Image 01 Image 03

Grand Jury Indicts One Officer In Breonna Taylor Case, But Not for Her Death

Grand Jury Indicts One Officer In Breonna Taylor Case, But Not for Her Death

“The 12 jurors returned three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree against Brett Hankison for shooting his gun into an apartment next to Taylor’s.”

A grand jury indicted former officer Brett Hankison “on charges of wanton endangerment in the first degree” in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor.

A witness corroborated that it was not a no-knock warrant.

The charge is a Class D Felony, one to five years in prison. He has a $15,000 bond:

A Kentucky grand jury has cleared current and former police officers in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor — indicting one ex-cop for “wantonly” firing shots into another apartment the night she died.

The 12 jurors returned three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree against Brett Hankison for shooting his gun into an apartment next to Taylor’s. Occupants of that residence were identified by their initials in charges — and none of them were “BT.”

The Kentucky penal code states that “a person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.”

Det. Cosgrove shot the bullet that killed Taylor. But the attorney general said Cosgrove and Sgt. Mattingly “were justified in their shooting.”

From The New York Times:

The three-count indictment concerns Brett Hankison, a detective at the time, who fired into the sliding glass patio door and window of Ms. Taylor’s apartment building, both of which were covered with blinds, in violation of a department policy that requires officers to have a line of sight. He is the only one of the three officers who was dismissed from the force, with a termination letter stating that he showed “an extreme indifference to the value of human life.”

The decision came after more than 100 days of protests and a monthslong investigation into the death of Ms. Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency room technician who was shot five times in the hallway of her apartment by officers executing a search warrant.

Because the officers did not shoot first — it was the young woman’s boyfriend who opened fire; he has said he mistook the police for intruders — many legal experts had thought it unlikely the officers would be indicted.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer issued a curfew from 9PM to 6:30AM ahead of the announcement.

People already began boarding up businesses and federal buildings began other preparations in case of riots tonight.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


OleDirtyBarrister | September 23, 2020 at 3:25 pm

A strange case. The cops have evidence that they knocked and announced to serve a warrant, a black male opened fire on the cops, and a woman died in the exchange. The surviving boyfriend, Walker, says the cops did not announce and he shot thinking they were intruders.

I cannot conclude it is all the fault of the cops even though their police work does not look particularly good and they have an incentive to cover their backsides. It certainly is not clear enough to resort to violence in the streets and looting.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | September 23, 2020 at 3:37 pm

    Police have witnesses, video, and other evidence that is not true, now this.

    VIDEO: U-Haul Truck Filled With Supplies Arrives For “Protesters” In Louisville…

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | September 23, 2020 at 3:40 pm

      Tucker Carlson Shows New Video Of Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting
      Even more proof of self defense.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | September 23, 2020 at 3:43 pm

        Robby Starbuck

        Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron says that the night #BreonnaTaylor died, police did knock and announce themselves before Breonna’s boyfriend shot at them. This fact was verified by an independent witness to the events who lived nearby.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | September 23, 2020 at 4:07 pm

          Everything the Media Claimed About Breonna Taylor’s Death Was a Lie – Truth Surfaces – No Police Charged in Her Death…

          “The media claimed Breonna Taylor was shot during a “no knock” warrant – False.
          The media claimed Breonna Taylor was shot in her bed – False.
          The media claimed Breonna Taylor was murdered – False.

          Everything the media and lawyer Ben Crump claimed about the death of Breonna Taylor and the circumstances around her death was based on lies. The officials in Kentucky allowed a mountain of lies to grow until the evidence was finally presented to a grand jury and the Kentucky Attorney General was forced to admit the truth…..”

          The Last Refuge

      What video? There is no body cam footage because even though Louisville PD had them the LEO involved with Taylor didn’t use them.

      Maybe the body cams had not been issued to them? Maybe they were not trained on their use? I can’t recall if that was addressed. What we do know is that in June another civilian was killed by Louisville PD who were not using body cams. The Chief of Police was fired as a result.

      Note clearly, I am not ascribing guilt or alleging bad faith on anyone’s part.

      The decision to utilize a tactical entry seems to be the problem. Once a breach is made events become chaotic and unpredictable. Things can go wrong, as this case makes clear.

