Can anyone explain ...

... how three men can force their way into an apartment and shoot the young woman living there six times and face only the most minor charges.

Because, it makes no sense to me at all.
«1345

Comments

  • No justice 😢
  • Nope, it makes no sense.

    If you unpick it you see lots of unconscious assumptions and prejudices at work.

    No knock warrants? Well, they'll only be used on drug dealers...

    Sensible academic lawyers always ask the question: what if the suspect is innocent and we enact this power?

    Populists politicians say; it's them not you and we all know they're guilty of something...

    This is what systemic racism looks like.

    AFZ
  • The only charges I know of are for *one* cop, who shot 3-4 times into another apartment. Charge mentioned "wanton disregard for life", etc.

    The discussion I heard about on NPR confused me. It *sounded* like that cop shot into the other apartment from outside the door of Brehona's apartment. I can't even envision that, unless the cop went full berzerk crazy. It would make tragic sense if the cop shot from inside Brehonna's apartment, and some bullets went through the wall.

    But not charging anyone for killing Brehonna--not even for some kind of lesser charge--makes no sense to me, either.

    Same old, same old. :( :votive:
  • They were only Obeying Orders. They were enacting the policy wishes of the executive.

    That does not make it even slightly better.
  • edited September 2020
    With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.

    If someone breaks into your home in the night, and you are legally armed, that is going to be your moment to use your gun. Why else have it?

    If you are an armed policeman on a raid and someone uses a gun on you, you are going to return fire. Why else be armed?

    So to reduce public (our) outrage at the inevitable deaths and injuries, you have to make certain you only ever raid the address of the guilty (of something) - where the deaths and injuries get mushed in the minds of the public into some kind of just sentence on those untried, and the outrage diminishes. But that certainty is impossible, and anyway only hides a shocking extra-judicial maiming or murder.

    The legislature made that happen - or at least more likely - when they decided to send the coppers in with a 'no-knock' scenario. If I were a copper, I would resign if I could afford to do so. Or perhaps (seriously) stand around with hands in pockets and wait to be shot. What else to do?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    It's like the possibility of retreating to outside the building and regrouping never occurred to them.

    I suppose if you know if enough for a warrant you could plan your raid in advance. Maybe use surveillance to check the target is alone for example, maybe chuck tear gas through the window and wait for the person to come out or some other strategy that doesn't involve a really really obviously high risk of a shoot out.
  • With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.
    Good police work and training before smashing in a door?

    In all the accounts I've seen it's been stated that the 'no-knock' warrant was granted on the basis of a suspicion that the ex-boyfriend was using the apartment as a place for drugs packages to be delivered to. Before smashing in the door in the middle of the night, where was the surveillance of the property to see if there were packages being delivered, or if people were leaving with packages to pass onto the ex-boyfriend? The police work investigating what was happening to get evidence to support the application for a warrant to enter and search the property. Or, why not wait until both people there were out at work to enter and search? No chance of anyone shooting back then.

    Added to which, these were supposedly well trained, professional police officers. One shot is fired at them by someone with probably no training, who's only just woken up and isn't alert, hitting one of the intruders in the leg. The cops return fire, with 20 rounds - 6 hit the unarmed resident, some even get fired into the neighbours apartment and none hit the person shooting at them. As well as the cops who fired, there's basis there for charging those who'd trained them as their training was clearly inadequate if they're not as good with their guns as the man defending himself when rudely awakened in the middle of the night.
  • It is now being said that it wasn't a no knock warrant because they shouted police just before ramming the door down - which begs the question of whether they waited to see if anyone responded to their identification of themselves. Or say broke down the door and then waited out of line of fire yelling "police" or any other variant of checking disorientated people woken in the middle of the night know they are there.
  • I think Schroedingers Cat is right, it's a weird version of following orders, but in a racist regime, this means shooting black people, because, well, they're standing there. Or sleeping while black.
  • At a time when it's reasonable to expect people to be asleep, simply shouting "police!" before smashing in a door is effectively pointless - most people don't wake up with a single shouted word, and even if they do they're not going to recognise what was shouted. The other week I woke to the sound and light of a significant fire outside my flat and it took a few minutes before it registered that there was something to check out.

    Banging on the door, shouting "Police!" and then smashing in the door is functionally identical to just smashing in the door.
  • Also being said that *one* witness confirmed that the police shouted--but many others didn't confirm it.
  • ... how three men can force their way into an apartment and shoot the young woman living there six times and face only the most minor charges.

    Because, it makes no sense to me at all.

    The sense of it is racism. I'm not saying that that is a sensible doctrine, but if a police force is imbued with it, and encouraged by the government, killings like this seem inevitable, unless you have an enlightened police force, that is not structurally racist. Well, you can dream.
  • When the Met gunned down Jean Charles de Menezes, I don't think one single civilian witness agreed with another - and the Met officers all exactly agreed with each other.

    But the broad consensus was that the Met were mostly lying, and the civvies were mostly telling the truth as they experienced it.
  • I think cops are bad and all cops are bastards, but it’s being deliberately unclear to characterize the officers as just “three men who forced their way into the apartment.” They were three cops who poorly executed a bad search warrant and killed a woman after her boyfriend justifiably fired upon them.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    O - so that makes it OK, then? If it does, why kill her , and not the man who fired?
  • Louisville is a very segregated city and its police are notorious. Here's an article from back in May on some of that history.

    During the BLM protests over Breonna Taylor's death, the National Guard killed another innocent person and the police shot two journalists with pepper bullets while they were reporting live on TV. When the mayor attended the police roll call to discuss making some reforms they walked out on him.

    This is why people are talking about "defund the police" and "abolish the police" - because the harm to Black citizens, and the policy of treating all of them as criminals, is baked so deeply into the system that it can't be reformed away.
  • O - so that makes it OK, then? If it does, why kill her , and not the man who fired?

    Did I say that makes it okay? No. I said all cops are bastards. But the problem is with the police, not three random men who broke into an apartment and killed someone, which is what the OP made it sound like. Focus on the police.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    When the Met gunned down Jean Charles de Menezes, I don't think one single civilian witness agreed with another - and the Met officers all exactly agreed with each other.

    But the broad consensus was that the Met were mostly lying, and the civvies were mostly telling the truth as they experienced it.
    Eyewitness are horrible. It takes a lot of skill to interview witnesses to glean as much of what actually happened as possible. And, combined with the skill, your intent has to be to want the truth.
    One thing that is very clear, if all of a group exactly agree, they are lying. It is as close to impossible for that to occur naturally as just about anything can be.
  • With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.
    Fucking bullshit. Most of the US populace doesn't have guns. Most of the those that do have guns happen to also have colour of skin less likely to be penetrated by police bullets in the same situations.

  • With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.

    It can be prevented by not breaking in to people's homes in the middle of the night. Even if people are armed, it's quite possible to arrest them without provoking a shootout. "No-knock" warrants are very much more risky for the suspect and anyone they live with, and I'm not convinced they're less risky for the police, although that is their intention.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    O - so that makes it OK, then? If it does, why kill her , and not the man who fired?

    Did I say that makes it okay? No. I said all cops are bastards. But the problem is with the police, not three random men who broke into an apartment and killed someone, which is what the OP made it sound like. Focus on the police.

    The OP did not refer to 'random' men.

    But yes - the problem is indeed with the *police*.

    However, you said: They were three cops who poorly executed a bad search warrant and killed a woman after her boyfriend justifiably fired upon them.

    To me, that sounds as though you are making excuses for them.
  • We watched the first episode of Neflix "Line of Duty". It isn't of a spoiler, but:
    If you have Netflix, watch the first 10 or 12 minutes.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    O - so that makes it OK, then? If it does, why kill her , and not the man who fired?

    Did I say that makes it okay? No. I said all cops are bastards. But the problem is with the police, not three random men who broke into an apartment and killed someone, which is what the OP made it sound like. Focus on the police.

    The OP did not refer to 'random' men.

    But yes - the problem is indeed with the *police*.

