By Dylan Lovan, AP
A Louisville police officer who fired the fatal shot that killed Breonna Taylor has a new job in law enforcement in a county northeast of the city.
The Carroll County Sheriff’s Office on Saturday confirmed the hiring of Myles Cosgrove, who was fired from the Louisville Metro Police Department in January 2021 for violating use-of-force procedures and failing to use a body camera during the raid on Taylor’s apartment, WHAS-TV reported.
A protest in Carroll County was planned Monday in response to his hiring.
Investigators said that Cosgrove fired 16 rounds into the apartment after Taylor’s front door was breached during a narcotics raid on March 13, 2020. Thinking an intruder was breaking in, Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, thinking the break-in was a home invasion, fired a shot from a handgun at the officers. Officer Jonathan Mattingly was struck in the leg, and the officers returned fire, killing Taylor in her hallway. Attempted murder charges filed against Walker were later dropped.
An FBI investigation determined that Cosgrove and Mattingly struck Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman, and that Cosgrove likely fired the fatal shot. Neither officer was charged by a 2020 state grand jury in Taylor’s death, and a two-year investigation by the FBI also cleared Cosgrove and Mattingly of any charges.
The FBI probe found that other superior officers had crafted a faulty drug warrant that contained false information about Taylor. U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland said in August that the officers who went to Taylor’s apartment with the warrant “were not involved in drafting the warrant affidavit and were not aware that it was false.”
Robert Miller, chief deputy in Carroll County, pointed out that Cosgrove was cleared by the state grand jury when speaking of his hiring at the small Kentucky sheriff’s department.
In November, the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council voted not to revoke Cosgrove’s state peace officer certification. That meant he could apply for other law enforcement jobs in the state.
Brett Hankison, an officer who fired shots but didn’t hit anybody during the raid, was found not guilty by a jury of wanton endangerment charges. But he still awaits trial on federal civil rights charges for his actions during the raid, as two other officers who were involved in obtaining the warrant. A third officer pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the crafting of the warrant.
If completely exonerated, a cop should not be discriminated against in future hiring.
body of work history.
Are we talking in a functional society or a clown show?
“Are we talking in a functional society or a clown show?”
Given current circumstances, I would say, “A nearly functional society”.
Oh well in that case the “did it attract media attention” clause would kick in to determine their fate at the behest of the mob driven by their “betters”
A not nearly functional clown show
just no more no-knock raids for this guy!….something about that operation still smells…
Yeah, all the falsehoods the media spread about the dead C U next Tuesday. She and her BF and her ex drugs. were all involved in transporting and selling drugz.
Found the bootlicker.
Are you really defending this shit? Not the smartest move. You don’t have to support BLM to know these officers were dirty AF and this whole event should have never taken place.
So, here’s the problem. I was told you are gay?
What do you have to say for yourself? How disgraceful.
Some men now hook up with men to avoid the legal power women have, mainly in blue states. This may explain.
two male incomes, no pregnancies, someone who really understands me.
it is disgraceful, but so convenient.
It is entirely possible for both sides in this to be wrong.
She and her boy toy and her ex were transporting and distributing illegal drugs. Fact. That’s why they were nervous about home invasion robberies. There was a real danger of rivals coming to take their drugs and money.
I can also completely beleive the cops were there to take the drugs and money for themselves. But that wouldn’t happen if there were no drugs and money to take.
If you shoot at cops they will shoot back. A lot. He’ll, I’m not a cop and if you shoot at me I’ll shoot back.
No good guys at all in this one but the media tried to make her a victim.
Trayvon got home safe and went back out looking for trouble.
Brown charged a cop whose gun he had tried to take.
Floyd overdosed when he swallowed the evidence.
Rice was threatening people with what appeared to be a real gun.
And Breonna was in the drug trade.
I have seen no evidence of your “facts” regarding breonna being involved in drug trade. I assumed many of the same things at first when it happened, but you are going to have to cite reliable evidence to me now to convince me anything other than her ex-boyfriend who didn’t live there was involved with drugs
“Are you really defending this shit?”
