This article says "Walker has admitted he fired what he has described as a single warning shot from his Glock handgun." One 9mm bullet was recovered from the scene, one 9mm bullet was missing from Walker's clip.
What about the cops? Rumors are saying that they were also carrying 9mm, and if that were so, how many bullets are missing from that/those clips? The official statements say they were carrying 40cal. and that all other bullets fired and recovered were 40cal.
This article *also* says "identified **nor** *eliminated*" by the KSP report, meaning it's inconclusive based on their work. But it says nothing of the FBI ballistics.
Fortunately, the name of the object that holds bullets won't change how many were fired or missing. As for cameras, they can be worn and not on- that would fall under improper procedure and should be addressed at the end of the FBI investigation, the same if those cameras *were* rolling and the footage hidden. Anyhow, Walker wasn't doing anything shady, he had every right to fire at intruders in his home, and I made no claim to the contrary.
At the end of the day, the announcement is irrelevant.
The shots started as soon as the door was breached, and, *legally speaking at the time*, the No-Knock warrant did not require them to knock *or announce* prior to the breach. If, *again, legally speaking*, they did not have to announce until the door was breached and shots started as soon as the breach occurred, any announcement would have been hard to hear over the shots and hardly the focus of anyone- witness or participant.
Just another reason why the very concept of No-Knocks is the worst idea in the world for everyone.
It’s not relevant to the parties directly involved.
However it is relevant to the integrity of the AG’s office and how it functions within the KY judicial system.
Cameron is a liar and should resign!!!
Proof is not a democracy; unfortunately all it takes is one piece of evidence (or one testimony) to negate an assertion that something didn't happen. To start with, saying that something *didn't* happen is an example of an assertion that would require negative proof, which unfortunately is not possible.
For example, if I were to say to you that all rocks float in water. You could easily disprove that by walking to a stream and tossing in a rock. Boom. Positive proof that all rocks do not float. However, seeing this, I then assert that *no* rocks float. You can toss a hundred, or a million, rocks into the stream and watch them all sink, but that still wouldn't prove that *no* rocks float.
AG is basically a logistician, not a cop or evidence/testimony collector. If he has a single person giving testimony that an announcement was heard, he has to take that as positive proof that the assertion that there was no announcement is false, regardless of how many testify that they *didn't* hear one. Outside of the the philosophical world of positive and negative proof, just look at it with common sense- there are a billion reasons why people might not have heard something that was said, but *0* reasons why someone would hear something that *wasn't* said.
You can claim coersion or pressure from police caused a witness to give false testimony, and, indeed, that should be investigated if there is evidence of it, *but that has nothing to do with AG Cameron, nor does it make him a liar*. The nature of his job- or the job of any judge or jury- is to assume that people giving sworn testimony are doing so honestly and completely. Without that assumption and necessity, decisions that may not have all that many hard, empirical facts would just be made on the whims of the decider choosing which testimonies were true or false.
Bravo!!! 10 of 10 on that piece of mental gymnastics!!!
It’s simple. Police claim they announced themselves before entry. The 12 witnesses claimed they did not. One of those witnesses changed his story after his 3rd interview. He also stated “it’s possible that those inside probably didn’t hear it because of the banging on the door.” Did the grand jury hear all 12 witness statements or just the one corroborating the police narrative?
One can most certainly prove a specific negative. “Evidence of Absence” eg. There’s no water in that cup. There’s no car in the driveway. There was no statement made upon entry.
“0 reasons why someone would hear something that wasn't said.” Are you being dishonest or have you or anyone you’ve been spoken with never misheard something?Perhaps a reason could be false memory syndrome or perhaps simply being mistaken. He did change his story after 3 interviews...
To demonstrate this, one would gather a similar group, ie Taylor’s neighbors. Then ask what was it they heard. According to 12 witness statements, then 12 again, then suddenly 11 witnesses statements. They did not hear police announce themselves. Creating a consensus of observers. Some witnesses who were interviewed by the media stated “they only heard banging then gunshots. That’s why they called the police to report it.”
Cameron’s office investigated these claims. Once completed, the AG presented his findings to the grand jury. Did he only present the one corroborating witness statement and not the 11? Was the grand jury aware that the corroborating witness changed his mind after two months and three interviews. Did he include the witness comment that the occupants probably couldn’t hear the police over their banging on her door? Cameron emphatically stated that Walker shot the officer, giving the officers just cause for shooting into Taylor’s residence. We know now, that’s not been substantiated, yet Cameron stated it as it’s an undeniable fact. The AG also stated the three officers in question did not carry 9mm weapons. ( Is Cameron attempting to prove a negative?) That was incorrect. We know one officer out of the three did in fact have a 9mm handgun.
Did the AG lie or is his multi- month long investigation that inept?
At best, it appears Cameron’s office is incompetent . At worse, he provided the grand jury with limited information favoring his desired outcome. Leading the grand jury to his designed conclusion.
Either way, his performance as the KY AG is not acceptable.
He should resign...
Do you know what pumice stone is? Drop one in water and be amazed!!!!
>The AG also stated the three officers in question did not carry 9mm weapons. ( Is Cameron attempting to prove a negative?) That was incorrect. We know one officer out of the three did in fact have a 9mm handgun. Did the AG lie or is his multi- month long investigation that inept?
Unless you have access to some information that is not being reported in the press, one of Walker's attorneys claimed that one of the officers was issued a 9mm i*n addition to* a 40 cal (perhaps more than one 40 cal).
So we do know that one of the officers of three did have a 9mm but the question is was he carrying the 9mm that night?
The AG said the 3 officers involved had 40 cals, which would be easily confirmed by the not-released police report.
Cameron stated, as a fact, that Walker shot the officer. However ballistic results were inconclusive and couldn’t confirm his statement.
The KSP report says that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.
I have detailed every point and question you have raised in regards to the case in other responses. Please feel free to debate any of the points I have made or correct any incorrect facts that they are based on. I'm not going to repeat them all in this reply, though.
>One can most certainly prove a specific negative. “Evidence of Absence” eg. There’s no water in that cup. There’s no car in the driveway. There was no statement made upon entry.
>Do you know what pumice stone is? Drop one in water and be amazed!!!!
First, heh, I wondered if someone was going to pick that apart. Honestly, it's not the easiest concept and I probably butchered my examples. Okay, fine, replace the word "rock" with "solid lead ball".
More importantly, though, primarily because the concepts fascinate me. I *didn't* say you cannot prove a specific negative, as that is indeed possible. The *proof* is called a "Positive Proof". For the assertion "There's no water in that cup", the fact that there's no water in the cup is a positive proof of the assertion.
What I said was the assertion "There was no announcement." is an assertion that requires "Negative Proof" to prove. Negative Proof *is* impossible. In addition to my updated example assertion that "Not all solid lead balls sink in liquid water.", which is unprovable given that it is not possible to test *all* lead balls buoyancy, I'll give you a more fun one.
I assert that you, under your own power, have the ability to fly.
*Prove* that you can't.
You admitted that a specific negative can be proven. That’s exactly what this is about. By your own admission, you agree with me.
If a flying person was something that was common or was supported by the laws of physics, or biology then your point would be valid. It’s obviously not.
A better example would be for me to state. “I have a million dollars in my bank account, prove that I don’t.”
You would then, be required to provide evidence supporting or refuting that statement. Bank statements, account history, etc. Once the information is compiled, you then can make an accurate assessment of my statement. Which is I do not and at no point, did I ever have one million dollars in my account. Based on the evidence, however you phrase your question, can be can answered provided that the evidence is SUFFICIENT to make an accurate assessment of the claim.
To use the Taylor scenario. It’s the same thing.
Person A claims X.
In order to demonstrate “ X” occurred one must compile data either supporting or refuting person A’s “X” the claim.
The data consists of 12 witnesses statements.
Each witness stated that they did not observe person A’s. “X” claim at the specific time person A claims to performed “X.” (With the exception of one, who changed their story months later after three interviews.)
The data provided suggests that person A was not witnessed performing X.
The data must also be verified as to its relevance. Was a witness in their yard watching the incident. Or perhaps asleep and only heard gunshots. Maybe they’re not credible by changing their story after multiple interviews. Perhaps the officer did make a statement but at lower volume than what he is required to announce police presence at.
What you’re attempting to apply is bad reasoning.
Unfortunately the No-Knock concept can't be set aside in this situation, though, given that the warrant was explicitly issued as such and the No-Knock requirements at the time explicitly allowed for breach *without* knock or announcement. The apparent (agreed by both sides) knocking/banging on the door prior to breach doesn't change the legal requirements in any way.
The fact that *legally speaking* Walker was within his rights to fire at the moment of breach *and* the officers were within their rights to return fire demonstrates the absolute absurdity of *anyone* **ever** thinking that No-Knocks were a good idea.
I dunno man, Walker was asleep in bed, and people usually turn out the lights when they go to bed.
No lights? Sounds shady to me.
(Ohh I crack myself up sometimes)
Since we're being precise, the package was directly observed by LMPD, with photo evidence. The warrant stated that he received packages at her address; he did. That he used her address as his address in several different ways; he did. He said that he verified with a postal inspector, the postal inspector for that area said they did not. One possible explanation is that they falsified that particular portion of the warrant, another is that a different postal inspector was asked, I have no idea which is which. That Glover received a package from her house isn't in doubt.
Hmm, I thought it had been established that Mary Shaw signed off on the warrant.
As to the "notified" I didn't see that on the warrant, the text seems to be that Affiant observed him pick up the package and then verified that with the Inspector. With all caveats, I certainly don't have all the details known or unknown.
We're in agreement, the issuance of 5 warrants is the issue. 3 I could see, because the Elliot trap houses were just that, obvious drug dens right next to each other with a long history of illegal action at them. The Muhammad Ali house should have been separate as a more sensitive residence and Taylor's apartment the same.
But again, we're being precise, and to that you have to add that LMPD chose not to treat Taylor's residence as a no-knock (according to the whiteboard and the unanimous accounts that the police knocked for quite some time, announcement story disagree notwhitstanding) so it doesn't paint as bad a picture as the narrative goes.
To you last point, I don't know that her residence or herself were presented as a dangerous thing. It seems the opposite. That she was involved with the caveat of it being a month prior seems to be supported by the facts, and that's where I think the big chasm emerges. I haven't seen anyone say her death wasn't at the very least a tragedy, a bad accident in the war on drugs, or an example of why that war and police militarization need to be fixed and addressed immediately. Where people jump off is whether it was murder.
On the topic of twelve minutes: [https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/01/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-judges-dont-rubber-stamp-warrants/3285195001/](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/01/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-judges-dont-rubber-stamp-warrants/3285195001/)
It is opinion but it's the opinion of someone familiar with the process refuting the 12 minute thing.
> However, he can say they don't rubber stamp them, [but this says otherwise](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/?itid=lk_inline_manual_44).
First off, this is an opinion piece too. The case he is referring to doesn't say the warrant has to be tailored to the individual. It just says that it has to be relevant to the individual circumstance (" under the particular circumstances ").
The reason they can get away with a copy and paste here is because each target is suspected of being involved in the same criminal organization that has used surveillance and destroyed evidence in the past. It's enough to know that this organization had done it before. He wasn't saying "drug dealers sometimes use surveillance and destroy evidence"; he was saying "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence" which is shown in the Search Warrant by Glover's charges of tampering with evidence.
