said he knew Taylor had dated the accused drug dealer during their on-and-off seven-year relationship. He was concerned there might be trouble.
Taylor, who had awoken, shouted, "Who is it"?
Walker said there was no response.
He said he and Taylor scrambled to get dressed and that he grabbed his gun, which his attorney said he legally owns.
The pounding at the door continued, he said.
"She's yelling at the top of her lungs — and I am too at this point — who is it?" he recalled. "No answer. No response. No anything."
As they made their way down a hallway toward the front door, Walker said, the door flew off its hinges.
"So I just let off one shot," he said. "I still can't see who it is or anything." The banging was heard. The identification was not. Both sides are in agreement that there was at least knocking. A no-knock warrant is safer for the cops because inhabitants don't have the time to react and grab their weapons when being raided. Full-on banging with no identification is more dangerous because people inside will be worried. My guess is that the door is pretty heavy and blocks voices... But the FACT that there was knocking is there. Both sides agree on that. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html(And btw, this means Breonna was not in the bed nor sleeping, but probably close to Walker in the hallway when shit hit the fan. Still reckless targeting during the retaliation by officers, still an illegal killing to me) Right, I should clarify that "no knock warrants" inaccurately refers to warrants that do not comport with the constitutional requirement that police knock and announce their presence before entering a domicile; both the knock and the announce are required unless there are other facts justifying deviation from that norm.
The knocking without announcement is another factual hiccup that bears on how police executed the warrant here.
On September 25 2020 02:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 01:43 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 01:28 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 01:13 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote:On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. What happened before the occupant started shooting goes to the core of whether police acted recklessly in executing the warrant, which could serve as the mens rea prerequisite to a finding of criminal liability for Breonna's death. If police made no announcement, barged in, and then returned fire, that series of acts could serve as the evidentiary basis for a jury finding on both mens rea and actus reus; a jury could find that the no knock warrant execution and returning fire as police did was reckless and that returning fire was the cause of Breonna's death. Conversely, executing on a warrant after identifying as police and returning fire after being shot at is not only a substantively different set of causal acts, they evince a police state of mind that is significantly less reckless. Of course, a jury could find that, even with a no-knock, police acting in that way is not enough for a finding of recklessness, the problem is that we don't even know if the grand jury was instructed on the scope of possible indictments relative to intent/act requirements. Particularly given Kentucky's relatively lax gun laws and the foreseeability of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their home upon being intruded upon by unknown actors, whether or not police identify themselves prior to breaking into a domicile can and should make a difference imo Is this speculation on your part? If no-knock raids were legal at the time of its execution I am skeptical that that would be considered reckless, given that no-knock raids are rationalized as safer for police officers. If there was any case, anywhere in the country, where anything remotely like the fact pattern in Breonna Taylor's case led to an indictment of a police officer it would be interesting to see. If anything, the aporia your argument runs into (two shooters, both with the right to self defense) points to the stochastic inevitability of deaths that will fall outside justice when no-knock warrants are backed by law. If you want an example of what Agamben calls homo sacer, look no further than Breonna Taylor. Law left her apartment at the moment the raid was executed. As the indictment of the one police officer shows, it was a narrow zone. Law was still in effect where her neighbors lived. The point is that the factual details regarding police execution of the warrant are disputed, and the legality of no knock warrant execution in the general case is only proportionately relevant to whether police acted legally in performing the raid in question; police do things they are legally able to in an illegal manner all the time, that's a premise lurking beneath a lot of 4th-6th Amendment jurisprudence relative to qualified immunity defenses to civil suit. If police executed their no knock warrant here in a manner that legally comports with what constitutes a duly executed no knock warrant in Louisville, then you're right, there'd be nothing to take to trial. However, not only has the disposition of this matter by the AG raised significant questions regarding the knock/no knock nature of the warrant's execution, we have no public record on the issue of whether police followed the no-knock rules if in fact the warrant was executed in that manner. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are factual, usually face-of-the-warrant prerequisites to no knocking, and because of how grand juries work, we will likely never know if those prerequisites were met here. So the theory is that they only had a knock warrant but executed a no-knock warrant and were therefore reckless? And that this wasn’t presented to the grand jury? Or that they executed a no-knock warrant incorrectly (although I must admit that my strong presumption is that there was a great deal of latitude in executing no-knock warrants—it would be something if it was reckless to knock and not announce yourselves properly but not reckless to just knock the door off its hinges without knocking at all). @Nouar Ok thanks for the info. I am not really sure how that changes what I said though.
Well I'm not sure what prevailing critical theories on this are, but speaking personally, I do think there exists a possible set of facts where police executed the warrant in a manner that should render them criminally liable. More importantly in my eyes, though, is the utter lack of transparency and public record on what exactly the grand jury had before them when failing to return a true bill on all possible murder/manslaughter charges.
|
I agree that the operating procedures and norms for grand juries need be to fixed as it relates to police officers, and probably state/local authorities outside of police insofar as the potential crimes relate to their governmental capacities.
|
|
|
|
|
Watch it again, from the looks of it he is rolling the guy onto his belly to arrest him.
|
|
|
On September 25 2020 04:05 Trainrunnef wrote:Watch it again, from the looks of it he is rolling the guy onto his belly to arrest him.
I think he's referring to the bike that rolled over the guy's head before that. Not a great look.
|
This link from CNN says that the reason the three officers that fired the shots didn't have body cameras because they were plainclothes officers, which is apparently a statement from the LMPD.
I'm completely baffled by that, if it's true. If it is, then why are plainclothes officers using a battering ram and entering like that? Why wouldn't you want a better-equipped, better trained officer with a camera to go in first?
|
On September 25 2020 04:09 Howie_Dewitt wrote:This link from CNN says that the reason the three officers that fired the shots didn't have body cameras because they were plainclothes officers, which is apparently a statement from the LMPD. I'm completely baffled by that, if it's true. If it is, then why are plainclothes officers using a battering ram and entering like that? Why wouldn't you want a better-equipped, better trained officer with a camera to go in first?
For the plain-clothes, it seems the drug ring from Breonna's ex was seemingly equipped with cameras to detect police officers in several of the locations targeted, so it made for a stealthier approach.
For each of his five warrants, Jaynes used identical language seeking to justify the no-knock entry: "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement."
It's from the CNN link I posted above.
So it kinda make sense to approach the flats in plain clothes. All the ones from the simultaneous crackdown. (I don't condone the lack of cameras though since they flagged that house as less dangerous and that they could knock)
But yeah, usually when storming somewhere, you do that with experienced officers, or a special assault squad.
|
That makes sense, thank you for clearing it up
|
If it weren't real you'd assume it was parody. Any sane police force would have every chief saying 'do not do anything to piss people off more than they are already' and come down like a bomb on anyone who behaved so fucking stupidly.
Do we know if the citizen was injured or not?
|
More damning details coming out about the collusion investigation. They knew there was little if any substance to collusion theory.
Apparently Durham has also taken on part of the Clinton Foundation investigation. Biden will surely be eager to put a lid on Durham given what has also come out about his sons' dealings in Russia, Ukraine and China contemporaneous with ceetain acts by Biden in his role as VP. It's all a pattern of corruption that rivals or exceeds any pattern of corruption seen in trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
