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

[Specialka]

I'm suggesting, in no particular order of importance;
1> They shouldn't be firing blind, period, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.
2> They shouldn't be putting themselves in a situation where a homeowner has a legitimate grounds for firing on officers in legal self-defense, which Walker did. Any actions officers take putting themselves into such a situation should be considered criminal acts.
3> Choosing to fire into a situation and failing to rapidly secure it through the use of such force demonstrates incompetence that should be sufficient for summary dismissal, barring extreme circumstances. Which these weren't.
4> Any weapon discharge that hits anyone but the target should be treated as criminal assault or homicide. If you can't hit your target, don't fucking shoot, you morons.

No, they shouldn't run blindly into the situation. They shouldn't have created that situation. Everything bad about this situation was created by the officers. They are the ones entirely at fault for every single thing in this situation. They're responsible for Taylor being shot. They're also responsible for letting Taylor's wound go without treatment. They were the ones in control of the situation, and who created the situation. Losing control to one guy who'd just leapt out of bed demonstrated clear incompetence on the officer's part. Every single officer involved, not just the scapegoat. They're all incompetent.

So if someone draws a gun on you in the middle of the street, you should let yourself get shot then ?

[Bodakane]

So if someone draws a gun on you in the middle of the street, you should let yourself get shot then ?

This makes no sense as a rebuttal for anything Endus said.

[Elegiac]

So if someone draws a gun on you in the middle of the street, you should let yourself get shot then ?

Lol how is ridiculous non sequitur remotely relevant.

[Endus]

Breonna Taylor and her home were on the warrant. This narrative that they hit the wrong place while they already had the real suspect in custody elsewhere is complete fabrication.

They intended to be at her house specifically for her.

And she wasn't considered a serious connection to the actual target of the investigation; an ex-boyfriend. There was no grounds for a no-knock at her place, and Taylor wasn't suspected of any real wrongdoing; she just had a personal connection to the actual suspect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...reonna-taylor/

[Elegiac]

And she wasn't considered a serious connection to the actual target of the investigation; an ex-boyfriend. There was no grounds for a no-knock at her place, and Taylor wasn't suspected of any real wrongdoing; she just had a personal connection to the actual suspect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...reonna-taylor/

Watch the argument slowly drift to "well it's reasonable to assume that since they were looking for her ex-boyfriend she was the sort of person that hangs around criminals so that's why they feared for their life" and all but admit it's just a racist position, lol.

[Endus]

So if someone draws a gun on you in the middle of the street, you should let yourself get shot then ?

Well, I don't carry a weapon, because nobody carries a weapon in their daily lives here in Canada. So I'd probably get shot. Not because I "let them", but because I don't have a weapon on me.

But we're not talking about "in the street", here. We're talking about a gang of unknown assailants who aggressively break down your door and storm inside, while heavily armed. Even in Canada, there'd be grounds for me to open fire in self-defense, if I was lucky enough to have a gun handy (I don't, because I don't hunt, which is basically the only reason to have a gun in your home, here). And no; once you've instigated a violent confrontation and justified lethal force against you in your victim's self defense, you have no grounds to claim you're returning fire to defend yourself. You aren't. That's not how self defense claims work, anywhere. You're the aggressors, and "returning fire" in that kind of situation is just straight murder (or attempted murder, if you miss).

[I Push Buttons]

Watch the argument slowly drift to "well it's reasonable to assume that since they were looking for her ex-boyfriend she was the sort of person that hangs around criminals so that's why they feared for their life" and all but admit it's just a racist position, lol.

Yes, feared for their lives because racism... Obviously not because someone fucking shot at them or anything like that.

[Elegiac]

Yes, feared for their lives because racism... Obviously not because someone fucking shot at them or anything like that.

No, I was referring to their decision to break the door down as if they were was any actual justification for doing so besides playing Chinese Whispers with questioning suspects.

[Endus]

Watch the argument slowly drift to "well it's reasonable to assume that since they were looking for her ex-boyfriend she was the sort of person that hangs around criminals so that's why they feared for their life" and all but admit it's just a racist position, lol.

I mean, let's also note that her ex was a bad dude, and both Taylor and Walker knew it, and there was a greater possibility that it was her ex and his gang breaking in because he was jealous of Walker or something equally stupid, than that it was the cops. Since the officers didn't announce themselves.

The cops were the ones in control of the situation, and who escalated it to that level of force, without cause. They don't get to claim they're super afraid after doing so. It was their fucking choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, feared for their lives because racism... Obviously not because someone fucking shot at them or anything like that.

If I break into a home to steal a bunch of stuff, and the homeowner shoots at me, I don't get to shoot back and claim it was "self defense".

Somehow, we allow that illogic when it's a cop making the stupid claim, though.

Edit: and before you say "but it's different because it's cops and they had a warrant"; Walker had no way of knowing any of that.

[Elegiac]

I mean, let's also note that her ex was a bad dude, and both Taylor and Walker knew it, and there was a greater possibility that it was her ex and his gang breaking in because he was jealous of Walker or something equally stupid, than that it was the cops. Since the officers didn't announce themselves.

The cops were the ones in control of the situation, and who escalated it to that level of force, without cause. They don't get to claim they're super afraid after doing so. It was their fucking choice.

It is fairly amusing watching all the 2A advocates dismantle their own arguments - which is a feat considering the arguments were based in myth in the first place, lol.

[Endus]

It is fairly amusing watching all the 2A advocates dismantle their own arguments - which is a feat considering the arguments were based in myth in the first place, lol.

I mean, I'm not gonna suggest I agree with American gun laws.

But if you're gonna to Castle Doctrine and all that, yeah, no-knock warrants can and should be responded to with lethal force by anyone inside, and the cops shouldn't be able to charge them for doing so. Really, the issue is that no-knock warrants are colossally fucking stupid and should only be used in vanishingly rare situations, and with the foreknowledge that officers are putting themselves at serious risk by choosing to take that approach.

[Elegiac]

I mean, I'm not gonna suggest I agree with American gun laws.

But if you're gonna to Castle Doctrine and all that, yeah, no-knock warrants can and should be responded to with lethal force by anyone inside, and the cops shouldn't be able to charge them for doing so. Really, the issue is that no-knock warrants are colossally fucking stupid and should only be used in vanishingly rare situations, and with the foreknowledge that officers are putting themselves at serious risk by choosing to take that approach.

"If people didn't want their children to get crushed by the child crushing machine they shouldn't have been doing XYZ" - people who certainly aren't questioning why we have the child crushing machine at all.

Basically the pro-police position in a nutshell.

[Specialka]

Well, I don't carry a weapon, because nobody carries a weapon in their daily lives here in Canada. So I'd probably get shot. Not because I "let them", but because I don't have a weapon on me.

But we're not talking about "in the street", here. We're talking about a gang of unknown assailants who aggressively break down your door and storm inside, while heavily armed. Even in Canada, there'd be grounds for me to open fire in self-defense, if I was lucky enough to have a gun handy (I don't, because I don't hunt, which is basically the only reason to have a gun in your home, here). And no; once you've instigated a violent confrontation and justified lethal force against you in your victim's self defense, you have no grounds to claim you're returning fire to defend yourself. You aren't. That's not how self defense claims work, anywhere. You're the aggressors, and "returning fire" in that kind of situation is just straight murder (or attempted murder, if you miss).

We are speaking about Police officers, not a gang.

[Endus]

We are speaking about Police officers, not a gang.

How was Walker supposed to know that?

[Elegiac]

We are speaking about Police officers, not a gang.

What's the difference?

[Specialka]

How was Walker supposed to know that?

The issue here is the stupid law and 2A allowing you to have a gun at home to "defend" it. Guns should be for having fun at firing range or "hunting" while I do not like killing animals that way.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the difference?

At this point, you are trolling so I will be ignoring you.

[Captain N]

What's the difference?

A gang goes to jail for their crimes eventually. The police get to walk away and their bootlickers blame the victims?

[eschatological]

This is the part where everyone is puzzled there were several eyewitnesses that said otherwise but they took the word of just one witness to clear the officers. Also are you suggesting that the people in the apartment had x-ray vision and could see the insignia on the vest through the closed door?

It's not puzzling. Grand jury investigations are in no way fair. They are run by prosecutors to get the results they want. They usually want to indict, but in this case, they (probably, since GJ investigations are sealed), only called the witness who claimed to hear them announce themselves. And because it's much harder to bring perjury charges on grand jury testimony, it's often a free forum for cops/prosecutors and their witnesses to lie and embellish, seeing as no defense attorneys are allowed in the proceedings.

- - - Updated - - -

Breonna Taylor and her home were on the warrant. This narrative that they hit the wrong place while they already had the real suspect in custody elsewhere is complete fabrication.

They intended to be at her house specifically for her.

I like how people ignore that this warrant was made up on a bullshit "tip" by an anonymous postal informant who was not named in the warrant, and hasn't been produced since. And seeing as both Taylor's personal postal delivery person and the person who usually coordinates with the police on warrants have publicly said they in no way, shape, or form testified to police that a suspicious package was delivered to Taylor's address....one has to assume the cops made it up.

Which means their very purpose for being there was a "bad faith" hunch, that they lied about on a sworn affadavit.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how people ignore that this warrant was made up on a bullshit "tip" by an anonymous postal informant who was not named in the warrant, and hasn't been produced since. And seeing as both Taylor's personal postal delivery person and the person who usually coordinates with the police on warrants have publicly said they in no way, shape, or form testified to police that a suspicious package was delivered to Taylor's address....one has to assume the cops made it up.

Which means their very purpose for being there was a "bad faith" hunch, that they lied about on a sworn affadavit.

Crickets in this thread for 42 minutes as the conservatives scramble to find their talking points on this one (hint: there are none).

[silveth]

I mean, let's also note that her ex was a bad dude, and both Taylor and Walker knew it, and there was a greater possibility that it was her ex and his gang breaking in because he was jealous of Walker or something equally stupid, than that it was the cops. Since the officers didn't announce themselves.

The cops were the ones in control of the situation, and who escalated it to that level of force, without cause. They don't get to claim they're super afraid after doing so. It was their fucking choice.

- - - Updated - - -



If I break into a home to steal a bunch of stuff, and the homeowner shoots at me, I don't get to shoot back and claim it was "self defense".

Somehow, we allow that illogic when it's a cop making the stupid claim, though.

Edit: and before you say "but it's different because it's cops and they had a warrant"; Walker had no way of knowing any of that.

I read there there is at least one witness that said they heard the police announce themselves. Now he could be lying, or he could have been in the nearest apartment so he heard, when others farther away didn't. I can't say either way, but the announce/unannounced is not a proven fact at this point. Its one of the theories. The one question I would like to know is who shot first. But at this point we can't trust either side enough to know.

Sadly we will never know and I am sad that someone died.

[Elegiac]

I read there there is at least one witness that said they heard the police announce themselves.

Did you read this post earlier in the thread which already explains said "witness"?

It's not puzzling. Grand jury investigations are in no way fair. They are run by prosecutors to get the results they want. They usually want to indict, but in this case, they (probably, since GJ investigations are sealed), only called the witness who claimed to hear them announce themselves. And because it's much harder to bring perjury charges on grand jury testimony, it's often a free forum for cops/prosecutors and their witnesses to lie and embellish, seeing as no defense attorneys are allowed in the proceedings.

This case is clear cut. The only uncertainty being introduced is by people with a pro-cop agenda, lol.