For all you know, there was stuff there the day or week before, and it was removed before they could get in there. If you had a crystal ball that, after the fact, could 100% guarantee that there were pounds of heroine in Taylor's home that were removed the morning of the raid, is the raid still "wrong" and a "failure?" Hell, the whole point of the no knock warrant in the first place is to help prevent the disposal of evidence. My point is that just because there's nothing there now doesn't mean there never was anything there. So how can you accurately make the judgement of "wrong" or "failure." And even if you are subscribing to the idea that the raid was "wrong" or a "failure", you're still casually leaving out an additional step that led to someone dying. The cops didn't shoot Taylor because it was a bad raid. The cops discharged their weapons after being fired upon and one of them taking a bullet to the leg. Aside from the 3rd officer who rank into the parking lot (or whatever it was) and opened fire into the building, what exactly makes the officers at Taylor's residence "complete [uck fay]ing morons?" Again, if I remember correctly, the NYT piece suggested they had a recorded phone call in which Glover states that Taylor is holding $24k of his money. Hearing it directly from the horse's mouth is about as good as it gets, as far as evidence is concerned, no?
Dude, it's a legal thing, with certain procedures and checks that must be followed, based in case law. It isn't whether they knocked loudly and repeatedly. It isn't just words. It is law. In no-knock, you aren't waiting a reasonable amount of time for the owner to come let you in. Ok, that's the difference, in law. The difference in correctness is just wait until the home owner is ACTIVELY notified. And what I mean is, you serve them papers. They are actively holding the [uck fay]ing warrant, not passively being told there is a warrant. Yes, to all of your questions, except, maybe Guy and his weapon. He had had some legal issues, but, though the guy that got off was in possession of illegal marijuana plants, the guy who was indicted was in possession of nothing. He would be charged with assault in the first degree, which is a felony in Kentucky. (It turns out he was charged with attempted murder and assault, but the charges were dropped in May, after national attention).* If you don't want to get caught up in the semantics, then you don't have a problem with charging these cops with murder. If the grand jury will just fail to indict, right? So, we're good. We can charge them with murder... right? Yes, it is always that straight forward. If they didn't find anything, or it was lesser... do. better. investigative. work. If cops take a hit when they fail to do their job well... guess what... they'll start doing their job better. Ta Da. I've improved police work.
Right, I didn't do the investigation. So for all I know, it could have been. I do demand that cops know. If it was removed, and they didn't catch it being moved, they weren't doing a good enough job. Yes. If nothing was there, the raid was wrong. The cops failed. Do better work. You can accurately make the judgement of wrong or failure based on what was found. If nothing, you failed. It's simple. The cops were in the position they were in because it was a bad raid. If they had done better work, they would know nothing was there, and they wouldn't have raided the place. If they hadn't raided the place, they wouldn't have shot her, therefore nobody would have died. What led them to the place of getting shot in the leg was their failures. What makes them complete [uck fay]ing morons is that they raided a place with nothing present, got shot, and killed the one unarmed person that wasn't shooting at them, while not hitting at all the guy that did shoot at them. You may think that's quality work. It would explain a lot about you. No, physical evidence is as good as evidence gets. They. Didn't. Get. Any.
Another simple way of putting this is: no one should be killing anyone in cold blood for any reason. All the rest is just hand-waving. A badge, a former drug dealer boyfriend, a warrant requiring psychic targets-- all distractions. Someone was shot with a bullet. Someone else pulled the trigger that discharged that bullet. That person is responsible for the death of an innocent. PERIOD.
"In cold blood?" What the [uck fay] are you talking about? That phrase is defined as "without feeling or mercy; ruthlessly." What part of this situation suggests that Breonna Taylor was killed "in cold blood?" The officers returned fire after being shot at and one of them being actually shot. There's not even proof that they intended to shoot Taylor, let alone that they did so "ruthlessly and without feeling or mercy." Give me a break. The above (similar to "shot in the back 7 times") is the sort of stuff that suggests to people that you're not interested in the truth or reality. You're just interested in propagating the narrative.
What's the difference between "firing indiscriminately" and doing so "without feeling?" Not that I ascribe to the idea of cold blood, but definitionally, what's the difference?
Yeah, except she wasn't asleep when she was shot. The boyfriend makes it very clear in his statement that the knocks at the door woke both of them up, that she asked "who is it" multiple times at the top of her lungs, and that they both left the room and began walking towards the door to see who it was. So, are you lying, or are you just misinformed about what happened? If it's the latter, I'm not all that surprised, since the original narrative was that they executed the no knock warrant at the wrong house and shot an innocent woman in her sleep.
Has someone claimed that one of the officers "fired indiscriminately?" Tell me where you're going with this before you hit me with the "gotcha."
Oh man, I'm totally lying because it matters a whole lot both for your argument and in general what I tell you... Don't be moronic. She did nothing to warrant being awoken and shot. I.e., she didn't fight them. They shot her without cause. Cold blood. You have to work soooo hard to dismiss that this woman was murdered. And that IS what it was.
I mean... they fired 30 bullets or so, striking the only person that didn't shoot at them. How are we to argue that they fired? Accurately doesn't seem to fit, which doesn't seem to leave us with much else, except, indiscriminately.
Now, let's be absolutely fair. All 30 rounds hit something other than the only person who shot at them after they broke into his home.
How many shots did each individual officer fire? Let's not group them together as if all of them acted in equal stupidity. I've already outlined that one of them, specifically, probably deserves some sort of charge. I don't think "fired indiscriminately" and "in cold blood" aren't the same. One suggests intention. The other suggests randomness. EDIT: I originally wrote that they are the same, but I changed it to reflect what I intended (that they aren't the same).
You used the words "in cold blood" despite the fact that they don't apply to this situation, at all. You also suggested they shot her while she was asleep, which was not true. Neither matters a whole lot for my argument because I've already researched the situation and understand what happened. But for someone who hasn't taken that time, you could be misinforming them and causing them to believe something happened in a way that it didn't. Similar to the "shot in the back 7 times" comment. Just tell the truth. She did nothing to warrant being shot, but they also didn't intend to shoot her. You don't have to work hard at all. Here, I'll help you: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...taylor-killing-officers-may-never-be-arrested That said, the third officer, who, as I've mentioned, went outside and fired into the building a shit load, could be on the hook, especially if his shots are found to have hit and/or killed Taylor: Relatively little work.
None of the officers successfully struck any threat with any rounds. None of them. Not a single officer, or round. Guns don't shoot themselves. No one has ever had a gun leap from its holster and just start shouting. All gunshots are fired intently.
cold blood. didn't know her, didn't have a cause, didn't matter. cold. blood. that she can be murdered and you cite a supreme court ruling that allows her to be legally murdered doesn't unmurder her. I wish it did. I'm not arguing, I'm telling you. cold blooded murder.
