About Breonna Taylor's death... (1 Viewer)

[SonOfDaedalus]

It's definitely a tragic case. The police are totally responsible for her death. The warrant should not have been issued. And it was poorly executed.

But I don't see any criminal actions by officers who executed the warrant. It seems that the boyfriend didn't know they were police and fired at them. They fired back.

Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?

All of this is incompetence but not criminal? The family already received civil compensation.

Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?

(Not getting Miss Taylor prompt medical assistance but it appears she had no chance of surviving)

 

[dixon01767]

It's definitely a tragic case. The police are totally responsible for her death. The warrant should not have been issued. And it was poorly executed.

But I don't see any criminal actions by officers who executed the warrant. It seems that the boyfriend didn't know they were police and fired at them. They fired back.

Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?

All of this is incompetence but not criminal? The family already received civil compensation.

Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?

(Not getting Miss Taylor prompt medical assistance but it appears she had no chance of surviving)

Had they carried out a "No knock" warrant like originally planned, Breonna would probably still be alive today. And the damned fools response it to ban no knock warrants.

 

[tres borrachos]

Criminal behavior? Probably not. They didn't know who they were shooting at (according to what we are being told). Stupid? No doubt. Dangerous? Absolutely. Should be taken seriously and something changed? Yes.

It wasn't blatant murder like we saw in Minneapolis. But it was wrong, very wrong.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Had they carried out a "No knock" warrant like originally planned, Breonna would probably still be alive today. And the damned fools response it to ban no knock warrants.

But if homeowners are allowed to own guns wouldn't they be justified in shooting at someone who suddenly breaks into their home?

It seems obvious that they didn't give them enough time to answer the door. If you wake people up at 2am, you need to give them considerable time to answer the door before you break it down.

I believe drugs should be legalized. It's absurd that the government is breaking down a citizen's door because of some plant that's been banned. How many officers and civilians have died because of this insanity?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Criminal behavior? Probably not. They didn't know who they were shooting at (according to what we are being told). Stupid? No doubt. Dangerous? Absolutely. Should be taken seriously and something changed? Yes.

It wasn't blatant murder like we saw in Minneapolis. But it was wrong, very wrong.

That's basically how I see it.

I feel like when people insist the officers should be charged with murder it doesn't help the cause.

 

[Questerr]

It's definitely a tragic case. The police are totally responsible for her death. The warrant should not have been issued. And it was poorly executed.

But I don't see any criminal actions by officers who executed the warrant. It seems that the boyfriend didn't know they were police and fired at them. They fired back.

Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?

All of this is incompetence but not criminal? The family already received civil compensation.

Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?

(Not getting Miss Taylor prompt medical assistance but it appears she had no chance of surviving)

If I as a citizen open fire with a gun, incompetently and recklessly, and killed someone who an innocent bystander, would I face criminal charges?

 

[tres borrachos]

If I as a citizen open fire with a gun, incompetently and recklessly, and killed someone who an innocent bystander, would I face criminal charges?

Yes, you absolutely would.

 

[Casper]

If I as a citizen open fire with a gun, incompetently and recklessly, and killed someone who an innocent bystander, would I face criminal charges?

Rules for thee, but not for me.....that is now the reality.
As for the victims, they are now just collateral damage, like in any war, just ignore them.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It's definitely a tragic case. The police are totally responsible for her death. The warrant should not have been issued. And it was poorly executed.

But I don't see any criminal actions by officers who executed the warrant. It seems that the boyfriend didn't know they were police and fired at them. They fired back.

Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?

All of this is incompetence but not criminal? The family already received civil compensation.

Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?

(Not getting Miss Taylor prompt medical assistance but it appears she had no chance of surviving)

She had no chance of surviving because they indiscriminately fired bullets into her body, destroying it. Not a single human being is facing a single consequence for destroying her body.

Like her life didn’t matter.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

If I as a citizen open fire with a gun, incompetently and recklessly, and killed someone who an innocent bystander, would I face criminal charges?

Of course, they would. But these were police officers executing a warrant firing back after being fired upon. If they were on the street randomly firing then I they should be charged but they were doing what they were told to do.

The keyword is incompetent. Who would want to be a police officer knowing you could end up being charged for murder due to incompetence? They don't charge doctors with murder when someone dies due to their incompetence. They lose their license and they are sued.

I agree that the officers who fired indiscriminately should be fired. At least one of them was fired. Maybe more deserve to be fired. But I don't think their actions were criminal.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

She had no chance of surviving because they indiscriminately fired bullets into her body, destroying it. Not a single human being is facing a single consequence for destroying her body.

Like her life didn’t matter.

That's because they accidentally shot her while returning fire. Maybe they should be fired for incompetence. I think that's what people should be protesting about. I don't think they should be charged criminally.

How do you know that if you were a police officer you wouldn't have accidentally shot Miss Taylor after being shot at?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That's because they accidentally shot her while returning fire. Maybe they should be fired for incompetence. I think that's what people should be protesting about. I don't think they should be charged criminally.

How do you know that if you were a police officer you wouldn't have accidentally shot Miss Taylor after being shot at?

I don’t have to play that game. I’m not in their shoes, didn’t ask to be, didn’t accept the gun and the responsibility/consequences that come with discharging it.

 

[Questerr]

Yes, you absolutely would.

Why should that same standard not apply to police?

 

[tres borrachos]

Why should that same standard not apply to police?

Because the police in the Taylor situation actually had a reason to be there (number 1), and they were fired on first (number 2). I don't agree with them shooting her, but it's a different situation.

 

[Mr Person]

Of course, they would. But these were police officers executing a warrant firing back after being fired upon. If they were on the street randomly firing then I they should be charged but they were doing what they were told to do.

The keyword is incompetent. Who would want to be a police officer knowing you could end up being charged for murder due to incompetence? They don't charge doctors with murder when someone dies due to their incompetence. They lose their license and they are sued.

I agree that the officers who fired indiscriminately should be fired. At least one of them was fired. Maybe more deserve to be fired. But I don't think their actions were criminal.

Having a no knock warrant should not mean that anything goes, especially not when a natural direct consequence of executing one is an innocent lawful gun owner responding as if home invaders have just burst in. Because home invaders did just burst in. If police want no knock warrants, they should be liable for the consequences.

Again and again, the problem is that we set a lower bar for cops than citizens. Oh, it's a dangerous job, so they get a pass where no one else does. And then when they do something awful, they almost always get to hide behind immunity.

(And didn't these cops fail to announce themselves? No knock means you don't knock before bursting in. It does not mean you stay silent about who you are right after bursting in.)

 

[NWRatCon]

It's definitely a tragic case. The police are totally responsible for her death. The warrant should not have been issued. And it was poorly executed.

But I don't see any criminal actions by officers who executed the warrant. It seems that the boyfriend didn't know they were police and fired at them. They fired back.

Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?

All of this is incompetence but not criminal? The family already received civil compensation.

Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?

(Not getting Miss Taylor prompt medical assistance but it appears she had no chance of surviving)

I will respectfully disagree: What the officers did was, in fact, "Reckless Homicide" under Kentucky law. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 507.050

(1) A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person.(2) Reckless homicide is a Class D felony.

Under the circumstances, unfortunately, it was never likely to be prosecuted.

Let me clarify - I completely agree that the warrant should never have been issued (which I've detailed on another thread), that it was poorly executed (again, addressing the inappropriateness of no-knock entry), and that the police are totally responsible for her death. Where I disagree (and in answer to your question, "Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?") is that I believe that their behavior after Kenneth Walker's single shot was unwarranted and reckless. Indeed, as you note, "Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?" That is what made their behavior reckless - criminal recklessness occurs when a person acts with outright disregard for the safety of others and should have known that his actions might harm someone else.

I acknowledge up front that the police returning fire is defensive. HOWEVER, because the police have a greater responsibility than the average citizen, returning fire is not always the appropriate response, even after an officer has been hit. Indeed, I would argue that it evidences a lack of discipline. Anyone with ANY firearm training, particularly police officers, has to understand the "field of fire" - the area which can be reached by your weapon, and ensuring that there is no one in that area that is not a valid target. The Importance of Target Identification. Gun safety (Wikipedia). Commonly these are referred to as "shoot/no-shoot" scenarios. They didn't even try to do that.

 

[Questerr]

Of course, they would. But these were police officers executing a warrant firing back after being fired upon. If they were on the street randomly firing then I they should be charged but they were doing what they were told to do.

The keyword is incompetent. Who would want to be a police officer knowing you could end up being charged for murder due to incompetence? They don't charge doctors with murder when someone dies due to their incompetence. They lose their license and they are sued.

I agree that the officers who fired indiscriminately should be fired. At least one of them was fired. Maybe more deserve to be fired. But I don't think their actions were criminal.

When doctors get sued, it hurts the doctor themselves. When police get sued for incompetence, the taxpayers get hurt.

One of the most important reforms that needs to be passed is one making all lawsuits for police misconduct and incompetence he paid out of police pension funds.

 

[Mr Person]

And since this keeps coming up, a primer on qualified immunity in layman's terms: unless a person with an IQ of 1 would understand that a specific action was described in detail and said to be completely wrong in a controlling decision, a cop cannot be sued for what they did.

