Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Cope]

Judges are not responsible for the actions of the police. Stop trying to take the responsibility out of the hands of police who broke the law.

On the judge and the warrant:

Here’s what we can say: The portion of the warrant affidavit that requested a no-knock raid was the exact same language used in the other four warrants. It stated that drug dealers are dangerous and might dispose of evidence if police knock and announce. It contained no particularized information as to why Taylor herself was dangerous or presented such a threat. And that, according to the Supreme Court, is not sufficient to grant a no-knock warrant. Yet Shaw granted it anyway. Perhaps she provided more scrutiny to the other parts of the affidavit. But she did not ask for more evidence in the no-knock portion. And she should have.

Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor, The Washington Post, Sept 24th.

[Vanoi]

Yes Cope but again the police requested the warrant. They fabricated evidence. Responsibility still lies with police.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...op/3554995001/

Btw it can no longer be proven Walker shot a cop.

[irontaino]

Guys, guys...both the police (for requesting the warrant based on fabricated evidence) and the judge (for granting said warrant) are at fault. At this point, the solution would be to throw out the DoJ and start over.

[Cope]

Yes Cope but again the police requested the warrant. They fabricated evidence. Responsibility still lies with police.

It has not yet been sufficiently proven that the police conspired to fabricate evidence (the state would likely need more than conflicting testimonies to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). Nonetheless, it is possible that more than one person/organization/institution can be responsible for wrongdoing.

In my view, most of the evidence points to Taylor's death being the product of systemic failures in policing/adjudicating rather than the faults of rank and file officers. As was mentioned above, the city should not have allowed a trio of non specialist officers to carry out a midnight, no-knock raid in the first place.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...op/3554995001/

Btw it can no longer be proven Walker shot a cop.

A somewhat moot point considering that the charges against Walker have been shelved anyway.

[B. W.]

On the judge and the warrant:

Yes Cope but again the police requested the warrant. They fabricated evidence. Responsibility still lies with police.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...op/3554995001/

Btw it can no longer be proven Walker shot a cop.

Guys, guys...both the police (for requesting the warrant based on fabricated evidence) and the judge (for granting said warrant) are at fault. At this point, the solution would be to throw out the DoJ and start over.

It has not yet been sufficiently proven that the police conspired to fabricate evidence (the state would likely need more than conflicting testimonies to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). Nonetheless, it is possible that more than one person/organization/institution can be responsible for wrongdoing.

In my view, most of the evidence points to Taylor's death being the product of systemic failures in policing/adjudicating rather than the faults of rank and file officers. As was mentioned above, the city should not have allowed a trio of non specialist officers to carry out a midnight, no-knock raid in the first place.



A somewhat moot point considering that the charges against Walker have been shelved anyway.

Something similar to this occurred in Houston recently, only the undercover officer who got the warrant was black and the people in the house (a man and a woman) were white. That's probably the reason it didn't make much air time on the national news; it didn't fit the narrative.

There was a shoot-out and several officers were shot and both residents of the house were killed. This of course resulted in an investigation that revealed the undercover officer had gotten the warrant with false information and had in his possession a quantity of drugs to use as "throw down' evidence to implicate the people in the house of "possession of narcotics".

As it turned out the officer had done this hundreds of times before resulting in convictions of hundreds of inmates, which in turn, resulted in hundreds of convictions being overthrown.

With all that said, in the case you guys are talking about, I would think one of the primary questions to ask is if this has happened before and how many times. It's becoming clear that obtaining a search warrant, whether no-knock or not, is all to easy to do.

[Vanoi]

It has not yet been sufficiently proven that the police conspired to fabricate evidence (the state would likely need more than conflicting testimonies to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt). Nonetheless, it is possible that more than one person/organization/institution can be responsible for wrongdoing.

I didn't say the police conspired to fabricate evidence. I said they fabricated evidence for the warrant. Whenever they conspired to do so is a whole different issue.

In my view, most of the evidence points to Taylor's death being the product of systemic failures in policing/adjudicating rather than the faults of rank and file officers. As was mentioned above, the city should not have allowed a trio of non specialist officers to carry out a midnight, no-knock raid in the first place.

