Breonna Taylor - Charges Against Officers

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
He's flip flopping DA/AG when it's convenient.
I figured he just used the wrong term. It would not matter as in this case even if it was a local DA that was in the court room (we don't actually know who ran the grand jury), per the Kentucky Constitution he was in that grand jury courtroom representing the AG and anything he does there the AG is responsible for doesn't take steps to correct it once known.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,403
8,199
126
I'm just saying he's leaving daylight to wiggle out as not all DA's are elected. They are appointed. AG's on the other hand are almost universally elected positions.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Wrong, in Kentucky, and many other states, the AG is indeed voted in and directly represents and is beholden to the people.



The Kentucky Supreme Court has firmly established that the Attorney General’s primary obligation is to the people and their Commonwealth – not any branch of government. In 2016, the Supreme Court recognized the Attorney General’s common-law obligation to protect public rights and interests by ensuring that our government acts legally and constitutionally, in Beshear v. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d 355. The Court wrote that “It is certainly in ‘the interest of all the people’ that there be no unconstitutional or illegal governmental conduct.”

One of the few cases of an elected DA. Again, even in Kentucky they are beholden to the laws of their role. In Kentucky there is no legal requirement the DA has to instruct the grand jury of everything they are allowed to do. The voters there can make it so, or they can vote him out when able to do so.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
I figured he just used the wrong term. It would not matter as in this case even if it was a local DA that was in the court room (we don't actually know who ran the grand jury), per the Kentucky Constitution he was in that grand jury courtroom representing the AG and anything he does there the AG is responsible for doesn't take steps to correct it once known.

I'm basically just glancing here every so often as I am working. I am not dedicating a whole lot of resources at the moment to the discussion. In fact I have 3 people I am in direct vid conferences with, a wife with a new born begging for my attention constantly, and a 4 year old who's b day is today trying to clamor into my lap as well. I just was in a lull spot when i was first responding to this thread.

And you re right. AG's are elected, and DA's are appointed. Either can bring information to the grand jury.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,268
28,128
136
One of the few cases of an elected DA. Again, even in Kentucky they are beholden to the laws of their role. In Kentucky there is no legal requirement the DA has to instruct the grand jury of everything they are allowed to do. The voters there can make it so, or they can vote him out when able to do so.
Meanwhile Family of Breonna Taylor will not get justice. Not that her life matters.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
One of the few cases of an elected DA. Again, even in Kentucky they are beholden to the laws of their role. In Kentucky there is no legal requirement the DA has to instruct the grand jury of everything they are allowed to do. The voters there can make it so, or they can vote him out when able to do so.
This was brought by the state, not a county, so we are talking about the AG here, not a county DA. Nearly all AGs are elected officals.
There is no legal requirement that a AG (or DA for that matter) has to instruct the grand jury in anything specific, but they do have a requirement that they must represent their client fairly and to the best of their ability. That is a requirement of being BAR certified. In this case the People of Kentucky is (as always) the AG's client. Did he fairly represent the people to the best of his ability by withholding critical information from the grand jury, information they specifically asked for, and then represent to the public (his client) that all charges was considered and only this one was accepted, not by him but by the grand jury?
If any other lawyer told his client false information in order to prevent them from seeking remedy that would be illegal. Why is it not here?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Meanwhile Family of Breonna Taylor will not get justice. Not that her life matters.


What are you talking about? Breona Taylor was a criminal (yes I am stating this emphatically based on what I've seen of all the evidence on her over the years), and part of criminal activities. The police being there was correct. The officers at the door shooting in self defense were acting correctly as they are trying to serve a warrant. The only outstanding issue the shots of the officers not directly at the door and being shot at. If their shots hit Breona, or maybe even the original officer that got shot in the leg, then their actions were illegal. That is the only reason the case is even still requires discussion at this point. There is no "justice" to be had here for Breona's family. If all shots that hit her came from the 2 officers at the door that were being fired upon by Walker, then she is eligible at most for a Darwin award. If she was hit by any of the other officers around the apartment that weren't being fired at then those officers need to be going to prison for their stupidity. That is the last bit of legal investigation that needs to be done and I feel the AG and local DA are trying to cover that up. I can speculate as to why *cough turtle neck Mitch cough* to prevent someone from looking bad. Trying to claim anything more than that is just trying to find outrage that doesn't fit the facts of the case.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
This was brought by the state, not a county, so we are talking about the AG here, not a county DA. Nearly all AGs are elected officals.
There is no legal requirement that a AG (or DA for that matter) has to instruct the grand jury in anything specific, but they do have a requirement that they must represent their client fairly and to the best of their ability. That is a requirement of being BAR certified. In this case the People of Kentucky is (as always) the AG's client. Did he fairly represent the people to the best of his ability by withholding critical information from the grand jury, information they specifically asked for, and then represent to the public (his client) that all charges was considered and only this one was accepted, not by him but by the grand jury?
If any other lawyer told his client false information in order to prevent them from seeking remedy that would be illegal. Why is it not here?

He didn't present any false information. He just didn't present all possible information. Again, it is sleazy. I am not saying it isn't. I am saying there is some cover up going on to protect some officers at the scene and potentially some political allies.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
He didn't present any false information. He just didn't present all possible information. Again, it is sleazy. I am not saying it isn't. I am saying there is some cover up going on to protect some officers at the scene and potentially some political allies.
He presented false information to his client, the public, when he told them that all charges were considered by the Grand Jury and they elected to only charge one police officer.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
He presented false information to his client, the public, when he told them that all charges were considered by the Grand Jury and they elected to only charge one police officer.

Again, he didn't lie. He presented the charges he brought and they were considered. The grand jury can bring more charges. It's not false info. He only presented the charges for the 2 officers at the door, which were dropped rightly, and the charge of the third officer which should have been investigated further. Again he didn't lie or present false info to them nor the public. He just didn't tell the entire story that could be told. Sometimes that prosecutors are universally known for.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
What are you talking about? Breona Taylor was a criminal (yes I am stating this emphatically based on what I've seen of all the evidence on her over the years), and part of criminal activities. The police being there was correct.
Emphatically wrong. Breona Taylor was not charged with any crimes, they did not have a warrant for her, and were not even investigating her for any criminal activity.
The warrent was to look for her ex-boyfriend, which they already had in custody. There was no legitimate reason to execute a search warrant to search for someone they had already caught.

The officers at the door shooting in self defense were acting correctly as they are trying to serve a warrant.
A warrant that was gotten under false pretenses (the officer lied to get the warrant) and that they knew should not have been served as a 'no-knock' but apparently did anyway.
They were in for all reasonable purposes breaking and entering when they entered her apartment. It is literally just a thin technicality that what they were doing was not a felony, and honestly it should be looked at more closely if that technicality holds up. The entire search warrant excuse for murdering someone all depends on if they knew at the time that her ex-boyfriend was already in custody.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,268
28,128
136
What are you talking about? Breona Taylor was a criminal (yes I am stating this emphatically based on what I've seen of all the evidence on her over the years), and part of criminal activities. The police being there was correct. The officers at the door shooting in self defense were acting correctly as they are trying to serve a warrant. The only outstanding issue the shots of the officers not directly at the door and being shot at. If their shots hit Breona, or maybe even the original officer that got shot in the leg, then their actions were illegal. That is the only reason the case is even still requires discussion at this point. There is no "justice" to be had here for Breona's family. If all shots that hit her came from the 2 officers at the door that were being fired upon by Walker, then she is eligible at most for a Darwin award. If she was hit by any of the other officers around the apartment that weren't being fired at then those officers need to be going to prison for their stupidity. That is the last bit of legal investigation that needs to be done and I feel the AG and local DA are trying to cover that up. I can speculate as to why *cough turtle neck Mitch cough* to prevent someone from looking bad. Trying to claim anything more than that is just trying to find outrage that doesn't fit the facts of the case.
You are a fucking worthless piece of shit asshole. Did you forget the guy they were looking for was ALREADY IN CUSTODY? Cops had no business being there in the first place. Information used to generate warrant was faulty at best. Now you are defending a PD that is willing to falsify their own reports.

What crime was Breonna Taylor charged with? Article listing more misinformation about Breonna that you so willing to promote because you don't give a shit. Just another black life snuffed out by the CJS
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
Again, he didn't lie. He presented the charges he brought and they were considered. The grand jury can bring more charges. It's not false info. He only presented the charges for the 2 officers at the door, which were dropped rightly, and the charge of the third officer which should have been investigated further. Again he didn't lie or present false info to them nor the public. He just didn't tell the entire story that could be told. Sometimes that prosecutors are universally known for.
I quote the AG:

I won’t get into the specifics again of the proceedings themselves are secret. But what I will say is that our team walked them [the grand jury] through every homicide offense, and also presented all of the information that was available to the grand jury. And then the grand jury was ultimately the one that made the decision about indicting Detective Hankinson for wanton endangerment.
That right there we know to be a flat out lie.

then in the official press conference he was asked this question:
Were they presented with any charges for Mattingly or Cosgrove?
He answered:
What I will say is that they (the grand jury) were walked through all the homicide offenses, and with that information and the information and facts that were provided to them that we uncovered in our investigation, they made the determination that Detective Hankinson was the one that needed to be indicted here. Yes ma’am.
Want to defend how that was not him lying to the public?
 
Reactions: chowderhead

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Emphatically wrong. Breona Taylor was not charged with any crimes, they did not have a warrant for her, and were not even investigating her for any criminal activity.
The warrent was to look for her ex-boyfriend, which they already had in custody. There was no legitimate reason to execute a search warrant to search for someone they had already caught.

I know she wasnt' charged with crimes nor convicted. Doesn't mean she isn't a criminal in the general sense. She committed crimes and was part of criminal activities for which she was part of the investigation. There was enough evidence that had she been alive, she would have more than likely been convicted of crimes. That's why I said I am stating that she is a criminal. Not that the legal system had stated she was. She was used by the drug dealers precisely because she had no criminal record.

And yes, there was a legit excuse for the search warrant. She was running the sugar house. She was basically holding the money for the trap house. She was also the place where the deliveries were made before going to the trap house. It's all in the evidence gathered. The reason they found nothing at the house was because by the time they actually started investigating the scene for the original warrant, it was hours later. Plenty of time for any such evidence to have been removed from the premises.

A warrant that was gotten under false pretenses (the officer lied to get the warrant) and that they knew should not have been served as a 'no-knock' but apparently did anyway.
They were in for all reasonable purposes breaking and entering when they entered her apartment. It is literally just a thin technicality that what they were doing was not a felony, and honestly it should be looked at more closely if that technicality holds up. The entire search warrant excuse for murdering someone all depends on if they knew at the time that her ex-boyfriend was already in custody.


No one lied to get a warrant. That was false information that been proven patently false at this point. The only thing in question is how "hard" of a target the house may have been based on the evidence for the type of warrant issued. There was surveillance of the apartment for the warrant, but it wasn't enough at all. They didn't verify neighboring apartments and resident as they were suppose to. That is the problem with the warrant. It wasn't that the police had insufficient evidence for a warrant. It was that they didn't properly get all the details they needed for proper execution of a warrant. Speaking of which, It was a standard warrant with a entry permission. Meaning they are suppose to knock and announce. If no one answers, they can then bust down the door.
 
Reactions: ch33zw1z

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
You are a fucking worthless piece of shit asshole. Did you forget the guy they were looking for was ALREADY IN CUSTODY? Cops had no business being there in the first place. Information used to generate warrant was faulty at best. Now you are defending a PD that is willing to falsify their own reports.

What crime was Breonna Taylor charged with? Article listing more misinformation about Breonna that you so willing to promote because you don't give a shit. Just another black life snuffed out by the CJS

They were hitting the trap house and the sugar house at the same time. Glover was not in custody at the time because they were hitting that while they were hitting Breona's place. Breona's name was specifically on the warrant issued for her place for her connections to drug trafficking. They had more than enough probable cause evidence for the warrant issued for her and her place. That isn't in question.

The question is about the behavior of the police prior to execution and the police outside the apartment during execution. The police did a piss poor job checking for secondary issues around Breona's residence for the warrant and prior to executing it. The police on scene outside the apartment that weren't at the door also fired randomly all over the place as well. That is a huge problem. Both were being actively covered up and that is also a huge problem.

I have zero problem with the fact that the police had sufficient evidence for probable cause to affect an arrest and search of Breona's premises for charges related to drug trafficking. I have zero problems with the two officers at the door who shoot back at Walker who shot first.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
I quote the AG:


That right there we know to be a flat out lie.

then in the official press conference he was asked this question:

He answered:

Want to defend how that was not him lying to the public?