    Yes, there have been all sorts of conflicting reports about what happened here. Some reports said witnesses claimed it was a no-knock warrant, other witnesses (and the cops and now the AG) say it wasn’t a no-knock warrant. Some reports said Taylor was asleep in her bed when shot, others said she was awake and standing near the boyfriend. Some reports said Taylor’s ex-boyfriend was the drug dealer, other reports said Taylor’s live-in boyfriend was the drug dealer. Some reports said Taylor had no involvement in the drug dealing, other reports said Taylor was handling the money for the boyfriend’s drug dealing operation.

    Bottom line is we still don’t have the facts about what happened to Breonna Taylor that night, other than that she died during the shoot-out. It would be nice if we could see the evidence now, but like the Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown and Freddy Gray and George Floyd and other cases, apparently the media and the left (BIRM) are just going to pimp their b.s. “evil cops are murdering innocent blacks for no reason” narrative, and then a year or two from now we’ll find out what really happened.

Tragic the former officer now fired indiscriminately it appears. That is the only charges being made, still a heavy penalty he will have to defend himself. But not the perfect wrongful death case they claim it is.

This is another political indictment brought about mob pressure.

Hankinson was indicted for shooting through a rear wall in Breonna’s apartment and into an adjacent apartment, even though he struck no one. He fired ten rounds though a sliding glass door and window, both covered by blinds, after the male resident of the apartment had shot another officer, serving the warrant. In other words, he was returning fire. He is being prosecutor, essentially, for missing. This is essentially what he was terminated for. No true bill was returned against either of the other officers, one of whom actually shot and killed Taylor.

Now, the prosecution will have to prove that fired these rounds with willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. That is a steep slope, considering what he was doing was providing covering fire for a wounded comrade, General, such a charge would only be made IF one of the shots had injured another person. So, why the indictment? Because it was the only law which could be stretched to the point where an indictment might be obtained. The government was so desperate to avoid [possibly] violence by returning no true bill against any of the officers, that they pushed through a trumped up set of charges.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 3:48 pm

    Big evil millionaires like Oprah have been pushing the lies.

    “In other words, he was returning fire.”

    No, in other words, he was hosing down the back of the house after he heard shots, which is just about as stupid a thing you can do as a police officer. If I’m reading this right, he was stationed at the back door to catch anybody trying to run away, not to unload blindly into a house where his fellow officers may have been standing. The *other* two officers had taken fire and returned it, he was just blasting and breaking. I’d be shocked if he is ever in a uniformed position holding a gun again.

      Yes, tactically, shooting blindly into the apartment was not a good idea. And, under normal circumstances, he would most likely have faced nothing more than termination from the PD for exercising poor judgement. However, the fact remains that his rounds did not hit anyone. Remember that point, it is extremely important.

      The indicted officer was acting in what he believed to be the defense of his fellow officers. It is unknown whether he knew one was wounded or not. Therefor, he did not engage in a gratuitous act. He had a strong reason for committing it, even if it was not a particularly well thought out action. And, what he is being charge for is MISSING the man with the gun, inside the apartment. Now, The officer who also MISSED the man with the gun, inside the apartment, and struck Breonna Taylor, by accident, was not indicted. Hummm. Why not?

      The problem that this sets up for the prosecution obvious. Why charge an officer, who was acting for the same reason as another yet harmed no one, and not charge the other officer who did harm another? It makes this look like nothing other than a targeted prosecution for political purposes. And that is exactly what this was. This makes the potential for acquittal quite high.

      People do less than intelligent things under stress. They make mistakes. And, they generally pay for those mistakes. However, usually the rule of no harm no foul applies. The least restrictive penalty is usually applied, not the harshest. This was an indictment based upon fear. Fear of mob violence if the state does not act in the manner that the mob wants. At least it did not err as badly as the state did in the Floyd case.

        amatuerwrangler in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 5:22 pm

        You disappoint me Mac45. The officer was in the back of the residence, obviously to intercept those trying to flee when the entry people hit the front door. It is solid protocol tha only the designated entry people enter, the others hold their position until invited in.

        This guy fired indiscriminately into a building where his fellow officers were, and had met armed resistance. He could not see into the building to assess where the threat was, where the other officers were, and if and/or where any nonparticipants might be. All of there people were down-range from him when he unloaded. This guy’s actions are all the prosecution needs to show his wanton disregard of life and/or property.

          You, and others, seem to be confused here.

          Yes, from a safety and tactical standpoint, the circumstances under which the shots were fired was unsafe. And, that would usually constitute nothing more than termination. It would be different if the shots had hit a bystander or if the shooting had been gratuitous. However, they did not hit a bystander and and were apparently fired in a good faith effort to protect other officers. From a criminal prosecution stand point, charges such as this as an anomaly, not the norm. We rarely see any charges filed against a LEO for firing in the direction of an armed attacker and missing. If it was the norm, then with only a 20-30% hit rate in police shootings, thousands of cops would be in jail.

