• 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

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
You are not allowed to blind Fire in self-defense.
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
896
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
896
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

They were interested previously when they did charge him. People rioted in the streets and then they dropped the charges
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,593
Reaction score
9,395
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
After hearing all the news in Louisville, I revisited the data on the case, Wikipedia has a decent write up.
Things that are different from what I first heard about the case.
Taylor's apartment WAS listed in the search warrant.
The FBI and separate investigations found that the Police did knock and announce themselves.
Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, first fired at the officers.
This is a tragedy that someone was killed when their guest choose to exchange gunfire with the police serving a legal warrant,
but it does happen. The city of Louisville was found liable, and agreed to pay Taylor's family $12 million, and reform police practices.
The officer who was indited, was not in the apartment, but fired blindly into the window from outside.
The wanton endangerment charge is from his firing blindly.
While this ended tragically, this case does not carry the same elements as say the George Floyd case.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,023
Reaction score
4,707
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brilliant deduction, sherlock. She was in the hallway. Next to her boyfriend. She stood there as he chose to shoot at police officers. She was an unfortunate victim of her boyfriend's foolish choice.
The boyfriend should be charged with her death. Would probably have happened, had she been white and no fear of riots.
 

Gondwanaland

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
624
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
Everyone gave their testimony and evidence to the Grand Jury. Yesterday's results were the results of the Grand Jury. As in, the Jury came to a decision on what to indict on, and from the evidence did not indict on anything other than reckless shooting that endangered the neighbors (notably none of the charges were for firing back and hitting Taylor, but rather for several shots that went wild and could have hurt neighbors).
 

Miss Kitty

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
81
Reaction score
21
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And here come the blame-the-victim-with-their-background posts. Was wondering what was taking so long. 🙄
While her background is not what is portrayed in the liberal media that is not why I feel She is responsible for her death. She chose to hang with drugs, used her residence for criminal acts,
She was not the drug dealer, right?
IMO the drug dealer/boyfriend used BT as a shield. Funny that this thug is who she wanted to become his baby momma.
 

Gondwanaland

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
624
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The boyfriend should be charged with her death. Would probably have happened, had she been white and no fear of riots.
Agreed, any other case it would have been him charged for the death (deaths in connection to committing a felony - like firing at police - can be charged whether the person committing the felony fired the shots that killed the person or not)
 

Gondwanaland

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
624
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They were interested previously when they did charge him. People rioted in the streets and then they dropped the charges
And do you think they will charge him at any point in the future? Don't think so.
 

Miss Kitty

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
81
Reaction score
21
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
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..
I disagree Carnac.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Firing towards the muzzle flash of the gun shooting you isn't blind firing.
Blind firing is shooting in a general direction of something you heard, but cannot see. That is illegal except in the military, where soldiers are ambush shooters.
 

Miss Kitty

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
81
Reaction score
21
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
“Carnac”. Carnac the Magnificent was a recurring comedic role played by Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. One of Carson's most well-known characters, Carnac was a "mystic from the East" who could psychically "divine" unknown answers to unseen questions.
 

Gondwanaland

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
624
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is that because they were cops or because of the right to self defense?
Because of both - they were lawfully present, and have the right to defend themselves while serving a warrant.


Actually I would change my statement now that yesterday's press conference is over and more facts have emerged. THe boyfriend would have had the right to fire if this were actually a no-knock warrant but it seems that despite media coverage, they actually knocked and identified themselves as law enforcement (per witness corroboration to the grand jury). In that case, he does not actually have the right to fire.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,373
Reaction score
8,747
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Blind firing is shooting in a general direction of something you heard, but cannot see. That is illegal except in the military, where soldiers are ambush shooters.
Your position, if in regards to the officers who shot her, is untenable given the GJ decision. They clearly did not find any such violation like they did for the officer who shot from outside the window.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,251
Reaction score
27,955
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
Once the police were fired on they had complete freedom to defend themselves and neutralize the threat. The law does not require them to be perfect marksmen.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,251
Reaction score
27,955
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
The police returned fire in the direction from which the shot came fired at them. That was 100% justified. The law does not require them to be perfect marksmen.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,251
Reaction score
27,955
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
Things happen in a gunfight. The police were serving a lawful warrant in a lawful manner and were fired on. They defended themselves and fired to neutralize the threat. The law does not require them to be perfect marksmen.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,251
Reaction score
27,955
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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..
The police don't need to prove anything in this case beyond what we already know. They were serving a lawful warrant in a lawful manner, and were fired on. They returned fire to defend themselves and neutralize the threat. The law does not require them to be perfect marksmen.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,251
Reaction score
27,955
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
Unfortunate but legally beside the point. The police were fully justified in defending themselves and neutralizing the threat. And btw, they had no idea who was armed and who was not, but they knew someone shot at them.
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Things happen in a gunfight. The police were serving a lawful warrant in a lawful manner and were fired on. They defended themselves and fired to neutralize the threat. The law does not require them to be perfect marksmen.
So it is perfectly OK that a woman was killed just because "things happen" in gunfights? You make her seem like a very unimportant person with that statement.
 
Top Bottom