1. #17441
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Well, they're a racist troll who says they're not even from the US so...
    I'm still not convinced that it isn't rda, tbh.
    When you fully support violence in the streets because you're too comfy sat at home in another country behind your PC screen to actually do anything about things you claim to be against
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro-Violence/Arch-Angel of Riots/rmfAcc/Rochana View Post
    I admit I'm an absolute lunatic who is in favor of chaos, because I don't like what is currently going on - despite being in a privileged and elated position in this supposed state of "normalcy".

  2. #17442
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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.
    It does when they charged him with blind firing into the neighbouring apartments of white neighbours, but not for the stray bullets that were shot into the apartments of black neighbours.

    That's how they determined which charges to apply. The race of those he put at risk. The same act was deemed a criminally negligent act if he risked harming a white person, but not a crime at all if he risked harming a black person. That's just naked racism.

    As for Breonna Taylor, sad to say, but she was a collateral damage.
    "Collateral damage" isn't a concept that exists, in policing. At all. At any level. Even in military action, it isn't a concept that just sees blanket acceptance; it's highly controversial. But in policing? Doesn't exist. It's just a crime, committed by police officers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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).
    Blind firing in an apartment complex puts everyone in surrounding apartments at risk.

    Which is why that officer's being charged for doing so. It is not standard practice, at all. It's gross negligence with a willful disregard for human life.

    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
    Apparently you're unaware that, in an apartment building, there are apartments both above and below you, not just around you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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.
    It's not a "gray area" at all.

    As for the cops not announcing themselves, it seems that the testimonies differs if I recall correctly.
    One witness out of 12, who originally had the same story as the other 11.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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.
    You're not being "less biased". A lack of bias would mean you look at 12 witness accounts, see that all originally stated that the officers did not announce, but that one changed his testimony, but the other 11 remained firm. And you'd assume that the one witness was either mistaken or dishonest. That's how a reasonable approach works, through application of Occam's Razor.

    Plucking that one witness' adjusted testimony and basing your entire conclusion on that one account's veracity, that is bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Murder is all about intent to kill, which is not the case despite all the fanfic going on in your head.
    Are you arguing that the officers did not know that if they shoot someone, it might kill that person? That shooting someone is a use of lethal force?

    Or are you arguing that they accidentally discharged their weapons, multiple times?

    Because if they pulled the trigger on purpose, that's the legal definition of "intent". And the weapon they pulled the trigger on was one which provides lethal force; that makes it "intent to kill". It may "only" be 2nd degree murder, done in the heat of the moment and without a predetermined plan or intent before they arrived, but shooting a gun at someone is a clear expression of "intent to kill". Where the fuck are you getting your legal understanding of this kind of shit?

  3. #17443
    I am Murloc! Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    5,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I don't really get how screaming racist racist is allowed here but I'm not going to respond to mindless slander.
    You are a racist though. It’s pretty obvious. Stop being a snowflake and admit to it, racist.

    I mean, you believe lies as long as it’s black people. You look for reasons for black people’s murders to be justified, and you irrationally hate BLM because you’re a racist.

  4. #17444
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    55,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I don't really get how screaming racist racist is allowed here but I'm not going to respond to mindless slander.
    It’s allowed for the same reason “mindless slander” slander is allowed...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  5. #17445
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Because the other apartment was not involved in the shooting while the first was. Skin color does not matter here.
    There are three apartments. A, B, and C.

    Apartment B was raided by police. In the course of the ensuing gunfire, careless shots were fired thru the walls into both apartments A and C.

    Apartment A has a white family living in it. Charges were filed.

    Apartment C has a black family living in it. No charges were filed.

    Explain this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  6. #17446
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    There are three apartments. A, B, and C.

    Apartment B was raided by police. In the course of the ensuing gunfire, careless shots were fired thru the walls into both apartments A and C.

    Apartment A has a white family living in it. Charges were filed.

    Apartment C has a black family living in it. No charges were filed.

    Explain this.
    Did they give any reason for not charging for the C appartment ? If no, it is really conterning and is there no one in the procedure that can say anything about it ?

  7. #17447
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    55,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Did they give any reason for not charging for the C appartment ? If no, it is really conterning and is there no one in the procedure that can say anything about it ?
    There are literally protests going for months about it...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  8. #17448
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    There are literally protests going for months about it...
    Protests has nothing to with the procedure itself in the sense as they have no legal power over it.

  9. #17449
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    There are three apartments. A, B, and C.

    Apartment B was raided by police. In the course of the ensuing gunfire, careless shots were fired thru the walls into both apartments A and C.

    Apartment A has a white family living in it. Charges were filed.

    Apartment C has a black family living in it. No charges were filed.

