A Jury Concludes That Blindly Firing 10 Rounds Into Breonna Taylor's Apartment Was Not 'Wanton Endangerment'
Brett Hankison's acquittal shows how difficult it is to hold cops accountable for abusing their power.

On the night that Louisville police killed Breonna Taylor, Detective Brett Hankison fired 10 rounds into the side of her apartment, shooting through a glass patio door and a bedroom window that were both covered by blinds. He did this while two of his colleagues, Detective Myles Cosgrove and Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, were inside the apartment, firing 22 rounds down a dark hallway in response to a single round that Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, had fired at the intruders, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Three of Hankison's bullets penetrated the wall separating Taylor's apartment from the neighboring unit, terrifying the people who lived there.
These facts alone are enough to show that Hankison acted recklessly, without regard to the risk that his panicked, indiscriminate response to the gunfire would injure or kill his fellow officers, Taylor, or her neighbors. Yet after deliberating for just three hours yesterday, a jury unanimously decided that Hankison was not guilty of wanton endangerment. That decision vividly illustrates how difficult it is to hold police officers accountable for using excessive force even in the rare cases where they face criminal charges. Despite some recent exceptions, jurors tend to give cops a pass even when their actions are patently outrageous, granting them absolution for conduct that would send ordinary citizens to prison.
Hankison faced three charges of wanton endangerment, one for each of the people in the apartment next to Taylor's: Cody Etherton, Chelsey Napper (who was pregnant at the time), and her 5-year-old son. The charges, which are punishable by up to five years in prison for each count, alleged that Hankison "wantonly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person" in circumstances that indicated an "extreme indifference to the value of human life."
That language jibes with the conclusions that Louisville's interim police chief, Robert Schroeder, reached when he fired Hankison in June 2020, three months after the raid that killed Taylor, an unarmed 26-year-old EMT who died in the hail of bullets fired by Cosgrove and Mattingly. "Your actions displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life when you wantonly and blindly fired ten (10) rounds into the apartment," Schroeder wrote in his termination letter to Hankison. "These rounds created a substantial danger of death and serious injury to Breonna Taylor and the three occupants of the apartment next to Ms. Taylor's…I find your conduct a shock to the conscience. I am alarmed and stunned you used deadly force in this fashion."
The grand jurors who approved the charges against Hankison that September were similarly shocked, alarmed, and stunned by his conduct. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, although he concluded that Cosgrove and Mattingly had acted in self-defense, likewise did not think Hankison's use of deadly force was justified. But the jurors who acquitted him evidently disagreed. The question is why.
Hankison testified that he was initially positioned behind Cosgrove and Mattingly as they broke into Taylor's apartment around 12:40 a.m. to serve a search warrant aimed at discovering evidence of her former boyfriend's drug dealing. Hankison said he saw Mattingly go down after he was struck in the leg by Walker's bullet. The muzzle flash briefly illuminated the apartment, and Hankison told investigators he saw "a figure in a shooting stance" holding a rifle, possibly an AR-15. Although Walker's gun was actually a 9mm pistol, Hankison testified that it sounded to him like an AR-15. "The percussion from that muzzle flash I could feel," he said.
Hankison said he wanted "to get out of that fatal funnel" at the entrance to the apartment "as quickly as possible and get to a location where I can return rounds." He retreated to the side of the apartment, where he saw more muzzle flashes through the patio door and the bedroom window. "I knew Sgt. Mattingly was down, and I knew they were trying to get to him, and it appeared to me they were being executed with this rifle," Hankison said. "I thought I could put rounds through that bedroom window and stop the threat."
The muzzle flashes that Hankison saw came not from the imaginary rifle but from his colleagues' .40-caliber pistols. It bears emphasizing that the door and window were both obscured by blinds, so Hankison could not see anything aside from the muzzle flashes. He nevertheless deemed it prudent to fire 10 rounds blindly through the door and window, in the hope that some of them might by happenstance strike the "figure in a shooting stance" he had glimpsed as he stood near the front doorway. Prosecutor Barbara Maines Whaley, an assistant Kentucky attorney general, noted that Hankison "shot into the side of that building in the opposite direction from those who were in the line of fire coming out of the apartment."
"Weren't you concerned if you fired through the sliding door you might hit your fellow officers?" Whaley asked Hankison. "Absolutely not," he replied.
"Did you feel guilty about leaving your fellow officers in the fatal funnel?" Whaley asked. "No," Hankison replied.
Hankison was equally confident when he was asked if he thought, in hindsight, that he did anything wrong during the raid. "Absolutely not," he said, although he added that Taylor "didn't need to die that night."
That much is certainly true. Hankison's lawyer, Stew Mathews, sought to cast blame on Walker. But the evidence indicates that Walker was justifiably exercising his Second Amendment rights in response to a middle-of-the-night home invasion.
Although they had a no-knock warrant, the police banged on the door for at least 30 seconds before breaking it in with a battering ram. They claimed they also announced themselves—a point that was disputed by all the neighbors who were later interviewed, including one who subsequently changed his account to fit the official story.
Walker, who reported a break-in that night during phone calls to police, his mother, and Taylor's mother, said he and Taylor, who were in bed when police started pounding on the door, had no idea who was there, although he was "scared to death" by the tumult and worried that it might be Taylor's ex-boyfriend. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that charge two months later, implicitly recognizing that he had a strong self-defense claim.
The responsibility for Taylor's death lies elsewhere. As always when the war on drugs kills someone, the blame starts with the politicians who authorized violence in response to the consumption of arbitrarily proscribed intoxicants. It extends to Detective Joshua Jaynes, who obtained a no-knock search warrant based on thin evidence and a crucial misrepresentation that led to his dismissal. Yvette Gentry, who succeeded Schroeder as interim police chief, also faulted Jaynes for poor planning, saying "the operations plan was not completed properly" and "there should have been better controls, supervision and scrutiny over this operation prior to the warrant being signed and executed."
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary Shaw, who quickly rubber-stamped Jaynes' application without questioning its dubious basis, was another crucial link in the chain of failures that led to Taylor's death. So were the officers who decided that breaking in Taylor's door in the middle of the night was a prudent way to serve the warrant, despite the potential for deadly confusion. The final link was Cosgrove, who according to the FBI's analysis fired the bullet that killed Taylor.
In her December 2020 termination letter to Cosgrove, Gentry said he failed to "properly identify a target" when he fired 16 rounds down a dark hallway. "The shots you fired went in three distinctly different directions, demonstrating that you did not identify a specific target," she wrote. "Rather, you fired in a manner consistent with suppressive fire, which is in direct contradiction to our training, values and policy." Cosgrove—who, like Hankison, mistook police gunfire (Mattingly's) for shots fired by Walker—later said he was not even consciously aware that he had used his gun.
Cameron nevertheless decided that Cosgrove and Mattingly had acted appropriately in the circumstances, and grand jurors said charges against them were never even presented as an option. "It's interesting that the only person charged with wanton endangerment for the same conduct is Brett Hankison," Mathews observed in his closing.
Taylor's family probably would choose stronger words to describe the fact that no one has been held criminally liable for her senseless and completely avoidable death. But that failure hardly absolves Hankison, whose behavior is striking even in the context of an operation that was reckless from beginning to end. Hankison, after all, was not under fire. He nevertheless thought it was a good idea to assist his colleagues by shooting his gun in their general direction based on a completely erroneous impression of what was happening inside an apartment whose interior he could not see.
The observation that police work is dangerous, or that Hankison was in a high-stress situation, or that he was concerned about his colleagues' welfare, cannot possibly justify the decisions he made that night—decisions that he stands by even in retrospect. "It's a good day, finally, for law enforcement," Mathews declared after the verdict. On the contrary, it was a bad day for conscientious police officers who recognize the grave danger their power poses when it is abused. And it was a bad day for anyone unfortunate enough to encounter a cop who agrees with Hankison that he did nothing wrong.
[This post has been updated with additional details about Walker's self-defense claim.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gun is always loaded. Check.
Don't point at anything you don't want to destroy. Check.
Booger picker off the bang stick until ready to shoot. Maybe.
Be aware of what's behind your target. Haaa ha ha ha! How else do you get bonus points?
While this is an essential rule, being "aware" is not the same as "don't fire because you are not 100% sure what is behind two sheets of drywall" (drywall,of course, provides almost no protection from even a handgun round). Indeed, in an urban environment, one can almost never be completely sure that a bullet that is fired won't, perhaps after a ricochet, harm someone other than the intended target (which is one reason urban areas tend to have rules against firing a firearm at all except for very specific purposes or in specific locations).
Applying the rule as "don't fire" instead of "be aware" would make it virtually impossible for police to defend themselves in most situations in urban areas -- they would just have to take the fire and hope they survive - if they are "down" (such as hit in the knee) and unable to flee, they would expect that they will almost certainly be killed as the person firing at them will continue to do so. Criminals would quickly learn this rule and exploit it.
Instead, "aware" must mean "calculate the risk and act accordingly".
In this case it seems Cosgrove and Mattingly acted appropriately although they never should have been put in this situation for the multitude of reasons this piece enumerates.
I however could stretch myself to see either side of the case against Hankison but likely would lean towards conviction as he had little reason to believe he knew where the target was at that moment so his chances of actually protecting his colleagues was fairly small while the risk of injuring or killing others remained fairly high (and higher given that he supposedly fired in three different directions so potentially exposed three times as many people to harm).
I find the fact that the fire he was reacting to was almost entirely police fire irrelevant. Police don't carry guns and ammo which make special "non criminal" sounds when fired.
That he didn't even know if it was his colleagues or not firing the rounds is certainly relevant. He had no useful situational awareness at all.
And I will definitely fault Cosgrove. "Gentry said he failed to "properly identify a target" when he fired 16 rounds down a dark hallway. "The shots you fired went in three distinctly different directions, demonstrating that you did not identify a specific target,"" He had no idea who or what he was firing at.
Needless to say, if you aren't even aware of your target, you have absolutely no idea what's behind it.
Police should be held to a higher standard than citizens, not a lower one. After all, they're supposed to be trained for this.
And quite honestly, none of them should have even been in the apartment in the first place. They were the intruders, they never announced themselves, and the residents were entitled to return fire. Without announcing they aren't acting as police in any recognizable fashion. They're just thugs with badges. (Yes, I think no knock raids are inherently illegal). Knock on the door and allow the residents to wake up and answer it, or wait till they leave the apartment and arrest them then.
I'd have indicted and convicted all three of them of murder (yes, even Hankison - he was part of a criminal act that led to the death of a person).
Felony murder for anyone else if this was a break-in by people who didn't have State Sanctified clown suits.
Just like imprisonment without the authority of the government would be called "kidnapping" and be a felony. As well, imposition of a fine over some amount with the threat of imprisonment or worse without the authority of government would be a serious crime.
Are you also suggesting that every jail and prison guard, every officer that ever put handcuffs on anyone, every judge that ordered someone to prison, and every juror who imposed a prison sentence on anyone is guilty of the crime of kidnapping?
If the person was innocent, yes to everyone except the jurors.
The asswad Gestapo at Waco shot EACH OTHER.
And one clown shot HIMSELF.
I have the video
Reason should perma post it.
Ah... I had misread the "three distinctly different directions" context -- I was thinking that was Hankison. That could alter my view of Cosgrove's actions.
However, do recall that police are required as part of their job to put themselves into many more dangerous situations than most (non criminal) citizens put themselves in and in contexts where their presence is unexpected. Thus, even with perfect firearm training (and execution of that training) and perfect lighting, the result would have been similar -- except that Kenneth Walker would have been the one that died.
In this case, police were required, by a court order, to approach this residence and perform a no knock warrant -- this is something no "private" citizen ever has to do. Was the entry consistent w/policy and training and, if not, who was responsible for those failings? There appears to be conflicting reports on what, if any, announcement was made prior to entry. In a shit-hole city, a single officer who does this sort of work may put themselves in this situation many times each year where the vast majority of gun owners will never, in their entire life, be in any situation remotely close to this - let alone as part of their routine job. So, even with much better training than "private" citizens, police will end up with mishaps like this more often.
They chose to put themselves in this situation, by breaking into a house in the middle of the night without clearly announcing themselves.
They could have just waited till people left the domicile in the morning, stopped them, identified themselves, and presented the warrant then. Perfectly safe. No one gets shot.
They weren't required to perform a no-knock warrant. They had *permission* to do so. (They shouldn't have. Not least because they never should have such permission, but the applying officer misrepresented things to get the no knock warrant in the first place - also should be culpable).
If someone breaks into your house, you're entitled to shoot them in self-defense. You don't know the cops have a right to be in your house until *after* they present the warrant. At which point, why god why are we training police to break into people's houses? The warrant should need to be presented before they even cross the threshhold.
If police academies are training cops to break into people's houses instead of knocking and announcing and presenting a warrant, or waiting till they exit and stopping and presenting a warrant, that's just incredibly dumb. I humbly suggest they aren't receiving "much better training" than private citizens - they're receiving training that makes them actively dumber and worse at their job for having received it.
The only time police should ever be entitled to force entry is if there is a clear and present danger that can only be dealt with by a forced entry. The vast majority of cops should never find themselves in such a situation, and certainly not on a routine basis.
(The convenient well-after-the-fact witness to the supposed announcement is also clearly bullshit. If he was outside at the time it happened, they would have had his witness statement that night with the announcement mentioned. IIRC, they did interview him that night, but he only decided he heard the cops announce like a week later. My BS meter is buried in the red at that point).
My memory is slightly faulty - its even worse for the 'they announced' story than i made out. Here's wikipedia's summary of it: "the witness originally said "nobody identified themselves" when interviewed by police a week after the shooting. But when the police called him two months later, he said he heard, "This is the cops.""
A week after the person said no one identified themselves. Two months later he remembers hearing something? That no one else heard? (Including other people who were outside). Yeah, not buying it.
Good take.
While I do think there is a role for no knock raids. There was absolutely NO necessity for one in this instance. The judge should absolutely be held accountable for a charlie-foxtrot of this magnitude.
I'm glad everyone got fired, but this kind of thing has to stop. The best case scenario was that this was a police raid with a no knock warrant against a man and woman who thought their home was under attack. That is a setup for indiscriminate killing where BOTH sides are in the right.
That is an insane position to put either the police or citizenry in. The politicians are the problem here, once again.
Cops LOVE ahooting no matter what: it is in their blood and they have been known to DELIBERATELY SHOOT just for the fun of it. STRIP these murdering shits of their guns and give them a tazer if the are too cowardly to do their job.
Cosgrove—who, like Hankison, mistook police gunfire (Mattingly's) for shots fired by Walker—later said he was not even consciously aware that he had used his gun.
Cameron nevertheless decided that Cosgrove and Mattingly had acted appropriately in the circumstances, and grand jurors said charges against them were never even presented as an option.
If Cosgrove or Mattingly were brought to trial, they could have been convicted of murder. They brought the only person to trial who could not have brought on murder charges (and, heaven forbid, the horror of a murder acquittal) and he was acquitted for the same reason. Why convict this guy when bullets were flying all over the place and this is the guy that didn't hit anybody. Circular logic saves the day.
I think I have figured out that it now auto-closes html tags at the end of each paragraph so that you have to add them to every paragraph individually.
The Reason web-site design heroes - solving problems we didn't even know we had.
Any feature you want, as long as you don't want an edit button.
Or a preview button. Or a check for properly nested tags or unsupported tags.(I wonder if this will also be in bold because I used a <p> tag to delineate it instead of the [ENTER] key - who knows!).
So, apparently <p> (w/o spaces) is just swallowed and doesn't start a new paragraph (or invoke the "close of paragraph closes all(?) formatting tags" logic).
Perhaps there should at least be an article posted with no text that people can add comments to play with figuring out what is/is not supported and what strange behaviors there are. (Or, perhaps a document that I've never been able to find that defines how it works -- but such an expectation would date me as one who remembers documentation existing).
No.. no swallowing p..
Cant deal with that.
This has been happening for a month or two. Now why I only italicize of one paragraph or after the link.
It is annoying.
front tag
back tag
front tag
no tag
So, no need to bother with the back tag for a whole paragraph.
It’s because for a while if you left the italics tag open, the entire comment section would italicized.
“ Despite some recent exceptions, jurors tend to give cops a pass even when their actions are patently outrageous, granting them absolution for conduct that would send ordinary citizens to prison.”
Oh, do tell us why that is! Why do juries who are informed about the law and every detail of the case reach conclusions that you consider “outrageous”?
Are you alleging mine control? Threats? Blackmail? Who by and fire what purpose?
It could it be that you outrage is just rooted in your ignorance?
It could be. But it's a lot more likely that we have the same kind of biased and discriminatory judgments as in the bad-old-days when juries credulously believed and regularly decided in favor of white accusers over black defendants regardless of the evidence. There are plenty of examples of miscarriages of justice in our history. The fact that the jury system is generally less bad than the alternatives does not mean that it's perfect.
Remember that the grand jury members also had access to the law and details of this case - and based on their description of his behavior, I think it's fair to guess that they will consider this decision "outrageous" too.
Deciding preferentially based on whether a defendant is white is racism; that's because there is no rational, legal, or moral reason to favor one race over the other.
But police and non-police are not legally the same; there are rational, legal, and moral reasons to favor police over non-police or vice versa. So, it would be perfectly legitimate for juries to give great leeway to police.
A "miscarriage of justice" is generally when someone innocent is found guilty. Letting someone guilty get off the hook is usually not considered a "miscarriage of justice" for the simple reason that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a hard bar to meet.
You're barking up the wrong tree complaining about the jury. If you want cops to use lethal force less, you need to change police rules in your community. But don't presume to tell other communities how they should police their streets. Many communities may want a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy, and that is none of your business unless you live there.
So, it would be perfectly legitimate for juries to give great leeway to police.
Not when the facts of the case don't support that leeway.
A "miscarriage of justice" is generally when someone innocent is found guilty. Letting someone guilty get off the hook is usually not considered a "miscarriage of justice" for the simple reason that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a hard bar to meet.
That's what the phrase is used most often to refer to, but it is not it's exclusive meaning, which more generally is, "a failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice". Justice is about more than just ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly convicted.
These are the facts:
Detective Brett Hankison fired 10 rounds into the side of her apartment, shooting through a glass patio door and a bedroom window that were both covered by blinds. He did this while two of his colleagues, Detective Myles Cosgrove and Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, were inside the apartment, firing 22 rounds down a dark hallway in response to a single round that Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, had fired at the
It's entirely up to a local community to decide whether this kind of police conduct is acceptable or not. It's not up to you, it's not up to the federal government, and it shouldn't be up to state government either.
Would I want to live in a community where police behave like that? No. But it's not my business to decide this for others.
It could be. But it looks to me like there is a well established pattern here where police are given benefit of the doubt that most non-police defendants wouldn't get. No mind control or conspiracy necessary. There are just certain cultural attitudes that exist that give undue (in my opinion) deference and trust to police. Even though it is well known and well documented that police lie and break the law all the time.
And perhaps part of the problem is the law that allows police to bust into someone's home and start shooting if a resident tries to defend themselves. You should probably expect to get shot at if you violently bust down someone's door, whether or not you have a badge. If you value the right to armed self defense, this should be very troubling to you.
Additionally, they have some baseline understanding of the law. They're not legal experts, of course, but they have a better awareness of the process than a good number of laypeople, so they're less likely to say things that are incriminating, and often end up with decent legal representation, sometimes with the aid of union resources. It gives them a headstart, at least.
" are given benefit of the doubt that most non-police defendants wouldn't get. "
Almost.
Their EMPLOYERS get that to exonerate themselves from liability for a few 10 millon in damages.
Truly Kangaroo Court. Absolute corruption.
Of course they do. For some reason you think that's wrong.
What do you mean by "the law"? The use of deadly force by police is largely governed by local regulations, and it should be. Some localities may want to prohibit the use of deadly force altogether, others may want police to use deadly force with near impunity. What business of yours is it?
It isn't very troubling to me because this sort of thing doesn't happen where I live. That's no accident.
If it happens in your community and you don't like it, take it up with your local government. But, again, this is a choice that voters make in local elections, and if you don't like the choices they make, move somewhere else.
Are you saying that we should not have an opinion on any local policy unless you happen to live in that jurisdiction? No matter how egregious the policy we shouldn't even criticize it unless we are residents? Gun laws in NY? Civil suits against abortions in Texas? Russia in Ukraine? Just shut up about it?
I I think the two officers who killed Taylor were firing in justifiable self defense, and I think it's perfectly consistent to say they deserved to be fired but not criminally charged.
I don't know what the jury saw in this case, though. My initial reaction is that this guy was guilty of reckless endangerment. I didn't watch this trial. I no longer trust that anything I see in the media is remotely accurate, so it's possible I would have learned something that would change my mind. I've learned more about the warrant, for instance. They had a lot more than "Amazon packages" to serve as probable cause for searching her apartment, they had connections tying her to Glover even after the two separated, and perhaps ongoing involvement. I don't know why they served the warrant at midnight in a bad neighborhood, though. If you know your girlfriend's ex is a drug dealer with a violent history and a collection of guns, you'd probably also start shooting when someone breaks into your apartment in the middle of the night.
Drug war needs to end, and dynamic entries used solely to prevent people from destroying evidence are terrible policy. The only reason police should ever break into a home is if there's an imminent threat-a hostage situation or domestic violence circumstance, etc. Maybe you could convince me to extend that to certain wellness check calls, as well, but not for stuff like this.
