Addendum:

"Say her name!"

:fear:
:angry:

A thought: had Breonna Taylor been hit by all the bullets fired by her murderer, he would not have been charged at all. He was charged, in other words, for not shooting her enough.

I'm gonna go lawyerly for a moment which result you might not like, based on the info on the Wikipedia page "Shooting of Breonna Taylor".

There's disagreement how the cops entered, particularly whether they announced themselves. There's no definitive proof one way or the other. The working hypothesis then has to be that we should try to reach a decision without this being a factor one way or another.

Walker fired on a cop first under the assumption they were being burglared. Cops fired back. Those cops that didn't fire through a wall and had line of sight to their target, would prima facie not be doing anything wrong. Anyone firing without line of sight is potentially endangering innocents. In Dutch this would be described as either "voorwaardelijke opzet" or "bewuste roekeloosheid" which respectively translates as "conditional intent" (you know there's a risk and wilfully take the risk) or "cognizant recklessness" (you are aware of the risk but dismiss it as unlikely). The difference is hair thin, which is why I mention both. But it would be the difference between manslaughter and murder in the 2nd degree. Some reports stated one of the police officers fired through a window with blinds down but it also appears impossible Breonna was hit by that. If such a person would've hit her, it would've been manslaughter at least. It seems likely, but not clear from the wiki-page, it was these shots that prompted the successful claim from the neighbours and indictment.

I said previously, that firing when having a line of sight is prima facie an argument for no wrongdoing (since Walker fired first). We don't know how Walker moved through the appartment, the positioning of the cops and the trajectories of their bullets. If the spread of the bullets is explained by either a) Walker moving or b) the different positions of the cops. Then the firing cannot be said to be reckless.

If the spread cannot be explained in such a way and the cops fired so wildly that grouping of their shots was impossible, I think we're once again at "cognizant recklessness". However, being shot at would probably excuse that and a jury would accept even trained cops being shot at would forget their training and unload their guns.

Based on that; no justice for Breonna Taylor.

The problem is, I think, that the likelihood of the cops lying about their "knock and announce" is relatively high. Of the 20 neighbours interviewed only one heard "police!". Walker's initial statement to the police claims he repeatedly asked "who is it?" and didn't receive an answer. They also lied previously about the US Postal Inspector's involvement. The warrant stated packages with drugs arrived at Taylor's appartment and that this was confirmed by the US Postal Inspector. In fact, "the U.S. postal inspector in Louisville publicly announced that the collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they concluded, "There's [sic] no packages of interest going there."" It also appears one of them might have been wearing a bodycam but that was probably off.

This doesn't pass "beyond a reasonable" doubt though and the conclusion, from a legal point of view, seems correct.

Of course, if they did lie, it would've at least been manslaughter by all three cops.

The boyfriend fired one shot in self-defense when the apartment door was broken down. The police reflexively returned fire. They had precipitated the situation which triggered gunfire in the first place. Three officers fired nearly two dozens rounds in reaction to one discharge, which means well after the boyfriend stopped shooting. As a result, an innocent women was killed with a half-dozen bullets through her body.

The city of Louisville settled "wrongful death" civil suit with Breonna Taylor's family recently for $12 million dollars. The special prosecutor, however, steered a grand jury not to indict any of the three officers for Ms. Taylor's officially designated "wrongful death". This flagrant inconsistency strongly suggests a miscarriage of justice (i.e. cover-up). Manslaughter for each police officer at minimum; perhaps 2nd degree murder, etc pending evidence of other aggravating circumstances (e.g. unannounced break-in with a "knock and announce warrant", etc).

The upshot: Black (brown, red & poor) citizens are not safe even in our homes in America. Old story. Especially because police in the U.S. are 99 out of 100 times unaccountable for wanton, reckless, uses of deadly force on unarmed citizens of color. And because the right of self-defense is, in effect, denied as a presumption when a PoC is a licensed gun owner (e.g. Philando Castile et al).

New York Times Sept. 24, 2020 article (scroll down to investigative reporting of Ms. Taylor's killing).

The settlement is legally irrelevant as its not a circumstance surrounding the shooting itself. I can settle for all sorts of reasons other than guilt.

The point I was trying to make was that given the facts, that seem to have been available to the jury, another decision wans't possible. There's a lot of factors surrounding this case that make it stink but it also needs to stick.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

:clap:

Nonsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.

The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. No, Benkei, I think your interpretation of "the facts" misses the forest for the trees.

Maybe @Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter.

I differ. Having taken on the project, they were responsible all the way through for its consequences, including the unintended consequences. To say otherwise is to say they are not responsible for what they do.

Further, there are so many guns in the US that every person and every household must be presumed to have one. Many do not, of course, but that cannot be the presumption. And a question, if bad guys break in and identify themselves as police, what does the defense-minded homeowner do in that case?

And was a break-in necessary? The element of surprise? What good did that do? And who was the more surprised? It was all disgustingly unnecessary and incompetent. Criminally incompetent. — tim wood

Many of which can not be led back sufficiently clearly to actions by the cops. There are a variety of contributory factors, many of which are not proximate causes and ought to be dismissed.

Nonsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.

The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. — 180 Proof

Again, on the basis of the facts available to the jury, this was the only conclusion they could reach. That further investigations would unearth additional evidence is neither here nor there. You cannot ask the jury to indict on facts not available to them.

Edit: if your complaint is the prosecutors have taken a wrong turn and should've pursued a different strategy, I think that's a different discussion.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

:up:

Benkei doesn't seem to understand that a grand jury (for deciding whether or not to indict suspects on the sole basis of the prosecution's 'theory of case' without any cross-examination of evidence or witnesses) is not the same body as a trial jury (for deciding whether or not to convict defendents) in the American judicial system. The prosecutor apparently chose to make the case for the police who killed Breonna Taylor as if he was their defense attorney rather than the attorney for the public, which includes Ms. Taylor's interests.

Again, on the basis of the facts available to the jury ... — Benkei

:shade:

onsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.

The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. No, Benkei, I think your interpretation of "the facts" misses the forest for the trees.

Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof

This isn't correct.

Facts that are discovered in a civil suit can be used in a criminal suit, but a "finding" cannot, at least to the extent you're using that term to mean an official determination by the jury. That is to say, the fact that a prior jury reached a particular result cannot be used in a subsequent legal proceeding to prove that fact. Juries don't bind one another and their prior finding cannot be used to sway a second jury.

The reason that it might make sense to settle a civil wrongful death suit but not prosecute the same matter in the criminal context is because civil cases have a much lower burden of proof than criminal ones. The fact that I might be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (>50% likelihood) the officers acted improperly doesn't mean I can prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt (~99% likely).

Civil cases are often delayed until after the criminal case for a number of reasons. A major reason is because those charged with crimes have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, which means they have the right to refuse to answer any question posed of them about anything related to the crime. Once the criminal matter is dispensed with, the person may speak freely without fear that what he says will be used against him and land him in jail. Another reason they are delayed is that the prosecutor is not required to provide anything from his file pursuant to an opens records request while there is a pending investigation. Once that is cleared, all that information can be shared.

Civil suits are settled all the time for reasons unrelated to whether there is a belief that a jury will award a higher amount (or any amount) if the case is tried. Corporations (and likely cities and police departments as well) are worried about PR as much as anything else.

The prosecutor apparently chose to make the case for the police who killed Breonna Taylor as if he was their defense attorney rather than the attorney for the public which includes Ms. Taylor. :shade: — 180 Proof

Since it is the prosecutor alone who presents matters to grand juries, it takes very little to obtain an indictment or to have the case dismissed (no billed). The real question isn't whether the prosecutor could have gotten indictments on every charge had he wanted, but whether he could have ultimately obtained convictions on them. It is ethically improper to use the courtrooms as theatre to appease the masses, and ultimately all that would have happened is that today's riots would have been postponed for tomorrow's acquittal. I can't blame a prosecutor for dismissing a case he knows he's going to lose, and I can't excuse a prosecutor for prosecuting someone he knows he can't convict just because he wants to makes the citizens clamoring for a trial happy.

Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof

Happily, I've never been involved in criminal law proceedings.

But it's my understanding that grand juries know only what they've come to know through the direction of prosecutors. Also, as Hanover notes, there's a substantial difference between the burden of proof in civil and criminal actions. I know of nothing which prohibits the introduction in a criminal case of evidence submitted in a civil case, though for all I know the rules on admissibility of evidence may differ in criminal court. I know of nothing which would make findings of fact by a civil jury binding on a jury in another case, civil or criminal.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Are you familiar enough with the facts to aver that process-in-principle conforms here to process-in-fact? You're satisfied no crime was committed? None? Against the argument that who shot who cannot be determined, I submit it was a criminally negligent enterprise and that criminal guilt inheres in all participants.

They, the police, are constrained by a prior responsibility to get it right. Everyone and anyone can make mistakes, but this was no mere mistake, not a slip twixt lip and brim. This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood

I really don't see where I've argued any of that. All I said was that the prosecutor made the correct decision if his judgment was not to seek charges that could not be proven at trial. I'm sure there are many like you who'd convict, but I trust the prosecutor to know his jurisdiction and the law that's going to be charged. I'm reminded of the forced prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case due to public outcry over the local prosecutor's initial decision not to prosecute. What did the trial and acquittal get us?

If what happened was that the police were at the home legally via a warrant and the occupants were in the home legally because that's where they resided, then both had the right to protect their right to be there. Neither were at fault. I'd say the same thing if the police officer had been killed. It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.

You were saying?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

t's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. — Hanover

Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not.

Leaked memos reveal a murder victim was found in the trunk of Breona Taylor’s rental car back in 2016. I suspect some cops leaked it to discredit the victim. How does this factor into the narrative, if at all? Will they say his name?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood

I've not delved that deeply into the facts, so I'm not ready to arrive at a judgment, but if the facts show that these officers were provided a search warrant to execute and they followed the law in an effort to perform their job, and the occupants were truly confused as to who was entering the home and that resulted in a shoot out, it's very difficult for me to find any malicious intent on the part of anyone, and I don't even see any negligence in that situation.

Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not. — StreetlightX

Who are you charging with this crime, the officers or those who sent them into the house?

Yes, it does. So does systemic classism. Those two systemic failures fuel the other.

If I can use systemic classism to keep black people from gaining any real power, then I can make them flip out at the unjustice of it and justify whatever systemic racism that I want by pointing only at them flipping out, while hiding my provocation.

?? Link ?? Horrible if made up but if not INCREDIBLY relevant.



Again, claims need to be verified.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

:clap:

It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.
— Hanover

Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not. — StreetlightX

:100:

↪180 Proof You were saying? — Benkei

Reread my previous posts and my replies below. I stand by what I wrote.

I appreciate the correction. I wasn't as careful with the terms as I thought. The civil complaint never went to trial so there was no "finding"; my point was that the municipality itself has, advised by counsel, affirmed that Ms. Taylor's killing was a "wrongful death" for which Louisville police officers, and by extension as civil servants the municiplity, were "responsible". Of course, not determinative of criminal "cause" but certainly enough of a circumstantial predicate to warrant an indictment, no?

Understood. It's a judgment call. But the prosecutor is also a politician, and many times the question of whether or not to indict is just as political as it is jurisprudential. Anyway, thanks, Hanover.

Also thanks.

I don't think this was brought this up yet, but the officer's account saying that they first identified themselves - a requirement in a "knock and announce" raid - is highly contested given that 11 out 12 nearby neighbors did not hear the police announce themselves. And that one neighbor that claimed otherwise stated that 1) he only heard one announcement, 2) that it would have been hard to hear that announcement at the time, and, 3) curiously, had originally stated in two interviews with the police that he did not hear an announcement, it wasn't until a third interview where he reversed his statement.