          The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries:

          5. Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.

        CKYoung in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 5:30 pm

        Mac45, excellent analysis. The GJ set up a 7/10 split. Now, if it goes to trial and the prosecution doesn’t pick up the spare, Louisville (and other blue cities) are going to burn a second time.

        I expect the officer who actually struck Taylor to include in his witness testimony at trial, “I was in fear for my life.” The follow up question: “Were you charged with any crime/s?”

        Well, we know the answer to that.

        Not only does the prosecution not pick up the split, they roll a gutter ball.

        JimWoo in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 7:18 pm

        If he was shooting .223 that round could go 1000 yds and still kill somebody. I used to pull targets at high power rifle competitions and at 600 yds the bullets still generate small sonic booms. He’s doggone lucky he didn’t kill some poor soul blocks away. Very irresponsible. If I’m on the jury he’s screwed. And on another note I remember the officer was in the news for other departmental infractions of a sexual nature. Irrelevant I know but shows lack of judgment.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 8:17 pm

        No, Mac. Cosgrove had a line of sight, and he fired at the shooter. That he missed and hit Taylor is unfortunate, but not a crime. Hankison shot blindly, which is not only a bad idea, not only explicitly against policy, but is the crime reckless endangerment. Had he hit anyone he would have been charged with manslaughter or wounding; since he had the incredible good luck of not hitting anyone, reckless endangerment is the max charge.

        You say that in normal circumstances he would have skated. Maybe you’re right, but that’s not right, is it? What you mean to say is that normally the DA would have shown him illegitimate partiality and failed to charge him for a crime with which he would certainly have charged anyone else. Because this case is political the DA will for once do the right thing. OK, have it your way, but that still makes the charge right and just.

          In this case, you have an officer who responded inappropriately by blindly firing his weapon into the apartment. However, it was not a gratuitous act. He had a reason, defense of another, his partners. And, he did not harm anyone. So, point one is that the action taken was taken in response to a reasonable threat in defense of another. And point two is that no person was harmed by this action.

          Now, both of the other officers reacted to the same reasonable threat. They essentially fired blindly into the apartment as their bullets struck Taylor, who did not shoot at them and was not armed. Yet, neither of them were charge with any crime.

          So, we have an officer, who harmed no one, was charged with a crime, in the same incident where an unarmed person was injured, in fact killed, under similar circumstances. Does this look as though something else generated the indictment? Given the circumstances, does it look as though the indictment was politically motivated? Prosecution is going to be interesting.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 23, 2020 at 11:55 pm

          You’re making up this requirement that it be a “gratuitous act”.

          “You’re making up this requirement that it be a “gratuitous act”.”

          No. It is a mitigating circumstance. Example: A man fires a shot at another person from inside a car, striking the victim. A bystander, acting in defense of the victim and not knowing if further shots will follow, fires into the vehicle, even though window tinting precludes a view of the interior. None of the bystander’s bullets hit any person, but three penetrate both sides of the vehicle and travel on down the street. What is the likelihood that the bystander would be prosecuted for reckless endangerment, for the three errant shots? Usually nil, except in certain Progressive jurisdictions where self defense or defense of others has been seemingly suspended. However, if the bystander simply fired several shots into and through a parked car, then this act would be gratuitous not self defense or defense of another. Mitigating circumstances.

      sheepgirl in reply to georgfelis. | September 23, 2020 at 4:56 pm

      I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that the GJ seems to have done a diligent and intelligent decision rather than a political one.

        How was this NOT a political indictment? The one officer, who seemingly did not harm anyone, gets indicted for missing his target, while the an officer who killed someone does not?

          sheepgirl in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 5:31 pm

          Because that one officer ignored/disobeyed policy and protocol and blindly fired into an apartment where his fellow officers were entering.

          It WAS wanton disregard. If a non-officer did that, they’d be going to jail. I don’t believe in selective prosecution. Same rules should apply to LEO and non-LEO alike.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 6:47 pm

          Two points, Sheepgirl.

          First, a violation of departmental P&P is not necessarily the same as a violation of law. So, violating P&P most often does not result in criminal charges being filed. The office was terminated from his position for ostensibly violating P&P.

          Second, many civilians fire warning shots and other shots which missed, in self defense and defense of others, and no charges of reckless endangerment are ever filed. Usually, the shooting has to be gratuitous or someone has to be injured for such charges to be filed. The exceptions are various liberal jurisdictions.