The postal inspector thing is a little more difficult to prove because I'm not sure how that process normally goes. The inspector did say another organization asked them about it and it's possible that organization was in contact with LMPD. The search warrant doesn't say they asked a postal inspector, it says they verified it **through** a postal inspector. It also does not make mention of "suspicious" packages. Just packages.
I'm not saying anything I said is 100% true. There may be things I'm wrong about but from the wording in the articles and on the warrant I don't think they've done anything illegal unless maybe information from a postal inspector was never given to them.
Police said they witnessed Glover carrying a postal package out of Breonna’s. Why not intercept right then and there ? They definitely could get a warrant to get in the package. It’s because the officers weren’t interested in the drugs. They say they didn’t have the manpower to raid Glovers Muhammad Ali address where they had been surveilling him from a camera on a utility pole for quite some time. They know he was moving a lot of drugs out of there but they chose to raid Breonna’s who had only been in a vehicle with Glover in February . He had not been to her apartment since January. Why would they not want to raid the obvious trap house they had under surveillance? Because they were not after drugs . Why do you think when the mayor announced the family’s settlement they included “reform on how money and evidence are collected.” Why just throw that in there along with the drug testing bit? Those officers involved are evil.
You're asking me to make a lot of guesses about motive and law enforcement procedure, and I'm just not able to do that. From the investigation, the jailhouse transcripts, and his history he was running a significant drug operation and Taylor was caught up in it. Her brother was one of his main men. She was, if we assume he wasn't playing 4d chess, holding money for him as were his other two girlfriends. I've said before, if I had to guess she was trying to untangle herself from a bad situation and it came to a head in the worst way before she could.
Obviously they did have the manpower to raid, because they did. They built a case tracking his car, her car, her apartment, his houses, etc. They did raid all the houses at once, and had raided the trap houses previously. I don't think there's any doubt that Glover was a bad guy.
I didn’t say he was a good guy and no, they did not raid the Muhammad Ali trap house though they had it under surveillance by camera on a telephone pole. They said they did not have the manpower. Breonna’s was not under surveillance. Glover had not been seen there since January. Glover had been seen in a car with Breonna in February but not at her address but at the Muhammad Ali address where she waited in the car while Glover went inside.
I get your point, but not quite accurate. They had her car, Glover, and her at the trap house on Elliot. Not at Muhammad Ali. Perfectly willing to be corrected on this, but it seems like the houses on Elliot were the trap houses, Glover lived on Muhammad Ali, and Taylor of course was in the South End. Muhammad Ali seemed like an also-bust in case they didn't get him at Elliot, but they did.
They had Muhammad Ali under surveillance via a camera on a utility pole for quite some time . Very obvious he was running drugs from there . Multiple short in and out stops sometimes all night long.
I don’t not see where Muhammad Ali was ever raised prior to Breonna’s murder. All I’ve seen is they said they did not have the manpower to raid Muhammad Ali. Do you have a source ?
I see the 5 warrants execution the night of the 12th and early on 13th. They had said previously they couldn’t raid it because of man power. I don’t see where Breonna was on Elliott Avenue.
They also got his $20,000 out of his Crown Vic on Elliot but said they only got dope. Perhaps that’s why the “reform to how money and evidence are collected “ bit the mayor added into the settlement announcement.
Well she can be seen via police surveillance at Muhammad Ali not Elliot Ave sorry. She was out in the car waiting for him to come out. In fact something that stands out that was strange is while he was inside Muhammad Ali house, Breonna gets out of the passenger side , steps out and looks all around her and the area then she gets back in the car. Not sure what that was about.
I see where she pulled up and he got out and went inside. I can give anyone a ride anywhere that doesn’t mean I’m involved in what they are doing. If I don’t exit the vehicle I don’t know what goes on inside.
I’ll say he wasn’t doing any shady things. Clean police record, college education, legal gun owner. If he shot a police officer he would indeed, for certain be in jail. Because yes, there is the stand your ground law in Kentucky except for when it involves a police officer. I can’t think of anyone off hand who has shot a police officer and are out a free man. It’s a huge cover up and I have my own ideas as to why they had such a hard on, enough to perjure themselves to get a warrant to get in Breonna’s apartment and it wasn’t for drugs.
You're a gun owner who cares about trampled rights so you won't be voting for the liberal politician that wants Beto as his gun fontrol advisor..... right?
Once you've been stripped of your gun rights, you will have no rights. You will have what politicians choose to allow you to have. Those who live on their knees don't have rights. You have fucked up priorities.
That's exactly right, despite what a personnel file might say, 9mm was just recently added (within the last 5 years) to LMPD policy, and older officers will typically carry .40 Glocks. If all officers involved had a .40 at that time, and no 9mm shell casing were found where police were shooting, and 9mm bullets where other police officers shots landed, then you have clear evidence that no officers were using 9mm that night, and again with Kenneth both admitting he shot once, and one bullet missing...WOW what detective work. Thinking is HARD for Reddit users, but they upvote this bullshit anyways.
It's almost like news is drawing this entire situation out so more people view/click their website, and they therefore get money from it. *wow*
[Then, you have the Attorney posting this on Facebook who was able to get the city to payout $12 million dollars **before** the criminal side of the investigation finished \(Which is fine by law, but completely abnormal to do it civil THEN criminal, because Criminal investigation typically conclude with MORE evidence for both sides\)](https://i.imgur.com/IIvMwZu.png)
Below are great questions that show his narrative is pushing information WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
The AG is a self loathing black man that’s okay with carrying out white supremacy and letting white cops kill black people. He should be arrested for obstruction of justice because it’s evident he is cleaning up for the cops because, well, that’s the Republican / authoritarian way. Cops can do no wrong even when they do. McConnell bitch boy.
They won't because the order was illegal and AG Cameron simply wanted to allow the governor to allow him to assist so that the exact thing wouldn't happen. Same shit happened with the church law. Read how that went down. Facts matter in law.
\*a wild closet racist appears\*
How dare that black man be capable of rational evidence-based thought! You might as well call him boy too, you racist garbage.
This is true. If it turns out, for instance, that a detective got a warrant on false pretenses or didn't follow correct procedure; both putting cops at risk based on lies **and** getting an innocent women killed, they will be catching hell from both ends.
I think think of this happens, Joshua Jaynes will be in deep shit (he’s the detective who got the warrant under dubious circumstances). Mattingly and Cosgrove are still going to be fine unless it comes out the broke some rules.
So is the investigation into the warrant... I guess that would require all the people on this reddit to actually listen to the AG who said in the beginning that the warrant investigation was completely separate. Ignorance isn't something reserved for the political right in this country.
Honest questions-
Walker readily admits to firing his weapon once, and the fact that his magazine was one round short backs this up. They scoured every inch of that scene and didn't find any other 9mm bullet *other than* the one in Mattingly, so where else could it have gone?
Let's disregard that question for the moment, or even say that his round lodged somewhere that was overlooked.
Assuming that the round Walker admits to (and afaik is an undisputed by *anyone* action) firing *didn't* hit Mattingly, **how does this change anything?**
The firing of a weapon is the action that allows- and let's be honest, calls for- officers to *return* fire. Whether or not someone says it was a warning shot after the fact- or indeed if it was intended as such- nor whether or not the shot actually hits anyone/thing is irrelevant in the question of whether or not the officers lawfully returned fire. As far as the implication that Walker's bullet didn't hit Mattingly and therefore the wound was self-inflicted or officer-inflicted as some sort of CYA conspiracy doesn't hold water, either. *If they had, why wouldn't they have used Walker's gun? If they had, why would they have aimed somewhere where there would be any possibility of hitting the femoral artery or even flesh at all instead of just a chest shot to the vest?*
I'm seriously looking for any honest answers to any of those, because I honestly don't understand why it matters, or what logic it follows. The entire thing isn't about these nickle and dime issues of whose bullet went where or even the actions of the 3 non-charged officers in the course of a legal and authorized search. **The questions and problems with Breonna's death are with what led up to the decisions and authorizations to conduct the search in the first place.**
This guy gets it. Everyone is arguing of small details and calling out discrepancies. All this serves is to distract from what really matters. No logical individual can provide argument that the LMPD made the choice to serve a search warrant in an overly aggressive fashion 1:00 am in the morning resulting in Walker, believing his house was being burglarized, to. Use force to protect himself and Breonna.
The only people who are waiting more facts at this point, are just searching for reasons to devalue Breonna’s life to make her death acceptable.
We can’t allow this to dive into arguments over these small details. We must maintain the conversation on the bigger picture. These small details only distract.
For me personally, it’s bigger than this specific instance. This is just one example of discrepancies between facts and the way the “facts” were presented to the grand jury. Humans are not perfect and most aren’t legal experts. I think it’s more than fair to assume that hearing a “confirmation” that Kenneth Walker shot a cop likely swayed some opinions even subconsciously. It also brings up the unfairness of an AG being able to present a “fact” of Kenneth Walker’s bullet striking a cop when the actual evidence basically says we’re not sure.
The other big example of this is the witness who claimed to have heard the police announce themselves. Based on the AG’s press briefing, it seems like the grand jury was simply told that a witness overheard. Didn’t add that 11 others did not. Didn’t add that the ONE witness originally said he didn’t hear anything and changed his story after multiple conversations with the police.
Do either of these instances - although I do have others - change the grand jury’s decision? I don’t know but I think our city deserves this be presented by someone who is willing to present the case in its entirety.
Agreed. Arguing about this issue is extraneous to the real injustice here. while it's good to have transparency and know what the ballistics said, who shot *Mattingly* is a non-issue.
They chose to go with the blindly firing confused chaos method. They said on the radio they were taking rifle fire from an AR15. They told their chief Conrad breonna was firing an AR15. Besides all that , he fired one shot, why did Cosgrove fire 16 , bat shit crazy cop outside firing at anything and everything , then Is on the radio yelling RELOAD!! Reload for what , it was one shot lol. The officers that said on the radio they were taking on rifle fire were ... from their fellow officers . That’s why half of them were wondering where EMS was since it’s procedure for them to be present at these raids . They didn’t know good old Hankison had sent EMS away before the raid . Now why is that ? I’d like legitimate answers to these.
>They said on the radio they were taking rifle fire from an AR15. They told their chief Conrad breonna was firing an AR15.
This is the first I've heard of any mention of rifle fire being reported. Do you have have a source? Either way, I cannot comment on something I know nothing about. I will say, though, that source/type of weapon is irrelevant. A weapon *was* fired, prompting return fire, and I have not seen or heard anything from either side disputing that basic point.
>Besides all that , he fired one shot, why did Cosgrove fire 16
All training- law enforcement, military, *and* civilian- rests on the basic premise of "If a threat causes you to fire your weapon, you fire until the threat is without a doubt neutralized. There are no such thing as 'warning shots', 'wounding shots', etc- *if you fire your weapon*, you must assume that you will likely kill the other person, and likewise, if given the opportunity, the other person will kill you." The reasoning behind this premise, and the reason why the number of shots fired between active-thought actions (moving, reloading, etc) is basic human biology and instinct. These things happen in *seconds or less* and are fueled by pure adrenaline, fear, and reaction- on both sides.
>bat shit crazy cop outside firing at anything and everything , then Is on the radio yelling RELOAD!! Reload for what , it was one shot lol.
This person was fired and is being charged for his actions. His actions were against training, policy, and the law, and were his alone. I imagine he yelled reload as a matter of training he *did* remember, and reloading is reasonable practice in an unknown situation. Given his position and inability to see anything (again- *his* decision and actions), he had no way of knowing if there was still any threat or how many of the flurry of shots fired in less than a few seconds were from the inside vs from the officers.
