Not at all. I'm not stating she wasn't an innocent bystander with any sort of conviction. Would Taylor, as the subject of the search warrant and the tenant of the home being searched, be considered an innocent bystander? If they had shot a women through the wall in the next apartment over, that, to me, is an innocent bystander. If they shot and missed, but the bullet went through a window and hit someone walking on the side walk outside, that's an innocent bystander. I'm not saying Taylor wasn't an innocent bystander. I have no idea how the law would view her, or if it even matters. Just pointing out that her situation was slightly different than the examples provided above.
What, exactly, is the difference between your "20 or more" and any other, number, when there doesn't seem to be a concrete number? How are you determining that one is more correct, and less misinformationy, than the other?
Nothing was found that was illegal. So yes, she'd be innocent. What other term would you use, innocent next-to-stander? You know, if you can't find the word, or have ever heard it, it probably doesn't exist. And it probably doesn't exist because a different term would be used. Like, innocent bystander.
The majority of articles go with the 20 or more number. Again, I haven't seen anyone say 30 shots were fired, aside from the defense attorney, and I haven't seen anyone use the "30 or so" number that you used a number of pages back.
20 or more isn't a concrete number. You said, and I'll quote you: "Why can't we just say what actually happened?" So, what actually happened, Indy? And why can't you say it? Is it because the people who would know, are cops, and this is considered an active investigation, and so maybe they aren't telling media. Except they'd have to tell the defense attorney. Because... defense attorney. So, again, I ask you, but will specifically ask you given your new information, what about those articles seem less misinformationy than the defense attorney, given active investigation? The 30 or so, by me, is because, despite attempts to say otherwise, I don't remember everything, exactly.
Let's say that she was identified as a suspect in the investigation. After the raid, she was most definitely no longer a suspect. Right? Because nothing was found. So, even if she started out a suspect, she was proven not to be. And if she is no longer a suspect, and innocent... she's an innocent bystander. Her innocence has been proven.
I stated this several times yesterday, that a failed investigation led to her death, and them being shot, and that it was entirely their fault. You shouldn't need more than it being spelled out as a failure beyond the death of an innocent person, random shots fired throughout, a wounded cop, and nothing illegal at the location found. That's plenty enough.
Defense attorney has a vested interest in making the situation seem as bad as humanly possible because it benefits his client(s). Media doesn't really have that same vested interest.
Well, to be fair, she is most definitely no longer a suspect because she is deceased. It's possible that, had the raid not led to her being shot to death, and nothing was found, she could still remain a suspect. Nothing found during the raid doesn't just erase other evidence of the convicted drug dealer's previous involvement at her house. And even if you say that them finding nothing makes her innocent, then she wasn't innocent when she was shot because at that point, they hadn't found nothing yet. You really do love these logical games, don't you?
I don't believe a lot of attorney's want to have potential jurors compromised by sensationalism, going in to court hearing one thing, and then having the evidence presented be entirely different than what can be quoted by them. I think that has the potential to be very detrimental to any case. He could be wrong. But it wouldn't be in his client's interest to report something that he wasn't told, either from the client, or from records. The media doesn't have a client they have to represent, and a professional board they have to stay on the right side of. So, given those reasons, do you still believe the defense attorney has a vested interest in being wrong? That it could harm his client, harm his case, and harm his carrier?
She was innocent, even when shot, because she is innocent until proven guilty, Indy. She hasn't been proven guilty, ergo, she must be innocent. As I said earlier, that you denied, that you are saying yet again, you are making this guilty until proven innocent.
Was his aim ever to go to court and have jurors involved? Does any of what you're saying apply if the goal was a settlement all along? Also, sensationalism and misinformation seems to be Ben Crump's MO. He authored a book titled "Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People," for crying out loud. He's the person who initially stated that Jacob Blake was "breaking up a fight between two women." He's the person who claimed "The only overdose that killed George Floyd was an overdose of excessive force and racism by the Minneapolis Police Department," despite the fact that reports are now saying Floyd had a fatal level of Fentanyl in his system when he died. So yeah, he does tend to do stuff like that.
I think my focus has been more on the bystander part of the equation from the beginning. If you are a suspect and the subject of a search warrant, and are in the home being search, I'm not sure how you're a bystander. Again, I don't think this really matters very much or changes much of anything about the case itself. I just don't see her as a bystander in the same way that the next door neighbor, were she to have been shot, would have been considered a bystander.
Yea, most lawyers recognize bullshit as easy as any other. I don't believe a settlement generally has to be trumped up, the other side knows how bad it is, and they are the ones decided on the settlement. Settlements are also about the most common result of a lawsuit that exists. If I said someone was suing someone, you'd immediately go to settlement, right? Yea, everyone else too. Ben Crump is not the guy that made the 30 round comment.