          But, the real problem with this indictment, is that the officer, who apparently did not cause any physical harm to anyone, is indicted, while other officers, who did injure someone who was, apparently, not attacking them, are not indicted. No politics involved?

          JimWoo in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 7:21 pm

          Perhaps the other officer was legitimately in fear for his life while the indicted guy was just shooting blindly? Without a definite target?

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 8:27 pm

          Hankinson committed a crime, for which anyone else would have been charged. That he’s not being shown unfair favoritism and allowed to skate is a good thing. The grand jury did the right thing.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2020 at 8:29 pm

          If politics were involved Cosgrove would have been charged. That he wasn’t proves that this is not political.

A thought exercise. What would be the likely outcome of a SWAT team executing a middle of the night no knock warrant into a Hotel room occupied by armed Navy Seals on a training mission?

No knock warrants are inherently dangerous.

    rabidfox in reply to objection. | September 23, 2020 at 6:11 pm

    Except that this wasn’t a No Knock situation. As testified to by neighbors as well as the cops.

      CommoChief in reply to rabidfox. | September 23, 2020 at 8:01 pm

      Rabid fox,

      Can you please play along with this demonstration?

      1. Go to your front door with a timer begin timimg
      2. Knock loudly, four times
      3. Simultaneously yell ‘Police…Warrant… Open the door!
      4. Count to 3 Mississippi
      5. Open the door
      6. Count to 3 Mississippi
      7. Enter

      How long did that take to simulate the knock, the announcement and the breaching of the door?

      Now go and lie down in your bed.
      1. With timer begin timing
      2. Turn on the light (remember this is early predawn dark)
      3. Get out of bed normally
      4. Walk to the bedroom door
      5. Open the door
      6. Step into the hallway
      7. Move to the front door

      How long did that take to simulate you responding?

      Likely you are exiting the hallway but haven’t yet reached the front door before the front door was entered.

      Now it was dark early morning, you heard a bunch of banging and yelling. You were asleep and grabbed your firearm to respond to a home invasion. So as the LEO enter the breach you are exiting the hallway with a firearm…..

      That is a volatile situation. Are these guys actually LEO? You just showed how easy it is for anyone to yell out the words. Uniforms/tactical gear? Easily purchased at least good enough a facsimile for confusion at 03:00 or so.

    Milhouse in reply to objection. | September 23, 2020 at 8:33 pm

    Yes, what the police did was inherently dangerous. But it was legal. If you have a problem with the law, go change it. They did nothing wrong, so they can’t be charged with anything for it.

    On the other hand we have no reason to disbelieve Walker, which is why he isn’t being charged either. In all likelihood he’s telling the truth and he did the right thing given the information he had. Or at least, any criminal jury would be duty-bound to presume that, in the absence of evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that it isn’t true.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 23, 2020 at 9:21 pm


      Clearly some LE actions were not justified due the GJ indictment. Civil rights settlements already made as well.

      I fully support limiting use of tactical entry to very narrow circumstances that are heavily scrutinized and rarely approved. As you stipulated they are dangerous.

      The use of no knock warrants has already been banned via ordinance in Louisville as a result of this tragedy. No need for me to fix Louisville, already done.

      Senator Rand Paul introduced the ‘Justice for Breonna Taylor act’ which would prevent this repeating by requiring LEO to ‘provide NOTICE of their authority and purpose PRIOR to forcible entry’. This would apply to Federal LE and any State/Local LE agency who accepts federal funding.

      I support efforts to change the law.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 24, 2020 at 12:02 am

        Clearly some LE actions were not justified due the GJ indictment. Civil rights settlements already made as well.

        We are discussing the LE action in executing the warrant. The indictment made clear that these actions were justified by the law at the time. Hankison was indicted for his actions after the firefight broke out, which were his own damn fault and not part of the LE action. Had he done like the other two and fired only when he had a target that he had reason to believe was legitimate he would not have been indicted.

        As for the settlements, are you joking? How does a settlement give any indication that anyone did anything wrong? Have you not been paying attention for the last few years? Cities deliberately settle cases they know they could have won, for the express purpose of creating a perception of LE wrongdoing. Cf Freddie Gray.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 24, 2020 at 3:19 am


          You are not going to convince me on using the boyfriend as an intervening actor that causes the events to be separated.

