Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Endus]

They shot and killed Breonna Taylor in her own home during a no-knock raid authorized by a warrant obtained by presenting false evidence to a judge. Kentucky is a "castle doctrine" state, and given the police didn't announce themselves, residents are well within their rights to draw and fire on the police in that circumstance. Police using their weapons in that scenario does not constitute self defense.

When the potential charges went before the grand jury, the Attorney General of Kentucky specifically told the grand jury what charges they were allowed to indict for. They included endangerment charges for firing into the nearby apartment of a white family, they did NOT include endangerment charges for firing into the nearby apartment of a black family, and they did not include any charges relating to Breonna Taylor's murder.

Please explain what part of this scenario constitutes criminal actions on the part of Breonna Taylor that makes her murder justified.

He's not going to answer you honestly.

The real reason boils down to "she's black, and thus her life has no value to them". That's literally it. There's nothing more to it. No ameliorating circumstances, no secondary considerations, nothing. She's black and therefore worthless to them, so calling for police reform is unacceptable.

They'll find every reason to not come right out and say that, but that's all their argument boils down to.

[Specialka]

He's not going to answer you honestly.

The real reason boils down to "she's black, and thus her life has no value to them". That's literally it. There's nothing more to it. No ameliorating circumstances, no secondary considerations, nothing. She's black and therefore worthless to them, so calling for police reform is unacceptable.

They'll find every reason to not come right out and say that, but that's all their argument boils down to.

Why do you want to take ameliorating circumstances, secondary considerations for Breonna Taylor but you deny that right for the Police officers ? Just curious.

[Masark]

Why do you want to take ameliorating circumstances, secondary considerations for Breonna Taylor but you deny that right for the Police officers ? Just curious.

I would if there were any. But there exist only aggravating circumstances for the police in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain what part of this scenario constitutes criminal actions on the part of Breonna Taylor that makes her murder justified.

"What de la Rocha said with irony, I say with conviction."

[postman1782]

Words are a tricky thing I admit. Try reading mine rather then trying to pass off yours.

The issue is genuine I've seen some rather disturbing videos of cops doing horrendous things from shooting a man who surrendered to having the audacity to plant a taser on a body of a person they wrongfully shot.

The problem with these riots and yes they are riots is none of these cases are these. Yes the message they trying to forward is a valid one but they hitch their carts to the worst possible examples for it.

I have read yours, and you are wrong, objectively and most ignorantly wrong.

Floyd didn't die to a drug overdose, and Arbery didn't die trying to assault someone, he was trying to defend himself against a couple of racist rednecks, one a former cop that was used to getting his racist way.

[Saltysquidoon]

Why do you want to take ameliorating circumstances, secondary considerations for Breonna Taylor but you deny that right for the Police officers ? Just curious.

What would said circumstances be?

[Endus]

Why do you want to take ameliorating circumstances, secondary considerations for Breonna Taylor but you deny that right for the Police officers ? Just curious.

I don't deny them that at all.

But, they're the ones with training; the onus is on the officers to defend their use of force. If they can't, they can go to prison, because they've committed violent crimes.

[Antiganon]

Why do you want to take ameliorating circumstances, secondary considerations for Breonna Taylor but you deny that right for the Police officers ? Just curious.

Did I mention a case in which ameliorating circumstances exist?

Or are you suggesting I can't call out bad behavior where in I see it?

The officer that shot the mentally ill man wife a knife, I don't fault the officer for defending himself (though he should have used nonlethal force first), I fault the dispatcher that sent armed officers when the call was asking for mental health professionals.

[Noxx79]

It is what I meant... the posters brought up cases that both have autopay reports and video evidence of the event. I am not really interested in their alternative interpretation of events.

Do innocent people get killed by police in unjustifiable ways ? Yes. Do any of the cases involving BLM include those? No, not from I've seen I might of missed one riot granted but I feel confident in saying the majority of the time they dont.

I don't believe BLM is capable of causes any positive change. Whatever good intentions it was built upon have become so utterly tainted and corrupted by the 100 days of rioting, assault, and looting any message beyond " we need to militarize the police to deal with this" is gone.

I can agree with the sentiment behind it but I don't believe that just having a positive goal can redeem it.

Too bad, Denver proves you wrong.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/...icing-changed/

Fucking racist.

[Specialka]

They shot and killed Breonna Taylor in her own home during a no-knock raid authorized by a warrant obtained by presenting false evidence to a judge. Kentucky is a "castle doctrine" state, and given the police didn't announce themselves, residents are well within their rights to draw and fire on the police in that circumstance. Police using their weapons in that scenario does not constitute self defense.

When the potential charges went before the grand jury, the Attorney General of Kentucky specifically told the grand jury what charges they were allowed to indict for. They included endangerment charges for firing into the nearby apartment of a white family, they did NOT include endangerment charges for firing into the nearby apartment of a black family, and they did not include any charges relating to Breonna Taylor's murder.

Please explain what part of this scenario constitutes criminal actions on the part of Breonna Taylor that makes her murder justified.

Sorry if you can't understand why they charged him for blindly firing into the next appartment. The skin color has nothing to do with it.

As for Breonna Taylor, sad to say, but she was a collateral damage. Remind me of a case that happened a few years back in my country. After the Bataclan attack, the Police tracked down a few terrorist into some appartment and confronted them. The result was nearly 3000 shots fired. They killed 2 terrorists and their cousine that was there but was not part of the terrorist group. She was just a collateral damage, there as the bad time.

