Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

Right but they didn't and that's the point MS. We all understand that the police are doing this within the law - but Justice and Legality are two different things. To me, they knew at least two people would be in the house at 1AM. The no-knock is an act of violence, they were expecting to put the boots to whoever was in there (considered already guilty if they believed evidence to be present). That's the part I have a problem with.

They had a valid warrant and they served it correctly. If you want to blame someone, at least blame the judge who signed off on this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

a warrant so valid that they've been running around like chickens trying to obscure and delete every detail of the warrant, how it was obtained, and what kind of warrant it was

[hector13]

They didn’t need to raid Taylor’s apartment because they clearly had enough to arrest the guy without the evidence they may (or may not!) have received from Taylor’s apartment.

That's... really not how it works. They only need probable cause to arrest. They need evidence if they actually want to charge the guy, and the more evidence, the better.

They raided a drug house to get him. I can’t imagine the senior figures involved would invest their limited resources to plan and execute such a thing if they only had probable cause.

If the police were so worried about the potential loss of apparently key evidence against Glover, why would they knock and announce themselves at Taylor’s apartment, especially when it was a no-knock warrant?

[Bumber]

They raided a drug house to get him. I can’t imagine the senior figures involved would invest their limited resources to plan and execute such a thing if they only had probable cause.

Isn't that kind of the whole point of a warrant? The requirement for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a warrant to get that proof.

[Maximum Spin]

They raided a drug house to get him. I can’t imagine the senior figures involved would invest their limited resources to plan and execute such a thing if they only had probable cause.

Isn't that kind of the whole point of a warrant? The requirement for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a warrant to get that proof.

Exactly this. Arresting on probable cause while getting warrants to find the evidence is normal. I don't know, man (hector), if you are going to just keep refusing to understand how policing works, I don't know what to tell you.

[hector13]

They raided a drug house to get him. I can’t imagine the senior figures involved would invest their limited resources to plan and execute such a thing if they only had probable cause.

Isn't that kind of the whole point of a warrant? The requirement for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a warrant to get that proof.

Judges don’t sign warrants because there might be evidence, they sign warrants because the police are sure the evidence is going to be there, else they’re wasting time, effort, and resources in searching when it may not be there. Search warrants include what evidence the police expect to find.

In this particular instance, the warrant was no knock, a type of warrant issued when, among other things, there is the risk of evidence being destroyed if they announce their presence (presumably because that’s what the police said would happen) but the folks executing the warrant were told to announce themselves anyway, suggesting they didn’t need to worry about that because they had enough already.

Further, if they were so worried that Taylor was involved in some capacity with Glover’s dealings, and were not sure if they would find anything, she’s then free to destroy other evidence if they can’t arrest her for anything. The change to them having to announce themselves means they weren’t worried about, as does the fact she wasn’t named on the warrant.

They raided a drug house to get him. I can’t imagine the senior figures involved would invest their limited resources to plan and execute such a thing if they only had probable cause.

Isn't that kind of the whole point of a warrant? The requirement for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a warrant to get that proof.

Exactly this. Arresting on probable cause while getting warrants to find the evidence is normal. I don't know, man (hector), if you are going to just keep refusing to understand how policing works, I don't know what to tell you.

For somebody who is apparently so protective of their own rights, you’re setting the bar for allowing the police to search property awfully low. Taylor knew Glover so it’s okay for them to execute a no knock warrant on her property at 1am to search for someone else’s drugs? Come on, man.

Again, you’re not going to commit operational resources to arrest someone unless you have enough evidence to charge them with something. They wouldn’t be tracking his movements enough to arrest him 10 miles away at the same time they were raiding Taylor’s apartment if they weren’t absolutely sure they could charge him with something, anything, completely unrelated to the search in Taylor’s apartment because if they didn’t find anything (which is exactly what happened) they’ve wasted the resources for two (admittedly small-scale) operations and pissed off whichever judge they fooled into signing the warrants.

I understand what you’re saying regarding police work, but I think you’re oversimplifying it. Police work happens before the arrest, guys. If the police have committed resources to tracking someone, they’re not just going to arrest them and then hope to find evidence before they make bail or otherwise have to release them, and they’re certainly not going to raid every piece of property of everyone they know in order to find it.

