Race and Inclusion in America and Beyond

[ncates00]

2 minutes ago, mclaren4life said:

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING A KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE.

Says who? You? I think I’ll go with what the law actually said, not you. I took criminal procedure in law school. Did you?

@mclaren4life even this article which argues that the warrant was illegal states that the warrant obtained was a “no knock” warrant. 

Opinion | Breonna Taylor’s death was the result of Louisville police’s illegal no-knock warrant - The Washington Post

---

She's just the latest casualty of a judicial system that refuses to protect the Fourth Amendment.

You’re getting off track here and talking about things it appears that you don’t understand. The cops were not “supposed to” knock and announce as you claim. In KY, at the time, no knock warrants were legal. That’s the kind of warrant they obtained. 

[mclaren4life]

Jesus if you are a lawyer I feel sorry for your clients. I was going by what was stated in the video where they said “they were supposed to be serving a knock and announce”. So I wasnt making a statement based on my opinion.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Because the grand jury did not choose to indict.

I asked why, and you told me basically what I'd quoted. WHY didn't they choose to indict? Was it because we assume too often the police are "right"?

38 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I answered above.

You did not, because you don't know WHY it didn't make it past the grand jury, why they chose not to indict.

38 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Maybe, but what does qualified immunity have to do with this case?  As stated, the case didn't even make it past the grand jury hearing, so the discussion of immunity is moot.

The assumption or mindset that the police can't do wrong, or are infallible, or whatever may have played a role in the grand jury choosing not to indict.

Was there any sort of police cover-up? What testimony was heard? How was it weighted by the grand jury?

You can keep repeating "the grand jury chose not to indict" but duh.

38 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

That's not the reason for qualified immunity.  Read some law review articles on the pros and cons and rationale of the immunity doctrine.

Read what people write before telling them to read other things.

I'm not necessarily talking about "qualified immunity." I'm talking about the general mindset that the police can do no wrong. That the police are inherently "more good" or something than an average person.

When you're asked to serve on a jury they'll often survey you and some of the questions are along the lines of "I assume the police officer is telling the truth" or questions along those lines.

I think that white people are a lot more likely to say "yeah, I trust the police, they're less likely to be fallible or to make mistakes" than black people.

I think that's a mindset that might generally work, but which can result in some spectacular failures in the system at other times.

38 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Since when is following the law "damning?"  Prior to this case, "no knock" warrants were legal police procedure in KY.  Nonetheless, even this NYT video indicates that despite the legality of no knock warrants, the police did identify themselves.

If you think the video shows that the police identified themselves, then I don't know what video you watched.

The only person who say the police identified themselves were the policemen, including the same policemen that shot through blinds, through the ceiling, often without a clear target.

Besides, the Kentucky AG said the police weren't executing a no-knock warrant in that case.

---

@mclaren4life, please relax, and take the time to be clear about what you're saying (and/or to whom you're saying it).

 

[ncates00]

4 minutes ago, mclaren4life said:

I was going by what was stated in the video

And there is your mistake. That’s why we go by evidence and what the law says instead of some video you saw on the internet. That’s the same reason why we don’t blindly believe Trump won the election without any proof. Come on man. (I know that last part was off topic but I was trying to make a point). 

8 minutes ago, mclaren4life said:

Jesus if you are a lawyer I feel sorry for your clients.

That's why we get paid what we do.  🙂 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

And there is your mistake. That’s why we go by evidence and what the law says instead of some video you saw on the internet. That’s the same reason why we don’t blindly believe Trump won the election without any proof. Come on man. (I know that last part was off topic but I was trying to make a point). 

There is your mistake: you seem to be assuming that everything given to the grand jury was the truth, and that everything available was given to them, and then again that they made the correct decision.

You're assuming things to be completely true without knowing that they're true. The legal system is not infallible, either. As long as things are run by humans, mistakes can be made. The police had motivations to lie. 9-1-1 calls from people being made as the raid is being executed don't give people time to collude and get their stories straight.

You only know that the grand jury didn't indict.

And don't bring politics into it. You're not supposed to get warnings in this topic, so consider that a favor.

[mclaren4life]

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

And there is your mistake. That’s why we go by evidence and what the law says instead of some video you saw on the internet. That’s the same reason why we don’t blindly believe Trump won the election without any proof. Come on man. (I know that last part was off topic but I was trying to make a point). 

That's why we get paid what we do.  🙂 

Well the discussion was on that video and we were talking about points made in that video. Also it wasnt a video from a crackpot theorists. So just to be clear you want me to use the washington post article that supports your case and not the video that supports mine? I guess newspaper articles are never wrong. Just saying. 

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

You’re getting off track here and talking about things it appears that you don’t understand. The cops were not “supposed to” knock and announce as you claim. In KY, at the time, no knock warrants were legal. That’s the kind of warrant they obtained. 

Disagreement with your position is not an indication that someone doesn't "understand" something.

4 minutes ago, mclaren4life said:

Well the discussion was on that video and we were talking about points made in that video. Also it wasnt a video from a crackpot theorists. So just to be clear you want me to use the washington post article that supports your case and not the video that supports mine? I guess newspaper articles are never wrong. Just saying. 

Yeah, exactly, particularly when you can cite other newspaper articles which say they didn't execute a no-knock warrant.

There are still a lot of questions around this situation, and it doesn't help anyone to just assume that one side is right or the other side is right. The truth often lies in the middle, and if we can learn anything from this, we should try. We should not just say "the grand jury was right and so that is that." Do you know everything that the grand jury heard/saw? Was it all that they could have heard/seen? Were they pre-biased? Did the police collude or lie? Did anyone collude or lie?

We don't even seem to know if the warrant was a no-knock warrant, though I'm falling on the side of "it wasn't" given what the AG said and then the fact that they did appear to knock. And particularly since they thought it was just Breonna in the apartment, who was only loosely connected by a former boyfriend.

[ncates00]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

WHY didn't they choose to indict?

I don't know.  I didn't serve on the grand jury.  Testimony of a grand jury is not discoverable unless a witness testifies at trial or the requesting party shows a particularized need for release of the transcript.  Fed. R. Crim. Pro. § 6(e).

Reforms have been sought but none have been heeded by Congress or the SCOTUS: right to counsel in grand jury proceedings, Prosecutors advise grand jury of any known exculpatory info, Prosecutors not allowed to present to grand jury inadmissible evidence, targets given right to testify, witnesses given transcripts of their testimony, and not naming persons in an indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

may have played a role in the grand jury choosing not to indict.

Perhaps, but all 12?

 

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Was there any sort of police cover-up? What testimony was heard? How was it weighted by the grand jury?

You're asking good questions, but it shows you don't know how a grand jury works.  

Under the grand jury "secrecy rule":

▪Matters occurring before grand jury are secret.

▪The secrecy rule applies to: grand jurors, atty for govt (and co-counsel), interpreter, court reporter, and typist.  

▪Can't record events in proceeding, can't transmit it, can't disclose matters occurring before grand jury.  That's any information.

▪Why are they secret?  Protect target, integrity of investigation, protect undercover agents, protect witnesses, protect grand jurors.

 

Who can be present?

▪ Prosecutor, witness, interpreters, court reporter.  What to do if unauthorized person enters the room--STOP talking.

▪ Only one witness may appear at a time.  Witness's lawyer can't go in rom.  Parent may not accompany minor child.  Deputy 

US Marshal can't remain in grand jury room with a prisoner witness.

 

Role of Prosecutor.

▪ Presentation of evidence.  In re Grand Jury 89-2.

▪ P is not merely an advocate, but also is the grand jury's legal advisor.  Sears, Roebuck.

 

Recording the proceedings.

▪ Must be recorded.  FRCP 6€(1).  Every word is transcribed--including jokes and things.

 

Subpoenas.

▪ Issued by Prosecutor on behalf of grand jury.

▪ Power of grand jury to compel.

• Presence and testimony of a witness.

• Production of records.

▪ Return of record to agents.  Return by agent to GJ.

▪ Investigating agent as custodian of records.

 

Returning indictment.

▪ Whether to return an indictment.

▪ Must be probable cause with evidence supporting that crime has been committed and if the person charged in indictment probably committed it.

▪ Indictment must be 12 or more jurors.  FRCP 6(f).

▪ Not a suppression hearing.

▪ Not a trial (not adversarial, rules of evidence don't apply, hearsay admissible).

 

Probable cause.

▪ Reasonable ground for belief.  Reasonable cause and the person probably did it.

 

Present of indictment (not a good title--no presentment in federal court).

▪ Names of parties disclosed.  Statements by AUSA are not evidence.

▪ Witnesses called.

▪ AUSA available for questions on the law.

▪ Deliberation and vote.  Only GJ present.

▪ AUSA and witness typically available if questions arise and can ask for more evidence.

 

Voting and filing indictments.

▪ Can return no true bill.  (which looks like what happened here).

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

WHY didn't they choose to indict?

Probably because there was no probable cause to indict because that's what is required.  The prosecutor can put on all kinds of evidence that's not even allowed at trial.  Must not have been much evidence, but maybe there was and the prosecutor neglected to put it on.  I don't know.

 

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm talking about the general mindset

Well, maybe, but that's a person's own prerogative rightly or wrongly.  That issue may have come up in grand jury selection.  I don't know.

 

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

Besides, the Kentucky AG said the police weren't executing a no-knock warrant in that case.

What warrant did they have?  Based on what I've seen that's the kind of warrant they had.  

 

Look, bottom line: I'm not saying that there was no foul play here.  Maybe there was.  I personally don't like that cops shot up a room and bullets flew into other rooms of innocent people.  That said, the system has to work.  It's fine to question these things, but we can't just go by armchair lawyering and videos made by NYT.  The same logic that applies to Trump's feeble attempt to retain the presidency without proof applies here.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

I don't know.  I didn't serve on the grand jury.

Then don't answer the question, because you don't have the answer.

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

You're asking good questions, but it shows you don't know how a grand jury works.

No, it doesn't. I'm not asking the questions as if I expect someone here to have actual answers.

I'm not replying to the rest of your post for two reasons:

• You've done a bad job of formatting so it's unclear what is cited material and what is your material.
• You're completely missing/misunderstanding the point.

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

I don't know.

Exactly…

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

What warrant did they have?  Based on what I've seen that's the kind of warrant they had.

Then I suggest you read more. The AG has said they didn't have a no-knock warrant. The police knocked (they may not have identified themselves, but most everyone seems clear they did knock).

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

That said, the system has to work.

It doesn't always, and this may have been one of those times.

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

It's fine to question these things, but we can't just go by armchair lawyering and videos made by NYT.

Oh boy.

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

The same logic that applies to Trump's feeble attempt to retain the presidency without proof applies here.

And goodbye for the time being.

[mclaren4life]

4 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I don't know.  I didn't serve on the grand jury.  Testimony of a grand jury is not discoverable unless a witness testifies at trial or the requesting party shows a particularized need for release of the transcript.  Fed. R. Crim. Pro. § 6(e).

Reforms have been sought but none have been heeded by Congress or the SCOTUS: right to counsel in grand jury proceedings, Prosecutors advise grand jury of any known exculpatory info, Prosecutors not allowed to present to grand jury inadmissible evidence, targets given right to testify, witnesses given transcripts of their testimony, and not naming persons in an indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Perhaps, but all 12?

 

You're asking good questions, but it shows you don't know how a grand jury works.  

Under the grand jury "secrecy rule":

▪Matters occurring before grand jury are secret.

▪The secrecy rule applies to: grand jurors, atty for govt (and co-counsel), interpreter, court reporter, and typist.  

▪Can't record events in proceeding, can't transmit it, can't disclose matters occurring before grand jury.  That's any information.

▪Why are they secret?  Protect target, integrity of investigation, protect undercover agents, protect witnesses, protect grand jurors.

 

Who can be present?

▪ Prosecutor, witness, interpreters, court reporter.  What to do if unauthorized person enters the room--STOP talking.

▪ Only one witness may appear at a time.  Witness's lawyer can't go in rom.  Parent may not accompany minor child.  Deputy 

US Marshal can't remain in grand jury room with a prisoner witness.

 

Role of Prosecutor.

▪ Presentation of evidence.  In re Grand Jury 89-2.

▪ P is not merely an advocate, but also is the grand jury's legal advisor.  Sears, Roebuck.

 

Recording the proceedings.

▪ Must be recorded.  FRCP 6€(1).  Every word is transcribed--including jokes and things.

 

Subpoenas.

▪ Issued by Prosecutor on behalf of grand jury.

▪ Power of grand jury to compel.

• Presence and testimony of a witness.

• Production of records.

▪ Return of record to agents.  Return by agent to GJ.

▪ Investigating agent as custodian of records.

 

Returning indictment.

▪ Whether to return an indictment.

▪ Must be probable cause with evidence supporting that crime has been committed and if the person charged in indictment probably committed it.

▪ Indictment must be 12 or more jurors.  FRCP 6(f).

▪ Not a suppression hearing.

▪ Not a trial (not adversarial, rules of evidence don't apply, hearsay admissible).

 

Probable cause.

▪ Reasonable ground for belief.  Reasonable cause and the person probably did it.

 

Present of indictment (not a good title--no presentment in federal court).

▪ Names of parties disclosed.  Statements by AUSA are not evidence.

▪ Witnesses called.

▪ AUSA available for questions on the law.

▪ Deliberation and vote.  Only GJ present.

▪ AUSA and witness typically available if questions arise and can ask for more evidence.

 

Voting and filing indictments.

▪ Can return no true bill.  (which looks like what happened here).

