OT: 4 Cops Arrested in Breonna Taylor murder

[HarthorneWingo]

Someone posted a thread on this incident when it was originally reported. I recall saying something to the effect that the officers could walk because the information used by the cops was in a warrant approved by a judge. But that’s not quite accurate.

If the officers put false information in the warrant, they could be held accountable.

Well, guess what? Fcking cops, man.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-arrests-lousville-cops-breonna-taylor_n_62ebd8abe4b0ecfe3f6e79f7

The Department of Justice on Thursday charged four current and former Louisville Metro Police Department officers with federal crimes related to the fatal police shooting of Breonna Taylor in March 2020.

Former Officers Joshua Jaynes, Brett Hankison, and Kelly Goodlett were arrested Thursday by the FBI. Sgt. Kyle Meany, who still works for the department, also was arrested.

The charges allege Jaynes, Hankison and Goodlett used false and misleading information to obtain the search warrant that sent officers to Taylor’s home, where they used a battering ram to break through the door and “blindly” fire bullets inside that killed the 26-year-old hospital technician.

Jaynes wrote in the 2020 warrant application that he’d “verified with a U.S. Postal Inspector” that Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer, had been using her address to receive packages.

That wasn’t true, according to the Justice Department.

“The federal charges announced today allege that members of a Police Investigations Unit falsified the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant of Ms. Taylor’s home and that this act violated federal civil rights laws, and that those violations resulted in Ms. Taylor’s death,“ Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference Thursday.

The Justice Department also slapped Jaynes and Goodlett with conspiracy charges, alleging they met in a garage in May 2020, “where they agreed to tell investigators a false story.” Goodlett was charged in a criminal information, not a grand jury indictment, a step that often indicates a plea agreement.

In a second indictment, prosecutors say Hankison used unconstitutionally excessive force during the raid when he moved from Taylor’s doorway to the side of the building, where he fired 10 shots into her apartment through a bedroom window and a sliding glass door, both of which were covered with blinds and curtains.

[Luv those Knicks]

Thanks Hawthorn. What I understand about these charges, most of the cops who broke into the apt and fired aren't being charged, just one of them who fired recklessly and shot a bullet into a neighbors apt. (I don't know how you miss an entire apt, but apparently that guy did).

Mostly the ones facing charges are the ones who used false information to get the warrant. If it had been a legit warrant, then the cops who shot her would still have gotten off without charges because it's legal to do a no knock warrant and come in shooting, even if the drug dealer might not be there at the time and the home owner might be.

Now, if I'm wrong, I've only researched this a tiny bit, feel free to correct me, but that's my understanding.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Justice deserved should result in justice served. We all know better but, I hope this plays out the way it should.

[thebuzzardman]

Sh*t like this is a start. It's not even what is wholly needed, but have to start somewhere.

What will happen though is that GOP operatives will weaponize this scare aging midwestern/southern and rural coast boomers that a great crime apocalypse is coming, and between that and gerrymandering USA will have a hardcore conservative president for the next 20 years along with a conservative dominated house and senate.

Enjoy the ride, save your money, get your visas, it's going to be a blast.

And the entire time they are dominating US politics, the Christian right will whine about how the culture doesn't like them and they are victims etc etc etc.

Authoritarians rarely just own the boot on the neck. They have to make it the others fault and then "clean up the problem"

[Clyde_Style]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

[HarthorneWingo]

Thanks Hawthorn. What I understand about these charges, most of the cops who broke into the apt and fired aren't being charged, just one of them who fired recklessly and shot a bullet into a neighbors apt. (I don't know how you miss an entire apt, but apparently that guy did).

Mostly the ones facing charges are the ones who used false information to get the warrant. If it had been a legit warrant, then the cops who shot her would still have gotten off without charges because it's legal to do a no knock warrant and come in shooting, even if the drug dealer might not be there at the time and the home owner might be.

Now, if I'm wrong, I've only researched this a tiny bit, feel free to correct me, but that's my understanding.

A+

Ding! Ding! Ding! The officers at the scene reasonably relied on the warrant which is a point I made in the original thread. But we didn't discuss the investigation and information that went into the warrant. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case, I forget the name off the top of my head, which holds that when evaluating the sufficiency of the warrant, you take out all the false information out of it and then see whether there is still probable cause for it to issue.

[magee]

If you search #firejudgemaryshaw on facebook, you'll see where my posts about how she did no due diligence to sign off on the No-Knock Warrants the cops petitioned for. There wasn't nearly enough sufficient evidence to sign off on them and she clearly did.

[HarthorneWingo]

If you search #firejudgemaryshaw on facebook, you'll see where my posts about how she did no due diligence to sign off on the No-Knock Warrants the cops petitioned for. There wasn't nearly enough sufficient evidence to sign off on them and she clearly did.

