Military hits far fewer civilians with small arms than you would think. Generally, no. Military works in maneuvers. If you took fire from a building, a squad on patrol is going to seek cover, stack on the building and enter and clear. When it's weapons free the cities are evacuated of civilians, first.
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/leaked...dealing-exs-money-he-used-her-address-as-his/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/
I’m not sure what you’re saying is fake information in the first article. The second article is a joke. I thought we were talking about facts? Like, I’m questioning if you’re being serious in including it here. It’s literally just the dude’s opinion over and over and over. For example: Who the [uck fay] cares if this guy is sure what difference it makes? The facts are the facts. But to answer his question, it matters because shooting someone who is asleep in their bed makes no sense. There’s no way to justify it. It immediately pushes you to outrage. The reality - that she was shot accidentally when the police returned fire after her bf, who was right next to her, shot one of them - makes a lot more sense. One can very easily make the logical connection that the police were shot at, so they returned fire. Chuck just said exactly that last night. It makes sense. It’s reasonable. So people promote the false narrative of her being asleep because it’s not reasonable. It pushes people to outrage and makes the cops and what they did seem worse than the reality. I was going to type more about the ridiculousness in the article, but it’s not worth it. Where are the examples of normal, right-leaning people on Facebook and Twitter pushing false facts/incorrect information about the case? And I mean definitive stuff, not the shit like “Breonna Taylor wouldn’t have died if her bf hadn’t shot the police,” which was another BS piece of “misinformation” that article claimed to be correcting.
the content of the first link is all debunked. if I dug some up and posted it here, you'll just hand wave it away. ut isn't worth my time.
“All” is probably not the word you want to use there. I don’t think it exists, and if it does, I’m sure it’s limited enough to where you’d have to actively seek it out. I have plenty of right leaning folks on my friends list. I don’t see anyone saying the boyfriend shot Taylor or that he fired his weapon knowing it was the police at the door. Please, if you have examples from your Facebook feed of people making stuff up about this case, share them. Because I’ve opened my page several times after updates on this case, and each time there’s been multiple accounts of people making the same false claims (she was asleep in her bed when shot, they were at the wrong house, they were looking for the ex bf, they didn’t knock or announce themselves, etc.).
I deleted my facebook ages ago. Where I have seen it was screenshots back in May of facebook, in comments on articles in May, in twitter comments, etc. It was out there, anywhere far right nutjobs were talking. The idea that Taylor was involved with the drug activities of her ex, as the link I shared was alleging, is debunked. There is no evidence of that. Folks point to the recorded conversation from her ex, but it takes some gymnastics to get it to where she was involved and there is no evidence to support it. He was given a plea deal to sign which would have implicated her, and he didn't sign it.
I need to delete mine. It's a cesspool. I can't argue against it if I don't have examples. I could definitely see how some of that sort of stuff might be floating around in March/April when the case was relatively fresh, but May is a pretty long time after it had happened. But, again, I don't remember seeing that sort of misinformation in May, and I'm definitely not seeing it now, 6 months later. In my mind, there's no excuse 6 months later for people to still be saying it was the wrong house, she was asleep and in bed when shot, etc. The NYT podcast reported that the Glover dude was recorded on a phone call with someone stating that Taylor was holding large sums of cash for him. It also reported that Glover was on camera driving from the trap house to Taylor's house, going in and then coming back out with a package, then driving back to the trap house (I believe). There was a lot of evidence, if I remember correctly, that he was having his mail sent to her home, and the suspicion was that he was having drugs sent there. Has that stuff been debunked, and if so, please link me to the debunking. I do think that by the time the warrant was actually executed, she had cut off most, if not all ties with Glover. I don't think she was holding money for or really involved with him anymore by the time they served the warrant. But I haven't seen anything that has proven that she wasn't, at one point, involved with him and potentially aiding him in various ways.
We aren't talking about charging her with a crime. IP's claim was that there is no evidence of her having been involved. It's not the job of the police to assume she is innocent until proven guilty. It's the job of the police to uncover evidence and investigate whether she was involved or not.
We're not talking about charging with a crime. We're talking about philosophy. Specifically the philosophy that one is innocent until proven guilty. Had we been talking about charges, we would say one is not charged until charged. But as it stands, we're talking about innocent until proven guilty. Thus you don't need proof to show innocence, innocence is assumed. You need proof to show guilt. And sans that, the base exists: innocent.
This post was a complete waste of time. Returning to my previous post: IP said there is no evidence of her having been involved. He stated "the idea that Taylor was involved with the drug activities of her ex, as the link I shared was alleging, is debunked." Stating that something has been debunked suggests there is evidence proving it didn't happen, which is why I stated that I haven't seen anything proving that she wasn't, at one point, involved with him and potentially aiding him in various ways." And that's the comment you replied to, stating you don't need to (see that) if you think it's innocent until proven guilty. But, for the second time, that doesn't apply here because I'm replying to IP's claim that her involvement had been debunked.
It absolutely applies here, because she is in invent until proven guilty. There is no proof, therefore she is not involved. Until there is proof, she is not involved. It is that simple.
If the basis of a claim is shown to be false- the basis was that the ex implicated her, he did not and in fact refused to when pressured to- it is debunked. There is no physical evidence whatsoever supporting the claim. There never was. Even when they searched her house.
The ex said on the phone (when he didn't know he was being recorded) that she was holding money for him. How does the ex refusing to implicate her directly when pressured to do so later on erase that phone conversation? You don't have to say "She's involved" to implicate someone. It can happen indirectly. If I remember correctly, the NYT podcast stated that they found mail in her home addressed to the ex, further solidifying that he was having mail sent to her house. Is that not a form of physical evidence? Are the videos of his trips to and from the trap house/her house not physical evidence?
No, neither of those things are implications, as it is not proven that she knew what the money was for, or that she even knew it was money, or what the packages contained. I can ship someone a package, or ask them to hold an envelope or package containing money, and on the phone, state that the money is held elsewhere, all without that person knowing what was going on. Is there even substantial proof that she knew her ex was dealing?
I want to say the numbers he threw out on the phone added up to like $24k. How does she think this dude, who I believe they stated did not have a job, got this $24k?
Why do you think she knew he left the money with her? He could have hidden it in the sock drawer while she was on the shitter. I can't answer why she would believe he had $24k, without knowing that she knew he left $24k, and you can't either. You're just assuming she knew, because he said, on a phone call, that she was holding it. But that doesn't mean she even knew it was there. You are making a leap that she knew, without any proof of her knowing.
