KillingtonZone.com

Interesting analysis of the legal problems in prosecuting officers


https://apnews.com/article/shootings-po ... ningsquawk

It's a garbage situation but probably the right call. Police were at the wrong house but that's not really relevant for purposes of use of force analysis. As I repeated over and over in the other thread, the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

Whoever is responsible for the screw up of going to the wrong house should be dealt with, whether fired or some sort of administrative punishment. Policies should be revised, and in particular these no-knock warrants should be eliminated. This case demonstrates that the benefits of these warrants do not outweigh the potential dangers. Had police announced their presence, there's a good chance they wouldn't have been shot at.

Certainly there will be a civil lawsuit and I'm sure the city will have to pay. But criminal charges in this case don't seem justified.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 It's a garbage situation but probably the right call. Police were at the wrong house but that's not really relevant for purposes of use of force analysis. As I repeated over and over in the other thread, the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

Whoever is responsible for the screw up of going to the wrong house should be dealt with, whether fired or some sort of administrative punishment. Certainly there will be a civil lawsuit and I'm sure the city will pay. Policies should be revised, and in particular these no-knock warrants should be eliminated. But criminal charges in this case don't seem justified.

+1

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 It's a garbage situation but probably the right call. Police were at the wrong house but that's not really relevant for purposes of use of force analysis. As I repeated over and over in the other thread, the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

Whoever is responsible for the screw up of going to the wrong house should be dealt with, whether fired or some sort of administrative punishment. Policies should be revised, and in particular these no-knock warrants should be eliminated. This case demonstrates that the benefits of these warrants do not outweigh the potential dangers. Had police announced their presence, there's a good chance they wouldn't have been shot at.

Certainly there will be a civil lawsuit and I'm sure the city will have to pay. But criminal charges in this case don't seem justified.

I agree that no knock warrants should be eliminated, now there is new info out saying it was not a no knock warrants and the police did identify themselves before entering. Either way I don't see any reason for the cops to be charged. They were doing their jobs and following the law. They were shot at so they returned fire. The laws may need to be changed but these cops did not break the law so I see no reason for them to be charged.

Ah, I stand corrected as to this not being executed as a no-knock. But I've read about lots of similar cases where police either barge into the wrong house or go to the right house and barge in unannounced, and violence erupts. I don't think these no knock warrants are effective at protecting police. In fact I think it's the opposite- they are more likely to trigger violence than a knock and announce.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 12:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

Rules for thee, but not for me ... her boyfriend was charged with assault and attempted murder of a police officer .. sure they dropped the charges, but of course they were without prejudice ... just incase they want to, you know, pursue him later.

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 12:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

The louisville pd and the attorney general are saying that they did knock and announce themselves before entering the house.

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 12:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

“You can’t get justice from a tragedy. What we have is a series of events that culminated in the use of self defense” both by Taylor’s boyfriend and the officers, said Jan Waddell, a Louisville defense attorney. “Just because Breonna was in caught the middle of that and she was the victim of a shooting doesn’t mean that either one of those parties engaged in criminal activity,” he said.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that had Taylor not been killed, the charges against her boyfriend would have gone through with the now all of a sudden "admission" that it wasn't a No Knock warrant entry by the PD.

For months the story has been it was a No Knock Warrant. Now when the legal rubber meets the road the story all of a sudden changes? Why is that? Yeah, not buying that without bodycam proof.

All the time you hear 2A hardos state anyone who comes through their doors unannounced will be shot. I'm sure they're all perfectly skilled in moments of fear to recognize the forced entry by police officers and would holster their weapon. Not

If you're a hard core 2nd amendment guy, I can't imagine you'd ever want police to be able to get a no knock warrant. But then again, these positions don't make a lot of logical sense much of the time. Liberal judges tend to accord greater rights to the individual when it comes to police conduct, but right wingers who are supposed to believe in that stuff tend to hate liberal judges.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Lived off base with a roommate when I was in the Navy. We rented a single-wide trailer that had me walking thru his bedroom to get to the back bedroom. He said "Make sure that you wake me up before you pass thru because I sleep with a loaded 45 under my pillow." I always made lots of noise when coming home. Never have felt the need to protect myself to that high a degree but many folks do.

daytripper wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 13:17

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 12:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

The louisville pd and the attorney general are saying that they did knock and announce themselves before entering the house.

Of course they would say that. And Kenneth Walker says he yelled "who is it" multiple times after hearing the knock and received no response prior to arming himself.

Police are both trained and experienced in the law, and are very familiar with the legal system because they are called to testify all the time and work closely with DA's on how to prosecute, etc. Consequently, they know what to say to get the desired result. Now I think most police do the right thing most of the time. But is it possible that some police will slightly alter the facts from their perspective to get a desired result? Sure. I think that happens occasionally, and sometimes even subconsciously. You read police reports for DUIs for instance, and they all read very much the same - every drunk person ever encountered by a cop seems to have bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol. This is likely because those are things police are trained to put in the reports every time.

Here, in the Taylor case, whether they did the knock and announce is not really relevant to whether the police use of force was justified. When they were shot at, they were justified in returning fire whether or not they did a knock and announce. So I'm not really sure it helps police to misrepresent that fact in this case. It matters more when analyzing the homeowner's conduct (ie did he know he was shooting at police executing a valid warrant?), but since that person isn't being charged, it kind of doesn't matter in that respect either. So again, I'm not sure why police would misrepresent that. Maybe they did, IDK, but in the end you have to rely on the evidence, not conjecture. So far I have not seen any evidence to support a theory that police misrepresented the knock and announce in Taylor's case.

Regardless of all that, the state passed a law prohibiting no knock warrants, so the end result is good for the BLM movement, even though it is awful for everyone involved in the Taylor case.

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 25th, '20, 08:52

daytripper wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 13:17

boston_e wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 12:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 24th, '20, 09:53 the question is whether the officers were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone was shooting at them, so clearly they were, and therefore they were justified in using deadly force.

The better question is if the person whose home was being broken into were reasonably in fear for their lives. Someone broke into their home unannounced so clearly that person was and therefore is also justified in using deadly force.

The louisville pd and the attorney general are saying that they did knock and announce themselves before entering the house.

Of course they would say that. And Kenneth Walker says he yelled "who is it" multiple times after hearing the knock and received no response prior to arming himself.

I'm not saying they actually announced themselves or not, I'm just saying that they said they announced themselves.