Probably because there was no probable cause to indict because that's what is required.  The prosecutor can put on all kinds of evidence that's not even allowed at trial.  Must not have been much evidence, but maybe there was and the prosecutor neglected to put it on.  I don't know.

 

Well, maybe, but that's a person's own prerogative rightly or wrongly.  That issue may have come up in grand jury selection.  I don't know.

 

What warrant did they have?  Based on what I've seen that's the kind of warrant they had.  

 

Look, bottom line: I'm not saying that there was no foul play here.  Maybe there was.  I personally don't like that cops shot up a room and bullets flew into other rooms of innocent people.  That said, the system has to work.  It's fine to question these things, but we can't just go by armchair lawyering and videos made by NYT.  The same logic that applies to Trump's feeble attempt to retain the presidency without proof applies here.

The system doesnt work the same for everybody and sometimes not at all. Saying it has to work doesnt make it work. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, mclaren4life said:

The system doesnt work the same for everybody and sometimes not at all. Saying it has to work doesnt make it work. 

Well put.

If we've learned one thing it's that black people are treated differently, and as a white person I'm trying to become more aware of this type of stuff.

The police treat black people differently. The legal system treats black people differently.

[mclaren4life]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well put.

If we've learned one thing it's that black people are treated differently, and as a white person I'm trying to become more aware of this type of stuff.

The police treat black people differently. The legal system treats black people differently.

Thats awesome that you are trying to learn more. I hope others will follow your lead. 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The legal system treats black people differently.

Even housing appraisals treat black communities differently if you parse out things like crime rates. 

1 hour ago, mclaren4life said:

The system doesnt work the same for everybody and sometimes not at all. Saying it has to work doesnt make it work. 

I agree. 

The video feels like there was lack of training. If you train enough, you know enough to step back and ask questions. You don't push forward and rush. Then they over reacted to a single shooter, probably because police immunity laws. It makes them lax. They can get away with a lot more. How often do people go over the speed limit because police only give you a ticket when you go 10 mph over? 

People absolutely have opinions of cops based on race. 

10 things we know about race and policing in the U.S.

---

Black adults are about five times as likely as whites to say they’ve been unfairly stopped by police because of their race or ethnicity.

Another thing I noticed from the video. They asked if the boyfriend was hit by a bullet and he says "No". One of the cops says "That is unfortunate". 🤦‍♂️

Edited December 29, 2020 by saevel25

[iacas]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Another thing I noticed from the video. They asked if the boyfriend was hit by a bullet and he says "No". One of the cops says "That is unfortunate". 🤦‍♂️

Yeah. The police should not want to shoot anyone. They killed someone here, and then were glib about wishing they'd shot someone else, too.

Even if the boyfriend had been a horrible murderer, drug dealer, rapist… they should prefer to take him alive and unharmed, not to shoot him.

[billchao]

3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Probably because there was no probable cause to indict because that's what is required.  The prosecutor can put on all kinds of evidence that's not even allowed at trial.  Must not have been much evidence, but maybe there was and the prosecutor neglected to put it on.  I don't know.

Have we considered the possibility that the prosecutor threw the case?

[iacas]

Apple's home page today:

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice."
— We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his leadership in civil rights.

[saevel25]

Good quote.

I’ve been trying to be aware of the context of the quote. MLK has had his quotes used out of their original context many times. In some instances in direct opposition of the context of the speech it was used in. 

[iacas]

Can someone, maybe a lawyer like @DeadMan, explain this part of this bill to me:

Requires police to provide a predicate offense for resisting arrest. (That is, a reason for why an arrested was occurring in the first place.)

HB 3653: What's Included in the Bill Being Signed Into Law Monday

---

A bill that brings sweeping criminal justice and police reforms, including the end of cash bail in Illinois, is about to be signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker Monday.

How can one “resist arrest” if they’re not being arrested?

I’m trying to understand how that part of the bill works. Is this how these things happen (an example):

• police called to scene of disturbance
• they witness a guy yelling or something
• they say or think to themselves “let’s arrest that guy, or at least put him in the back of a cruiser because it’ll calm the situation”
• the guy “resists” because he’s just having an argument with his ex-girlfriend or something and, really, he hasn’t done anything wrong legally except maybe “disturb the peace”

So the police in that case are covered by a disturbing the peace “arrest” and thus when the guy “resists” they can (in their minds, I’m not saying correctly/justly/legally) use the force necessary to stop his “resistance”?

Is that how it works? And if so, what does the “provide a predicate offense” change? If they witness a man actually breaking bigger laws (baseball bat to someone else’s car, punching someone, whatever) that’s a clearer infraction that warrants arrest, but it didn’t exist before they went there. They didn’t go there to arrest someone, they went there to respond to a call and see what’s up.