America

[morepork]

Your post reads as forced resignation to the current situation. It is entirely possible to prosecute for wrong doing. Even in places like the South of USandA where jury selection is arguably biased, as the authorities certainly are. That would go a long way to showing people that the system is serious about meaningful change.

[Digby]

I'm not against people being prosecuted for the killing of Breonna Taylor because it disgusts and horrifies me. But whilst I'd like some changes to stop the circumstances arising again, and I'd like some changes to gun culture and violence in America more widely and I'd like some changes to the qualified immunity I can understand if nothing can be done right now about a prosecution of the officers went who into the house with the authority of a warrant no matter I don't like like it, and with qualified immunity even if it works in ways I don't like, and who in returning fire once fired upon have a self-defence justification.

I'm ignorant of the law pretty much anywhere and there's no exception made for Kentucky, but what can be done given the circumstances as they are? Also resignation? Maybe, to the specifics of a situation I cannot undo then yes, but not in the sense I think people shouldn't be pushing for change, not as in I don't believe things can improve.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm not against the use of cameras, but I think we'd want more than just that. Especially given the cost to acquire them

To date cameras where being used, and there is vast usage of cameras now even if there are also worrying instances of camera failures, they're not leading to a change in behaviour within law enforcement, and they're not changing how local communities view the police. So there is a fair question around are they value for money. Where they have shifted opinion is within police circles when it comes to gathering incriminating evidence, and that's not perhaps quite what they're intended to do, and might too be be why groups like the ACLU have started pushing back against cameras.

If we're going to have the cameras there still has to be an awful lot more training, and there has to be ongoing training that includes use/feedback of cameras, and there has to be use of the cameras in officer reports that the officers have to sign off on having watched their behaviour back. And that's going to cost a lot more money than even just all the cameras, and the cameras will not come cheap. And finding money for anything is a problem normally, now with a pandemic there'll be even more pressure. Also the people on camera need much clearer rights to access footage they're in, and that's going to need a lot of legislation going state by state, and that being written by the kind of people who can't get into federal government because they lack the smarts.

True, cameras are no panacea, that's why I said internal affairs officers should be embedded into police departments. If the police can't be trusted and it's too expensive to reboot their entire organisation, then they need to be chaperoned.

That too would need funding. And it mayn't deliver what we'd like, and we might like different things

And we'd still want to revisit the entire delivery of services and how law enforcement joins up with other agencies. Just there's no way of doing that in 1 day, nor really in 1 year. And in truth I doubt you ever get the police service you want, it should always be in review. The problem now though seems stalled with many points of decision making in denial they even need to consider a review

True, there's no guarantee that it would work, and of course it would cost money. Some advantages are:
1) it could be added to the existing system without major adjustments,
2) it could be trialled easily before being scaled up,
3) if it worked in the short term, it should begin to drive the 'bad' cops out of the force, voluntarily or otherwise, and so become less necessary (hopefully completely unnecessary) over time.

[Digby]

True, cameras are no panacea, that's why I said internal affairs officers should be embedded into police departments. If the police can't be trusted and it's too expensive to reboot their entire organisation, then they need to be chaperoned.

That too would need funding. And it mayn't deliver what we'd like, and we might like different things

And we'd still want to revisit the entire delivery of services and how law enforcement joins up with other agencies. Just there's no way of doing that in 1 day, nor really in 1 year. And in truth I doubt you ever get the police service you want, it should always be in review. The problem now though seems stalled with many points of decision making in denial they even need to consider a review

True, there's no guarantee that it would work, and of course it would cost money. Some advantages are:
1) it could be added to the existing system without major adjustments,
2) it could be trialled easily before being scaled up,
3) if it worked in the short term, it should begin to drive the 'bad' cops out of the force, voluntarily or otherwise, and so become less necessary (hopefully completely unnecessary) over time.

I've also no idea in advance how well their IA as is works.