I think the two officers who killed Taylor were firing in justifiable self defense
Do explain how anyone has a right to armed self defense while violently breaking and entering into someone else's home at 12:40am. Surprise assaults on sleeping people are not defensive. The only defender in the entire scenario is Kenneth Walker. The problem with claiming a right to defense is you actually need to be defending.
If police have a warrant, they CAN enter your home even if you don't consent to a search. That's the law. I don't agree with no-knock warrants or these type of raids, but that's a policy decision that's far over the heads of these two officers. They were doing a job they had no reason to believe was wrong, and when they went in, they took fire. They didn't fire first. The officer that was hit had his femoral artery nicked and could have bled out.
This went down badly. But there's still going to be times when officers need to enter a property where they have a warrant, and the owner doesn't want them to search the property. Their responsibility isn't to just accept being shot at until they die.
Gun shots are not knocking.
You can choose to live in a community where that's how it works, and you can choose to live in a community where that behavior is prohibited. This is something each community can decide for itself, whether you live in a libertarian society or whatever it is we actually live in.
That is, as condition of moving into a town or neighborhood, you have to accept the local rules for policing, and those rules may include no-knock warrants delivered at gunpoint.
They had a lot more than "Amazon packages" to serve as probable cause for searching her apartment
And yet the cop who obtained the warrant felt it necessary to lie about those packages anyway. And why the quotes?
Possibly they pack the jury pool with those they know will deliver the verdict they demand.
And how would that work? AFAIK, jurors are selected at random and both sides get equal challenges.
Well, I did say jury pool and in my personal experience around 25 % of the pool knew each other from the month before where they had convicted a drug dealer, around 25 % had family in law enforcement (the ONE black man in the pool, his father was a federal marshal stationed at the courthouse.) 90% of the pool where so old the had Snow White hair. So…… it is possible that this was a”random” selection of the populace but I think that the odds favor that the scales are tipped to the persecution before jury selection even began. That along with the giving their “witnesses” (my husband told me the defendant did……) lesser sentences in exchange for perjury, (when was the last time a witness has been prosecuted for perjury when the lie for the persecution? Ever?) and the obvious deleting of all audio of the phone calls I had had with the head of the conspiracy so that they could use the phone records but denying the jury opportunity to hear the truth of the conversations lead me to believe the fix is in.
That mashes no sense. You’re making that up.
“ Each district court randomly selects citizens’ names from lists of registered voters and people with drivers licenses who live in that district. The people randomly selected complete a questionnaire to help determine if they are qualified to serve on a jury. Those qualified are randomly chosen to be summoned to appear for jury duty. This selection process helps to make sure that jurors represent a cross section of the community, without regard to race, gender, national origin, age, or political affiliation.”
He’s not saying that the juries conclusion is outrageous. He’s pretty clearly saying that the cops actions are outrageous.
Which they obviously are. Because No Knocks are inherently outrageous.
in a free country, local jurisdictions should be able to decide whether they want to have no knock warrants.
If there was a reasonable doubt about whether the cop was firing in self-defense, then that's the way it's supposed to be. Not every injustice should be handled in criminal court. This case may be an excellent example of why people should be free to sue cops under the preponderance of the evidence standard, and it's certainly an excellent example of why we should end the drug war.
.. example of why we should end the drug war.
One of many.
I don't feel like you can claim self-defense if you committed breaking-and-entering, which is exactly what a no-knock raid actually is. If you don't announce yourself, you aren't operating as a police officer, but as an intruder.
If you have the legal authority to do the thing you're doing, it's not criminal. The policy is the problem. The fact that it was legal and standard practice isn't something you can hang on the individual officers.
Beyond that, they supposedly announced. Now it probably wasn't super effective since the only guy who heard it was someone already outside because he was walking the dog or something, but he did corroborate that.
Or perhaps the problem is that we allow "following orders" to be an excuse for immoral behavior. Everyone is completely responsible for his own actions, even if he has the law behind him.
I used to think that way until I came to my senses. How are we to hold people to blame for what most of society tells them is not immoral behavior? A little reflection and you'd see that extending that rule backward in time condemns practically all of humanity, and then all pre-human animals.
Every time a new moral order comes about, it must include amnesty for all that has gone before it. For one thing, if it doesn't, then the old order will fight like hell to assure the new order never comes about, which means it probably won't. Like for instance what if it's decided in the future that abortions of humans or killing of other animals are murders? Then the old order must undertake violence against the new order to prevent themselves from being punished as murderers. Result: EVERYBODY gets murdered, and then since there are no people left, it doesn't matter!
'Just following orders' isn't an acceptable excuse.
They didn't announce. They browbeat someone into claiming they announced like a week after the events in question - no one reported hearing them announce any time close to the events in question. I don't believe the one person who said he heard them announce. (And that should be a matter of fact for the jury to determine).
And I'm saying you cannot be given legitimate legal authority to conduct a no-knock raid, because the conduct of a no-knock raid is necessarily a criminal act. If you haven't identified yourself as a police officer *to the inhabitants of the domicile*, you aren't a police officer in the capacity you're acting.
'Just following orders' isn't an acceptable excuse.
When the act itself isn't depraved it becomes much more reasonable. It wasn't accepted as an excuse for genocidal crimes against humanity, such as escorting people into chemical booths to get gassed with Zyklon B.
Officers have to serve search warrants on properties, and owners aren't always pleased to have their property searched. That doesn't mean the government has not authority to search, the law is clear. When that's already your job, following an order to execute a search warrant at an usual hour doesn't suddenly make it a moral failing because it's roundly similar to your legal duty. This is a power that people want the state to have. You can't decide after the fact that you want to punish people for doing something that was legal at the time. These people also have rights.
Change the policy. Go after the people who made it policy. It's ultimately the fault of the public that wanted the drug war, wanted officers to have all these duties, responsibilities, and powers, than it is the individual officers. The problem is the voting public that somehow wasn't sufficiently outraged by this policy up until Breonna Taylor died. Suddenly they're "shocked and dismayed" to learn that the power they've given their government isn't an absolute good.
If we were going after and prosecuting all the politicians, mayors, police chiefs, judges, etc. all the way down to the people who executed the warrant, then fine. But scapegoating the officers at the expense of the system they were involved in is a moral failing. They're a VERY TINY piece of the puzzle that involved the abuse of power, and I'd rather the people with actual power get punished before we go after the small actors.
And to elaborate on my last point-we didn't punish the nazi prison guards but forgive the Nazi leadership. We didn't just let them say they didn't realize what was going on, or to blame Hitler for everything. We held people higher up the chain accountable. But in a case like this, you get the chief of police and other people at the department firing the officers and prosecuting officers for failures that are endemic to the whole city. Try holding the fucking mayor accountable, and the judge, and the city council, and everyone who participated in putting those policies into place. And once you've determined that they have ethical and legal culpability, then you can move down the line and determine who else had a duty to act.
I'm totally behind prosecuting all those people, but i think you have to start at the bottom and work up. After all, we have a murder. Try the people who actually killed her first. You can't prove culpability farther up the chain before you prove that a crime was committed.
The 4th amendment should require presentment of the warrant before police are allowed across the threshold of the domicile. Before the warrant is presented, the police would be intruders, as it is only the warrant that lets the residents know the police have a right to be there.
Even punishing the leaders is no good, because then nobody will ever want to lead. If you can never be sure how you'll be judged in the future, and the stakes are more than just what people think about you, that leads to paralysis in which we can never settle issues.
The grand jury and the jury in the courtroom had access to information that the media either did not or that they refuse to acknowledge.
That's why we see these opinion pieces presented as 'news' so often.
"fired at the intruders, whom he mistook for violent criminals."
That was no mistake: they ARE violent criminals. It's just that the rest of their gang (the courts, prosecution) - also violent criminals - will always protect them.
Yes.
So if citizens shoot at cops in situations where returning fire presents any danger to innocent bystanders, this means that cops can't return fire and have to die?
Glad the jury told everyone to fuck off.
Where "firing shots blindly inside a building" = "returning fire"?
That's the media's spin on it, but clearly not the facts. Either respect the jury process or don't.
If it is corrupted, it would be foolish to respect it. How can we insure that the system is just when all the power lies in the hands of the corrupt?
If it is corrupted, it would be foolish to respect it. How can we insure that the system is just when all the power lies in the hands of the corrupt? I feel that is the crux. Truly I would love some ideas on making the system just.
The fact that you have to resort to such an absurd strawman should be a clue that the argument you're trying to defend is not as strong as you think it is. Nothing in the article above nor in the criticisms of the decision here in the comments even hints at your ridiculous hypothetical.
That's the logical conclusion you have to arrive at, but pot calling the kettle black on strawmen. This article is absurd for claiming that the facts support calling his clearly calculated fire "blind fire."
If you're going to call a deliberate decision to retreat and return fire blind fire just because you can't see the whites of their eyes, then you're creating a standard that makes any officer who returns fire upon being shot at a criminal.
If you feel my example is absurd, good. I'm trying to get you to realize how absurd your standard really is.
It's blind fire because he couldn't see a single thing that was going on. All he could see through the blinds was light from muzzle flashes. He couldn't even tell whose guns were being fired!
So if citizens shoot at cops in situations where returning fire presents any danger to innocent bystanders, this means that cops can't return fire and have to die?
It sure is terrible that we expect trained professionals to behaving like trained professionals and refrain from blindly panic-firing through walls.
low life, low rents that cant find work anywhere but Public Servie aint exactlly professionals.
Ive never seen a States Professional Occupations Law that classes cops as professionals.
Prostitutes either.
From my experience many who enter into law enforcement are sadists. Literally. They know that this is where they can go to to practice with little to no fear of facing justice. Not all, but many.
"So if citizens shoot at cops in situations where returning fire presents any danger to innocent bystanders, this means that cops can't return fire and have to die?"
Cops only die if they screw up. In this case they screwed up.
-They failed to knock in a meaningful way, announce themselves, and allow for sleeping folks to awaken, orient to situation, get dressed, answer the door, and finally acknowledge and review the search warrant.
-When homeowners behave exactly as any reasonable person would behave, cops have to allow for that. Since in the manner the cops entered, a reasonable person who owns a weapon should be permitted to respond with deadly force when faced with deadly force from an unknown assailant.
-If the cops wanted to be safe, simply monitor the place for a few days.
Super simple now given the ability to place multiple cameras on a building, some motion sensing archives and a bit of AI assistance, one donut eating cop can monitor a dozen sites for activity.
-The guy the cops wanted was not there. Cops fucked up. When the stakes are death, that death should fall to those who fucked up.
I live in a 'burb that has a low rate of this kind of cop behavior. I still don't like it because my fellow citizens should not have to suffer this crap from fascist police.
I’m not sure what other facts could change “firing shots in three different directions” into “not firing blindly”, but am willing to acknowledge there might be some circumstance that could.
Ashli Babbitt would have a word with Reason, if she could.
The best I can figure is that Reason had a meeting and decided she actually was a traitor. That Babbitt was summarily executed by an agent of the state is much more clear cut than in Taylor's case.
They have also been suspiciously silent about the political delay of the indictment of Daniel Perry, who shot back at brandishing Garrett Foster, who Reason eulogized. Their consistency is suspect these days.
"On the night that Louisville police killed Breonna Taylor, Detective Brett Hankison fired 10 rounds into the side of her apartment, shooting through a glass patio door and a bedroom window that were both covered by blinds. He did this while two of his colleagues, Detective Myles Cosgrove and Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, were inside the apartment, firing 22 rounds down a dark hallway"
Are these dick heads paid by the bullet?
No, by the body.
comment of the Year.
Maybe they did not want to convict the guy who had harmed no one knowing that those who murdered her went free
That's one of the things I think might've produced that verdict.
This disastrous decision should bring society one step closer to the idea that an average citizen would be right to consider their life to be in imminent danger any time a police officer approaches.
You do have that right already. If you want to survive, you better behave accordingly.
I'm not endorsing it either way, I'm simply telling you how it is.
We need to find a way to attract a better class of person to law enforcement than Brett Hankison and similar petty authoritarians, half-educated rednecks, and downscale bigots. Better temperament, better training, better oversight, better education, better judgment, better character, better accountability, better almost everything.
Those are your people Artie.
Pasco WA 2012
City cops murdered a Mexican migrant worker.
A horrible criminal.
He was downtown on Court St throwingvsmall stones at cars.
Two asshole cops fired SEVENTEEN ROUNDS across the busiest intersection in town, killing him and almost killing a woman in the bakery across the street. She had JUST stepped away from the cash register when a bullet went thru where she had been standing. She told a group of us about it and showed a hole one of the bullets made in a bakery rack.
Clearly they wrere justified...
The State and City conspired to bury it before he was buried.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Antonio_Zambrano-Montes
First of all, Breonna Taylor had not worked as an EMT or in any other health care related occupation for years. She was working as a mule, a facilitator, a storage manager, a banker and a procurer for her former boy friend. He claimed that she was holding $12,000 in cash at her apartment when the shooting happened, but since the police never searched the place, there is no evidence one way or the other. She had "loaned" her car to this same miscreant and when she got it back the police found a dead body in the trunk. She had earlier texted about making drops at the stash house that he used. Breonna Taylor spent her life hanging out, assisting, enabling and encouraging criminals and their criminal activities up to and including murder. She was NOT an innocent victim of mindless police violence.
Ashole.
I dont know what Communist shit hole you live in but in the USA she had the RIGHT To life and a trial by jury.
You need professional help. Pronto. and not a prostitute.
Stop drowning kittens in the river. Its messing your head up.
As far as I can tell, this is mostly lies.
-Glover has repeatedly denied she held any cash for him, and refused to implicate her *after her death* as part of a plea deal.
-There is zero evidence, even alleged evidence, she ever worked as a mule, facilitator, procurer, or storage manager for Glover.
-The warrant's claim that she received suspicious packages for Glover was fabricated by the cop who applied for the warrant. The post officer told them no such thing, and said they hadn't delivered suspicious packages to her address.
About the only thing here I know is correct is that they never searched her apartment. Absence of evidence doesn't mean you can imagine wrongdoing.
From what I've read, he's mostly right. She was heavily involved with Glover and had been surveilled along with him many times, and recorded conversations implicated her heavily.
I don't agree with no knock, but they identified and knocked (at almost 1am...)
https://www.independentsentinel.com/exclusive-report-breonna-taylor-was-deeply-involved-with-alleged-drug-dealers/
You forgot about the party that holds the most blame: the people who demand a war against their neighbors and vote for these politicians and demand they wage said war.
Many of them black, latin and everything else.
Yup. That's what I've been saying up thread. It's been a massive policy problem that creates a situation in which we have no-knock raids executed after midnight, and now that there's some negative fallout from this terrible policy, everyone wants to scapegoat the officers who executed the warrant.
Really we should be starting at the top and working our way down-politicians, judges, police chiefs, etc. If we're not holding them accountable, how can we say these officers are committing crimes when the people who told them to do exactly what they did are escaping all punishment?
It's way to easy to throw one sacrificial lamb on the altar as a symbol, to pretend you've fixed a problem, but it's hollow. If you don't acknowledge that the problem is rooted in power, then prosecuting officers is useless. Ultimately, they execuated a warrant, they were fired upon, and they returned fire. If they had a duty to not enter that house, then that duty is transferred onto the officers who requested the warrant, the judge who signed the warrant, the politicians who allowed this policy, and the higher ranking officers who generated this policy. If we don't think they committed crimes, then the officers who executed the warrant also didn't commit crimes.
If the majority of the voting public decided that the "war on drugs" should end, the politicians would declare it over.
BUT THEY DON'T.
Too much of the brainless libertarian whining about something that the majority of the citizens actually want - laws against drug use and dealing.
Don't forget that the current complaint of disparity between crack cocaine and the powder came about because the leaders of black communities, nationwide, asked for greater punishment for the type of drug that was devastating their neighborhoods. Not because the politicians were racists.
Libertarians need to grow up.
From your example it looks like it is the ones who cry for war and then morn the casualties are the ones who need to grow up.
That's the big picture. You have all these countries with mostly the same laws as the USA, but with less freedom overall, but that are still mostly free, yet they can point in shock and horror at incidents like this that happen in the USA. They say it's because we let people have guns, or because Americans are hotheads, or some bogus reason like that. Or are those reasons bogus after all? Really, I'm asking what the basic lesson here is, like whether we have to accept an occasional horror like this in return for having the type of system we do.
Your initial error in that assumption is that those countries are “mostly free”. Government policies in countries like Germany may be a little nicer than in China, but fundamentally, there is little difference in the rights citizens have and don’t have.
What the HELL happened to JURY NULLIFICATION?
These Jurors are either out of their minds or afraid the cops will hunt them down and kill them. Or both
But...what you're describing IS nullification, is it not?
I'm open to the possibility the jury was wrong, but I'm certainly open to the possibility they were right. I've just read media accounts, including the stuff in Reason. The jurors got to see what I would estimate was a lot more evidence.
Maybe the jury was biased, or maybe the prosecution was biased, looking for a scapegoat to placate the rioters.
And there's a bigger context - the jury was deliberating in the face of threats of civil disorder, yet they still dared to acquit the defendant. Maybe it's because they know something the rioters and the media don't know?
"=Protesters take to downtown streets over verdict
"=Thursday night, several dozen protesters gathered at Jefferson Square Park downtown, shouting, “We won’t let this go!”
"=A white man cries and the world feels sorry for him," said Tyra Walker, co-chair of the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression, "but Black mothers have been crying for years, hundreds of years, for their Black children who have been ripped from their homes, lynched on the tree, now shot by police officers. But we still don't get no justice....
"America does not feel sorry for Black mothers, Black families who are crying for their dead babies."
Some then began marching through the streets, chanting "Breonna Taylor!" "Breewayy!" and "You can't stop the revolution!"
As they walked down Fourth Street Live and stopped in front of a steakhouse to chant "Black lives matter," several diners inside raised their fists in solidarity.
The march began back at the park, which has served as the heart of the protest movement in Louisville for nearly two years.
https://yhoo.it/3tuiWL2
Vastly more of those "black children" have been killed by their own race than all the ones "ripped from their homes, lynched on the tree, now shot by police officers."
But, I guess, those "black lives" don't matter.
Even more don't make it much past conception thanks to the eugenics organization of Planned Parenthood.
Jurors in heavily Democratic Louisville clear police officer involved in the death of Breonna Taylor of clearly reckless conduct.
Say her name.
Ummm....here's the thing. This woman was not an innocent. She was fired from her job for stealing drugs so that her boyfriend could sell them. The police found a dead body in the trunk of her car not long before this incident. She was living with a known drug dealer. Said boyfriend, hero that he is, came down the hallway firing his weapon at police officers and shoved her in front of him as a shield. Tragic she lost her life bur as the old adage says "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas."
Why do people feel the need to post lies about a dead woman.
-She was not fired from her EMT job. She resigned.
-She was working as an ER technician at the time of her death
-She has no record of drug offenses.
-She was not living with a known drug dealer. The ex-boyfriend who was a drug dealer, Glover, was not living with her. They hadn't been together for 2 years.
-Kenneth Walker, her boyfriend, also has no record of drug offenses.
-He did not 'come down the hallway'. He fired one warning shot at presumed intruders.
-Breonna was behind him.
-The dead body in the car: It wasn't her car (it was a rental, though rented in her name), it wasn't shortly before, but years before (when she was still dating Glover), and the body wasn't in the trunk - Glover lent the car to an associate to 'run errands', and he was shot 8 times and found slumped over the steering wheel. Taylor was never considered connected to his death in any way.
That is why journalists always cite two or more named, verifiable, reliable sources in all of their writings.
Which is why there are no more journalists, just twitter cut and paste posters who happen to get paid.
Has the media reported on the racial makeup of the jury? If it was all-white, or had no black jurors, I think that fact would have been noted in the reports. So my hypothesis is that there were black people on the jury. Oreos?
Please, if you're going to say such, Hydrox, I would hope.
Here's an idea: we can have the crew at REASON show us how to conduct raids against armed suspects. Let's see you up on the front lines. When you come under fire, could can read them the Non-Aggression Principle.
Such a faggot ass response. Eat shit when you get done licking them boots.
Sumptuary prohibitionism, asset-forfeiture looting, cop unions and immunity add up to the capacity to buy and sell judges and prosecutors, exclude libertarian ballots and tamper with juries and evidence. Like the people who elected Hitler, the folks who voted these laws cannot evade liability for their outcomes.
At least this went to a jury. A capitol cop gets filmed beating the skull of an already unconscious woman, who subsequently dies and it never sees a court room.
Reason's selective outrage.
Selective outrage is a survival trait in a totalitarian society.
Selective outrage is also a trait for successful propaganda organizations.
Will the police dept. now have to rehire Mr. Hankison, or will they buy him off. I wonder.
test
testing
If Hankison’s seeming blindly firing 10 rounds wasn’t “wanton endangerment”, what in blazes might it be? Perhaps Criminal Stupidity, CRIMINAL writ large? By the way, respecting how the people in the apartment receiving fire might in the future respond to police requests for assistance, identifying a perpetrator perhaps, receiving the proverbial Cold Shoulder should not be much of a surprise. Additionally, I’m curious as to the following. What possible excuse might the police offer to the survivors if someone in the apartment had been killed?
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. Check out this! consulting engineers dublin
Stop lying Carol. If what you said is true no one would need your nonsense to alert them to it. Go scam somewhere else.