What do you call an innocent person present? You should be able to articulate what it is. If you can't figure out what it is, that's a shortcoming of yours, not an argument. Without a better description, she's an innocent bystander. Because let me tell you what doesn't exist: innocent suspect.
Fentanyl overdose is treatable with narcan. My wife works for a university, and even she carries narcan. It took her an afternoon class shorter than CPR. Having a fatal dose of something, and dying from it, aren't the same. Hit him with narcan, put him in the recovery position, and then see what happens. But when you do what was done... you've contributed to that death.
@Indy so to be clear, you are arguing that she wasn't in bed when they beat down the door, and therefore it is not correct to say they broke in while she was asleep in bed? Because they beat ON the door first, waking them up and prompting them to ask who was there without receiving an answer? Oh, okay. This is a very important distinction that really changes everything. I can hear the defense of a non-LE in court now: "Your honor, my client did not kill her in cold blood. He didn't give a shit about the safety of anyone in or around the home, thus there was no deliberation- which I contend is a necessary condition for the applicability of the term. And she wasn't asleep, either. My client banged on the door before breaking it down, which woke her. Further more, my client was actually exchanging rounds with the home owner your honor, she just happened to be hit. Also, I object to the claims of 30 rounds being fired by his partner. One officer fired 10 rounds, with an additional 20 or more rounds being fired. Clearly, one can not conclude with any reasonable certainty or accuracy that 10 + 20 or more = 30 or more. The facts speak for themselves. If she was not in Sleepy-town, mow her down. I rest my case."
Does that change whether he had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system? Cuz the lawyer was denying that. There were other substances present as well.
I'm saying that she was neither in her bed nor asleep when they busted down the door and shot her, so saying that she was asleep in her bed when they busted down her door and/or shot her is factually incorrect. That's all. It's extremely simple.
Yes, it changes the word "fatal." He had fentanyl in his system. At a level that is statistically normalized to be fatal. That doesn't mean it would have been fatal to him, and it doesn't mean it is still fatal with the administration of narcan.
If I remember correctly, they stated that had they found him dead in his apartment, the amount of fentanyl in his system would be more than enough to say he OD'd. I believe they said they've declared a lethal dose of fentanyl in the system the cause of death in cases where the deceased had 1/3rd of the amount that Floyd had in his system. And no one is saying he died of a fentanyl overdose. They're saying that the fentanyl and other substances in his system, along with the heart problems (I believe?) were contributing factors.
Had they found him in his apartment, that would be different. Had he OD'd, that would be different. Not treating him, and hampering his breathing, were also contributing factors. In all those scenarios, the contributing factors were self-induced. In this scenario, the contributing factors were not solely self induced.
No argument here. I was merely pointing out that Ben Crump has a history of making sensationalized and not so accurate claims. But apparently Ben Crump isn't the defense attorney who said "30 shots" either, so it doesn't really matter. I don't care enough about it to keep arguing. You win.
The inaccuracy is not perceived when someone says a man was shot 7 times in the back when he was really only shot 4 times. It's just an inaccuracy. The inaccuracy is not perceived when someone says a man was a good samaritan walking away from a fight he had broken up, and was shot in the back, when, in reality, he was violating a restraining order put in place by a woman he sexually assaulted (digitally raped, if what I've read is correct), then resisted arrest, disobeyed police orders, and tried to get into the drivers side of his car, where a knife was allegedly located. It's just an inaccuracy. Maybe all or at least less of them would feel sensationalized if they were single events. But they're not, at this point. We were told Breonna Taylor was shot and killed in cold blood by police officers who were raiding the wrong house on a no knock warrant. We were told that Jacob Blake was just breaking up a fight. We were told he was shot 7 times, which is almost twice as many times as he was actually shot. Hell, you can trace these sorts of things back even to the incidents from years ago. At a certain point, when these inaccuracies are so incredibly far from the truth, and yet parts or all of them are still being openly stated (and not corrected by anyone) even months later, you can't help but wonder if the people truly don't know that what they're saying is inaccurate, or if they're just being disingenuous.
Have you considered, even briefly, that what was in his hand, was a key? Given... ya know... driver's side, and the need for keys.
So far we have agreed that Breonna Taylor was in bed and asleep before her encounter began. Right? So in my opinion, it is you being disingenuous by harping on her being conscious at the time her life ended as being an important clarification to her being killed in her home after going to sleep in her bed-- which is true, by the way. She had gone to bed before being woken up and then killed. It isn't disingenuous to state the truth, surely. And if one mushes the details to her being killed in her sleep, there is no malice there. Was Blake not breaking up a fight? Where did the other 3 shots go, and where were they shot at? If I phrase it as, "Blake was shot at point-blank 7 times in the back, being struck by 4 of those rounds," does it OBJECTIVELY change the event, from a mushed "shot 7 times in the back?" What is your "genuine" concern? Should you not be more concerned with the inaccuracies over the knife? The police union initially said he had a knife in his hands? Video shows he did not. The DOJ has refused to clarify their knife remark about whether the knife was ever anywhere other than the floor board of the vehicle during the incident. Or even what kind of knife we are talking about. That you are not concerned about these issues but ARE about someone saying he was shot 7 times instead of shot AT 7 times, seems disingenuous.
It wouldn't make sense to talk about something that was never in possession, would it? "A gun was found at the scene" (Locked in a safe) See. Kinda pointless. Saying he had a knife wasn't saying he owned one somewhere. It was used as a justification for shooting.
Yes, she was in bed asleep BEFORE the encounter began. Do we need to go over the definition of before? I was asleep in my bed before the water from my shower hit me in the face this morning. Saying "the water from my shower hit me in my face while I was asleep in my bed this morning" is, therefore, a false statement. Because I wasn't asleep in my bed when the water from my shower hit my face - just like Breonna Taylor wasn't asleep in her bed when the officer(s) shot her. So why are people saying she was asleep in her bed when police shot her? I'm not pointing out the people saying "she had gone to bed before being woken up and then killed" or the people saying "killed in her home after going to sleep in her bed." I'm pointing out people saying she was asleep in her bed when police shot her. Because that's an untrue statement. I'm concerned about the facts of the case. If we don't know the facts of the knife, then I am waiting for those facts to come out. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about it, but it's not like the level of my concern has any sort of bearing on how quickly those facts come out. But aside from that, we do know that he was not shot in the back 7 times. So why are we saying he was shot in the back 7 times? If you shoot a gun at me 1 time but hit me 0 times, is it fair to say that you shot me? Is that the same as saying "you shot at me?" No, the two are completely different statements, in that one is true and one is false.
No. But unless it was in the person's hand, what were you defending against, when claiming self defense?
Don't you think comparing the knife in the floorboard of the car that he's inexplicably leaning into (after resisting arrest and disobeying police orders many times) to a gun in a locked safe is a bit disingenuous? I understand that they are both examples of a person having but not actively possessing weapons, but come on.
No, it isn't disingenuous. A person was shot multiple times in the back, and the justification seems to be that he: 1. Didn't fight back 2. Didn't drop when taser'd (which I guess is a big no no) 3. Didn't fight back 4. Ran away 5. Had a knife, somewhere So no, I don't think it is disingenuous to point out that owning and possessing aren't the same thing.