Not a lie. He walked through the homicide offenses he brought. Not the ones they could bring. It isn't false information. It is shady use of wording. He did double political double talk in that press conference. His office only investigated a limited amount for homicide charges against the police and presented those charges to the grand jury. They didn't tell the grand jury they could investigate more or there was potential for more. I will say it again. It is sleazy and despicable for the AG to do that. It isn't illegal.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
I know she wasnt' charged with crimes nor convicted. Doesn't mean she isn't a criminal in the general sense. She committed crimes and was part of criminal activities for which she was part of the investigation. There was enough evidence that had she been alive, she would have more than likely been convicted of crimes. That's why I said I am stating that she is a criminal. Not that the legal system had stated she was. She was used by the drug dealers precisely because she had no criminal record.

Care to submit any piece of evidence or credible source that would support this?
It seems that in subsequent posts you are using different definitions of 'crime' and 'criminal' to suit your needs.

And yes, there was a legit excuse for the search warrant. She was running the sugar house. She was basically holding the money for the trap house.
To bad that is not what the warrant was for, the warrant was for the capture of

No one lied to get a warrant.
Yes, they did. And the Judge is even concerned about it, as of Oct 1.
The Louisville judge who signed a search warrant for Breonna Taylor’s home that ultimately led to her death said Thursday she is concerned that the detective may have lied to obtain the warrant.
According to the affidavit Louisville Metro Police Detective Joshua Jaynes wrote for the search warrant, Glover used Taylor's apartment as his home address. Jaynes also wrote that he "verified through a U.S. postal inspector that Glover has been receiving packages" at Taylor's apartment. The Courier Journal reported May 12 that a sworn affidavit from Jaynes said Glover was seen walking into Taylor's apartment one January afternoon and left with a "suspected USPS package in his right hand" then drove to a "known drug house" on Muhammad Ali Boulevard. But Louisville's U.S. postal inspector, Tony Gooden, told WDRB News in May that a different agency (which he did not identify) had asked in January to look into whether Taylor's home was receiving suspicious mail. The office had concluded that it wasn't, Gooden said.
The office lied on the sworn affidavit.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Care to submit any piece of evidence or credible source that would support this?
It seems that in subsequent posts you are using different definitions of 'crime' and 'criminal' to suit your needs.

Have you not bothered to read the entire evidence dump on this case by the police? Just google it or go over to tatum report and read it there. The evidence is all over the place.

To bad that is not what the warrant was for, the warrant was for the capture of

Huh? They were searching in Breona's place for possible connected crimes to drug trafficking.


Yes, they did. And the Judge is even concerned about it, as of Oct 1.


The office lied on the sworn affidavit.

The officer talked about a package being picked up by Glover from Breona's place at one point. That was added in as suspected deliveries to the place as part of the warrant. It was an over reaching mistake. It wasn't the sole and only evidence for the warrant. What was not listed above and is in this artcle:


Yep, some are trying to claim it was a "lie" about suspected "packages" an in plural and where those packages were coming from. Doubt it and doubt anything will come of that claim. Way to weak.

In a PIU investigation, released this month, Det. Jaynes is seen telling investigators he didn't intend to mislead the judge.

"I could have worded a little bit differently in there," Jaynes said.

PIU investigators wrote in their summary the wording in the affidavit was "misleading."

"I think it was a good faith mistake. He didn't need to lie about that. He had so much other evidence to establish probable cause," Clay said.

Clay pointed to surveillance photos Detective Jaynes took at Taylor's apartment, showing Glover leaving with a suspected USPS package.

"Whether it's USPS, whether it's Amazon, whether it's UPS, there's still reason to believe packages were being sent to that address," Clay said.

...

"If you were to take that statement out, which is what a court does when it analyzes search warrants and the sufficiency of the affidavit, if there's something in there that's wrong or false, the court takes that out and says 'okay what do we got left?"' he said. "I believe there's overwhelming evidence of probably cause here."

There was a ton of evidence submitted as part of the process to obtain the warrants they got. Which included a warrant for a third location but they lacked the man power to coordinate three searches at the same time so the decided to not go to the third location to opt for the two locations with the most likely sources of evidence of criminal activities.
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,584
7,820
136
It's always fun when the white supremacist inevitably shows up to troll people who think the white supremacist isn't just trolling them.

Heads up: the white supremacist only shows up to troll you. Because he's a white supremacist.

You have made your feelings about this poster known, repeatedly. It is enough. You must cease such generic, repetetive responses. If you have something specific to say about any single post this poster makes, post that, and only that.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,268
28,128
136
One year later and the family are still waiting for justice and accountability for Breonna
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |