Skip to comments.
CNN Explainer On The Breonna Taylor Case Eventually Reaches A Sensible Conclusion
Hotair ^
| 10/01/2020
| John Sexton
Posted on 10/01/2020 8:04:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
CNN published an explainer about the Breonna Taylor case today. The headline is a bit of a muddle but they story itself does eventually reach a sensible conclusion about the case. The piece opens by focusing on a question. If former detective Brett Hankison was charged for recklessly endangering people in nearby apartments with bullets, why wasnt he charged for recklessly endangering Breonna Taylor?
None of the officers was charged with her March 13 killing. Ex-Detective Brett Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment because some of the shots he fired allegedly entered a neighboring apartment, where three people were present. He has pleaded not guilty.
Yet if Hankisons bullets which police say he blindly fired through a window and sliding glass door threatened Taylors neighbors, how did they not also endanger the 26-year-old emergency room technician as they passed through her home? That question, among others surrounding state Attorney General Daniel Camerons indictment announcement, perplexes some Kentucky legal minds.
I cant explain his logic, unfortunately, University of Kentucky law professor and former public defender Allison Connelly said.
There is an answer to this question, at least an implied one, but the piece detours through a lot of other questions about the case before getting to it.
- Was the no-knock warrant in the case legal? CNN: the warrant appears legitimate, experts say.
- Why wasnt Kenneth Walker charged for shooting Officer Mattingly? CNN notes he was charged, then charges were dropped but he could be charged again.
- Can the police claim self-defense? CNN points out that the DA said the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified. Mattingly wrote an email before the DAs announcement saying in part, Regardless of the outcome today or Wednesday, I know we did the legal, moral and ethical thing that night. Its sad how the good guys are demonized, and criminals are canonized.
- Is the Castle Doctrine part of this case? CNN again quoted University of Kentucky law professor Allison Connelly who said, The castle doctrine may protect [Walker] if he felt he was in danger or he felt Breonna was in danger. That is exactly what Walker has claimed in this case, i.e. he fired because he didnt know who was breaking down the door.
- Could there be more charges for the officers involved? CNN suggests its possible if Kenneth Walkers lawsuit turns up some new evidence but as things stand now, probably not.
And finally, at the end of this we get to the conclusion. Maybe in this unusual case the actions of both parties were justified:
There is a distinct chance that Kentucky law protects both police and Walker, as unsatisfying an outcome as that might be for observers on both sides.
What separated these two parties was a door, Wine said in May, and its very possible that there was no criminal activity on either side of that door because people couldnt hear what the other party was saying.
Castle doctrine could protect Walker, Johnson said, while at the same time the law surrounding no-knock warrants which he says is nebulous could protect the officers if investigations ultimately find they were allowed to enter Taylors home.
Its unfortunate that this is buried at the bottom of the story because I think there are a lot of people in Louisville and elsewhere who still need to hear it. Its possible neither party broke the law and neither party should be charged. You have a no-knock warrant signed by a judge and you have the castle doctrine and a legal gun owner. In this case, because the police chose to knock even though they didnt have to, and because Walker and Taylor allegedly didnt hear the police identify themselves, you have these two things colliding at a tense moment in time. Walker fired not knowing who was coming through the door. Police returned fire not knowing exactly who had shot and hit one of them.
All of this brings us back to the opening question about former officer Hankison and the headline: An officer was indicted for endangering neighbors, but not Breonna Taylor, with his bullets. This may be why. Why was Hankison charged with endangering others but not with endangering Breonna Taylor? I think the answer is that once Kenneth Walker shot a police officer (even without meaning to) police were justified in shooting back. Two officers did return fire and, unfortunately, hit and killed Breonna Taylor. The other officer, Hankison, allegedly fired his gun recklessly such that the bullets endangered other people nearby rather than engaging the perceived threat inside Taylors apartment. It was the recklessness of his firing that was the problem even though in that moment the decision to fire may have been justified.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: breonnataylor; cnn; explainer; hotgas
To: SeekAndFind
If the person they were looking for was not there - because he was already in police custody - that would seem to invalidate any police presence or actions at the residence.
(But, those officers dressed for war - they are getting their war. Congratulations.)
2
posted on
10/01/2020 8:15:55 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(The Enemy Media isn't chartered to inform but rather to advance the interests of certain elites.)
To: coloradan
(But, those officers dressed for war - they are getting their war. Congratulations.)
I don't follow your logic. The warrant listed Taylor, Walker and Jamarcus Glover.
So, was Walker in the house? What about the pages of police records, including evidence logs, transcripts of jailhouse recordings and surveillance photos?
What about 2016, the body of Fernandez Bowman was found in the trunk of a car rented by Breonna Taylor.
Never mind.
To: SeekAndFind
The other officer, Hankison, allegedly fired his gun recklessly such that the bullets endangered other people nearby rather than engaging the perceived threat inside Taylors apartment. It was the recklessness of his firing that was the problem even though in that moment the decision to fire may have been justified.
