I don't think this was brought this up yet, but the officer's account saying that they first identified themselves - a requirement in a "knock and announce" raid - is highly contested given that 11 out 12 nearby neighbors did not hear the police announce themselves. — Maw

Yes. I didn't focus enough on this discrepancy.

Manslaughter for each police officer at minimum; perhaps 2nd degree murder, etc pending evidence of other aggravating circumstances (e.g. unannounced break-in with a "knock and announce warrant", etc). — 180 Proof

Yes. I didn't focus enough on this discrepancy. — 180 Proof

Keeping the facts straight... The warrant issued by the judge at the request of other officers was a no knock warrant. That means the officers executing the warrant were not personally familiar with the facts underlying the warrant, were not responsible for the validity of the information in obtaining it, and we're under no legal requirement to announce their presence prior to serving it. .https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/.

Since this incident, that police department has banned no knock warrants. But the facts as we have them are that a no knock warrant was issued, the officers claim they announced anyway, and a grand jury, that actually heard from the witnesses, concluded the officers did announce.

What would you say might be the responsibility of the police, then? Do they have any? How about not to kill anyone unless they had to? — tim wood

The article above lays out the facts. The officers were serving a warrant issued by a judge. They knocked. An occupant in the home fired a shot through the closed door and hit an officer in the leg. The door was knocked down and the officers fired back. Their purpose was in self defense and in an effort to serve the warrant, which they were obligated to do under order of the judge.

I would presume forensics could determine if the shot fired was through the door while closed, which should lay to rest concerns the occupants didn't know the officers were outside the locked door prior to entry, which can only be explained if the officers had knocked.

If you read the NYTimes investigative article (9.24.20) I've already appended in a previous post linked (@bottom) here -

"While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves."

- you'll notice that my citation of the publicly reported facts are in order, counselor.

a no knock warrant. — Hanover

That, and the outcome. Does that tell you anything? Or an exact question: what exactly (in your opinion) justified the police discharging their weapons? Either they were all right or they were all wrong. If they were all right, then the exact reason should be easy to state. Hints: they did not have a target; after the first shot (apparently) there were no others; after the first shot they (apparently) did not announce themselves; and one of theirs wounded, condition at the instant unknown - what then did they do? They shot up the place.

There's no room to hide in this except in irrelevant and gratuitous generalities. Which is just to say there is no room to hide in this.

you'll notice that my citation of the publicly reported facts are in order, counselor. — 180 Proof

Indeed. I stand corrected. But keeping the facts straight is difficult, which makes these issues complicated because conclusions can depend upon subtle distinctions.

With a burden as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt" advantage weighs heavily to the accused where there is confusion.

There's no room to hide in this except in irrelevant and gratuitous generalities. Which is just to say there is no room to hide in this. — tim wood

You seem to be taking the position that the police would have been unjustified if the warrant were based upon fully valid facts, the occupants of the home posed a risk to public safety, and an occupant openly tried to kill the officer trying to serve the warrant.

I take the position that the police created the situation and having created it, were responsible to control it and its consequences. And. Kentucky appears to have little in the way of gun control laws. The prudent man takes that into account. Was a night-time no-knock warrant the best way to go about this? Kentucky also is a "stand-your-ground" law state. There is no obligation to retreat if possible as there is in Massachusetts. Cases from these states essentially give permission to shoot invaders - even if they're not invaders but the shooter claims to have thought that they were, in fact, even if they're on your porch in daylight and not having invaded anything.

Further, you avoided my question and indeed the general thrust of my argument. Why exactly did the police shoot? And, if they're not responsible then no one is, Might as well just shoot first.

When the FBI finally captured Whitey Bulger, did they do a no-knock night-time break-in raid? Ans.: no. They choreographed an arrest in which no one was harmed.

You on the other hand seem to defend the actuality because of form without respect of fact. The trouble - one trouble - with that is that you can establish forms that allow you to do anything with no accountability. And that is not policing. That is pure oppression. Stop thinking like a lawyer with a client you're defending and start using some common sense.

The police should not have been there at that time in that way. and if they fired their weapons, which they did do, then they were right to fire or not. That determination is not one to be made on the basis of generalities but rather on the basis of fact. We weren't there but we know enough to recognize that the police were wrong all the way through, The city has agreed $12M worth of taxpayer money. And no crime committed?

Reread my previous posts and my replies below. I stand by what I wrote. — 180 Proof

I did. Your issue seems to be with the prosecutors and not the decision of the jury, which I was explaining appeared to be the correct one. Both explanations can exist next to each other but you seemed to be disagreeing with my assessment on the jury decision, even going so far as claiming I can't tell the difference between a trial and an indictment. Good to know you stand by that too.

