• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 shooting: Fired Louisville officer indicted on criminal charges

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
5,940
Reaction score
1,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not if they saw Breonna Taylor and shot her directly. Not if it was an arrest warrant and they decided to shoot the drug dealer instead.
Are you forgetting that the police were fired upon first as they entered the apartment which they had reason to believe was an apartment involved in illegal drug dealing and would thus be armed?

The police fired in self-defense at the man holding the gun who had just fired at them, the man who then quickly hit the ground leaving Taylor exposed beside him, and she was struck six times.

The police did not "decide to shoot the drug dealer instead".

The police fired back quickly in self-defense before the gunman could return fire.

They saw one gun .. there could have been multiple guns .. seeing one gun is enough to fire back at those behind that gun.

I believe the grand jury made the right call, all aspects of the situation considered.
 

Gondwanaland

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
624
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Could be if they decide to charge him for shooting the cop in the leg.
They don't appear interested in that. They are having enough trouble with whackjob mobs trying to burn down the city just because they didn't charge the cops with absurd and inappropriate charges.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ah so guilt by association. To you: "Taylor deserved to die because she associated with an idiot/criminal". Using your logic, trump should have been in prison years ago!

It's warms my heart that you and several others have such contempt for black murder victims and for anyone who advocates for them. trumpists are on the wrong side of the culture war.
Trump is a real criminal though. He got away with many financial and violent crimes for years. So to stay on topic, you need to pick another idiot for any comparisons.
 

Crosscheck

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
10,279
Reaction score
7,621
Location
NW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is some resemblance to the Waco Siege where some 20 children were killed in that raid.

We are lucky that the pregnant neighbor and child weren't hit by stray bullets from the police.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,873
Reaction score
72,535
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Trump is a real criminal though. He got away with many financial and violent crimes for years. So to stay on topic, you need to pick another idiot for any comparisons.
what does TDS have to do with this topic?
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Because it is not just the word of the police. It is the SWORN TESTIMONY before the grand jury of the neighbor, that the police did this. That is why. The eyewitness supports their statement, not his. Any other dumb questions?
There is no reason to think that was a dumb question.

Has Kenneth Walker given a sworn testimony to the Grand Jury yet? If he did, what he said is what we should all be talking about, not the neighbor.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nope. When fired upon they were free to return fire.
Cops are never free to randomly shoot in the direction of an unarmed person five times. EVER. Because she did not shoot the cop, the cop was not returning fire when he shot her. So it was inexcusable murder unless someone proves me wrong before I fall asleep tonight.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,088
Reaction score
39,835
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Doesn't matter. The reason there were no charges against two officers is because their actions were determined to be justified. The wanton endangerment charge against the third officer reflects due regard for the safety of others.
No charges doesnt mean they were right. I said they were wrong and going against at the least, police procedures, doesnt mean charges would be brought.

They found their scapegoat. If they disciplined the other officers now, the bloodbath would be worse.

So...just let me know where in police procedure, that they can disregard the safety of others? "Shooting freely" as you described, with penetrating rounds and not confirming innocents in the home is unconscionable.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Doesn't matter. The reason there were no charges against two officers is because their actions were determined to be justified. The wanton endangerment charge against the third officer reflects due regard for the safety of others.
There is no way to justify shooting an unarmed woman five times, killing her with one of the bullets, knowing she had done nothing wrong, when they could clearly see her in their direct sight line. The police need to prove it was impossible to see her and the man who shot them for this to not be murder..
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,088
Reaction score
39,835
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
One could call the police, I suppose. Retreat to a defensible area, barricade the door and call the police like a reasonable person, maybe. Got to be better options than shooting everyone who knocks on your door at night.
They already broke down one, hard-locked exterior door :rolleyes:
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,088
Reaction score
39,835
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It is a shame there are not more conservatives like you.
I dont identify as a conservative. Certainly not currently....it's been reduced to people that cannot think for themselves and mindlessly follow a moron in the WH.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
68,088
Reaction score
39,835
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't identify as a conservative. Certainly not currently....it's been reduced to people that cannot think for themselves and mindlessly follow a moron in the WH.
So I guess you are in the "Republican Voters for Biden" group that has been expanding every day.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It doesn't matter in terms of whether the police were justified in their actions.
Whether police are justified in their actions or not is fully dependent on the life or death of someone at the searched location. An innocent woman the police knew was unarmed had no justification to shoot her.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
1,213
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I guarantee the Grand Jury was given all the information that was available and no jury (whether a grand jury or a trial jury) should make a decision based on threats of violent reactions.
The Grand Jury is given whatever the prosecutor chooses to present to them. There is no representation of the other side.. And one can cannot guarantee anything, especially when the proceedings are not in the open (in contrast to the case with trial juries which hear the often competing arguments from both sides.