And I also wonder whether it's how you start to split out function in delivery of service, i.e. would the extra person always need to be IA, could they be an ADA, a social worker with a specialism in drugs or prostitution, other options are possibly better bets still

Whether it'd work I don't know, whether the money would just be better spent on more training or higher wages to attract higher standard applicants I don't know. But they need to be discussing these options are getting some trials and respond to what works, 'cause the status quo sure as shit isn't working

[Son of Mathonwy]

That too would need funding. And it mayn't deliver what we'd like, and we might like different things

And we'd still want to revisit the entire delivery of services and how law enforcement joins up with other agencies. Just there's no way of doing that in 1 day, nor really in 1 year. And in truth I doubt you ever get the police service you want, it should always be in review. The problem now though seems stalled with many points of decision making in denial they even need to consider a review

True, there's no guarantee that it would work, and of course it would cost money. Some advantages are:
1) it could be added to the existing system without major adjustments,
2) it could be trialled easily before being scaled up,
3) if it worked in the short term, it should begin to drive the 'bad' cops out of the force, voluntarily or otherwise, and so become less necessary (hopefully completely unnecessary) over time.

I've also no idea in advance how well their IA as is works.

And I also wonder whether it's how you start to split out function in delivery of service, i.e. would the extra person always need to be IA, could they be an ADA, a social worker with a specialism in drugs or prostitution, other options are possibly better bets still

Whether it'd work I don't know, whether the money would just be better spent on more training or higher wages to attract higher standard applicants I don't know. But they need to be discussing these options are getting some trials and respond to what works, 'cause the status quo sure as shit isn't working

Yeah, 100% of my knowledge of Internal Affairs is based on the 1990 movie.

First up someone in charge needs to accept that there's a problem, so that needs Biden. Then, ideally several ideas would be trialled, and independently assessed as to effectiveness (and compared with control areas).

[morepork]

Just FYI, there is a wealth of talented, experienced, and formally trained expertise in the US that has visited these issues extensively. The individuals that do this work are brushed aside as merely academic, but there are definitely people that could manage to undertake this massive task if the will were there. If corporate welfare weren't such a massive problem in US politics (and the 19th Century attitudes of the patriarchy), effective and just change would be possible.

[Which Tyler]

I think this isnthe most American thing I've ever read

adXQ7XfqFjDoO6Dn3655.jpg

Though this also comes close

B9mHIHnlBX8TQ1Q02ctN.jpg

[Digby]

I am just reading about this now. Nothing about the whole thing, from the ridiculous no-knock "warrant" to the decisions made by cops on the night seems justified. More qualified immunity bullshit.

To be clear whilst no knock warrants outside extreme situations seem absurd, and certainly searching the home of someone who might possibly be connected to someone they dated perhaps months back isn't close to an extreme situation, and whilst the police were issued with a no knock warrant the actual orders given to the police attending Breonna Taylor's residence were changed to a knock warrant. And the police do stipulate that they announced themselves.

Then again it'd be worth noting despite the changed terms of the orders given from the border remit of the warrant we have the victim's boyfriend saying whilst they heard banging they didn't hear police identify themselves. And you might hope you could place greater import on the statements of the police but in this instance they stated they entered the premises without force, when in fact they smashed the door down with a battering ram, and they listed injuries to Breonna Taylor as 'none' when you'd think having been shot to death should count as an injury to the victim.

Also just because the orders were changed from a no knock as per the warrant granted to requiring police to identify themselves why did the search have to be executed when it was, and suppose the police did knock and state who they were (possibly whilst those in the house were still asleep) why did they have to break the door down rather than return another time? The search warrant they were granted was for another property entirely some miles away, and it only extended to the Taylor residence because she'd previously dated one of the targets of the search.

I can sort of understand police would be nervous about executing these warrants because of the chance suspects might be armed and return fire, but getting into a situation where deadly force is being used on a tangential attempt to discover incriminating evidence just sounds absurdly wrong from the outset.

So no knocks are an issue, when they knock is an issue, when they decide to break into a property if they determine there's no response is an issue, for what duration and how they announce a law enforcement presence is an issue.... The whole thing seems to be set up as a failing endeavour and it is.

Also I didn't like the email from one of the officers involved, the lad who was himself shot in the leg, that "good guys are demonized, and criminals are canonized.” because whilst I can accept he might think himself a good guy and he might consider he's been demonised by what standards is he considering use of deadly force acceptable and why on earth does he seem to be implying Breonna Taylor was a criminal? 'tis possibly he doesn't deserve what's happening to him, 'tis possible he was only trying to legally discharge his duties, but 'tis obvious Breonna Taylor didn't deserve what they did to her.

[Puja]

I am just reading about this now. Nothing about the whole thing, from the ridiculous no-knock "warrant" to the decisions made by cops on the night seems justified. More qualified immunity bullshit.

To be clear whilst no knock warrants outside extreme situations seem absurd, and certainly searching the home of someone who might possibly be connected to someone they dated perhaps months back isn't close to an extreme situation, and whilst the police were issued with a no knock warrant the actual orders given to the police attending Breonna Taylor's residence were changed to a knock warrant. And the police do stipulate that they announced themselves.

Given the police mysteriously all "forgot" to bring or had simultaneous problems with their legally mandated body cameras, I'm not sure I trust any of their statements.

Puja

[Digby]

I am just reading about this now. Nothing about the whole thing, from the ridiculous no-knock "warrant" to the decisions made by cops on the night seems justified. More qualified immunity bullshit.

To be clear whilst no knock warrants outside extreme situations seem absurd, and certainly searching the home of someone who might possibly be connected to someone they dated perhaps months back isn't close to an extreme situation, and whilst the police were issued with a no knock warrant the actual orders given to the police attending Breonna Taylor's residence were changed to a knock warrant. And the police do stipulate that they announced themselves.

Given the police mysteriously all "forgot" to bring or had simultaneous problems with their legally mandated body cameras, I'm not sure I trust any of their statements.

Puja

Not even the statement that listed injuries to the victim as 'none'?

My guess is they did knock on the door and say police, whether very quietly or not I've no idea. But, even if they did what use is announcing yourself to someone who is asleep. Until you've established you've woken them up and they're responding can you consider you've announced yourself? It's very likely a de facto no knock entry even if the orders stipulated otherwise, and still leaves the question of why couldn't they visit at a time people were likely to be awake? I can understand some raids you want to put at unsocial hours, but this one doesn't seem to have any such urgency, and they just did it because they ordinarily act without thinking.

[Puja]

To be clear whilst no knock warrants outside extreme situations seem absurd, and certainly searching the home of someone who might possibly be connected to someone they dated perhaps months back isn't close to an extreme situation, and whilst the police were issued with a no knock warrant the actual orders given to the police attending Breonna Taylor's residence were changed to a knock warrant. And the police do stipulate that they announced themselves.

Given the police mysteriously all "forgot" to bring or had simultaneous problems with their legally mandated body cameras, I'm not sure I trust any of their statements.

Puja

Not even the statement that listed injuries to the victim as 'none'?

My guess is they did knock on the door and say police, whether very quietly or not I've no idea. But, even if they did what use is announcing yourself to someone who is asleep. Until you've established you've woken them up and they're responding can you consider you've announced yourself? It's very likely a de facto no knock entry even if the orders stipulated otherwise, and still leaves the question of why couldn't they visit at a time people were likely to be awake? I can understand some raids you want to put at unsocial hours, but this one doesn't seem to have any such urgency, and they just did it because they ordinarily act without thinking.

Given they came prepared with a battering ram and knocked in the door, I can't imagine they did knock and say police - what would be the point of knocking in a door and bursting in like you're in a 90s action film if you've announced your presence first? I suspect that is why they had "forgotten" to bring or to switch on their body cameras - you don't do that unless you're already planning to do something outside the scope of your warrant.

Thinking of 90s action films, I'd say they and associated television shows are a big part of the problem here. How many cop shows or films have a rogue guy who gets the job done and is always vindicated by his results, with regular antagonists being IA or his captain being sticklers for rules and regulations, tying their hands and stopping them from putting bad guys in jail. All the adult cops now in service would've grown up watching men's men taking risks and being told, "Dammit Smith, there are rules - one more stunt like that and I'll have your badge," but always pulling it out by closing the case, getting (or killing) the unrepentant black-and-white bad guys, and never being wrong with their gut instinct that "this guy is dirty; I can feel it".

