Officer Jaynes applied for the warrant, i can neither confirm nor deny he was or wasnt a part of the raid team, inside or outside.

The idea of a no-knock raid is that the target is potentially dangerous for the officers involved, and that knocking and announcing their presence might give people inside a chance to "arm up" in anticipation of the entry. It's to provide greater safety for the officers by giving them the element of surprise. Knocking and announcing is much more commonly done when serving warrants, as most situations aren't deemed dangerous enough to provide the added security for the officers. Knocking without announcing creates confusion (as was blatantly obvious based on Walker's reaction), and increases risk to the officers. So I would say the question is twofold: One, if a residence is deemed to be a soft target by the police, why the need for a NK warrant? Two, if the situation is deemed dangerous enough to justify the acquisition of an NK warrant (officer safety being one of the key factors here), why would they, in the course of executing the warrant that required no knock, then knock, but potentially not announce? That seems counterintuitive to the officer safety that supposedly justify the NK warrant to begin with.

The current news is the lack of charges brought against the shooter cop.

So, unless I'm missing something big, it seems that the justification for the warrant would not be a factor when considering the legality of the shots fired at Taylor.

The shots fired at Taylor would be fruit of the poisoned tree, with regard to an illegally acquired warrant. The actions might not constitute murder on the part of the cops involved, but you could certainly charge involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide (or in the case of Kentucky law, either second degree manslaughter or reckless homicide). If it's proven that the warrant was illegally obtained, I'd charge Jaynes, as well.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Sep 24 2020 01:47pm

against the guy who fired the shots? Or against the people who obtained the warrant illegally?

See my edit. And I'd probably file the more serious charge against Jaynes.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Sep 24 2020 01:48pm

edit: removed due to confusion.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Sep 24 2020 02:09pm

u keep referencing the judge who signed a warrant with false info on it to lead her to believe the warrant was needed, written there by Jaynes. he lied about the postal service corroborating suspicious package deliveries for Glover, which they did not do.

ur baffled why people want someone who lied on a warrant application charged? i mean, wut.

steele dossier having been used for a FISA warrant had people calling for treason charges and immediate changes to FISA warrant requirements. for the record.

hold on, I think I might have been confused earlier and mixed up the name. I removed my previous post to avoid getting sidetracked by my mistake.

to be clear, the name of the guy that applied for the warrant was Jaynes. The name of the officers connected to the raid were Hankison, Mattingly and Cosgrove. Do we know who fired the shots that hit Taylor?

so, to restate my previous post:

"But since, on Sep. 23, 2020, there was no proof that the warrant was obtained illegally, then what justification could there be to charge [shooter]? And if there's no justification to charge him, then why would his lack of charges on Sep23 be a controversial decision?

If the whole conversation today was about the circumstances of the warrant, then this whole thing would make sense to me. If the rioters were going after the judge's house, or directing their anger at the people who participated in obtaining the warrant, then I would really be rooting for anything that would expose the coverup there.

But I am baffled as to why there's such a strong reaction to the lack of charges against [shooter].

i think you're a bit confused as to what the reaction is here, it's at least 4 pronged.

1. anger at an illegal warrant to the filing officer (not the judges fault as much, with the faulty info given to her)

2. anger at the police for lack of announcing their entry (allegedly, although there seems little doubt here)

3. anger at the police generally for allowing no-knock warrants and lack of training in raids, announcing is a BIG deal here

4. anger at prosecution for the time they're taking

this type of widespread systematic anger is why we see a protest. because from filing officer, to shooting officer, to prosecutor there are gripes.