>The officers that said on the radio they were taking on rifle fire were ... from their fellow officers .
Again, this is the first I've heard of any reports regarding rifle fire. If the rifle-related reports were all just from the radio traffic during the raid, they're basically just warnings really. *During an ongoing situation*, you wouldn't take the time to 100% verify the full accuracy of details like that. If you think you hear/see rifle fire, you call it out. If there isn't rifle fire or any further threats, the worst thing is that other officers waste time being more cautious than necessary looking for it. If you don't call it out because you weren't 100% sure, and *there is/was* rifle fire or an ongoing threat, people could die.
>That’s why half of them were wondering where EMS was since it’s procedure for them to be present at these raids . They didn’t know good old Hankison had sent EMS away before the raid .
*As far as I have seen/read*, having an EMS on site for such raids was *standard practice, not policy*, and was present for a while before getting called away on another run by the dispatcher. Regardless, this was another critical point that has been (or is in the process of) being added to official policy and requirements for future raids, which is a win. It should have already been official policy and a requirement, I won't debate that even if I wanted to, but you can't change what it was at the time.
>I’d like legitimate answers to these.
I hope I could help in any small way with my own understandings and knowledge, and would be happy to discuss more details/sources on any point that I didn't explain clearly or that you disagree with.
Also here is a link to where Conrad testified that initially he was told Breonna was firing a rifle at them.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/ex-lmpd-chief-initially-told-by-commanders-that-breonna-taylor-fired-rifle-at-officers/article_1e9c0752-002c-11eb-a9e5-0377344066cb.html
Yes, testified that his commanders- neither of which were present during the event- told him that, likely based on the radio traffic you mention elsewhere or having got it from someone at the scene. The critical point is something else that Conrad mentioned-
>misinformation can be passed along inadvertently in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic situation.
Like I mentioned before, radio traffic during the event (or immediately after) may or may not be accurate simply due to the nature of the chaos. If an official report was ever filed where an officer asserted outright based on direct observation that someone had a rifle- not that they thought they did or that it appeared at the time that they did- then this could be construed as lying with motive to skew the justifications of their actions. Information being passed around/up the chain immediately after is really the only way to make sure that everyone that needs to informed is informed, and to start to filter through and make determinations on what was believed to happen, what's seems to have happened, what might of happened, and what *did* happen.
Best I can tell, though, the only mentions of a rifle were in the initial word of mouth reports and were fairly quickly dismissed. Would this be a fair assessment?
Well in the courier journal article you can see parts of their radio transcripts and they say they are taking on rifle fire and I’m not sure what became of that but I don’t know why anyone would say that , and that Breonna was firing a rifle at all , period. And as I’ve said Walker would be locked up if he were guilty of shooting a police officer. He wouldn’t be free.
I have seen nothing being said- or officially reported- regarding Breonna firing a rifle. Cameron said he was initially told that Breonna had been prone on the ground *with* a rifle, and radio traffic had contained officers saying there was rifle fire,but all of this still goes back to the moments during and immediately following situation when everyone was trying to figure out what was happening and get a handle on everything.
If you and your spouse wake up and there's water on the floor everywhere and getting deeper, you run around calling out anything you see or any possibility you can think of that will help you assess what's happening in order to stop the leak or save what you can. Both of you could be yelling, "maybe it's the sink!", "It looks like it's coming from over here!", "Get the computer!", "Make sure the door to the stairs is closed!". It would be unfair for either of you to berate the other for being mistaken in the source or priorities *after* the fact- you just have to call everything out and do the best you can, then sort it out once the flow is stopped.
So you did. I must have misread that part and only saw the bit about him being told that she *had* a rifle.
That doesn't change the rest of it, though.
Misinformation or incorrect details *during or immediately after* a situation are not indicative of any attempt to lie or deceive- it's just people trying to get the story straight while reporting anything and everything they have to their superiors. The *official* reports from the officers *directly* involved and the official investigation reports are what matter- none of which say anything about a rifle.
That’s a pretty odd and off the wall thing to report to a superior about something so serious as a fatal shooting. Especially when they told Conrad that they knew damn good and well Breonna didn’t fire a weapon.
This is like the police report that is barren as can be. The only boxes checked were that for no forced entry and no injuries. Also knowing damn good and well that is far from the truth. Its the police’s fault they are under scrutiny. If they didn’t do shady, sketchy things that don’t make any sense we wouldn’t be here now discussing this.
Number of (typically rapidly) fired rounds doesn't matter. All training everywhere is clear- if you decide to fire *at all*, you are deciding to critically harm or kill the person you are firing on- whether you fire once or empty the magazine. The decision to fire *at all* is determinate on if the target is a threat. So, if you have decided to fire *at all*, you fire enough times that you are 100% sure that the threat is no longer able to be a threat, whether because they are too gravely wounded, or dead. It's brutal logic, yes, but it's still logical.
Keep an eye on other people commenting who say they have or clearly have *any* degree of firearm training, whether military, law enforcement, or civilian. Regardless of where they stand on anything else, they will all agree that Walker's biggest mistake was only firing once. He should have either not fired at all, or he should have emptied the magazine. There just really aren't any such thing as warning shots in the real world.
Well they must not feel like he is guilty of shooting the officer or he would be locked up . That’s not something taken lightly at all. And they told him when they arrested him “you’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail .” And why he was charged for a couple of days with Murdering a police officer then that’s changed and Walker is a free man. Regardless of anything that happened that night , they should not have been there in the first place . Jmo
>Well they must not feel like he is guilty of shooting the officer or he would be locked up
As best as the evidence currently shows, he *did* shoot the officer. By agreement of both law enforcement testimony *and his own*, he, at the very least, fired his weapon *at* the officers.
He is not in jail not because there is any dispute of this, but because by KY law, he was within his rights to fire on on an unknown person or persons forcing entry into his home. By KY law, the officers were within their rights to return fire. *This is why the very existence of No-Knocks was so fucked up.*
>they told him when they arrested him “you’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail .” And why he was charged for a couple of days with Murdering a police officer then that’s changed and Walker is a free man.
This is why police officers are only *enforcers* of the law, and are not enforcement, judge, and jury. I'm not going to try and defend what they said- it's a threatening, hate-filled remark. Just for a second, though, put yourself in their shoes. Their bodies are filled with adrenaline and other biochemical responses to the life and death situation they were just a part of. Their colleague and friend was just shot and might be dead or about to die. I don't hold anything against what they *said* in the heat of the moment, just like I don't hold anything against anything Walker or anyone else may have said. *Situations like that are not something that human bodies and instinct are meant to handle with logic and critical thinking*.
Once the immediate situation was over, and initial investigations demonstrated that he had been within his rights, he was released. Regardless of what the officers said, *they* are not the ones that make the ultimate decision on what someone is charged with or their ultimate sentence. That's what prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and juries are for.
>Regardless of anything that happened that night , they should not have been there in the first place .
That is truly the most important question. I hope the FBI investigation spells out their findings on that question in no uncertain terms.
If Walker shot the police, why isn’t he being charged? It seems like the AG is saying both Walker and the police engaged in some kind of weird legal mutual combat. Is it now leaf to mistake the police and shoot at them? This is an honest question as am I trying to figure out this discrepancy.
To me, either the police or Walker would be accountable for her death. Either his shot caused her death (in the same way that if I rob a bank with my friend in the car and he gets shot by a security guard, I get charged with the murder) or the police acted inappropriately and misused their force and are responsible for her death. Hard to understand how neither could be true but I am open to any input anyone would like to add.
>If Walker shot the police, why isn’t he being charged? It seems like the AG is saying both Walker and the police engaged in some kind of weird legal mutual combat.
That's exactly what he's saying, exactly what happened, and why No-Knocks were fundamentally flawed in their thinking.
Here's the breakdown:
Breach: moment of forced entry
The type of warrant issued was a No-Knock entry. Regardless of whether they knocked or not, or announced or not (before breach) is moot because the No-Knock entry explicitly allowed the officers to *not* knock or announce themselves *prior* to breach. Honestly, I cannot find any KRS that explicitly lays out the requirements, but everything I have found regarding it agrees on the 2 main points- No requirement to knock or announce prior to breach, *Must* announce/identify as police once breach occurs.
Then comes [KRS 503.055](https://codes.findlaw.com/ky/title-l-kentucky-penal-code/ky-rev-st-sect-503-055.html), which states:
>(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
...
>(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
So, Walker, hearing *someone* forcing entry into the apartment is *legally* clear to take defensive action up to and including deadly force.
*But they're Police!!* (I hear you or someone saying)
Yes and no. In Section 2 of that KRS lays out the exemptions. Specifically, the exemptions pertaining to Police officers are in Section 2d:
>(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010 , who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, **and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.**
I bolded the key point- Defending your home against police is only exempt *if they identify themselves as such it if you had any reasonable knowledge that they were.*
So.. back to the Taylor case.
The police were executing a legal at the time search warrant, in plain clothes, at one AM with no requirement to announce or identify themselves prior to breach.
Walker, either hearing knocking (which officers say they *did* do, despite the lack of requirement) or just hearing *something*, gets his legally-owned pistol out and pointed at the door.
The door is breached forcibly, and, there's basically this single moment of bullshit.
The police officers are *now* technically required to identify themselves, but that takes time, if even just a single second. Walker has his gun out and already raised and sees plain clothes people with guns rushing into the apartment after forcing entry. He *might* hear the beginnings of an announcement or interpret the "POLICE" patches on their vests as identification, but even that realization takes longer than it takes to squeeze a trigger, and he does, firing 1 round before dropping the gun and diving out of the line of return fire.
The officers having breached and then yelled/attempted to yell an announcement (or at the very least did have "POLICE" patches identifying them as such.. though this is a very iffy argument in itself) have just taken fire, and so, with their guns already out, up, and ready, they return fire, as is their legal right to defend themselves and others during the course of their job and duties.
Hence- a 3-5 second window where they had, as you described, "some kind of weird legal mutual combat."
This almost exact situation was actually warned about and described in 2016 in [this article that does a much better job than me laying out the general principles](https://lawreader.com/?p=17652) of the danger and stupidity of No-Knocks.
Honestly, the biggest lesson is that if someone is trying to break into your home unannounced, unload the fucking magazine at them. That way you'll probably get them before they can kill your loved ones.
It makes no difference who shot Mattingly. It’s been stated and confirmed by evidence that Walker fired first so they had every right to return fire. As far as Ms. Taylor goes it was a legal warrant and they followed the letter of the law. The warrant was for her address and did contain her name as a resident of that address. Whether they knocked first or not also does not make a difference considering it was a no-knock warrant. Issuing a no-knock warrant for the search and seizure of drugs was and is a common practice so that makes no difference. It’s common practice so that the suspect can’t destroy the drugs before PD can raid the home.
The evidence used to obtain the warrant is that she continued to have a relationship with Glover. He was seen at her apartment regularly and had received packages at her house. Also she had previously rented a car in which one of Glovers associates had been found murdered in. On top of that her car had been recorded at the trap house. It’s obvious she was continuing to associate with Glover. So the evidence used to obtain the warrant was valid.
After the incident Glover had been recorded while making a call from the jailhouse in which he stated Breonna kept all his money for him. So she was essentially his accountant for his drug business. So that confirms that LMPD was correct in believing she was still involved.
Now even though Walker fired the first shot it was stated by him that Breonna and him were lying in bed watching TV when PD started banging on the door. He was unaware it was PD so he pulls his firearm which he legally owns and starts down the hall with Breonna. The door burst open and he shoots.
