Breonna Taylor shooting: Fired Louisville officer indicted on criminal charges

[Jack Hays]

According to KY law, police cant use a self-defense 'defense.'

They also fired recklessly, not identifying other innocents in the apt...and they killed one. That is not acceptable. If she was a child or white...would be people be saying the same thing? (it's rhetorical, I wouldnt believe what you answered, so dont bother.)

"Things happen" doesnt excuse civilians in a gun fight, why does it for cops? They should be held to a higher standard, not lower.

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

". . . In a news conference, Cameron said his office conducted an extensive investigation before he presented the case to the grand jury on Monday. He said none of the six homicide charges under Kentucky law applied to Taylor’s death because the officers had acted in self-defense. . . . "
Ky. grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor
By Kevin Williams, Tim Craig and Marisa Iati

 

[Jack Hays]

Apparently not lawful in KY:

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

You need a new argument.

". . . In a news conference, Cameron said his office conducted an extensive investigation before he presented the case to the grand jury on Monday. He said none of the six homicide charges under Kentucky law applied to Taylor’s death because the officers had acted in self-defense. . . . "
Ky. grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor
By Kevin Williams, Tim Craig and Marisa Iati

 

[holbritter]

Your hope for a coherent, intelligent reply is charming.

Tres is intelligent

 

[Ontologuy]

Ah, so they intentionally fired at her knowing she was unarmed and wasn't the one who fired at them.

No, obviously -- you're purposely misconstruing. I made it crystal clear what the report says they experienced, which clearly is not your purposefully misconstrued statement here.

Again, do you actually think you know more about the case than the grand jury???

 

[Ontologuy]

I know that one officer is being punished, not for the bullets that struck an unarmed, innocent black woman, but rather for the bullets that missed.

Falsely portrayed, Deuce.

The officer that was indicted for wanton endangerment was indicted for shooting somewhat wildly into rooms without first seeing a true target, and thus his bullets penetrated the walls and glass and went into neighboring apartments and nearly hit other people. That's what he is being indicted for.

There was no "innocent Black Woman" in the apartment. There was a woman in the apartment who was a rightly suspected drug dealer, of that crime she was likely not innocent.

She was struck while standing in the room a distance away near the hallway next to her boyfriend who first fired at the police hitting one officer in the leg and the police immediately fired back at him, he hit the ground, leaving Taylor exposed, and in the quick, quick occurrence of it all she was struck and killed.

That's sad, maybe even tragic.

But it most certainly is not murder or manslaughter.

Considering the police were there because of unquestionably credible evidence that Taylor was an administrator in her ex-boyfriend's drug-dealing business, making her, yes, a drug-dealer, and the officers had legal right of entry, and the officers were fired upon first .. .. it's rightly ruled a justifiable homicide.

That's how the grand jury rightly saw it.

Do you think you know more about the facts of this case than the grand jury???

 

[Ontologuy]

They randomly fired into apartments blindly. You do not have the right to do that. No one does. THeir right ot self-defense does not give them extrajudicial authority to discharge their weapons in a manner endangering human life.

What the heck are you talking about???

Only one officer committed the act of wanton endangerment, for which he was indicted.

The other two officers who fired on her boyfriend and Taylor were not "firing blindly" anywhere.

Your argument is with and about a strawman.

 

[Lursa]

BS. Self-defense is available to anyone. The Grand Jury obviously agrees.

The investigation isnt over yet apparently. And self defense also includes retreating and/or taking cover...'killing an innocent person' isnt excused when you are defending yourself. It may not be murder but it's likely to be a charge. You are responsible for your bullets, at least civilians are.

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

 

[Lursa]

Quite lawful, per the grand jury.

We'll see. I find it interesting that you are ignoring the statement about the law that was posted. I didnt see where the grand jury addressed it? Maybe it will be coming up in another.

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

 

[Lursa]

". . . In a news conference, Cameron said his office conducted an extensive investigation before he presented the case to the grand jury on Monday. He said none of the six homicide charges under Kentucky law applied to Taylor’s death because the officers had acted in self-defense. . . . "
Ky. grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor
By Kevin Williams, Tim Craig and Marisa Iati

That doesnt mean they still wont hold another.

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

 

[Lursa]

". . . In a news conference, Cameron said his office conducted an extensive investigation before he presented the case to the grand jury on Monday. He said none of the six homicide charges under Kentucky law applied to Taylor’s death because the officers had acted in self-defense. . . . "
Ky. grand jury declines to file homicide charges in death of Breonna Taylor
By Kevin Williams, Tim Craig and Marisa Iati

I see you are out of arguments...you havent addressed mine or my link...but you can keep reposting that.

 

[Metric Mouse]

The investigation isnt over yet apparently. And self defense also includes retreating and/or taking cover...'killing an innocent person' isnt excused when you are defending yourself. It may not be murder but it's likely to be a charge. You are responsible for your bullets, at least civilians are.

Breonna Taylor investigations are far from over as demands for transparency mount | CNN

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer says he presented all the evidence in the Breonna Taylor case to a grand jury, but many investigative avenues remain open.

www.cnn.com

They didn't charge the boyfriend with shooting without identifying his target, or shooting innocent people while in an apartment building surrounded by innocent people, I'm not sure why they would charge the officers with that.