    However, you said: They were three cops who poorly executed a bad search warrant and killed a woman after her boyfriend justifiably fired upon them.

    To me, that sounds as though you are making excuses for them.

    I prefaced what I said by saying all cops are bastards and that I think cops are bad. How you then arrive I could defend the cops in extra-judicial murder is beyond me.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I said 'that sounds as though you are making excuses'...if you say that you're not, fair enough.
  • And regarding whether or not the police identified themselves.
    People who have never been in a stressful situation such as having one's door forcefully broken in with no warning might think it is as simple as the police announcing themselves. It is not.
    In the stress and adrenaline siltation such as that, what you hear and your brain process in the moment are different things. A no-knock warrant amplifies the probability of error.
  • The New York Times podcast The Daily did a very good two part reporting on the Breonna Taylor case. It’s all dumb and the police are terrible and should be defunded, but at least no-knock warrants have been outlawed in Kentucky.
  • With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.

    It can be prevented by not breaking in to people's homes in the middle of the night. Even if people are armed, it's quite possible to arrest them without provoking a shootout. "No-knock" warrants are very much more risky for the suspect and anyone they live with, and I'm not convinced they're less risky for the police, although that is their intention.
    I'm not convinced it is. I mean, that might be the label, but what's in the tin is more likely 'have time to dispose of evidence'.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I think cops are bad and all cops are bastards, but it’s being deliberately unclear to characterize the officers as just “three men who forced their way into the apartment.” They were three cops who poorly executed a bad search warrant and killed a woman after her boyfriend justifiably fired upon them.

    I think the point of "random men" is that they were in plainclothes. That is, there was no way for the boyfriend to know they were cops when they smashed in his door when he was sleeping. Being a licensed gun owner, it was his legal right to shoot at home invaders. If the police had been in uniform and maybe not smashed in the door in the middle of the night he would have known not to shoot at them.

    Ask Philando Castile how much good it does you to be a licensed gun owner if your skin is the wrong color...
  • The BBC report I linked to above doesn't mention the fact that the police were in plainclothes. They are described as 'narcotics officers' - are such officers usually in plainclothes when carrying out such raids?

    They would indeed have seemed like any common-or-garden felon, bent on murder or robbery, to someone suddenly woken from sleep by having his door bashed down...

    Doesn't make the ghastly situation any better, of course.
  • When trying to watch a suspect without raising attention to yourself, it's reasonable for police to be in plainclothes.

    When crashing into a property in the middle of the night, first change into your uniform and add as much hi-vis identifies that you're police that you can find.
  • I’ve not read any reports or heard any reports saying that the cops were in Plainclothes, at least not that I remember,
  • Legally it's a tangle. The police claim they announced themselves. Mr. Walker claims he never heard them do so. If they yelled out "Police" at the same time they were bashing in the door the sound of the latter probably drowned out the sound of the former. Under those circumstances Mr. Walker has a legal right to use his gun in self-defense against a presumed home invasion. Unfortunately once he does so the police have the same right to self-defense in returning fire. It's very difficult to successfully prosecute a murder or manslaughter charge under those circumstances.

    One of the things that has received less coverage is that the no-knock warrant was (allegedly) issued based upon deliberately false information.
    The attorneys representing Breonna Taylor's family in their lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police say officers provided "false information" in the affidavit used to secure a no-knock search warrant for Taylor's home.

    <snip>

    Records show the warrant police used to enter Taylor's apartment connected her with a narcotics suspect, Jamarcus Glover, who was arrested in a separate raid that night at a house 10 miles away.

    A detective wrote in an affidavit that he'd seen Glover leave Taylor's apartment about two months before with a USPS package before driving to a "known drug house." The detective wrote that he then verified "through a US Postal Inspector" that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylor's address.

    A U.S. postal inspector in Louisville, however, told WDRB News Friday that LMPD didn't use his office to verify that Glover was receiving packages at Taylor's apartment.

    Postal inspector Tony Gooden told WDRB that a different agency had asked in January to look into whether Taylor's home was receiving suspicious mail, but that the office had concluded it wasn't.