No, they figure out relations between the suspect and other people so they can figure out if anyone else is involved in criminal activity, and certainly so they know what properties on which to execute search warrants.

[Flying Dice]

So, since this is a relevant thing for me and there's some misinformation floating around:

1. There was a prior inquiry into Glover's mail to Taylor's apartment with the USPS well before this case happened. All he ever had delivered to her apartment were some online purchases (IIRC the main thing was a pair of shoes).

2. Glover had already been picked up hours before that raid. The warrants were issued to secure him, not to ransack the homes of all of his known associates for drug stashes.

3. Again, Taylor and Glover were exes, and she was involved with someone else.

4. Walker didn't think it was Glover breaking in. His assumption was that it was bog-standard armed robbery. Twelve witnesses reported that the detectives did not announce themselves or knock before breaking the door down. A single one of those witnesses changed their story under police interrogation.

5. Taylor was not "fired for stealing drugs" for Glover, and so far as is possible to tell had no involvement with his criminal activity whatsoever. This is one of the pieces of misinformation being spread by the same alt-right provocateurs who are pushing the lie that Walker and Glover were the same person. No, really.

6. Walker fired a single shot at what he believed were armed robbers. The detectives fired more than 30 rounds blindly into three apartments. The ballistics didn't even provide any conclusive evidence as to whether Walker's shot was the one that wounded the first asshole through the door, or if it was one of their own panicked shots.


The fact of the matter is that Taylor was gunned down in her own home by badge-wearing thugs who were supposed to be seeking someone who was already in custody, who were operating off a no-knock warrant that may or may not have actually been signed by a judge since the vast majority of Louisville Metro judges deliberately sign with an illegible scrawl so that warrants can't be traced back to them. Glover hadn't lived with her for a good while. Even if they wanted to follow up after he was secured, there was zero reason for there to be a raid at all. This is the sort of situation where a conversation is normally called for, but the detectives who ran the raid all had prior histories of misconduct, including excessive force and sexual misconduct. Moreover, they deliberately withheld medical aid. The EMS first responders were notified only of the injured officer while Taylor was bleeding out on the floor.

[Doomblade187]

Bwomp! This generally aligns with what I've heard from news sites, do you have the sources handy? Would love it share some sourcing to peeps.

[Flying Dice]

Bwomp! This generally aligns with what I've heard from news sites, do you have the sources handy? Would love it share some sourcing to peeps.

Not specifically, that's drawn from a combination of local sources over the past 3 months and contacts in the government grapevine. If you're wanting to know which ones to back-read and follow for more accurate reports: WDRB (Fox-affiliate), WAVE3 (NBC-affiliate), and WHAS11 (ABC-affiliate) are the major local channels and all do a pretty decent job. The Courier-Journal is the major local paper but do have a 5-6 article per month free paywall. The Louisville Defender is the major local African-American-centric paper but doesn't have any real online presence and only publishes weekly.

They're usually pretty good about catching important bits like the EMT who was first on the scene reporting that the call came out as only an officer shot and nothing else, and Mattingly's drunk 2AM mass email to all of LMPD where he asserts that they did the "legal, moral, and ethical thing" when they panicked and magdumped into the front of an apartment complex before trying to shift blame to LMPD and Metro leadership for the department having to be out squashing protests (highlight on him saying that "LMPD won't see color... this week"; the dumbass forgot that he's not supposed to say the overt admissions of racism out loud), and the really nice bit on how judges have worse handwriting than doctors, probably deliberately.

e: Oh yeah, and if y'all want a story to follow, I'm not sure how well this bit of jackbooted fascist intimidation tactics, nothing's-changed-since-the-60s shit made national news. State Rep. Attica Scott, who's been one of the big pillars of political support for the protests, got arrested and brought up on trumped-up felony charges last Wednesday. She was out marching again after the grand jury news broke and was making her way to a church offering safe haven just before the curfew. A bunch of LMPD cops cornered and forcibly detained her until after the curfew began, then arrested her for being out after curfew. They slapped on felony rioting charges as well -- follow the bouncing ball closely on this one. LMPD's operating under an extremely loose interpretation of a state law which they say allows them to hit any member of a crowd or march with felony rioting charges if a single member of that crowd does something warranting those charges. During a march in downtown Louisville that Scott was in, an unidentified person that stinks of police agitator broke a window at the main library and tossed a lit flare inside, then disappeared while other marchers tried to corner them. That's what they're using as justification for slapping a state legislator with felony charges.

