Here We Go Again (Louisville)

[mainejeff]

You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?

[89Hen]

I'm a little confused by that Tweet. Maybe I don't have the story straight but I thought it was her home, not his.

[Skjellyfetti]

It was her home.

They had a warrant because they suspected her ex boyfriend (not Walker) of having packages of drugs delivered there. However, they had no evidence of this. In fact, they had evidence he was NOT. They also found no drugs in the apartment after their search.

From SD's link:

Detective Joshua Jaynes, who sought the warrant, wrote in a March 12 affidavit that he had 'verified through a postal inspector' that Glover was receiving mail at the apartment.

However, Jaynes admitted in a police interview on May 19 that he had actually asked another officer, Sgt Mattingly, to verify the deliveries.

'He has sources that I believe end up contacting the post office or the Postal Inspector's Office,' Jaynes told investigators, saying that Mattingly had more of a 'rapport' with relevant colleagues.

A further complication is that Louisville cops do not work directly with the postal service because of an 'incident' some years earlier, relying instead on colleagues from the police department in nearby Shively.

As a result, Jaynes was actually getting the information through Mattingly who in turn was getting it from Shively.

Jaynes wrote in his affidavit that through his 'training and experience', he knew that it was 'not uncommon for drug traffickers to receive mail packages at different locations to avoid detection from law enforcement'.

However, according to a report by the Public Integrity Unit, Mattingly reported back to Jaynes that 'Glover was NOT receiving suspicious packages at the address'.

In his interview, Jaynes admitted he did not have evidence that the parcels Glover was receiving were suspicious, beyond the feeling generated by his 'training and experience'. He said he was referring to any parcels, not suspicious ones.

[89Hen]

It was her home.

They had a warrant because they suspected her ex boyfriend (not Walker) of having packages of drugs delivered there.

That's what I thought.

[GannonFan]

It was her home.

They had a warrant because they suspected her ex boyfriend (not Walker) of having packages of drugs delivered there. However, they had no evidence of this. In fact, they had evidence he was NOT. They also found no drugs in the apartment after their search.

From SD's link:

Detective Joshua Jaynes, who sought the warrant, wrote in a March 12 affidavit that he had 'verified through a postal inspector' that Glover was receiving mail at the apartment.

However, Jaynes admitted in a police interview on May 19 that he had actually asked another officer, Sgt Mattingly, to verify the deliveries.

'He has sources that I believe end up contacting the post office or the Postal Inspector's Office,' Jaynes told investigators, saying that Mattingly had more of a 'rapport' with relevant colleagues.

A further complication is that Louisville cops do not work directly with the postal service because of an 'incident' some years earlier, relying instead on colleagues from the police department in nearby Shively.

As a result, Jaynes was actually getting the information through Mattingly who in turn was getting it from Shively.

Jaynes wrote in his affidavit that through his 'training and experience', he knew that it was 'not uncommon for drug traffickers to receive mail packages at different locations to avoid detection from law enforcement'.

However, according to a report by the Public Integrity Unit, Mattingly reported back to Jaynes that 'Glover was NOT receiving suspicious packages at the address'.

In his interview, Jaynes admitted he did not have evidence that the parcels Glover was receiving were suspicious, beyond the feeling generated by his 'training and experience'. He said he was referring to any parcels, not suspicious ones.

That's the thing about this whole affair that has been misguided from the start - the focus and protests have been on the 3 cops who executed the warrant. Surely the one cop who was firing blindly into the apartment through a window with closed blinds deserves his indictment, but the cops at the scene were put into a bad situation because of dubious and possibly criminal work by other cops, Jaynes here, who asked for the warrant in the first place. That warrant never should've been issued, and it was because of duplicitous work by at least Jaynes that a warrant was even approved. The focus and protests and anger should've never been on the 3 cops at the scene - it's apparent they were fired upon by Walker (who himself really can't be faulted as he assumed people were breaking into his apartment) and they returned fire. The focus always should've been on the apparently bad cops that did the legwork to finagle a no-knock warrant - there wasn't the basis for one and they put people, the cops and the people in that apartment, at risk.

[SDHornet]

It was her home.

They had a warrant because they suspected her ex boyfriend (not Walker) of having packages of drugs delivered there. However, they had no evidence of this. In fact, they had evidence he was NOT. They also found no drugs in the apartment after their search.

From SD's link:

That's the thing about this whole affair that has been misguided from the start - the focus and protests have been on the 3 cops who executed the warrant. Surely the one cop who was firing blindly into the apartment through a window with closed blinds deserves his indictment, but the cops at the scene were put into a bad situation because of dubious and possibly criminal work by other cops, Jaynes here, who asked for the warrant in the first place. That warrant never should've been issued, and it was because of duplicitous work by at least Jaynes that a warrant was even approved. The focus and protests and anger should've never been on the 3 cops at the scene - it's apparent they were fired upon by Walker (who himself really can't be faulted as he assumed people were breaking into his apartment) and they returned fire. The focus always should've been on the apparently bad cops that did the legwork to finagle a no-knock warrant - there wasn't the basis for one and they put people, the cops and the people in that apartment, at risk.

Spot on.

[SDHornet]

You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?

Of course, but guns and drugs don't mix.

[houndawg]

It was her home.

They had a warrant because they suspected her ex boyfriend (not Walker) of having packages of drugs delivered there. However, they had no evidence of this. In fact, they had evidence he was NOT. They also found no drugs in the apartment after their search.

From SD's link:

That's the thing about this whole affair that has been misguided from the start - the focus and protests have been on the 3 cops who executed the warrant. Surely the one cop who was firing blindly into the apartment through a window with closed blinds deserves his indictment, but the cops at the scene were put into a bad situation because of dubious and possibly criminal work by other cops, Jaynes here, who asked for the warrant in the first place. That warrant never should've been issued, and it was because of duplicitous work by at least Jaynes that a warrant was even approved. The focus and protests and anger should've never been on the 3 cops at the scene - it's apparent they were fired upon by Walker (who himself really can't be faulted as he assumed people were breaking into his apartment) and they returned fire. The focus always should've been on the apparently bad cops that did the legwork to finagle a no-knock warrant - there wasn't the basis for one and they put people, the cops and the people in that apartment, at risk.

Exactly

[Baldy]

You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?

Who said it didn't?