Cop who obtained warrant for Breonna's residence LIED to obtain it

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

you fire on any Police Officer then expect return fire and most likely your death.

If they haven't identified themselves as police officers and are not wearing any identifying insignia then you cannot claim that the person is [knowingly] shooting at "police officers". They're shooting at an intruder who just breached a locked door.

Nonsense, and you know it!

You and the OP want to excuse the boyfriend stupidity of shooting an Officer and yet the grand jury cleared the Officers of any wrongdoing with the evidence that was provided!

In the end all you race baiting posters enjoy making up a thread and then switching the topic because when actual reality hit you then you can not accept it as usual!

So let me be clear the Officers were clear of wrongdoing in the shooting death of the young lady and the actions of the boyfriend got her killed!

With that written if the Officer that obtained the Warrant did so while using evidence that was misleading then he or she should be held accountable!

If any Officer is found guilty of perjury to the Grand Jury they should also be held accountable but none of this has been proven and is just you and the OP wishful thinking at this moment!

So when the Police kick your door in please shoot at them so you can discover how ignorant and stupid that would be and also the Warrant the Police had to my understanding was a No-Knock Warrant which mean they do not have to knock and just break the door down which is why Louisville made them illegal after this incident!

There are a ton of contradictions in your response but instead of wasting my time listing them for you, perhaps instead you can just explain why the city paid Breonna's family 12 million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit if the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in her death. Or do you even understand the difference?

We covered this. Wrongful Death suits, are not under criminal law. Proving one, does not require any evidence of guilt.

Thus winning such a suit is far easier, because the requirements are lower.

I don't claim to be an expert but you don't seem quite clear on the differences yourself.

1) They are not lower, they're different.
2) While "not guilty" is a criminal court determination that does not mean that the defendant is not liable for the harm alleged, in this case, the wrongful death of the victim.

No court is going to award that kind of money to anyone unless there was a failure to act or refrain from acting in some way where there existed a duty or standard of care (such as "keep from harm" just as an example).

Another example is the state of Florida attempting to prosecute the school resource officer whom I believe is a county sheriff for failing to prevent the Parkland shooting at the Stoneman Douglas high school about 5 years ago. They are attempting to categorize him under state law as a "caregiver" so that they can find that he didn't maintain the necessary standard of care to keep the children safe. This is an extreme at the other end and just as messed up as when the officers are fully in the wrong.

The other thing that is overlooked is that just because one judicial body gives the parties a pass, doesn't mean that another court or agency will not bring them up on charges. The police officers who used excessive force on Rodney King in Los Angeles back in the 90s were acquitted in state court even though the whole world saw them beating the crap out of him on the televised video. The federal government however brought them up on civil rights violations and were successful in getting them convicted so having one court/grand jury "clear" someone doesn't really mean a whole lot overall particularly when it comes to law enforcement and any questionable actions on their part. If you knew how much dirt a vindictive or dirty cop can get into, the no-knock warrants would appear to be a piece of cake.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

 

[Andylusion]

you fire on any Police Officer then expect return fire and most likely your death.

If they haven't identified themselves as police officers and are not wearing any identifying insignia then you cannot claim that the person is [knowingly] shooting at "police officers". They're shooting at an intruder who just breached a locked door.

Nonsense, and you know it!

You and the OP want to excuse the boyfriend stupidity of shooting an Officer and yet the grand jury cleared the Officers of any wrongdoing with the evidence that was provided!

In the end all you race baiting posters enjoy making up a thread and then switching the topic because when actual reality hit you then you can not accept it as usual!

So let me be clear the Officers were clear of wrongdoing in the shooting death of the young lady and the actions of the boyfriend got her killed!

With that written if the Officer that obtained the Warrant did so while using evidence that was misleading then he or she should be held accountable!

If any Officer is found guilty of perjury to the Grand Jury they should also be held accountable but none of this has been proven and is just you and the OP wishful thinking at this moment!

So when the Police kick your door in please shoot at them so you can discover how ignorant and stupid that would be and also the Warrant the Police had to my understanding was a No-Knock Warrant which mean they do not have to knock and just break the door down which is why Louisville made them illegal after this incident!

There are a ton of contradictions in your response but instead of wasting my time listing them for you, perhaps instead you can just explain why the city paid Breonna's family 12 million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit if the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in her death. Or do you even understand the difference?

We covered this. Wrongful Death suits, are not under criminal law. Proving one, does not require any evidence of guilt.

Thus winning such a suit is far easier, because the requirements are lower.

I don't claim to be an expert but you don't seem quite clear on the differences yourself.

1) They are not lower, they're different.
2) While "not guilty" is a criminal court determination that does not mean that the defendant is not liable for the harm alleged, in this case, the wrongful death of the victim.

No court is going to award that kind of money to anyone unless there was a failure to act or refrain from acting in some way where there existed a duty or standard of care (such as "keep from harm" just as an example).

Another example is the state of Florida attempting to prosecute the school resource officer whom I believe is a county sheriff for failing to prevent the Parkland shooting at the Stoneman Douglas high school about 5 years ago. They are attempting to categorize him under state law as a "caregiver" so that they can find that he didn't maintain the necessary standard of care to keep the children safe. This is an extreme at the other end and just as messed up as when the officers are fully in the wrong.

The other thing that is overlooked is that just because one judicial body gives the parties a pass, doesn't mean that another court or agency will not bring them up on charges. The police officers who used excessive force on Rodney King in Los Angeles back in the 90s were acquitted in state court even though the whole world saw them beating the crap out of him on the televised video. The federal government however brought them up on civil rights violations and were successful in getting them convicted so having one court/grand jury "clear" someone doesn't really mean a whole lot overall particularly when it comes to law enforcement and any questionable actions on their part. If you knew how much dirt a vindictive or dirty cop can get into, the no-knock warrants would appear to be a piece of cake.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I'm always amazed when people contradict lawyers, on legal matters.

Wrongful Death Law

How is a wrongful death lawsuit established, which family members have the right to bring an action, and what types of damages are often available?

www.justia.com

​

Although there may be a criminal prosecution related to the fatality, a wrongful death lawsuit is a civil action that is separate and distinct from any criminal charges. The standard of proof is lower in a civil case than it is in a criminal case for murder or manslaughter.​

So unless you want to try and prove these lawyers that wrote this article on what wrongful death suits are.... I'm going with their statement, over yours.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I would likely assume they were criminals, and I would likely shoot them, and they would likely shoot and kill me.

That said, I wouldn't be allowing a known criminal use my address, thus no search warrant would be issued, thus no police would execute that warrant.

Regardless, no matter how you cut it, the police officers did nothing wrong. You seem to be implying that if I get shot, that automatically the police are to blame.

No. That's not true. If the police are executing a legal warrant, then they are acting legally entering the home. And if they enter the home legally, and are fired at, they darn well have the right to fire back.

Again... that's it. Game over. End of the story.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

you fire on any Police Officer then expect return fire and most likely your death.

If they haven't identified themselves as police officers and are not wearing any identifying insignia then you cannot claim that the person is [knowingly] shooting at "police officers". They're shooting at an intruder who just breached a locked door.

Nonsense, and you know it!

You and the OP want to excuse the boyfriend stupidity of shooting an Officer and yet the grand jury cleared the Officers of any wrongdoing with the evidence that was provided!

In the end all you race baiting posters enjoy making up a thread and then switching the topic because when actual reality hit you then you can not accept it as usual!

So let me be clear the Officers were clear of wrongdoing in the shooting death of the young lady and the actions of the boyfriend got her killed!

With that written if the Officer that obtained the Warrant did so while using evidence that was misleading then he or she should be held accountable!

If any Officer is found guilty of perjury to the Grand Jury they should also be held accountable but none of this has been proven and is just you and the OP wishful thinking at this moment!

So when the Police kick your door in please shoot at them so you can discover how ignorant and stupid that would be and also the Warrant the Police had to my understanding was a No-Knock Warrant which mean they do not have to knock and just break the door down which is why Louisville made them illegal after this incident!

There are a ton of contradictions in your response but instead of wasting my time listing them for you, perhaps instead you can just explain why the city paid Breonna's family 12 million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit if the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in her death. Or do you even understand the difference?

We covered this. Wrongful Death suits, are not under criminal law. Proving one, does not require any evidence of guilt.

Thus winning such a suit is far easier, because the requirements are lower.

I don't claim to be an expert but you don't seem quite clear on the differences yourself.

1) They are not lower, they're different.
2) While "not guilty" is a criminal court determination that does not mean that the defendant is not liable for the harm alleged, in this case, the wrongful death of the victim.

No court is going to award that kind of money to anyone unless there was a failure to act or refrain from acting in some way where there existed a duty or standard of care (such as "keep from harm" just as an example).

Another example is the state of Florida attempting to prosecute the school resource officer whom I believe is a county sheriff for failing to prevent the Parkland shooting at the Stoneman Douglas high school about 5 years ago. They are attempting to categorize him under state law as a "caregiver" so that they can find that he didn't maintain the necessary standard of care to keep the children safe. This is an extreme at the other end and just as messed up as when the officers are fully in the wrong.

The other thing that is overlooked is that just because one judicial body gives the parties a pass, doesn't mean that another court or agency will not bring them up on charges. The police officers who used excessive force on Rodney King in Los Angeles back in the 90s were acquitted in state court even though the whole world saw them beating the crap out of him on the televised video. The federal government however brought them up on civil rights violations and were successful in getting them convicted so having one court/grand jury "clear" someone doesn't really mean a whole lot overall particularly when it comes to law enforcement and any questionable actions on their part. If you knew how much dirt a vindictive or dirty cop can get into, the no-knock warrants would appear to be a piece of cake.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I'm always amazed when people contradict lawyers, on legal matters.

Wrongful Death Law

How is a wrongful death lawsuit established, which family members have the right to bring an action, and what types of damages are often available?

www.justia.com

​

Although there may be a criminal prosecution related to the fatality, a wrongful death lawsuit is a civil action that is separate and distinct from any criminal charges. The standard of proof is lower in a civil case than it is in a criminal case for murder or manslaughter.​

So unless you want to try and prove these lawyers that wrote this article on what wrongful death suits are.... I'm going with their statement, over yours.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I would likely assume they were criminals, and I would likely shoot them, and they would likely shoot and kill me.

That said, I wouldn't be allowing a known criminal use my address, thus no search warrant would be issued, thus no police would execute that warrant.

Regardless, no matter how you cut it, the police officers did nothing wrong. You seem to be implying that if I get shot, that automatically the police are to blame.

No. That's not true. If the police are executing a legal warrant, then they are acting legally entering the home. And if they enter the home legally, and are fired at, they darn well have the right to fire back.

Again... that's it. Game over. End of the story.

The police fucked up and killed someone, that does not equate to "the police officers did nothing wrong", that's the point I've been trying to impression upon you all this entire time. Failing to charge/indict them is the short cut to the denial of justice that more frequently than not is the result of black people being killed by the police - inadvertently, intentionally, maliciously - it matters not.

Getting back to your original point though, I posted this back in July this year. I both know and understand the differences in the standards used in the criminal justice system versus the civil system and as I indicated to you previously they are different but not lower in the way you implied when you stated erroneously that a plaintiff may prevail in a civil suit without there being any evidence of guilt by the party being sued (actually it's whether or not they are liable for the harm alleged, not guilty of the acts).
Black woman in N.Y. claims years of racial harassment by neighbors; police investigating

Just because someone is an attorney or some other professional doesn't mean they know everything or don't make mistakes at times. I was on the phone with the IRS today and had to rush off of the call because one of my meetings was starting when the agent erroneously told me that my corporate return had to be filed by October 15th and therefore it was not late when the tax accountant filed it on October 10th. October 15th is for personal returns filed with an extension, my fiscal year ends on December 31st therefore my return is due on March 15th. A six month extension means it needs to be filed on or before September 15th. I deal with taxes a few times a year, his job requires him to work with this information on a daily basis yet he got it wrong, as did the tax accountant. Fortunately I wasn't accessed any penalties.

Then there is this which doesn't even discuss the civil system.
What's the Difference Between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury?

Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated March 19, 2019

Although grand juries and trial juries are both made up of average people who were called for jury duty, they serve entirely different purposes. A grand jury helps determine whether charges should be brought against a suspect, while a trial jury renders a verdict at the criminal trial itself. Put differently, a grand jury hands down an indictment at the beginning of a case, while a trial jury decides guilt or innocence at the very end (not counting the appeal process).

Read on to learn more about the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury.

What Is a Grand Jury?

Many people wonder, what does a grand jury do? In a nutshell, a grand jury helps the prosecutor decide whether to file charges against a suspect in a crime. Grand juries typically consist of 23 people, and the individual jurors may have jury duty for months at a time. However, jurors will have to work only a few days out of the month.

Prosecutors use grand jury proceedings as test-runs for trials, and take a grand jury's perception of the evidence seriously. However, if the prosecutor strongly disagrees with a grand jury, he or she may ignore the decision.

Grand juries will work closely with the prosecutor, who will explain the law to the jurors. The jurors then have the power to view almost any kind of evidence they wish and to interrogate anyone they like. The procedure for grand jury hearings is relaxed to allow the jurors as much flexibility as possible. Typically, the parties that appear before a grand jury do not have attorneys, and the rules of evidence permit much more evidence than is allowed at a criminal trial. Grand jury proceedings are held in strict confidence to encourage witnesses to speak freely, as well as to protect the suspect if the grand jury decides not to bring charges.

A grand jury does not have to be unanimous to issue an indictment, but two-thirds or three-quarters of the individual grand jurors must agree (depending on the jurisdiction).

What Is a Trial Jury?

Trial juries are familiar to most people from portrayals in television programs and movies. Their job is to decide which side to believe at a formal criminal trial, or in other words, to render a verdict of guilt or innocence. Smaller than a grand jury, a trial jury usually consists of six to twelve people. The individual jurors will have to work for the full length of the trial, which could last a few days, several weeks, or even months.

Trial court procedure is extremely strict and controlled entirely by the judge. Each party in a trial typically has an attorney. Unlike a grand jury, a trial jury usually has no say in what evidence they get to see. Evidence in trials is carefully chosen by each party's attorney and must adhere to a set of rules designed to ensure that the evidence is reliable. Trial juries rarely have the opportunity to ask questions.

What's the Difference Between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury? - FindLaw

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That said, I wouldn't be allowing a known criminal use my address, thus no search warrant would be issued, thus no police would execute that warrant.

Yeah because that's what criminals do, obey the law or ask permission to use your address for their unlawful activities.

It's not like a cop has never EVER lied in order to obtain something that they couldn't otherwise lawfully obtain.

 

[jbrownson0831]

A Louisville police detective accused of providing false information to get a search warrant for Breonna Taylor's home told investigators he didn't intentionally mislead a judge but acknowledged he could have worded the affidavit "differently."
But an investigator with the police department's Public Integrity Unit drew a different conclusion after interviewing the officer who applied for the search warrant, Detective Joshua Jaynes.

Breonna Taylor warrant was 'misleading,' Louisville police investigators find

The Louisville police department's Public Integrity Unit concluded in a report released Wednesday that the detective who applied for the search warrant 'should be reviewed for criminal actions.'

www.wdrb.com

If found guilty for lying then he should be held accountable for her death because had it not been his wording that should have been different then the warrant may have not been granted and the young lady would still be alive.

Grand Jury already convened and is done goofus....

 

[Andylusion]

you fire on any Police Officer then expect return fire and most likely your death.

If they haven't identified themselves as police officers and are not wearing any identifying insignia then you cannot claim that the person is [knowingly] shooting at "police officers". They're shooting at an intruder who just breached a locked door.

Nonsense, and you know it!

You and the OP want to excuse the boyfriend stupidity of shooting an Officer and yet the grand jury cleared the Officers of any wrongdoing with the evidence that was provided!

In the end all you race baiting posters enjoy making up a thread and then switching the topic because when actual reality hit you then you can not accept it as usual!

So let me be clear the Officers were clear of wrongdoing in the shooting death of the young lady and the actions of the boyfriend got her killed!

With that written if the Officer that obtained the Warrant did so while using evidence that was misleading then he or she should be held accountable!

If any Officer is found guilty of perjury to the Grand Jury they should also be held accountable but none of this has been proven and is just you and the OP wishful thinking at this moment!

So when the Police kick your door in please shoot at them so you can discover how ignorant and stupid that would be and also the Warrant the Police had to my understanding was a No-Knock Warrant which mean they do not have to knock and just break the door down which is why Louisville made them illegal after this incident!

There are a ton of contradictions in your response but instead of wasting my time listing them for you, perhaps instead you can just explain why the city paid Breonna's family 12 million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit if the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in her death. Or do you even understand the difference?

We covered this. Wrongful Death suits, are not under criminal law. Proving one, does not require any evidence of guilt.

Thus winning such a suit is far easier, because the requirements are lower.

I don't claim to be an expert but you don't seem quite clear on the differences yourself.

1) They are not lower, they're different.
2) While "not guilty" is a criminal court determination that does not mean that the defendant is not liable for the harm alleged, in this case, the wrongful death of the victim.

No court is going to award that kind of money to anyone unless there was a failure to act or refrain from acting in some way where there existed a duty or standard of care (such as "keep from harm" just as an example).

Another example is the state of Florida attempting to prosecute the school resource officer whom I believe is a county sheriff for failing to prevent the Parkland shooting at the Stoneman Douglas high school about 5 years ago. They are attempting to categorize him under state law as a "caregiver" so that they can find that he didn't maintain the necessary standard of care to keep the children safe. This is an extreme at the other end and just as messed up as when the officers are fully in the wrong.

The other thing that is overlooked is that just because one judicial body gives the parties a pass, doesn't mean that another court or agency will not bring them up on charges. The police officers who used excessive force on Rodney King in Los Angeles back in the 90s were acquitted in state court even though the whole world saw them beating the crap out of him on the televised video. The federal government however brought them up on civil rights violations and were successful in getting them convicted so having one court/grand jury "clear" someone doesn't really mean a whole lot overall particularly when it comes to law enforcement and any questionable actions on their part. If you knew how much dirt a vindictive or dirty cop can get into, the no-knock warrants would appear to be a piece of cake.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I'm always amazed when people contradict lawyers, on legal matters.

Wrongful Death Law

How is a wrongful death lawsuit established, which family members have the right to bring an action, and what types of damages are often available?

www.justia.com

​

Although there may be a criminal prosecution related to the fatality, a wrongful death lawsuit is a civil action that is separate and distinct from any criminal charges. The standard of proof is lower in a civil case than it is in a criminal case for murder or manslaughter.​

So unless you want to try and prove these lawyers that wrote this article on what wrongful death suits are.... I'm going with their statement, over yours.

If a person points a weapon at you and isn't wearing anything that identifies them as law enforcement or doesn't identify themselves as police officers, as they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you do what?

I would likely assume they were criminals, and I would likely shoot them, and they would likely shoot and kill me.

That said, I wouldn't be allowing a known criminal use my address, thus no search warrant would be issued, thus no police would execute that warrant.

Regardless, no matter how you cut it, the police officers did nothing wrong. You seem to be implying that if I get shot, that automatically the police are to blame.

No. That's not true. If the police are executing a legal warrant, then they are acting legally entering the home. And if they enter the home legally, and are fired at, they darn well have the right to fire back.

Again... that's it. Game over. End of the story.

The police fucked up and killed someone, that does not equate to "the police officers did nothing wrong", that's the point I've been trying to impression upon you all this entire time. Failing to charge/indict them is the short cut to the denial of justice that more frequently than not is the result of black people being killed by the police - inadvertently, intentionally, maliciously - it matters not.

Getting back to your original point though, I posted this back in July this year. I both know and understand the differences in the standards used in the criminal justice system versus the civil system and as I indicated to you previously they are different but not lower in the way you implied when you stated erroneously that a plaintiff may prevail in a civil suit without there being any evidence of guilt by the party being sued (actually it's whether or not they are liable for the harm alleged, not guilty of the acts).
Black woman in N.Y. claims years of racial harassment by neighbors; police investigating
View attachment 401392

Just because someone is an attorney or some other professional doesn't mean they know everything or don't make mistakes at times. I was on the phone with the IRS today and had to rush off of the call because one of my meetings was starting when the agent erroneously told me that my corporate return had to be filed by October 15th and therefore it was not late when the tax accountant filed it on October 10th. October 15th is for personal returns filed with an extension, my fiscal year ends on December 31st therefore my return is due on March 15th. A six month extension means it needs to be filed on or before September 15th. I deal with taxes a few times a year, his job requires him to work with this information on a daily basis yet he got it wrong, as did the tax accountant. Fortunately I wasn't accessed any penalties.

Then there is this which doesn't even discuss the civil system.
What's the Difference Between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury?

Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated March 19, 2019

Although grand juries and trial juries are both made up of average people who were called for jury duty, they serve entirely different purposes. A grand jury helps determine whether charges should be brought against a suspect, while a trial jury renders a verdict at the criminal trial itself. Put differently, a grand jury hands down an indictment at the beginning of a case, while a trial jury decides guilt or innocence at the very end (not counting the appeal process).

Read on to learn more about the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury.

What Is a Grand Jury?

Many people wonder, what does a grand jury do? In a nutshell, a grand jury helps the prosecutor decide whether to file charges against a suspect in a crime. Grand juries typically consist of 23 people, and the individual jurors may have jury duty for months at a time. However, jurors will have to work only a few days out of the month.

Prosecutors use grand jury proceedings as test-runs for trials, and take a grand jury's perception of the evidence seriously. However, if the prosecutor strongly disagrees with a grand jury, he or she may ignore the decision.

Grand juries will work closely with the prosecutor, who will explain the law to the jurors. The jurors then have the power to view almost any kind of evidence they wish and to interrogate anyone they like. The procedure for grand jury hearings is relaxed to allow the jurors as much flexibility as possible. Typically, the parties that appear before a grand jury do not have attorneys, and the rules of evidence permit much more evidence than is allowed at a criminal trial. Grand jury proceedings are held in strict confidence to encourage witnesses to speak freely, as well as to protect the suspect if the grand jury decides not to bring charges.

A grand jury does not have to be unanimous to issue an indictment, but two-thirds or three-quarters of the individual grand jurors must agree (depending on the jurisdiction).

What Is a Trial Jury?

Trial juries are familiar to most people from portrayals in television programs and movies. Their job is to decide which side to believe at a formal criminal trial, or in other words, to render a verdict of guilt or innocence. Smaller than a grand jury, a trial jury usually consists of six to twelve people. The individual jurors will have to work for the full length of the trial, which could last a few days, several weeks, or even months.

Trial court procedure is extremely strict and controlled entirely by the judge. Each party in a trial typically has an attorney. Unlike a grand jury, a trial jury usually has no say in what evidence they get to see. Evidence in trials is carefully chosen by each party's attorney and must adhere to a set of rules designed to ensure that the evidence is reliable. Trial juries rarely have the opportunity to ask questions.

What's the Difference Between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury? - FindLaw

The police fucked up and killed someone

Name the law they violated?

Failing to charge/indict them is the short cut to the denial of justice

Or it could be exactly as every lawyer, Republican or Democrat has said, which is they didn't break any laws.

I both know and understand the differences in the standards used in the criminal justice system versus the civil system and as I indicated to you previously they are different but not lower in the way you implied when you stated erroneously

No, you are just wrong, and you have the right to be wrong. I have proven you wrong, and I don't need to do it anymore.

Thx.

 

[Andylusion]

That said, I wouldn't be allowing a known criminal use my address, thus no search warrant would be issued, thus no police would execute that warrant.

Yeah because that's what criminals do, obey the law or ask permission to use your address for their unlawful activities.

It's not like a cop has never EVER lied in order to obtain something that they couldn't otherwise lawfully obtain.

Is that a joke? You think I can't change the locks on my door, so a criminal can't access my apartment?

It's not like a cop has never EVER lied in order to obtain something that they couldn't otherwise lawfully obtain.

Not relevant to my point. If you can prove that everyone lied, and that the drug trafficker did not go to her apartment, did not pick up packages. Did not already have a list of violations, did not have a recorded phone call discussing with Taylor......

If you can prove all that.... (which you can't since we have the evidence), then you would have a point.

But I would not be calling a drug trafficker. I would not be allowing him to use my apartment. I would not allow him to come to, pick up, and leave with packages from my apartment.

Thus, no warrant like this would have been issued for my apartment, and thus I wouldn't be firing at police, and thus I would not be shot.

That's life works. You engage in a stupid game, you win stupid prizes.