9 ms·

> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman

> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Is that not the problem? I don't think anyone is demanding a first degree murder conviction here. They didn't walk in with the intent to kill her. But they sure as shit did kill her, and it's all their fault that it happened. Sounds like open and shut manslaughter to me.

hkai 6y ago
I believe it's classical case where there is enough evidence for a wrongful death civil lawsuit (which will typically end with a 5-10 million dollars settlement), but there is not enough evidence to convict the officers (or the boyfriend) of a crime in a criminal case.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dvtrn 6y ago
  Charges were dropped against the boyfriend a week ago anyway[0]. [0] https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/charges-dropped-against-breonna-taylors-boyfriend-police-chief-retires-fbi-joins-probe/MDUWBEGADNHSVKIWVV3G42BZLA/ https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/charges-dropped-a...
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  Qualified immunity would probably make that civil lawsuit much more difficult.
  - hkai 6y ago
    Not sure - it seems that every well-known police murder case ended with a multi-million-dollar settlement, even though officers were often acquitted. Wikipedia has details on these.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Qualified immunity only stops people from suing the individual police officers, and they don't even have enough money to pay out multi-million dollar settlements anyway. The big payouts come from suing the police department itself as an instituation and as I understand it they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
- genoapol 6y ago
  Unfortunely the boyfriend didn't kill a police officer. I feel reform of this "no knock/plain clothes/home invasion" policy would be more likely to occur with that outcome.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    If a police officer was killed, the more likely outcome would be even harsher and deadlier use of force during future "no knock/plain clothes/home invasions". As we have seen clearly during the past few weeks, police forces will trade away citizen lives for officer safety.
fellowniusmonk 6y ago
This no knock raid was requested in a blanket way that makes it illegal according to the supreme court.
JamesBarney 6y ago
Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Or are no-knock warrants the bad guy which routinely cause deaths for the sole purpose of keeping some drugs from being flushed down the toilet? Because one of these is very easy to fix and would 100% mean Taylor would still be alive. The other would be super difficult to fix and who knows if it would have saved her life.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  There can be multiple people at fault for a situation. The answer is: both should be addressed. The officers should be thoroughly investigated for this incident by an independent third party. If the facts support it they should be charged with the most advanced crime that the facts support (e.g. manslaughter). Simultaneously, we should immediately discontinue and abandon no-knock warrants. If they're not abandoned entirely we should radically alter the burden of proof required to obtain one from probable cause to clear and convincing evidence.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I totally agree this incident should be investigated by a third party. And if they committed a crime they should be charged. But my understanding is that leading up to the death of Taylor no laws were broken.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Taking negligent actions that lead to the death of another person is often a crime of manslaugter. Manslaughter usually doesn't require any other crime to be committed. Therefore, "no laws were broken" ... "leading up to the death of Tayor" isn't relevant to at least some of the relevant charges. In Kentucky, KRS 507.040 defines "Manslaughter in the second degree" (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=49016 https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id...). This is defined as: > A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person... A "wanton" state of mind in KY is defined in KRS 501.020 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19651)as https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id... > A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts wantonly with respect thereto. Now, this quickly gets fact specific, but if the following acts are true: - LMPD breached the house suddenly, and loudly - LMPD breached the house late at night - LMPD officers were wearing plain-clothes - LMPD officers did not announce themselves (disputed) I personally would find that the officers acted wantonly in a manner that would predictably created a serious risk of injury or death to themselves or bystanders. As such, given the statute and those 4 facts I would be willing to vote to convince on second-degree manslaughter in this case. I'll note, again, that this is fact specific. The officers specifically claim to have loudly announced themselves. Walker and neighbors dispute that fact.
leephillips 6y ago
People never talk about the judge in these cases. This only happened because a judge decided to sign a no-knock warrant. So, ultimately, doesn’t the judge bear a large portion of the responsibility for creating the situation, for the death that resulted? Shouldn’t the judge be the adult in the room, saying “no” to the police, saying that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify the issuance of a no-knock, with the clear risk to life that this entails, and telling them to find another way?
- bloopernova 6y ago
  It's the whole "Somebody Else's Problem" field that bureaucracy generates. Same thing happens in pretty much any large gathering of people: "I only signed off on blah, nobody told me foo and bar would happen". "We only did foo because someone signed off on blah, we had approval it's not our fault". And round and round we go pointing fingers at each other rather than improving the world for anyone.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    I think you’re right. But I also think that things might get a little better if we shone a light on the judges who are allowing these things to happen. They are supposed to judge, not be rubber stamps for whatever the police want. For example, the media will tell us the names of the cops who murder people when executing a warrant, as they should; but I don’t remember a single article where the judge who signed the warrant was named, or where the reporter tried to interview the judge, to ask what evidence justified, say, a no-knock warrant. Not that a judge would grant such an interview, but at least the judge can be named, and the question raised.
    - bloopernova 6y ago
      I agree with you, all parts of the machine need some daylight. I wonder how much this is due to sheer volume of warrants and policing actions?
- newacct583 6y ago
alistairSH 6y ago
How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Legally speaking, they are generally not responsible for creating the situation that led to their violation of Taylor's rights. The court has broad latitude to ignore events prior to any violation of rights, instead relying on whether the police felt at risk in that specific moment.

hkai 6y ago

I believe it's classical case where there is enough evidence for a wrongful death civil lawsuit (which will typically end with a 5-10 million dollars settlement), but there is not enough evidence to convict the officers (or the boyfriend) of a crime in a criminal case.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dvtrn 6y ago
Charges were dropped against the boyfriend a week ago anyway[0]. [0] https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/charges-dropped-against-breonna-taylors-boyfriend-police-chief-retires-fbi-joins-probe/MDUWBEGADNHSVKIWVV3G42BZLA/ https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/charges-dropped-a...
lalaland1125 6y ago
Qualified immunity would probably make that civil lawsuit much more difficult.
- hkai 6y ago
  Not sure - it seems that every well-known police murder case ended with a multi-million-dollar settlement, even though officers were often acquitted. Wikipedia has details on these.
- makomk 6y ago
  Qualified immunity only stops people from suing the individual police officers, and they don't even have enough money to pay out multi-million dollar settlements anyway. The big payouts come from suing the police department itself as an instituation and as I understand it they aren't protected by qualified immunity.
genoapol 6y ago
Unfortunely the boyfriend didn't kill a police officer. I feel reform of this "no knock/plain clothes/home invasion" policy would be more likely to occur with that outcome.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  If a police officer was killed, the more likely outcome would be even harsher and deadlier use of force during future "no knock/plain clothes/home invasions". As we have seen clearly during the past few weeks, police forces will trade away citizen lives for officer safety.

fellowniusmonk 6y ago

This no knock raid was requested in a blanket way that makes it illegal according to the supreme court.

JamesBarney 6y ago

Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Or are no-knock warrants the bad guy which routinely cause deaths for the sole purpose of keeping some drugs from being flushed down the toilet? Because one of these is very easy to fix and would 100% mean Taylor would still be alive. The other would be super difficult to fix and who knows if it would have saved her life.

ncallaway 6y ago
There can be multiple people at fault for a situation. The answer is: both should be addressed. The officers should be thoroughly investigated for this incident by an independent third party. If the facts support it they should be charged with the most advanced crime that the facts support (e.g. manslaughter). Simultaneously, we should immediately discontinue and abandon no-knock warrants. If they're not abandoned entirely we should radically alter the burden of proof required to obtain one from probable cause to clear and convincing evidence.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I totally agree this incident should be investigated by a third party. And if they committed a crime they should be charged. But my understanding is that leading up to the death of Taylor no laws were broken.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Taking negligent actions that lead to the death of another person is often a crime of manslaugter. Manslaughter usually doesn't require any other crime to be committed. Therefore, "no laws were broken" ... "leading up to the death of Tayor" isn't relevant to at least some of the relevant charges. In Kentucky, KRS 507.040 defines "Manslaughter in the second degree" (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=49016 https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id...). This is defined as: > A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person... A "wanton" state of mind in KY is defined in KRS 501.020 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19651)as https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id... > A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts wantonly with respect thereto. Now, this quickly gets fact specific, but if the following acts are true: - LMPD breached the house suddenly, and loudly - LMPD breached the house late at night - LMPD officers were wearing plain-clothes - LMPD officers did not announce themselves (disputed) I personally would find that the officers acted wantonly in a manner that would predictably created a serious risk of injury or death to themselves or bystanders. As such, given the statute and those 4 facts I would be willing to vote to convince on second-degree manslaughter in this case. I'll note, again, that this is fact specific. The officers specifically claim to have loudly announced themselves. Walker and neighbors dispute that fact.

leephillips 6y ago

People never talk about the judge in these cases. This only happened because a judge decided to sign a no-knock warrant. So, ultimately, doesn’t the judge bear a large portion of the responsibility for creating the situation, for the death that resulted? Shouldn’t the judge be the adult in the room, saying “no” to the police, saying that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify the issuance of a no-knock, with the clear risk to life that this entails, and telling them to find another way?

bloopernova 6y ago
It's the whole "Somebody Else's Problem" field that bureaucracy generates. Same thing happens in pretty much any large gathering of people: "I only signed off on blah, nobody told me foo and bar would happen". "We only did foo because someone signed off on blah, we had approval it's not our fault". And round and round we go pointing fingers at each other rather than improving the world for anyone.
- leephillips 6y ago
  I think you’re right. But I also think that things might get a little better if we shone a light on the judges who are allowing these things to happen. They are supposed to judge, not be rubber stamps for whatever the police want. For example, the media will tell us the names of the cops who murder people when executing a warrant, as they should; but I don’t remember a single article where the judge who signed the warrant was named, or where the reporter tried to interview the judge, to ask what evidence justified, say, a no-knock warrant. Not that a judge would grant such an interview, but at least the judge can be named, and the question raised.
  - bloopernova 6y ago
    I agree with you, all parts of the machine need some daylight. I wonder how much this is due to sheer volume of warrants and policing actions?
newacct583 6y ago

alistairSH 6y ago

How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Legally speaking, they are generally not responsible for creating the situation that led to their violation of Taylor's rights. The court has broad latitude to ignore events prior to any violation of rights, instead relying on whether the police felt at risk in that specific moment.