Cop Who Allegedly Kneed a Subdued Suspect in the Eye ’20 to 30 Times’ Gets Qualified Immunity – Reason.com

(Kneeing a suspect in the eye 20-30 times; but there wasn't a case in the relevant jurisdiction saying that you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. Sure, there was a case saying you cannot do a "knee drop" that fractures their face. (Gill v. Maciejewski). Sure, there was a decision saying you can't "hip toss" someone, then have two other cops beat them to death as they lay on the ground. (Krout v. Goemmer).

But there wasn't saying a decision saying you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. So the cop cannot be sued. Unreasonable to expect him to know his behavior was unconstitutional.

All this stuff that sounds good on paper so that people will approve without even looking into it. It's a bad guy so who cares, next.



Oh yes, and using the dogs of people the police say are criminals for target practice:

Detroit Police Department Settles Another Dog Shooting Lawsuit After Video Contradicts Cop’s Account – Reason.com

Police conduct drug raid, blow away two dogs, lie about it. Only because it happened on camera could anything happen about it. Otherwise the cops would be protected by their lies (specifically, that the dogs attacked them).

In the video linked in the article. You can see one dog standing at the end of a hallway. Another comes out, looking like it wants to say hello. The cop blows it away. The cop wrote in his report that "he 'observed a black pit bull and a tan pit bull showing his teeth, charging, and attempting to bite crew.'"

Later, he wrote "a large black pitfall came charging at me down the hallway from the northwest bedroom. I fired two shots…neutralizing the threat. While still in the hallway, a second brown pit bull came charging down the hallway towards me."
_____________
(The first link contains links to the two cases summarized).

It's not even the effects of racism over time.

You can't even sue these people unless they did just about the same the exact thing that a controlling decision - that is, one in the jurisdiction from an appellate court - says they cannot do. In one of the above decisions, it was cool for a cop to knee someone in the eye 20-30 times because a court didn't say you couldn't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. Sure, the 8th Circuit said things from which any moron could deduce meant you couldn't just keep kneeing a guy in the eye, but I guess it's unfair of us to expect cops to work that out on their own.

 

[Questerr]

Because the police in the Taylor situation actually had a reason to be there (number 1), and they were fired on first (number 2). I don't agree with them shooting her, but it's a different situation.

I’m a citizen walking down public street (IE I have a reason to be there), someone shoots at me (I’m fired in first), I fire back recklessly and incompetently and kill an innocent bystander. Do I get charged with a crime?

 

[Felis Leo]

She had no chance of surviving because they indiscriminately fired bullets into her body, destroying it. Not a single human being is facing a single consequence for destroying her body.

Like her life didn’t matter.

That is because, according to the law, it didn't.

Under the current conception of our system of law enforcement, so long as the law enforcement officer believed that his use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, all citizen bystanders might as well be the clay pigeons of the police.

 

[Felis Leo]

I will respectfully disagree: What the officers did was, in fact, "Reckless Homicide" under Kentucky law. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 507.050

Under the circumstances, unfortunately, it was never likely to be prosecuted.

Let me clarify - I completely agree that the warrant should never have been issued (which I've detailed on another thread), that it was poorly executed (again, addressing the inappropriateness of no-knock entry), and that the police are totally responsible for her death. Where I disagree (and in answer to your question, "Does anyone see any criminality in the police's actions?") is that I believe that their behavior after Kenneth Walker's single shot was unwarranted and reckless. Indeed, as you note, "Of course, they are totally incompetent. Why are they spraying bullets everywhere? How is it that they didn't shoot the man who was shooting at them but shot Breonna Taylor?" That is what made their behavior reckless - criminal recklessness occurs when a person acts with outright disregard for the safety of others and should have known that his actions might harm someone else.

I acknowledge up front that the police returning fire is defensive. HOWEVER, because the police have a greater responsibility than the average citizen, returning fire is not always the appropriate response, even after an officer has been hit. Indeed, I would argue that it evidences a lack of discipline. Anyone with ANY firearm training, particularly police officers, has to understand the "field of fire" - the area which can be reached by your weapon, and ensuring that there is no one in that area that is not a valid target. The Importance of Target Identification. Gun safety (Wikipedia). Commonly these are referred to as "shoot/no-shoot" scenarios. They didn't even try to do that.

This.

If he is now being charged with recklessly discharging his firearm into three separate apartments (but not killing anyone) there is no reason on Earth why he should not be charged for recklessly killing Ms. Taylor.

 

[Questerr]

That's because they accidentally shot her while returning fire. Maybe they should be fired for incompetence. I think that's what people should be protesting about. I don't think they should be charged criminally.

