Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Political discussions
User avatar
mainejeff
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:43 am
I am a fan of: Maine
A.K.A.: mainejeff

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by mainejeff »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:46 am
You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?
:nod:
Go Black Bears!

User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 36572
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by 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.
Image

User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 13435
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by 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.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.

Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over

User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 36572
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by 89Hen »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:39 am
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.
Image

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14667
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by GannonFan »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:39 am
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.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 14606
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by SDHornet »

GannonFan wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:20 am
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:39 am
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.

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 14606
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by SDHornet »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:46 am
You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?
Of course, but guns and drugs don't mix.

Image

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17800
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:20 am
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:39 am
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
Subvert the dominant paradigm

Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Here We Go Again (Louisville)

Post by Baldy »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:46 am
You know the Second Amendment applies to black people too?
Who said it didn't? :?

Post Reply