Cool. I think it is the rank and file. No need to take responsibility away from those who conducted the operation.

A somewhat moot point considering that the charges against Walker have been shelved anyway.

Not a moot point at all. Police justified their actions because they said Walker fired and hit a police officer. Yet now it looks like it might not have been Walker. Thats going to cast even more doubt on the cops who just had to fire 22 bullets into that apartment.

[Cope]

I didn't say the police conspired to fabricate evidence. I said they fabricated evidence for the warrant. Whenever they conspired to do so is a whole different issue.

I was referring to the evidence which was allegedly fabricated to attain the warrant.

Cool. I think it is the rank and file. No need to take responsibility away from those who conducted the operation.

There is very little substantive evidence against the officers who conducted the raid (with regard to Taylor's death). There might be a case against the officer who sought the warrant if it can actually be proven that he fabricated evidence to attain it. As above, however, conflicting testimonies alone are unlikely to be strong enough to secure a conviction.

Not a moot point at all. Police justified their actions because they said Walker fired and hit a police officer. Yet now it looks like it might not have been Walker. Thats going to cast even more doubt on the cops who just had to fire 22 bullets into that apartment.

Inconclusive evidence is not evidence against the police. Nor is it evidence against Walker (which is why this would only really matter if the state was trying to prove that Walker was guilty of attempted murder).

[Cope]

Something similar to this occurred in Houston recently, only the undercover officer who got the warrant was black and the people in the house (a man and a woman) were white. That's probably the reason it didn't make much air time on the national news; it didn't fit the narrative.

There was a shoot-out and several officers were shot and both residents of the house were killed. This of course resulted in an investigation that revealed the undercover officer had gotten the warrant with false information and had in his possession a quantity of drugs to use as "throw down' evidence to implicate the people in the house of "possession of narcotics".

As it turned out the officer had done this hundreds of times before resulting in convictions of hundreds of inmates, which in turn, resulted in hundreds of convictions being overthrown.

With all that said, in the case you guys are talking about, I would think one of the primary questions to ask is if this has happened before and how many times. It's becoming clear that obtaining a search warrant, whether no-knock or not, is all to easy to do.

There is no evidence that racial malice or discrimination was a factor in any of the recent policing scandals (Taylor, Floyd, Brooks, Blake). It's a shame that BLM (facilitated by liberal elite) have been allowed to hijack a nonpartisan issue (the need for criminal justice reform).

[Vanoi]

I was referring to the evidence which was allegedly fabricated to attain the warrant.

Was the information presented for the search warrant accurate or not? You can tip toe around the issue all you want. The police collected evidence for their search warrant. Evidence that was false.

There is very little substantive evidence against the officers who conducted the raid (with regard to Taylor's death). There might be a case against the officer who sought the warrant if it can actually be proven that he fabricated evidence to attain it. As above, however, conflicting testimonies alone are unlikely to be strong enough to secure a conviction.

Conflicting testimonies? There no testimony to back up the cop's story. Their witness was found to have changed his story. The testimonies from other residents in the apartments were rather clear.

The FBI investigation alone can bring multiple charges against the officers regardless of their actual intent.

Inconclusive evidence is not evidence against the police. Nor is it evidence against Walker (which is why this would only really matter if the state was trying to prove that Walker was guilty of attempted murder).

Its evidence the police were wrong. And again its not moot. The FBI investigation into the killing of Taylor can charge officers with use of excessive force. And this was definitely excessive.

[Cope]

Was the information presented for the search warrant accurate or not? You can tip toe around the issue all you want. The police collected evidence for their search warrant. Evidence that was false.

I do not know whether the police knowingly or negligently presented false evidence to the judge.

Conflicting testimonies? There no testimony to back up the cop's story. Their witness was found to have changed his story. The testimonies from other residents in the apartments were rather clear.

I'm referring to the conflicting testimonies of the officer who sought the warrant and the postal inspector.

With regards to the raid, the officers' testimony is itself of value; no jury is going to simply disregard their version of events unless it can be rebutted with hard evidence. It is unlikely that the state is going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers did not announce their presence on the basis that the neighbours did not hear them do so.

The FBI investigation alone can bring multiple charges against the officers regardless of their actual intent.

I'm not interested in speculating about what the FBI may or may not find.

Its evidence the police were wrong. And again its not moot. The FBI investigation into the killing of Taylor can charge officers with use of excessive force. And this was definitely excessive.

It would have to be demonstrated that the police opened fire first (which I don't think is even being contested) and without just cause in order to secure a conviction. The mere possibility that Mattingly wasn't struck by Walker's round is insufficient to sustain that theory.

[Vanoi]

I do not know whether the police knowingly or negligently presented false evidence to the judge.

That wasn't the question i asked you.

I'm referring to the conflicting testimonies of the officer who sought the warrant and the postal inspector.

With regards to the raid, the officers' testimony is itself of value; no jury is going to simply disregard their version of events unless it can be rebutted with hard evidence. It is unlikely that the state is going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers did not announce their presence on the basis that the neighbours did not hear them do so.

Their version of the events isn't backed up. Walker's version of the events are. Which one do you think the jury would believe.

I'm not interested in speculating about what the FBI may or may not find.

If you aren't interested in discussing the case then stop replying to my posts. Seems to me you don't have an argument or realize the charges the FBI could bring against them.

It would have to be demonstrated that the police opened fire first (which I don't think is even being contested) and without just cause in order to secure a conviction. The mere possibility that Mattingly wasn't struck by Walker's round is insufficient to sustain that theory.

The police don't need to open fire first to be considered to have used excessive force. I don't even think you actually know what law the FBI would charge them under do you?

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...nt/5865796002/

The Civil Rights Division can charge individuals undernine Title 18 civil rights statutes, including deprivation of rights under the color of law. Those violations include excessive force, false arrest, obstruction of justice or deprivation of medical care.

Those officers are in way more trouble then you actually realize.

[Cope]

That wasn't the question i asked you.

I don't know whether false evidence was presented to the judge. That's what the Taylors' family attorney alleges, but there is no compelling evidence for the claim other than the testimony of the postal inspector. Even so, whether the police knowingly or negligently presented false evidence to the judge is the only relevant question here.

Their version of the events isn't backed up. Walker's version of the events are. Which one do you think the jury would believe.

It is unlikely that a jury would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the police did not announce themselves based on the known evidence.

If you aren't interested in discussing the case then stop replying to my posts. Seems to me you don't have an argument or realize the charges the FBI could bring against them.

I'm discussing the known evidence, not speculating about what the FBI may or may not find or what charges they may or may not bring.

The police don't need to open fire first to be considered to have used excessive force. I don't even think you actually know what law the FBI would charge them under do you?

The officers are unlikely to be indicted for using excessive force for returning fire when fired upon unless it can be demonstrated that they did so recklessly (which Hankinson has already been charged with, but denies).

Those officers are in way more trouble then you actually realize.

This is not a statement you can support with evidence; the FBI has not released the findings of its investigation.

[Vanoi]

I don't know whether false evidence was presented to the judge. That's what the Taylors' family attorney alleges, but there is no compelling evidence for the claim other than the testimony of the postal inspector. Even so, whether the police knowingly or negligently presented false evidence to the judge is the only relevant question here.

Still avoiding the question. Do you have trouble reading or something? Why is it so hard to answer? Was the information presented accurate or not?

It is unlikely that a jury would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the police did not announce themselves based on the known evidence.

I highly doubt that. Considering the officers applied for a no-knock warrant and over 10 witnesses collaborated Walker's version of the events i think the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the police didn't announce themselves.

I'm discussing the known evidence, not speculating about what the FBI may or may not find or what charges they may or may not bring.

Actually you are avoiding most of my questions and not really addressing what i am saying. If you don't have an argument you can admit.

The officers are unlikely to be indicted for using excessive force for returning fire when fired upon unless it can be demonstrated that they did so recklessly (which Hankinson has already been charged with, but denies).

I disagree. Like i told you during the Jacob Blake case, reasonable force has to be applied. Reasonable is not shooting an unarmed woman or firing bullets into neighboring apartments endangering civilian lives.

