Grand Jury Indicts One of Three Officers Involved in the Shooting Death of Breonna Taylor

Breonna Taylor police indictment

(AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

From the Associated Press:

A Kentucky grand jury on Wednesday indicted a single former police officer for shooting into neighboring apartments but did not move forward with charges against any officers for their role in Breonna Taylor’s death.

The jury announced that fired Officer Brett Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment in connection to the police raid of Taylor’s home on the night of March 13.

Immediately after the announcement, people were expressing frustration that the grand jury did not do more.

“Justice has NOT been served,” tweeted Linda Sarsour of Until Freedom, a group that has pushed for charges in the case. “Rise UP. All across this country. Everywhere. Rise up for #BreonnaTaylor.”

Attorney Ben Crump, who is representing Taylor’s family, tweeted that the charges involved “NOTHING for the murder of Breonna Taylor. This is outrageous and offensive!”

At a news conference, state Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Hankison and the two other officers who entered Taylor’s apartment announced themselves before entering the apartment and did not use a no-knock warrant.

“According to Kentucky law, the use of force by (Officers Jonathan Mattingly and (Myles) Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor’s death.”

Regarding the inevitable disappointment by those who wanted criminal charges brought in Taylor’s death, he remarked, “The decision before my office as the special prosecutor in this case was not to decide if the loss of Ms. Taylor’s life was a tragedy. The answer to that is unequivocally yes.”

Cameron added that, “I understand that Breonna Taylor’s death is part of a national story, but the facts and evidence in this case are different than others” involving police shootings.

“If we simply act on emotion or outrage, there is no justice,” Cameron said. “Mob justice is not justice. Justice sought by violence is not justice. It just becomes revenge.”

He added that the FBI is still investigating potential violations of federal law in the case.

A Republican, Cameron is the state’s first Black state attorney general and a protege of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who has been tagged by some as his heir apparent. His was also one of 20 names on President Donald Trump’s list to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy.

Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times by officers who entered her home using a no-knock warrant during a narcotics investigation. The warrant used to search her home was connected to a suspect who did not live there, and no drugs were found inside. The use of no-knock warrants has since been banned by Louisville’s Metro Council.

Cameron’s office had been receiving materials from the Louisville Police Department’s public integrity unit while they tried to determine whether state charges would be brought against the three officers involved, he said.

Before charges were brought, Hankison was fired from the city’s police department on June 23. A termination letter sent to him by interim Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder said the white officer had violated procedures by showing “extreme indifference to the value of human life” when he “wantonly and blindly” shot 10 rounds of gunfire into Taylor’s apartment in March.

Hankison, Sgt. Johnathan Mattingly, Officer Myles Cosgrove and the detective who sought the warrant, Joshua Jaynes, were placed on administrative reassignment after the shooting.

Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire when police burst in, hitting Mattingly. Walker was charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors later dropped the charge.

Walker told police he heard knocking but didn’t know who was coming into the home and fired in self-defense.

On Sept. 15, the city settled a lawsuit against the three officers brought by Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, agreeing to pay her $12 million and enact police reforms.

Protesters in Louisville and across the country have demanded justice for Taylor and other Black people killed by police in recent months. The release in late May of a 911 call by Taylor’s boyfriend marked the beginning of days of protests in Louisville, fueled by her shooting and the violent death of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25.

Several prominent African American celebrities including Oprah and Beyoncé have joined those urging that the officers be charged.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    The war on drugs is a costly disaster that needs to end yesterday. There had not been a single positive for all the treasure wasted and lives destroyed.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Yeah we need more homeless druggies crapping in the street. /sarc

      How come you legalizers never count the social costs of addiction?

      1. avatar Dave says:

        I think he means “War on Drugs” as in the domestic militarization therein and 4A/5A infringements in the tactics of enforcement therein. Not necessarily the criminalization vs. legalization of specific drugs.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          A no knock warrant doesn’t violate the 4th or 5th Amendments. The Constitution only says you need a warrant to entry someone’s house or sieze their property. It doesn’t require you to knock.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          so you can expect to get shot at not knocking and kicking in someones door, right? Don’t act like this case was done appropriately and there was not corruption circling the entire thing. The bootlicking is unreal from you. I’m not exactly screaming ACAB by any means, but to support no knock raids? NY will pay you $200 for your POS ruger, go there.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I still have not heard the definitive answer to what I consider an important question. Immediately after I heard a report that the cops involved were plainclothes, not in uniform. If that is true, it COMPLETELY changes the complexion of the case, a bunch of thugs busting my door down, I will engage, don’t give a shit if they knocked first and shouted “police” repeatedly, because ANYONE can do that. So, does anyone know, were the cops in uniform, or not?

        4. avatar Montana Actual says:

          I cannot find ANY reports saying there in uniform. Only “knocked on the door several times and announced their presence as police who were there with a search warrant.” and multiple neighbors contradicted such claims. My guess: No uniforms, no knocks. If there was a “knock” it was followed so close by the kicking in of the door that anyone of us gun owners would have done the same thing and defended ourselves.

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          look tdi, I think there is some confusion. We are not saying we support the activity and crap that was going on with taylor and her BF, but to support no knocks and shady ass warrants like this is just naive. I do believe that taylor and her BF got what was coming to them, beit by police or some other rival dealers, but I refuse to support a narrative that also targets us gun owners for defending our property. I think most of us agree that we are not out there with BLM shouting for justice, but at the same time, this is a “war on drugs” related nonsense loss of life on both sides that should be avoided. There were 1,000 other ways to take down such people, and early in the case evidence they admitted they were trailing couriers and such, so why not start there instead of jumping head first into a bunch of obviously corrupt warrants and falsified police reports attempting to justify an unjust use of force where it could have been avoided. Plain and simple. They jumped the gun and this is the result. BT and her BF got caught up in that thug life and the police got caught up in that tyrant life. That is all.

        6. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Some the actual narrative is coming out. Testimony from neighbors said there was a knock and announce. Miss Taylor’s boyfriend fired through the closed door. So… unless he had x-ray vision the officer’s clothing was irrelevant. The demographics of the grand jury have not been disclosed, but odds are there were African-Americans on it. The AG is African-American nullifying the race card. Not that that will prevent the left from playing it. Again, it was not LE nor the SAO that declined to bring charges. It was a jury of peers. Of course, the protests have begun. Banditry to follow sunset. Pop some corn. Enjoy!

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Gadsden, I have heard the door was closed, the door was open, so damn many times I will not believe ANYTHING in that vein until some news show presents a picture of the door, so I can count the bullet holes. Just this morning I heard on the news that the cops busted the door open and then the man inside opened fire and they returned fire, then 5 minutes later I heard *on the same channel* that one of the officers fired 6 shots through the door. I also heard for the first time that the warrant was a search warrant, not even an arrest warrant. And nobody yet has mentioned why a search warrant needs to be served just after midnight. The warrant *was* a no-knock warrant, although the officers testify they did not serve it as no-knock, but since that was not necessary the entire question of whether they knocked and announced seems like a waste of breath. Each party calling the other a liar about whether there was sufficient notification, when none at all was legally required, just leaves me shaking my head.

        8. avatar Paul says:

          tdiinva is nuts. No-knock is so very wrong, morally, ethically, and CONSTITUTIONALLY, it shouldn’t even need to be explained. Which part of “The right of the people to be secure” do you fail to understand?

          I don’t care how low a lowlife might be. If you kick his door down to assault him, he has the RIGHT to shoot you dead. It’s called “self defense”.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Show me a single victory in this war. Billions, if not trillions, wasted for no measureable gain. Show me the dollars and cents value of this war.

        1. avatar SA in KY says:

          The judges signed something like 12 warrants in 10 minutes. How could she have possibly reviewed them all on their merits?

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          They can’t and won’t. It’s about who controls the flow. That’s the only reason it was started.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Crime rates had fallen to historic lows in the last 20 years. What do you think caused that?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Crime rates had fallen to historic lows in the last 20 years. What do you think caused that?”

          Binge watching the Kardashians?

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          a number of things. “Crime” stats and drug stats are different numbers.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          “Show me a single victory in this war.”

          Well, one could argue that the 1934 NFA was a victory. Not for our side mind you, but for Progressives.

          One of the things that boggles my mind about the WoD is how many people are anti-gun control but pro-drug control apparently without realizing that attempts at drug control are one of the main reasons there’s an argument for gun-control in the first place.

          Black markets are violent. That’s a fundamental truth about them. The more you have black markets the more violence you have. The more violence you have the more calls for gun control you have.

          They’re also the same root thought process. “You’re not responsible enough to have X so the government will make possession of X illegal or heavily restricted.”

          And typical of government, the solution they have for a problem creates a shitload of new problems which, of course, require whole new agencies with large staffs and huge budgets in order to *deal* with. Government never says “Whoops, that was a mistake. Let’s undo it”. No, they double and triple down ad infinitum and spend ever more money on every new problem they create and trample or outright destroy our rights in doing so. Then they turn around, smile and ask for more money because “safety is priceless”.

          There’s a reason the Founders wanted a small government.

        7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Illegal drug stats are crime statistics. Me? Legalize all of them. Property crimes, burglaries and, eventually, homicide will fall through the basement these nitwits live in. If the government gives them the drugs it will be a lot less expensive than what we’ve been doing. One caveat, each time an addict picks up his drug of choice they sign a release that says they forego any medical care unless they can pay out of pocket. Yeah, right. Medicare prohibited from paying for an OD. Of course, lots of LE will have to find other employment. But that’s okay. Are you concerned about a crack head dying in a gutter? I’m not. Not a Christian thought, but I’m sure the trolls will take them in. They can sleep on the trolls couch in Mom”s basement. Trolls sleep under bridges anyway.

        8. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          I’m really a fan of Portugal’s reforms to drug laws and enforcement. Still effective but much lower cost in human lives, dollars, and not flooding the penal system with low level users and dealers.

        9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to strych9

          “There’s a reason the Founders wanted a small government.”

          The founders also knew that the less religion a society has, the bigger the government gets. American atheist’s have had a great victory. They replaced private religious welfare and self control. With government welfare. And no requirement for self control. And the secular government keeps getting bigger and bigger.

      3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        @td

        Or…do what Portugal did.

        Only we do it a bit bigger. Turn it from a criminal issue into a medical issue. Decriminalize and get people into treatment programs. I’m typing fast so yeah, why keep throwing all this money after something that doesn’t seem to be working?

        Try something radical instead?

      4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Obviously, most legalization advocates very much consider the costs of addictions.Your opponents in this matter aren’t the straw men that your favorite talking heads slay like action movie heroes. Why are you ignoring that the repeal of prohibition didn’t result in an increase alcoholism?

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Unlike the war on drugs, the prohibition of alcohol actually kind of worked (also unlike the war on drugs, it was quite literally constitutional). The nationwide alcoholism rate declined by as much as 40%, if I’m remembering right.

          And it STILL was judged not worth keeping. The costs were insupportable, and it’s remembered as a failure.

          The “war on drugs” has been so useless, it’s mind-boggling. I think the authoritarians learned from Prohibition that going big all at once was their undoing; instead, they’ve been waging a propaganda war and ratcheting up the money and laws bit by bit so nobody notices they’re not being protected, but fenced in. It’s kind of like a drug; by the time you realize how deep you’ve gone, it’s too late.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          False. Alcoholism rates did not return to pre prohibition levels until about 1960. Try again.

      5. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Because the social costs of the war on drugs are far worse than the fantasy that it has reduced addiction.
        Drug prices, especially narcotics, have gone down. Narcotic use is up. Narcotic overdoses are up. It has been a complete failure by any metric.

        1. avatar Delta795 says:

          Narcotic overdoses are _down_ in Oregon following legalization of recreational use of cannabis so we have at least one answer for one part of the problem.

          No one is calling for legalization of narcotics, methamphetamine, cocaine, PCP, or other dangerous drugs. Decriminalization is _not_ the same thing as legalization and apparently that difference is too nuanced for most of the readers of this column. We need to quit incarcerating people for merely possessing small amounts of these drugs. Incarceration does nothing to treat addiction or the deep-seated causes that trigger it. We’ve tried that for decades and we’re ultimately worse off than when we started.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Decriminalization is _not_ the same thing as legalization and apparently that difference is too nuanced for most of the readers of this column. ”

          Nope, we read just fine. “Decriminalization” doesn’t mean assign a “ticket” instead of a jail cell. “Decriminalization” means legalize, completely. Just as “Defund the Police” means “Abolish the Police”.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          There is a lot of prescriptions causing drug addiction and eventual overdose deaths. They go to the doctor for an issue and the doc gives them a bottle of pills. The drug user becomes addicted to these legally allowed drugs. Then their prescription runs out but the addiction does not. Now there is another drug addict looking for their next hit.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          “There is a lot of prescriptions causing drug addiction and eventual overdose deaths.”

          Yep. The pharmaceutical industry created so many new addicts, that most people now know someone that’s been affected by it. People weren’t prepared to get hooked on something their doctor gave them.

        5. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          On the doctor issue, remember that it was government who initially told doctors that pain is not being addressed. So address it or be penalized. Government told doctors to start prescribing narcotics for pain or else.

          When doctors did, of course more people got addicted. Then people started complaining about that and government blamed doctors and told them to limit narcotics.

          So all of these new addicts now couldn’t get enough pills from their doctor. So they started going to more than one doctor to get their fix.

          Then the government cracked down on that. States created databases of who is getting certain meds so you can’t go to different docs and different pharmacies.

          So then these people wind up going to ERs and selling drugs. When that failed they go to the streets.

          People that were addicted because of government edicts but were functional have now been turned into street crapping homeless people by the very edicts of the same government that prohibits them from buying the stuff the government got them addicted to in the first place.

          And people wonder why I believe government is the root of all evil. Or at least of most stupidity.

        6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Go to the ER and trying to get drugs.

          Big thumbs, small phone keyboard

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Delta, there is at least one falsehood there, since *I* favor legalization of ALL recreational drugs right up to fentanyl. Because I do not care if these turds die, I do care if you spend my tax money saving them for a week, until they go right back again.

      6. avatar Ing says:

        Have you ever considered that maybe we ARE counting all the costs?

        What have we got from the so-called war on drugs? After decades of Constitution-shredding laws and tactics, having thrown trillions of dollars at it, we have just as much drug abuse as before, if not more, with all it entails. It’s an enormous cost with virtually no benefit. Unless you love a huge, unaccountable government, that is.

        Maybe it’s time to see if something else works.

      7. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Feel free to pass laws prohibiting crapping in the street. Attach the death penalty, I’m with you. But ALL laws concerning drugs need to be dropped, you cannot come up with a single reason why our government should be making our personal decisions for us. Joe Blow snortin’ shit does absolutely nothing to me, and I could not care less. The amount of money spent, the deaths, the lives ruined, the costs are so great as to be incalculable, and the Federal portion of that is authorized exactly NOWHERE in the Constitution. A whole shitpot full of problems would disappear within a month if we just stopped the lunacy.

        After 50 years of the war on drugs, you can purchase any drug you wish on any streetcorner in any city in America. The only success has been in getting the demagogues elected who dreamed up the “war”.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          What would happen to Mexico! They need those jobs. What is a cartel to do without the profits from Americans want for drugs? What are the Afghan terrorists to do without their drug crops bringing in the funds for their operations?

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          They’ll sell them to Europe.

          No one ever talks about it but there are a number of small countries on the West coast of Africa that are essentially owned by the cartels and are their mid-point in distribution of narcotics into Europe and the Middle East.

          It’s finally getting *some* attention now that the cartels and jihadis are actively and openly working together in Mali.

      8. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

        Look up Portugal’s decriminalization of illicit drug use. They’ve had insanely positive results, and addiction rates (and thusly ancillary crime like petty theft and burglary) are way down.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          That’s because Portugal is populated by Portuguese, and the US is full of, well, not Portuguese.

          Demographics is everything.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Demographics is everything.”

          What? What?

          People are exactly the same, everwhere. There is no difference. It’s been all over the internet. Everybody is the same. There is no difference.

          Don’t you read?

        3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Portugal is also a much smaller culturally and ethnically homogeneous society with stronger family structures than the US.

      9. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The costs of addiction are lower than the costs to our freedoms and liberties that have been destroyed by this progressive war against the American people.

      10. avatar Thixotropic says:

        Legalization OR decriminalization of ALL Drug Use will have just the opposite effect over time. We have examples in Europe of what will happen after laws are substantially changed.

        ALL people should be judged and adjudicated upon WHAT THEY DO AND SAY regardless of what they put in their bodies.

      11. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        I guess you have not been to Philly lately. Or any other major American city. We have the War on Some Drugs, we have the militarization of police, we have the violations of our rights, and we have the homeless druggies crapping in the street too. The War on Sime Drugs has not solved that problem. And it’s getting worse.

        If you legalize then the drugs are made in regular factories with standard ingredients and quality control.

        Accidental overdoses go away because every dose contains a specific amount of a specific substance. Nothing is cut with anything.

        Price goes down and people can then afford their fix and a crappy efficiency apartment on a dead end job’s pay instead of having to rob and steal for it and then only being able to afford their fix.

        Injectibles can be packaged in single use syringes like many medications are today. This eliminates the spread of disease by sharing needles.

        I would not support taxation but drugs could be taxed generating more revenue for state and local governments.

        There’s your social cost. More freedom is always the right answer.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Prohibition laws were proven to be stupid and more harmful to society than drugs themselves, but the US did get Nascar out of all the death and destruction. Yet Americans continue to allow their government to enforce an unconstitutional drug war after prohibition was repealed long ago.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        How are drug laws unconstitutional?

        1. avatar Travis Pike says:

          where in the Constitution does the government gain the ability to regulate what I place in my body?

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          The US is setup to where the people have all the power and they give the government the legal privilege of governing as the people see fit. For the government to take rights they need to follow the constitution because that is what limits their powers. If there isn’t any power given by the people, thus written into the constitution, the government has no legal authority. Which is why they amended the constitution to ban one of the most common drugs and repealed that amendment when it got many people killed.

          The US is not a country where the government can do whatever it wants. The government workers are supposed to be servants of the people. That’s why they are called representatives.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Think about it, you’ll get it. Prohibition was authorized and repealed by Constitutional Amendment to give that authority to the government. 50 years later a politician decided that was not necessary for other drugs, a decision based on exactly nothing. It WAS necessary, the necessity was ignored, and the entire “war” has thus been unconstitutional since day one and up until today.

        4. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          This is why:
          https://ibb.co/qWGM8VM
          (it applies to firearms as well as drugs)

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          lol travis. Nailed it. I don’t even like drugs or use them and I believe you can be addicted to ANYTHING, but putting someone in prison for “trafficking” some MJ? What a fucken waste. Yes, there are certain drugs that I think we can all agree on should not exist, but they do, and when you criminalize them that just makes people want them more. Obviously you cant have meth dealers destroying an entire community and luring in future addicts, but where do you draw the line? It’s clearly not worth it on MJ, and many other drugs too.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Read the 21st Amendment. It prohibits the Federal Government from imposing restrictions on alcohol, not the States. It therefore grants the States power to prohibit alcoholic beverages if they so desire and by extension drugs.

        7. avatar Montana Actual says:

          one could argue that the constitution is a guideline for the states too… being federal law trumps state law and all… just sayin. All i heard instead though, was it’s time to make that clear? Too many cracks in the wordings? Maybe pick a better example. And you are aware that is was attempted by the feds to impose restrictions, not the states, to begin with, right?

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “being federal law trumps state law and all…”

          Not so. There are activities that are intra-state, for which the feds only have laws regarding inter-state. A state may have no requirement for firearms to be purchased subsequent to a background check, and the state LE are not involved in any degree. States may require background checks on person-to-person firearm sales, whereas the federal law on background checks requires no such thing. A state may declare that all retail establishments close on Sunday (old term – “Blue Laws”), but the federal laws have no such provision. A state may implement a sales tax, but federal tax law does not impose sales tax on retail transactions inside a state. And one of the most famous divides between state and federal relates to the assination of JFK. Prior to the aftermath of that, killing a federal politician was not a federal crime; merely a state crime. When killing national politicans came under federal law, state law was not supplanted/superceded. The result was that both realms could prosecute.

          Federalism doesn’t mean central control of every human interaction everywhere in the boundaries of the nation. Federalism recognizes two realms of jurisdiction.

        9. avatar LarryinTX says:

          TDI, that is correct, it is and always has been the federal government which is restricted, limited to those powers SPECIFICALLY granted to it by the Constitution, with all other powers reserved to the states, or to the people.

          But Sam, firearms are the exception, here, 2A requires that NEITHER federal nor state governments, nor anyone else, can infringe on that right.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “..it is and always has been the federal government which is restricted, limited to those powers SPECIFICALLY granted to it by the Constitution, with all other powers reserved to the states, or to the people.”

          Except after 1868.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Chief pretty well nails this actually.

        Ignoring the Constitutionality shredding provisions of the WoD just look at what the DEA itself says.

        There are, IMHO, two things that stick out in DEA publications.

        First, they consider rising prices and increased violence among drug providers to be a good thing. It means, according to them, that they’re squeezing the supply in a good way. Only government could come to the conclusion that more bodies in the street is a positive metric.

        Second, they openly admit that they cannot keep up and use this to justify yet more power for themselves. According to the DEA the problem with “designer drugs” or Spice or Bath Salts is that every time we declare something an “illegal drug” we do so by chemical structure. Enterprising chemists can just change the structure slightly, swapping out an atom here or there in the compound, and *boom* the new formulation is legal until the “law” catches up.

        This is why drugs like Crocodil and Flakka exist in the first place. Each escalation cycle in this “war” makes a new generation of temporarily legal, and generally more dangerous, drugs.

        It’s not that drugs are good. They’re not. It’s that the consequences of prohibition are proven to be worse from a pure utility and from a rights point of view. Civil Asset Forfeiture wouldn’t be a thing without the WoD. It shouldn’t be a concern of anyone that having legal tender is suddenly a crimebin and of itself but it is.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s not that drugs are good. They’re not. It’s that the consequences of prohibition are proven to be worse from a pure utility and from a rights point of view. ”

          If we just summarily executed anyone in possession of a listed drug, the demand just might dry up, ending the war.

        2. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

          “This is why drugs like Crocodil and Flakka exist in the first place. Each escalation cycle in this “war” makes a new generation of temporarily legal, and generally more dangerous, drugs.”

          Yep, ‘analogs’ of the original structure, in chemist lingo. That’s all those ‘designer drugs’ are, a slight modification of the original, but the existing laws define a specific structure. Ergo, no match, no crime.

          There have been some efforts to close those ‘loopholes’, but there are other chemical compounds somewhat-similar in their ‘build’, and that, well, ‘complicates’ things…

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          The problem with closing “loopholes” is that such a move essentially makes all future biochemistry potentially illegal.

          You’ll never be able to regulate this the way *they* think you can. An active site of a compound can be attached to an inactive sidechain and the sidechain can be modified in essentially infinite ways while leaving the active site intact.

          This is literally week three of Cell Bio 101.

      3. avatar Ron says:

        You’re also being lied to, 24/7, about everything. How do you know anything you hold true as “facts” are even true at all?

        The media is one giant lying propaganda machine.

    3. avatar Ron says:

      I’m also willing to be there’s more to this story then the MSM wants us to know, like with everything.

      At this point I don’t believe a single thing the MSM says without verification. They don’t just spin stories anymore. They outright ignore things and blatantly make things up.

      “Where do you verify the MSM?” You might ask.

      That’s a great question.

  2. avatar DeitzNuts says:

    They just said in the article that it was NOT a “No Knock” warrant because they announced them selves before entering. If her dipshit boyfriend had not shot back at cops this young woman would be alive. Apparently, one guy screwed up on policy and will be charged. Get the F over it, Oprah and the rest of you clueless anarchists!

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Ken lied, Breonna died.

      Ralph hardest hit.

    2. avatar SA in KY says:

      No. This has serious repercussions for all gun owners. If you didnt hear someone announcing their identity as police, regardless of whether they did or not, come crashing through your door at 1 something AM, you would be shooting too.

    3. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Only one person upstairs claims to have heard the police announce. The people in the other apartments said they heard no such thing, that includes those on the same floor. The only other people to say they announced were the shooters.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        If the upstairs neighbor heard. They announced. You are just another ilinformed pudknocker.

        1. avatar What? says:

          If you’re asleep are you going to hear someone say “Police” or are you going to hear them breaking the door down?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          If you are asleep you aren’t going make it to the doorway ready to shoot. Apply some of that tacticool knowledge before you speak.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Do you not understand the point? Only one “witness” says he heard the police say there were the police when they knocked on the door. Everyone else said they did not hear that. The man that claims to have heard the police was from upstairs. The people downstairs say they did not hear the announcement.

          If you have 10 people say one thing and you have only 1 person say another, does that mean all 10 of those witness statements now junk?

          It’s like that video of a white cop being told that a white man threatened someone with a gun, but he decides it was a black man, then starts pointing guns at black men and accusing them of being criminals even when he is still being told it was a white man. The only person saying it was a black man is the cop.

          To take one person’s word as the truth to nullify the other people’s statements because it helps the cops…

        4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I’m not attacking you, but want to point out something.

          Not all doors will succumb to the portable police door ram. Some doors are created more equal than others. Door frames reinforced with steel ect Enough so that one will have time to ‘wake up’ and investigate.

          Has nothing to do with tacticool anything.

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          They did not make it to the doorway tdi, they made it to the hallway just outside their bedroom. Probably as the door was being kicked in. You are probably the easiest person to rob. Hey everyone, just announce yourself as police and start kicking in tid’s door… he’ll comply.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Do you not hear Walker’s statement that he heard them knock?

        7. avatar tdiinva says:

          MA. That’s the doorway to the bedroom not the apartment. If you are asleep they will be on top of you before you even know what’s going except maybe a guy with ninja like skills could do it but not a couple of bangers

        8. avatar LarryinTX says:

          TDI, bullshit flag. After they smash thru my door, they have to decide whether to go downstairs to the 1st floor, or upstairs to the 2nd and 3rd floor. About the time they make a guess they will hear the slide on my Mossy racking, then it gets noisy. Don’t just assume everybody lives in the same house you do.

    4. avatar PJ says:

      Where is the body cam footage to prove that? Did it ever occur to you that the officers lied to cover themselves? Announcing yourself during a no-knock raid seems a little counter-intuitive doesn’t it? Maybe these guys really were that stalwart… Right.

      Tell me again how much you love the police but hate the ATF. Maybe if the ATF raids your house with a no-knock warrant over a false gun report and kills your wife or kid in what you think is a “home invasion” you will be seeing a different tune.

      How does that boot taste?

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        We have a keyboard wannabe banger. Man up and knock off that bodega.

        1. avatar PJ says:

          Cute. Here we have a pathetic troll cop who is butt hurt he can’t get away with murder anymore. The police are the biggest gang of all. I’m counting down the days until your qualified immunity disappears and you will actually be accountable to the people who pay your salary. You might actually have to follow the law in the end, what a concept!

  3. avatar She Was Tragically Murdered... says:

    This is a sad miscarriage of justice.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      True the two other morons should have been charged too.

      1. avatar Delta795 says:

        As well as whoever lied on the warrant applications. LMPD claimed in the warrant application that a USPS inspector told them packages for the dealer ex-boyfriend had been delivered to her apartment. The US Postal Inspector for Louisville has gone on record repeatedly saying that he said no such thing and that it would be highly irregular for an inspector from another jurisdiction to inform LMPD of such things without going through his office.

        If they started lying on the warrant application, the burden of proof that they were not lying when they claim to have announced themselves prior to executing a no-knock warrant is on the officers, ethically, at least. The further blatant lies in the after-action police report (no battering ram, no injuries to occupant(s) resulting from entry) only increase this burden.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sheesh, this is not that tough. The warrant was a no-knock warrant, but the officers designated to execute it were not told that, and did not possess the actual warrant. Therefore, they served it as a normal warrant rather than no-knock. However, after we all jump thru our asses to prove they did not knock, or that they *did* knock, there is still the fact that the warrant did not require them to knock, why the craziness?

          Looks to me like the issuance of the warrant has significant problems, possibly justifying the city paying out 12 million bucks, and two of the officers did a fine job of serving it, while the third officer opened fire on the entire apartment building from outside in the parking lot, and is being charged for that.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The fact that “the department” didn’t know that the suspect was already in custody, and that a pending raid was unnecessary should have led to “depraved indifference homicide” charges for all supervision levels.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Dumbass, she was a suspect. Brandon Tatum has published the investigive report . She was neck deep in her ex boyfriend’s drug business. Given that the Grand Jury testimony from the neighbors verified that police knocked and announced Walker and Taylor were probably flushing contraband down the toilet. Walker was alone for 14 minutes before police re-entered the apartment.

      1. avatar DeitzNuts says:

        I just learned that Brianna was complicit with the drugs, she was not innocent either. Death is a harsh penalty though if she did not fire on the cops herself.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          You know what they say:. ” Every bullet has a lawyer attached to it.”. If Walker doesn’t shoot then Taylor doesn’t die.

        2. avatar John in AK says:

          Whoa.

          Does that mean that if one doesn’t shoot, or attempt to shoot, or stab, or attempt to stab, or run over, or attempt to run over, the police while resisting arrest, one doesn’t get a)mussed up and/or b)shot, generally speaking?

          This new learning amazes me. Explain to me again how sheeps’ bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

      2. avatar Taste That Boot Leather! says:

        tdiinva is a LE well known 🥾 👅 . Taste that boot leather and really get into those soles…

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          You’re That Guy, aren’t you?

          You know, the one on Cops, scrawny and shirtless, with the mullet, acne, and scraggly beard–the one who gets dragged out of the ‘mobile home’ to the waiting squad car while the fat wifegirlfriendsistercousin wails in the background about the PO-lice takin’ her man.

          What was it with you? DV Assault? DWI? Drug Possession? Child Abuse? Child Porn?

          C’mon, show us on the dolly where the Bad Policeman touched you.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    If the po-leece invade my home I will shoot back. They would have no reason except there are some shady character’s who’ve moved in nearby. Oh and they’re inept. I know-“just following orders”. I’m soooo tired of this BS…

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      How about this Sunshine, if you don’t get involved in illegal activities, the cops won’t be knocking on your door at zero dark thirty.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Geez td Wisconsin…you’v’e officially made my shit list. It’s good you’re an ancient azzhole with omniscient knowledge of what went on in Kentucky. No need to indict inept 5-0. Just call td😏😏😏😏😏!

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          As Gadsen pointed out this was the decision of the Grand Jury who heard all the evidence. You must have evidence that they don’t.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Crooked cops don’t exist? Raids on the wrong house don’t exist?

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Exactly- cops in plain clothes and no cameras, rolling up in unmarked cars, then busting in and spraying bullets effing *everywhere* is just normal and good community policing. No corruption possible.
          /s

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Non sequitor. It wasn’t the wrong house and she was involved in a criminal enterprise.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          Not a non sequitur at all. You stated a presumption that not committing crimes implies not being raided by police. JWTaylor pointed out situations where that is not true.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          We may be getting close! Are you saying that IN THIS CASE the cops were in plainclothes with unmarked cars? Where can I find that?

        5. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          @LarryinTX – they were plainclothes cops, as reported everywhere I could find. TTAG is the only place I could find that added that their cars were also unmarked and they had no body cameras, so take that for what you will. I ass-ume that if they did have body cameras it would’ve come up in even the MSM.

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Exactly. If this killing was as clean as they’re trying to say, the boyfriend would have been charged with felony murder for her death.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        False. In today’s political environment Walker isn’t going to be indicted.

  6. avatar BOBO says:

    Well sine the DA and courts did not take all the cops out behind the courthouse today and hang them all on the spot because of pressure from BLM

    the city will burn tonight…one fact ANITFA is already handing out signs and riot gear from pre-staged h-hauls

    how many more times is the US going to let ANTIFA even think to do this shit and get away with it?

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Just remember, it wasn’t LE or the SAO that didn’t charge the officers. It the grand jury who didn’t charge them. You know, those pesky peers of Miss Taylor’s and the officer’s.

    1. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      True, but that won’t stop ANTIFA, BLM, and the ‘boyz’ burning that city down.

      Well, trying to, anyways. The suburbs will stop that shit *cold*.

      The commercial parts of that city will be destroyed unless LE deploys…

      1. avatar Manu says:

        Don’t forget The Proud Boys and 3%ers. They’re just as likely to be there stirring things up.

      2. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

        “The commercial parts of that city will be destroyed unless LE deploys…”

        The national guard is deploying, and stores even in the far suburbs are boarding up in preparation for the night’s ‘festivities’.

        Also, there’s video of U-Haul trucks distributing riot shields on the zero hedge website.

        For some reason TTAG is dumping my comments with URLs in them.

        All of what I describe above is on the zero hedge as of right now…

      3. avatar My2cents says:

        I thought that the police had already shut off access to the downtown area in anticipation of this type of verdict. I’m not holding my breath that will make much of a difference to the inevitable rioters though.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I hear ya! Just today DeBlasio says there won’t be any crowds for the ball drop on New Year’s, I thought I’d bust a gut. Let’s see, everybody knows the time and place, millions come every year, just how is he going to stop the crowd from forming? Shoot them?

  8. avatar Ing says:

    The city has ended the policy that allowed incidents like this to happen. The family has received $12 million, which makes them more than financially whole.

    No, it won’t erase the tragedy or the grief of Breonna Taylor’s loved ones. Neither would sending all the police officers to jail. Nothing will. People often say “I just want to make sure this can’t happen again.” Well, it looks like that’s been done. It’s as fair and just an outcome as anyone could expect.

    From here on out, anything else that’s being demanded is merely revenge. And as always, in the inevitable riots to come, revenge will enacted solely upon the innocent.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      As Brandon Tatum points out if the police executed this as a no knock Taylor would be alive today. The change in policy will get more people killed.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I doubt it.

        Besides, nobody has ever explained what deadly deeds were being done in that house that justified busting in at gunpoint in the middle of the night. Neither Taylor nor her boyfriend were an imminent danger to anyone. It’s the same in almost every one of these raids. And unless I’ve missed something (I haven’t been following every twist and turn), the police were there looking in the wrong place for someone else, who wasn’t an immediate threat either, into the bargain.

        With only a little bit of planning and legwork, 99% of these home raids, no-knock or otherwise, could be avoided. Arrest them when they’re *leaving* home, if an arrest is necessary. Figure out when they’re not likely to be home and look for evidence then.

        The current defense of that raid just amounts to “the government can do whatever it wants if someone suspected of something.”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” Figure out when they’re not likely to be home and look for evidence then.”

          Uuuhhh, ‘scuse me. That can only be done by federal agents pursuing a FISA warrant. Lesser police don’t have the privilege, thus, it is necessary to break-in to a suspect’s house, in the middle of the night, dressed as local street thugs, so as to prevent the suspect from getting rid of contraband. Laying down suppressive fire is a tactic to ensure the local LE agents go home safe, after the raid. When you ain’t a fed, you gotta do with what you can find.

          If it were possible to have random no-knock raids of homes/dwellings, sort of as “health and safety” visits, people would learn not to shoot at people bursting uninvited into their homes; eveybody would benefit.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          You doubt it? Well the cops no knocked the Stash House with five armed baddies inside. No shots fired.

          You go with “hands up, don’t shoot.” I will go with the facts.

        3. avatar John in AK says:

          “Manos arribas, you sons of b*tches!” -‘The Highwaymen,’ 2019.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Great. Now every comment I make is hitting the moderation bin.

        It must be a sign…I’m going to go do something profitable instead.

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Don’t listen to Tatum. That man is no good. He is just like Tim Pool.

        Money is an evil thing in America.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Don’t listen to Chief Censor. He is a twenty something paid troll.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Money is an evil thing in America.”

          Nope. Like firearms, money is an inanimate object, a tool. The evil rests solely with the person using the tool to accomplish evil.

      4. avatar Chief Censor says:

        You can’t argue that Tatum is not a shill making big money off a particular group. He quit being a cop because making money on his Youtube channel is way more profitable while Trump is president.

        Same applies to Donut Operator.

        These characters make huge money putting out propaganda at the levels of CNN. They do not care for America nor its people.

  9. avatar Debbie W. says:

    All sorts of BS has been flying around about this tragedy. Facts need to come sooner than later otherwise it’s whatever fits the narrative of those who want to fan the flames. Taylor’s family was quickly awarded an attention grabbing $12,000,000.00. Rest assured many crocodile tear tantrum throwers see only dollar signs and would like nothing more than for the media to make them a sue happy victim of police brutality.

    On the other hand such bad guy apprehensions need to be checked, double checked and somebody signs off on them before officers can proceed otherwise it could be you and yours next.

  10. avatar Chief Censor says:

    This makes zero sense. They charged a cop for shooting at unarmed innocent people next door and didn’t charge the actual killer who shot Taylor 5 times (aka the innocent unarmed non combative). Does that make sense to you? Either they both get charged ot no one gets charged.

    The three charges for the cop that fired through the glass has a maximum total of 15 years. Of course that won’t happen to a cop. He was charged for shooting into other people’s apartments. Of course he wasn’t trying to shoot those people. Bullets travel through objects and continue until there is enough resistance. He shot towards the sound of gunfire coming from within the apartment. The bullets kept traveling. Yet he is being charged with 3 counts for those bullets not hitting Taylor nor her boyfriend.

    See what I am getting at here? That cop was charged 3 times because bullets flew towards people who were not a threat to him nor the other cops. Sounds like what would happen to us if we opened up. Doesn’t really sound like something that cops get in trouble for. This is rare. Only makes sense if the other cop was charged for actually shooting an unarmed non combative woman 5 times because someone else shot him. After all, he mag dumped with the intent to kill the two people he saw in the hallway and he got the one who was not a threat to him, let alone an immediate threat to him or others as is required with self defense laws.

    But the AG says the cop killing the non threat [Taylor] was self defense, thus the cop cannot be charged. He also said the local investigators claimed they couldn’t determine who killed Taylor, so he took the same evidence to the FBI and the FBI did determine which cop did it! Hmmm… Sounds like what I was hearing early on: the government was trying to cover it up and they made it impossible to get charges on purpose. Even the cop who was involved knew they weren’t getting charged and sent out an email telling everyone how great cops are and to take it to the public but remember the cameras are on this time.

    The cop should be charged with the intentional homicide of Taylor if the other cop is going to get charged with three counts of a felony because of his stray rounds. That killer intended to shoot the non combatant who was not a threat to him, he didn’t shoot her once, he opened up on her until she was dead. If you did the same thing at a bar you would be charged with some sort of homicide for shooting the attacker’s friend (who was not a threat whatsoever).

    This is not justice. You know you would have been charged if you shot a protester dead when another protester attacked you with deadly force because that protester was not a threat to you nor anyone else and just happened to be there with the person who attacked you. Kyle is being charged with almost shooting the journalist that was chasing after the “shot” when Kyle turned around and defended his gun and person.

    Justice is not something that is subjective. Different states or AGs/DAs should not come to different conclusions to the same problem. If that’s how the system works, the system is intentionally broken and only works the way those whom wield its power wants to decide a person’s fate. Which would mean the government owns the people and there is no peaceful recourse to crimes done by those with the political pull. Ultimately signally the need for and the use of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “They charged a cop for shooting at unarmed innocent people next door and didn’t charge the actual killer who shot Taylor 5 times (aka the innocent unarmed non combative). Does that make sense to you?”

      Yes it does. But “What we have here, is failure to communicate.” You see, the people in other apartments were not on the warrant; not at the address on the warrant. Anyone in the domicile listed on the warrant is possibly the named suspect. The named suspect is likely to be hostile, and armed. Thus, when shots are fired at the public servants, and the rooms are dark, everyone in the domiclie is likely to be the suspect, and shooting everyone is justified because it is impossible to really know who is who. Therefore, the people in other apartments are wholly innocent, and uninvolved. The people living at the warrant address are associated with the person named on the warrant, and potentially part of the criminal enterprise. Therefore, shooting everyone present at the address is justified.

      “Justice is not something that is subjective.”

      Aaahhh, but it is, doancha see? Justice is entirely circumstantial; situational. Justice is in the eye of the one who benefits, and injustice in the eye of the one who doesn’t benefit. One might even say justice is whatever the media says it is.

      It is how “the Law” works.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        So when the feds come to your house to get your guns or gun related parts your children are part of that crime, thus they should be shot at over 16 times and hit 5-6 times to make sure they are dead.

        What if the cop that mag dumped into Taylor sent bullets into the other apartments too? Do you believe the charged cop was intending to shoot three of the the neighbors through a wall or was he trying to shoot the person on the warrant and her associates who shot an officer?

        You are not being logical at all. You are trying to start from a position and make it fit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are not being logical at all. You are trying to start from a position and make it fit.”

          Explaining idiocy is not the same as endorsing idiocy.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “Explaining idiocy is not the same as endorsing idiocy.”

          True. But as the internet has proven over the last two decades, idiots don’t get that.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Censor, you may not have all the facts. Just this morning, for the first time, I heard that the third cop (the one charged) was outside in the parking lot when the shooting started, and he therefore opened up on the damn BUILDING, which I do not believe anybody can find an excuse for. The two men inside were fired on while performing their duty (and one was hit), therefore under that state’s law were entitled and expected to return fire, they did nothing wrong. Don’t like it? Change the law. Don’t try to prosecute someone for doing the job as he was trained to.

  11. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Announcement or not, if you go busting into people’s apartments in the middle of the night, it’s a recipe for tragedy. If cops broke into my home like they broke into Taylor’s, there might be dead cops.

    The whole idea of executing search warrants by force when people are normally asleep needs serious reconsideration. The end doesn’t justify the means.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    When someone shoots at the police who are lawfully in a place then they are going to shoot back and it’s not murder.

    The question that the looters and rioters will miss is whether the police should have been lawfully in that place at all.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Correct, but that question does not involve these 3 police officers, they were not even involved in the warrant process, until assigned to execute the warrant as they were trained. I suspect the warrant process is what the $12 million award was for, and the (now expensive) process will be modified, as it should.

  13. avatar Montana Actual says:

    See, if these assholes would not be screaming racist slogans, creating anarchy, and calling for the outright abolishment of the very people they call when SHTF for them, we could find common ground and come to an understanding that this type of shit is not acceptable and reform does need to happen. Instead, they made themselves enemies of us too. There is a middle ground. Find it. It does not involve boot licking, and it does not involve 100% abolishment of our government and states ie anarchy.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Spot on.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    Ugh what a mess. Was it a no-knock or not? Were the cops uniformed or not? Does it even matter given the circumstances?

    They dropped the charges for shooting a cop. From that I infer that they didn’t figure a conviction was possible given the evidence. That suggests that while the cops may not have been legally wrong they certainly were not acting in the most intelligent way since we’re essentially to the point of the DA saying “we can’t prove that the resident’s actions in opening fire were something a reasonable person wouldn’t do”.

    That would mean that based on the law and police procedure we’ve created a gray area where cops can kick down a door and kill someone inside while someone inside [possibly] kills cops and we have no actual violations of the law on either side. That’s insane.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…we have no actual violations of the law on either side. That’s insane.”

      That’s “the Law”. Mr. Bumble was right all along.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Cosgrove should also be charged. He should be charged with at least manslaughter or felony murder. He knew who he was shooting at and he dumped a mag with intent to kill Taylor. Mattingly only fired what was necessary and that is after he was shot in the leg. Hankison mag dumped through the the glass without the ability to see what he was shooting at.

      They tried to get the boyfriend to plead and they tried to get the ex boyfriend to lie on the dead woman. They spent most of their time doing this in an effort to coverup for Cosgrove and Hankison. I heard about it and I heard that the AG was going to make sure to get those two off through a grand jury. I already knew the outcome because it’s clearly criminal. The cops even knew they were going to get off, one of them sent out an email to everyone saying as much.

      This is typical, not surprising at all.

      Republicans will not hold cops accountable if they are not forced to and they love themselves a drug/gun/gang task force who acts like vigilantes. Can’t have “law and order” with order followers.

      By the way, I think Mattingly did fire in self defense and should not be charged, I also believe the boyfriend fired in self defense.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        *Can’t have “law and order” without order followers.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        What makes you think he knew Taylor? Everything I have seen or heard indicates it was likely he had never laid eyes on her in his life.

  15. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    The law must be changed. Absent a hostage or an active shooter there is no reason for a cop to kick in a citizen’s door. None.

    Knock on the door while the citizens are awake. Wait until that door is opened. Present the warrant and the citizen must be given time to read it. The citizen must be allowed to watch any and all of the search. Any and all property not taken as evidence must be returned to the state it was in before the government employee searched. If the cop empties a drawer or sweeps every thing off a shelf, he puts it back how he found it and pays out of his own pocket to replace anything damaged.

    The citizen doesn’t open the door, turn off the power and water and wait them out. Cops get paid no matter what they are doing. Better to pay them to wait out a warrant than to pay them to sit on the side of the road running “safety checkpoints” or speed trap.

    We must put cops back on their leashes and they must remember they work for us. The citizens are the masters and the cop is the servant. The rights of a citizen are more important than the safety of a cop.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Here’s a question I have wondered about concerning no-knocks.

      What if the roles were reversed and boyfriend was a 3-gunner or IDPA, whatever. The point is he’s fast ok, and he kills all of the cops. I bet money he would be charged with murder. I think that there is one State that has provided homeowners some protection in this scenario.

      Lot of folks on this board who practice and compete. Lot who are very fast and accurate.

      Put yourself in the scenario that three cops kick your door and stack into the funnel. Three dead in less than 2.5 sec. (face shots)

      This is why No-knocks are a terrible idea and get people killed. Very unnecessary over the war on drugs. Terrorists are another matter…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Depends. If these cops were not only not in uniform, but were “undercover cops”, ie dressed like itinerant drug dealers stoned on meth, I’d guess he would get away with it, esp if he was sharp enough to immediately take photos of them and the damage to his door. I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t agree, at least if he’s sharp enough to demand a jury trial.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      So, if the suspect refuses to open the door the cops just have to leave?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So, if the suspect refuses to open the door the cops just have to leave?”

        Well, that would be the polite thing. Right?

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          It’s the same principle with resisting arrest.

          You see, if you really, REALLY don’t want to be arrested, and are willing to use deadly force to prevent your arrest, then the POLITE thing for the police to do is to apologize and say, “Well! You really, REALLY don’t want to be arrested, do you?! OK, you can go, seeing as how you’re so serious about this. We’ll see you later, maybe. Have a nice day, Citizen! Oh, if you could turn yourself in, say, next Tuesday, we’d be greatly appreciative!”

          Is that the way things are supposed to work, now? I predict GREAT success with this plan!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Is that the way things are supposed to work, now? I predict GREAT success with this plan!”

          Yes. It is all part of repurposing, reimagining the police.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      “We must put cops back on their leashes and they must remember they work for us.”

      Actually them working for us is part of the problem.

      SWAT teams were designed for high risk situations and they were used very infrequently at first. Bank robberies gone wrong etc. At this point, IIRC, SWAT is now used nationwide more times in a month (and sometimes in a week) than it was nationwide in a year back in the 1970’s.

      However they’re also very expensive to maintain and that creates a problem.

      On the one hand if you have a SWAT team and almost never use it then people wonder what they’re paying for with all this expensive training and gear. They complain about the expense. BUT if there is, say, a hostage situation, then they all want SWAT on scene yesterday.

      On the other hand if you use these units *enough* to justify their existence [politically speaking here] then you’re probably overusing it for jobs the unit was never really designed for and now you have to explain that to the citizenry.

      In this regard it’s sorta like the *ultimate* CCW gun. Everyone wants a gun that’s flawlessly accurate and perfectly precise but has a massive mag capacity, rounds that hit like a 155mm Howitzer out to a bazillion yards all in a package that weighs nothing, in ultra-compact, nearly undetectable and with no recoil impulse. (To be fair, as I’ve said before, I also want functional toaster slots with a bagel option) It’s simply not possible to do this.

      So, in this post-9/11 world we need to find a compromise on SWAT. Ideally people would be smart and realize that paying a fair bit for this sort of insurance policy but using it rarely is actually a good thing but that’s unlikely.

      I saw this growing up. A guy robs a bank and takes a hostage during a blizzard. He and the hostage get stuck in a car that’s stuck on a drift in town. The Michigan State Police send up a SWAT unit and a sniper takes out the bank robber. People complain that it took too damn long because it took hours and hours and hours for this to happen.

      So, the County adds a SWAT team to the Sheriff’s Department and not two years later people are up in arms complaining about the cost because this SWAT unit has nothing to do. What does the SD do? They find work for the SWAT team. Duh.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        It seems there are generally two uses for SWAT teams: single solution; re-enforcement.

        In the first instance, the team is the only solution deployed after the on scene cops realize they are out matched by the perp(s). In the second instance, the beat cops can handle the situation, but the SWAT team presence sends the signal, “We really mean it.”

        In either case, SWAT should not be first responders.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I would tend to agree but the question is if you’re going to be rational in your use of SWAT then how do you sell to the public that SWAT actually *does* things at a price the public is willing to open their wallets for?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…if you’re going to be rational in your use of SWAT then how do you sell to the public that SWAT actually *does* things at a price the public is willing to open their wallets for?”

          Ask why the public has no problem paying for a fire department that doesn’t do much.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          You touch on something that has long fascinated me; the difference in public perception between the police and fire department.

          It took me a while to realize why this is. The reason is because when a Legislature or Governor does something asinine they don’t send the FD to enforce it. The PD is sent. As such, the cops become *the face* of bullshit laws and an easy scapegoat for politicians.

          Consider Eric Garner. There was an arguement for a while that he was “murdered for selling loose cigarettes”. OK, ignore the overall case and just focus on that argument regardless of how you feel or think about it.

          For the sake of simplicity and strong-manning the arguement let’s just say that it’s effectively true.

          Now, was selling loose cigarettes illegal? Yes..

          When selling of said loosies became illegal who was made to enforce that law? The police.

          But who made the selling of loose cigarettes illegal? Was it the cops? No. It was elected officials who decided this because they want insane amounts of revenue from tobacco (so much so that running smokes into NY is a thing).

          But who get’s blamed by the public if an enforcement action goes wrong? The cops.

          None of the people who advance the original “loose cigarettes” argument ever stop to ask why selling loose cigarettes was illegal in the first place or who made such sale illegal.

          So it’s pretty easy for politicians to blame the cops but in reality the blame lies with the politicians and their bullshit pickpocketing laws.

          Same thing with gay marriage. Few stop to ask “Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place when contract law and religion can easily handle this?”. The answer ultimately is the same: the government wants your money and this is a way to get it.

          Think the Left cares about equality? They don’t. The whole thing ultimately is just an easy way to manipulate people into fighting for their “right” to pay marriage licensing fees.

          As I often say; the best prisons are the ones you build in people’s heads. No guards, no dogs, no upkeep. And the icing on top is that the prisoners are both their own guards and the biggest defenders/champions of the prison itself.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree. FD is always considered to be full of heroes. But those heroes work sporadically, usually far away from the public, and spend a bunch of time killing time. What is really interesting is how they keep or expand their budgets. One element might be that FDs have convinced politicians that a fire truck is necessary at every police event, every “emergency” just because. That makes it look like FD is really busy for the citizens.

          Five years ago, a man across the street died of a heart attack at night. We had screaming sirens of three cop cars, the EMT van, and the large, structure capable fire truck. The neighborhood was blocked in for three hours. None of the public servants would explain why it was necessary to keep all that equipment, and staff at the house of the deceased. The man was transported within 30min of the arrival, but all the goodies remained in the street, coming and going. The survivors had no explanation either, and wanted to get to the hospital to say last goodbyes to the deceased.

          On the gripping hand, three years ago, we had a single patrol car and officer knocking on doors asking if we had seen a suspect in the neighborhood. Wondered why only one cop for a crime suspect, and a full parade for a heart attack?

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          I’ve never seen that happen but I have seen incidents where it was pretty obvious that at least some of the public servants were there to milk the OT clock.

        6. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

          “On the one hand if you have a SWAT team and almost never use it then people wonder what they’re paying for with all this expensive training and gear. They complain about the expense.”

          That’s why I’d like to see ‘dynamic entries’, if needed, done by one and one agency alone, the US Marshalls. Uniform training and deploy as needed. They will be training until needed, so skills stay sharp…

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Local LE organizations need one or two sniper-capable officers who otherwise are beat cops. A few hundred bucks a year for extra training and equipment. One SWAT team in a state is likely enough in all but a few states, like TX and CA.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Local LE organizations need one or two sniper-capable officers who otherwise are beat cops.”

          Meh. Each LE princinct should have its own dedicated SWAT team, each member military trained in urban warfare. These teams would then be used for every arrest for crimes greater than a traffic ticket. The teams would attack a target location, and render it uninhabitable for man or beast, sending the unqualified message, “Mess with the Bull, and you get the horns, m-f.” A little respect for overwhelming firepower would quiet the restless public, and keep order. Enough with this individual freedom crap.

        9. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Have a smoker friend who just moved to NY from TX. She says $12.50 a PACK!! So, loosies at $1 each would be a thing. Bought out of state, even better.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    This silly back-and-forth about drugs is just a time waster of the first order.

    I say again, no law, no crime. Remove all the laws, and put an end to the endless building of bureaucracy to enforce laws. People got better things to do with their time. Let nature have its way with people, as it does with non-humans. Adapt and survive, or not. Whoever says we must control nature is duplicitous: nature will take us all, in the end – we can’t control that.

    Free the Whales !
    Free the Internet !
    Free tacos and beer !
    Viva Max !

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Didn’t mankind make it thru, like, 5,000 years with 10 laws?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Didn’t mankind make it thru, like, 5,000 years with 10 laws?”

        Hammurabi screwed it up for everyone.

  17. avatar tdiinva says:

    Whole lot of “hands up, don’t shoot.” Going on here.

    Here is the investigative report that to the serving of the warrant:

    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1

    You can B!tch and moan about all you want about what you should be able to put in your body even if it destroys third parties and causes you to commit violent acts or run people over in your automobile but the law is the law and if you break it then there are consequences. If you keyboard bangers had the courage of your convictions you should be out burning at looting with the rest of your friends. Talk is cheap.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Keep those eyes closed, huh? Harming other people, running over people, on and on and on, should all be illegal, there, all done. NOW! What you put in your body is your own business. If outlawing drugs made all other laws unnecessary, we could have an argument, but since nobody CARES about drug laws, all the other laws are still enforced, when we have time after spending trillions prosecuting the stupid DRUG crimes.

  18. avatar Mad Max says:

    So, basically, the cop was indicted for bad marksmanship.

    If his aim was accurate, his rounds would have struck the guy that was shooting at him.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Naw, you’re off base. The guy who was shot is not being prosecuted, regardless of marksmanship. Neither is the guy who caused the death. It is the THIRD cop, who was outside in the parking lot and opened up on an apartment not even involved, and not included in the warrant, who is being charged.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        And he should be charged.

  19. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    these bs raids need to end. Surround the house, announce yourselves, and if they flush a bunch of drugs, then who cares. the drugs are gone.

    raids should be authorized for *verified* hostage situations only AFTER all other avenues have been exhausted.

    *so not situations where they get one call from some kid who lost at COD and decide to go full commando

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      In most locations, they could use the appropriate tool to block the sewer/septic line from the building via the curb vent to capture any flushed drug evidence.

      Plumbers could then recover the flushed evidence. Another dirty job for Mike Rowe🙂

  20. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Breonna Taylor would have had a BATFE raid on her home if drugs were legalized. Her home would have been raided for non payment of taxes. Just like the illegal still operators are. Legalizing drugs doesn’t reduce crime. And that is the stated goal of libertarians. They are either liars or fools. The idea that this will change the morality of the criminals, shows just how stupid Libertarians really are.

    If your argument is people have a right to put what they want into their bodies. Ok fine. But that’s not the argument libertarians are making. They’re saying crime will go away. Bull Sh^t.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email