    Explain this.
    As I understand it, Apartment A was a different direction from the shot fired, while Apartment C was above B and that officer was at least pointing the right direction.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  10. #17450
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Did they give any reason for not charging for the C appartment ? If no, it is really conterning and is there no one in the procedure that can say anything about it ?
    The Attorney General did not allow the grand jury to indict for that, even if they wanted to. No reason was given. The AG repeatedly tried to silence the grand jury, and grand jurors had to sue the state and get a court order to be able to speak out about the process.

    The AG presented the endangerment charges for the shots fired into Apartment A, and told grand jurors "this is the only charge on the table in this incident. You may not indict on any other charges relating to actions taken by police."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  11. #17451
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Did they give any reason for not charging for the C appartment ? If no, it is really conterning and is there no one in the procedure that can say anything about it ?
    Nothing. They gave no reason or explanation. They could have explained it, but the Grand Jury proceedings can only vote on charges the prosecutors suggest; the prosecutors did not give that Grand Jury the option to press charges for "Apartment C", nor any kind of homicide charges for Taylor's death. The Grand Jury literally was not given the option to weigh in on whether such charges were justifiable, and if they're not offered such charges, they aren't allowed to ask for them to be added.

    It's entirely in the hands of the prosecutors, and they've made no explanation.

    Of course, there are very obvious explanations, and absent some convoluted explanation, we have to go with the simplest answers; the prosecutors are racist and support police brutality against black Americans.

  12. #17452
    It is not : "we have to go for" but "I want to go for". Nuance.

    Obviously, it would have been better if they would have explained their choices.

  13. #17453
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    55,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Protests has nothing to with the procedure itself in the sense as they have no legal power over it.
    No, but it should create pressure, where previously it was being swept under the rug. But, even months of protests have not changed the results you can tell are obviously inconsistent.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  14. #17454
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    No, but it should create pressure, where previously it was being swept under the rug. But, even months of protests have not changed the results you can tell are obviously inconsistent.
    My question was more about who has the power to make those kind of choices inside the procedures and who can change them.

  15. #17455
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    That is some pants-on-head stupid stuff right there.

    "No one can ever be accidentally shot because you have to intend to pull a trigger, therefore any discharge of a weapon means there was intent to kill!"

    That's definitely not how murder works, but whatever scores you points on social media this week.
    I'll repeat;

    If I pull out and load a gun, point it at you, and pull the trigger, are you arguing that I should be shocked and surprised that the gun fires and shoots you? Should I not have understood that it could easily kill you?

    "Intent" just means the action taken was done so deliberately, rather than accidentally. Dropping a gun and having it fire on impact, that shooting wouldn't be intentional. But pointing the gun and pulling the trigger? That's intent. Literally what the term means.

    I didn't say this automatically made it "murder"; that's you shifting goalposts. I was speaking to the definition of intent. If a woman's husband is attacking her with a knife, and she grabs a gun and shoots him, that's self defense. It's also intentional homicide. She clearly intended to shoot her husband. And he died by that action, making it homicide. This is what words mean.

    You can certainly accidentally shoot someone. If you're firing downrange and don't know there's someone down there. If you handle the gun improperly and it discharges due to you being a buffoon. Are you suggesting this officer's weapon was accidentally discharged? Because the testimony of basically everyone is that he was fully in control of his weapon and making the choice to shoot at a human target.

  16. #17456
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I don't really get how screaming racist racist is allowed here but I'm not going to respond to mindless slander.
    ? All I did was ask what form of protest would convince you.
    MMO-Champion Off-Topic's voice of reason.
    If you're mad at me, rest assured it's only because I'm smarter than you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  17. #17457
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Did they know they hit someone ? The boyfriend just shot back and did not call for help afterwards or did he do it ? If he did, and they did not call an ambulance, they are at fault. Did they ask him to surrender in the 20+ min following the shooting ? If no, they are at fault. But it is still not murder. A piss poor done job for sure, but not murder.
    Yes, they knew they hit someone, because they said this over her dead body. And the boyfriend called 911 and an ambulance. The cops didn't call for it.

  18. #17458
    I am Murloc! Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    5,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Did they know they hit someone ? The boyfriend just shot back and did not call for help afterwards or did he do it ? If he did, and they did not call an ambulance, they are at fault. Did they ask him to surrender in the 20+ min following the shooting ? If no, they are at fault. But it is still not murder. A piss poor done job for sure, but not murder.
    The boyfriend called 911, and we have the tape.

    Are you arguing that when someone shoots at someone, they don’t intent to kill them? That’s delusional.

  19. #17459
    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    The boyfriend called 911, and we have the tape.

    Are you arguing that when someone shoots at someone, they don’t intent to kill them? That’s delusional.
    Well, they did not see Breonna Taylor or did they ? If they did not, can we say they intended to kill her, as per your reasoning ?

  20. #17460
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Well, they did not see Breonna Taylor or did they ? If they did not, can we say they intended to kill her, as per your reasoning ?
    They raided her apartment. So far as they knew when they busted in the door, she was the only one home.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •