It 100% matters, and it matters who fired what number of rounds. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't see the defense attorney saying "30 times" while everyone else is saying "20 or more."
When trying to determine if the officers displayed "wanton behavior," which would not allow for "self-defense" as a viable defense, the number of shots is absolutely important. That you don't think so is mind boggling.
It doesn't matter. The issue isn't with the number of rounds fired, but that they were fired, and how they were fired, and who they hit. One, or a hundred, the number isn't important.
Because I don't believe that the cops acted in self defense. I don't believe that people get to put themselves in a wrong situation, and then when it goes to shit, get to claim self defense. It isn't mind boggling.
This is just flat wrong. These officers will all be tried individually. If 30 shots were fired, and each officer fired 10 shots, that's completely different from 20 shots being fired, 10 from the guy who ran into the parking lot, 7 from the officer who was shot, and 3 from the officer next to him. It 100% matters.
It does not matter how many rounds were fired. It matters how the officers that fired their rounds, fired them. One round, fired at random, into space would be worse than one guy firing 30 rounds, and having all 30 hit someone shooting at them. The round count doesn't matter, its the intent of the shots.
Under the law, both parties have 100% acted in self defense, unless someone can prove that the officers displayed wanton behavior and shot/killed Breonna Taylor. The only officer who displayed wanton behavior is the one who ran outside and fired 10 shots into the building. But unless they can prove that his shots hit and killed Breonna Taylor, they can't convict him of murder. And you're still wrong about the cold-blooded thing. You can pretend that you saying "the officers weren't acting in self defense" changes anything, but the law doesn't agree with you.
Your second line literally proves why the round count matters. There are multiple people shooting. The dude who went outside fired 10 shots at random. The problem is, they don't think that any of his shots hit or killed Taylor. You can't charge a guy for murder if he didn't shoot anyone. You can certainly charge him with other stuff, but that's not what we are discussing. That leaves 10 or so shots for the other two. 8 shots hit Taylor, who was "shoulder to shoulder" with the threat when the first shot was fired, by the accounts of both the officer and the boyfriend. If she was in another room 20 feet away, sure, maybe you have a case. But she wasn't. She was right next to the boyfriend.
Two parties can't both claim self defense, there has to be an aggressor. Someone had to cause you to fear for your life, and that fear as to be done illegally, in order to be self defense. Someone has to be the aggressor. In what way are they different, based on what I've explained? I don't care about Kentucky law, Indy. I don't know why you think I should. This is rightness. It supersedes state law.
The second line proves exactly why it doesn't matter, the vast majority of shots impacted target. The round count didn't matter. The one shot that was purposely not shot at a target was bad. The number doesn't matter, its the intent. There are plenty of people in prison for accessory to murder for never even having fired a shot. What you mean to say is, "cops" can't be charged if they shoot things but not kill anyone. Ordinary people have it happen.
Lol, no, it doesn't. If the fear has to be done illegally, then go ahead and arrest the boyfriend. Nothing illegal about the cops being there and causing his fear. I don't care what you've explained. The definition literally outlines that cold-blooded means calm and deliberate vs in anger or self defense. You can type "I don't think it was self defense" 500 times if you want to. The law doesn't agree with you, nor do most people with an ounce of common sense who aren't trying to twist the evidence to fit their already determined conclusion. I'm not getting back into this cyclical argument about law vs. rightness. I've already said my part on that.
Would you like to be a little more specific here? I said what I meant. You can't charge a guy for murder if he didn't shoot anyone. Murder is not the same as accessory to murder. But I'm not sure how you're gonna prove that the cop who fired the 10 shots at random aided someone in murder if you don't convict someone else of murder. And the other two cops aren't getting convicted of murder because they acted in self defense (regardless of how many more times you want to say they didn't).
Yes, it does. Look at any state law on self defense, all of them are in regards to an illegal action. Every one of them. And that is based on right action, in that if you are allowing a legal activity to occur, you have consented to be put in fear. If you request it to stop, and it doesn't, then there is an illegal activity. And it is on the defense to show that it was truly self defense. Yes, and indiscriminate is also calm and deliberate. And these guys clearly shot indiscriminately. So they also shot in cold blood. The officers made entry into a home where there was nothing present that was illegal. I would say that most people, right now, if I went up to them and said, "if the police kick in your door in the middle of the night, even though you have nothing illegal on you, is that, do you think, legal?" I think most people, even ones with very little common sense, would say, yea, no, that shouldn't be legal. Simple enough. That's what happened here. And so if the start was something that shouldn't be legal, then it is easy to conclude that the claim of self defense shouldn't be legal, either. When you speak on law, you are speaking on rightness. Every time. Because we're not actually looking at any laws, here. We're talking in generalities.