Nope. Defending “innocent until proven guilty”. What anyone “knows” is irrelevant; what can be proven is all that counts. And that protects the falsely accused, regardless of what anyone “knows”. There is a reason past bad acts are not allowed as evidence of guilt of the current charge.
Now, living in Realsville, I know everyone is hypocritical, wanting special privileges for themselves, and their particular brand of prejudice to be elevated above everyone else’s. That’s simply life among humans. Admitting that does not justify the presumption of special consideration.
Good response, Sam. There is no question one of the occupants fired a shot that hit an officer — unless the allegation is that the officers hit one of their own. With all the shots fired, that isn’t outside the realm of possibility. However there is no proof read that again, proof, that the shot that hit the officer was fired by another officer. In any event, it doesn’t matter. The officers were justified in returning fire. Again, that is the fault of the no-knock, night time arrest warrant. That is an item left over from colonial days and is one of the reasons for the revolt against British style law enforcement. It needs to go. If ou want to make a difference, write your representatives and demand that the no-knock, night time warrant must go period. No exceptions.
Truck drivers can lose their licenses for minor mistakes.
Isn’t killing a human being a bigger mistake than failing to adjust your brakes properly, without any deaths resulting?
This fool shouldn’t be a cop – and there are plenty more like him.
“Truck drivers can lose their licenses for minor mistakes.”
Not a particularly good analogy, but….
An accusation that a truck driver made a mistake, an accusation that cannot be proven, doesn’t justify that driver losing their license. Nor being discriminated against by a potential future employer.
exoneration of criminal charges is not the same as saying someone is a stellar cop. Those should be two different bars.
An officer must depend on information given to him by a superior officer unless it is so blatantly false as to defy any reasonable legal interpretation. If the warrant on its face appears to the officer to be a legal warrant, there is no reason for him to do his own private investigation to see if his superior’s work is legal. The Nuremberg doctrine applies to police work, but there are limits to the extent that an officer can do his own investigation of his superior’s work. Clearly if the warrant is illegal on its face, the officer should refuse to execute it. In this case, according to the article the warrant appeared authentic. The officer did no wrong in executing it. There whole problem is nighttime no-knock warrants, based on the fiction that drug dealers will flush large quantities of narcotics down the toilet. best time you have made an extra large buy, try flushing it down the toilet. No, You don’t have to actually flush it, but take your stash and visualize flushing it down the toilet. How successful do you think you would be. Remember, there is a bunch of cops on your front step busting down the door. You’ve got to get it flushed before thy come in and throw you on the floor.
“An officer must depend on information given to him by a superior …”
IIRC, there are two matters in play: the raid itself; reckless shooting into an inhabited space.
Would seem that regardless of the validity of the warrant, the cop allegedly shot “blindly” into an occupied space, but was not faced with imminent death, or grievous bodily harm.
From what I read, the cop in question was acquitted of reckless endangerment.
Dark apartment and a shot is fired toward the officers, striking one in the leg. Do you exit the apartment under fire or do you return fire? I don’t know about you, but if I were one of the cops, I would return fire in the vicinity of where I saw the muzzle flash. It wouldn’t be just one shot returned either. It would be enough to where I thought the threat was neutralized. I have no trouble with how many shots were fired. Nobody ever survives a fire fight and say, “I think I fired too many shots. Next time I am going to make an effort to fire less.” I just watched a video where an officer dumped 3 mags, I suspect because they were empty. The perp was still shooting at him. It wasn’t until an officer arrived with a rifle that it seemed that the shooting was over.
Cosgrove was one of the few LMPD officers directly involved in that raid who didn’t do anything seriously wrong. LMPD fired him for political reasons once they realized that there was nothing they could use to hang him as demanded by the community activists.
Yes, he fired the fatal shot — while returning fire.
Yes, he shot an “innocent” person who just happened to be where the shot came from in the dark (apparently cops are expected to have 20/20 vision in total darkness in a chaotic scene.)
Yes, he did a mag dump — which is basically what LMPD taught officers to do.
He is NOT one of the officers who lied to get the warrant.
He is NOT the commander who decided to make a nighttime raid with bad information
He is NOT the commander who claimed that it wasn’t a “No Knock” raid because someone might have yelled “Police” while they crashed into the apartment (although no one other than the officers ever reported hearing anyone announce and even the officers couldn’t agree on who had announced).
His big mistake — he didn’t turn on his body camera. (No one in the entry team had a body camera on – most didn’t have one at all).
LMPD did their best to hang Cosgrove because the community activists were demanding someone’s head and LMPD didn’t want to admit that the problems were much higher up in the chain of command.
By the way, despite the comments from at least one confused individual, Cosgrove was NOT the officer who “fired blindly” that was a different officer who was outside and decided to shoot up the area because he heard shooting and wanted to be part of the fun. Cosgrove was in the entry party who were shot at by Taylor’s boyfriend and returned fire, shooting back at the muzzle flash. Once LMPD decided they needed to accuse him of something, they decided that he should not have returned fire unless he could see exactly who was shooting at him and if anyone else was around. (Yes, we civilians are sometimes held to that standard, but no cop anywhere has ever been held to that standard unless the department wanted to throw him under the bus – which is what LMPD did)
“body of work history.”
‘Zackly. As with any profession.
If a person is charged with a crime, and not convicted, the charge should not influence any hiring decision.
Of course, no one has a right to a job.
Being found “not guilty” is not exoneration, it just means the gov’t failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Case in point: OJ Simpson. Found not guilty in criminal case (requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) but found liable in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence proved he did it).
Similarly, a grand jury refusing to indict is not exoneration either — a subsequent grand jury is free to look at the evidence again and decide to indict. Indeed, the only time I have ever seen the prosecution / grand jury officially “exonerate” anyone was in the Duke lacrosse team case, where the special prosecutor’s statement emphasized that not only was there insufficient evidence to indict (much less convict), the evidence in fact proved to him that the defendants were wholly innocent of the charges. But that was an unusual situation, where the prosecutor (the excretable Mike Nifong) himself wound up getting disbarred, jailed, and bankrupted for pushing a completely BS case, and the ostensible “victim” wound up convicted and imprisoned for second degree murder.
“Being found “not guilty” is not exoneration, it just means the gov’t failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Such thinking makes criminals of even those erroneously/falsely/maliciously accused.
A “charged” individual should not be accountable for the inability of the govt to convict. If govt is so incompetent as to bring to trial a charge govt cannot prove, govt should be punished. When govt cannot properly prove its case, all involved in the prosecution should suffer the penalty to which they tried to subject the defendant.
I know you are talking legalese, but I live in Realsville: “not guilty” is “innocent”; “not indicted is “exoneration”. Failure to convict does not make a person guilty, or otherwise suspect. In my military mind, failure to convict indicates govt had “reasonable doubt”, but just hoped something would stick.
From my readings, the old “not guilty doesn’t equal innocent” rubric is a cop-out for poor performance of prosecutors/government.
(Note: if you haven’t read Grisham’s “The Innocent Man”, I recommend it. Lays out the reality behind criminal law, and how “the system” isn’t really objective.)
You are associated legality with morality. Morally speaking, this tyrant and every other officer involved in that no kock should NEVER be hired by another dept again. Legally speaking, it’s clear the corruption runs deeper than the unit that pulled this raid off.
Let me try it this way:
Assume there is a physician who grossly disregards hospital rules and standards of practice, and as a result a patient dies. Assume further that is so bad that he is indicted for criminally negligent homicide.
Assume further that is is acquitted of the charge (not because he didn’t disregard policy or the patient didn’t die as a result, but because the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard makes getting that kind of conviction *very* hard — which it does).
Assume further that the hospital conducts its own investigation, concludes he grossly violated procedures and standards and caused the death of a patient, and fires him. (In such a case, he probably would also be successfully sued for malpractice / wrongful death.)
Now assume your wife / daughter / granddaughter/ etc. needs surgery, and this doctor is the one your HMO has assigned to the case.
Are you willing to say, “well, he was acquitted of criminal charges, so I shouldn’t hold his past behavior against him.” Or are you going to say, “the hospital [like the police department at issue] investigated and found his behavior so wanting that they fired him, and there’s no way I want him operating on my family.”
Or assume you are the malpractice insurance underwriter. Are you willing to insure this guy because, in your eyes, his criminal acquittal “exonerated” him?
I worked in court for 25 years in CA. I have seen criminal cases up close and personal, all the way from arraignment and preliminary hearing to opening statements, closing arguments and charge to the jury. I totally agree with Sam. The DA can spend untold hundreds of thousands of dollars in trying a case. There is no limit to how much taxpayer money he can spend to obtain a conviction. It is the rare individual who can match him in funds expended. The system is overwhelmingly weighted against the individual accused. The olhy thing he has standing between him is the presumption of innocence and the burden of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. And convince 12 jurors of the righteousness of his case the the strength of his evidence to overcome that burden on proof.
“Being found “not guilty” is not exoneration”
Total and utter nonsense. Our entire system of law is predicated on the ASSUMPTION of innocence. Everyone – even the accused are innocent until found guilty by a jury of peers. Our founders created a system that leaned toward liberty. They preferred that a small number of potential guilty people go free so that no innocent person is unjustly deprived of their liberty.
Being found “not guilty” is the ONLY form of exoneration that exists in our Constitutional republic.
Your world view would violate the human and constitutional rights of anyone simply accused of a crime.
Sorry, but no.
“Innocent” means you’re not “guilty,” where “guilty” means that you’ve been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime. Hence the presumption of innocence **for purposes of criminal charges.**
A “not guilty” verdict is not an exoneration. “Exoneration” means “it’s been established you didn’t do it.” E.g., you are convicted, but someone else later confesses, and the Court sets aside your conviction and formally exonerates you (i.e., “you didn’t do it because this guy did and he has been convicted”).
However, being found “not guilty,” while clearing you of *criminal* responsibility for the act due to the double jeopardy clause, doesn’t mean you are exonerated or otherwise free of all legal consequences for the actions in question. Again, see the OJ Simpson case (and many, many others where the defendant was criminally acquitted but nevertheless was found liable for the act under civil law — i.e., a court finding that the defendant *did* in fact commit the illegal act).
Here, any LE agency that hires this idiot is running the risk of liability for gross negligence if he does it again, as it is reasonably foreseeable that he lacks the proper judgment to be a LEO, his criminal acquittal notwithstanding.
Let me tell you, not being indicted by a grand jury is a pretty good indication there is not a scintilla to issue an indictment. As a NY judge is quoted as saying, “A DA could get an indictment of a hamburger from a grand jury if he so chose” For many years I have said that a Deputy DA who can’t get an indictment from a grand jury probably isn’t capable of washing Coffeys cups at Starbucks — knowing full well, Starbucks uses paper cups.
you guys really get into it here. i’ll see your military mindset and raise you a private sector union one. i have no choice but to pay dues. i’m surrounded by shnooks that would have been terminated long ago but for their stewards.
body of work history. never call in sick for 23years, they tend to notice.
this man has a reputation of some sort to people in the industry. you need to see the big picture. are there lots of complaints lodged against him? past practices, character, community presence. or just a repeat domestic abuser with a gambling and alcohol problem.
“you need to see the big picture. ”
No one should be discriminated against simply because they were tried, but not convicted. (regardless of what “everybody knows).
If the cop in question had been convicted of the past history you posited, then yes, discrimination regarding future employment is appropriate.
But did they kill her dog??? If you want a semblance of anonymity move far fat away🙄
detectives often have a nose for cash…and play by a different set of rules…being a sheriff’s deputy should impact his income somewhat….
It was lunch time and the deputy public defender was having a heated discussion with his client. After the deputy sheriff took the accused away for lunch I asked the DPD what the problem was with his client. He laughed and said. “I am having a hard time convincing him that getting on the stand and testifying that the cops are lieing. He actually had 40 bindles of heroin instead of the 20 that the cops testified to will not help his case at all.” You might assume that the accused was making that up. I, on the other hand after many years in court knew that the DPD’s client wass telling the truth and the cops had secreted 20 bindles of heroin for their own purposes whatever they may be. I don’t care what the motivation might be I believe perjury is perjury and is punishable by some period of time in a penitentiary.
The War on Drugs has been a total failure. Not a single battle won. But the tyrants will have their show.
jethro the janitor,
I believe you are on the right track: these surprise raids have some agenda beyond winning the War on Drugs.
And what would that agenda be? I will argue: acclimating the public to surprise raids as being acceptable and normalizing/integrating the surprise raid mindset into law enforcement personnel.
always a bad idea…you think you got it down and things will go as planned…then it all blows up in your face….
They’re not that smart.
fascist scum like you needs to be exterminated, and im getting your IP and DNS to do just that
Lmao, idiot. Your DNS… I’m dying laughing. You know jack fuck all about the interwebz, demonstrably.
A DNS, or Domain Name Server translates web page names you ask to be served up in your own browser into IP numbers of the page you wish to go to and forwards your traffic to the site in question. Nothing more, nothing else.
Type in the IP directly, and there is no interaction with a DNS at all.
Being that you don’t even know this most base of rudimentary knowledge, it is highly unlikely that you have any skills whatsoever, hacking or otherwise. Safe bet you couldn’t even set up a network, much less attack one.
Hacking a DNS, even if they do have logs, which is not likely for most, for you is akin to standing on your tip toes on Tera Firma and trying to reach Alpha Centauri with your fingertips. They are some of the most secure systems on the entire internet that regularly resist attacks from 1st and 2nd world government actors. Good luck with that, dipshit.
I am also quite certain you are not even smart enough to disguise your own IP address, like so many here do. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what steps need to be taken to be a ghost.
By the way, that threat is a Federal felony, being it is almost certainly communicated across state lines. Shall I point out more of your moronic fatal flaws?
Or maybe we should wait for you to live up to your bullshit & show up on our doorsteps. I’m waiting.
Domain Name System, ugh, up for over 36 hours and my mind is drifting sideways. Should proof read when this tired.
Without subpoenaing an ISP’s logs – how exactly does one resolve a physical address from an IP address?
Even if you could figure that out – what if uncommon_sense was posting from a Starbucks? Would you just “eliminate” everyone in the place just to be sure?
dead dogs, deaf and blind crib babies at the wrong address hardly breeds acceptance.
Agree 100%. The whole premise of the no-knock mid night raids is to prevent the drug dealers from disposing of their contraband before the cops executing the warrant can seize it. It is a falsehood that unfortunately is never challenged in court. That along with being able to spot bald tires at nighttime on a fast moving car in traffic. What a lot of horse pucky. Why would an officer so testify? To give him probably cause to stop a carload of young latinos or blacks.
When the C I A and D E A quit selling the stuff, some headway may come about.
They aren’t the only players in that game, Ed.
If you think it’s all run by the .gov, I have some Arizona ocean side property to scam you with… 🙁
No, it’s not all run by goober mint agencies but they have played a big role in the drug trade in the past. And can you say “Fast and Furious”? I used to say, “Oh, year, I can see the drug cartel buying guns at Uncle Cliff’s Bait and Bullets shop in Roughneck, TX.” Little did I know El President de Mexico had a legitimate beef. The US government was running guns to Old Mexico. My apologies, President.
At the risk of people accusing me of beating the proverbial dead horse:
These “Battle of Fallujah” military-style surprise police raids have to end. Period. Full stop.
If law enforcement believes that John Q. Public is an illegal narcotics dealer and has a huge stash of illegal narcotics in his home, law enforcement can simply surveille his home, wait for him to leave, arrest him at the local grocery store (or wherever), and then go casually search his empty home for the items named in the search/arrest warrant.
The ONLY time that law enforcement can begin to justify surprise raids is if they have iron-clad evidence that the property owner is actively and currently doing something horrific to an innocent victim. Otherwise, law enforcement can surveille, wait for a reasonably safe opportunity, and then go search the property.
Any alleged law violation which is important enough to justify a surprise raid is important enough to justify surveilling and waiting.
“If law enforcement believes that John Q. Public is an illegal narcotics dealer and has a huge stash of illegal narcotics in his home, law enforcement can simply surveille his home, wait for him to leave, arrest him at the local grocery store (or wherever),…”
The underlying theory is likely avoiding the risk to the public during an arrest attempt at a location other than the home. Not sure that stands up, but it is understandable.
where drugs are around….there is also cash around…’nuff said?
Well at least they know he has the guts to use his duty weapon..
(April 10, 2023, in Oregon) Officer Gives Bystander A Gun To Help Stop Armed Suspect.
This is an amazing video. Should be required viewing by anyone who carries a gun. Watch for the bullet splashing. It reminds me of naval gunfire. Two ships battling it out in the distance.
And the multiple magazine changes. Wow.
I’m glad for the cop to have survived.
“This is an amazing video.”
Yes, the cop required an authorized three loads of bullets. The private gun owner is thought to be criminally dangerous to want more than 6 bullets.
Here’s the thing about having (at a minimum) standard magazines (15 round pistol – multiple 15 round magazines) : Lets put it this way…I’ll bet not many of you will get in your car today and plan to have a flat tire on the way to work. Well, sure you could call roadside assistance to change the tire for you but what if you needed to do it your self, a jack and lug wrench would come in pretty handy to do that. You had that jack and lug wrench in your trunk for a reason, it wasn’t there because you would never use it – it was there for the time when you needed it.
I’ll bet this cop did not wake up that morning and think “Oh, if something happens I will only need 5 rounds.”
That’s what anti-gun would say “No one will ever need more than …. so we are going to make your magazines ”
That’s something about anti-gun (including our resident idiots dacian and Miner49er and Albert LJ Hall) – they are keen on telling you what you don’t need to defend yourself and family and what they don’t want you to have but it seems they are never around to defend you when that threat shows up.
I used to carry a 15 round magazine in the gun and a spare (that I sometimes did not carry, but usually did) but I bumped it to three when the general crime rate went up (one in gun and two spares – although at times I did not carry the spares). That was fine… basically, until the day I got down to only a couple of rounds left and had the bad guys not finally gone down after multiple hits and I had needed those few remaining rounds and was not able to score stopping shots on the threat its likely my wife and I would have been killed. I went through the mags I had that day, had to. The situation demanded it … fire – maneuver – cover – advance – over and over under fire advancing on the threat scoring hits as I able to do, it was the longest 30 yards of my life I had to cover to save my wife. I did not wake up that morning and think “Oh, if something happens I will only need 5 rounds.” I now carry five 15 round magazines EDC all the time. They are not there because I will never use them – they are there for the same reason I have a jack and lug wrench in the trunk, I just might need them.
The gentleman assisting is a deputy himself who was traveling to Canada and therefore unarmed at the time. He displayed his badge before the officer gave him his holdout. Listen a little closer.
Saw this on PoliceActivitiy’s channel yesterday myself.
yes, that’s correct. Its obvious from the video.
Yeah it’s obvious from the video but the title is misleading. And it’s 2023, people just read the title.
Well, that is a little more than the simple ‘bystander’ you stated in your post.
As I said before. Cop are rarely if ever prosecuted and sent to jail. They just transfer and / or retire. And the people who hate cops so much never call for the laws to be repealed, That stop law abiding property owners, from using deadly force. If necessary to protect private property.
Or even to protect your own life.
Cop haters will always default to the government process.
If the warrant was a fraud from the beginning the people who should have been charged with murder should have been those that formulated the warrant. Maybe they thought it would be a good joke on her, and maybe they had a malicious intent. Either way they should have been the ones w/ the big charges!
It looks like the conspirators are facing big charges:
Brett Hankison, an officer who fired shots but didn’t hit anybody during the raid, was found not guilty by a jury of wanton endangerment charges. But he still awaits trial on federal civil rights charges for his actions during the raid, as two other officers who were involved in obtaining the warrant. A third officer pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the crafting of the warrant.
….Is this agentd or agent49? Who are u really? 😎
“Is this agentd or agent49? Who are u really?”
Before people get too outraged about the demise of Ms. Taylor, they might do well to read the 39 page police report that is/was available online. It details the drug dealing activities and jailhouse phone conversations of Ms. Taylor and her two boyfriends that led up to this raid and a nearly simultaneous raid on a drug house that rarely gets mentioned. Caught in an exchange of gunfire, Ms. Taylor was more unfortunate than innocent.
“Before people get too outraged about the demise of Ms. Taylor, they might do well to read the 39 page police report that is/was available online.”
None of which justifies what the cops did on that night.
A fraudulent warrant remains fraudulent. If ends justify the means, then that technique is valid for any scenario where govt wants to exert power.
Isn’t that usually the case?
“Isn’t that usually the case?”
(haven’t quite recovered from my tequila binge last night; need some clarification)
You mean the corrupt dept that allowed this to happen police report? yea… ok.
This town had a lot cop like that.
Murdered a guy using an arrest warrant as the excuse. (Damn pot selling miscreants deserve to die.)
Anyway he got fired then went to another town and pulled the same shit. He eventually wound up laying in a grave.
May not have been criminally culpable but shooting an unarmed woman in her apartment- even if you meant to shoot someone else in there- isn’t exactly a promotional bell ringer.
Maybe, at that point, you should have to find a career that doesn’t involve the possibility of it happening again.
i guess if the merrick garland doj cleared him
in a case as politicized as breonna taylor
he must be at least as clean as a preachers sheets
in his next job
maybe he can even give a training class
about walking on water
“You are associated legality with morality.”
Not at all. When law is involved, law matters, not morality. Morality is fungible; might makes right. The Dims declare using a firearm in self-defense is morally heinous; POTG declare it is not. Who determines morality? Answer: Whomever has the most votes.
When you are falsely accused and on trial, you will be very concerned about law, as “morality” will not be an allowed defense. And if you are acquitted, you will not tolerate others holding against you the fact that you were arrested and tried.
“exoneration of criminal charges is not the same as saying someone is a stellar cop.”
Nor is it “proof” that someone isn’t a stellar cop.
We all want unproven accusations to be used to punish others, but not ourselves.
simpson & byrd walked after murdering real humans, so FO
miner49er links to ww.fbi.gov
“Or assume you are the malpractice insurance underwriter. Are you willing to insure this guy because, in your eyes, his criminal acquittal “exonerated” him?”
Thinking insurance is not a good analogy: insurers want to make money, so they can require a large premium, and offer a low coverage.
There is a mix of things regarding trial verdicts. The only two verdicts allowed are “guilty”, or “not guilty”. “Not guilty” means, not guilty; exonerated. What we need is a third verdict: “not proven”: not exonerated. However, the social impact of “not proven” is a scarlet letter. If the state cannot prove its case, the state actors, not the defendant should be punished.
My intent was/is to call attention to the hypocrisy of demanding that felons who complete their sentences have their 2A and voting rights restored, but also demanding that a cop with a sketchy history be summarily barred from a position with law enforcement.
Thanx for exploring the issue at hand.
Like any actor in a free market, insurance underwriters deal in reality: is someone / something a good risk or not? If the insured is a good risk but the insurer prices their coverage too high, it loses business to underwriters/ insurers who can more accurately assess and price the risk. If the assessment of the risk underestimates it and prices coverage too low, the insurer get creamed.
Under my hypothetical (which mirrors the situation we’re discussing), no competent underwriter would insure either the hypothetical malpracticing physician or the malpracticing LEO, a not guilty verdict notwithstanding. To adopt an underwriting philosophy based on your viewpoint (i.e., acquittal = exoneration = don’t even consider it because that’s “unfair”) would be suicidal for an insurer.
For whatever reason, you are resisting a fundamental legal concept taught in first year law classes: an acquittal does NOT mean exoneration (a finding that the defendant did not, in fact commit the crime) — it merely means the fact finder did not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: the high standard our society requires before imposing a sentence of criminality and all that goes with that.) Such a verdict means the person cannot suffer any penalty under *criminal* law, but doesn’t preclude civil, administrative, professional, or other consequences.
The unique Scottish “third verdict” verdict of “not proven” is interesting but isn’t part of our system. Under US law, “non proven” requires a verdict of “not guilty.”
“The unique Scottish “third verdict” verdict of “not proven” is interesting but isn’t part of our system. Under US law, “non proven” requires a verdict of “not guilty.” ”
If shots came from a darkened location in the targeted apartment, does the cop have sufficient light to identify the shooter, and what is behind the shooter?
If shots came from a darkened location in the targeted apartment, is it reasonable to fire multiple shots into a room (or hallway) in a multi-resident apartment where less than perfect aim will result in bullets penetrating adjoining apartments of presumed innocents?
If shots came from a darkened location in the targeted apartment, does the individual legal gun owner have sufficient light to identify the shooter, and what is behind the shooter? If not, would the individual legal gun owner be reasonable in shooting into the darkened location?
Pressing the matter further, would the cop have been justified in shooting into a darkened location, if the cop could not clearly identify the target, and his shots killed a baby held in the arms of a woman responding to a likely home invasion, would the cops firing “blindly” have been a reasonable response.
I was a supporter of “no-knock” raids, until cops threw a flash/bang grenade into an unlighted room, whereupon the grenade landed on top of a baby sleeping in a crib. At that point, I became a supporter of de-militarizing police, all of them.
Interesting questions, Sam. Whether there would be criminal liability, I cannot say. That would be up to a District Attorney to decide if the circumstances warranted criminal charges on either side and a jury to weigh the facts of each individual case. In some cases I would imagine it could result in criminal charges against both parties. In other case perhaps not so much. In any event, we both agree that no-knock, wee hours of the morning searches need to go to eliminate all of those questions. The security guard who was a suspect in the Atlanta bombing, complained about the news coverage the FBI search of his residence got. I always commented that the FBI search was conducted as searches should be conducted. The FBI knocked on his door, showed him the warrant asked him and his mother and pet dog to wait outside while they conducted their search only because there were several hundred news cameras outside. Otherwise they would have arrived in the wee hours of the morning, knocked his door of its hinges forced him and his mother on the floor in whatever state of undress they happened to sleep in and probably shot the dog. It is my contention how the FBI served its search warrant on that occasion is what our forefathers envisioned in talking about the necessity of a warrant authorized by a judge before searching a residence.
“It is my contention how the FBI served its search warrant on that occasion is what our forefathers envisioned in talking about the necessity of a warrant authorized by a judge before searching a residence.”
In 1988, I volunteered as a fundraiser for the local “United Way”. One of my “clients” was the DEA office. It was a scary moment. First, I learned that DEA considers everyone outside the DEA (everyone outside the DEA) as a potential target for take down. Second, I learned the majority at that detachment looked upon people in legitimate need as receiving just desserts for being dirt bags; not a single contribution to United Way.
For at least the last decade, we are seeing the solidification of the “us against them” concept of life in this country; the King’s Men vs. the populace.
I don’t blame Cosgrove, but the people who drafted the warrant should be charged with manslaughter. As for no-knock raids, they should be outlawed under the 4th Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
And before anyone goes off on the necessity of no-knocks, I’ve executed both regular and no-knock warrants as a probation officer, and the no-knocks are an invitation to disaster, just as this one was. Unless you’re seeking a kidnap victim, there’s no justification for a no-knock.
“(apparently cops are expected to have 20/20 vision in total darkness in a chaotic scene.)”
Actually, he is expected to identify his target, and know what is behind it. There is no expectation for police to use the mag-dump/spray and pray technique when unsure of the target; despite the general lack of accountability of police who do that.
As noted, regardless of how the cop entered the apartment, shooting into the dark is not defensible for legal gun owners, and police.