In that case, the one or those to blame are the Police Officer that got the warrant based on false informations.

[postman1782]

Sorry if you can't understand why they charged him for blindly firing into the next appartment. The skin color has nothing to do with it.

As for Breonna Taylor, sad to say, but she was a collateral damage. Remind me of a case that happened a few years back in my country. After the Bataclan attack, the Police tracked down a few terrorist into some appartment and confronted them. The result was nearly 3000 shots fired. They killed 2 terrorists and their cousine that was there but was not part of the terrorist group. She was just a collateral damage, there as the bad time.

In that case, the one or those to blame are the Police Officer that got the warrant based on false informations.

She was collateral damage because the cops were just blind firing. Which is strictly against their training. Which is why the cop got charged for shooting into the neighbors apartments.

[Specialka]

She was collateral damage because the cops were just blind firing. Which is strictly against their training. Which is why the cop got charged for shooting into the neighbors apartments.

Proof that it is against their training ? When someone is shooting at you from the dark, the best thing you can do is retreat and take cover (which they did) while providing covering fire so your enemy aim is disturbed (which they did).

And so no, he was charged because the bullets went through the wall into the other appartment. If the bullets did not go rhrough it or if he would shoot toward the floor, he would not have been charged

[postman1782]

Proof that it is against their training ? When someone is shooting at you from the dark, the best thing you can do is retreat and take cover (which they did) while providing covering fire so your enemy aim is disturbed (which they did).

And so no, he was charged because the bullets went through the wall into the other appartment. If the bullets did not go rhrough it or if he would shoot toward the floor, he would not have been charged

Blind firing is always against training. If you have ever had hunter's safety or weapons training for a concealed carry license, that is some of the main parts they teach, you don't fire at something that doesn't have like a backdrop to stop the bullets before it hits someone.

And there was no need for covering fire, there was only one shot discharged by the boyfriend that was legally defending the apartment. Especially since the cops didn't announce themselves.

[Specialka]

Blind firing is always against training. If you have ever had hunter's safety or weapons training for a concealed carry license, that is some of the main parts they teach, you don't fire at something that doesn't have like a backdrop to stop the bullets before it hits someone.

And there was no need for covering fire, there was only one shot discharged by the boyfriend that was legally defending the apartment. Especially since the cops didn't announce themselves.

I was mostly speaking about the two other cops by the front door for the covering fire.

As for blind firing, it is a gray area in cop or military training. It is not forbidden or anything, but not recommended as well.

As for the cops not announcing themselves, it seems that the testimonies differs if I recall correctly.

[postman1782]

I was mostly speaking about the two other cops by the front door for the covering fire.

As for blind firing, it is a gray area in cop or military training. It is not forbidden or anything, but not recommended as well.

As for the cops not announcing themselves, it seems that the testimonies differs if I recall correctly.

Well, you recall incorrectly. Because there were 12 witnesses, at first, all 12 said they didn't hear them announce themselves, then 2 months later, there was one that changed his story after questioning him again.

[Specialka]

Well, you recall incorrectly. Because there were 12 witnesses, at first, all 12 said they didn't hear them announce themselves, then 2 months later, there was one that changed his story after questioning him again.

So as I recall correctly, one witness said they announced themselves. Or are you saying or implying that witness is liying ? Or did he receive pressure ?

[postman1782]

So as I recall correctly, one witness said they announced themselves. Or are you saying or implying that witness is liying ? Or did he receive pressure ?

No, the first time he said there wasn't an announcement. Then he changed his story after they questioned him again. You have 11 other witnesses saying the 1 witness is lying. Would not surprise me if he received pressure.

[Specialka]

No, the first time he said there wasn't an announcement. Then he changed his story after they questioned him again. You have 11 other witnesses saying the 1 witness is lying. Would not surprise me if he received pressure.

So you are straight up saying he is liying. You could have said that :"You have 11 other witnesses saying the 1 witness heard wrong or do not correctly remember".


Kinda show your biais.

What is the sentence for false testimony in the USA ?

[Zython]

It is what I meant... the posters brought up cases that both have autopay reports and video evidence of the event. I am not really interested in their alternative interpretation of events.

Do innocent people get killed by police in unjustifiable ways ? Yes. Do any of the cases involving BLM include those? No, not from I've seen I might of missed one riot granted but I feel confident in saying the majority of the time they dont.

I don't believe BLM is capable of causes any positive change. Whatever good intentions it was built upon have become so utterly tainted and corrupted by the 100 days of rioting, assault, and looting any message beyond " we need to militarize the police to deal with this" is gone.

I can agree with the sentiment behind it but I don't believe that just having a positive goal can redeem it.

So what form of protest would get you to agree that the state hunting black people for sport is wrong?

[postman1782]

So you are straight up saying he is liying. You could have said that :"You have 11 other witnesses saying the 1 witness heard wrong or do not correctly remember".


Kinda show your biais.

What is the sentence for false testimony in the USA ?

Says the guy that is literally doing anything he can to defend cops killing people? Get the hell out of here with that bullshit argument.

[Specialka]

Says the guy that is literally doing anything he can to defend cops killing people? Get the hell out of here with that bullshit argument.

I am not their attorney nor willing to be. Just less biaised than most ppl here as I try to stick to the facts without putting feelings in it. And I know most ppl do not like that.

So what is the sentence for false testimony in the USA ?