Here is a simple truth, if the system (any system) does not work, people have a tendency to revolt and overturn it. This is much more than just about charging a cop. It is about the system of justice in general which permits incompetent cops to get away even when they enter wrong houses with no-knock warrants and kill people in their bed. The impact by the supposedly lawful citizens who are not part of a mob is more serious than the impact of any mob. The silence of those "obedient" citizens has empowered the police to keep using tactics that do not belong in civilized societies and has cost the lives of many victims. Perpetuating such tactics is way worse. Smashing windows can be replaced and insurance companies will probably pay to replace merchandise lost to looting or fire but no one can replace a person shot dead by an incompetent cop empowered by an incompetent system that is tolerated by incompetent "lawful" citizens.
 
Last edited:

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Are you forgetting that the police were fired upon first as they entered the apartment which they had reason to believe was an apartment involved in illegal drug dealing and would thus be armed?

The police fired in self-defense at the man holding the gun who had just fired at them, the man who then quickly hit the ground leaving Taylor exposed beside him, and she was struck six times.

The police did not "decide to shoot the drug dealer instead".

The police fired back quickly in self-defense before the gunman could return fire.

They saw one gun .. there could have been multiple guns .. seeing one gun is enough to fire back at those behind that gun.

I believe the grand jury made the right call, all aspects of the situation considered.
So the police thought nobody was staying in the apartment with her and assumed Breonna owned the gun? What reason did that have for that?

Also, if they could see the gun, they could see Kenneth was using it and Breonna was empty handed. That would prove there the murder was not justified.
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
5,940
Reaction score
1,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So the police thought nobody was staying in the apartment with her and assumed Breonna owned the gun? What reason did that have for that?

Also, if they could see the gun, they could see Kenneth was using it and Breonna was empty handed. That would prove there the murder was not justified.
You make narrative leaps of fantasy in your statements here.

Your first sentence is irrelevant and inapplicable, and a major fantasy, so it's eliminated from serious consideration.

Your second sentence is incomprehensible as worded, and likely is connected to your first sentence and is thus meaningless.

Your third sentence draws an illogical conclusion from its premise. Yes, in the quick, quick reaction to being fired upon and one officer being hit, the other officers saw where the shot came from, saw a gun and, in a life-or-death situation fired back in justified self-defense in a split second as necessary to save their very lives as police are instructed to do. There was no "plenty of time" as your question clearly implies to take stock in the entire situation; none of this happened in your implied slow motion. I never said nor did any of the officers likely see whether Taylor had a gun in her hand or not. She was right there next to the person who fired and who hit the ground as the police fired back. The police in that quick, quick response to save their very lives may not have had time to determine if Taylor also was armed. She was: 1) clearly with the person who fired upon the police, and 2) a drug-dealer suspect.

Thus your fourth sentence proves nothing, obviously.

I mean, do you really think you're smarter than the entire grand jury???
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,395
Reaction score
8,750
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A murder charge. Duh.
Why would there be a murder charge against someone who did not shoot her?
Why would there be a murder charge when no murder happened?

Just like the majority of claims being made against the police, whether that be of brutality or shootings, murder is a bs claim.

Why do you support the murder of an innocent civilian by thugs?
No one was murdered, so stop with the exagerations.


======================================

Good. He shot the person with no gun to death. He deserves prison. You cant just kick a door in and blow everyone away because you hear 1 gunshot. Plus we all know they were undercover drug enforcement punishing her ex boyfriend for not being a good police informant and ratting on all his friends so they shot his girlfriend. They didnt call an ambulance or anything the cops fled the scene after shooting her. That alone speaks volumes.
1. You are woefully ill-informed of this case.
2. When that gunshot was aimed at the police, return fire most certainly can be engaged in.


======================================

The problem is that Breona's death is part of systemic problems rather than just these particular conditions. The police created circumstances that make these kinds of deaths inevitable, and courts have allowed it to persist.
First, these officers were allowed to get a no-knock warrant. A judge signed off on that, and, under the circumstances, that should never have been granted.
Second, the judge did not question the "probable cause" basis for the warrant, which, on its face was inadequate. No judge in my experience would have granted it on evidence that was at least two months old.
Third, the methodology for execution was inherently flawed and did not follow even their Department's standards.
Fourth, the officers did not identify their targets.
Finally, the reality is that black lives DON'T matter. All of these failures are consistent with that last point.
Delusional nonsense.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,395
Reaction score
8,750
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
[...] we have a justice system based on western, racist constructions of facts and evidence rather [...]
Your commentary is as dumb as it is idiotic.


So why can't grand jury decisions be made based upon an understanding of the dynamics of race instead of rigid western concepts? Why are you so fixated on only standard of justice created by a group of white men centuries ago?
Your understanding of reality is as flawed as it is idiotic.
Laws and punishment for violations are not a western concepts.


======================================

Young lady gets drilled half a dozen times, but no one is responsible. Check out the ashes of Louisville in a couple of days.
Funny how blacks don't riot when one of their own unlawfully takes another black person's life (which happens at a far greater rate). But when it comes to a killing by a LEO that is within the law, they turn their own neighborhoods into "ashes".
That behavior in and of itself shows irrational thinking.


======================================

Yep. You go with that. "People have the right to defend their home unless they're people of color. " That's exactly what you're saying.
Wrong as usual.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,395
Reaction score
8,750
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If you can't prove it, you're wrong. It is not possible to get a warrant for shooting someone five times in her own home for no good reason.
Your commentary is as idiotic as it is wrong.
Proof? The news briefing they held confirmed it.

She was in the hallway of the apartment with the shooter.
If you do not understand the significance of that, something is wrong with the way you view things.

It does not matter where she was. She did nothing wrong. Period. It was murder.
So you do not understand the significance of her position next to the shooter.
Figures.
Well you are wrong. It was not murder, nor could it ever be.

There is no criminal culpability on the part of the police for her death.

It was a wrongful death under legal circumstances which goes to civil liability, of which, compensation was already given.

Because the person they shot was unarmed, they were not "returning fire" in this case.
Oy vey! Talk about stupid replies.
They were indeed returning fire.
She was in that line of fire becasue she was standing with the shooter in the hallway of that apartment.

They had no right to shoot an unarmed black woman in her own home, period. Kenneth Walker did not give police any justification for killing Breonna Taylor.
You are using words that really have no applicability here.
"Right"? iLOL There is no applicability in how you used it. But they did have the right to do as they did, which is why there is no criminality in their actions in shooting her.
Your use of "justification" is also inapplicable. The compensation her family received is justified becasue of her wrongful death. But there was no criminal behavior in her wrongful death. The shooting of their weapons in response to being fired upon was found to be justified, which is why there is no criminality in he wrongful death.

If you can't prove it, you're wrong.
This is you showing you do not know what you are talking about.

So in order to not be murder, the police have to prove they had no way of knowing the person who opened fire was Walker, not Taylor.
Wrong. You clearly know not of what you speak.

You don't either if you can't prove me wrong.
Hilarious. Besides not knowing what you are talking about, you do no know to whom you are speaking either.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Funny how blacks don't riot when one of their own unlawfully takes another black person's life (which happens at a far greater rate). But when it comes to a killing by a LEO that is within the law, they turn their own neighborhoods into "ashes." That behavior in and of itself shows irrational thinking.
You are not thinking logically about this. Law enforcement officers do not take an oath to injure and kill people on purpose without a justified cause. They are trained to save their own lives. That's it. If a cop is not in danger of being hurt or killed - which is the case more often than not - there is no reason to afflict harm on other people. Maybe an uneducated drug abuser has an excuse, but the last person who should be doing it obviously is a cop because police know all of the local laws.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,395
Reaction score
8,750
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You are not thinking logically about this. Law enforcement officers do not take an oath to injure and kill people on purpose without a justified cause. They are trained to save their own lives. That's it. If a cop is not in danger of being hurt or killed - which is the case more often than not - there is no reason to afflict harm on other people. Maybe an uneducated drug abuser has an excuse, but the last person who should be doing it obviously is a cop because police know all of the local laws.
No that is clearly what you are not doing.

They were fired upon. That is a deadly threat and allows them to return fire Period.
That is why their use of firearms was justified. Why they were not charged and why the killing was not criminal.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom