To be fair, one of them had been shot in the femoral artery, which is kind of a big deal, and another was next to him as he was shot in the femoral artery. It was probably a bit chaotic. I'm not claiming they weren't fired intently. The intent was to neutralize the threat firing at them, or at least buy themselves time to get the [uck fay] out of there. It just so happened that Taylor was right next to the threat they were trying to neutralize. And again, I'm going to keep pointing out the 3rd officer because his situation is different. He may be at fault in some way, though, obviously, murder will be a tough sell unless it can be proven that one of his bullets hit her and killed her.
That is called cover fire, and it was done, without care, of what was struck by said fire. What is is the difference between firing randomly, without care for who gets struck, and doing so, without feeling? In both cases, it doesn't matter who gets hit. So what's the practical difference between cold blood, and indiscriminate killing? They are all at fault.
You can say "cold blood" and "murder" all you want. That doesn't make either one true. Cold blood requires a form of deliberation, which doesn't exist in this situation. They din't deliberately kill Breonna Taylor. They inadvertently killed her. They didn't even know she had been shot until way later because they couldn't get back to where she was without first apprehending the boyfriend.
I've said it like three times now. Intention. Deliberation. You can't kill someone in cold blood if you're not deliberately trying to kill them. If you kill someone inadvertently, it's not in cold blood.
Also, just to correct something from earlier, the boyfriend was charged, initially, but the charges were dropped because of the self defense argument. You can say protests led to him being released all you want, but the 911 call makes it abundantly clear that he didn't have any idea what was happening. It's a pretty solid self defense argument.
No it doesn't. You defined it a little while ago, and your definition included nothing of the sort. You're constructing a narrative, but can't even keep it consistent. Here's the google version: "without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous." Cold blooded. No deliberation required.
They were both done with intent. A gun cannot fire without intent. If both actions require intent, then they are both done with intent. If both are done with intent, then one cannot be distinguished form the other by the thing they both have in common. So what is the difference, because intent is a common feature? If I randomly fire into the air, and a round strikes someone, I have absolutely done a cold blooded action--because I didn't give two flying [uck fay]s if it killed, or maimed or just impacted the ground. Hits an old lady, didn't matter. Kid. Didn't matter. So why would that not be cold blooded, when I, with intention, fired that weapon randomly?
@Indy To hammer it a little further: have you ever heard of an indiscriminate cold-blooded killer? If deliberation is required, how could there be indiscriminate cold-blooded killers?
Wait, did you just provide a definition that used the word "deliberately" and then turn around and say "No deliberation required" ??? Are you sick or something? As I'm sure you probably know, there are tons of different sites out there that define words. I've found multiple that use the word deliberate.
deliberately callous, like unloading 30 rounds into a home with no regard for who was in there, for example. you conflating "deliberation" with deliberately callous is a prime example why you are just not a person worth discussing something with if you disagree, give that they have nearly opposite meanings but you want to go for a cheap word game that doesn't even work.
I haven't, but I'm not sure that what you're saying even makes sense. If indiscriminate and cold-blooded are synonymous or mean essentially the same thing, why use both as adjectives to describe the killer? Deliberation is required for a killer to be cold blooded. If the killer kills people indiscriminately, it just means he doesn't kill a specific person or type of person for any particular reason.
That is what cold blooded is, I think you are confused as to what cold blooded is vs crime of passion, where emotion is the driving force. Cold blooded is without emotion, its just, it doesn't matter. We'd say that was cold. Because it was done without any care. And that is what indiscriminate killing is, it is done without care.
Also, where is this “30 or so” number coming from? Can someone provide me with a link? At this point, we might as well make it an even 50, if we are just going to make up numbers.
Though it doesn't matter, the 30 round count is from Kenneth Walker's attorney, who stated "They were both shot at 30 times." https://news.yahoo.com/breonna-taylors-boyfriend-asks-himself-090025767.html
No, I think you're just making shit up. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/in--cold--blood What in the [uck fay] is calculated or deliberate about getting shot in the leg and then shooting in the direction of the person who shot you and accidentally hitting someone else who is right next to them? https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+cold+blood There is nothing calm about returning fire on someone who just shot you. You can't do something "without remorse" if you don't even know you've done it. And, correctly, this one even points out the contrast between something being done in a calm and deliberate way vs it being done in anger or self-defense. The idea that the shots fired by the first 2 officers were anything other than self-defense is ridiculous.
I'm not making anything up. I'm using your definition, and then very patiently explaining to you how it fits. They were firing suppressing fire. That's a a deliberate action. And yes, is is calm. That's why you train. To be calm under fire. To be deliberate. All of these things align cold blooded and indiscriminate, because with suppressing fire, you can't put fire exactly on target, so you blanket the area. And you do it deliberately. And you do it without emotion. It's indiscriminate. And its done cold blooded. Indy, everyone can't get to claim self defense. Someone had to be the aggressor. You've, today, in this thread, said both Kenneth Walker and the cops acted in self defense. They can't both have acted in self defense.