I haven't read the Warrant yet but, based on my experience, most judges or bail commissioners will sign off on it as a matter of course. Sure, they'll read it to see if it makes sense but, assuming it does, they'll just sign off.

These judges/commissioners work with the same drug and vice officers all the time. Plus, the law is such that the facts stated in the warrant are presumed to be truthful. So long as they amount to probable cause, as stated in the warrant, the judge will sign off on it even though what's in it is actually false.

Remember, the officers who killed Breonna have not be arrested. The reason is because they reasonably relied on a judicially-approved warrant. Now what this judge knew and didn't know, is something that'll be interesting to learn.

Can you give us a little flavor of what this judge's misdeeds?

EDIT: It bothered me that I couldn't remember the name of that case. lol. So I did some quick research. The burden of proof, however, is on the defense to show that the affiant "lied or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth with respect to some material statement in the affidavit will a hearing regarding such be required."

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the Court made it clear that only where the defense has proof that the affiant lied or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth with respect to some material statement in the affidavit will a hearing regarding such be required. A deliberate falsehood by a nonaffiant, fellow officer may fall within the Franks rule, but an informant's misrepresentation will have no effect on the validity of the warrant. To be guilty of 'reckless disregard for the truth,' the officer must have entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the information inserted in the affidavit. The post-Franks decisions express due regard for the confidentiality of informants, but officers should note that courts may require an in camera hearing to ensure the existence of the informant and the fact that the officer has not misrepresented the informant's information. Endnotes and a chart are included.

[magee]

They copied and pasted information from previous files and affidavits and she signed off on the majority of them.

[BKlutch]

If you search #firejudgemaryshaw on facebook, you'll see where my posts about how she did no due diligence to sign off on the No-Knock Warrants the cops petitioned for. There wasn't nearly enough sufficient evidence to sign off on them and she clearly did.

I haven't read the Warrant yet but, based on my experience, most judges or bail commissioners will sign off on it as a matter of course. Sure, they'll read it to see if it makes sense but, assuming it does, they'll just sign off.

These judges/commissioners work with the same drug and vice officers all the time. Plus, the law is such that the facts stated in the warrant are presumed to be truthful. So long as they amount to probable cause, as stated in the warrant, the judge will sign off on it even though what's in it is actually false.

Remember, the officers who killed Breonna have not be arrested. The reason is because they reasonably relied on a judicially-approved warrant. Now what this judge knew and didn't know, is something that'll be interesting to learn.

Can you give us a little flavor of what this judge's misdeeds?

EDIT: It bothered me that I couldn't remember the name of that case. lol. So I did some quick research. The burden of proof, however, is on the defense to show that the affiant "lied or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth with respect to some material statement in the affidavit will a hearing regarding such be required."

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the Court made it clear that only where the defense has proof that the affiant lied or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth with respect to some material statement in the affidavit will a hearing regarding such be required. A deliberate falsehood by a nonaffiant, fellow officer may fall within the Franks rule, but an informant's misrepresentation will have no effect on the validity of the warrant. To be guilty of 'reckless disregard for the truth,' the officer must have entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the information inserted in the affidavit. The post-Franks decisions express due regard for the confidentiality of informants, but officers should note that courts may require an in camera hearing to ensure the existence of the informant and the fact that the officer has not misrepresented the informant's information. Endnotes and a chart are included.

Damm, you shoulda been on the Supreme Court. At least, we'd know that false election victor claims would be given the attention they deserve.

[8516knicks]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

[Clyde_Style]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

Mueller was operating under the purview of a Trump administered DOJ.

Garland has no such constraints.

Garland has a reputation for running meticulous investigations into domestic terrorism going back to the OKC bombing.

Garland clearly has a full green light.

Garland has publicly stated he will investigate every last piece of evidence and go where that takes them and that nobody is off limits. IOW, he is not going to give anyone or Trump any special consideration. Mueller hemmed and hawwed by comparison.

Garland has already convicted non-compliant parties and of the known warrants executed top members of the Trump administration have been raided.

The vast extent of this investigation has already resulted in over 700 arrests and the convictions are just starting to roll.

The grand juries have been running all year and by all accounts everyone is now lining up to testify for fear of being prosecuted. No such tide ever occurred under Mueller's watch.

AND FINALLY, MERRICK GARLAND IS THE HEAD OF THE DOJ, NOT A SPECIAL APPOINTEE. BIG DIFFERENCE. HE HAS FULL AUTHORITY.

You can wait and see whatever you want, but to say this is remotely similar to the Mueller investigation is false.

[HarthorneWingo]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

Mueller was operating under the purview of a Trump administered DOJ.

Garland has no such constraints.

Garland has a reputation for running meticulous investigations into domestic terrorism going back to the OKC bombing.

Garland clearly has a full green light.

Garland has publicly stated he will investigate every last piece of evidence and go where that takes them and that nobody is off limits. IOW, he is not going to give anyone or Trump any special consideration. Mueller hemmed and hawwed by comparison.

Garland has already convicted non-compliant parties and of the known warrants executed top members of the Trump administration have been raided.

The vast extent of this investigation has already resulted in over 700 arrests and the convictions are just starting to roll.

The grand juries have been running all year and by all accounts everyone is now lining up to testify for fear of being prosecuted. No such tide ever occurred under Mueller's watch.

AND FINALLY, MERRICK GARLAND IS THE HEAD OF THE DOJ, NOT A SPECIAL APPOINTEE. BIG DIFFERENCE. HE HAS FULL AUTHORITY.

You can wait and see whatever you want, but to say this is remotely similar to the Mueller investigation is false.

Let's not devolve this thread into a discussion about Trump.

[Clyde_Style]

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

Mueller was operating under the purview of a Trump administered DOJ.

Garland has no such constraints.

Garland has a reputation for running meticulous investigations into domestic terrorism going back to the OKC bombing.

Garland clearly has a full green light.

Garland has publicly stated he will investigate every last piece of evidence and go where that takes them and that nobody is off limits. IOW, he is not going to give anyone or Trump any special consideration. Mueller hemmed and hawwed by comparison.

Garland has already convicted non-compliant parties and of the known warrants executed top members of the Trump administration have been raided.

The vast extent of this investigation has already resulted in over 700 arrests and the convictions are just starting to roll.

The grand juries have been running all year and by all accounts everyone is now lining up to testify for fear of being prosecuted. No such tide ever occurred under Mueller's watch.

AND FINALLY, MERRICK GARLAND IS THE HEAD OF THE DOJ, NOT A SPECIAL APPOINTEE. BIG DIFFERENCE. HE HAS FULL AUTHORITY.

You can wait and see whatever you want, but to say this is remotely similar to the Mueller investigation is false.

Let's not devolve this thread into a discussion about Trump.

I don't plan on it

Merrick Garland made public statements about this case in particular. He's evidently well aware of its importance and using this case to set an example

Thus far, his appointment to run the DOJ has been one of the best things about the Biden administration and he should get credit where credit is due

[F N 11]

So the boyfriend who was fighting saying he ain’t do nothing really didn’t do anything? Dirty mf’s smh ..

[8516knicks]

Mueller was operating under the purview of a Trump administered DOJ.

Garland has no such constraints.

Garland has a reputation for running meticulous investigations into domestic terrorism going back to the OKC bombing.

Garland clearly has a full green light.

Garland has publicly stated he will investigate every last piece of evidence and go where that takes them and that nobody is off limits. IOW, he is not going to give anyone or Trump any special consideration. Mueller hemmed and hawwed by comparison.

Garland has already convicted non-compliant parties and of the known warrants executed top members of the Trump administration have been raided.

The vast extent of this investigation has already resulted in over 700 arrests and the convictions are just starting to roll.

The grand juries have been running all year and by all accounts everyone is now lining up to testify for fear of being prosecuted. No such tide ever occurred under Mueller's watch.

AND FINALLY, MERRICK GARLAND IS THE HEAD OF THE DOJ, NOT A SPECIAL APPOINTEE. BIG DIFFERENCE. HE HAS FULL AUTHORITY.

You can wait and see whatever you want, but to say this is remotely similar to the Mueller investigation is false.

Let's not devolve this thread into a discussion about Trump.

I don't plan on it

Merrick Garland made public statements about this case in particular. He's evidently well aware of its importance and using this case to set an example

Thus far, his appointment to run the DOJ has been one of the best things about the Biden administration and he should get credit where credit is due

Troubling he let Mark Meadows walk...

[Luv those Knicks]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

Mueller did a solid investigation. It was Barr and that pesky presidential immunity that limited the scope of what he could achieve.

[HarthorneWingo]

It is a start. This whole case is a massive chit show. One of the best things about the current administration is Merrick Garland. If the DOJ is going to be about justice you need a guy like him who is meticulous, pursues the true perps and makes the charges stick.

On Garland, I'm still a wait-n-see. He could turn out to be another Mueller.

Mueller did a solid investigation. It was Barr and that pesky presidential immunity that limited the scope of what he could achieve.

“They even broke into my safe!”



(If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.)

[Clyde_Style]

Let's not devolve this thread into a discussion about Trump.

I don't plan on it

Merrick Garland made public statements about this case in particular. He's evidently well aware of its importance and using this case to set an example

Thus far, his appointment to run the DOJ has been one of the best things about the Biden administration and he should get credit where credit is due

Troubling he let Mark Meadows walk...

Wrong

[Luv those Knicks]

Maybe we need another Mueller thread. I think most of us agree on this one though. Not much of a debate. Good that some cops will face charges. Bad that more isn't being done.