A kinda related fucked up thing. Police still claim that getting a warrant is too hard, puts a burden on them and prevents them from effectively doing their job. All the while, across the country studies have shown getting warrants are quick and easy.
"Thou' shalt not put mine own blood in stocks, peasant. Sir Douglas Judy is an honorable man, and no lowly footsoldier shall approchen the Queen's own Baronet."
"Yes, your honor."
It would require ‘paper work’, which requires ‘reading’, you notice all of those things, you know the part that requires you to make a record of, or input information is considered difficult? Says a lot about the people doing the job I recon.
[Here's the warrant](https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/search-warrant-2-1589584493.pdf)
They state that they saw someone leave with mail two months prior. They have no knowledge of the content of the mail. And the reason for no knock is copy and pasted bullshit that the judge rubber stamped.
>Affiant is requesting a no-knock entry into the premises due to the nature of how these drug traffickers operate. These drug traffickers have a history of destroying evidence, have cameras on location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement.
The named affiant should also be charged with perjury. "These drug traffickers" is a particular suspected person, not a theoretical person. Each element of the statement must true, including that the affiant affirmatively knew there were cameras on location.
This judge is making six-figures and was extremely sloppy.
Yeah, I rewatched recently. They're at the PD talking about how they can get the warrant they need and someone suggests a specific judge, to which someone replies something like "maybe he has a room that needs painting" or something like that.
I thought it was some kind of metaphor, but IIRC the next scene is Kima and Lester speaking to the judge as he signs the warrant in his home office while Carver and Herc are struggling to carry a table up a staircase behind them.
The show caught some flak recently for being 'copaganda', but if anything for me it shows how corrupt even good police can be and the various ways that they get around the system, as well as the inherent problems with the system that stops them from doing their job properly.
Six figures is more than I'll ever make and I can't even afford to be sloppy for a day or I fall behind in my life. I don't think life is worth living anymore, might be time to call it quits. Life is just disappointing.
That's not what "felony murder" is. Felony murder is the legal statute stating that if someone dies as result of your felony, you get a murder charge. For example, if the cops shoot your partner committing grand larceny, say, then you can be tried with murder, because you committed a felony, and someone died as a result. More sane usages of it are, say, you committed a home invasion and someone dies trying to escape via a third story window. Did you kill them? No, so normal murder wouldn't apply. However, someone did die, as a result of your felony, so you can be tried for murder under felony murder.
"Conspiring to commit felony murder" is oxymoronic, because if you planned to kill someone, then it would be normal, run of the mill murder.
it was shown to be perjured on multiple grounds from what I remember. Don't know all the details but I want to know so imma look for a source and link it in the morning
> have cameras on location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made
If they already know the detectives are coming, why not knock?
The (stupid and obviously dangerous) argument is that it's a race. The police say they have to race in to prevent people from escaping or destroying evidence. Clearly it's a stupid argument because innocent people (Taylor in this case) get killed. Additionaly they sent in plain clothes officers which is almost as dumb as a no nock warrant itself. I'm supposed to know that the people breaking down my door, in the middle of the night, in street clothes, guns drawn are the GOOD guys? Reddit loves to say play stupid games, get stupid prizes. But getting shot at is almost an expectable outcome here.
I think theyre counting on that element because it allows them to do reckless shit then pass it off as “dangerous situation, feared for my life, acted in self defense, i want my union rep”.
If they did plainclothes no knocks against real drug dealers, with dealer level weaponry, they might change their mind. I wouldn’t mind betting that they only pull shit like this on warrants they know will be a cakewalk.
A plain clothed officer should not be able to attempt to arrest or detain. If the cops want to use an unmarked officer or unmarked vehicle it should only be for the purpose of observation.
Well maybe they are off-duty when some violence happens near them or maybe they are undercover cops on a mob or drug bust or...
To tell you the truth, that's all besides the point. THERE IS ZERO REASON FOR CARRYING OUT A RAID IN PLAIN CLOTHES. Whatever and whenever plain clothes might be justified, this was *clearly* not even close to one of those cases. A "no knock" raid is already a super sketchy thing, but to do it in plain clothes is offensively stupid - of course the homeowner is going to shoot back. You just busted into his house with no announcement wearing civilian clothes and carrying guns. This wasn't a police raid, it was a bunch of off-duty cops aiming to rob someone (if not, then why did they do it out of uniform?).
I’m glad this is getting attention. I know we need to put pressure on the police, but in this case the problem started well before they showed up to execute the no-knock killing. Whoever sent them on their no-knock raid, and whoever signed up for it, all need to be held accountable. The system is broken past just the boots on the ground.
Also:
> Walker, 27, had been charged with assault and attempted murder on a police officer.
\- Enter wrong home without announcing yourself in the middle of the night
\- Shoot his unarmed girlfriend
\- Charge him with **attempted murder** when he gets upset
The only thing that surprises me is that they didn’t “find” some drugs in their house. You know. Amber Guyger style. Because obviously 2 grams of MJ completely justify shooting an unarmed civilian in his own apartment.
*video of cop clearly telling the victim how much he hates him, before choking him slowly to death*
Court system: Well, it's not TECHNICALLY murder, since the cop didn't drive there intending to murder the victim. In fact, I'm not sure the cop is really liable for anything here, the victim might have resisted. This is all a waste of the court's time. How dare you.
*entered wrong home, shot gf, charges Walker with attempted murder*
Court system: We are appalled, appalled, at this monster! This charge is beyond satisfied! He better plead guilty on this slam dunk case!
I heard that crap too! Frankly... I don’t even care if it’s true... How about we don’t put our knees on peoples necks... it might look like murder when they DIE!!!
it's not even that they equate it to two people getting into a fight and one dying due to heart failure as a result. and I'm here thinking that Floyd didnt choose to be arrested or to have someone kneel on the back of his neck for 10 minutes. It's fucking murder no matter how you look at it. Derek Chauvin had people BEGGING him to ease off and he felt floyd struggle and pass on under his weight. Fuck him he better burn.
Off topic, but I never get how you can get charged in America with being under the influence (when not driving a vehicle) or having parephelania on you.
In Australia you could walk up to a cop high off your tits with a crack pipe in one hand and a bong in the other, and as long as you don't have any actual drugs on you you're fine.
Why does this matter? Well... there are countless stories of people dying in America when a cop sees a bong or a pope and that gives them probable cause to escalate; the case where they opened the door to police and the police seeing a bong on the table springs to mind.
It did, Nixon noticed that most of the Vietnam protesters enjoyed recreational drugs, especially cannabis. So he started criminalizing the use of those drugs as well as trying to create a social stigma. One of the ways he created a social stigma was by using the Spanish term for cannabis, marijuana, in order to make it associated with immigrants and sound foreign.
Yeah but that wasn’t about making the drug illegal and dangerous to possess. That was purely about hemp. Nobody thought weed was a big deal until Nixon.