How do you know that if you were a police officer you wouldn't have accidentally shot Miss Taylor after being shot at?

Soldiers can go to jail when their incompetence results in the deaths of innocent people. People still sign up to be soldiers.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That is because, according to the law, it didn't.

Under the current conception of our system of law enforcement, so long as the law enforcement officer believed that his use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, all citizen bystanders might as well be the clay pigeons of the police.

That’s debateble within the color of law as it stands: cops do not have extrajudicial rights to self defense. They cannot just blind fire fearing for their lives, their force must be proportionate to what was offered.

Ajnd then we get to the part where our system is designed to *always* exonerated cops. Even when the media reports on these incidents the copy is always from the cop’s POV.

FInally: this threshold: the office felt their live was in danger is just bullshit and grafted on every time one of these losers go off. And then takes rioting protesting whatever to get local officials to even admit something wrong happened to begin with because the first first move in these things is to cover it up.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

And since this keeps coming up, a primer on qualified immunity in layman's terms: unless a person with an IQ of 1 would understand that a specific action was described in detail and said to be completely wrong in a controlling decision, a cop cannot be sued for what they did.

Cop Who Allegedly Kneed a Subdued Suspect in the Eye ’20 to 30 Times’ Gets Qualified Immunity – Reason.com

(Kneeing a suspect in the eye 20-30 times; but there wasn't a case in the relevant jurisdiction saying that you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. Sure, there was a case saying you cannot do a "knee drop" that fractures their face. (Gill v. Maciejewski). Sure, there was a decision saying you can't "hip toss" someone, then have two other cops beat them to death as they lay on the ground. (Krout v. Goemmer).

But there wasn't saying a decision saying you can't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. So the cop cannot be sued. Unreasonable to expect him to know his behavior was unconstitutional.

All this stuff that sounds good on paper so that people will approve without even looking into it. It's a bad guy so who cares, next.



Oh yes, and using the dogs of people the police say are criminals for target practice:

Detroit Police Department Settles Another Dog Shooting Lawsuit After Video Contradicts Cop’s Account – Reason.com

Police conduct drug raid, blow away two dogs, lie about it. Only because it happened on camera could anything happen about it. Otherwise the cops would be protected by their lies (specifically, that the dogs attacked them).

In the video linked in the article. You can see one dog standing at the end of a hallway. Another comes out, looking like it wants to say hello. The cop blows it away. The cop wrote in his report that "he 'observed a black pit bull and a tan pit bull showing his teeth, charging, and attempting to bite crew.'"

Later, he wrote "a large black pitfall came charging at me down the hallway from the northwest bedroom. I fired two shots…neutralizing the threat. While still in the hallway, a second brown pit bull came charging down the hallway towards me."
_____________
(The first link contains links to the two cases summarized).

It's not even the effects of racism over time.

You can't even sue these people unless they did just about the same the exact thing that a controlling decision - that is, one in the jurisdiction from an appellate court - says they cannot do. In one of the above decisions, it was cool for a cop to knee someone in the eye 20-30 times because a court didn't say you couldn't knee someone in the eye 20-30 times. Sure, the 8th Circuit said things from which any moron could deduce meant you couldn't just keep kneeing a guy in the eye, but I guess it's unfair of us to expect cops to work that out on their own.

I wish I hadn't watched those dogs get killed.

These laws basically allow police to do whatever they want. We need to bring the police back under the control of the communities they serve.

 

[Felis Leo]

That’s debateble within the color of law as it stands: cops do not have extrajudicial rights to self defense. They cannot just blind fire fearing for their lives, their force must be proportionate to what was offered.

Ajnd then we get to the part where our system is designed to *always* exonerated cops. Even when the media reports on these incidents the copy is always from the cop’s POV.

FInally: this threshold: the office felt their live was in danger is just bullshit and grafted on every time one of these losers go off. And then takes rioting protesting whatever to get local officials to even admit something wrong happened to begin with because the first first move in these things is to cover it up.

I do not disagree with any of this.

Bottom line, if you merely raise an admonishing finger to a police officer and he pumps you with fifteen brass rounds, all he has to do is say "I genuinely thought my life was in danger because I thought the woman was going for my gun," or "I saw her lift a shiny object from her waist pocket towards my face, and I was in genuine fear of my life," he will walk nine times out of ten.

It is insane that our lives can be ended so easily and without any consequence beyond occasionally cities having to shell out millions of taxpayer dollars in order to compensate the grieving family's loss of their sons, daughters, husbands and wives. Society thus faces a triple indemnity: the sudden loss of life of innocent citizens, the loss of huge amounts of otherwise better-spent monies, and the loss of faith in law enforcement.