No officers directly charged with Breonna Taylor's death

[oxmixmudd]

Which was absolutely the right decision.

Somehow, I simply do not believe that would be your conclusion if the person killed were your own child, or a friend of yours.

[oxmixmudd]

Much more difficult. There are very few instances I can think up where a no knock warrant makes any sense. You can in almost every case, pick the person up when they leave or go elsewhere, etc.. and not risk going into the wrong residence and shooting someone for exercising their rights against home invaders, not risk burning babies with flashbang grenades, not risk shooting kids and other innocent people who might be there or in a neighboring apartment/home, etc. It's sadly the same sort of mindset that led to the disaster of Waco: Koresh regularly went into town. They knew that because they'd been watching him for quite some time.

For once, you and I agree.

[rogue06]

Much more difficult. There are very few instances I can think up where a no knock warrant makes any sense. You can in almost every case, pick the person up when they leave or go elsewhere, etc.. and not risk going into the wrong residence and shooting someone for exercising their rights against home invaders, not risk burning babies with flashbang grenades, not risk shooting kids and other innocent people who might be there or in a neighboring apartment/home, etc. It's sadly the same sort of mindset that led to the disaster of Waco: Koresh regularly went into town. They knew that because they'd been watching him for quite some time.

I had forgotten about the use of a flashbang during a No Knock that maimed an infant a few years back.

The SWAT Team was executing a No-Knock on an alleged meth dealer (who had a weapons conviction) in the middle of the night but the door resisted the battering ram, as if something was up against it. So they threw in a flashbang.

What was up against the door was the crib or playpen and the flashbang landed next to a baby severely burning and disfiguring him.

And the man they had the warrant for wasn't even there.

Here's an account: No indictments for Georgia SWAT team that burned baby with stun grenade


I'm not sure if this is the same incident where a flashbang burned the baby's genitals so severely that the doctors were forced to do gender reassignment surgery or if that was a different one.

[Gondwanaland]

I had forgotten about the use of a flashbang during a No Knock that maimed an infant a few years back.

The SWAT Team was executing a No-Knock on an alleged meth dealer (who had a weapons conviction) in the middle of the night but the door resisted the battering ram, as if something was up against it. So they threw in a flashbang.

What was up against the door was the crib or playpen and the flashbang landed next to a baby severely burning and disfiguring him.

And the man they had the warrant for wasn't even there.

Here's an account: No indictments for Georgia SWAT team that burned baby with stun grenade

Yep myth was given that and quite few other examples other examples, and still chose to make his falsehood-filled assertion that:

Actually I don't support abolishing no-knock warrants because I'm a police officer, and aside from examples of police corruption (thanks for mentioning them, even though they're not relevant) the only people affected by no-knock warrants are drug dealers. And I have very little concern for the safety of criminals who are actively profiting from the death of people with physical/mental illness. Are you a drug dealer? Because otherwise, I'm confused about why you care so much.

And now Amir Locke is added to the tally of innocents.

I'm not sure if this is the same incident where a flashbang burned the baby's genitals so severely that the doctors were forced to do gender reassignment surgery or if that was a different one.

may have been a different one. I know with him it burned through his chest so much that his literal bones of his ribs were visible (also disfigured his face)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Has anyone here ever seen the BBC series Line of Duty? It has been shown on Netflix. The opening episode of series 1 has an armed police response to the home of a suicide bomber. They break into the flat without giving any verbal warning "Armed Police" and shoot the man they see standing there.

Of course it is the wrong flat. They were supposed to go to number 56 but went to number 59 [the 9 on the front door had come loose and dropped down to resemble a 6]. The man is completely innocent and what the police thought they saw was not a suicide vest but a papoose baby carrier that holds his his infant son.

In the police van heading back to the station the leading officer tells the team to all write up their reports stating that they did issue a verbal warning. However, officer Steve Arnott [Martin Compston] refuses to comply with this lie and goes on to work for AC-!2 the internal police anti-corruption unit.

Jed Mercurio wrote six brilliant series that touched on real life incidents including politicians and celebrities abusing children in children's homes and in series 6 we find out that an investigative reporter [who has been murdered] was looking into a historic case of a black man being beaten by a white racist gang and his subsequent death in police custody. His white attackers are never investigated [an oblique reference to the real life murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 where the Met completely bungled [partly through entrenched racism] the investigation into his death at the hands of a white racist gang].

[rogue06]

Yep myth was given that and quite few other examples other examples, and still chose to make his falsehood-filled assertion that:

Actually I don't support abolishing no-knock warrants because I'm a police officer, and aside from examples of police corruption (thanks for mentioning them, even though they're not relevant) the only people affected by no-knock warrants are drug dealers. And I have very little concern for the safety of criminals who are actively profiting from the death of people with physical/mental illness. Are you a drug dealer? Because otherwise, I'm confused about why you care so much.