He didn't just fire recklessly, he didn't even shoot at an actual target. The other officers were shooting at someone who shot at them. Hankison supposedly walked back to the parking lot then just started dumping lead randomly through a patio door/window. No visual, no target, nothing to justifiably shoot at. He probably would have gotten off if he said he thought he saw the windowsash flutter from the gunman moving inside, but he wasn't even smart enough to lie and protect his own ass.
To: Tommy Revolts
The initial reports claimed that they were after one person, who was already in custody. I will concede that those reports may be mistaken.
However, I believe that use of SWAT teams and other military tactics for routine law enforcement (when innocents are not in jeopardy) is incompatible with liberty and should be abolished. Those officers didn’t come dressed to arrest a few individuals listed on their warrant, they came for war - and they got one.
5
posted on
10/01/2020 8:56:01 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(The Enemy Media isn't chartered to inform but rather to advance the interests of certain elites.)
To: coloradan
If the person they were looking for was not there - because he was already in police custody - that would seem to invalidate any police presence or actions at the residence.
From everything I've seen, Taylor was also listed on the warrant, as well as related objects (cash, drugs) from the drug investigation. The cops knew Glover wasn't there, they knew he was at one of the drughouses.
Also, even if what you say is true, how would those cops know that Glover had been apprehended only a short time earlier? Stories vary on whether the raids happened at the same time, or Taylor's apartment was hit no more than an hour after the first drughouse. That's not much time for cops to complete their other raids, confirm the target has been taken, officially get him in, communicate that information to higher, then have that information communicated to the cops at Taylor's place. The three that hit her apartment were all plainsclothes officers, so they likely didn't have much radio contact / other gear on them. I have no idea how many other officers were present outside, I've heard one at the time to no one but several got there after the raid started. Either way, it's not a sure thing that they would have gotten that info in time to stop the raid, IF that was the actual procedure/warrant, which it wasn't.
To: coloradan
they came for war - and they got one.
Your are right. Just curious, have you ever seen the firepower these thugs have?
To: Tommy Revolts
Only in pictures, never in person.
8
posted on
10/01/2020 9:06:01 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(The Enemy Media isn't chartered to inform but rather to advance the interests of certain elites.)
To: coloradan
They weren't after Marcus Glover.
They were there because Taylor was allowing him to receive packages (drugs) there and using it as his address and a suspected stash house.
She was also handling the money from the operation.
9
posted on
10/01/2020 9:15:15 PM PDT
by
Eagles6
To: coloradan
Well, I'm not proud to say this, but I have. And that was just scratching the surface.
To: Tommy Revolts
Walker was NOT on the warrant. He was not on their radar at all and they expected Taylor to be home alone.
The body in the rental is not germane. A suspect in the murder was identified, arrested, charged, convicted and is now doing time. Taylor was never a suspect, merely a useful idiot for a predatory male. Unfortunately she learned the hard way.
11
posted on
10/01/2020 10:12:52 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Eagles6
Those are the allegations made on the warrant affidavit for which zero evidence was obtained in the search.
12
posted on
10/01/2020 10:15:36 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
Walker was NOT on the warrant
Kenneth Walker was not, Adrian Walker was (I don't think they are related).
Glover is the key figure. Apparently she didn't learn much.
To: Valpal1
14
posted on
10/02/2020 6:44:14 AM PDT
by
Eagles6
To: Eagles6
Lots of talk in that report, still zero evidence found in the search.
15
posted on
10/02/2020 9:13:59 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
The grand jury decided otherwise.
Take it up with them.
16
posted on
10/02/2020 10:17:00 AM PDT
by
Eagles6
To: Eagles6
The Grand Jury didn’t decide anything in regards to Taylor’s guilt or innocence. They were only looking at the actions of the officers in serving the warrant. They did not look at the validity of the warrant... the Feds are investigating that.
Taylor is dead because she had history with a criminal. It doesn’t mean she is a criminal herself or that she deserved to die.
It doesn’t lessen the tragedy one bit to impugn her, nor does it make no-knock warrants a good idea by implying her death is inconsequential because she previously associated with criminals.
All I am saying is that search turned up none of the items listed on the warrant. In the report you seem to think implies so much, Glover himself said he hadn’t seen her in two months and that she was living off her own income from a job.
As usual, when these raids go sideways, there always seems to be bad or old intel.
17
posted on
10/02/2020 2:00:29 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
So you believe Glover?
Be that as it may they had a valid warrant.
They knocked and announced.
Walker said they were up but couldn't hear what was shouted from 15' away.
Is that believable?
Walker shot a cop when they legally entered then hid behind Taylor.
All of her bad choices came into play.
I take cops to task when they do wrong.
It wasn't here.
18
posted on
10/02/2020 2:15:17 PM PDT
by
Eagles6
To: SeekAndFind
How did they explain away the dead guy in the trunk of her rental car?
19
posted on
10/02/2020 6:26:46 PM PDT
by
minnesota_bound
(homeless guy. He just has more money....He the master will plant more cotton for the democrat party)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson