Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 316 posts

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#261

Post by nodox92 »

kerkeslager wrote: post #237
nodox92 wrote: post #185

This is sensationalist nonsense. The narrative is mostly blank because the media probably couldn’t get the full narrative as it’s an ongoing investigation and thus not subject to open records. It looks like they only got the public narrative [1] which simply states “PIU Investigation” and are pretending to be shocked. In any case, you would expect most details to be contained in supplements or the case file, not the…

> The narrative is mostly blank because the media probably couldn’t get the full narrative as it’s an ongoing investigation and thus not subject to open records. It's not "the narrative", it's the incident report. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you are correct that they aren't obligated to release the incident report. But they did release the incident report, presumably as a pretense of transparency a…

> But they did release the incident report, presumably as a pretense of transparency and/or good will.

No argument here; either release useful information or don’t.

> Your argument here is basically, "Oh don't worry, that's just the report with the lies--the report with the truth exists somewhere, you'll get to see it eventually!"

Forced Entry doesn’t mean what people think it means and is probably correct on the report. As for selecting ‘None’ for injuries on the victim of a homicide, it sounds like the program that prints the report did that on its own (obviously needs to be fixed as computers shouldn’t be adding words to official reports). I don’t think it’s fair to call these things “lies” or use them as the basis for conspiracy theories as others here have.

> If you're arguing that not reporting the incident in the incident report, or not having transparency, are police norms, I won't disagree with you there, but that's a huge problem.

I would argue that restricting public access to complete police reports related to active investigations is both a norm and serves a legitimate state interest (protects the integrity of investigations). I would also argue that once the case is indicted/closed, it should be made available to the public for inspection.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#262

Post by unethical_ban »

e40 wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

I still think that when it is a sitting US Senator, and you are in a position to know that many people may only look to you as the paper of record, it can be of public service to let the baddies have their say, for perspective - perhaps with the strongest condemnations from the editorial board.

I generally believe the NYT has a better newsroom than Wapo.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#263

Post by mnm1 »

rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

I absolutely expect them not to shoot back. They are the intruders and aggressors. This case is very simple. They broke in, they murdered someone, and they should spend the rest of their lives in jail because of it. What will actually happen is that they will get off because they were shot at while serving a warrant (despite breaking in unannounced) and the victim's family will have no other recourse due to qualified immunity. And the only reason the boyfriend's charges have been dropped is because the case is in the national spotlight and we're having riots now for weeks. Too bad the boyfriend wasn't a better shot. That's the only way justice could have been served here.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#264

Post by unethical_ban »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #241
bagels wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it was not that it was a right/left opinion piece. It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such. (edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our…

It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from. Here’s what it actually said: Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with ban…

>On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.

It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence.

No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior.

The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#265

Post by jonwithoutanh »

ifPossible wrote: post #40

I don't want to be charitable to the police, but this situation is a strange one. If they were trying to bust a drug smuggling ring, it sounds like maybe there was parallel construction afoot. In other words, they may have been acting according to a supply of information beyond that which would ever be presented to the public, and could not be used to support a prosecution. Reading between the lines, there's a hint t…

fucking racist.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#266

Post by thephyber »

mcv wrote: post #156
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

This exactly. You cannot first say people have a right to own guns, a right to defend themselves with them, and a right to shoot intruders in their homes, and then give police a no-knock warrant to enter people's homes unannounced. You're asking police officers to get shot. It's an incredibly stupid and dangerous combination.

> You're asking police officers to get shot.

Technically, police officers are the ones applying for the no-knock warrants which get other police officers shot. And police officers are the ones who pushed for more use of no-knock (something like 10x increase from 30 years ago) because they think it improves their safety (more likely it just allows them to prosecute warrants faster than waiting for the door and risking the suspect destroying evidence before opening the door).

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#267

Post by ryandrake »

genoapol wrote: post #163
hkai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#268

Post by JamesBarney »

dmitriid wrote: post #101
JamesBarney wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

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.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#269

Post by ncallaway »

JamesBarney wrote: post #258
ncallaway wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

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.

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...).

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...

> 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.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#270

Post by newacct583 »

leephillips wrote: post #176
newacct583 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fau…

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-k…

The judge issued a warrant that was requested by the police. Likely by the officers involved (though I don't know if that's been reported). I mean yes: you're right, our judiciary should be serving as a better backstop on public safety concerns than they are. And that's a problem.

But the court signed off on the warrant that law enforcement wanted. As I see it it's still the police holding the bag here.

Post reply on HN