Puja

[Digby]

The police might not have followed orders and announced their presence, but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd knocked and announced they were there as per their orders, just how loudly did they knock and for how long? I can believe you'd have a battering ram for if there was no response. Though again so what if there was no response, why aren't people allowed to be asleep? Do you really then need to break down the door rather than come back in the morning? This was the search of a property that was only potentially connected by a very loose thread to the site of the main search

I bet had the police not been fired on and not killed anyone but had merely broken down the door and subsequently left without making any charges because they found nothing of concern they'd have left Breonna Taylor to foot the bill for a new door. They just assume the right to destroy property with immunity in pursuit of some of the lowest actors in the criminal world, and seemingly don't care when they include people who on the face of it are entirely innocent in such attempts.

[morepork]

Yep. Keystone cops with guns and immunity. They treat people like shit and get off intimidating the public. Fuck them.

I agree about the cops and robbers thing in popular entertainment. Grow up on a diet of big guns, violence, and summary executions based on a hunch, then you can join the Filth and do it for real!


On an entirely unrelated note, I just had a cup of tea at work. I had ethanol sprayed the shit out of everything to kill the pest. This included my mug, which I forgot I did, and I just drank a cuppa that tasted funny because it had about 25ml of 80% ethanol in it before I added the teabag and water.

I should be a fucking cop.

[gransoporro]

Here there are 2 discordant accounts.

Police said they knocked and announced themselves instead of breaking in directly (no knock). It was their call to make, even if the no knock is authorized.
The boyfriend said he did not hear the announce but he heard the knocking and the entering immediately after, and defended the house and himself (stand your ground). He also called 911 although I do not know if it was before or after the shooting.
Police get shot and answer to the fire.

It is akin to a junction with all tRaffic lights green.

I read somewhere that 11 out of 12 witnesses did not hear the announce. If it was a half assed attempt or confusion between knock and no knock, I do not know. So it boils down to how competently or incompetently this search was conducted by the police. Criminally incompetent? Not a lawyer.
But I know this doesn’t happen for every search warrant in the country.

[Sandydragon]

There are a number of factors to be considered in this one, it’s not as open and shut as certain other examples of police screw ups.

Firstly, the police were executing a warrant so had every right to go into the house to arrest a suspect (sadly poor intelligence meant he wasn’t there).

Secondly the boyfriend opened fire on them which the police returned. Both sides can demonstrate that they acted reasonably under the law.

Shots fired by the police killed an innocent woman. You would need to see a forensic report to understand how close she was to her boyfriend to determine how reckless the police shooting was for that to happen.

Finally shots fired by the police entered the adjoining apartment which is reckless use of a firearm and that is being tightly investigated.

This isn’t a clear cut example of police racism or brutality. It’s a terrible mistake in confusing circumstances.

[morepork]

There are a number of factors to be considered in this one, it’s not as open and shut as certain other examples of police screw ups.

Firstly, the police were executing a warrant so had every right to go into the house to arrest a suspect (sadly poor intelligence meant he wasn’t there).

Secondly the boyfriend opened fire on them which the police returned. Both sides can demonstrate that they acted reasonably under the law.

Shots fired by the police killed an innocent woman. You would need to see a forensic report to understand how close she was to her boyfriend to determine how reckless the police shooting was for that to happen.

Finally shots fired by the police entered the adjoining apartment which is reckless use of a firearm and that is being tightly investigated.

This isn’t a clear cut example of police racism or brutality. It’s a terrible mistake in confusing circumstances.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... utType=amp

Those circumstances need not be confusing. Battering the door down and letting off 20 rounds because...why? If the process decides cops aren’t directly to blame then where does responsibility lie? Leaving it hanging like this is insulting.

[Sandydragon]

Battering the door down because they were exercising a search warrant and the returning fire. It’s a tragic event but not in the same league as some of the other incidents of late.

Probably the biggest issue is the lack of transparency which makes all event suspicious even when due process post event is followed.

[Puja]

Battering the door down because they were exercising a search warrant and the returning fire. It’s a tragic event but not in the same league as some of the other incidents of late.

Probably the biggest issue is the lack of transparency which makes all event suspicious even when due process post event is followed.

I don't don't particularly want to rank tragedies, but they didn't need to batter the door down or go in weapons drawn to the house of a woman that had, at best, a tangential relationship to their case. They decided to go in the early hours of the morning with maximum force. Why?

Let's not even start with the lack of training, skill, and cool that led to one shot by the legally armed occupant of the property who thought he was defending his home from invaders, being responded to by a fusillade of over 20 bullets, none of which actually hit their intended target.

To my mind, they made a bunch of decisions which continually escalated the situation and then responded to one shot with an uncontrolled barrage that resulted in someone's death. To me, it's not intentional, but their actions and choices were the cause of her death - should be manslaughter.

Puja

[WaspInWales]

Battering the door down because they were exercising a search warrant and the returning fire. It’s a tragic event but not in the same league as some of the other incidents of late.

Probably the biggest issue is the lack of transparency which makes all event suspicious even when due process post event is followed.

I don't don't particularly want to rank tragedies, but they didn't need to batter the door down or go in weapons drawn to the house of a woman that had, at best, a tangential relationship to their case. They decided to go in the early hours of the morning with maximum force. Why?

Let's not even start with the lack of training, skill, and cool that led to one shot by the legally armed occupant of the property who thought he was defending his home from invaders, being responded to by a fusillade of over 20 bullets, none of which actually hit their intended target.

To my mind, they made a bunch of decisions which continually escalated the situation and then responded to one shot with an uncontrolled barrage that resulted in someone's death. To me, it's not intentional, but their actions and choices were the cause of her death - should be manslaughter.

Puja

This!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

Battering the door down because they were exercising a search warrant and the returning fire. It’s a tragic event but not in the same league as some of the other incidents of late.

Probably the biggest issue is the lack of transparency which makes all event suspicious even when due process post event is followed.

I don't don't particularly want to rank tragedies, but they didn't need to batter the door down or go in weapons drawn to the house of a woman that had, at best, a tangential relationship to their case. They decided to go in the early hours of the morning with maximum force. Why?

Let's not even start with the lack of training, skill, and cool that led to one shot by the legally armed occupant of the property who thought he was defending his home from invaders, being responded to by a fusillade of over 20 bullets, none of which actually hit their intended target.

To my mind, they made a bunch of decisions which continually escalated the situation and then responded to one shot with an uncontrolled barrage that resulted in someone's death. To me, it's not intentional, but their actions and choices were the cause of her death - should be manslaughter.

Puja

The rationale for that approach will need to be justified, but if the police believe that there were firearms in the house and potentially the suspect they were looking for was with her, that could be justification for a heavy handed approach. I agree that the fact they managed to miss the boyfriend who fired at them is not a great advertisement for professionalism. But equally, a manslaughter charge would be excessive. They were doing their job and perceived a threat. They were fired upon and shot back. If the state allows police to break into a housetop serve a warrant in the manner in which they did then the blame is systemic, not individual. I'd also point out that facts are disputed around whether they announced themselves or not (although a Judge had signed off on the warrant and method of entry).

In the furore surrounding police actions where there has been clear racist intent, this is a terrible accident. It deserves an investigation (it is getting that) but whilst ranking tragedies is indeed absurd, rating this as a racist incident alongside others is equally so.

[Digby]

The Taylor incident in some respects is worse because it pretty much worked as the system intended.

I would separately like to know what the difference is between a no knock warrant and one where they announce their presence. I suspect it's a distinction without a difference at operational level, if they announce they likely hammer a door and shout police moments before making a lot of noise knowing it down with a battering ram anyway

[Mikey Brown]

The Taylor incident in some respects is worse because it pretty much worked as the system intended.

I would separately like to know what the difference is between a no knock warrant and one where they announce their presence. I suspect it's a distinction without a difference at operational level, if they announce they likely hammer a door and shout police moments before making a lot of noise knowing it down with a battering ram anyway

Yeah, they only appear to be different variations on the tactic of maximum/immediate escalation.

The right to defend yourself with lethal force when in your home, and the right for Police to barge in to your home (relatively) unannounced seems destined to create situations like this.

[Digby]

The Taylor incident in some respects is worse because it pretty much worked as the system intended.

I would separately like to know what the difference is between a no knock warrant and one where they announce their presence. I suspect it's a distinction without a difference at operational level, if they announce they likely hammer a door and shout police moments before making a lot of noise knowing it down with a battering ram anyway

Yeah, they only appear to be different variations on the tactic of maximum/immediate escalation.

The right to defend yourself with lethal force when in your home, and the right for Police to barge in to your home (relatively) unannounced seems destined to create situations like this.

Yep, the system is working as intended in this instance. And that should look like a problem.

[morepork]

Meanwhile in Florida....

Brad Parscale threatens his wife with a gun, is known to have 10 or more firearms in the house, has a drunken rant at cops that arrive, and not even a gun pulled on him by the law.

Little bit of a contrast to being shot 7 times in the back or taking 20 after your door is battered in at midnight.

[Puja]

Battering the door down because they were exercising a search warrant and the returning fire. It’s a tragic event but not in the same league as some of the other incidents of late.

Probably the biggest issue is the lack of transparency which makes all event suspicious even when due process post event is followed.

I don't don't particularly want to rank tragedies, but they didn't need to batter the door down or go in weapons drawn to the house of a woman that had, at best, a tangential relationship to their case. They decided to go in the early hours of the morning with maximum force. Why?

Let's not even start with the lack of training, skill, and cool that led to one shot by the legally armed occupant of the property who thought he was defending his home from invaders, being responded to by a fusillade of over 20 bullets, none of which actually hit their intended target.

To my mind, they made a bunch of decisions which continually escalated the situation and then responded to one shot with an uncontrolled barrage that resulted in someone's death. To me, it's not intentional, but their actions and choices were the cause of her death - should be manslaughter.

Puja

The rationale for that approach will need to be justified, but if the police believe that there were firearms in the house and potentially the suspect they were looking for was with her, that could be justification for a heavy handed approach. I agree that the fact they managed to miss the boyfriend who fired at them is not a great advertisement for professionalism. But equally, a manslaughter charge would be excessive. They were doing their job and perceived a threat. They were fired upon and shot back. If the state allows police to break into a housetop serve a warrant in the manner in which they did then the blame is systemic, not individual. I'd also point out that facts are disputed around whether they announced themselves or not (although a Judge had signed off on the warrant and method of entry).

In the furore surrounding police actions where there has been clear racist intent, this is a terrible accident. It deserves an investigation (it is getting that) but whilst ranking tragedies is indeed absurd, rating this as a racist incident alongside others is equally so.

A terrible accident which resulted in someone's death because of mistakes made by the police. They chose the time of entry and method of entry, escalating the stakes in a manner which was unnecessary - I understand the suspect in the case was actually behind bars at the time of the raid (and it's a pretty reasonable argument that, in order to be busting in and knocking down the door in the middle of the night, you should be pretty damned certain that the person you want is there (whether you shout "Police!" while doing it or not)) - and they reacted to a single shot with 20 randomly sprayed bullets. It's a tragic accident, in the same way that Anne Sarcoolas hitting Harry Dunn was an accident - you can understand it and how it happened, but it's still manslaughter because someone died through mistakes and reckless actions.

Incidentally, the court sort of agrees with me, cause they charged them with reckless endangerment for the bullets that hit the wall and might've endangered the (white) occupants next door. Legally, the difference between reckless endangerment and manslaughter is that someone has died, which draws the unfortunate conclusion that only the bullets that missed were a problem, not the ones that hit, and implies that Breonna Taylor was in some way culpable and a "legitimate target" in a way that the people in the apartment next door were not.

Puja