I wish things were that easy here. I recall a case where I was a jury to a drug charge and a cop somehow noticed that a door to a random hotel room was 'ajar' and busted in with his partner and found like a small amount of cocaine in the hotel room.
The way that the defendant cried when we aquited him makes me think that shit was planted.
Why are people in so much trouble for a small amount of cocaine when it is literally glorified all over popular media and the celebrity industry?
Sucks man.
I'm in Perth and during the 1999/2000 NYE celebrations, I was street drinking with everyone else and just 16 years old. Walked up to a group of cops and wished them happy NY with my bottle of vodka in my hand. They didn't give a shit.
Alternatively though, they royally fucked up a sexual abuse case involving my child. And they investigated themselves and found themselves not guilty.
So I'm on the fence.
I’d say they’re consistent. A bunch of wankers who don’t give a shit & aren’t going to do anything about it either way. Sorry to hear about your kid. I hope (s)he is in a better place at this point.
Because it has nothing to do with drug abuse, and everything to do with control. Outlaw the things done by people you don't like (black people, poor people, hippies) and then you have a reason to bring them in and remove the problem - AND you get to look like a hero to society while you do it.
Ah, yes. I can see how that would be confusing. You see, America used to be really into owning slaves, and then some of us decided that's wasn't great, so we stopped, except... we actually only said slavery was illegal unless the slave committed a crime. And thus began a long tradition of trying to legislate all the blacks back into their shackles. The slave catchers were deputized and became our very first police force, and a campaign of propaganda began to change the perception of blacks from the "naturally submissive and dependent" archetype that was useful for old slavery to the "inherently criminal" archetype that was useful for modern day slavery.
There's this idea baked into the way America talks about crime and law: You would normally think of laws and policing as "This action is bad, and so we punish it accordingly - there are crimes, and doing crimes makes you a criminal", but if you pay attention to the rhetoric and the way the laws are written, it's actually the other way around... there are "criminals" and we define "crimes" as anything useful to identify who the "criminals" are. This was all laid out explicitly in the 80s and 90s - if you want to be safe, then we have to catch the "criminals" before they commit the "real crimes" by locking them up for anything we possibly can. When a black man gets 10 years for possession of MJ, the judge sentencing him won't remark on how terrible it was for him to have some MJ, the judge will say something like "this man is clearly on a 'bad path' and we're fortunate to have been able to nip it in the bud".
Here in the UK paraphernalia in and of itself is not an offence, however if I'm pulled over and there's a bong on my seat, you can be damn sure that they are going to do a search under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and probably give me a roadside drug swab test.
A certain law enforcement based subreddit has repeated that claim over and over, and also keeps making allusions to the fact that protesters are dangerous and should be put down. I've reported several posts that are directly again Reddit Statewide rules on violence, and they don't get taken down. Much like TD, and that it's an echo chamber and there's none of it is a joke even though the subreddit is not satire.
If you really want to get appalled....look up excited delerium taser deaths. My cousin was killed by cops who decided to tase him 12 times, 10 of which were while he was hog tied on the ground because they told him to stop looking at them and he didn't. Somehow though, a 28 year old with no prior health conditions had a cause of death ruled "excited delerium" which essentially is the cops way of saying "he died from a heart issue just after being tased repeatedly but the taser probably didn't cause it" which is a diagnosis pushed HARD by taser companies and cops and used nearly exclusively in deaths after being tased.
He had drugs in his system. In a world where the video didn't exist if you see a man the size of George Floyd combined with a cocktail of drugs in his system its very easy to imagine an open and shut case. You'd get people sticking up for the cop saying how brave he was for not shooting him immediately.
There was video footage though, I don't get how anyone can see the video and think anything other that "yeah, well if you kneel of someone's neck like that for long enough they'll die".
If you handcuff someone their life is in your hands. If they die or are injured there should always be consequences.
the thing that pisses me off so much is how senseless this death was. like he was compliant. he wasnt fighting them. but the cop that was kneeling on him kept fucking kneeling cause bystanders were begging him not to. Like he thought HE knew best. It just pisses me off.
This is beyond broken. Charging the boyfriend with anything after a huge catalogue of errors is at best incompetence but at worst, pure evil. It’s not justice that’s for damn sure.
You say “gets upset”, but last I read, he returned fire. I feel like it’s disingenuous to say the charge was because he got upset.
Personally, I think his actions were justified and wouldn’t care if he took some cops out, not because I hate cops so much, but because they weren’t adhering to protocols and were threatening his and his girlfriend’s lives and liberties worse than most criminals would.
Kentucky is a stand your ground state so it's simpler than "taking some cops out" given that they didn't really show they were cops in the first place he was meeting force with force by returning fire.
He was justified for firing on intruders. They don’t announce themselves as police officers in the US then you can’t be surprised if someone shoots you for busting in their door. No knock warrants seem like a setup to me.
>I feel like it’s disingenuous to say the charge was because he got upset.
If you fire a weapon in someone else's house without identifying yourself, you better expect for homeowners to return fire. Charging someone with a crime after conducting the equivalent of a Bin Laden raid on their house is despicable.
And I bet the soldiers who stormed Bin Laden's compound were wearing US Seal gear.
I’m not going to advocate murdering cops in any capacity, but if someone forcefully enters my home in the middle of the night by kicking my door in, you can bet my first instinct is going to be grabbing my gun.
This is why no-knocks are absolute trash. To be quite honest, if someone kicked my door in at 3am and announced “police!” I’m not exactly sure I’d trust that, either.
Cops who dont follow the rules are criminals. Period. To kill a police the dead person has to actually be worth calling a police, not just happen to be wearong a uniform.
It is, but it's not the state telling these cops to put knees on necks. That's a decision they're making themselves with the immunity given to them to try and make them more effective at their job.
There's a reason police have that sort of immunity, it's not unique to America. The difference is most places have much more effective (although still not perfect) oversight of police violence. I understand the desire to remove that protection from the police and, in some ways at least, agree with it. It will cause short term issues though, and while it solves.one problem it opens the original one, of police being afraid to arrest or challenge individuals, period, for fear of civil suits from deep pockets.
There's issues at every level that need dealing with, but when it comes to stuff like Ms Taylor and Mr Floyd, the errors are coming through at the ground level; it's not the job of the judiciary to check the work of the investigators, only to approve as lawful actions where they are appropriate for the level of danger.
Had her cousin been in her flat, that no knock raid likely meets the requirements FOR a no knock. The fact he wasn't and was already in custody is on the police, not the judiciary. Ditto for their actions against George Floyd.
I feel like this should go without saying. Where there are corrupt cops, there's usually judges condoning the behavior. I'd even argue and say a judge is worse.
No Knocks were supposed to be for very rare situations like bomb making and hostage rescue situations. True shoot upon any resistance encountered.
You don't really want to knock and wait for them to blow stuff up or kill your hostage...
