Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

This youtube vid is the unedited bodycam of the second officer, no cuts or interruptions.

At 13:47 of the video, Officer Grayson points to the other officer and tells him to "check on her... stove" which was a gas burner at full flame, and that is when the rest of it happens.

Before that, she was avoiding giving identification (she couldn't remember her name? really!?) and didn't know anything about anything. There is a problem with that, not enough to justify the use of coercive physical force, but they should have escalated to a lower level of coercion by giving her context on what her actions were and what they observed. Like, "you called us here because of a disturbance outside and we feel you are avoiding giving us all the information, so what is really going on here?" or "did you call us to scare off someone who was here earlier?"

[Flying Dice]

This youtube vid is the unedited bodycam of the second officer, no cuts or interruptions.

At 13:47 of the video, Officer Grayson points to the other officer and tells him to "check on her... stove" which was a gas burner at full flame, and that is when the rest of it happens.

Before that, she was avoiding giving identification (she couldn't remember her name? really!?) and didn't know anything about anything. There is a problem with that, not enough to justify the use of coercive physical force, but they should have escalated to a lower level of coercion by giving her context on what her actions were and what they observed. Like, "you called us here because of a disturbance outside and we feel you are avoiding giving us all the information, so what is really going on here?" or "did you call us to scare off someone who was here earlier?"

Again, where and how does that justify escalating to *any* use of force? This is the thing that happens again and again that makes no sense, where cops respond to a call and start harassing the caller if there's not an obvious threat in the area. If they go to a call, there's nothing there to respond to, the person who made the call isn't in distress... why do they keep hanging around pestering the caller for their life story.

I've seen this play out IRL. Someone stole a teenager's wallet while he was hanging out with his friends in a public space. I helped him look for it, it eventually turned up in a trash can about $200 lighter, the usual grab-and-dump that happens with purses and wallets left unattended. Kid didn't have any idea what to do and was freaking because... y'know, sixteen or whatever, that's a shitload of money to have stolen. Cops get called a few minutes later and they show up six deep. Instead of explaining the (limited) options, which basically amounted to "call a parent over so they can file a police report", they harassed the kid and his friends until they got frustrated and left the area. The whole interaction was deeply uncomfortable to watch because the cops kept circling the kid into corners and talking aggressively, like they were trying to provoke a response. No points for guessing the skin colors of the kids and cops.

Another time I called 911 to get an EMS response for a transient guy who was unresponsive lying on the ground in 105 degree heat. I managed to wake him up and get him into the shade with some water. Cops show up first, four deep, loom over him, and the first thing they say is, "ODing again, huh [name]?" Poor guy was on the verge of tears by the time EMS arrived.

It's this pointlessly hostile shithead need to turn every encounter into a fight that some of them seem to have that I genuinely do not understand.

[EuchreJack]

Good(ish) news is that the UK's more likely to hold officers to account. Guy's likely to find himself out on his arse and facing charges after that.

Although as ever, how many go unreported?

Well, they're at least unlikely to give the guy a medal.

@Flying Dice: Police, especially at the local level, are downright encouraged by the "prominent landed gentry" to harass "degenerate folks" into leaving the area. It's their very unofficial job. I mean, why else do the property owners pay thousands of dollars more a year to have village/town law enforcement in addition to their County and State law enforcement?

[Duuvian]

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/12/un-delegates-cheer-as-they-vote-to-approve-increased-surveillance-via-russia-backed-cybercrime-treaty/

From the article:
"For the treaty to go into force, 40 nations have to ratify it. Hopefully the US refuses to, and also pushes for other non-authoritarian countries to reject this treaty as well. It’s a really dangerous agreement, and these kinds of international agreements can cause serious problems once countries agree to them and they enter into force. Terrible treaties, once ratified, are nearly impossible to fix."

I haven't read this one but Mike Masnick seems to be a breath of fresh air in knowing what he's about so I'm going to assume this is not something that will work well. I checked the UN site but it doesn't appear to be updated yet.

[Flying Teasets]

Reagan-appointee U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson ruled Breonna Taylor's boyfriend was at fault and dismissed charges against the officers.

[hector13]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/us/federal-judge-dismisses-felony-charges-louisville-officers-breonna-taylor-raid/index.html

US District Court Judge Charles Simpson ruled Thursday that the decision by Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, to fire his gun when officers burst into the home was “the legal cause of Taylor’s death” – rather than warrantless entry, according to court documents. After Walker fired the shot, thinking the officers were intruders, a volley of gunfire came from police, and Taylor was shot multiple times.

“There is no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor’s death,” the court ruled.

“We are [very] pleased by the Court’s ruling,” Kyle Meany’s attorney Brian Butler told CNN via email.

The judge dropped felony charges against both men, saying the “alleged facts do not fit the … felony offenses as written.”

“Taylor’s death was proximately caused by the manner in which the warrant was executed,” court documents say. “[Kenneth Walker’s] decision to open fire, as alleged and argued, was the natural and probable consequence of executing the warrant at 12:45 a.m. on ‘an unsuspecting household.’ That decision prompted the return fire which hit and killed Taylor.”

It’s… certainly an interpretation of the events, sure. I would suggest that Taylor would be alive had the no-knock warrant been executed, personally.

Heck, if they announced themselves as police, I imagine she’d still be alive, hopefully.

[nenjin]

"Do as we say, not as we do."

[Maximum Spin]

I'm trying to find actual court documents to read, but so far, while no-knock raids are clearly a terrible idea, I think this decision was right as a matter of law. Not all charges were dropped, only specific charges which are being said to pertain to felony deprivation of constitutional rights on the theory that the police used a dangerous weapon to compel Taylor to submit to an unlawful search in violation of the 4th amendment. This is clearly not what happened - she wasn't even the target - so those charges are inapposite. Also, as far as Walker's shooting and not the raid itself being the legal cause of the gunfight, this makes sense too; Kentucky's "castle doctrine" is weak and full of holes, so Walker had no legal right to open fire regardless of whether he believed they were being robbed. It's unfortunate.