Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker, who are unrelated to Kenneth Walker, were the primary focus of the LMPD investigation. They were accused of selling controlled drugs from a drug house about 10 miles away. Glover was in a relationship with Breonna Taylor until February 2020, when Taylor entered a relationship with Kenneth Walker (Baker, 2021). The police signaled that Breonna Taylor’s former boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, who had previously served time for drug distribution, continued this activity and used the ex-girlfriend’s house for delivery. Breonna herself has not previously come into conflict with the law.
On March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shot dead at her home in Louisville, Kentucky (Oppel Jr., 2021). Three police officers in the investigation of involvement in the process of drug trafficking. Since Taylor and Walker did not open the door, the police got in on their own. The judge issued them a so-called “no-knock order”, allowing them to enter the premises without warning (Oppel Jr., 2021). The police claim that they did not exercise this right, and while still outside the door, they warned that the police had arrived.
Kenneth Walker fired a pistol, for which he had a permit, and wounded one of the policemen, Jonathan Mattingly, in the leg, who required surgery. According to Walker, he decided that someone had entered the house, so he took measures for self-defense.
The police returned fire. A total of 32 bullets were fired. Six of them hit Breonna Taylor, who jumped out of bed, and one turned out to be fatal. According to ballistics, it was fired from Detective Miles Cosgrove’s gun. The woman died on the spot.
Walker was charged with assault and attempted murder of a police officer, but the charges were dropped after a year.
After examining all the case circumstances, the investigation and the court concluded that police officers Jonathan Mattingly and Miles Cosgrove acted following the principle of necessary defense (Oppel Jr., 2021). Thus, they will continue to serve, which also caused a public outcry. The third policeman, Brett Hankison, was accused of “the use of deadly force”, expressed in the aimless shooting at the windows of Taylor’s house while several bullets hit a neighboring household (Costello, 2020). Under state law, the officer faces up to five years in prison. Subsequently, four days after the events, Hankison was fired.
On behalf of Breonna Taylor’s estate, Taylor’s family filed a wrongful death complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court on May 15 against the police who were there as well as the city of Louisville (Oppel Jr., 2021). Breonna Taylor’s relatives insisted that all three policemen be convicted of premeditated murder or manslaughter. The victim’s family received compensation from the Louisville authorities for 12 million dollars.
Kenneth Walker also insists on reconsidering the accusation that shots were fired. The injured policeman, Jonathan Mattingly, is also filing a charge for damages. The whole case resulted in mass protests in which two other policemen were injured.
While the police department had obtained court authority for a “no-knock” entrance, the orders were altered to “knock and announce” before the raid, requiring the officers to identify themselves (Oppel Jr., 2021). Even though the police themselves claimed that they announced that they were going to enter, there was no confirmation of this. Consequently, they have violated the law by ignoring the conditions of entry into someone else’s property. The officers were all plainclothes narcotics officers, according to the Louisville police department; thus, none were wearing body cameras.
Therefore, the main problem is precisely the measures taken by the police. As noted earlier, the officers claimed they knocked on the door and warned of their arrival. However, in reality, only one witness was found to justify these words, all the other neighbors did not hear anything. In addition, Brett Hankison got into a neighboring house by shooting, which put people not involved in the case at risk. In this case, this served as the main motive against him in court since the powers were exceeded.
The main argument was whether the grand jury had been given the authority to decide whether or not charges should be filed against Mattingly and Cosgrove (Vogt, 2020). On the other hand, it is unclear if prosecutors determined that the officers acted in self-defense without bringing the case before a grand jury. The attorneys for Hankison and Walker asked for the grand jury transcript and associated material to be released (Costello, 2020). According to a court motion filed by a grand juror, Cameron had mischaracterized grand-jury processes and was using grand jurors as a shield to avoid accountability and responsibility for charging determinations. Under public pressure and due to the lack of direct evidence, the decision, in this case, was directed against one policeman.
A second grand juror criticized Cameron, the grand jury’s operation, and Cameron’s presentation of the grand jury’s findings. The juror concurred with the first juror’s testimony, stating that the grand jury intended to investigate further charges against the police, including homicide (Baker, 2021). During discussions, the panel was kept in the dark regarding self-defense legislation and was pushed away from pursuing murder charges (Vogt, 2020). These remarks contradict Cameron’s allegation that the grand jury agreed that the police were justified in defending. According to the first grand jury, the panel did not believe that certain acts were permissible.
There is a possibility that the outcome of this case will serve as a reason to justify such aggressive actions by the police. However, this case has impacted the reformation of some administrative changes. For the most part, the impact of this case lies in the precedent set. Thus, subsequent cases in which disregard of the laws based on penetration into private property will be considered will refer to this event. It is also essential to make certain changes regarding the activities of the police. In this case, there is a rather significant lack of evidence and evidence. All this, in turn, is reflected in the public response, which is caused by a lack of understanding of what happened.
The Louisville City Council decisively passed a resolution prohibiting no-knock search warrants (Johnson, 2020). It is known as “Breonna’s Law,” and it mandates that all police who serve warrants wear body cameras and put on them for at least five minutes before and after the warrant is served.
Currently, only one police officer has been charged – Brett Hankison. However, Hankison demanded a review of the case, so his trial continued. The sentencing itself was in the standard mode, however, as noted earlier, there were some contradictions regarding whether to be charged with murder (Vogt, 2020). Thus, the verdict is indeterminate and remains pending. In addition, the sentencing is accusatory, which refers to one of the three participants in the events. A guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is decided only on the condition that during the trial, the defendant’s guilt in committing a crime is confirmed by the totality of the evidence examined by the court.
References
Baker, L. (Ed.). (2021). Breonna Taylor and the pursuit of justice (Vol. 662). School of Law.
Costello, D. (2020). Louisville police are firing officer Brett Hankison involved in Breonna Taylor’s shooting. USA Today. Web.
Johnson, M. (2020). Louisville passes “Breonna’s Law” banning no-knock warrants. The Hill. Web.
Oppel Jr., R. A. (2021). What to know about Breonna Taylor’s death. The New York Times. Web.
Vogt, D. (2020). Ky. AG Cameron to release grand jury recording Wednesday following grand juror motion. Wave3. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.