They didn't act in self defense. They were the aggressors, who entered a home that contained no illegal items, found nothing illegal, and weren't able to charge anyone with a crime, outside of getting themselves shot. That's not self defense. To be specific, some, probably most, states have laws that come about from drive bys, where the driver, though not the shooter, is charged with murder. There often isn't actually an accessory murder statute, so they just get murder charge. Because their actions led to someone being killed, and their action was chargeable.
I'm done responding to this and going to bed. Just to collect my thoughts into one post so they aren't misconstrued. The Breonna Taylor incident is definitely tragic and unfortunate. I don't think a search warrant is "wrong" or "a failure" if they don't find what they suspect they'll find in 1 of 5 locations they're raiding. I still haven't heard what happened at the other 4, and they had pretty good evidence to suggest they would find something at her home (the dude said on the phone that she was holding his money, and evidence suggests that he had packages containing illegal contents delivered to her home). I think both the boyfriend and the first 2 officers acted in self defense. Yes, I do think both parties can legally act in self defense in this situation. I don't think the first two officers should or will be charged with murder. The third officer definitely [uck fay]ed up. To what degree remains to be seen, imo. I'll be curious to see what else comes out. That people are still claiming she was shot in her sleep is really weird to me. I don't understand why people needed to make up BS like "the police served a no-knock warrant at the wrong house and shot an innocent women while she was asleep in her bed." It's similar to the narrative that Jacob Blake was a good samaritan, just peacefully walking away from a dispute between two women that he had just broken up, and police gunned him down from behind. Weird that these narratives get created... even weirder that they're still mentioned months later. "In cold blood" is not an idiom that can be used to describe this situation. The officers were returning fire at a threat who shot them. They were not deliberately and intentionally shooting Breonna Taylor. You can't kill someone in cold blood if you're not deliberating intending to kill them. I think it's important that both parties agree that the officers knocked many times. I also think it's important that witness testimony confirms that officers announced themselves at least once. I'm open to the idea that no-knock warrants shouldn't exist. I see their purpose, and it makes sense to me, but they obviously leave a pretty significant risk of harm. The good may not outweigh the bad. Still, while I think you can make a legitimate argument that they shouldn't exist, I don't think that argument makes the officers being at Breonna Taylor's home "wrong." It definitely wasn't illegal. None of this even gets to my initial question of how this fits into the systemic racism plot. You can make a claim that no-knock warrants are systemically racist or part of a larger systemically racist, but if they're not carried out incorrectly against black folks at a substantially higher clip than white folks, then I'm not sure that claim holds up. I think that covers it, but I'll add anything else that comes to mind.
1. And unncessary 2. Since the guy wasn't charged, probably didn't find anything... otherwise he'd be charged. Right? Seems simple enough. And yes, if a warrant is served at a location that doesn't have anything at it, it shouldn't have been served. That's just bad police work. 3. They can't both act in self defense. 4. The fault is entirely on the police. 5. Is it maybe because she was asleep when it started? Would it be helpful to you if people said she was "shot in her groggy?" I mean, we need to make it easier on the stupid in society, so they too can process simple things. 6. Yes, it can, as has been demonstrated. You can, in cold blood deliberately and intentionally act to kill, but not care who you kill, in addition to who you are trying to kill. That would be cold blooded. 7. It's not important. If they wanted to announce themselves, there are better ways. 8. They shouldn't. Wrong things are wrong, they don't have to be illegal. Most genocide is legal. It's still wrong. 9. There are more white people than black people, it doesn't have to be at a significant clip. Further, since they were started in the 70s as part of the war on drugs, their inception stems from systemic racism. If your inception stems from systemic racism, its systemic racism. It'd be like saying, yea, but the KKK donated some stuffed animals to sick kids, so... but it was the KKK. They're still racist.
I said last post, but I’m breaking my word. Just came across a post on Facebook stating that Breonna Taylor was “shot while asleep in her bed.” Have these people really not read up on this thing enough to know that didn’t happen? Or are they just willing to forgo the facts if doing so helps push their narrative? I also found this: https://www.courier-journal.com/sto.../3444810001/?utm_source=AMP&utm_medium=UpNext This was from one of the other no knock raids carried out at the same time.
It's Facebook. I'm sure there are posts out there about aliens abducting people. Great, so one of their five warrants found very little. Certainly not enough to justify five search warrants. Not even enough to keep a guy in jail for very long. And definitely not enough to justify the death.
you are wrong, and a simple google search will show you that you are wrong. you have invented the deliberation requirement in this very thread before our eyes.
The police investigation that led the police to her door was a failure. The guy they were trying to arrest had not lived there for a while. At the end of the day, a failed investigation led to her death.