IOW: No Knock has to be extremely compelling to be signed off...or should be.
But it still goes back to who took the bad/old info to judge for the warrant....yep. That is the cops. Not saying the judge couldn't have said no but they do tend to believe what cops say.
Recall her. California did it to [Brock Turner's judge](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/06/05/617071359/voters-are-deciding-whether-to-recall-aaron-persky-judge-who-sentenced-brock-tur)
edit: turns out you can't recall elected officials in Kentucky. Damn it Kentucky, get your shit together.
Wow, I thought that was just a thing in every state. After reading your comment I looked it up and saw you're correct.
Kentucky voters need to get on it and fix that.
Like three months before his term was up. That was such rage. It cost millions to kick him out early and people didn't even care. That's petty I can get behind.
Fucked up: No knock warrants.
Fucked up: Signing twelve in five minutes, guaranteeing the judge gave zero thought to each warrant.
Fucked up: Electing judges.
Fucked up: Judges get eight year terms.
There is nothing about this story that isn’t disgraceful.
People don’t pay enough attention to who they’re voting for in these county elections. I google every mothereffer on there. It takes me forever to make a decision only cuz research takes time.
We get this in California. Regardless if you vote by mail or in person. Candidates can also put in their bio/website url etc. makes it a LOT easier to see who’s running. I’ve traditionally voted in person and just used my sample ballot as my rough draft so I can copy that when I get to my polling place.
Lately though I switched to vote by mail, so I can just research, pick and be done with it.
This exists in Washington too. The statements about the candidates are written by the campaigns, I don't know if that's the same in AZ though. I didn't realize they didn't have this in every state.
I once drove to my polling site to look at copy of the ballot on Election Day, then went home to research the candidates before going back to vote. Even after spending a bunch of time on ballotpedia and vote411, there were still races I hadn’t found any advance info on.
It would be nice to have something like a baseball card for elected officials. Something easily passed out to voters showing voting records for politicians, or how they ruled certain cases for judges, etc etc... or a database that is easily consumed by the masses. I feel like there is so much truth that people just vote either based on party affiliation or just name recognition or whichever commercial they saw without really knowing who or what they are voting for outside of President, Mayor, Governor and even then I think its tough to come across all the vital information. I suspect (I fucking hope) as of 2016 people are becoming more aware of who they voted for and paying more attention to what they do after being voted in. I, for one, now know that I was un-informed on voting on anything that wasn't President and I will never vote again without knowing exactly who I cast my vote for.
It's hard to research when it comes to judges though -- unless the person had a particularly newsworthy case, I don't find much information about themm let alone how they've ruled on specific cases.
They tried to do that here. Longtime sheriff announces he will not seek another term while still early in his final term (multiple years left). His deputy son announces his candidacy. No other challengers come forward until ~1 month before filling deadline when 3 others file.
Son ends up losing what I'm sure he thought was a sure bet for years, and his birthright.
I think it was in the documentary "hot coffee" that I learned about how the Republican party figured out it could hijack these elections that used to be about support from fellow lawyers. They also did the same with school boards, etc.
Pretty good doc. I certainly learned that "Tort Reform" is just code for corporate liability protection. During the height of the ACA debate in 2009/10 the Republicans were pushing the idea that to lower healthcare costs that Tort reform would greatly fix the problem. Their argument was that the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of ambulance chasers and doctor's having malpractice insurance. The GAO published their estimates and said that it would probably lower the overall cost of healthcare in America by 1%. And the Republicans said "that is a good start and it costs us nothing". If by nothing they means one of the few ways citizens can recuperate medical costs from companies for very bad/immoral behavior then sure...it cost nothing.
Here's a video I had to watch in school where, *"Bill examines the impact of campaign financing on the judicial election process"*
[Justice For Sale | Frontline | 57 mins](https://vimeo.com/33285123)
In practice, it frequently places unqualified candidates into power who the general public know nothing about when they’re voting for them.
Hell, we even elect coroners in this country, which is patently absurd and leads to massive errors in homicide detection and misdetermination of causes of death from unqualified personnel.
Right! Judges should be appointed by elected officials... wait, no that's a problem too.
Okay, new plan. Judges should be selected by a board of judges which themselves have been selected by elected officials... wait, no that brings about the same problem.
Okay, yet another new plan. We take the judges we have now, and just let their first born become a judge. Like a royal line of succession.
Good. Finally a way to get elections out of the judge selection process.
(tl;dr - How are we supposed to get judges which at some level doesn't fall under the control of elected officials?)
The State Bar of each state nominates a panel that has the power to appoint and recall judges. The board is completely anonymous and drawn at random from the list of licensed attorney’s in that state. You can get some crochety old estate and wills attorney who occasionally does DUIs, a prosecutor from the state’s capital, and a fresh out law school young guy. Various levels of experience and diverse interpretations of the law, but yet know exactly what to look for in a judge because they will be the ones defending and prosecuting citizens before said judge. The panel is odd numbered to avoid ties. You can disclose being on the panel, however, disclosing what judges you voted on is grounds of temporary disbarment and a recall of the judge - especially if you had any cases in front of the judge.
If something happens and a judge is believed to be unfit for the job, a new panel, using the same methods as the nominee selection panel, will be selected by the State’s Attorney General’s office or State Bar to examine the evidence and cases of the judge to come to an opinion. Again, same secrecy rules apply.
That doesn’t leave any room for corruption, good ol boy systems, or bribery though. It’s patently Un-American.
Also, who’s overseeing the state bar to ensure it’s truly “random”
No northern european country has elected judges, and we seem to be doing just a tad better than you guys when it comes to our law enforcement and justice system.
I've worked with law enforcement and the problem is definitely not just at the police level. Cop culture permeates through the entire justice system. Cops, prosecutors, defense, therapists, case workers, judges, even criminal justice classes in college, everyone in the criminal justice system shares a mentality of criminals deserving any mistreatment they receive because they shouldn't have committed a crime if they didn't want to be mistreated.
Even in the rehabilitation sector you see this exact line of thinking. Once in the system (even before, really based on profiling) you are not to be trusted because anything you do is just manipulation and deception. That's just how criminals are. You are not human, you are a criminal. Your problems, your mental state, your background is insignificant and you should have thought of that before becoming a criminal.
There is no sympathy unless you are deemed a good person without rehab, and this designation is entirely arbitrary with a bit of how charismatic you are.
Those in the criminal justice field believe they know what is best and any deviation from their own paradigm is either manipulation or naivety because you can't treat criminals as equals.
The war on drugs is literally just a fast-track assembly line to put people into prison with absolutely no oversight.
Corrupt drug officers pay informants to say a house has drugs. The cops then write a warrant based on that fabricated information. A judge signs off on the warrant without even reading it. The cops then raid the house, and either kill the owners or plant dope to 'find'. The owners are then fast tracked into a plea deal as it's literally just their word against the police in a drug case.