This is not a statement you can support with evidence; the FBI has not released the findings of its investigation.

Why would it be? Its obviously just my opinion. But its also obvious you didn't know the officers could be charged under the Civil Rights Act. Hence you not actually addressing what i said.

[Cope]

Still avoiding the question. Do you have trouble reading or something? Why is it so hard to answer? Was the information presented accurate or not?

I don't know whether false* evidence was presented to the judge. That's what the Taylors' family attorney alleges, but there is no compelling evidence for the claim other than the testimony of the postal inspector. Even so, whether the police knowingly or negligently presented false evidence to the judge is the only relevant question here.

*False evidence is by definition inaccurate.

I highly doubt that. Considering the officers applied for a no-knock warrant and over 10 witnesses collaborated Walker's version of the events i think the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the police didn't announce themselves.

I wouldn't underestimate the propensity of jurors to sympathize with the police, particularly when there exists the possibility that neither party is lying.

Actually you are avoiding most of my questions and not really addressing what i am saying. If you don't have an argument you can admit.

This isn't true.

I disagree. Like i told you during the Jacob Blake case, reasonable force has to be applied. Reasonable is not shooting an unarmed woman or firing bullets into neighboring apartments endangering civilian lives.

Taylor being killed in the crossfire does not, in and of itself, implicate the officers criminally; the state would have to show negligence on the part of the officers (for which there is no substantive evidence outside of the charges brought against Hankinson).

Why would it be? Its obviously just my opinion. But its also obvious you didn't know the officers could be charged under the Civil Rights Act. Hence you not actually addressing what i said.

Usually when someone makes a declarative statement, it is supported by evidence. There is no basis for assuming that the "officers are in more trouble than you [I] realise" until the FBI release the findings of their investigation. The most interesting line of inquiry seems to relate to whether Jaynes knowingly presented the judge with false evidence about suspicious parcels being delivered to Taylor's address.

[Vanoi]

*False evidence is by definition inaccurate.

So why couldn't you just say the information wasn't accurate? Its not like i was asking a difficult question.

I wouldn't underestimate the propensity of jurors to sympathize with the police, particularly when there exists the possibility that neither party is lying.

I do think the police ate lying but you are correct in saying jurys lean toward cops. But because of current environment going on, i think they might not lean towards like usual.

Taylor being killed in the crossfire does not, in and of itself, implicate the officers criminally; the state would have to show negligence on the part of the officers (for which there is no substantive evidence outside of the charges brought against Hankinson).

I'll repeat my last post. Evidence exists. You're either ignoring it or downplaying it.

Usually when someone makes a declarative statement, it is supported by evidence. There is no basis for assuming that the "officers are in more trouble than you [I] realise" until the FBI release the findings of their investigation. The most interesting line of inquiry seems to relate to whether Jaynes knowingly presented the judge with false evidence about suspicious parcels being delivered to Taylor's address.

I can very much state my own opinion without evidence just like you have been regarding whenever a jury would convict the police or whenever there is enough evidence to charge them.

Facts are that being charged under the Civil Rights statue is not good at all and much worse than Kentucky state law. I stand by my original statement.

[Cope]

Body camera footage from the aftermath of the raid shows Kenneth Walker claim that it was Taylor who fired at the officers.

Source.

[Vanoi]

Body camera footage from the aftermath of the raid shows Kenneth Walker claim that it was Taylor who fired at the officers.

Source.

Wait Walker claims Taylor shot at the police?

[Mithradates]

Yep

"Did she shoot or you shoot it?
It was her she was scared!"

They probably didnt hear the police because of that loud TV, oh ...

[Cope]

That was his claim at the scene. See 1m 40s into the video.

Officer: Did she shoot or you shoot it?
Walker: It was her, she was scared!

[Vanoi]

And yet the police say it was Kenneth Walker who shot at them, not Breonna Taylor.

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...ay/5914804002/

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Firearms experts say a ballistics report from Kentucky State Police shows Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend fired the shot that wounded a Louisville officer and prompted police to return fire, killing Taylor

And Walker has claimed multiple times in interviews that he was the one who fired the gun at the door, not Breonna Taylor.