Louisville police to fire two cops involved in police shooting and killing of Black EMT, Breonna Taylor, 26, using questionable ‘No-knock warrant’
Two Kentuckey police officers will be fired over the officer involved shooting of Breonna Taylor
Breonna Taylor was killed when LMPD officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison and Myles Cosgrove stormed her Louisville home
Louisville police Dept is set to remove the detective who obtained no-knock warrant, and detective who shot the EMT three times
The officers were serving a narcotics warrant on March 13 when they shot Taylor, but no drugs or cash were found in her home
The target of the raid, who was wearing an electronic monitor and did not live in the home, had been taken into police custody hours earlier
Louisville police anounced Tuesday they have have taken steps that could result in firing of two officers in connection to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor earlier this year
Louisville detectives Joshua Jaynes and Myles Cosgrove received a pretermination letter on Tuesday
It came after a Professional Standards Unit investigation found Jaynes had violated dept procedures for preparation of a search warrant and truthfulness
Jaynes has a hearing with interim Chief Yvette Gentry and her staff on Thursday
Ballistics reports showed that Det. Myles Cosgrove is one of the officers who shot Taylor at least three times, killing her
Neither of these men is facing charges related to the killing of 26-year-old Breonna taylor
Louisville police have taken steps that could result in the firing of two detectives connected to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor at her apartment earlier this year.
Detective Joshua Jaynes, who obtained the no-knock warrant on Taylor’s home, and Detective Myles Cosgrove, one of the officers fired shots that killed the 26-year-old EMT, reportedly received pretermination letters on Tuesday.
Jaynes, who was not present at the shooting, received the letter after a Professional Standards Unit investigation found he had violated department procedures for preparation of a search warrant and truthfulness, his attorney said.
The fatal shooting of the 26-year-old black woman in her home sparked months of protests in Louisville alongside national protests over racial injustice and police misconduct.
Signficantgly, none of the officers face charges in relation to the actual killing of Taylor. Just one of the officrs involved, Brett Hankison, faces a charge of wanton endangerment for firing recklessly into a neighboring apartment.
Hankison who has since been fired, has pled not guilty to the charges.
Jaynes has a hearing with interim Chief Yvette Gentry and her staff on Thursday.
‘Detective Jaynes and I will show up for the pretermination hearing to try to convince acting Chief Gentry that this action is unwarranted,’ attorney Thomas Clay told the Courier Journal.
‘Jaynes did nothing wrong,’ Clay added.
Jaynes was not present during the shooting at Taylor’s apartment in Louisville. About 12 hours earlier, he secured a warrant with a ‘no-knock’ clause from a judge.
Gentry wrote: ‘These are extreme violations of our policies, which endangered others.
‘Your actions have brought discredit upon yourself and the department. Your conduct has severely damaged the image our department has established within our community.’
The officers were serving a narcotics warrant on March 13 when they shot Taylor, but no drugs or cash were found in her home.
Cosgrove shot Taylor at least three times, killing her, according to an FBI ballistics analysis. He was the second person to enter her home and fired 16 rounds down the hallway.
Taylor was an emergency medical worker who had settled in for the night when police busted through her door.
Former officer Brett Hankison was charged by a grand jury with wanton endangerment, a low-level felony, for firing into an adjacent apartment where people were present.
Cosgrove and Officer John Mattingly who shot Taylor, according to ballistics evidence, were not charged by the grand jury.
Mattingly was shot by Taylor’s boyfriend during the raid and returned fire. Taylor’s boyfriend said he thought an intruder was breaking into her apartment.
After the grand jury decision, three jurors came forward to reveal that they believe the investigation was incomplete.
One woman, who came forward last month, spoke anonymously about the September proceedings, joining two others who said the 12-member panel was not given the option to consider charges against the officers who fatally shot Taylor in March.
The woman, in her first published interview, said that when the proceedings concluded with three wanton endangerment charges for one officer, she felt herself saying ‘no, that’s not the end of it’.
‘I felt like there should’ve been more charges,’ she said in a phone interview.
This juror echoed two other grand jurors’ complaints that the panel wasn’t allowed to consider additional charges because prosecutors told them the use of force was justified.
The two officers who shot Taylor, according to ballistics evidence, were not charged by the grand jury.
One of those officers was shot by Taylor’s boyfriend during the raid and returned fire. Taylor’s boyfriend said he thought an intruder was breaking into her apartment Police say they announced themselves before entering Taylor home.
The woman on the grand jury said she didn’t understand why prosecutors didn’t consider endangerment charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove.
‘All of them went in blindly, you really couldn’t see into that lady’s apartment as they explained to us, there was just a TV on,’ she said of Taylor’s apartment. The police ‘went in there like the O.K. Corral, wanted dead or alive’.
In October two grand jurors came forward to say they weren’t given chance to consider homicide charges against cops in Breonna Taylor case.
The first grand juror in the Breonna Taylor case come forward to claim that the panel was not given an opportunity to consider homicide charges against the Louisville police officers involved in the 26-year-old EMT’s death.
An attorney for the anonymous juror issued a statement on their behalf in October after a Kentucky judge granted panel members permission to speak publicly about the case presented by the state’s Attorney General Daniel Cameron.
‘The grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them,’ the statement from attorney Kevin Glogower read.
‘The grand jury never heard about those laws. Self defense or justification was never explained either.’
Cameron has acknowledged wanton endangerment was the only charge recommended to the grand jury but said prosecutors ‘walked the grand jury through every homicide offense’.
An attorney for the anonymous juror issued a statement on their behalf in October after a Kentucky judge granted panel members permission to speak publicly about the case presented by the state’s Attorney General Daniel Cameron (pictured)
The first anonymous grand juror who had sued to speak publicly about the secret grand jury proceeding last month.
That juror issued a statement in which he said ‘the grand jury agreed’ that the officers who shot Taylor were ‘justified’ in returning fire after they were shot at by Kenneth Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend.
The anonymous grand juror challenged Cameron’s comments, saying: ‘The grand jury didn’t agree that certain actions were justified, nor did it decide the indictment should be the only charges in the Breonna Taylor case.’
‘Questions were asked about additional charges and the grand jury was told there would be none because the prosecutors didn’t feel they could make them stick,’ the statement continued.
‘The grand jury was not given the opportunity to deliberate on those charges and deliberated only on what was presented to them. I can’t speak for other jurors but I can help the truth be told.’
Just days later, a second grand juror in the case came forward to echo similar claims.
‘The Grand Jury was only allowed to consider the three wanton endangerment charges against Detective Brett Hankison,’ the second anonymous juror said in a written statement released.
‘No opportunity to consider anything else was permitted.’
The data includes no-knock and other warrants.
Generally, under the law, police must knock and announce their presence when serving a warrant, meaning they must wait before entering a property.
But with no-knock warrants, officers don’t have to say anything and don’t have to wait. That’s because the warrants are reserved for extraordinarily dangerous moments or if suspects are likely to destroy evidence if they are alerted to officers’ presence, but critics say not always.
Leave a Reply