4 ms·

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

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.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      You're basically arguing that serving a no-knock warrant is inherently a wanton act. I think it's unreasonable to argue that police disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk when a Judge literally signed a piece of paper that said it was a justified risk. And I don't think doing your job in a way that judges sign off 40,000 times a year is a "gross deviation from the standard of conduct".
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        I'm arguing that serving a no knock warrant, in the middle of the night, in plain clothes, without announcing that you are police, is an inherently wanton act. If all no knock warrants are conducted that way, then I would indeed say that they are all wanton acts. I don't care if they were following orders, or had permission from the state. Crime is still crime, and getting your boss to tell you to commit a crime is still a crime. Even if your boss wears blue. Note also you've shifted the law slightly by saying executing the no-knock warrant how it's typicality done cannot be a gross deviation of standard conduct. Yet that's not what the law says. The law does not say: "...disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a police officer conducting a no-knock warrant would observe". It says "...disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation". So let me ask you this: if you went down to Kentucky, and loudly broke into a house in the middle of the night" do you think it's likely that someone (yourself or the people in the house) could come to harm from this? I think no-knock warrants are typically conducted by uniformed officers who loudly declare that they are the police, That's a very different fact pattern than what I said would merit manslaughter.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        The whole point of a no knock warrant, being plain clothes, not announcing (disputed), and serving in the middle of the night is to not let the suspected perpetrator know the cops are serving him a warrant. Each of these decisions trades some risk of death and injury for an increased likelihood that the police officers will find drugs. I don't think this is a good trade-off, I don't think any amount of drugs you can flush down a toilet in a minute is worth the loss of life or violation of individual rights that a no knock warrant entails. > So let me ask you this: if you went down to Kentucky, and loudly broke into a house in the middle of the night" do you think it's likely that someone (yourself or the people in the house) could come to harm from this? Likely, no, possible yes.
dmitriid 6y ago
> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? - People in plain clothes - Knock down a door to an apartment - In a country where people legally own guns - In a country where "If they (robbers/burglars) come for me, they will get shot" is a thing how is it an impossible standard to expect that someone will shoot at them for essentially being burglars?
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  It's an impossible standard to expect police officers to not defend themselves. There is nothing impossible about banning no-knock warrants so this situation can't happen.
arrrg 6y ago
Is "not returning fire" really an impossible standard to you? How about: If you do something that could be met with justified self defense and you encounter that self defense your first instinct as police should be to retreat and clarify the situation? Why is it reasonable to have the first instinct to shoot back?
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Do you think that a blanket policy that all officers retreat when fired upon without returning fire wouldn't be exploitable by criminals?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    A policy that police do so when it is reasonably foreseeable that they could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers would have very limited opportunity for deliberate exploitation by criminals, and would also provide a strong incentive for even bad police to avoid the occurrence of such situations on the first place, whereas the status quo encourages violence-minded cops to engineer such situations when they can also engineer a lopsided force advantage over anyone likely to be present.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      I think its much simpler to just eliminate the situations where the police could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers, i.e. no knock warrants, instead of having a seperate set of rules of engagement for no knock warrants.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Do you think trading innocent people's lives to prevent criminal exploits is an acceptable strategy? I mean, there weren't any criminals here at all, but let's pretend they were dealing out of the apartment, as the reporting has suggested was the impetus. How many escaped drug dealers are worth one Breonna Taylor?
kelnos 6y ago
> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? How is that an impossible standard? Holding your fire and retreating is certainly an option. It carries more risk, but if you're going to dress in plain clothes and serve a no-knock warrant, that's a risk you must accept up-front. The existence of no-knock warrants is also to blame, of course; banning them entirely would likely have prevented this.
StavrosK 6y ago
> the impossible standard of not returning fire And yet they managed to not return fire all day, until they decided to literally invade an apartment.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
If they unlawfully put themselves in a situation where they felt compelled to return fire then they should be held accountable for whatever damage their bullets do just like any other person would be. If my convenience store stickup goes sideways and the clerk gets shot I'm responsible. Cops should be held to the same standards as normal people. We should also get rid of no-knocks but that's just whacking a particular mole. The root cause of the problems America has been having with police is that normal people do not get the same treatment under the law that police do.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Did the cops unlawfully put themselves in that situation?
tedunangst 6y ago
Considering they didn't even hit the guy who was shooting at them, I'd say backing out of the apartment would have been a much better strategy.
CathedralBorrow 6y ago
> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? That's very hard to answer because the cops have censored or lied about most of the report, as well as making claims about knocking and introducing themselves -- holding a no-knock warrant -- which is apparently disputed by witnesses. But then again I don't think it's very helpful to try to identify the one and only Bad Guy™.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I think it's very helpful to focus on easily fixable, impactful measures over hard to fix measures with uncertain efficacy.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    Agreed. And to add to that, I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that we possess the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.
newacct583 6y ago
> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Yes? I mean, no, they're not the only bad guy. There are other problems to address too and other ways to solve the abstract problem. But abstract solutions aren't the same thing as "justice", and these officers made the decision to engage in violence that killed an innocent woman. That's culpability, period. Look: the whole reason we put guns into the hands of special people is that we trust them to keep us safe. And that trust should come with responsibility when they don't. The officer's judgement needs to be applied in circumstances like this, they aren't robots. If they felt, like you do, that the warrant was impossibly unsafe to serve, they should not have served the warrant. That's what the trust we place in them is supposed to be for. And they didn't. Clearly they were wrong about the safety, but they thought it was safe, because they did it. And Breonna died. And that lapse in judgement needs to be addressed with justice.
craftinator 6y ago
Having been a military servicemember, not returning fire is the bare minimum to expect. If they had no training, no mandate, no authority, and were not kicking someone's door down in the middle of the night, then returning fire would be a risky but understandable choice. But if you have any understanding of tactical urban combat, you know that taking cover here and assessing the situation is the only rational choice. Blindly returning fire in an area filled with civilians (an apartment for god's sake) is a criminal decision, likely to get your officers and random innocent persons killed.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I don't know much about the military's rules of engagement. But if you are breaking into a residence with a suspected terrorist or enemy combatant and are fired upon, you don't return fire?

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.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    You're basically arguing that serving a no-knock warrant is inherently a wanton act. I think it's unreasonable to argue that police disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk when a Judge literally signed a piece of paper that said it was a justified risk. And I don't think doing your job in a way that judges sign off 40,000 times a year is a "gross deviation from the standard of conduct".
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      I'm arguing that serving a no knock warrant, in the middle of the night, in plain clothes, without announcing that you are police, is an inherently wanton act. If all no knock warrants are conducted that way, then I would indeed say that they are all wanton acts. I don't care if they were following orders, or had permission from the state. Crime is still crime, and getting your boss to tell you to commit a crime is still a crime. Even if your boss wears blue. Note also you've shifted the law slightly by saying executing the no-knock warrant how it's typicality done cannot be a gross deviation of standard conduct. Yet that's not what the law says. The law does not say: "...disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a police officer conducting a no-knock warrant would observe". It says "...disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation". So let me ask you this: if you went down to Kentucky, and loudly broke into a house in the middle of the night" do you think it's likely that someone (yourself or the people in the house) could come to harm from this? I think no-knock warrants are typically conducted by uniformed officers who loudly declare that they are the police, That's a very different fact pattern than what I said would merit manslaughter.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        The whole point of a no knock warrant, being plain clothes, not announcing (disputed), and serving in the middle of the night is to not let the suspected perpetrator know the cops are serving him a warrant. Each of these decisions trades some risk of death and injury for an increased likelihood that the police officers will find drugs. I don't think this is a good trade-off, I don't think any amount of drugs you can flush down a toilet in a minute is worth the loss of life or violation of individual rights that a no knock warrant entails. > So let me ask you this: if you went down to Kentucky, and loudly broke into a house in the middle of the night" do you think it's likely that someone (yourself or the people in the house) could come to harm from this? Likely, no, possible yes.

dmitriid 6y ago

> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? - People in plain clothes - Knock down a door to an apartment - In a country where people legally own guns - In a country where "If they (robbers/burglars) come for me, they will get shot" is a thing how is it an impossible standard to expect that someone will shoot at them for essentially being burglars?

JamesBarney 6y ago
It's an impossible standard to expect police officers to not defend themselves. There is nothing impossible about banning no-knock warrants so this situation can't happen.

arrrg 6y ago

Is "not returning fire" really an impossible standard to you? How about: If you do something that could be met with justified self defense and you encounter that self defense your first instinct as police should be to retreat and clarify the situation? Why is it reasonable to have the first instinct to shoot back?

JamesBarney 6y ago
Do you think that a blanket policy that all officers retreat when fired upon without returning fire wouldn't be exploitable by criminals?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  A policy that police do so when it is reasonably foreseeable that they could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers would have very limited opportunity for deliberate exploitation by criminals, and would also provide a strong incentive for even bad police to avoid the occurrence of such situations on the first place, whereas the status quo encourages violence-minded cops to engineer such situations when they can also engineer a lopsided force advantage over anyone likely to be present.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I think its much simpler to just eliminate the situations where the police could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers, i.e. no knock warrants, instead of having a seperate set of rules of engagement for no knock warrants.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Do you think trading innocent people's lives to prevent criminal exploits is an acceptable strategy? I mean, there weren't any criminals here at all, but let's pretend they were dealing out of the apartment, as the reporting has suggested was the impetus. How many escaped drug dealers are worth one Breonna Taylor?

kelnos 6y ago

> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? How is that an impossible standard? Holding your fire and retreating is certainly an option. It carries more risk, but if you're going to dress in plain clothes and serve a no-knock warrant, that's a risk you must accept up-front. The existence of no-knock warrants is also to blame, of course; banning them entirely would likely have prevented this.

StavrosK 6y ago

> the impossible standard of not returning fire And yet they managed to not return fire all day, until they decided to literally invade an apartment.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

If they unlawfully put themselves in a situation where they felt compelled to return fire then they should be held accountable for whatever damage their bullets do just like any other person would be. If my convenience store stickup goes sideways and the clerk gets shot I'm responsible. Cops should be held to the same standards as normal people. We should also get rid of no-knocks but that's just whacking a particular mole. The root cause of the problems America has been having with police is that normal people do not get the same treatment under the law that police do.

JamesBarney 6y ago
Did the cops unlawfully put themselves in that situation?

tedunangst 6y ago

Considering they didn't even hit the guy who was shooting at them, I'd say backing out of the apartment would have been a much better strategy.

CathedralBorrow 6y ago

> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? That's very hard to answer because the cops have censored or lied about most of the report, as well as making claims about knocking and introducing themselves -- holding a no-knock warrant -- which is apparently disputed by witnesses. But then again I don't think it's very helpful to try to identify the one and only Bad Guy™.

JamesBarney 6y ago
I think it's very helpful to focus on easily fixable, impactful measures over hard to fix measures with uncertain efficacy.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  Agreed. And to add to that, I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that we possess the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.

newacct583 6y ago

> Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Yes? I mean, no, they're not the only bad guy. There are other problems to address too and other ways to solve the abstract problem. But abstract solutions aren't the same thing as "justice", and these officers made the decision to engage in violence that killed an innocent woman. That's culpability, period. Look: the whole reason we put guns into the hands of special people is that we trust them to keep us safe. And that trust should come with responsibility when they don't. The officer's judgement needs to be applied in circumstances like this, they aren't robots. If they felt, like you do, that the warrant was impossibly unsafe to serve, they should not have served the warrant. That's what the trust we place in them is supposed to be for. And they didn't. Clearly they were wrong about the safety, but they thought it was safe, because they did it. And Breonna died. And that lapse in judgement needs to be addressed with justice.

craftinator 6y ago

Having been a military servicemember, not returning fire is the bare minimum to expect. If they had no training, no mandate, no authority, and were not kicking someone's door down in the middle of the night, then returning fire would be a risky but understandable choice. But if you have any understanding of tactical urban combat, you know that taking cover here and assessing the situation is the only rational choice. Blindly returning fire in an area filled with civilians (an apartment for god's sake) is a criminal decision, likely to get your officers and random innocent persons killed.

JamesBarney 6y ago
I don't know much about the military's rules of engagement. But if you are breaking into a residence with a suspected terrorist or enemy combatant and are fired upon, you don't return fire?