3 ms·

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 lead

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.

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.