Breoona Taylor shooting - Louisville, KY

[cash]

her shooting was "justified"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/5814876002/

[Leasie]

I have been following this story from day one. She did not deserve to die. Her family got 12 million. The city of Louisville is in turmoil. I just feel sad.

[Shellie]

You knew what was coming as soon as it came out that they were calling a state of emergency before the announcement but it still makes you so angry.

[RiaBrown]

Her shooting was NOT effing JUSTIFIED. He only got caught because stray bullets MIGHT HAVE gone through to another apartment where WHITE PEOPLE lived. Eff that mess. I won't name names, but one of the girls in my Facebook group for lesbians is related to Breonna Taylor. Let's just say she now has 4K lesbians in our area standing up for Breonna and still saying Breonna's name. Personally, I was always FOR Breonna's killers being brought to justice even before I found that little tidbit out about her family member being one of my FB lesbian buddies.

[JimC]

A really tragic situation.

I served on Grand Jury a couple of years ago.
It was interesting, I'm glad to have done it, but I never want to do it again.

I've seen really big, tough-looking guys break down and cry like babies describing the carnage at the scene of a drunk driving accident where the driver already had two previous DUIs. The worst was seeing pictures of a 12 year old kid who looked like a 6 year old - weighed about 70 pounds. He had been shackled to a bed most of his life, to the point where the the skin on his wrists and ankles had actually grown around the restraints.

But I'm sure the Grand Jury specifics vary from one place to another but are probably very similar to here.
Where I am, a Grand Jury is comprised of 23 registered voters from the county.
At least 15 of those jurors must be present when the jury meets or the proceedings are rescheduled - we couldn't hear cases without at least 15 present.

The first thing we were told is that our job had two parts, but it didn't include deciding guilt or innocence.

First we would be presented a case wherein a crime was alleged to have occurred.
We had to hear the evidence and then decide if in fact a crime had been committed.
Then we would hear evidence intended to show that the named suspect was likely to have been the person who committed that crime.
We didn't have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect did it just, "at least 51% sure"; that the suspect probably was the one who did it.

Evidence would be presented and witnesses might be called.

There were no time constraints on those proceedings.
Any one of us jurors could ask for more information, ask for more details about information presented, ask questions of the DA and the witnesses, we could recall witnesses.
In short, each and every one of us independent of the others could question and ponder to as great an extent as needed to satisfy our curiosity or our concerns.
We could ask the DA to allow us time for private discussion among ourselves.

Once all of that was done, we voted on the matter.
If the jury finds that a crime was committed, and\or that an accused suspect is likely the guilty party, that is called a "True Bill"; and that justifies under the law an indictment of the suspect for the crime charged.

Here where I live, in order to return a True Bill; at least 12 of the 15 to 23 jurors present must vote for that.
The premise of course is that if you can get at least 12 out of 23 people to say, "take him to trial", then your evidence is strong enough to justify that and your odds of getting a guilty verdict are reasonable.

So first, at least 12 out of 23 have to be reasonably confident that a crime was committed based upon the evidence.
Then, at least 12 out of 23 have to feel reasonably sure that the accused committed the crime; once it has been shown that a crime was committed.

So every juror could get whatever info they requested to help them arrive at their own personal decision, then 12 out of 23 of us had to agree to call it a crime, and then agree that the accused was likely the guilty party.

It's a pretty good system from what I saw.

[john*thomas]

In the case where Timothy Loehmann shot and killed Tamir Rice what happened was the grand jury never was allowed to vote. The prosecuting attorney mislead and said that no indictment was returned by the jury. The jury came out and stated that they never were allowed to vote on charges.

Now I see where a jury member on the Taylor case wants to be able to speak up and the judge has ordered the tapes of the proceedings to be released even though the prosecutor didn't want them released.

The prosecutor has left himself a clever out if anyone has paid attention. It has to do with the investigation that lead to the warrant in the first place.

[theotherlondon]

Glad to see the grand jury recording will soon be out.

[JimC]

In the case where Timothy Loehmann shot and killed Tamir Rice what happened was the grand jury never was allowed to vote. The prosecuting attorney mislead and said that no indictment was returned by the jury. The jury came out and stated that they never were allowed to vote on charges.

Now I see where a jury member on the Taylor case wants to be able to speak up and the judge has ordered the tapes of the proceedings to be released even though the prosecutor didn't want them released.

The prosecutor has left himself a clever out if anyone has paid attention. It has to do with the investigation that lead to the warrant in the first place.

If adjourning the jury without a vote is legal, it should not be, that undermines the purpose of convening a jury and adds an appearance of legitimacy that may be undeserved.
I was surprised by your comment, I searched and found a story that says the jury didn't vote on criminal charges because they had already determined that the shooting was justified, thus criminal charges were moot:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...minal-charges/

I read a couple of other stories stating that, "the Grand Jurors have concluded the investigation...and declined to issue criminal charges".

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ote-on-charges

I would typically be opposed to releasing info from the confidential proceedings.
People who decided it was a murder without evidence of murder will continue to believe it was a murder regardless of evidence to the contrary, so why bother trying to placate a mob when a mob cannot be placated. Now I'd like to see that info released to see if my fairly strong confidence in the system and in the ruling is justified or if it is misplaced.

Personally, I believe that if the cops had a legal warrant and served it in a legal manner, and if they were fired upon when entering the apartment, then their return fire was appropriate and justified. That makes the death a true tragedy, but not a murder.

[john*thomas]

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ote-on-charges

What we had here was a prosecutor intent on protecting the police. It happens often. In the Taylor case it seems we are about to find out that there was 11 people that testified that the police never announced themselves like they (and the prosecutor) claims and only one who contradicted his first statement that did.

[JimC]

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ote-on-charges

What we had here was a prosecutor intent on protecting the police. It happens often. In the Taylor case it seems we are about to find out that there was 11 people that testified that the police never announced themselves like they (and the prosecutor) claims and only one who contradicted his first statement that did.

I read that the warrant authorized the "no knock" tactic, so if they did do that it was not improper.
But I'd also say that IMO such a tactic should never be used in executing a search warrant because of the likelihood that the subject will try to defend themselves as they have a right to do and should be expected to do. I could see doing that in certain situations such as entering a place wherein a violent felon was believed to be present, but not something like in this case.

The determining factor in deciding "justified" or not to me is who fired first.
I don't fault the boyfriend for shooting thinking it was a home invasion, nor do I fault the cops for returning fire, self defense is justified all the way around.

[pkstracy]

If they had a no knock warrant they do not have to announce. I agree with you, Jim, self defense on both sides was justified, however her death was not.

[john*thomas]

If they had a no knock warrant they do not have to announce. I agree with you, Jim, self defense on both sides was justified, however her death was not.

What type of warrant is still in question. It should not be at this point. It should be clear.

During the news briefing to explain the grand jury's decision, Cameron only referred to it as a search warrant. He said the officers were told by their superiors to knock and announce their appearance while serving this "specific" search warrant. "The scope of our investigation didn't include the obtainment of that warrant by LMPD's Criminal Interdiction Division. Federal law enforcement partners are conducting that investigation," Cameron said.

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/...f-c36eb4bd7cc1

So have we been lied to? And then.......reportedly we have one witness that said they knocked who had earlier said they did not with eleven people testifying they did not knock.

THen this is the big piece.

"The scope of our investigation didn't include the obtainment of that warrant by LMPD's Criminal Interdiction Division. Federal law enforcement partners are conducting that investigation," Cameron said.

Was the warrant even granted in a legal manner? According to earlier reports whoever got the warrant lied to get it. If that was the case does that in a way let these officers off at least somewhat? It might BUT what about the officer that reportedly committed perjury to obtain the warrant?

[pkstracy]

If they lied to get the warrant then there will be charges brought to whomever got it under false pretenses. I agree it should be made clear about what warrant was used. So were all the witnesses there or where they standing outside watching everything unfold? Either way an innocent woman lost her life.

[theotherlondon]

Still, nobody charged with her death.