    "There's no packages of interest going there," Gooden told the news outlet.

    If true, that sounds like perjury and, if the detective discussed this with other officers, conspiracy. But apparently no one is willing to open that particular can of worms for fear of discovering that a lot of drug-related warrants are issued based on knowingly false statements.
  • Good God - is this a diabolical way of 'officially' committing some sort of *justifiable* culling of black people, by knowingly using false information?

    A can of worms, indeed...
    :scream:
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I’ve not read any reports or heard any reports saying that the cops were in Plainclothes, at least not that I remember,
    It probably wouldn't have made much difference. Middle of the night, probably the only light was from flashlights held by the police and light from the hallway. All anyone would have seen would be people silhouetted against the light through the remains of the door. You'd need good old traditional British copper police helmets that even in silhouette are a very distinctive shape.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I’ve not read any reports or heard any reports saying that the cops were in Plainclothes, at least not that I remember,

    This CNN account describes the three officers as "plainclothes narcotics officers".
    None of the three officers who entered Taylor's apartment wore body cameras, the department said, since they were plainclothes narcotics officers.

    It's possible that they weren't in plainclothes when they served that warrant, but if the excuse for them not wearing body cameras that night is that they were plainclothes officers, that implies they were in plainclothes during the shooting.

    Of course, photos taken that day show them wearing at least some police identifiers. They also show one officer wearing a body camera and another wearing a body camera mount which leads to a couple of unpleasant possibilities:
    1. Body camera footage exists and the Louisville Metro Police Department has suppressed or destroyed it.
    2. LMPD narcotics officers routinely remove body cameras when serving warrants, defeating the purpose of police body cameras.
  • Good God - is this a diabolical way of 'officially' committing some sort of *justifiable* culling of black people, by knowingly using false information?

    A can of worms, indeed...
    :scream:
    Short answer is no. It is a way of justifying action that otherwise would not meet scrutiny.
    To be clear, the police usually assume there is the possibility of illegal activity. The problem is that the assumptions will more likely be made for people of colour and that during the action, animus will be more likely assumed if the person has a surfeit of melanin. Also the police operates under the assumption that they will be supported in their actions if the victims are not white.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I’ve not read any reports or heard any reports saying that the cops were in Plainclothes, at least not that I remember,

    This CNN account describes the three officers as "plainclothes narcotics officers".
    None of the three officers who entered Taylor's apartment wore body cameras, the department said, since they were plainclothes narcotics officers.

    It's possible that they weren't in plainclothes when they served that warrant, but if the excuse for them not wearing body cameras that night is that they were plainclothes officers, that implies they were in plainclothes during the shooting.

    Of course, photos taken that day show them wearing at least some police identifiers. They also show one officer wearing a body camera and another wearing a body camera mount which leads to a couple of unpleasant possibilities:
    1. Body camera footage exists and the Louisville Metro Police Department has suppressed or destroyed it.
    2. LMPD narcotics officers routinely remove body cameras when serving warrants, defeating the purpose of police body cameras.
    I don't think there is any way to look at the result and not conclude that the police are seriously in the wrong.
  • With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.

    If someone breaks into your home in the night, and you are legally armed, that is going to be your moment to use your gun. Why else have it?

    If you are an armed policeman on a raid and someone uses a gun on you, you are going to return fire. Why else be armed?

    So to reduce public (our) outrage at the inevitable deaths and injuries, you have to make certain you only ever raid the address of the guilty (of something)

    Or just don't raid homes at all. Hostage situation, sure. Raid away. Home of some one person accused of some crime? No. There are other ways to apprehend suspects.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    With a legally-armed populace, I can't see how this can be prevented.

    If someone breaks into your home in the night, and you are legally armed, that is going to be your moment to use your gun. Why else have it?

    If you are an armed policeman on a raid and someone uses a gun on you, you are going to return fire. Why else be armed?

    So to reduce public (our) outrage at the inevitable deaths and injuries, you have to make certain you only ever raid the address of the guilty (of something)

    Or just don't raid homes at all. Hostage situation, sure. Raid away. Home of some one person accused of some crime? No. There are other ways to apprehend suspects.

    Agreed. Especially in the case of a drug bust. Like, really, is blowing into a home at midnight going to solve any problems that suddenly seizing the person during the day wouldn't? Absurd. The police should act in the open with the powers they, supposedly, legally possess. Not shove them down people's throats in the middle of the night.
  • To whatever extent there was any thought involved, they might have figured that a) the suspect would be home, and b) would be asleep.

    If they had the right person, who really was dangerous, and really had done something awful, that might have worked. Other than the no-knock warrant and (possible) plain clothes.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I don't think there is any way to look at the result and not conclude that the police are seriously in the wrong.

    Agreed. It is, perhaps, less obvious how much blame accrues to the individual officers executing the warrant / breaking down the door vs how much accrues to the officer(s) involved in deciding that that was the correct course of action. They might, of course, be the same people.
  • After the death of Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, the Met police were eventually successfully prosecuted under Health and Safety legislation for the systemic failure that led to his death. Which was not a perfect solution, but better than nothing.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ...During the BLM protests over Breonna Taylor's death, the National Guard killed another innocent person and the police shot two journalists with pepper bullets while they were reporting live on TV. ...
    Journalists are definitely being targeted by these rogue cops, and being targeted with all manner of dangerous substances (isn't it interesting that it's illegal under international law to use tear gas in wartime situations against declared enemies, but okay to use against American citizens who are peacefully demonstrating?) and being beaten, to boot.

    Said journalists are simply doing their jobs, and are explicitly protected under the First Amendment. But that doesn't stop thugs from using them for target practice.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...During the BLM protests over Breonna Taylor's death, the National Guard killed another innocent person and the police shot two journalists with pepper bullets while they were reporting live on TV. ...
    Journalists are definitely being targeted by these rogue cops,

    "Rogue"? Whatever makes you think they're rogue? This is business as usual, as black people have been trying to tell us for 60+ years.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...During the BLM protests over Breonna Taylor's death, the National Guard killed another innocent person and the police [url="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisville-police-shoot-reporter-with-pepper-bullets-during-protest-on-my state's live-tv/"]shot two journalists[/url] with pepper bullets while they were reporting live on TV. ...
    Journalists are definitely being targeted by these rogue cops,

    "Rogue"? Whatever makes you think they're rogue? This is business as usual, as black people have been trying to tell us for 60+ years.

    Probably a typo. Ross no doubt meant "cop rogues."

    The community college where I teach includes my state's Police Training Academy. While various student cops are often fine upstanding individuals, as a group it's student cops in my experience who present the bulk of the disciplinary issues in the classroom.
  • ohher--

    Let me guess, based on school, field trips, long interstate bus trips, etc.:

    They (of whatever age) sit in a group in the back of the class, or the bus (no racial factor, in this case); chuckle at jokes, make a lot of smart-ass remarks, and/or sit depressed and angry? Possibly even targeting the teacher?

    I know that a lot of kids go through that phase and come out ok. Maybe a lot of grownups do, too. But, IME, bullying behavior doesn't always go away.
  • Another very bad story. I've been trying to avoid it, because it's so disturbing. I've avoided the articles, but accidentally saw a pic--and so will you, if you look at this:

    "Shocking Video Shows Seattle Cop Rolling Bike Over Fallen Breonna Taylor Protester’s Head and Neck" (Daily Beast, via Yahoo).

  • The first 20 minutes or so of today's Opening Arguments podcast covers this with intelligence and insight as well as appropriate anger.

    https://openargs.com/oa424-no-charges-for-breonnas-killer/

    Highly recommended.

    AFZ
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    When the Met gunned down Jean Charles de Menezes, I don't think one single civilian witness agreed with another - and the Met officers all exactly agreed with each other.

    In the case of de Menezes, you had the PR unit of the Met put out the story that he had been run into the station and vaulted over the ticket barrier and seemed to be trailing wires, all lies.
Sign In or Register to comment.