Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor

[tulc]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Wednesday’s announcement from Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron about criminal charges in the Breonna Taylor case set off a frenzy of misinformation on social media. Based on what we do know — which I’ve culled from my own reporting, reporting from the New York Times and the Louisville Courier-Journal, as well as from conversations with the lawyers for Taylor’s family — the decision to charge Detective Brett Hankison with wanton endangerment was probably correct, as was the decision not to charge the other officers involved in the shooting.

tulc(thought this was spot on)

 

[jgarden]

Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor
Only 1 of the 3 officers was charged and that was for the lesser charge of "reckless endangerment" - resulting from bullets that entered/endangered the lives of residents in neighboring appartments!

For all intents and purposes, Louisville police are allowed to shoot and kill an innocent victim in her apartment without suffering any consequences - which only brings into question as to how this case was presented to the Grand Jury!

 

[Archivist]

Early in my legal career I was an ADA. The grand jury was often a good way for the DA to dump cases that he did not want to prosecute. All he had to do was present the case in such a way that the grand jury refused to bring an indictment. The DA could then tell the media that he would have been happy to prosecute the case but the grand jury refused to bring an indictment. I suspect that is what happened in this case.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor
Only 1 of the 3 officers was charged and that was for the lesser charge of "reckless endangerment" - resulting from bullets that entered/endangered the lives of residents in neighboring appartments!

For all intents and purposes, Louisville police are allowed to shoot and kill an innocent victim in her apartment without suffering any consequences - which only brings into question as to how this case was presented to the Grand Jury!

They had a no-knock warrant and the chose to announce themselves first. The boyfriend shot one of the cops.

In other words, the cops were following the law, but it's a bad law.

I thought no-knock warrants were made illegal years ago after narcotic agents raided a house and shot a family of mother, father and two children. Turns out they were at the wrong address. The father survived and had to fight the cover up by the agents. There was a movie about it.

I was surprised to hear that the no-knock warrant was once again issued by a judge

 

[Redwingfan9]

Early in my legal career I was an ADA. The grand jury was often a good way for the DA to dump cases that he did not want to prosecute. All he had to do was present the case in such a way that the grand jury refused to bring an indictment. The DA could then tell the media that he would have been happy to prosecute the case but the grand jury refused to bring an indictment. I suspect that is what happened in this case.

This is an impossible case for the DA to win. Once the boyfriend fires and hits an officer, there isn't a jury out there that will convict the cops. Especially when they have a valid warrant.

 

[Archivist]

This is an impossible case for the DA to win. Once the boyfriend fires and hits an officer, there isn't a jury out there that will convict the cops. Especially when they have a valid warrant.

Which is a reason why the DA might want to Grand Jury to toss the case.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Which is a reason why the DA might want to Grand Jury to toss the case.

I agree with that. A Grand Jury may have also heard testimony, read the law and reached the conclusion that the evidence doesn't even rise to a preponderance of the evidence and thus no indictment was issued. It's not exactly out of line for a grand jury to hear the cops were shot at and hit and conclude that any firing of a weapon in return, even if it resulted in a 3rd party death, was justified.