Or they could... check the logs, pull the IP, get a warrant, and get the account/ address associated with that IP.

This is basic stuff.

They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message.

That's just a fancy way of saying "speculate," and judges don't seem to object.

We should see when the warrant application becomes public.

Yep, often followed with "based on my training and experience".

Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is what the other cops in the lunchroom reckoned", and judges don't seem to object.

Don't have to wait, they updated the linked article with more details.

As I figured, they got her IP address from the logs.

Judges routinely issue warrants just because the good ol police officer man says it's totally ok and he'll get a nice lollipop for doing it.

My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.

There was grave misconduct in the Taylor case! Police shouldn't routinely be assaulting homes with weapons drawn. My issue is just the process you're describing here.

"They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message."

Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts.

Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up.

Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.

A good way to prosecute your side of this argument would be to point out any country in the world that has an adversarial warrant system and how well it works. I'm unfamiliar with any. Much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule, meaning that evidence of crimes obtained under false or broken warrants remain admissible.

If your argument is simply that most police shouldn't be armed, you'll get no argument from me.

On the destruction of evidence, this one has always baffled me - so is there evidence or not? Presumably when I go to a judge saying I need the legal authority to kill some babies at 3 AM because otherwise the evidence will be destroyed... I have enough evidence to justify killing those babies, right?

... So this begs the question... Why do I need authorization to kill babies at 3 AM? In case the suspects destroy more evidence? What was my evidence to kill babies to begin with? Just a hunch? Because a judge should absolutely shit on that, and it should be adversarial. A judge should laugh when evidence for a warrant request is "oh, I need the warrant because they'll destroy the evidence for me to request this warrant."

From my rough observation of the news for the past 20 or so years, the evidence of these crimes these babies died to protect has never been worth it. Maybe you know of a few where the death of a few babies were worth it because the crimes were so heinous. Every time I'm aware of - it's just been drugs, which could have been done in daylight hours, with no dead babies.

Now maybe this is your point about unarmed police. I'm not sure. But a warrant tends to be a fuck ton of latitude (as I've said in prior comments - judges just hand them out like candy), so just send in cops who want to kill with their bare hands and you'll get the same result, in my opinion.

I agree I'm being extreme, but that's where we are today. We tried the whole "let's just all get along and try to fight crime together" method, and it turns out cops will just lie to judges and go kill kids. This isn't me doing a slippery slope "what if" scenario. This has already happened. A bunch of times. Too many times in my opinion.

So now it's time for us to take away everyone's toys until they can show us they can all be good.

Be specific. What country has better rules regarding warrants than the US? This should be easy, because it seems hard to believe that we could be the best country in the world at this process. Then we can go look at how that country handles things, in specifics, and learn something.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust cops because they kill 1,100 people a year. That's it. That's my whole argument. Just 1,100 lives. Every year.

You're saying that's not relevant to what we're talking about and let's look at how European countries seem fine with their more lax evidentiary protocols, legal systems, and trusting cops. Even though their cops only kill 50 people a year (at equivalent population rates).

I really don't have a "better" warrant system to propose other than an adversarial one because at the end of the day I don't trust cops, and you're advocating for a legal system that intrinsically does. This is me saying "hey, blue is actually yellow" and you saying "no, blue is blue." Our perceived realities are too far apart.

I'm not interested in your feelings about the police killing people, because I share them, and there's nothing for us to discuss about it.

I am interested in the provenance of warrants, because they're central to the actual story we're commenting on.

Basically you both are in violent agreement, I think.

I’m pretty sure this is the case in most if not all US jurisdictions. You have to pass police Academy and annual or at least somewhat regular proficiency, physical, and written tests to ensure you are competent.

It not like you can just get hired as a cop because you have a cop friend.

The point of licensing is to bypass the CBA; the state can revoke a license --- for reasons other than "failed an exam" --- and having done so, the local department cannot retain the officer regardless of the results of labor arbitration.

This is something Illinois is working on right now, at the behest of the Lightfoot administration, though I haven't seen much news on progress. It's a big deal.

A judge does not have the power to grant a random private citizen the right to break into someone else’s home, with or without legal force, under any circumstance. Even a court order to allow breaking into your own property, say to evict squatters or tenants, would involve law enforcement. The judge can’t just deputize you like it’s the Wild West.

No. They have to convince a judge who is neutral in the matter. They have to have probable cause the criminal activity has/is occurring at the stated location the warrant is requested to be issued for. And the officers are under oath for this process, yet we see very few repercussions for a breakdown in this process. The affiant is open to persecution for perjury. The officers in the Taylor case lied by listing her and two others on the warrant. [0]

It's not an adversarial process, it's one of fact based decision making. Why would the judge blindly trust or mistrust the officer? The judge should trust the facts being presented are true, but that doesn't constitute a rubber stamp. And, as stated, if said officer lies about that evidence they should be prosecuted appropriately. Facts are often questioned to ascertain validity, that clearly did not happen in her case.

[0] https://www.wave3.com/2020/05/12/breonna-taylor-shooting-war...

But to me, the more important question is "what are the ramifications for subverting the intended warrant process"? It seems that both sides here are arguing that the warrant process should be based on veracity and proportionality, and it regularly isn't. So what process oversees and corrects the rubber-stamping of warrants?

But merely broken (if not fraudulently obtained) warrants aren't a basis for excluding evidence, because of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

What do you imagine is the point of having one? It's to hold police accountable and Judge if what he/she being told is potentiality total BS.

[0] https://www.wave3.com/2020/05/12/breonna-taylor-shooting-war... [1] https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09...

Maybe go reread it.

"The connection with Glover is an important piece in this puzzle. The narcotics investigation was not just going after Glover, but several people believed to be involved in a drug trafficking ring. Police had reason to believe that Breonna Taylor had been involved because they believed that packages were being delivered to her apartment which Glover picked up and he said that she was in possession of several thousand dollars that belonged to him." [0]

This is readily apparent in the warrant.

And another, just to clarify. [1]

[0] https://clashdaily.com/2020/08/report-breonna-taylor-extensi... [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report...

From NPR: "The purpose of the raid on Taylor's home was to find evidence linking her to an ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a convicted felon with a history of drug trafficking, according to court documents.

Police didn't find any.

Now it appears prosecutors attempted to tie Taylor to a life of crime after her death." [0]

Now color me sceptical, but that appears to be an interesting argument if she's not a target as you continue to incorrectly posit.

Please top spreading misinformation.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908625259/prosecutors-plea-of...

I do wonder how much of the response to this post just begins with the assumption that red states are incompetent. If this had happened in a blue state no doubt the comments would be different. On the internet it's all ideology all the time.

Comcast has this weird system that allows users to open their WiFi AP to other Comcast customers, in return for the ability to hop on to any other "open" Comcast AP.

AFAIK, Comcast made it opt-out.

So, someone could have driven by to use her AP specifically in order to implicate her.

I have multiple VLANs at home, and I only have one WAN IP.

for what its worth: claims to have tested and says they are different public IPs