And now Amir Locke is added to the tally of innocents.

may have been a different one. I know with him it burned through his chest so much that his literal bones of his ribs were visible (also disfigured his face)

There are times that they are definitely warranted but from what I've read is that the use of it has increased sharply with most of them for marijuana offenses. Not the high priority cases that you might imagine.

[myth]

So was Amir Locke a 'drug dealer'? a 'criminal'? No, he was a rideshare driver who legally owned a gun because he was afraid of being held up or killed in Minneapolis while doing his job. He was a young man with his whole future ahead of him. And now he's dead because of the warrants you have defended so vociferously.

I'd PAY to see you walk up to his family ant tell them that 'the only people affected by no-knock warrants are drug dealers'. I doubt you'd walk away with your face looking the same.

I don't know Amir from Adam, and I doubt you do either. So neither one of us can speak authoritatively on that subject. Just because I support the proper use of a methodology doesn't mean I also support it's misuse. I assume you can understand the difference, although you pretend otherwise.

[Gondwanaland]

I don't know Amir from Adam, and I doubt you do either. So neither one of us can speak authoritatively on that subject. Just because I support the proper use of a methodology doesn't mean I also support it's misuse. I assume you can understand the difference, although you pretend otherwise.

You are an opponent of the 2nd amendment and the right of people to defend themselves from home invaders. You are a supporter of the policies that have murdered countless innocent civilians, all because you want to grab someone's drugs before they flush them, and are too lazy to do basic footwork to get your case.

[myth]

You are an opponent of the 2nd amendment and the right of people to defend themselves from home invaders. You are a supporter of the policies that have murdered countless innocent civilians, all because you want to grab someone's drugs before they flush them, and are too lazy to do basic footwork to get your case.

No. What basic footwork, exactly? Please, enlighten me from your vast experience working as a narcotics investigator.

I'm not sure I've seen a single case where a police agency was using best practices and ended up killing some random innocent person. Meaning, the practice is useful and sound -- but it does need proper guard rails. Are there risks involved in any police action? Yes, of course. But those risks have to be weighed against the number of people being killed by the drugs being sold illegally, which is apparently something you are totally unconcerned about. Should every warrant be no-knock? No. Should SOME? Sure. I would even argue that the vast majority of warrants SHOULD involve officers announcing themselves. I'm just not a fan of banning useful methodologies because we're too lazy to figure out how to use them appropriately.

[CivilDiscourse]

You are an opponent of the 2nd amendment and the right of people to defend themselves from home invaders. You are a supporter of the policies that have murdered countless innocent civilians, all because you want to grab someone's drugs before they flush them, and are too lazy to do basic footwork to get your case.

The biggest problem with no-knocks is that EVERYONE involved can act in a reasonable/legal manner, and someone ends up dead, this gets compounded if there's a mistake earlier in the chain (such as going to the wrong address).

The police are going to rely on the element of surprise. This of course means that the occupants of the house would be reasonable in lethally defending themselves during the initial confusion. It also means that police would be reasonable if/when they use lethal force against the occupants of the house in response. Someone's dead, and everyone acted reasonably. This is not a good situation.

[Gondwanaland]

No. What basic footwork, exactly? Please, enlighten me from your vast experience working as a narcotics investigator.

Basic footwork as in arresting people without invading homes while not knocking. Waiting for your drug dealers to move elsewhere with their product. Sitting and waiting. Or just getting a dang regular warrant and serve it.

I'm not sure I've seen a single case where a police agency was using best practices and ended up killing some random innocent person. Meaning, the practice is useful and sound -- but it does need proper guard rails. Are there risks involved in any police action? Yes, of course. But those risks have to be weighed against the number of people being killed by the drugs being sold illegally, which is apparently something you are totally unconcerned about. Should every warrant be no-knock? No. Should SOME? Sure. I would even argue that the vast majority of warrants SHOULD involve officers announcing themselves. I'm just not a fan of banning useful methodologies because we're too lazy to figure out how to use them appropriately.

You've been given multiple examples and dismissed them.

[Gondwanaland]

The biggest problem with no-knocks is that EVERYONE involved can act in a reasonable/legal manner, and someone ends up dead, this gets compounded if there's a mistake earlier in the chain (such as going to the wrong address).

The police are going to rely on the element of surprise. This of course means that the occupants of the house would be reasonable in lethally defending themselves during the initial confusion. It also means that police would be reasonable if/when they use lethal force against the occupants of the house in response. Someone's dead, and everyone acted reasonably. This is not a good situation.

Yep. It's just asking for trouble. And if you're an innocent civilian whose house is broken into and you fire back and kill a cop, you're possibkyheaded to jail for exercising your constitutional rights(can think of at least one recent case in Texas like that)

[Gondwanaland]

Well time for an update. Federal charges have been filed against 4 current and former officers involved. 1 is essentially excessive force charges for the officer, Brett Hankinson, who fired blindly through a covered window.

