• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breonna Taylor decision expected today; Louisville locked down before possible civil unrest

you are confusing the procedure with specific incidents. and Cameron stated that Officer Mattingly identified himself as a police officer before the shooting began

And of course the police would have no reason to lie, right?
 
He fired first *at unidentified men breaking into his house in the middle of the night*.

yeah, I know

cops made a mistake

punish them for making the mistake not for firing back

the cop is gonna walk and rightfully so. All he deserves is to be fired.
 
That you are against no knock orders is of no relevance to this case.

The boyfriend fired first.

IMHO you are reacting from emotion not objective in thought

First off, yes. Police killing innocent people and getting away with it tends to raise my hackles somewhat. I hope you do pardon the fact that I have some sense of empathy.

Second, yes, the boyfriend fired first...against three plain-clothed police officers who he claims did not identify themselves as police executing a search warrant but were for all he knew armed intruders. If the boyfriend's account is true, then he was justified in firing at them. If the police officer's account is true (that they did shout that they identified themselves as the police executing a warrant) then he was not.

What matters to me is who we can trust. The officers or the boyfriend.
 
Last edited:
First off, yes. Police killing innocent people and getting away with it tends to raise my hackles somewhat. I hope you do pardon the fact that I have some sense empathy.

Second, yes, the boyfriend fire first...against three plain-clothed police officers who he claims did not identify themselves as police executing a search warrant but were for all he knew armed intruders. If the boyfriend's account is true, then he was justified in firing at them. If the police officer's account is true (that they did shout that they identified themselves as the police executing a warrant) then he was not.

You just made my case.... problem is, you want blood and being rational will not get in your way

Why not go burn something down? That will show everyone.

God Bless.
 
Let's see, who runs Seattle, Portland, LA, SF, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kenosha, NYC, and Louisville? You do indeed give passes to those running those cities as you call for action by voting for the same ideology over and over again, that is what Einstein calls insanity,

Which group is more open to police reform right now: Democrats or Republicans?

Thought so. Troll better.
 
The cops acted within the rules and in self-defense.

The fact that the scum she was with opened fire first, the swamp happily did not mention. At least, not in the headlines.
He was defending his home from criminal invaders as is his second amendment right.
 
The local news (channel 19 from Cincinnati) has cut down its coverage because of the foul language of some masked angry protestors. The lack of a murder charge seems to have aggravated the protestors. Now, police officers (and any other person engaged in self defensive use of a firearm) have an absolute duty to identify the target before shooting. What is not known is if Hankison believed or had reason to believe there was someone other than the shooter in the apartment.

Police fail to identify the target of their bullets all the time, what are you talking about?
 
First off, yes. Police killing innocent people and getting away with it tends to raise my hackles somewhat. I hope you do pardon the fact that I have some sense empathy.

Second, yes, the boyfriend fire first...against three plain-clothed police officers who he claims did not identify themselves as police executing a search warrant but were for all he knew armed intruders. If the boyfriend's account is true, then he was justified in firing at them. If the police officer's account is true (that they did shout that they identified themselves as the police executing a warrant) then he was not.

What matters to me is who we can trust. The officers or the boyfriend.

The criminals say they aren't criminals, news at 11.

Citizens should have 100% immunity from prosecution when they shoot police serving no-knock warrants.

Plainclothes "officers" entering my home unannounced are intruders, not police. Doesn't matter if they say they are police, I have no reason to believe them.
 
that was a non-police witness according to the AG
I wasn't able to catch the whole thing so, if you don't mind, let me know if I have the basics per the DA:
1. Warrant was NOT "no knock" and a witness corroborated police announcing themselves.
2. Cop that was charged ended up with three counts of reckless endangerment for firing into three uninvolved apartments
3. Warrant WAS valid and WAS being served at the correct address, on the correct individual
4. Subject of the warrant was armed and fired at police.

Does that pretty much cover it?
 
I wasn't able to catch the whole thing so, if you don't mind, let me know if I have the basics per the DA:
1. Warrant was NOT "no knock" and a witness corroborated police announcing themselves.
2. Cop that was charged ended up with three counts of reckless endangerment for firing into three uninvolved apartments
3. Warrant WAS valid and WAS being served at the correct address, on the correct individual
4. Subject of the warrant was armed and fired at police.

Does that pretty much cover it?
from what I heard,YES
 
The criminals say they aren't criminals, news at 11.

Citizens should have 100% immunity from prosecution when they shoot police serving no-knock warrants.
interesting perspective
 
You just made my case.... problem is, you want blood and being rational will not get in your way

Why not go burn something down? That will show everyone.

God Bless.

If only there was a God. Have a nice day all the same.
 
He was defending his home from criminal invaders as is his second amendment right.
good seeing you supporting the second amendment-a major change from past posts
 
good seeing you supporting the second amendment-a major change from past posts
....except that he has no clue what the 2A says. It does not say you can shoot the cops with a search warrant.

If they just sit in a squad car eating Subway sandwiches, then, of course, why not? After all, in 2019, they killed 10 black Ph.D.s for no reason whatsoever. Only because they were black.
 
He was defending his home from criminal invaders as is his second amendment right.

how did that work out for him?

Just like it almost always does but still the guns nuts want guns.
 
Which group is more open to police reform right now: Democrats or Republicans?

Thought so. Troll better.

Why does it matter and why haven't liberal cities reformed the police since they have held control for decades? Republicans have no control over these major cities that hire, fund, and train the police. What you apparently show is lack of understanding of responsibility. How do Republicans reform police without control? The police are simply asking for support that they aren't getting from mayors of those cities
 
Back
Top Bottom