George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2

[Pointgod]

I have to admit, I had not followed the details of Breonna Taylor's case. I thought the officer's broke into the wrong residence and just started shooting. I have since learned the following which, to me, are not good facts for the prosecution. They are:

1. That the PD obtained a warrant for that address based on the allegations/investigative facts regarding criminal drug activity at that residence. I do not know if what is contained in the warrant is true or false, at this point but taking it on its face, it permits the officers to conduct a search of the residence for drugs, guns, proceeds, etc.

2. That, according to the Warrant, the ex-boyfriend was currently doing drug business at this address.

3. That the officers were shot at first and then responded to shots fired at them.

These are obstacles for a prosecution attempt to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt in a case that will be tried before a state court judge who holds its seat by winning an election it, in all livelihood, received gracious campaign contributions from the police unions.

I welcome anyone to correct my information if it is wrong.

Here is a article that presents facts and debunks some claims both against Taylor and the police.

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

You’re a lawyer so help me understand this. Taylor’s boyfriend had a right to stand his ground and protect his house. He said he didn’t hear the police announce themselves. You can listen to the 911 call no where does he say police killed his girlfriend, he indicates it was intruders. There are other neighbors that said the police didn’t announce themselves. The AG used the testimony of one neighbor who said he heard the police announce themselves. They say a DA can indict a ham sandwich. How does the DA not charge for lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter? We’re talking about charging documents not the actual trial?

1. Taylor was never charged with a crime, to my knowledge. If was was/is, your point goes to his defense, i.e. that he did not know that he shot at officers, etc. The GJ against the officers was to determine if they should be charged with murder.

2. The "no-knock," if legal in the state of Kentucky, is a complete defense to any attempt to charge the officers with murder. Remember, that the officers responded to gunfire from a possible perpetrator they had reason to believe was still in the house.

There probably will/should be an investigation into the contents of the Warrant to determine whether or not any fabricated/false evidence was included in it.

1. This is correct. Neither Taylor nor her boyfriend were charged with any crime. NO DRUGS were found at the house which was the purpose of using a no knock raid. The information they used for the warrant was either fabricated or based off of bad evidence.

2. So you mean to tell me that a no knock is pretty much immunity to break into someone’s house and kill them if fires upon? What if hypothetically they had the wrong house?

There’s also the cover up that leads me to believe that that there’s more to this that we don’t know about. For example prosecutors attempting to get Taylor’s ex boyfriend to falsely implicate her in drug trafficking.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/01/breonna-taylors-ex-says-prosecutor-trying-cover-up-fatal-shooting/3453352001/

Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend says Louisville prosecutors wanted him to implicate the slain 26-year-old woman when they offered him a plea deal in his ongoing drug case four months after her fatal shooting.

There are also multiple witnesses that said they didn’t hear the police announce themselves and ONE witness that said they did. One officer was charged with reckless indifference. Taylor’s boyfriend shot at cops but they managed to miss him and hit the unarmed woman. Isn’t there a charge less than murder, that takes into consideration all of the actions of the police that lead to her death? Considering that the police report shows inconsistencies?

The NY Times has a really good write up:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html

[DOT]

If the officers legally did nothing wrong, then there's something wrong with the laws.

[3toheadmelo]

Riot until there is justice.

[Oscirus]

Riot until there is justice.

Riots do nothing but throw red meat to the side that wants to refer to blm as a terrorist organization. I realize they'll think that regardless, but they dont need the help

[3toheadmelo]

Riot until there is justice.

Riots do nothing but throw red meat to the side that wants to refer to blm as a terrorist organization. I realize they'll think that regardless, but they dont need the help

The people that think BLM is a terrorist organization in the first place are idiots. I can care less about what they think.

[Oscirus]

Riot until there is justice.

Riots do nothing but throw red meat to the side that wants to refer to blm as a terrorist organization. I realize they'll think that regardless, but they dont need the help

The people that think BLM is a terrorist organization in the first place are idiots. I can care less about what they think.

Fair enough, still dont want to throw them red meat to use on the undecided

[3toheadmelo]

Read on Twitter

[3toheadmelo]

Lol she called Trump an owl which apparently is very disrespectful in India. Idiot

Read on Twitter

[DOT]

Lol she called Trump an owl which apparently is very disrespectful in India. Idiot

Read on Twitter

I can't tell if this guy is serious, but I find this hilarious and it's what I think any time I hear Tomi Lahren's name


https://www.reddit.com/r/rap/comments/certku/conservative_rap_idea/

[3toheadmelo]

Lol she called Trump an owl which apparently is very disrespectful in India. Idiot

Read on Twitter

I can't tell if this guy is serious, but I find this hilarious and it's what I think any time I hear Tomi Lahren's name


https://www.reddit.com/r/rap/comments/certku/conservative_rap_idea/

Wtf

[frothbrain]

If the officers legally did nothing wrong, then there's something wrong with the laws.

It's a tough situation. It was a search warrant for a drug house. Even if the cops did announce their presence as stated by a neighbor witness, it is very likely the boyfriend did not hear them. Entry time is critical in search warrants.
Just a **** situation all around but can't see any laws changing because of it. Would require a change in drug laws so such warrants would not be put out in the first place.

[DOT]

If the officers legally did nothing wrong, then there's something wrong with the laws.

It's a tough situation. It was a search warrant for a drug house

It was not a drug house, but thank you for playing.

[frothbrain]

If the officers legally did nothing wrong, then there's something wrong with the laws.

It's a tough situation. It was a search warrant for a drug house

It was not a drug house, but thank you for playing.

That's how it was written in the search warrant which was based off surveillance of the suspects.
So you can blame the surveillance team and judge for signing off on faulty information.
The cops executing the warrant and returning fire are not to blame though.

[DOT]

It's a tough situation. It was a search warrant for a drug house

It was not a drug house, but thank you for playing.

That's how it was written in the search warrant which was based off surveillance of the suspects.

Yeah and the police would never lie, of course.

[frothbrain]

It was not a drug house, but thank you for playing.

That's how it was written in the search warrant which was based off surveillance of the suspects.

Yeah and the police would never lie, of course.

Amended my post. Just making it clear that if blame is to be placed then it should be placed at the root of the cause.
One cop was charged for wanton endangerment and that's really all that they can be blamed for after returning fire.

[DOT]

One cop was charged for wanton endangerment and that's really all that they can be blamed for after returning fire.

Right, the trained police officers should not be blamed for shooting the person without the gun

Makes sense.

[frothbrain]

Cops will never, ever put their lives at risk over the lives of the perpetrators or even innocent bystanders.
No amount of public outcry will change that. So proposing some sort of non lethal seal team six training for cops across the country is just a fantasy, when even the best trained military units are trained around eliminating threats.

A more realistic goal would be decreasing the number of raids in the first place.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Cops will never, ever put their lives at risk over the lives of the perpetrators or even innocent bystanders.
No amount of public outcry will change that. So proposing some sort of non lethal seal team six training for cops across the country is just a fantasy, when even the best trained military units are trained around eliminating threats.

A more realistic goal would be decreasing the number of raids in the first place.

The only way to get them to think twice at this point is to hit their pockets. Cities should not pay for lawsuits anymore, that should come from their pension fund. You'd incentive the so called "good" cops to at least call out the ones breaking the rules because the bad apple in this case would ruin it for everyone. They don't care about anything other than themselves, I'm sure they'd care about their money getting hit.

[HarthorneWingo]

Cops will never, ever put their lives at risk over the lives of the perpetrators or even innocent bystanders.
No amount of public outcry will change that. So proposing some sort of non lethal seal team six training for cops across the country is just a fantasy, when even the best trained military units are trained around eliminating threats.

A more realistic goal would be decreasing the number of raids in the first place.

The only way to get them to think twice at this point is to hit their pockets. Cities should not pay for lawsuits anymore, that should come from their pension fund. You'd incentive the so called "good" cops to at least call out the ones breaking the rules because the bad apple in this case would ruin it for everyone. They don't care about anything other than themselves, I'm sure they'd care about their money getting hit.

Making the cops foot the bill would end up hurting the victims. Also, the police unions would buy them insurance.

[HarthorneWingo]

It's a tough situation. It was a search warrant for a drug house

It was not a drug house, but thank you for playing.

That's how it was written in the search warrant which was based off surveillance of the suspects.
So you can blame the surveillance team and judge for signing off on faulty information.
The cops executing the warrant and returning fire are not to blame though.

Unless there are other facts involved, frothbrain is right.

He probably piggybacked on my earlier comment to that effect.