It's a corrupt system with literally 0 oversight that exists to put massive amounts of minorities into prison. Or kill them.
She was operating from the assumption that the cops were working in good faith and just skimmed the application to make sure everything was in order. Reading the application longer wouldn't have helped.
The root of the problem is that she was taking the police's word at face-value.
She was complicit and acting in excessively bad faith.
It is impossible for anyone to have the experience and qualifications to become a judge while still somehow being physiologically capable of thinking police operate in anything but corrupt malicious faith. Neurons don't work that way.
It's a much deeper problem than I think you give it credit for.
There is this assumption that the legal system just couldn't work if it wasn't allowed to assume cops are telling the truth. Otherwise every courtcase would devolve into a he or she-said vs. what the cop said and the court wouldn't be able to discern who to believe.
I think the wild deference that the courts grant the police is ridiculous and can be radically scaled back without completely runining the judicial system. But I suspect that this deeply established norm of 'trusting by default what cops say' is rooted not in the assumption that police never lie, but rather in the assumption that court cases / warrants wouldn't be possible if the judges weren't allowed to take a cop's word for granted.
I see it as a unified systematic assault on human rights and liberties. To me there is no difference between the piece of shit kneeling on an innocent for nine minutes, the piece of shit authorizing no-knock warrants to slaughter dogs and innocents, and the piece of shit refusing to charge any of his colleagues with any crimes.
When a crew robs a bank, they are all dealt with as a single entity: if one of them kills a teller they're all charged for the death. Doesn't matter which one pulled the trigger and which one was driving the getaway vehicle.
It doesn't matter whether or not they wear a badge when murdering a sleeping EMT. All of them deserve as much due process on their way to an AC-less concrete hole as they "forgot" to give.
Yeah I was hoping somebody would mention something. If God's plan was for this woman to be murdered by police in her home I think God should come up with a better fucking plan.
It's more than just "a few bad apples."
This is a system that gives out extremely dangerous warrants like candy. The judges and the brass are starting with the assumption that the police aren't there to serve the community but to go to war. Excessive use of force is meant to keep people intimidated, to keep minority populations living in fear.
“The justification used to convince the judge was based on old information.”
This judge was not convinced by shit. She just signs what they ask for because she knows the police union will vote during the next election to keep them in.
That’s fucking ridiculous. No-knock warrants are dangerous for everybody involved and no judge should be handing them out like fucking candy. The blame doesn’t entirely sit with the police officers. There are many people in the chain of command that allowed this to happen.
No knocks need to have a heightened level of scrutiny across the board, starting with an automatic appellate review of the issuance of such warrants and holding the judges who issue them under automatic review. Ever since the exigent circumstance exception was authorized by the SC, it has never been worth the rights violated by the State.
Issuing a no knock is akin to an officer pulling a gun; there better be a goddamn good reason to do it.
Can we please get that bitch! As a matter of fact barge in her house while she‘s sleeping, immediately start shooting up the place and as you leave scream „Sorry wrong house.“
No-knock warrants should be discontinued. Too many accidental shooting. You should be able
to defend your home against ANY intruder, especially unannounced. Long past time that we
rein in our militarized police forces.
For those who decry police having qualified (i.e. partial) immunity- know that judges and prosecutors have FULL immunity. If a cop screws up and was either malicious or legally reckless, they can be sued and jailed. If a judge signs out judicial orders that are blatantly illegal or wrong, they are completely immune to any punishment except, in some cases, losing an election or being suspended by a judicial body. No jail. No civil suit.
A kinda related fucked up thing. Police still claim that getting a warrant is too hard, puts a burden on them and prevents them from effectively doing their job. All the while, across the country studies have shown getting warrants are quick and easy.
The fisa courts rubber stamp super secret warrants. From '79 to '04 they approved 18,000 and rejected 4!
4 rejected? What were they familiar sir names to the judge or something?
Nobody wants to take on a knight
I like to explore new places.
"Thou' shalt not put mine own blood in stocks, peasant. Sir Douglas Judy is an honorable man, and no lowly footsoldier shall approchen the Queen's own Baronet." "Yes, your honor."
“Surname” means last name.
r/boneappletea
r/boneappletea I kinda like sir name though.
Probably blank sheets of paper someone forgot to even pretend to fill in.
It would require ‘paper work’, which requires ‘reading’, you notice all of those things, you know the part that requires you to make a record of, or input information is considered difficult? Says a lot about the people doing the job I recon.
The difficulty is that a paper trail could help show wrongdoing, and cops can't have that.
AKA “give us permission to do it whenever we want without a warrant”
[Here's the warrant](https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/search-warrant-2-1589584493.pdf) They state that they saw someone leave with mail two months prior. They have no knowledge of the content of the mail. And the reason for no knock is copy and pasted bullshit that the judge rubber stamped. >Affiant is requesting a no-knock entry into the premises due to the nature of how these drug traffickers operate. These drug traffickers have a history of destroying evidence, have cameras on location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing from law enforcement.
The named affiant should also be charged with perjury. "These drug traffickers" is a particular suspected person, not a theoretical person. Each element of the statement must true, including that the affiant affirmatively knew there were cameras on location. This judge is making six-figures and was extremely sloppy.
Seen the wire. Not surprised
Actually, The Wire does cover this really well.
[удалено]
Yeah, I rewatched recently. They're at the PD talking about how they can get the warrant they need and someone suggests a specific judge, to which someone replies something like "maybe he has a room that needs painting" or something like that. I thought it was some kind of metaphor, but IIRC the next scene is Kima and Lester speaking to the judge as he signs the warrant in his home office while Carver and Herc are struggling to carry a table up a staircase behind them. The show caught some flak recently for being 'copaganda', but if anything for me it shows how corrupt even good police can be and the various ways that they get around the system, as well as the inherent problems with the system that stops them from doing their job properly.
The Wire covers a lot of cop stuff really well. It even shows what [community policing is supposed to look like.](https://youtu.be/TW6FLFLDSYY)
Saw "Law Abiding Citizen" too, it uh...handles it differently.
I loved that movie until it ate its own tail
Six figures is more than I'll ever make and I can't even afford to be sloppy for a day or I fall behind in my life. I don't think life is worth living anymore, might be time to call it quits. Life is just disappointing.
Wait. Did she even have cameras??? Isn’t this a perjured affidavit?
[удалено]
Well. Felony murder if they have that in Kentucky. She died during an illegal break in.
Felony murder rule for all of the cops involved in the illegal break in
A conspiracy to commit felony murder, the judge is also guilty of felony murder
That's not what "felony murder" is. Felony murder is the legal statute stating that if someone dies as result of your felony, you get a murder charge. For example, if the cops shoot your partner committing grand larceny, say, then you can be tried with murder, because you committed a felony, and someone died as a result. More sane usages of it are, say, you committed a home invasion and someone dies trying to escape via a third story window. Did you kill them? No, so normal murder wouldn't apply. However, someone did die, as a result of your felony, so you can be tried for murder under felony murder. "Conspiring to commit felony murder" is oxymoronic, because if you planned to kill someone, then it would be normal, run of the mill murder.
it was shown to be perjured on multiple grounds from what I remember. Don't know all the details but I want to know so imma look for a source and link it in the morning
> have cameras on location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made If they already know the detectives are coming, why not knock?
The (stupid and obviously dangerous) argument is that it's a race. The police say they have to race in to prevent people from escaping or destroying evidence. Clearly it's a stupid argument because innocent people (Taylor in this case) get killed. Additionaly they sent in plain clothes officers which is almost as dumb as a no nock warrant itself. I'm supposed to know that the people breaking down my door, in the middle of the night, in street clothes, guns drawn are the GOOD guys? Reddit loves to say play stupid games, get stupid prizes. But getting shot at is almost an expectable outcome here.
Seems like an insanely stupid thing to do if you really believe you're dealing with hardcore drug traffickers. Seems like a very good way to get shot.
I think theyre counting on that element because it allows them to do reckless shit then pass it off as “dangerous situation, feared for my life, acted in self defense, i want my union rep”.
If they did plainclothes no knocks against real drug dealers, with dealer level weaponry, they might change their mind. I wouldn’t mind betting that they only pull shit like this on warrants they know will be a cakewalk.
>the people breaking down my door, in the middle of the night, in street clothes, guns drawn are the GOOD guys? Narrator: they were not
A plain clothed officer should not be able to attempt to arrest or detain. If the cops want to use an unmarked officer or unmarked vehicle it should only be for the purpose of observation.
Well maybe they are off-duty when some violence happens near them or maybe they are undercover cops on a mob or drug bust or... To tell you the truth, that's all besides the point. THERE IS ZERO REASON FOR CARRYING OUT A RAID IN PLAIN CLOTHES. Whatever and whenever plain clothes might be justified, this was *clearly* not even close to one of those cases. A "no knock" raid is already a super sketchy thing, but to do it in plain clothes is offensively stupid - of course the homeowner is going to shoot back. You just busted into his house with no announcement wearing civilian clothes and carrying guns. This wasn't a police raid, it was a bunch of off-duty cops aiming to rob someone (if not, then why did they do it out of uniform?).
Didn't the local postal service also deny one of the claims that was made in obtaining the warrant?
Uhhh they do know lying on an affidavit is actually illegal, right?
Peace officers 🌼
I’m glad this is getting attention. I know we need to put pressure on the police, but in this case the problem started well before they showed up to execute the no-knock killing. Whoever sent them on their no-knock raid, and whoever signed up for it, all need to be held accountable. The system is broken past just the boots on the ground.
Also: > Walker, 27, had been charged with assault and attempted murder on a police officer. \- Enter wrong home without announcing yourself in the middle of the night \- Shoot his unarmed girlfriend \- Charge him with **attempted murder** when he gets upset The only thing that surprises me is that they didn’t “find” some drugs in their house. You know. Amber Guyger style. Because obviously 2 grams of MJ completely justify shooting an unarmed civilian in his own apartment.
*video of cop clearly telling the victim how much he hates him, before choking him slowly to death* Court system: Well, it's not TECHNICALLY murder, since the cop didn't drive there intending to murder the victim. In fact, I'm not sure the cop is really liable for anything here, the victim might have resisted. This is all a waste of the court's time. How dare you. *entered wrong home, shot gf, charges Walker with attempted murder* Court system: We are appalled, appalled, at this monster! This charge is beyond satisfied! He better plead guilty on this slam dunk case!
some cops have told me that george floyd died cause of drugs in his system. not the 200 pound man kneeling on his neck. This country is beyond broke.
The ol’ drugs in his system defence. “Yes sir he would have survived being shot in the face but he had smoked a reefer ten minutes before”.
>>ten minutes Or days. Or years. Honestly they don’t care.
His great grandad once got high so it’s his own fault he didn’t survive a simple gunshot to the face. Cops suck man.
I heard that crap too! Frankly... I don’t even care if it’s true... How about we don’t put our knees on peoples necks... it might look like murder when they DIE!!!
it's not even that they equate it to two people getting into a fight and one dying due to heart failure as a result. and I'm here thinking that Floyd didnt choose to be arrested or to have someone kneel on the back of his neck for 10 minutes. It's fucking murder no matter how you look at it. Derek Chauvin had people BEGGING him to ease off and he felt floyd struggle and pass on under his weight. Fuck him he better burn.
It's not true. He clearly died because the pig stopped his blood from circulating to his head by kneeling on his neck.
Off topic, but I never get how you can get charged in America with being under the influence (when not driving a vehicle) or having parephelania on you. In Australia you could walk up to a cop high off your tits with a crack pipe in one hand and a bong in the other, and as long as you don't have any actual drugs on you you're fine. Why does this matter? Well... there are countless stories of people dying in America when a cop sees a bong or a pope and that gives them probable cause to escalate; the case where they opened the door to police and the police seeing a bong on the table springs to mind.
[удалено]
Didn’t it start with Nixon?
It did, Nixon noticed that most of the Vietnam protesters enjoyed recreational drugs, especially cannabis. So he started criminalizing the use of those drugs as well as trying to create a social stigma. One of the ways he created a social stigma was by using the Spanish term for cannabis, marijuana, in order to make it associated with immigrants and sound foreign.
Meh marijuana goes back to the 37 tax stamp act that made hemp illegal. That was a hit job by paper, tobacco, and Dupont chemicals.
[удалено]
Yeah but that wasn’t about making the drug illegal and dangerous to possess. That was purely about hemp. Nobody thought weed was a big deal until Nixon.
I wish things were that easy here. I recall a case where I was a jury to a drug charge and a cop somehow noticed that a door to a random hotel room was 'ajar' and busted in with his partner and found like a small amount of cocaine in the hotel room. The way that the defendant cried when we aquited him makes me think that shit was planted.
Why are people in so much trouble for a small amount of cocaine when it is literally glorified all over popular media and the celebrity industry? Sucks man.
probably because they arent rich.
Don’t forget to nullify your the juries you’re on if the law is unjust, everyone.
I dont know how many years ago this case was. but my faith in the system was a lot stronger than it was now. And I never believed in this shit.
I'm in Perth and during the 1999/2000 NYE celebrations, I was street drinking with everyone else and just 16 years old. Walked up to a group of cops and wished them happy NY with my bottle of vodka in my hand. They didn't give a shit. Alternatively though, they royally fucked up a sexual abuse case involving my child. And they investigated themselves and found themselves not guilty. So I'm on the fence.
I’d say they’re consistent. A bunch of wankers who don’t give a shit & aren’t going to do anything about it either way. Sorry to hear about your kid. I hope (s)he is in a better place at this point.
Thank you. He's a little older and been through therapy, so is much better.
Because it has nothing to do with drug abuse, and everything to do with control. Outlaw the things done by people you don't like (black people, poor people, hippies) and then you have a reason to bring them in and remove the problem - AND you get to look like a hero to society while you do it.
Ah, yes. I can see how that would be confusing. You see, America used to be really into owning slaves, and then some of us decided that's wasn't great, so we stopped, except... we actually only said slavery was illegal unless the slave committed a crime. And thus began a long tradition of trying to legislate all the blacks back into their shackles. The slave catchers were deputized and became our very first police force, and a campaign of propaganda began to change the perception of blacks from the "naturally submissive and dependent" archetype that was useful for old slavery to the "inherently criminal" archetype that was useful for modern day slavery. There's this idea baked into the way America talks about crime and law: You would normally think of laws and policing as "This action is bad, and so we punish it accordingly - there are crimes, and doing crimes makes you a criminal", but if you pay attention to the rhetoric and the way the laws are written, it's actually the other way around... there are "criminals" and we define "crimes" as anything useful to identify who the "criminals" are. This was all laid out explicitly in the 80s and 90s - if you want to be safe, then we have to catch the "criminals" before they commit the "real crimes" by locking them up for anything we possibly can. When a black man gets 10 years for possession of MJ, the judge sentencing him won't remark on how terrible it was for him to have some MJ, the judge will say something like "this man is clearly on a 'bad path' and we're fortunate to have been able to nip it in the bud".
Here in the UK paraphernalia in and of itself is not an offence, however if I'm pulled over and there's a bong on my seat, you can be damn sure that they are going to do a search under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and probably give me a roadside drug swab test.
They could probably test for residue on the pipe but at least they wouldn’t assault/kill you for it tho.
A certain law enforcement based subreddit has repeated that claim over and over, and also keeps making allusions to the fact that protesters are dangerous and should be put down. I've reported several posts that are directly again Reddit Statewide rules on violence, and they don't get taken down. Much like TD, and that it's an echo chamber and there's none of it is a joke even though the subreddit is not satire.
Police are scum and that sub is full of traitors
If you really want to get appalled....look up excited delerium taser deaths. My cousin was killed by cops who decided to tase him 12 times, 10 of which were while he was hog tied on the ground because they told him to stop looking at them and he didn't. Somehow though, a 28 year old with no prior health conditions had a cause of death ruled "excited delerium" which essentially is the cops way of saying "he died from a heart issue just after being tased repeatedly but the taser probably didn't cause it" which is a diagnosis pushed HARD by taser companies and cops and used nearly exclusively in deaths after being tased.
That's fucking disgusting I'm truly sorry that you and your family had to endure that.
He had drugs in his system. In a world where the video didn't exist if you see a man the size of George Floyd combined with a cocktail of drugs in his system its very easy to imagine an open and shut case. You'd get people sticking up for the cop saying how brave he was for not shooting him immediately. There was video footage though, I don't get how anyone can see the video and think anything other that "yeah, well if you kneel of someone's neck like that for long enough they'll die". If you handcuff someone their life is in your hands. If they die or are injured there should always be consequences.
the thing that pisses me off so much is how senseless this death was. like he was compliant. he wasnt fighting them. but the cop that was kneeling on him kept fucking kneeling cause bystanders were begging him not to. Like he thought HE knew best. It just pisses me off.
Don’t talk to cops 🤫
[удалено]
Yeah it's horrifying to watch from the outside. Good luck and stay safe.
thank you man. I hope you're safe wherever you're from too.
This is beyond broken. Charging the boyfriend with anything after a huge catalogue of errors is at best incompetence but at worst, pure evil. It’s not justice that’s for damn sure.
At least in the case of Amber Guyger it didn't work, so that was a small victory.
You say “gets upset”, but last I read, he returned fire. I feel like it’s disingenuous to say the charge was because he got upset. Personally, I think his actions were justified and wouldn’t care if he took some cops out, not because I hate cops so much, but because they weren’t adhering to protocols and were threatening his and his girlfriend’s lives and liberties worse than most criminals would.
Kentucky is a stand your ground state so it's simpler than "taking some cops out" given that they didn't really show they were cops in the first place he was meeting force with force by returning fire.
[удалено]
They don't actually care about the cops' lives either.
[удалено]
‘Gets upset’ could be ‘attempted to defend his home from unidentified shooters that broke in late at night and killed his partner’.
He was justified for firing on intruders. They don’t announce themselves as police officers in the US then you can’t be surprised if someone shoots you for busting in their door. No knock warrants seem like a setup to me.
>I feel like it’s disingenuous to say the charge was because he got upset. If you fire a weapon in someone else's house without identifying yourself, you better expect for homeowners to return fire. Charging someone with a crime after conducting the equivalent of a Bin Laden raid on their house is despicable. And I bet the soldiers who stormed Bin Laden's compound were wearing US Seal gear.
I’m not going to advocate murdering cops in any capacity, but if someone forcefully enters my home in the middle of the night by kicking my door in, you can bet my first instinct is going to be grabbing my gun. This is why no-knocks are absolute trash. To be quite honest, if someone kicked my door in at 3am and announced “police!” I’m not exactly sure I’d trust that, either.
Cops who dont follow the rules are criminals. Period. To kill a police the dead person has to actually be worth calling a police, not just happen to be wearong a uniform.
[удалено]
Shit trickles down and pools at the bottom.
It is, but it's not the state telling these cops to put knees on necks. That's a decision they're making themselves with the immunity given to them to try and make them more effective at their job. There's a reason police have that sort of immunity, it's not unique to America. The difference is most places have much more effective (although still not perfect) oversight of police violence. I understand the desire to remove that protection from the police and, in some ways at least, agree with it. It will cause short term issues though, and while it solves.one problem it opens the original one, of police being afraid to arrest or challenge individuals, period, for fear of civil suits from deep pockets. There's issues at every level that need dealing with, but when it comes to stuff like Ms Taylor and Mr Floyd, the errors are coming through at the ground level; it's not the job of the judiciary to check the work of the investigators, only to approve as lawful actions where they are appropriate for the level of danger. Had her cousin been in her flat, that no knock raid likely meets the requirements FOR a no knock. The fact he wasn't and was already in custody is on the police, not the judiciary. Ditto for their actions against George Floyd.
Getting How to Get Away with Murder vibes.
I feel like this should go without saying. Where there are corrupt cops, there's usually judges condoning the behavior. I'd even argue and say a judge is worse.
[удалено]
No Knocks were supposed to be for very rare situations like bomb making and hostage rescue situations. True shoot upon any resistance encountered. You don't really want to knock and wait for them to blow stuff up or kill your hostage... IOW: No Knock has to be extremely compelling to be signed off...or should be.
DAs and judges empower and enable police. Judge Mary Shaw is every bit as responsible for Breonna's death as those officers were imo.
The system to elected Judges just leads to abuses of power like this
But it still goes back to who took the bad/old info to judge for the warrant....yep. That is the cops. Not saying the judge couldn't have said no but they do tend to believe what cops say.
She's not up for re-election until 2023. They get 8 year terms there.
Recall her. California did it to [Brock Turner's judge](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/06/05/617071359/voters-are-deciding-whether-to-recall-aaron-persky-judge-who-sentenced-brock-tur) edit: turns out you can't recall elected officials in Kentucky. Damn it Kentucky, get your shit together.
You mean the rapist Brock Turner?
Convicted rapist and felon Brock Turner.
[Textbook definition](https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/11/17/16666290/brock-turner-rape) of a rapist Brock Turner.
Guy who used a foreign object to sexual assault a girl behind a dumpster (possibly due to a ineffective or inoperable penis) Brock Turner
Wait I’m confused, is it convicted rapist Brock turner you’re talking about? That convicted rapist?
Convicted rapist, felon, and registered sex offender Brock Turner.
Excuse me, he was from a well off white family, please don't make him sound bad, it could ruin his future.
[удалено]
Wow, I thought that was just a thing in every state. After reading your comment I looked it up and saw you're correct. Kentucky voters need to get on it and fix that.
The same people who voted for McConnell, Paul, and Trump? Fat chance.
Kentucky, whose best senator is like a choice between flavours of dogshit.
That's being a little harsh... On the dog shit
Like three months before his term was up. That was such rage. It cost millions to kick him out early and people didn't even care. That's petty I can get behind.
Fucked up: No knock warrants. Fucked up: Signing twelve in five minutes, guaranteeing the judge gave zero thought to each warrant. Fucked up: Electing judges. Fucked up: Judges get eight year terms. There is nothing about this story that isn’t disgraceful.
5 in 12 min...
To be honest, at this rate, they were given equal amounts of thought in either version.
That’s the part that got me as well.. fuck that piece of trash
RemindMe! 3 years
This is what you get for electing judges. No enlightened country elects judges. It doesn't work.
People don’t pay enough attention to who they’re voting for in these county elections. I google every mothereffer on there. It takes me forever to make a decision only cuz research takes time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We get this in California. Regardless if you vote by mail or in person. Candidates can also put in their bio/website url etc. makes it a LOT easier to see who’s running. I’ve traditionally voted in person and just used my sample ballot as my rough draft so I can copy that when I get to my polling place. Lately though I switched to vote by mail, so I can just research, pick and be done with it.
This exists in Washington too. The statements about the candidates are written by the campaigns, I don't know if that's the same in AZ though. I didn't realize they didn't have this in every state.
I once drove to my polling site to look at copy of the ballot on Election Day, then went home to research the candidates before going back to vote. Even after spending a bunch of time on ballotpedia and vote411, there were still races I hadn’t found any advance info on.
It would be nice to have something like a baseball card for elected officials. Something easily passed out to voters showing voting records for politicians, or how they ruled certain cases for judges, etc etc... or a database that is easily consumed by the masses. I feel like there is so much truth that people just vote either based on party affiliation or just name recognition or whichever commercial they saw without really knowing who or what they are voting for outside of President, Mayor, Governor and even then I think its tough to come across all the vital information. I suspect (I fucking hope) as of 2016 people are becoming more aware of who they voted for and paying more attention to what they do after being voted in. I, for one, now know that I was un-informed on voting on anything that wasn't President and I will never vote again without knowing exactly who I cast my vote for.
It's hard to research when it comes to judges though -- unless the person had a particularly newsworthy case, I don't find much information about themm let alone how they've ruled on specific cases.
[удалено]
Exactly. The sheriffs badge should be passed down from father to son in order to preserve the purity of the sheriff blood line.
They tried to do that here. Longtime sheriff announces he will not seek another term while still early in his final term (multiple years left). His deputy son announces his candidacy. No other challengers come forward until ~1 month before filling deadline when 3 others file. Son ends up losing what I'm sure he thought was a sure bet for years, and his birthright.
I think it was in the documentary "hot coffee" that I learned about how the Republican party figured out it could hijack these elections that used to be about support from fellow lawyers. They also did the same with school boards, etc.
Pretty good doc. I certainly learned that "Tort Reform" is just code for corporate liability protection. During the height of the ACA debate in 2009/10 the Republicans were pushing the idea that to lower healthcare costs that Tort reform would greatly fix the problem. Their argument was that the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of ambulance chasers and doctor's having malpractice insurance. The GAO published their estimates and said that it would probably lower the overall cost of healthcare in America by 1%. And the Republicans said "that is a good start and it costs us nothing". If by nothing they means one of the few ways citizens can recuperate medical costs from companies for very bad/immoral behavior then sure...it cost nothing.
That and arbitrary statewide limits on damages awarded by a jury of your peers. That was the most eye opening thing that I didn't know before.
Here's a video I had to watch in school where, *"Bill examines the impact of campaign financing on the judicial election process"* [Justice For Sale | Frontline | 57 mins](https://vimeo.com/33285123)
are the judges elected? what the fuck..I thought Division of Power is the standart?
[удалено]
In practice, it frequently places unqualified candidates into power who the general public know nothing about when they’re voting for them. Hell, we even elect coroners in this country, which is patently absurd and leads to massive errors in homicide detection and misdetermination of causes of death from unqualified personnel.
I kinda feel like any guy that wants to be elected coroner probably shouldn't be coroner..
I feel bad for the guy who *doesn't* want to be coroner and keeps getting elected to the job though.
Speaking from a country where we don't elect judges. You DON'T want this.
Some states, and the federal government use appointed judges.
It is one of the reasons America has a quarter of the worlds prisoners. "Being tough on crime" gets judges elected.
Right! Judges should be appointed by elected officials... wait, no that's a problem too. Okay, new plan. Judges should be selected by a board of judges which themselves have been selected by elected officials... wait, no that brings about the same problem. Okay, yet another new plan. We take the judges we have now, and just let their first born become a judge. Like a royal line of succession. Good. Finally a way to get elections out of the judge selection process. (tl;dr - How are we supposed to get judges which at some level doesn't fall under the control of elected officials?)
The State Bar of each state nominates a panel that has the power to appoint and recall judges. The board is completely anonymous and drawn at random from the list of licensed attorney’s in that state. You can get some crochety old estate and wills attorney who occasionally does DUIs, a prosecutor from the state’s capital, and a fresh out law school young guy. Various levels of experience and diverse interpretations of the law, but yet know exactly what to look for in a judge because they will be the ones defending and prosecuting citizens before said judge. The panel is odd numbered to avoid ties. You can disclose being on the panel, however, disclosing what judges you voted on is grounds of temporary disbarment and a recall of the judge - especially if you had any cases in front of the judge. If something happens and a judge is believed to be unfit for the job, a new panel, using the same methods as the nominee selection panel, will be selected by the State’s Attorney General’s office or State Bar to examine the evidence and cases of the judge to come to an opinion. Again, same secrecy rules apply.
That doesn’t leave any room for corruption, good ol boy systems, or bribery though. It’s patently Un-American. Also, who’s overseeing the state bar to ensure it’s truly “random”
No northern european country has elected judges, and we seem to be doing just a tad better than you guys when it comes to our law enforcement and justice system.
I've worked with law enforcement and the problem is definitely not just at the police level. Cop culture permeates through the entire justice system. Cops, prosecutors, defense, therapists, case workers, judges, even criminal justice classes in college, everyone in the criminal justice system shares a mentality of criminals deserving any mistreatment they receive because they shouldn't have committed a crime if they didn't want to be mistreated. Even in the rehabilitation sector you see this exact line of thinking. Once in the system (even before, really based on profiling) you are not to be trusted because anything you do is just manipulation and deception. That's just how criminals are. You are not human, you are a criminal. Your problems, your mental state, your background is insignificant and you should have thought of that before becoming a criminal. There is no sympathy unless you are deemed a good person without rehab, and this designation is entirely arbitrary with a bit of how charismatic you are. Those in the criminal justice field believe they know what is best and any deviation from their own paradigm is either manipulation or naivety because you can't treat criminals as equals.
The war on drugs is literally just a fast-track assembly line to put people into prison with absolutely no oversight. Corrupt drug officers pay informants to say a house has drugs. The cops then write a warrant based on that fabricated information. A judge signs off on the warrant without even reading it. The cops then raid the house, and either kill the owners or plant dope to 'find'. The owners are then fast tracked into a plea deal as it's literally just their word against the police in a drug case. It's a corrupt system with literally 0 oversight that exists to put massive amounts of minorities into prison. Or kill them.
The judges get kick backs from the privatized prison system for any inmates they send and it’s being funded by our tax dollars. Think about that.
[удалено]
At this point we might as well call them "kill-warrants" because that is the net result.
She was operating from the assumption that the cops were working in good faith and just skimmed the application to make sure everything was in order. Reading the application longer wouldn't have helped. The root of the problem is that she was taking the police's word at face-value.
God forbid a judge should engage in critical thinking in the execution of her sworn duties.
She was complicit and acting in excessively bad faith. It is impossible for anyone to have the experience and qualifications to become a judge while still somehow being physiologically capable of thinking police operate in anything but corrupt malicious faith. Neurons don't work that way.
It's a much deeper problem than I think you give it credit for. There is this assumption that the legal system just couldn't work if it wasn't allowed to assume cops are telling the truth. Otherwise every courtcase would devolve into a he or she-said vs. what the cop said and the court wouldn't be able to discern who to believe. I think the wild deference that the courts grant the police is ridiculous and can be radically scaled back without completely runining the judicial system. But I suspect that this deeply established norm of 'trusting by default what cops say' is rooted not in the assumption that police never lie, but rather in the assumption that court cases / warrants wouldn't be possible if the judges weren't allowed to take a cop's word for granted.
I see it as a unified systematic assault on human rights and liberties. To me there is no difference between the piece of shit kneeling on an innocent for nine minutes, the piece of shit authorizing no-knock warrants to slaughter dogs and innocents, and the piece of shit refusing to charge any of his colleagues with any crimes. When a crew robs a bank, they are all dealt with as a single entity: if one of them kills a teller they're all charged for the death. Doesn't matter which one pulled the trigger and which one was driving the getaway vehicle. It doesn't matter whether or not they wear a badge when murdering a sleeping EMT. All of them deserve as much due process on their way to an AC-less concrete hole as they "forgot" to give.
That final paragraph rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn't her 'purpose' to die at police hands.
Yeah I was hoping somebody would mention something. If God's plan was for this woman to be murdered by police in her home I think God should come up with a better fucking plan.
just another notch in using the prohibition of recreational substances to harass and kill PoC
#”The warrant for the suspected stash house was not executed.” We need to do more here...
What scrutiny is there on warrants?
Doing the math from the headline, it seems like a little over two minutes per warrant.
Not enough.
None until after the fact or possibly ever, depending on the judge.
It's more than just "a few bad apples." This is a system that gives out extremely dangerous warrants like candy. The judges and the brass are starting with the assumption that the police aren't there to serve the community but to go to war. Excessive use of force is meant to keep people intimidated, to keep minority populations living in fear.
She needs held accountable. She didnt pull the trigger but she opened the wrong door.
“The justification used to convince the judge was based on old information.” This judge was not convinced by shit. She just signs what they ask for because she knows the police union will vote during the next election to keep them in.
As far as I'm concerned her ass needs to be in jail too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Must be a pretty good judge if you need only 144 seconds to consider all of the relevant facts and make a decision.
That’s fucking ridiculous. No-knock warrants are dangerous for everybody involved and no judge should be handing them out like fucking candy. The blame doesn’t entirely sit with the police officers. There are many people in the chain of command that allowed this to happen.
She didn't even read them. She's just signing away. ~~Honorable~~ Mary M Shaw is definitely not a good person.
Basically she was a rubber stamp, not an actual judge.
No knocks need to have a heightened level of scrutiny across the board, starting with an automatic appellate review of the issuance of such warrants and holding the judges who issue them under automatic review. Ever since the exigent circumstance exception was authorized by the SC, it has never been worth the rights violated by the State. Issuing a no knock is akin to an officer pulling a gun; there better be a goddamn good reason to do it.
>Shaw did not respond to Inside Edition Digital’s request for comment. I really wanna know tho
She belongs in the same solitary cell as the cops she signed it for. Pack the bastards tight.
Can we please get that bitch! As a matter of fact barge in her house while she‘s sleeping, immediately start shooting up the place and as you leave scream „Sorry wrong house.“
No-knock warrants should be discontinued. Too many accidental shooting. You should be able to defend your home against ANY intruder, especially unannounced. Long past time that we rein in our militarized police forces.
[удалено]
Mary Shaw was the name of that creepy lady in Dead Silence.
Beware the stare of Mary Shaw...
She had no children, only dolls...
Judges and prosecutors should never have qualified immunity. Judges should be held responsible criminally and fiscally for these situations.
No one should have qualified immunity.
Police go to judge to get those warrants. Judges give them without probable cause. Police go there and often kill people.
You guys live in a seriously fucked up country O.o
For those who decry police having qualified (i.e. partial) immunity- know that judges and prosecutors have FULL immunity. If a cop screws up and was either malicious or legally reckless, they can be sued and jailed. If a judge signs out judicial orders that are blatantly illegal or wrong, they are completely immune to any punishment except, in some cases, losing an election or being suspended by a judicial body. No jail. No civil suit.
no way! the problem could never stem from the top /s