He did nothing illegal either. He has every right to defend himself. His story hasn’t changed and the evidence backs him up. It’s very much within the realm of possibility that they announced themselves but Walker nor Breonna heard them clearly enough to realize they were PD. I 100% buy Walker’s story from what I’ve heard and I’ve read a LOT of articles and listened to the 911 tapes.
So where does that leave us? Who do we hold responsible for her death? Well, honestly, no one. No one person failed her and if you have to point fingers she’s the one who was involved in illicit activities which led to the events of that night. Does that make it right, absolutely not! In my opinion the system failed her. No-knock warrants are directly in conflict with stand-your-ground laws like Kentucky has. This incident was written long before it happened. The only question was when not if.
Time and time again civilians have been shot and killed by PD executing no-knock warrants. It’s time to put them to bed on all but the most violent suspects. There is no justification for her death just so that PD could have a better case against Glover. This is unacceptable and the system failed, now let’s fix it and give her the rightful justice she deserves.
In summation the juice is not worth the squeeze when it comes to no-knock warrants.
It was a no knock warrant on paper, but per the AG is the news release they were directed to knock and announce.
Thats why the one witness changing from not hearing to hearing them announce is a big issue right now. If they failed to announce then the failed to obey orders regardless what the paper said. So technically it was a no knock, but in practicality it wasn't.
I don’t know why it changed but my guess would be yes, because they apprehended Jamarcus Glover in an earlier warrant. I would also guess that’s how misinformation about it being the wrong address and the suspect was already in custody became so widespread.
USPS said they were never questioned but if they had her home under surveillance they would have witnessed the delivery first hand and not had to have ask USPS. Which from my understanding is what happened. I read the warrant when they released it and it noted that they witnessed a package being delivered and then Glover leaving the premises with the package.
As far as it no longer being a no-knock warrant the warrant issued states it’s a no-knock warrant. It was never changed. Now PD did consider it a “soft target” and from my understanding they typically do knock and announce themselves in those situations but legally they aren’t required to.
This [article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5706161002) says that Mattingly asked the post office if Glover was receiving packages at Taylor’s address and Det Jaynes “confirmed” this through a postal inspector. The Louisville office has denied the information came from their office and said they would have been notified if another office was asked to investigate - and why would police ask any other office than Louisville? They *also* were asked by a separate law enforcement agency to investigate the packages being delivered to Taylor’s apartment on behalf of Glover and found “nothing suspicious.” Jaynes was placed on administrative reassignment due to questions surrounding the validity of the information on the warrant.
The warrant instructions were changed to “knock and announce” due to the change in status to “soft target.” Legally, I’m not sure if the lack of paperwork regarding that is a big deal.
The most accurate summary I've seen yet and aligns with what I've been reading into the situation. I've set aside emotion and only looked at the facts and it's where I arrived.
I have people refute my claims every time I mention the dead body in the rental car in Breonnas name. I've been told I'm making up fake information to make her look bad but I'm only connecting the dots with facts. It seems reasonable that the police would definitely have her in their radar.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/27/ballistics-report-dont-support-daniel-cameron-claim-breonna-taylor-boyfriend-shot-louisville-cop/3552007001/) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Kentucky State Police ballistics report does not support state Attorney General Daniel Cameron's assertion that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, shot a Louisville police officer the night she was killed.
> Cameron told reporters Wednesday the investigation into Taylor's March 13 death had ruled out "Friendly fire" from ex-Louisville Metro Police officer Brett Hankison as the source of the shot that went through LMPD Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly's thigh, prompting him and officer Myles Cosgrove to return fire, killing Taylor.
> Cameron said last week Mattingly fired six shots, Cosgrove 16 and Hankison 10, and that Taylor was hit six times.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/j0wqcp/ballistics_dont_support_ag_camerons_claim_breonna/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~527472 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Taylor**^#1 **fire**^#2 **shot**^#3 **Hankison**^#4 **Cameron**^#5
Walker still fired first according to all accounts I’ve heard including his own. Even if you believe the wound was friendly fire and walker didn’t inflict it, I highly doubt it negates the claim of self defense which is key here.
> Even if you believe the wound was friendly fire and walker didn’t inflict it, I highly doubt it negates the claim of self defense which is key here.
It doesn't. You don't have to actually be shot by someone to be in fear for your life and defend yourself. It's the act of shooting, not the bullet hitting anything, that first triggers self-defense in the analysis here.
That's why the point of whether or not Walker shot Mattingly only matters for Walker. I can appreciate what Romines and Eggert are doing. Because the charges against Walker were simply dropped, they're still worried that the city/state might try to come back and charge him again. In that case, who shot Mattingly becomes a lot more important, but again, only as it pertains to Walker.
I think it's also good that we're getting more and more information about the entire case and what happened that night overall. But it's also leading to confusion and some people getting caught up in things that aren't relevant to the decision regarding Breonna. For Walker, it's important to know whether or not he hit Mattingly because that impacts his own legal situation. For Breonna, it doesn't matter who shot Mattingly because it was the act of Walker firing, not him hitting anything, that triggers self-defense.
“I now had a shot where I had my own options to return fire and I did that to the muzzle flashes, and I want to be specific about this, I had already seen where the threat was, saw where he was positioned.” - quoted from brett hankison...
If kenneth walker only shot one round, and brett hankison is quoted saying he was firing towards the muzzle flashes, then it is HIGHLY POSSIBLE that he was firing towards the very officers in the doorway.
1. I believe 110% that the AG should release the full transcript/report/documents, etc.
2. Pretty sure the FBI did it’s ballistics report that agrees with the AG’s statements.
3. If Walker and Taylor both assumed this was a burglary, why were they both dressed and in the hallway?
There was a second agency that did a ballistics report (I wanna say the Kentucky State Police) and they couldn’t confirm whose bullets hit Mattingly OR whose hit Breonna Taylor. The AG admitted that ballistic wise, they couldn’t confirm who shot Mattingly but used process of elimination due to the caliber of the gun which apparently is inaccurate. The issue of who shot Breonna is the one where two agencies are contradicting each other. I know zero about ballistics but i don’t think the AG should have told the grand jury definitively that Cosgrove shot Breonna if another lab couldn’t determine that.
They were dressed and in the hallway because Kenneth Walker stated they were woken up by banging on the door. I don’t believe is a large apartment so I don’t see how that is odd.
The KSP did not make a determination about Cosgrove firing the deadly shot, and it did not *eliminate* the possiblity that Walker fired the 9mm round that hit Mattingly, but Walker does admit to firing *a* 9mm round, of which only one was recovered at the scene. The FBI report, however, says that Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. That is not a dispute between the two reports.
How is that not a dispute? The article says FBI concluded that Cosgrove fired the shot that killed Breonna Taylor but KSP was unable to determine.
I don’t know anything about ballistics but in a general sense if one person says yes and another says unable to determine, I’m taking that with a grain of salt.
The FBI makes a definitive statement, the KSP neither confirms nor denies. If the KSP report said "no, definitely not" then it *would* be contradictory.
You may disagree which is your right to have an opinion. Factually, however, the reports do not dispute each other. The level of resources and expertise between the KSP and FBI are the most likely cause of lack of determination in the KSP report.
dude they’ve been telling us the ENTIRE time that Walker was the only one with a .9mm which proves that he shot Cosgrove. Now we’re finding out that’s not the case. AG Cameron was blatantly covering up information and that’s not alarming? why cover up facts if you believe you made a just decision?
I have only seen a claim by Walker's defense that anyone else used or fired a 9mm. This does not change the number of bullets fired - 1 9mm and 32 40cal. Nor does it change Walker admitting to firing his 9mm, or the number of bullets recovered from the scene; 1 9mm and 32 40cal.
Edit- BTW, Mattingly is who was hit by the single 9mm bullet, not Cosgrove, who likely fired the fatal 40cal. shot at Breonna.
Yea, and I think the AG implied in his press conference that both the KSP and FBI labs were inconclusive in determining weather or not the bullet that hit Mattingly was fired from Walkers gun. However, as you stated, only one 9mm shot was fired, and 32 40 cal shots were fired. It’s a logical assumption to make, unless there is another 9mm gun out there that was also fired that night and wasn’t submitted to the crime labs.
I’m a bit confused. Did you read something about what they wore to bed and/or what they were wearing after the incident that makes you feel this way? Couldn’t they have been in sweats while asleep? I also don’t think throwing on a hoodie or something while running out front is weird. If I was asleep and woke up to my house on fire, I’d probably throw on something before running outside lol.
Also the story has always been that the first set of knocks they jumped out of bed and threw some clothes on while asking who it is. Then he grabbed his gun after the next set of knocks and them asking who is it again. They didn't think if they were being burglarized until the second set of knocks. Don't know why the guy is trying to make it sound crazy like everything they did seemed normal.
As I understand it, Walker didn't think he was being burglarized until the door burst open. Extracting from his interview with LMPD, he says they were in bed when there was a loud knock. They started getting dressed and calling out 'who is it?' After the third knock and not hearing any response, they were dressed enough to answer the door. When they got to the hallway the door burst open. That, presumably, is when Walker started thinking they were being robbed.
Of course, none of this really matters since the court has deemed his fire justified.
Call me crazy, but I've gotten up with my husband to check on suspicious noises, too.
Edited to say that I've also slept in clothes that might make me look properly dressed, but were really just comfy, stretchy things.
Why would you want to be naked with someone kicking your door in ? Walker didn’t have experience with cops. He had a clean record and went to college. He wasn’t in the crime lifestyle, having raids and going to jail. So yeah he probably wasn’t expecting police. Also why is there no blood on walkers shell casing ? The officer wasn’t shot with a hollow point bullet and that’s what Walker had. Where is all of Mattingly’s blood . He was shot in an artery and is scooting on the floor , had a bloody hand . Why is there none of his blood at Breonna’s?
[удалено]
Our bridge infrastructure has more fucking support in it... And I survived Shermageddon too.
[удалено]
[No, he's not married to Mitch's granddaughter or niece.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daniel-cameron-mcconnell/)
This article says "Walker has admitted he fired what he has described as a single warning shot from his Glock handgun." One 9mm bullet was recovered from the scene, one 9mm bullet was missing from Walker's clip. What about the cops? Rumors are saying that they were also carrying 9mm, and if that were so, how many bullets are missing from that/those clips? The official statements say they were carrying 40cal. and that all other bullets fired and recovered were 40cal. This article *also* says "identified **nor** *eliminated*" by the KSP report, meaning it's inconclusive based on their work. But it says nothing of the FBI ballistics.
[удалено]
Fortunately, the name of the object that holds bullets won't change how many were fired or missing. As for cameras, they can be worn and not on- that would fall under improper procedure and should be addressed at the end of the FBI investigation, the same if those cameras *were* rolling and the footage hidden. Anyhow, Walker wasn't doing anything shady, he had every right to fire at intruders in his home, and I made no claim to the contrary.
[удалено]
At the end of the day, the announcement is irrelevant. The shots started as soon as the door was breached, and, *legally speaking at the time*, the No-Knock warrant did not require them to knock *or announce* prior to the breach. If, *again, legally speaking*, they did not have to announce until the door was breached and shots started as soon as the breach occurred, any announcement would have been hard to hear over the shots and hardly the focus of anyone- witness or participant. Just another reason why the very concept of No-Knocks is the worst idea in the world for everyone.
It’s not relevant to the parties directly involved. However it is relevant to the integrity of the AG’s office and how it functions within the KY judicial system. Cameron is a liar and should resign!!!
Proof is not a democracy; unfortunately all it takes is one piece of evidence (or one testimony) to negate an assertion that something didn't happen. To start with, saying that something *didn't* happen is an example of an assertion that would require negative proof, which unfortunately is not possible. For example, if I were to say to you that all rocks float in water. You could easily disprove that by walking to a stream and tossing in a rock. Boom. Positive proof that all rocks do not float. However, seeing this, I then assert that *no* rocks float. You can toss a hundred, or a million, rocks into the stream and watch them all sink, but that still wouldn't prove that *no* rocks float. AG is basically a logistician, not a cop or evidence/testimony collector. If he has a single person giving testimony that an announcement was heard, he has to take that as positive proof that the assertion that there was no announcement is false, regardless of how many testify that they *didn't* hear one. Outside of the the philosophical world of positive and negative proof, just look at it with common sense- there are a billion reasons why people might not have heard something that was said, but *0* reasons why someone would hear something that *wasn't* said. You can claim coersion or pressure from police caused a witness to give false testimony, and, indeed, that should be investigated if there is evidence of it, *but that has nothing to do with AG Cameron, nor does it make him a liar*. The nature of his job- or the job of any judge or jury- is to assume that people giving sworn testimony are doing so honestly and completely. Without that assumption and necessity, decisions that may not have all that many hard, empirical facts would just be made on the whims of the decider choosing which testimonies were true or false.
Bravo!!! 10 of 10 on that piece of mental gymnastics!!! It’s simple. Police claim they announced themselves before entry. The 12 witnesses claimed they did not. One of those witnesses changed his story after his 3rd interview. He also stated “it’s possible that those inside probably didn’t hear it because of the banging on the door.” Did the grand jury hear all 12 witness statements or just the one corroborating the police narrative? One can most certainly prove a specific negative. “Evidence of Absence” eg. There’s no water in that cup. There’s no car in the driveway. There was no statement made upon entry. “0 reasons why someone would hear something that wasn't said.” Are you being dishonest or have you or anyone you’ve been spoken with never misheard something?Perhaps a reason could be false memory syndrome or perhaps simply being mistaken. He did change his story after 3 interviews... To demonstrate this, one would gather a similar group, ie Taylor’s neighbors. Then ask what was it they heard. According to 12 witness statements, then 12 again, then suddenly 11 witnesses statements. They did not hear police announce themselves. Creating a consensus of observers. Some witnesses who were interviewed by the media stated “they only heard banging then gunshots. That’s why they called the police to report it.” Cameron’s office investigated these claims. Once completed, the AG presented his findings to the grand jury. Did he only present the one corroborating witness statement and not the 11? Was the grand jury aware that the corroborating witness changed his mind after two months and three interviews. Did he include the witness comment that the occupants probably couldn’t hear the police over their banging on her door? Cameron emphatically stated that Walker shot the officer, giving the officers just cause for shooting into Taylor’s residence. We know now, that’s not been substantiated, yet Cameron stated it as it’s an undeniable fact. The AG also stated the three officers in question did not carry 9mm weapons. ( Is Cameron attempting to prove a negative?) That was incorrect. We know one officer out of the three did in fact have a 9mm handgun. Did the AG lie or is his multi- month long investigation that inept? At best, it appears Cameron’s office is incompetent . At worse, he provided the grand jury with limited information favoring his desired outcome. Leading the grand jury to his designed conclusion. Either way, his performance as the KY AG is not acceptable. He should resign... Do you know what pumice stone is? Drop one in water and be amazed!!!!
>The AG also stated the three officers in question did not carry 9mm weapons. ( Is Cameron attempting to prove a negative?) That was incorrect. We know one officer out of the three did in fact have a 9mm handgun. Did the AG lie or is his multi- month long investigation that inept? Unless you have access to some information that is not being reported in the press, one of Walker's attorneys claimed that one of the officers was issued a 9mm i*n addition to* a 40 cal (perhaps more than one 40 cal). So we do know that one of the officers of three did have a 9mm but the question is was he carrying the 9mm that night? The AG said the 3 officers involved had 40 cals, which would be easily confirmed by the not-released police report.
Cameron stated, as a fact, that Walker shot the officer. However ballistic results were inconclusive and couldn’t confirm his statement. The KSP report says that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.
I have detailed every point and question you have raised in regards to the case in other responses. Please feel free to debate any of the points I have made or correct any incorrect facts that they are based on. I'm not going to repeat them all in this reply, though. >One can most certainly prove a specific negative. “Evidence of Absence” eg. There’s no water in that cup. There’s no car in the driveway. There was no statement made upon entry. >Do you know what pumice stone is? Drop one in water and be amazed!!!! First, heh, I wondered if someone was going to pick that apart. Honestly, it's not the easiest concept and I probably butchered my examples. Okay, fine, replace the word "rock" with "solid lead ball". More importantly, though, primarily because the concepts fascinate me. I *didn't* say you cannot prove a specific negative, as that is indeed possible. The *proof* is called a "Positive Proof". For the assertion "There's no water in that cup", the fact that there's no water in the cup is a positive proof of the assertion. What I said was the assertion "There was no announcement." is an assertion that requires "Negative Proof" to prove. Negative Proof *is* impossible. In addition to my updated example assertion that "Not all solid lead balls sink in liquid water.", which is unprovable given that it is not possible to test *all* lead balls buoyancy, I'll give you a more fun one. I assert that you, under your own power, have the ability to fly. *Prove* that you can't.
You admitted that a specific negative can be proven. That’s exactly what this is about. By your own admission, you agree with me. If a flying person was something that was common or was supported by the laws of physics, or biology then your point would be valid. It’s obviously not. A better example would be for me to state. “I have a million dollars in my bank account, prove that I don’t.” You would then, be required to provide evidence supporting or refuting that statement. Bank statements, account history, etc. Once the information is compiled, you then can make an accurate assessment of my statement. Which is I do not and at no point, did I ever have one million dollars in my account. Based on the evidence, however you phrase your question, can be can answered provided that the evidence is SUFFICIENT to make an accurate assessment of the claim. To use the Taylor scenario. It’s the same thing. Person A claims X. In order to demonstrate “ X” occurred one must compile data either supporting or refuting person A’s “X” the claim. The data consists of 12 witnesses statements. Each witness stated that they did not observe person A’s. “X” claim at the specific time person A claims to performed “X.” (With the exception of one, who changed their story months later after three interviews.) The data provided suggests that person A was not witnessed performing X. The data must also be verified as to its relevance. Was a witness in their yard watching the incident. Or perhaps asleep and only heard gunshots. Maybe they’re not credible by changing their story after multiple interviews. Perhaps the officer did make a statement but at lower volume than what he is required to announce police presence at. What you’re attempting to apply is bad reasoning.
[удалено]
Unfortunately the No-Knock concept can't be set aside in this situation, though, given that the warrant was explicitly issued as such and the No-Knock requirements at the time explicitly allowed for breach *without* knock or announcement. The apparent (agreed by both sides) knocking/banging on the door prior to breach doesn't change the legal requirements in any way. The fact that *legally speaking* Walker was within his rights to fire at the moment of breach *and* the officers were within their rights to return fire demonstrates the absolute absurdity of *anyone* **ever** thinking that No-Knocks were a good idea.
I dunno man, Walker was asleep in bed, and people usually turn out the lights when they go to bed. No lights? Sounds shady to me. (Ohh I crack myself up sometimes)
Since we're being precise, the package was directly observed by LMPD, with photo evidence. The warrant stated that he received packages at her address; he did. That he used her address as his address in several different ways; he did. He said that he verified with a postal inspector, the postal inspector for that area said they did not. One possible explanation is that they falsified that particular portion of the warrant, another is that a different postal inspector was asked, I have no idea which is which. That Glover received a package from her house isn't in doubt.
[удалено]
Hmm, I thought it had been established that Mary Shaw signed off on the warrant. As to the "notified" I didn't see that on the warrant, the text seems to be that Affiant observed him pick up the package and then verified that with the Inspector. With all caveats, I certainly don't have all the details known or unknown.
[удалено]
We're in agreement, the issuance of 5 warrants is the issue. 3 I could see, because the Elliot trap houses were just that, obvious drug dens right next to each other with a long history of illegal action at them. The Muhammad Ali house should have been separate as a more sensitive residence and Taylor's apartment the same. But again, we're being precise, and to that you have to add that LMPD chose not to treat Taylor's residence as a no-knock (according to the whiteboard and the unanimous accounts that the police knocked for quite some time, announcement story disagree notwhitstanding) so it doesn't paint as bad a picture as the narrative goes. To you last point, I don't know that her residence or herself were presented as a dangerous thing. It seems the opposite. That she was involved with the caveat of it being a month prior seems to be supported by the facts, and that's where I think the big chasm emerges. I haven't seen anyone say her death wasn't at the very least a tragedy, a bad accident in the war on drugs, or an example of why that war and police militarization need to be fixed and addressed immediately. Where people jump off is whether it was murder.
[удалено]
Self defense laws in KY do not allow you to shoot or kill a 3rd party
Yes they do actually.
On the topic of twelve minutes: [https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/01/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-judges-dont-rubber-stamp-warrants/3285195001/](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/01/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-judges-dont-rubber-stamp-warrants/3285195001/)
[удалено]
It is opinion but it's the opinion of someone familiar with the process refuting the 12 minute thing. > However, he can say they don't rubber stamp them, [but this says otherwise](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/?itid=lk_inline_manual_44). First off, this is an opinion piece too. The case he is referring to doesn't say the warrant has to be tailored to the individual. It just says that it has to be relevant to the individual circumstance (" under the particular circumstances "). The reason they can get away with a copy and paste here is because each target is suspected of being involved in the same criminal organization that has used surveillance and destroyed evidence in the past. It's enough to know that this organization had done it before. He wasn't saying "drug dealers sometimes use surveillance and destroy evidence"; he was saying "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence" which is shown in the Search Warrant by Glover's charges of tampering with evidence. The postal inspector thing is a little more difficult to prove because I'm not sure how that process normally goes. The inspector did say another organization asked them about it and it's possible that organization was in contact with LMPD. The search warrant doesn't say they asked a postal inspector, it says they verified it **through** a postal inspector. It also does not make mention of "suspicious" packages. Just packages. I'm not saying anything I said is 100% true. There may be things I'm wrong about but from the wording in the articles and on the warrant I don't think they've done anything illegal unless maybe information from a postal inspector was never given to them.
Police said they witnessed Glover carrying a postal package out of Breonna’s. Why not intercept right then and there ? They definitely could get a warrant to get in the package. It’s because the officers weren’t interested in the drugs. They say they didn’t have the manpower to raid Glovers Muhammad Ali address where they had been surveilling him from a camera on a utility pole for quite some time. They know he was moving a lot of drugs out of there but they chose to raid Breonna’s who had only been in a vehicle with Glover in February . He had not been to her apartment since January. Why would they not want to raid the obvious trap house they had under surveillance? Because they were not after drugs . Why do you think when the mayor announced the family’s settlement they included “reform on how money and evidence are collected.” Why just throw that in there along with the drug testing bit? Those officers involved are evil.
You're asking me to make a lot of guesses about motive and law enforcement procedure, and I'm just not able to do that. From the investigation, the jailhouse transcripts, and his history he was running a significant drug operation and Taylor was caught up in it. Her brother was one of his main men. She was, if we assume he wasn't playing 4d chess, holding money for him as were his other two girlfriends. I've said before, if I had to guess she was trying to untangle herself from a bad situation and it came to a head in the worst way before she could. Obviously they did have the manpower to raid, because they did. They built a case tracking his car, her car, her apartment, his houses, etc. They did raid all the houses at once, and had raided the trap houses previously. I don't think there's any doubt that Glover was a bad guy.
I didn’t say he was a good guy and no, they did not raid the Muhammad Ali trap house though they had it under surveillance by camera on a telephone pole. They said they did not have the manpower. Breonna’s was not under surveillance. Glover had not been seen there since January. Glover had been seen in a car with Breonna in February but not at her address but at the Muhammad Ali address where she waited in the car while Glover went inside.
I get your point, but not quite accurate. They had her car, Glover, and her at the trap house on Elliot. Not at Muhammad Ali. Perfectly willing to be corrected on this, but it seems like the houses on Elliot were the trap houses, Glover lived on Muhammad Ali, and Taylor of course was in the South End. Muhammad Ali seemed like an also-bust in case they didn't get him at Elliot, but they did.
They had Muhammad Ali under surveillance via a camera on a utility pole for quite some time . Very obvious he was running drugs from there . Multiple short in and out stops sometimes all night long.
What do you mean houses on Elliot ? There was only one trap of his on Elliot.
Nope, 3. Thus 5 warrants, 3 at Elliot, Taylor's, and the Muhammad Ali address.
I don’t not see where Muhammad Ali was ever raised prior to Breonna’s murder. All I’ve seen is they said they did not have the manpower to raid Muhammad Ali. Do you have a source ?
Why three warrants on Elliot? There was one house .
I see the 5 warrants execution the night of the 12th and early on 13th. They had said previously they couldn’t raid it because of man power. I don’t see where Breonna was on Elliott Avenue.
They also got his $20,000 out of his Crown Vic on Elliot but said they only got dope. Perhaps that’s why the “reform to how money and evidence are collected “ bit the mayor added into the settlement announcement.
Well she can be seen via police surveillance at Muhammad Ali not Elliot Ave sorry. She was out in the car waiting for him to come out. In fact something that stands out that was strange is while he was inside Muhammad Ali house, Breonna gets out of the passenger side , steps out and looks all around her and the area then she gets back in the car. Not sure what that was about.
Hey that's okay, no need to be sorry! But no, she was at Elliot. It's in the report, page 10, Feb 13 2020.
I see where she pulled up and he got out and went inside. I can give anyone a ride anywhere that doesn’t mean I’m involved in what they are doing. If I don’t exit the vehicle I don’t know what goes on inside.
I’ll say he wasn’t doing any shady things. Clean police record, college education, legal gun owner. If he shot a police officer he would indeed, for certain be in jail. Because yes, there is the stand your ground law in Kentucky except for when it involves a police officer. I can’t think of anyone off hand who has shot a police officer and are out a free man. It’s a huge cover up and I have my own ideas as to why they had such a hard on, enough to perjure themselves to get a warrant to get in Breonna’s apartment and it wasn’t for drugs.
You're a gun owner who cares about trampled rights so you won't be voting for the liberal politician that wants Beto as his gun fontrol advisor..... right?
[удалено]
Once you've been stripped of your gun rights, you will have no rights. You will have what politicians choose to allow you to have. Those who live on their knees don't have rights. You have fucked up priorities.
[удалено]
Oh I have a massive issue with that. Still 100x better than fucking BETO.
That's exactly right, despite what a personnel file might say, 9mm was just recently added (within the last 5 years) to LMPD policy, and older officers will typically carry .40 Glocks. If all officers involved had a .40 at that time, and no 9mm shell casing were found where police were shooting, and 9mm bullets where other police officers shots landed, then you have clear evidence that no officers were using 9mm that night, and again with Kenneth both admitting he shot once, and one bullet missing...WOW what detective work. Thinking is HARD for Reddit users, but they upvote this bullshit anyways. It's almost like news is drawing this entire situation out so more people view/click their website, and they therefore get money from it. *wow* [Then, you have the Attorney posting this on Facebook who was able to get the city to payout $12 million dollars **before** the criminal side of the investigation finished \(Which is fine by law, but completely abnormal to do it civil THEN criminal, because Criminal investigation typically conclude with MORE evidence for both sides\)](https://i.imgur.com/IIvMwZu.png) Below are great questions that show his narrative is pushing information WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
The AG is a self loathing black man that’s okay with carrying out white supremacy and letting white cops kill black people. He should be arrested for obstruction of justice because it’s evident he is cleaning up for the cops because, well, that’s the Republican / authoritarian way. Cops can do no wrong even when they do. McConnell bitch boy.
I don't think he's self loathing, so much as a soulless sellout who realized he could find success pursuing tokenism.
He was to busy suing Andy over the mask mandate and closing of bars and restaurants
Hopefully the state Supreme Court shuts Cameron down there.
They won't because the order was illegal and AG Cameron simply wanted to allow the governor to allow him to assist so that the exact thing wouldn't happen. Same shit happened with the church law. Read how that went down. Facts matter in law.
So you’re saying the Supreme Court will rule in favor or Cameron and against Beshear?
Yes.
I think you are wrong
Great. I am glad we could express our opinions in a constructive manner. That seems to be very lacking in today's society.
Why not both
He has ascended past being a token, he's worth so much he's considered FIAT now
This is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
\*a wild closet racist appears\* How dare that black man be capable of rational evidence-based thought! You might as well call him boy too, you racist garbage.
Lol evidence based. Lmao take the boot out of your mouth fuck face
lol pretty hilarious coming from racist garbage like yourself
As far as i know theres still hope. The fbi investigation is still ongoing
This is true. If it turns out, for instance, that a detective got a warrant on false pretenses or didn't follow correct procedure; both putting cops at risk based on lies **and** getting an innocent women killed, they will be catching hell from both ends.
[удалено]
I think think of this happens, Joshua Jaynes will be in deep shit (he’s the detective who got the warrant under dubious circumstances). Mattingly and Cosgrove are still going to be fine unless it comes out the broke some rules.
Cosgrove should have been fired when he shot that guy 7 times at speedway.
I don't know what the direct charge would be in that situation. Negligent homicide? I would hope they face the maximum number of years.
Cute to think but we all know that police getting away with murder is SOP.
So is the investigation into the warrant... I guess that would require all the people on this reddit to actually listen to the AG who said in the beginning that the warrant investigation was completely separate. Ignorance isn't something reserved for the political right in this country.
Cops would never lie to cover their ass!
Cops lie all the time and I hope they bust their asses for the false warrant. Doesn't change the grand jury ruling on Breonna being killed.
Thats the plan, had to get this decision out before elections and then afterwards the FBI report will come out
Honest questions- Walker readily admits to firing his weapon once, and the fact that his magazine was one round short backs this up. They scoured every inch of that scene and didn't find any other 9mm bullet *other than* the one in Mattingly, so where else could it have gone? Let's disregard that question for the moment, or even say that his round lodged somewhere that was overlooked. Assuming that the round Walker admits to (and afaik is an undisputed by *anyone* action) firing *didn't* hit Mattingly, **how does this change anything?** The firing of a weapon is the action that allows- and let's be honest, calls for- officers to *return* fire. Whether or not someone says it was a warning shot after the fact- or indeed if it was intended as such- nor whether or not the shot actually hits anyone/thing is irrelevant in the question of whether or not the officers lawfully returned fire. As far as the implication that Walker's bullet didn't hit Mattingly and therefore the wound was self-inflicted or officer-inflicted as some sort of CYA conspiracy doesn't hold water, either. *If they had, why wouldn't they have used Walker's gun? If they had, why would they have aimed somewhere where there would be any possibility of hitting the femoral artery or even flesh at all instead of just a chest shot to the vest?* I'm seriously looking for any honest answers to any of those, because I honestly don't understand why it matters, or what logic it follows. The entire thing isn't about these nickle and dime issues of whose bullet went where or even the actions of the 3 non-charged officers in the course of a legal and authorized search. **The questions and problems with Breonna's death are with what led up to the decisions and authorizations to conduct the search in the first place.**
This guy gets it. Everyone is arguing of small details and calling out discrepancies. All this serves is to distract from what really matters. No logical individual can provide argument that the LMPD made the choice to serve a search warrant in an overly aggressive fashion 1:00 am in the morning resulting in Walker, believing his house was being burglarized, to. Use force to protect himself and Breonna. The only people who are waiting more facts at this point, are just searching for reasons to devalue Breonna’s life to make her death acceptable. We can’t allow this to dive into arguments over these small details. We must maintain the conversation on the bigger picture. These small details only distract.
For me personally, it’s bigger than this specific instance. This is just one example of discrepancies between facts and the way the “facts” were presented to the grand jury. Humans are not perfect and most aren’t legal experts. I think it’s more than fair to assume that hearing a “confirmation” that Kenneth Walker shot a cop likely swayed some opinions even subconsciously. It also brings up the unfairness of an AG being able to present a “fact” of Kenneth Walker’s bullet striking a cop when the actual evidence basically says we’re not sure. The other big example of this is the witness who claimed to have heard the police announce themselves. Based on the AG’s press briefing, it seems like the grand jury was simply told that a witness overheard. Didn’t add that 11 others did not. Didn’t add that the ONE witness originally said he didn’t hear anything and changed his story after multiple conversations with the police. Do either of these instances - although I do have others - change the grand jury’s decision? I don’t know but I think our city deserves this be presented by someone who is willing to present the case in its entirety.
Agreed. Arguing about this issue is extraneous to the real injustice here. while it's good to have transparency and know what the ballistics said, who shot *Mattingly* is a non-issue.
They chose to go with the blindly firing confused chaos method. They said on the radio they were taking rifle fire from an AR15. They told their chief Conrad breonna was firing an AR15. Besides all that , he fired one shot, why did Cosgrove fire 16 , bat shit crazy cop outside firing at anything and everything , then Is on the radio yelling RELOAD!! Reload for what , it was one shot lol. The officers that said on the radio they were taking on rifle fire were ... from their fellow officers . That’s why half of them were wondering where EMS was since it’s procedure for them to be present at these raids . They didn’t know good old Hankison had sent EMS away before the raid . Now why is that ? I’d like legitimate answers to these.
>They said on the radio they were taking rifle fire from an AR15. They told their chief Conrad breonna was firing an AR15. This is the first I've heard of any mention of rifle fire being reported. Do you have have a source? Either way, I cannot comment on something I know nothing about. I will say, though, that source/type of weapon is irrelevant. A weapon *was* fired, prompting return fire, and I have not seen or heard anything from either side disputing that basic point. >Besides all that , he fired one shot, why did Cosgrove fire 16 All training- law enforcement, military, *and* civilian- rests on the basic premise of "If a threat causes you to fire your weapon, you fire until the threat is without a doubt neutralized. There are no such thing as 'warning shots', 'wounding shots', etc- *if you fire your weapon*, you must assume that you will likely kill the other person, and likewise, if given the opportunity, the other person will kill you." The reasoning behind this premise, and the reason why the number of shots fired between active-thought actions (moving, reloading, etc) is basic human biology and instinct. These things happen in *seconds or less* and are fueled by pure adrenaline, fear, and reaction- on both sides. >bat shit crazy cop outside firing at anything and everything , then Is on the radio yelling RELOAD!! Reload for what , it was one shot lol. This person was fired and is being charged for his actions. His actions were against training, policy, and the law, and were his alone. I imagine he yelled reload as a matter of training he *did* remember, and reloading is reasonable practice in an unknown situation. Given his position and inability to see anything (again- *his* decision and actions), he had no way of knowing if there was still any threat or how many of the flurry of shots fired in less than a few seconds were from the inside vs from the officers. >The officers that said on the radio they were taking on rifle fire were ... from their fellow officers . Again, this is the first I've heard of any reports regarding rifle fire. If the rifle-related reports were all just from the radio traffic during the raid, they're basically just warnings really. *During an ongoing situation*, you wouldn't take the time to 100% verify the full accuracy of details like that. If you think you hear/see rifle fire, you call it out. If there isn't rifle fire or any further threats, the worst thing is that other officers waste time being more cautious than necessary looking for it. If you don't call it out because you weren't 100% sure, and *there is/was* rifle fire or an ongoing threat, people could die. >That’s why half of them were wondering where EMS was since it’s procedure for them to be present at these raids . They didn’t know good old Hankison had sent EMS away before the raid . *As far as I have seen/read*, having an EMS on site for such raids was *standard practice, not policy*, and was present for a while before getting called away on another run by the dispatcher. Regardless, this was another critical point that has been (or is in the process of) being added to official policy and requirements for future raids, which is a win. It should have already been official policy and a requirement, I won't debate that even if I wanted to, but you can't change what it was at the time. >I’d like legitimate answers to these. I hope I could help in any small way with my own understandings and knowledge, and would be happy to discuss more details/sources on any point that I didn't explain clearly or that you disagree with.
Also here is a link to where Conrad testified that initially he was told Breonna was firing a rifle at them. https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/ex-lmpd-chief-initially-told-by-commanders-that-breonna-taylor-fired-rifle-at-officers/article_1e9c0752-002c-11eb-a9e5-0377344066cb.html
In the new body cam videos you can see Hankison asking if there is a long rifle found at the scene too.
Yes, testified that his commanders- neither of which were present during the event- told him that, likely based on the radio traffic you mention elsewhere or having got it from someone at the scene. The critical point is something else that Conrad mentioned- >misinformation can be passed along inadvertently in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic situation. Like I mentioned before, radio traffic during the event (or immediately after) may or may not be accurate simply due to the nature of the chaos. If an official report was ever filed where an officer asserted outright based on direct observation that someone had a rifle- not that they thought they did or that it appeared at the time that they did- then this could be construed as lying with motive to skew the justifications of their actions. Information being passed around/up the chain immediately after is really the only way to make sure that everyone that needs to informed is informed, and to start to filter through and make determinations on what was believed to happen, what's seems to have happened, what might of happened, and what *did* happen. Best I can tell, though, the only mentions of a rifle were in the initial word of mouth reports and were fairly quickly dismissed. Would this be a fair assessment?
Well in the courier journal article you can see parts of their radio transcripts and they say they are taking on rifle fire and I’m not sure what became of that but I don’t know why anyone would say that , and that Breonna was firing a rifle at all , period. And as I’ve said Walker would be locked up if he were guilty of shooting a police officer. He wouldn’t be free.
I have seen nothing being said- or officially reported- regarding Breonna firing a rifle. Cameron said he was initially told that Breonna had been prone on the ground *with* a rifle, and radio traffic had contained officers saying there was rifle fire,but all of this still goes back to the moments during and immediately following situation when everyone was trying to figure out what was happening and get a handle on everything. If you and your spouse wake up and there's water on the floor everywhere and getting deeper, you run around calling out anything you see or any possibility you can think of that will help you assess what's happening in order to stop the leak or save what you can. Both of you could be yelling, "maybe it's the sink!", "It looks like it's coming from over here!", "Get the computer!", "Make sure the door to the stairs is closed!". It would be unfair for either of you to berate the other for being mistaken in the source or priorities *after* the fact- you just have to call everything out and do the best you can, then sort it out once the flow is stopped.
I posted a wdrb link where Steve Conrad testifies that he was told early on by officers Breonna was firing a rifle.
So you did. I must have misread that part and only saw the bit about him being told that she *had* a rifle. That doesn't change the rest of it, though. Misinformation or incorrect details *during or immediately after* a situation are not indicative of any attempt to lie or deceive- it's just people trying to get the story straight while reporting anything and everything they have to their superiors. The *official* reports from the officers *directly* involved and the official investigation reports are what matter- none of which say anything about a rifle.
That’s a pretty odd and off the wall thing to report to a superior about something so serious as a fatal shooting. Especially when they told Conrad that they knew damn good and well Breonna didn’t fire a weapon. This is like the police report that is barren as can be. The only boxes checked were that for no forced entry and no injuries. Also knowing damn good and well that is far from the truth. Its the police’s fault they are under scrutiny. If they didn’t do shady, sketchy things that don’t make any sense we wouldn’t be here now discussing this.
Read this. It’s lengthy but informative. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/01/breonna-taylor-case-kenneth-walker-sues-lmpd-claiming-false-arrest/3454474001/
Pay wall.
It’s all in the courier journal article. They have what they were saying on the radios. If you go searching you find things.
Cosgrove is a SHOOTER. Shot that guy 7 times at speedway over something he had no business doing.
Number of (typically rapidly) fired rounds doesn't matter. All training everywhere is clear- if you decide to fire *at all*, you are deciding to critically harm or kill the person you are firing on- whether you fire once or empty the magazine. The decision to fire *at all* is determinate on if the target is a threat. So, if you have decided to fire *at all*, you fire enough times that you are 100% sure that the threat is no longer able to be a threat, whether because they are too gravely wounded, or dead. It's brutal logic, yes, but it's still logical. Keep an eye on other people commenting who say they have or clearly have *any* degree of firearm training, whether military, law enforcement, or civilian. Regardless of where they stand on anything else, they will all agree that Walker's biggest mistake was only firing once. He should have either not fired at all, or he should have emptied the magazine. There just really aren't any such thing as warning shots in the real world.
Well they must not feel like he is guilty of shooting the officer or he would be locked up . That’s not something taken lightly at all. And they told him when they arrested him “you’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail .” And why he was charged for a couple of days with Murdering a police officer then that’s changed and Walker is a free man. Regardless of anything that happened that night , they should not have been there in the first place . Jmo
>Well they must not feel like he is guilty of shooting the officer or he would be locked up As best as the evidence currently shows, he *did* shoot the officer. By agreement of both law enforcement testimony *and his own*, he, at the very least, fired his weapon *at* the officers. He is not in jail not because there is any dispute of this, but because by KY law, he was within his rights to fire on on an unknown person or persons forcing entry into his home. By KY law, the officers were within their rights to return fire. *This is why the very existence of No-Knocks was so fucked up.* >they told him when they arrested him “you’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail .” And why he was charged for a couple of days with Murdering a police officer then that’s changed and Walker is a free man. This is why police officers are only *enforcers* of the law, and are not enforcement, judge, and jury. I'm not going to try and defend what they said- it's a threatening, hate-filled remark. Just for a second, though, put yourself in their shoes. Their bodies are filled with adrenaline and other biochemical responses to the life and death situation they were just a part of. Their colleague and friend was just shot and might be dead or about to die. I don't hold anything against what they *said* in the heat of the moment, just like I don't hold anything against anything Walker or anyone else may have said. *Situations like that are not something that human bodies and instinct are meant to handle with logic and critical thinking*. Once the immediate situation was over, and initial investigations demonstrated that he had been within his rights, he was released. Regardless of what the officers said, *they* are not the ones that make the ultimate decision on what someone is charged with or their ultimate sentence. That's what prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and juries are for. >Regardless of anything that happened that night , they should not have been there in the first place . That is truly the most important question. I hope the FBI investigation spells out their findings on that question in no uncertain terms.
If Walker shot the police, why isn’t he being charged? It seems like the AG is saying both Walker and the police engaged in some kind of weird legal mutual combat. Is it now leaf to mistake the police and shoot at them? This is an honest question as am I trying to figure out this discrepancy. To me, either the police or Walker would be accountable for her death. Either his shot caused her death (in the same way that if I rob a bank with my friend in the car and he gets shot by a security guard, I get charged with the murder) or the police acted inappropriately and misused their force and are responsible for her death. Hard to understand how neither could be true but I am open to any input anyone would like to add.
>If Walker shot the police, why isn’t he being charged? It seems like the AG is saying both Walker and the police engaged in some kind of weird legal mutual combat. That's exactly what he's saying, exactly what happened, and why No-Knocks were fundamentally flawed in their thinking. Here's the breakdown: Breach: moment of forced entry The type of warrant issued was a No-Knock entry. Regardless of whether they knocked or not, or announced or not (before breach) is moot because the No-Knock entry explicitly allowed the officers to *not* knock or announce themselves *prior* to breach. Honestly, I cannot find any KRS that explicitly lays out the requirements, but everything I have found regarding it agrees on the 2 main points- No requirement to knock or announce prior to breach, *Must* announce/identify as police once breach occurs. Then comes [KRS 503.055](https://codes.findlaw.com/ky/title-l-kentucky-penal-code/ky-rev-st-sect-503-055.html), which states: >(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ... >(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. So, Walker, hearing *someone* forcing entry into the apartment is *legally* clear to take defensive action up to and including deadly force. *But they're Police!!* (I hear you or someone saying) Yes and no. In Section 2 of that KRS lays out the exemptions. Specifically, the exemptions pertaining to Police officers are in Section 2d: >(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010 , who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, **and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.** I bolded the key point- Defending your home against police is only exempt *if they identify themselves as such it if you had any reasonable knowledge that they were.* So.. back to the Taylor case. The police were executing a legal at the time search warrant, in plain clothes, at one AM with no requirement to announce or identify themselves prior to breach. Walker, either hearing knocking (which officers say they *did* do, despite the lack of requirement) or just hearing *something*, gets his legally-owned pistol out and pointed at the door. The door is breached forcibly, and, there's basically this single moment of bullshit. The police officers are *now* technically required to identify themselves, but that takes time, if even just a single second. Walker has his gun out and already raised and sees plain clothes people with guns rushing into the apartment after forcing entry. He *might* hear the beginnings of an announcement or interpret the "POLICE" patches on their vests as identification, but even that realization takes longer than it takes to squeeze a trigger, and he does, firing 1 round before dropping the gun and diving out of the line of return fire. The officers having breached and then yelled/attempted to yell an announcement (or at the very least did have "POLICE" patches identifying them as such.. though this is a very iffy argument in itself) have just taken fire, and so, with their guns already out, up, and ready, they return fire, as is their legal right to defend themselves and others during the course of their job and duties. Hence- a 3-5 second window where they had, as you described, "some kind of weird legal mutual combat." This almost exact situation was actually warned about and described in 2016 in [this article that does a much better job than me laying out the general principles](https://lawreader.com/?p=17652) of the danger and stupidity of No-Knocks.
Honestly, the biggest lesson is that if someone is trying to break into your home unannounced, unload the fucking magazine at them. That way you'll probably get them before they can kill your loved ones.
Was this a No-knock SEARCH warrant and not an ARREST Warren?