The other three appear to be people not necessarily involved in the actual shooting itself (as far as I can tell none were present). Instead, they are being charged for falsifying the affadavit that was required to obtain the warrant that led to the shooting and then trying to cover it up and hide it from investigators after the incident, and lying to federal investigators. It appears the officers that served the warrant likely had no idea that their compatriots lied and falsified info to obtain it

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/04/11156...ice-charges-ky

4 current and former officers federally charged in raid that killed Breonna Taylor


Four current and former Louisville, Kentucky, police officers were charged Thursday with federal crimes connected to the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor.

The 26-year-old emergency medical technician was shot and killed by police who had carried out a nighttime "no-knock" warrant to storm her home while she was sleeping with her boyfriend. Believing they were intruders, her boyfriend fired one shot at the officers using a handgun he legally owned. The officers responded by firing 22 bullets, killing Taylor with a shot to the chest.

The fatal shooting of Taylor, a Black woman, galvanized racial justice protests in the spring and summer of 2020, following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The charges against defendants Joshua Jaynes, Kyle Meany, Brett Hankison and Kelly Goodlett, include civil rights violations, conspiracy, use of excessive force offenses and obstruction.

Charging documents state that three of the officers, Jaynes, Meany and Goodlett, lied in order to obtain a warrant they used to search Taylor's apartment in an act that violated federal civil rights laws and led to Taylor's death, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said during a news conference.

"We allege that the defendants knew their actions in falsifying the affidavit could create a dangerous situation, and we allege these unlawful acts resulted in Ms. Taylor's death," Garland said.

Jaynes, a former Louisville Metro Police Department detective, Meany, a current LMPD sergeant, and Goodlett a current LMPD detective, also "took steps to cover up their unlawful conduct" and "conspired to mislead federal, state and local authorities who were investigating the incident," Garland said.

The officers who carried out the search warrant, he added, "were not involved in the drafting of the warrant and were unaware of the false and misleading statements it contained."

In a separate indictment, former Louisville police officer Hankison faces civil rights charges in which he's accused of using excessive force for firing 10 additional shots into Taylor's apartment. Hankison, one of three LMPD officers who entered Taylor's home, was fired in June 2020 for his actions. Earlier this year, a jury found Hankison not guilty on state charges of wanton endangerment.

It was not immediately clear if Jaynes, Meany, Hankison, or Goodlett had an attorney to comment on their behalf.

Joshua Jaynes, former Louisville Police detective

Jaynes drafted and swore out a warrant affidavit for Taylor's home, prosecutors allege in one indictment, "knowing at the time that the affidavit contained false and misleading statements, omitted material information, relied on stale information, and was not supported by probable cause."

In doing so, he willfully violated Taylor's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, according to the indictment.

In a count of conspiracy against Jaynes, the defendant committed several acts with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation of the fatal raid of Taylor's home in March 2020. The indictment cites one instance in May in which Jaynes arranged to meet with Goodlett, a fellow officer charged in a separate filing Thursday, in a garage where they "agreed to tell investigators a false story."

A third count alleges that Jaynes knowingly falsified an investigative letter — that "he knew would be used in a criminal investigation into the preparation of the warrant" — by inserting false information suggesting Taylor's connection to alleged drug trafficking.
Kyle Meany, Louisville Police sergeant


Meany, who, along with Jaynes, deprived Taylor of her constitutional right, according to the first count listed in the indictment, knew the affidavit drawn up by Jaynes containing false and misleading information when he approved it.

In addition, Meany lied to federal investigators, according to the fourth count on the indictment. The indictment alleges that the Louisville police sergeant told an FBI agent that his officers had carried out the "no-knock" warrant at the request of his department's SWAT unit, when in fact he knew that no such request was made.
Brett Hankison, former Louisville Police officer


In a separate indictment, Hankison is accused of depriving Taylor, her boyfriend and her neighbors of their rights when he fired his weapon "after there was no longer a lawful objective justifying the use of deadly force."

After the two fellow officers returned fire, Hankison proceeded away from the doorway to the side of the apartment to shoot 10 bullets through a window and glass door, covered by blinds and a curtain, "with an attempt to kill," the indictment said.
Kelly Goodlett, Louisville Police detective


Goodlett faces one count of conspiracy, according to a third charging document, for working with Jaynes, to submit a false and misleading warrant application.

Before the warrant was executed, prosecutors allege that Jaynes told Goodlett that the target of their drug-selling probe, who has previously been identified as Taylor's ex-boyfriend, was receiving packages at Taylor's address.

Goodlett knew this claim was false, prosecutors said, but did not object to the information or change it in the affidavit. In fact, prosecutors allege, she added a misleading paragraph that said detectives had "verified" recent information that Taylor's home was the current address of the person they believed to be selling drugs — linking Taylor her former boyfriend's criminal activity.

After media publications reported that a postal inspector disputed the claim that Taylor's address was also that of the suspect police believed was selling drugs, Goodlett conspired with Jaynes to coordinate their cover-up story, according to prosecutors.

Not holding my breath, but maybe some justice might just get served after all, though not nearly enough.

[rogue06]

Lying to federal officers is itself a felony so I suspect if convicted there will be jail time involved.