          Why? LPD controlled the pace, timing and level of force brought against the residence. The occupants of a residence can treat invaders as a threat. The reaction of an occupant picking up a weapon and discharging that weapon is eminently foreseeable.

          If the city wanted to fight the civil case they could have. If they believed that their PD acts were justified they should have. From a moral point if nothing else. Hell just keeping Crump from getting the money would be worth it for many.

          So yes, IMO settling this suit is basically the same as coping a plea to the least offense one is charged with. Legally it isn’t but morally yeah it is. Especially in a case with this much exposure and potential ramifications.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 24, 2020 at 11:23 am

          CommoChief, you are so far from getting it that if I didn’t know better I’d suspect you were arguing in bad faith.

          The question we are discussing is how the cops executed the warrant. Hankison’s later action in firing indiscriminately is completely irrelevant to that. That was his own private act, for which he has properly been indicted. It doesn’t reflect i any way on the propriety of the LE action. That was by the book; if the book was wrong, that’s not the cops’ fault. And the grand jury agreed, by completely exonerating all three cops for anything connected with that.

          Your argument about the settlement is so obtuse it’s difficult to understand how you don’t get it. Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that the city didn’t want to lose. That the city paid only because it honestly felt it had no other choice. But surely you know that that’s nonsense. The city could have fought and won; it didn’t for only one reason: because it didn’t want to. It settled because it deliberately wanted to create precisely the impression you are pushing: that it did something wrong. It’s just like the Freddie Gray settlement; do you seriously think that settlement proves that Baltimore was at fault in Grey’s death?! No, that money was deliberately squandered, and so was this.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 24, 2020 at 2:28 pm


          Since cities are giving away free money can you direct me to proper window so I can get some? Do I have to give B Crump a percentage? Because that would suck….

          Look IMO settlements by entities with taxation authority are not constrained by the financial costs of mounting a vigorous defense. If a bs civil suit is brought fight it and use every means available to deter future vs suits.

          You and me? Sure our Insurance company would make us settle. A public corporation that has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders absolutely. Settle and move on.

      objection in reply to Milhouse. | September 24, 2020 at 6:26 am

      No matter what the law was, this “raid” was poorly executed. They went to an address where their person of interest was not located. At the home an individual in lawful possession of a firearm was present. The police were unaware of his presence.

      Their actions may not be criminal, but the raid demonstrated appalling police work. The team that executed this disaster created a textbook example of what not to do in a raid. An example that should be part of police training hereafter.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | September 24, 2020 at 8:12 am

      So what happened to the boyfriend? Was he charged with anything?
      Seems like he’s been left untouched.

It would be the head-fake of the year: thousands of people show up but don’t riot: they really do engage in “peaceful protest.”

I am no fan of no-knock warrants, but who made that decision?

    healthguyfsu in reply to EBL. | September 23, 2020 at 4:53 pm

    The no-knock warrant was a lie by Crump, BLM, Oprah, and the MSM.

    It turns out they did announce.

There is no second place winner in a gun-fight.
This Officer had no alternative.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to snowshooze. | September 23, 2020 at 5:27 pm

    The officer indicted was not IN a gunfight, he was just close by. Big difference.

    He did not know who was shooting at who (or is it whom?) or why. Just hearing shots is not justification for joining in. He should have been trained about these things; I know I was.

Well, if it gets to trial, they’re going to have to keep gun owners off the jury. No responsible gun owner is going to be terribly sympathetic to anyone who blasts away without having a target in sight. And “an apartment”—whether the right apartment or the wrong one—is not a suitable target.

I say we execute her “boyfriend” since he is the one to blame.

By the way, in my state at least it is illegal to open fire on an intruder just for entering your house. His defense wouldn’t fly on that reason alone, but I think they have evidence to prove he was lying.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 23, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, she kept some interesting company. But, there is some info out there that the guy (current boyfriend)is not the guy the police were looking for in the warrant. There may have been multiple “contacts” being made simultaneously at know spots the actual target was known to frequent. He may have been arrested later that day, booked, and bailed by afternoon.

    The foregoing is a compilation of info from other sources, that I am trying to make sense out of, thus all inexact wording. Just a heads-up on her culpability for anything.

      healthguyfsu in reply to amatuerwrangler. | September 23, 2020 at 5:53 pm

      She was hanging out with a guy “they weren’t looking for” (your words, not mine) and this guy decided to open fire on police who did (according to grand jury) announce their presence?

      It doesn’t matter who it is, she is still making a dumb decision and so is he.

    What state is that? In every state I’ve ever heard of you are entitled to presume, absent clear evidence to the contrary, that anyone breaking into your home is threatening your life. And that rule goes all the way back to the Bible.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 23, 2020 at 9:29 pm


      You are correct to the best of my knowledge. A homeowner is justified in use of force within their dwelling. The invader is basically presumed to be a threat.

      That’s why any use of early morning tactical/kinetic must be scrutinized and limited to instances where there is no other alternative.

      “What state is that?”
      Kentucky 503.055…”(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,…..”


      “(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity;”


      “(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010 , who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.”


        Milhouse in reply to SHV. | September 24, 2020 at 12:05 am

        Healthguyfsu claimed that “in my state at least it is illegal to open fire on an intruder just for entering your house”. Clearly that state is not Kentucky, since the law you cited says the opposite.

Are we also going to pretend that she didn’t know what he was about just because she died?

She made a bad choice to put herself in harm’s way by staying with this loser. His existence is clearly a net loss for the world if he is dumb enough to fire on police announcing they are there to arrest him.

She was hanging out with a guy “they weren’t looking for” (your words, not mine) and this guy decided to open fire on police who did (according to grand jury announce their presence)?

It doesn’t matter who it is, she is still making a dumb decision and so is he.

We can all try and place Angels on pinheads to try and count them.

If the LEO ‘announced themselves’ by yelling ‘law Enforcement and search warrant’ immediately prior to or simultaneous with a breach ….ok I suppose that isn’t a ‘no knock’. Whether it was a no knock warrant or not the problem is the tactical entry.

Just because it wasn’t a technical ‘no knock’ doesn’t mean that the LEO calmly knocked, announced themselves as LEO with a search warrant and waited for the occupant(s) to come to the UNBREACHED door to make contact, read and validate the warrant and allow LEO enty.

The issue is a tactical/kinetic entry made in predawn when occupants are asleep. The reason these circumstances are chosen is that it catches folks off balance and tends to lower reaction times, often resulting in complete surprise and immediate surrender. In this case it didn’t pan out. When it doesn’t pan out it goes very wrong and that is dangerous.

The LEO involved doubtless didn’t want to be involved in a shooting. The problems arise when an occupant(s) react to noise of entry and yelling believing it to be a home invasion. I can certainly see myself taking measures in response to an uninvited early morning intrusion that the intruder would not like, as would my mastiffs.

Because of the clear potential for bad things to occur, IMO the use of tactical entry should be closely monitored, heavily scrutinized and rarely approved.

The use of tactical entry shouldn’t be banned but rather curtailed to very narrow circumstances where no other options exist to serve the warrant. It most certainly shouldn’t be used as in place of other, less kinetic means.

It’s one thing to breach and enter a location attempting to capture an high value target in a combat zone. It is quite another to use similar tactics on the residence of US Citizen in the USA. Very different.

I have questions.

How long from the time of the knock and announcement before the police breached the door?

Was the person that shot at the police thinking they were invading his home an actual suspect of anything?

Knock on my door in the middle of the night and come in 10 seconds later, I will not miss and you’ll be shot. Your protection may save you. And likely I will be killed because I will not have protection.

Except for well vetted and very dangerous situations a raid of this type should never be allowed. No mistakes can be tolerated, no wrong address’s, no mis-identification, no mistakes.

    Barry in reply to Barry. | September 24, 2020 at 10:24 pm

    I spent some time today to gather factual data.

    Mr. Walker (Ms. Taylors boyfriend that shot at the “intruders”) was not wanted and had no priors.

    Ms. Taylor was not wanted and had no priors.

    No drugs were found in the house, although how the search was conducted is up in the air.

    So, why the raid? Because the police were looking for a previous boyfriend, a drug dealer, and Ms Taylor had continued some sort of relationship including packages being delivered to her address for the former boyfriend, Glover. Glover was arrested that night, possibly nearly an hour earlier, possibly about the same time. It does appear that police may have altered the time they capyured Glover such that there was still a reason to breach Ms Taylors home.

    It WAS a no knock warrant. The officers say, and there was GJ testimony, that they did not execute the no knock, rather they knocked and announced they were police. This is from testimony only. No video or soundtrack exists to prove this.

    How long before they breached the door is not found.

    After reading a variety of sources I found this at Nat Review. I’m less than a fan of the neverTrump rag but McCarthy is one of the few left at that place worth reading.

    Nearly everything the media told us was a lie. I don’t believe the officers should have been charged. I also think this type of raid is counter productive and should never happen except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

      CommoChief in reply to Barry. | September 25, 2020 at 12:17 pm


      Exactly. The facts as you outlined are consistent with what I knew. The true issue is the manner of serving the search warrant.

      This was not an arrest warrant of a known dangerously violent individual. It was a search warrant on the residence of the primary target’s ex girlfriend.

      The primary target, Mr Glover, had a warrant served the same day as I recall. IMO, there was no justification for a tactical entry.

      The best we can hope for is that LE Agencies will refine their procedures to using a tactical entry only when absolutely required because of the threat level posed. If some low level drug dealer is able to flush the drugs because LEO had to delay entry by 90 to 120 seconds for an occupant to open the door I am ok with that.

      The cost of a forced tactical entry from the case of MS Taylor are still rising. I hope that our political and law enforcement leadership will weigh the potential costs v benefit in the future.

        “I hope that our political and law enforcement leadership will weigh the potential costs v benefit in the future.”

        Not much chance of that CommoChief. They like holding your life in their hands.

Will wonders never cease? I agree with Barry!

The biggest problem about this whole thing is that the protesters are focusing on the wrong thing. They’re focusing on “police brutality” in the shooting of an unarmed, allegedly innocent woman.

It wasn’t “police brutality” that caused Breonna Taylor’s death, it was police policy and standard practice.

Standard police practice when serving a warrant like this is to knock, scream “Police, search warrant” and then break the door down without giving anyone in the house an opportunity to respond.

When they do this with the residents asleep, the residents are waking up during the screaming phase and only really start grasping the situation when the door comes crashing in.

Even if the residents were awake when the screaming phase happened, how unrealistic is it to believe they couldn’t understand what was being said and only perceived unintelligible screaming before their door was broken in.

Is it really any surprise that occasionally they do this with armed occupants who attempt to defend themselves against a perceived home invasion?

That happened here locally several years ago resulting in the death of a cop (*, but they still never seem to change their tactics and standard procedures.

How about waiting outside the apartment until the suspect leaves, taking them into custody outside and then executing the search warrant calmly and without having to pretend like they’re Seal Team Six? Oh…yea…that wouldn’t fulfill their “operator” fantasies as well so we’ll keep doing it this way and people will keep dying unnecessarily.

Anyway, my point is that incidents like these should be used to rail against terrible Police practices and policies, not wasted with ridiculous charges of “racism” and “brutality”.

*The Wikipedia article provides a pretty good summary but one thing not mentioned is that several of the neighbors reported that they never heard any police announcements, the first thing they heard was the bang of the door being hit by the ram. Frederick said that he never heard an announcement either, but he was dead asleep and may have just not been conscious enough to realize that’s what had awoken him, the first thing he remembers is the bang of the door being hit and the dog’s barking. The Police testified that they did announce, but if they did so, they did it ineffectively, and if I remember correctly, the door was broken down less than ten seconds after the announcement…they claimed they saw movement in the house and interpreted that as being “blown”…rather than giving Frederick the opportunity to open the door and let them in.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 24, 2020 at 1:56 pm

Are any of you making comments here current or former LEO’s?

How common is it to have detectives executing a search or arrest warrant while participating in the breach and entry of a dwelling?

Do departments usually have division of labor that has tactical teams only doing the breach, entry, and securing of the site with others following after it is secured?


    Look at posts from Mac45 who has vast LEO knowledge. He and I tend to clash but under the bluster he makes good arguments and insightful comments.

    Love the WU-Tang Clan reference…

What happened to the dead body that was found in Breonna’s rental car?

Anyone know that information?

No one cares to answer that question?

Here are the details:

Breonna Taylor was NOT shot while sleeping in her bed, she was awake, in her hallway. She was NOT an EMT at the time of her death; she was forced to quit YEARS ago, because a dead body was found in a car rented under her name; the victim was an “associate” of her drug dealing boyfriend. Even though a “no-knock” warrant WAS issued, the officers DID knock. Her neighbors testified under oath, that the police announced themselves BEFORE trying to enter her apartment. Her boyfriend shot a cop, BEFORE police fired their first round. She was STILL aiding and abetting her previous boyfriend’s drug dealing operation; she and her car were surveilled delivering drugs to his “trap house” on numerous occasions. She was STILL stashing his drug money at her house. Her address was on record as being his current address on bank records. Her ex-boyfriend blamed her at-the-time boyfriend for her death, NOT the police.

For the uneducated and willfully ignorant: It was NOT the DA who determined the police officers should not be indicted, it was a GRAND JURY, the most impartial of all arbiters. Her address and vehicle WERE on the warrant.

The Left and media HAVE been lying to you!

It’s unfortunate that she was shot and died, but the police did NOTHING wrong. If people want to BLM(Burn, Loot, Murder) over the grand jury’s decision, apply the law to THEM. Breonna was involved with, and profiting from drug trafficking. Blame her, her boyfriend or her ex-boyfriend for her death, NOT the police.

    CommoChief in reply to heyjoojoo. | September 25, 2020 at 5:12 pm

    If Taylor was under surveillance by LEO previously as drug/cash courier and bringing those from another location to Garner’s residence why not make the arrest then and there? That is plenty of probable cause, no warrant needed.

    Since that arrest did not happen…..and the officer involved with generating the warrant has come under a cloud because he has been manufacturing evidence on previous cases it makes me hesitant to fully trust what Louisville PD is briefing.

    Look we do not convict folks we KNOW are guilty if we can’t PROVE the guilt. That is part of our systems safeguards. Since that is true shouldn’t we ask our LE Agencies to avoid scenarios and circumstances for serving arrest warrant that are fraught with the possibility to go bad?

    This was a search warrant not an arrest warrant. None of the items on the warrant were found at Taylor’s residence. That doesn’t mean Taylor was innocent and pure as the driven snow. It does mean the intelligence information used as the basis for issuing the search warrant was faulty.

Then if the officer was under “some cloud” as you put it, then why not charge him with a crime?

Simple. Because the officers did their job and did it well.

Referring to the work the officers did as “faulty” is a very subjective remark which only adds value of opinion and nothing else. This is why they got to serve the warrant on the property. Unfortunately, in their service of the warrant, the suspect endangered the life of his girlfriend and other officers.

    CommoChief in reply to heyjoojoo. | September 25, 2020 at 9:16 pm

    The officers did so well that the unarmed occupant was killed during the tactical entry to serve a Search warrant, not an Arrest warrant.

    Yes Taylor’s boyfriend fired at the folks who broke down and changed through the door. Frankly I would do the same unless I am sure you are who you say you are.

    The LEO involved made a error in judgement utilizing a tactical entry. They were there to serve a Search warrant on a person with no history of violence. The search didn’t find the cash or drugs they were looking for. Not first rate work IMO.

    You also ignore the point regarding the supposed evidence of Taylor being ‘under surveillance while delivering drugs/cash to Garner’. If that was true that is no need for a warrant. That’s probable cause for the LEO doing the surveillance to call for back up and make arrests right then.

    The fact that didn’t happen strongly implies that the supposed surveillance didn’t happen either.

    Dude if want cops busting down doors in pre dawn tactical raids on non violent homeowners to serve a.flipping search warrant you need to think about the consequences.

    The consequences might have you as the next target of a militaristic raid. The consequences of the LEO error at MS Taylor residence has been at least one death, two LEO shot, many injuries, riots, arson, assault etc. The complete cost isn’t known because the bill is still being rung up in Louisville and other cities….

      heyjoojoo in reply to CommoChief. | September 25, 2020 at 9:27 pm

      Yes, unfortunately accidents happen when law enforcement officers do policing involving armed suspects, drugs, and firearms. Usually somebody gets hurt and thanks to the boyfriend, the lovely boyfriend that I’m sure the mom told her to stay away from, she’s dead. He put her in a dangerous situation or she put herself in a dangerous situation which cost her, her life. Police have to respond to service their warrant. That’s how it works. We strive to ensure that no lives are lost but sometimes circumstances happen where people are killed (whether innocent or not).

      Back the Blue baby!

        CommoChief in reply to heyjoojoo. | September 26, 2020 at 12:35 pm

        The attitude you display in your post that cops make mistakes and kill citizens and that is somehow supposed to be a part of life we should just accept passively…..

        Either you are a troll or a fool.

        If you are not a troll and actually are a cop…please either resign or accept the fact that citizens are no longer reflexively, automatically backing LEO. We will be pushing for common sense updates to TTP. We will demand transparency and accountability.

          heyjoojoo in reply to CommoChief. | September 26, 2020 at 7:42 pm

          Well, I follow your comment with the fact that you cannot read nor can you provide any credibility in anything you’ve shared thus far.

          Additionally, there’s no need to be hostile because you don’t know something. So calm down lad.

          Bring your thermos and chill a little.

          No one cares about your use of the word ‘Troll”. That’s so 1998. Lol.