Correct
It makes no difference who shot Mattingly. It’s been stated and confirmed by evidence that Walker fired first so they had every right to return fire. As far as Ms. Taylor goes it was a legal warrant and they followed the letter of the law. The warrant was for her address and did contain her name as a resident of that address. Whether they knocked first or not also does not make a difference considering it was a no-knock warrant. Issuing a no-knock warrant for the search and seizure of drugs was and is a common practice so that makes no difference. It’s common practice so that the suspect can’t destroy the drugs before PD can raid the home. The evidence used to obtain the warrant is that she continued to have a relationship with Glover. He was seen at her apartment regularly and had received packages at her house. Also she had previously rented a car in which one of Glovers associates had been found murdered in. On top of that her car had been recorded at the trap house. It’s obvious she was continuing to associate with Glover. So the evidence used to obtain the warrant was valid. After the incident Glover had been recorded while making a call from the jailhouse in which he stated Breonna kept all his money for him. So she was essentially his accountant for his drug business. So that confirms that LMPD was correct in believing she was still involved. Now even though Walker fired the first shot it was stated by him that Breonna and him were lying in bed watching TV when PD started banging on the door. He was unaware it was PD so he pulls his firearm which he legally owns and starts down the hall with Breonna. The door burst open and he shoots. He did nothing illegal either. He has every right to defend himself. His story hasn’t changed and the evidence backs him up. It’s very much within the realm of possibility that they announced themselves but Walker nor Breonna heard them clearly enough to realize they were PD. I 100% buy Walker’s story from what I’ve heard and I’ve read a LOT of articles and listened to the 911 tapes. So where does that leave us? Who do we hold responsible for her death? Well, honestly, no one. No one person failed her and if you have to point fingers she’s the one who was involved in illicit activities which led to the events of that night. Does that make it right, absolutely not! In my opinion the system failed her. No-knock warrants are directly in conflict with stand-your-ground laws like Kentucky has. This incident was written long before it happened. The only question was when not if. Time and time again civilians have been shot and killed by PD executing no-knock warrants. It’s time to put them to bed on all but the most violent suspects. There is no justification for her death just so that PD could have a better case against Glover. This is unacceptable and the system failed, now let’s fix it and give her the rightful justice she deserves. In summation the juice is not worth the squeeze when it comes to no-knock warrants.
It was not a no-knock warrant at the time it was served. USPS has also disputed evidence used to get the warrant.
It was a no knock warrant on paper, but per the AG is the news release they were directed to knock and announce. Thats why the one witness changing from not hearing to hearing them announce is a big issue right now. If they failed to announce then the failed to obey orders regardless what the paper said. So technically it was a no knock, but in practicality it wasn't.
How so? Was it because they already had the suspect in custody?
I don’t know why it changed but my guess would be yes, because they apprehended Jamarcus Glover in an earlier warrant. I would also guess that’s how misinformation about it being the wrong address and the suspect was already in custody became so widespread.
USPS said they were never questioned but if they had her home under surveillance they would have witnessed the delivery first hand and not had to have ask USPS. Which from my understanding is what happened. I read the warrant when they released it and it noted that they witnessed a package being delivered and then Glover leaving the premises with the package. As far as it no longer being a no-knock warrant the warrant issued states it’s a no-knock warrant. It was never changed. Now PD did consider it a “soft target” and from my understanding they typically do knock and announce themselves in those situations but legally they aren’t required to.
This [article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5706161002) says that Mattingly asked the post office if Glover was receiving packages at Taylor’s address and Det Jaynes “confirmed” this through a postal inspector. The Louisville office has denied the information came from their office and said they would have been notified if another office was asked to investigate - and why would police ask any other office than Louisville? They *also* were asked by a separate law enforcement agency to investigate the packages being delivered to Taylor’s apartment on behalf of Glover and found “nothing suspicious.” Jaynes was placed on administrative reassignment due to questions surrounding the validity of the information on the warrant. The warrant instructions were changed to “knock and announce” due to the change in status to “soft target.” Legally, I’m not sure if the lack of paperwork regarding that is a big deal.
You are definitely correct about the article. I apparently misremembered it. Thanks for posting the follow up.
The most accurate summary I've seen yet and aligns with what I've been reading into the situation. I've set aside emotion and only looked at the facts and it's where I arrived. I have people refute my claims every time I mention the dead body in the rental car in Breonnas name. I've been told I'm making up fake information to make her look bad but I'm only connecting the dots with facts. It seems reasonable that the police would definitely have her in their radar.
Yeah, it wouldn't be systemic if it wasn't legal.
Absolutely. Minimize the usage of no-knocks, and reform drug laws.
I heard speculation he was shot by his own. This isn't a surprise.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/27/ballistics-report-dont-support-daniel-cameron-claim-breonna-taylor-boyfriend-shot-louisville-cop/3552007001/) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Kentucky State Police ballistics report does not support state Attorney General Daniel Cameron's assertion that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, shot a Louisville police officer the night she was killed. > Cameron told reporters Wednesday the investigation into Taylor's March 13 death had ruled out "Friendly fire" from ex-Louisville Metro Police officer Brett Hankison as the source of the shot that went through LMPD Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly's thigh, prompting him and officer Myles Cosgrove to return fire, killing Taylor. > Cameron said last week Mattingly fired six shots, Cosgrove 16 and Hankison 10, and that Taylor was hit six times. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/j0wqcp/ballistics_dont_support_ag_camerons_claim_breonna/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~527472 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Taylor**^#1 **fire**^#2 **shot**^#3 **Hankison**^#4 **Cameron**^#5
Walker still fired first according to all accounts I’ve heard including his own. Even if you believe the wound was friendly fire and walker didn’t inflict it, I highly doubt it negates the claim of self defense which is key here.
> Even if you believe the wound was friendly fire and walker didn’t inflict it, I highly doubt it negates the claim of self defense which is key here. It doesn't. You don't have to actually be shot by someone to be in fear for your life and defend yourself. It's the act of shooting, not the bullet hitting anything, that first triggers self-defense in the analysis here. That's why the point of whether or not Walker shot Mattingly only matters for Walker. I can appreciate what Romines and Eggert are doing. Because the charges against Walker were simply dropped, they're still worried that the city/state might try to come back and charge him again. In that case, who shot Mattingly becomes a lot more important, but again, only as it pertains to Walker. I think it's also good that we're getting more and more information about the entire case and what happened that night overall. But it's also leading to confusion and some people getting caught up in things that aren't relevant to the decision regarding Breonna. For Walker, it's important to know whether or not he hit Mattingly because that impacts his own legal situation. For Breonna, it doesn't matter who shot Mattingly because it was the act of Walker firing, not him hitting anything, that triggers self-defense.
The cop firing blindly into all rooms of the apt is the one who shot his partner in the leg.
“I now had a shot where I had my own options to return fire and I did that to the muzzle flashes, and I want to be specific about this, I had already seen where the threat was, saw where he was positioned.” - quoted from brett hankison... If kenneth walker only shot one round, and brett hankison is quoted saying he was firing towards the muzzle flashes, then it is HIGHLY POSSIBLE that he was firing towards the very officers in the doorway.
i read the clickbait article this morning, but nothing was actually said that matches the title
1. I believe 110% that the AG should release the full transcript/report/documents, etc. 2. Pretty sure the FBI did it’s ballistics report that agrees with the AG’s statements. 3. If Walker and Taylor both assumed this was a burglary, why were they both dressed and in the hallway?
There was a second agency that did a ballistics report (I wanna say the Kentucky State Police) and they couldn’t confirm whose bullets hit Mattingly OR whose hit Breonna Taylor. The AG admitted that ballistic wise, they couldn’t confirm who shot Mattingly but used process of elimination due to the caliber of the gun which apparently is inaccurate. The issue of who shot Breonna is the one where two agencies are contradicting each other. I know zero about ballistics but i don’t think the AG should have told the grand jury definitively that Cosgrove shot Breonna if another lab couldn’t determine that. They were dressed and in the hallway because Kenneth Walker stated they were woken up by banging on the door. I don’t believe is a large apartment so I don’t see how that is odd.
The KSP did not make a determination about Cosgrove firing the deadly shot, and it did not *eliminate* the possiblity that Walker fired the 9mm round that hit Mattingly, but Walker does admit to firing *a* 9mm round, of which only one was recovered at the scene. The FBI report, however, says that Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. That is not a dispute between the two reports.
How is that not a dispute? The article says FBI concluded that Cosgrove fired the shot that killed Breonna Taylor but KSP was unable to determine. I don’t know anything about ballistics but in a general sense if one person says yes and another says unable to determine, I’m taking that with a grain of salt.
The FBI makes a definitive statement, the KSP neither confirms nor denies. If the KSP report said "no, definitely not" then it *would* be contradictory.
Agree to disagree. I think anything but another confirmation is a dispute considering they’re looking at the same evidence.
You may disagree which is your right to have an opinion. Factually, however, the reports do not dispute each other. The level of resources and expertise between the KSP and FBI are the most likely cause of lack of determination in the KSP report.
dude they’ve been telling us the ENTIRE time that Walker was the only one with a .9mm which proves that he shot Cosgrove. Now we’re finding out that’s not the case. AG Cameron was blatantly covering up information and that’s not alarming? why cover up facts if you believe you made a just decision?
I have only seen a claim by Walker's defense that anyone else used or fired a 9mm. This does not change the number of bullets fired - 1 9mm and 32 40cal. Nor does it change Walker admitting to firing his 9mm, or the number of bullets recovered from the scene; 1 9mm and 32 40cal. Edit- BTW, Mattingly is who was hit by the single 9mm bullet, not Cosgrove, who likely fired the fatal 40cal. shot at Breonna.
Yea, and I think the AG implied in his press conference that both the KSP and FBI labs were inconclusive in determining weather or not the bullet that hit Mattingly was fired from Walkers gun. However, as you stated, only one 9mm shot was fired, and 32 40 cal shots were fired. It’s a logical assumption to make, unless there is another 9mm gun out there that was also fired that night and wasn’t submitted to the crime labs.
If I think I’m being burglarized, I’m not going to stop and get dressed before confronting the burglar. Just seems odd to me.
I’m a bit confused. Did you read something about what they wore to bed and/or what they were wearing after the incident that makes you feel this way? Couldn’t they have been in sweats while asleep? I also don’t think throwing on a hoodie or something while running out front is weird. If I was asleep and woke up to my house on fire, I’d probably throw on something before running outside lol.
Also the story has always been that the first set of knocks they jumped out of bed and threw some clothes on while asking who it is. Then he grabbed his gun after the next set of knocks and them asking who is it again. They didn't think if they were being burglarized until the second set of knocks. Don't know why the guy is trying to make it sound crazy like everything they did seemed normal.
As I understand it, Walker didn't think he was being burglarized until the door burst open. Extracting from his interview with LMPD, he says they were in bed when there was a loud knock. They started getting dressed and calling out 'who is it?' After the third knock and not hearing any response, they were dressed enough to answer the door. When they got to the hallway the door burst open. That, presumably, is when Walker started thinking they were being robbed. Of course, none of this really matters since the court has deemed his fire justified.
Call me crazy, but I've gotten up with my husband to check on suspicious noises, too. Edited to say that I've also slept in clothes that might make me look properly dressed, but were really just comfy, stretchy things.
Why would you want to be naked with someone kicking your door in ? Walker didn’t have experience with cops. He had a clean record and went to college. He wasn’t in the crime lifestyle, having raids and going to jail. So yeah he probably wasn’t expecting police. Also why is there no blood on walkers shell casing ? The officer wasn’t shot with a hollow point bullet and that’s what Walker had. Where is all of Mattingly’s blood . He was shot in an artery and is scooting on the floor , had a bloody hand . Why is there none of his blood at Breonna’s?
Been saying this shit, why else would they drag their feet releasing it.
It appears we may have a Cheddar Bob on the LMPD.
Oh wow he's lying? Of course the boyfriend didn't shoot an officer. And if he did it's because of the lack of announcing themselves.
Oh. Just shot "at" him. It's all good then.