Of course every damn person in the city knows it's because she's a black woman politician who has been outspoken against police brutality, active at protests, and who worked to get no-knock warrants banned in Kentucky + mandate body cam use while serving warrants and require explicit authorization from the judge for violent entry. Note that both the library PR people and union said that damage to the library was trivial, that nobody in that march could identify the person that broke the window, and that the person who did it was never found or charged. Pig tactics never fucking change.

[Maximum Spin]

Judges don’t sign warrants because there might be evidence,

Lord, yes they do. Judges will sign anything you put in front of them, honestly.

they sign warrants because the police are sure the evidence is going to be there, else they’re wasting time, effort, and resources in searching when it may not be there. Search warrants include what evidence the police expect to find.

"sure" is distinctly inaccurate. "strongly suspect" would be better. Remember, the police were ostensibly told that evidence would be there, and probably had a vague idea what that evidence would be, although I will note that specifications of evidence like "all proceeds of drug-related activities" or whatever aren't uncommon, for which see above re: judges.

In this particular instance, the warrant was no knock, a type of warrant issued when, among other things, there is the risk of evidence being destroyed if they announce their presence (presumably because that’s what the police said would happen) but the folks executing the warrant were told to announce themselves anyway, suggesting they didn’t need to worry about that because they had enough already.

I'm not convinced it suggests that, it could have suggested other things such as "they did not think the inhabitants would have been able to destroy any evidence in this situation", or who knows what asinine thought process could have been involved. The important part I want to pick out here, though, is "they had enough already". Like I said before, "the law is entitled to every man's evidence" — they may have had "enough" to, say, arrest and charge the guy, but you always want more. For example, maybe they wanted to pursue additional charges, or maybe they just wanted to make a bigger pile to show the jury.

Further, if they were so worried that Taylor was involved in some capacity with Glover’s dealings, and were not sure if they would find anything, she’s then free to destroy other evidence if they can’t arrest her for anything. The change to them having to announce themselves means they weren’t worried about, as does the fact she wasn’t named on the warrant.

Again, neither of those things really show that they weren't worried about it in the abstract. Yes, I mentioned before that it was a pretty dumb plan.

For somebody who is apparently so protective of their own rights, you’re setting the bar for allowing the police to search property awfully low. Taylor knew Glover so it’s okay for them to execute a no knock warrant on her property at 1am to search for someone else’s drugs? Come on, man.

I thought I was clear before that I hate this? I don't want the police to be allowed to enter private property without the homeowner's consent at all. Nevertheless, I didn't draft the Constitution. Trust me, it'd be a lot better if I had. As it stands, the bar for allowing the police to search property is "probable cause".

Again, you’re not going to commit operational resources to arrest someone unless you have enough evidence to charge them with something. They wouldn’t be tracking his movements enough to arrest him 10 miles away at the same time they were raiding Taylor’s apartment if they weren’t absolutely sure they could charge him with something, anything, completely unrelated to the search in Taylor’s apartment because if they didn’t find anything (which is exactly what happened) they’ve wasted the resources for two (admittedly small-scale) operations and pissed off whichever judge they fooled into signing the warrants.

This assumes two things: 1) that judges care at all (see above), 2) that police care about wasting resources more than they care about getting as much evidence and pushing through as many charges as possible. Neither is true. The problem here is that you keep saying "enough evidence" like there is really such a thing, when I keep trying to explain that the police want ALL the evidence.

I understand what you’re saying regarding police work, but I think you’re oversimplifying it. Police work happens before the arrest, guys. If the police have committed resources to tracking someone, they’re not just going to arrest them and then hope to find evidence before they make bail or otherwise have to release them,

Ehhh, happens more than you'd think. Granted moreso when they pick the guy up for totally unrelated reasons, unlike this case where he appears to have been targeted, but nobody said the police have to be good at their jobs, you know?

and they’re certainly not going to raid every piece of property of everyone they know in order to find it.

Well, no, because they wouldn't have probable cause. But if someone tipped them off to a particular property, and the tip doesn't actually have to be any good (see above re: judges signing everything), they absolutely would.

I'd like to think that there is more protecting my home and body from having my door busted down at 1AM by men with guns than 'probable cause.'

You'd be wrong, read the 4th amendment again.

Unfortunately, it's most likely that thing keeping me safe is my skin color.

Nah, man, it's your social class. I keep trying to explain this, social class matters waaaaaaay more in America than race. It just happens to correlate somewhat, but the marginal cases all turn on social class more than race. If you knew more rich black people you'd find this obvious like I do.

[Bumber]

2. Glover had already been picked up hours before that raid. The warrants were issued to secure him, not to ransack the homes of all of his known associates for drug stashes.

Glover stated he overheard the police radio mentioning shots fired at Taylor's address while he was still handcuffed outside the house where they arrested him.
Warrant for Glover was executed at some point after 12:15 a.m. (which the police later tried to edit to 12:40 a.m.) Warrant for Taylor was executed at 12:40 a.m.

Warrants are right here: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Breonna-Taylor-search-warrants.pdf
They name Jamarcus Cordell Glover, Adrian Orlandes Walker (no relation to Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker,) and Breonna Taylor.
They authorize the seizure of drugs, drug money, weapons, and any documentation of illegal activity.

6. Walker fired a single shot at what he believed were armed robbers. The detectives fired more than 30 rounds blindly into three apartments. The ballistics didn't even provide any conclusive evidence as to whether Walker's shot was the one that wounded the first asshole through the door, or if it was one of their own panicked shots.

It was later determined that the bullet that hit the officer was of a different caliber than the ones the police were using:

Mattingly was struck by a 9 mm round; officers on scene all carried .40 caliber handguns.

Also, to clear up some further misinformation from SalmonGod's post:

Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine played partial recordings of police interviews with Walker during a May 22 news conference in which Walker told police that he and Taylor were watching a movie in bed — it was “watching them more than we were watching it,” he said — when they heard a loud bang at the door, scaring both of them.
...
Taylor and Kenneth Walker were in bed when they heard the banging on the apartment door at approximately 12:40 a.m.,according to statements Walker made to police.

But they got out of bed before police entered, and Taylor died on her hallway floor.

Taylor wasn't shot asleep in her bed.

[SalmonGod]

Also, to clear up some further misinformation from SalmonGod's post:

Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine played partial recordings of police interviews with Walker during a May 22 news conference in which Walker told police that he and Taylor were watching a movie in bed — it was “watching them more than we were watching it,” he said — when they heard a loud bang at the door, scaring both of them.
...
Taylor and Kenneth Walker were in bed when they heard the banging on the apartment door at approximately 12:40 a.m.,according to statements Walker made to police.

But they got out of bed before police entered, and Taylor died on her hallway floor.

Taylor wasn't shot asleep in her bed.

Oh, ok.  Thanks for clearing up that critical misinformation.  This completely changes my perspective on the whole event.  I can see now why the police's actions in this case were completely sensible and justified.  If we just spread this information to everyone, we could end the protests overnight.  Everyone would understand and move on.  This outrage is all due to misinformation, it seems.

[TD1]

Is sarcasm really how you should respond to a reasoned rebuttal of your statements?

[ShinQuickMan]

It's not a rebuttal. It's nitpicking, at best.

[TD1]

Statement:

If you think being murdered in your sleep because police showed up to the wrong address

Rebuttal:

Also, to clear up some further misinformation from SalmonGod's post:

Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine played partial recordings of police interviews with Walker during a May 22 news conference in which Walker told police that he and Taylor were watching a movie in bed — it was “watching them more than we were watching it,” he said — when they heard a loud bang at the door, scaring both of them.
...
Taylor and Kenneth Walker were in bed when they heard the banging on the apartment door at approximately 12:40 a.m.,according to statements Walker made to police.

But they got out of bed before police entered, and Taylor died on her hallway floor.

Taylor wasn't shot asleep in her bed.

Objectively, this is a rebuttal. Subjectively, it may also be nitpicking. Personally, however, I feel it's not. Deliberately spreading emotive misinformation such as "the Germans cook children and eat them" is propagandist and dangerous. It may sway people to your cause. But it is a lie.