Though, one officer is indeed charged from the shooting, so there is some discrepancy.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see you are out of arguments...you havent addressed mine or my link...but you can keep reposting that.

Because "that" concludes the debate.

 

[skeptic llc]

They’re the ones who decided to take justice in the form of money so obviously it does.

Umm, no. Their daughter is gone. They don't have a choice in that. They didn't "decide" that. It happened, no going back.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You mean the grand jury that decided to press criminal charges against one of the officers, or is there another one?

Oh, you're referring to the "reckless endangerment" charge? I believe that is a misdemeanor that carries a max of 6 months. And that was for wantonly shooting into the white folks apartment next door. You can kill innocent blacks just because, but don't you dare endanger white folks in the process or they will come down on you with full force of the law.

The truth is, the DA did not want an indictment for any of them. He has to work with these people on a daily basis, so he clearly put on the most pathetic unopposed presentation to the grand jury he could. No witnesses, no records. We just have to take their word for it. The DA did the best he could. Oh well.

 

[Deuce]

They didn't charge the boyfriend with shooting without identifying his target, or shooting innocent people while in an apartment building surrounded by innocent people, I'm not sure why they would charge the officers with that.

Though, one officer is indeed charged from the shooting, so there is some discrepancy.

He was defending himself against criminal invaders. There's a reason charges against him were promptly dropped.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Oh, you're referring to the "reckless endangerment" charge? I believe that is a misdemeanor that carries a max of 6 months. And that was for wantonly shooting into the white folks apartment next door. You can kill innocent blacks just because, but don't you dare endanger white folks in the process or they will come down on you with full force of the law.

The truth is, the DA did not want an indictment for any of them. He has to work with these people on a daily basis, so he clearly put on the most pathetic unopposed presentation to the grand jury he could. No witnesses, no records. We just have to take their word for it. The DA did the best he could. Oh well.

If you say so. Seems like the process was followed, a grand jury heard the facts and the evidence and decided to withhold charges. Glad there was an investigation and everyone had their day in court.

 

[Metric Mouse]

He was defending himself against criminal invaders. There's a reason charges against him were promptly dropped.

Yes. And the police were defending themselves from gunfire while executing a warrant. And charges were dropped. Seems neither were particularly wrong in this case, according to local law.

 

[Excon]

Why would she be standing in between her boyfriend with a gun and the cops? The awnser is they broker her door in in less than 2 seconds and shot her in the hallway then shot her boyfriend later.

Nothing in what you quoted of me says she was standing in between them. If that were the case, how did her boyfriend not hit her when firing at the police?

The bottom line is that it was a justifiable use of their firearms, and her death was not criminal.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nothing in what you quoted of me says she was standing in between them. If that were the case, how did her boyfriend not hit her when firing at the police?

The bottom line is that it was a justifiable use of their firearms, and her death was not criminal.

Best guess is she was standing behind him. He fired, then ducked. She remained standing.

 

[Excon]

Best guess is she was standing behind him. He fired, then ducked. She remained standing.

Yes, that is possible.
Please understand to whom I was responding.

 

[dixon01767]

In law enforcement, there is a training methodology called "warrior mentality" - it advocates for the assumption that everyone you encounter is a suspect and out to harm you. …...

Kind of irrelevant here as the muzzle flash and the hole in the guys leg in the first few seconds of their "encounter" gave them all the indication they needed to know that he was "out to harm" them.

 

[tres borrachos]

No, obviously -- you're purposely misconstruing. I made it crystal clear what the report says they experienced, which clearly is not your purposefully misconstrued statement here.

Again, do you actually think you know more about the case than the grand jury???

You're the one who said this:

Your false assumptive statement is ridiculous.

First, the officers were not "firing blindly" as I think you're trying to assert. They saw the shooter who fired at them, they saw the gun, they saw the other person with the shooter, and in the quick, quick response required to save their own lives they fired back at the target they most definitely saw. There was no "blind" anything involved in those two officers' behavior who fired the bullets that struck Taylor.

Again, do you really think you know more about this case than the grand jury who had all the facts???

There is nothing to "misconstrue". Your claim is that they saw who shot at them, they saw the gun - and yet they shot the other person. Your claim.

Who said anything about the Grand Jury facts? I'm talking about your post. If you don't understand your own post, that's on you.

 

[tres borrachos]

C'mon Tres.....what do you think will happen if you stand next to someone who shoots at the police?

Hopefully the police will kill the person shooting at them and not me. Isn't that what you would hope, Hol?

 

[dixon01767]

Moreover, the judge in this instance allowed the issuance of a no-knock warrant. No-knock warrants are a specific exception to the normal process of execution of a warrant, "knock and announce", and should only be issued in exceptional circumstances.

Except the Breonna case is such a perfect demonstration of the need for no knock warrants. Had they done the no knock entry, Breonna would probably be alive. At her drug dealer boyfriends house they performed the no knock warrant at about the same time and even though they had an arsenal of guns there, no one was shot and all were safely apprehended.

 

[Erod]

Hopefully the police will kill the person shooting at them and not me. Isn't that what you would hope, Hol?

Don't hang around thugs, and you'll be fine.

This is the same woman whom they found a dead body in a car she rented. LOL