I think we all feel relatively certain there's been a lot of lying surrounding the knock and announcement. @Hanover what happens with his testimony if he'd be flipped to denying the knock and announce again? Is it then an untrustworthy witness or can you surpress all his statements and get them thrown out as evidence?

I'm pretty certain these cops are guilty of at least manslaughter and it pivots on proving what happened around the knock and announce.

Ok. Clearly you don't understand our grand jury system and how it substantially differs in operation and function from our trial jury system. The prosecutor is the issue because a grand jury (in practice) will almost always indict as instructed; very rarely is a prosecutor ever surprised by a grand jury in contrast to how often trial juries surprise them.

That's actually wrong. They're definitely not instructed by a prosecutor. The prosecuter decides what subjects the grand jury investigates and drafts the indictment and interrogates witnesses. The grand jury can subpoena evidence and persons (and reach presentments). There's an obligation on the prosecutor to present evidence substantially negating guilt as well. The grand jury is advised on the law by the court.

Given the evidence known, you cannot conclude probable cause because the likelihood of lies isn't sufficient. It's the right call, legally speaking.

Ok. :yawn:

think we all feel relatively certain there's been a lot of lying surrounding the knock and announcement. Hanover what happens with his testimony if he'd be flipped to denying the knock and announce again? Is it then an untrustworthy witness or can you surpress all his statements and get them thrown out as evidence? — Benkei

Interesting questions because they point to what appears to be significant differences in Dutch vs American law.

Witness testimony, and evidence generally, that benefits the accused is almost never suppressed. I say "almost" because there might be cases of absurd scientific testimony or the like that can be excluded, but the general rule in civil and criminal matters is that the fact finder (typically the jury) makes all determinations of credibility. The jury gets to determine what weight to give to any witnesses testimony. If a judge comments on the witnesses truthfulness in the jury's presence, that would be grounds for a mistrial. Trustworthiness is a jury question.

That's actually wrong. They're definitely not instructed by a prosecutor. The prosecuter decides what subjects the grand jury investigates and drafts the indictment and interrogates witnesses. The grand jury can subpoena evidence and persons (and reach presentments). There's an obligation on the prosecutor to present evidence substantially negating guilt as well. The grand jury is advised on the law by the court. — Benkei

In practice, the Grand Jury does whatever the prosecutor asks them to do. It's pretty much a rubber stamp. They offer political cover in instances where the prosecutor doesn't want to dismiss a case under his own name. They do not provide a reasonable protection against unjust indictments.

I asked precisely because I don't know how it works in the US. We don't have a jury and it seems the judge can instruct a jury to disregard certain statements from a witness. In the Netherlands the judge weighs the evidence and has complete freedom in doing so. Of course, that's kept in check by the possibility of appeal and you can get fired by the high court. A flip flopping witness is probably ignored entirely.

One shot by the man in the apartment, thirty shots by the police is what I've heard.

I think we all feel relatively certain there's been a lot of lying surrounding the knock and announcement. — Benkei

Yes, the cops lied.

In other news, will the revolution begin with a bang but end with a whimper. https://news.yahoo.com/pledge-dismantle-minneapolis-police-collapsed-155801253.html

In practice, the Grand Jury does whatever the prosecutor asks them to do. It's pretty much a rubber stamp. They offer political cover in instances where the prosecutor doesn't want to dismiss a case under his own name. They do not provide a reasonable protection against unjust indictments. — Hanover

Again, Hanover, thanks for your professionally informed clarification and for corroborating my statement to our Dutch friend that "prosecutors instruct grand juries".

Hanover I asked precisely because I don't know how it works in the US. — Benkei

And yet you persisted in arguing with me. :roll:

True, not an attorney like you (& some others), but in the late '90s & oughts I'd worked as a paralegal (mostly, but not exclusively, in financial firms) and thereby know just enough about the American Injustice System to be dangerous. Feel free, counselor, to go back and reread any or all of my posts on the Breonna Taylor police killing (Michael Brown, Eric Garner, et al redux) in light of your and Hanover's remarks in this post. Sláinte!

And yet you persisted in arguing with me. — 180 Proof

With respect to the specific details of how evidence is treated I asked a specific question. Meanwhile, it's pretty clear you just want read into what I wrote what you want to read in it. Nothing you said actually contradicts the original point that the grand jury could not reach a different conclusion than it did, based on the evidence that is publicly available. The two US based lawyers confirmed that but for some reason you've a problem with that coming from me.

What about "rubber stamp" (re: Hanover) don't you understand, Benkei? The grand jury reaches whatever conclusion the prosecutor requires them to. That's how the US legal system, which you admit to not knowing, works given the evidence a prosecutor chooses to present and omit - not, as you erroneously believe, "facts that are publicly available". Incriminating evidence is usually withheld from grand juries by local prosecutors in cases of unarmed citizens of color killed by police brutality or shootings. Why are you, my Dutch friend, like too many of my fellow Americans, refusing to accept this fact of Black (Brown Red & Poor) American life? :chin:

and thereby know just enough about the American Injustice System /quote]
— 180 Proof

Why are you, my Dutch friend, like too many of my fellow Americans, refusing to accept this fact of Black (Brown Red & Poor) American life? :chin: — 180 Proof

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the grand jury is to afford the accused protections against meritless prosecution, and the injustice stemming from it being a rubber stamp is that indictments might be issued that ought not be, not that prosecutors might use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases they're afraid to dismiss under their own signature.

The question I ask you is whether you would push for an indictment in this case.

I'd think your answer would depend upon whether you think you have a chance of obtaining a conviction, which would require a thorough evaluation of the facts and law and knowledge of your jurisdiction. Whether this case involves the tragic loss of innocent life and implicates the justice system as racist notwithstanding, if your indictment amounts to nothing more than a dog and pony show for a demanding public, what exactly have you accomplished with a well tried acquittal? I remain unconvinced this is a winnable case even should I be able to walk in your very shoes with all your experience and years of frustration at seeing those closest to you treated as less, but neither you nor I can ignore the pragmatic reality that this case might be unwinnable as a homicide.

What other conclusion was there available to the grand jury then the one they reached based on the available evidence? Based on what we know, the decision is not unexpected and it being such a high profile case it is unlikely wildly different evidence was presented that is still unknown by the public. The point is, even without rubber stamping, this was it.

It's the prosecutor himself who can decide to prosecute in the absence of a grand jury indictment. And he won't in this case because as it appears to me it pivots on whether you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cops lied about the knock and announce. I know what I believe to be the case but convincing a jury about the truth behind conflicting witness statements is just not going to lead to a conviction.

'Prosecutorial judgment' in high profile politically explosive cases are not only based on how likely it is to secure a conviction - that, of course, is major consideration - but also whether more social disorder, or undermining of local authorities, might be caused by indicting (and proceeding to trial) than by not indicting at all (or appropriately (e.g. "wanton endangerment")).

↪180 Proof What other conclusion was there available to the grand jury then the one they reached based on the available evidence? — Benkei

On what grounds do you believe that the prosecutor presented the grand jury with all of "the" relevant, incriminating (if any), "available evidence"? Or that grand juries "reach conclusions" other than those presented them to, as Hanover points out, "rubber stamp"? What, Benkei, do you know that I and others here don't know about the U.S. grand jury system that you've already confessed to knowing nothing about?

It appears it's you who believes there's evidence out there that nobody knows about.

Three questions. Not one answered yet. Maybe later ... :yawn:

I don't answer them because your questions are distractions. For you to have an issue with the decision of the grand jury, you need to have grounds to do so. Based on what is known about this case, there's nothing that gives reason to assume it's the wrong decision.

edit: also, you answered my question with 3 questions. So if we're going to play that game...

Prosecutorial judgment' in high profile politically explosive cases are not only based on how likely it is to secure a conviction - that, of course, is major consideration - but also whether more social disorder, or undermining of local authorities, might be caused by indicting (and proceeding to trial) than by not indicting at all (or appropriately (e.g. "wanton — 180 Proof

But see below: the ABA code of ethics for prosecutors:

"Standard 3-4.6 Quality and Scope of Evidence Before a Grand Jury
(a) A prosecutor should not seek an indictment unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the charges are supported by probable cause and that there will be admissible evidence sufficient to support the charges beyond reasonable doubt at trial. A prosecutor should advise a grand jury of the prosecutor’s opinion that it should not indict if the prosecutor believes the evidence presented does not warrant an indictment."

And see:

"Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/

Trials are for verdicts, not for crowd control.

Consider this news article / interview with a (local) Law Professor:

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/09/27/uofl-samuel-marcosson-breonna-taylor

So all of "the available facts" are still not out and there's no reason to assume they were presented to the grand jury. Don't suspect a "cover-up"? Okay. The truth will come out (as it usually does). You've already confessed to being ignorant of the US grand jury system and incorrigible with respect to information at odds with your ignorance. Also okay. Consider the news article linked here. Quibble on if you must, Benkei, we'll revisit this matter when the "cover-up" is exposed for the miscarriage of justice that it is and the suspects are charged. For now, let's agree to disagree.