Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
rascal

Black lives matter

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GROOT said:

Here are the facts: Police officers knocked on door. A no-knock raid didn't happen (but if it did it's legal) The police did knock and identify themselves.(witness testimony). Her boyfriend decided to open fire at a closed door, not even knowing who was on the other side (breaking the law in the process), shot at them. Breanna Taylor was in the hallway and unfortunately died.

What law did Walker break?

Also isn’t reasonable to think that the if the police did knock and announce themselves as police (I understand there is some debate about whether they did or not) that Walker and Taylor didn’t hear them clearly? It was late at night/early morning they were in the bedroom with the TV on, on the other end of the apartment.

I know if someone says something and knocks on my front door while I’m in my bedroom watching TV, I might hear something but I doubt I can make out exactly what was being said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yenrub said:

What law did Walker break?

Also isn’t reasonable to think that the if the police did knock and announce themselves as police (I understand there is some debate about whether they did or not) that Walker and Taylor didn’t hear them clearly? It was late at night/early morning they were in the bedroom with the TV on, on the other end of the apartment.

I know if someone says something and knocks on my front door while I’m in my bedroom watching TV, I might hear something but I doubt I can make out exactly what was being said.

Yes.  And that's why Walker isn't in jail.  

It's also reasonable that if the Police are executing a warrant and shot at, they are going to defend themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I’m obviously not able to review the record.   I assume no knock warrants are issued on white suspects as well.  I question whether a judge knows the ethnicity when signing off on the warrant.

The police were targeting a drug dealer that happened to be black.  His ex-girlfriend was also black.  His packages had been delivered to her house at least once, and so they thought she was involved in the drugs somehow.

If it were a white girlfriend receiving the packages for the drug dealer ex-boyfriend, do police decide to ignore that lead?  I seriously doubt it.

If shots are fired from the apt. a white woman they suspect is involved in drug dealing, do the police holster their weapons?  I doubt it.

You said there were issues with the warrant to begin with.  Why do you think that is?  Do you think it's likely a systemic problem or just a one time thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

You said there were issues with the warrant to begin with.  Why do you think that is?  Do you think it's likely a systemic problem or just a one time thing?

The point of the warrant is to catch someone off guard so they can't leave/hide whatever.  When you surprise people, that's more likely to lead to fighting/shooting/etc.  It's more risky for everyone involved.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

The point of the warrant is to catch someone off guard so they can't leave/hide whatever.  When you surprise people, that's more likely to lead to fighting/shooting/etc.  It's more risky for everyone involved.  

Yep, agreed.  But you agree that it was a mistake to issue the no knock warrant in the first place right?  That the judge shouldn't have signed it?  Is so, why did she?  Is it more likely it was a one-off mistake or a systemic problem of not appropriately respecting citizens' rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

Yep, agreed.  But you agree that it was a mistake to issue the no knock warrant in the first place right?  That the judge shouldn't have signed it?  Is so, why did she?  Is it more likely it was a one-off mistake or a systemic problem of not appropriately respecting citizens' rights?

I think that no-knock warrants have problems.  

My understanding is the Narcotics division in Louisville has used no knock warrants in the past.  There were 4 or 5 warrants issued for the same night related to the same case.  My understanding is they were all no knock warrants.  

I believe it's a tactic used to police Narcotics.  I don't believe it's a "systemic problem" or a "lack of respect for citizens rights."  I simply think the evidence is there that no knock warrants have their issues.  

I don't think the judge asked the color of Breona Taylor's skin or looked for it.  I think warrants are put in front of a judge and judges trust the police and sign them more often than not.  That's probably somewhat of an issue.  

That being said "Ex-girlfriend of drug dealer we're trying to catch has gotten Fed-Ex packages in his name to her apt that he has come to pick up" seems reasonable to investigate.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I don't buy that this would have been prevented with Amy McGrath in office.  

Maybe that's not what you're meaning to say.  

But I don't see Breonna Taylor's death as a Mitch McConnell problem.

Thanks, I agree, no of course not.

My point is about effectuating policy change. Politicians love their jobs and removing McConnell would scare the hell out of every political office holder in KY, and probably quite a few people in DC. That’s power.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I think that no-knock warrants have problems.  

My understanding is the Narcotics division in Louisville has used no knock warrants in the past.  There were 4 or 5 warrants issued for the same night related to the same case.  My understanding is they were all no knock warrants.  

I believe it's a tactic used to police Narcotics.  I don't believe it's a "systemic problem" or a "lack of respect for citizens rights."  I simply think the evidence is there that no knock warrants have their issues.  

I don't think the judge asked the color of Breona Taylor's skin or looked for it.  I think warrants are put in front of a judge and judges trust the police and sign them more often than not.  That's probably somewhat of an issue.  

That being said "Ex-girlfriend of drug dealer we're trying to catch has gotten Fed-Ex packages in his name to her apt that he has come to pick up" seems reasonable to investigate.  

If "seems reasonable to investigate" translates to "gun shots and innocent people will die", then the presumed risk analysis is flawed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JAA said:

If "seems reasonable to investigate" translates to "gun shots and innocent people will die", then the presumed risk analysis is flawed.

Sure.  

Seems reasonable to investigate was in regards to the judge signing a warrant.  If no-knock warrants are a somewhat regular thing for the Narcotics unit, I don't fault the judge for signing it.  

We have no idea how many they've issued without incident.  So, I don't find fault with the judge here.  I don't believe the judge signed the warrant believing the police intended to take a life.  I don't believe the police showed up with the intent of shooting someone.  

Did terrible things happen?  Absolutely.  Do we need to stop and look at doing away with No-knock warrants?  Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jm192 said:

That being said "Ex-girlfriend of drug dealer we're trying to catch has gotten Fed-Ex packages in his name to her apt that he has come to pick up" seems reasonable to investigate.  

Wasnt it also listed as his address still? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Sure.  

Seems reasonable to investigate was in regards to the judge signing a warrant.  If no-knock warrants are a somewhat regular thing for the Narcotics unit, I don't fault the judge for signing it.  

We have no idea how many they've issued without incident.  So, I don't find fault with the judge here.  I don't believe the judge signed the warrant believing the police intended to take a life.  I don't believe the police showed up with the intent of shooting someone.  

Did terrible things happen?  Absolutely.  Do we need to stop and look at doing away with No-knock warrants?  Yes.

I was reading the posts form you guys the past hour or so and wanted to toss this out:

It is not in every case of no-knock warrants but was in this case that the warrant was one of a few and were coordinated to serve on multiple people related to the same instance. One of the benefits of such a warrant, aside from the obvious "take them by surprise/don't let them get holed up where they could have hostages, etc" is that it also doesn't allow a guy to get a knock at the door and send a text to his dealers, suppliers, etc, saying "run!  they are coming!"

With that being said, In this case, they DID knock (but they failed to have the "call and report" person in place.

Also, as most already know, Rand Paul has already introduced legislation to attempt to do away with these types of warrants altogether. I don't know if that was purely reaction to this or if he truly gathered information as a reaction to this and saw something he thought was best removed. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Sure.  

Seems reasonable to investigate was in regards to the judge signing a warrant.  If no-knock warrants are a somewhat regular thing for the Narcotics unit, I don't fault the judge for signing it.  

We have no idea how many they've issued without incident.  So, I don't find fault with the judge here.  I don't believe the judge signed the warrant believing the police intended to take a life.  I don't believe the police showed up with the intent of shooting someone.  

Did terrible things happen?  Absolutely.  Do we need to stop and look at doing away with No-knock warrants?  Yes.

And when terrible things happen, groups of people get pissed.  And when groups of people get pissed, sometimes some of them make bad choices in how they express their frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JAA said:

And when terrible things happen, groups of people get pissed.  And when groups of people get pissed, sometimes some of them make bad choices in how they express their frustration.

I don't think it's the bad thing that triggered the bad decisions.  

It's the decision.  Everyone has said they want justice.  Justice implies the laws are followed.  For better or worse, I think the decision by the Grand jury and the AG are consistent with Kentucky laws.  I live in Kentucky.  I've spoken to multiple lawyers I'm friends/acquaintances with, and most agree that this was the most likely outcome legally.  Matt Jones is a sports radio host who went to Duke Law school and just happened to make his fortune talking about Kentucky sports.  He's well known as very liberal which often clashes with a conservative fan base.  He agreed with the decision legally.  And I don't think it's necessarily a liberal or conservative issue, but most liberals I've seen speak on it wanted more charges.

But the reality is the mob didn't want "justice."  They wanted a murder charge.  Anything short of that they wouldn't accept as justice.  The mob doesn't get to define justice, try as they may  

So they decided to go and shoot cops.  Ironically, all of this is in the name of Black Lives matter and a black police officer got shot last night.  

Edited by jm192
  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the procedure with regular warrants (compared to no-knock warrants)?  I assume police knock and then give an appropriate amount of time for the occupant to respond.  Then what?  Do they just leave if nobody answers?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Wasnt it also listed as his address still? 

I don't think they knew where he lived.  He had gotten packages there in the past which is why they thought he might be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don't think they knew where he lived.  He had gotten packages there in the past which is why they thought he might be there.

I read some place that the police thought Taylor was home alone that night.

https://apnews.com/article/a819916f3b18b2253b157d1300f84713

Edited by Yenrub
to add link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jm192 said:
16 minutes ago, JAA said:

And when terrible things happen, groups of people get pissed.  And when groups of people get pissed, sometimes some of them make bad choices in how they express their frustration.

I don't think it's the bad thing that triggered the bad decisions.  

It's the decision.  Everyone has said they want justice.  Justice implies the laws are followed.  For better or worse, I think the decision by the Grand jury and the AG are consistent with Kentucky laws.  I live in Kentucky.  I've spoken to multiple lawyers I'm friends/acquaintances with, and most agree that this was the most likely outcome legally.  Matt Jones is a sports radio host who went to Duke Law school and just happened to make his fortune talking about Kentucky sports.  He's well known as very liberal which often clashes with a conservative fan base.  He agreed with the decision legally.  And I don't think it's necessarily a liberal or conservative issue, but most liberals I've seen speak on it wanted more charges.

But the reality is the mob didn't want "justice."  They wanted a murder charge.  Anything short of that they wouldn't accept as justice.  The mob doesn't get to define justice, try as they may  

So they decided to go and shoot cops.  Ironically, all of this is in the name of Black Lives matter and a black police officer got shot last night.  

Full disclosure - I have no skin in this game

What I'm hearing you say, and what I'm guessing others are hearing is that: it was legal for a police office to shoot an kill an innocent person

I hope you realize how far fetched this sounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JAA said:

Full disclosure - I have no skin in this game

What I'm hearing you say, and what I'm guessing others are hearing is that: it was legal for a police office to shoot an kill an innocent person

I hope you realize how far fetched this sounds

And you're not really trying to have an honest conversation if that's your conclusion.

What's not in dispute:  Kenny Walker shot first.  Kenny Walker freely admitted he shot first.  No doubt in anyone's mind who shot the first shot.

Police are allowed to defend themselves.  Self defense laws in the State of Kentucky are the same for police as everyone else.  Breonna Taylor was caught in the cross fire of self defense and died.  

If your question for me is:  Is it legal for police to break down a woman's door and shoot her in cold blood unprovoked?  I get it.  That's definitely not legal.  And people seem to want to act like that's the way this went down.  Cops showed up, kicked in the door, unloaded 20 bullets and another black person dead at the hands of racist police.

In reality, they were doing their jobs in executing a warrant.  One of them was shot in the leg and wounded.  They defended themselves--which is legal.  Breonna Taylor was unfortunately hit in the cross fire.  Again it's awful.  Human emotion says there's something horribly wrong with it.

Is it a violation of the law for police to fire back and hit someone?  

No.

Edited by jm192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:
10 minutes ago, JAA said:

Full disclosure - I have no skin in this game

What I'm hearing you say, and what I'm guessing others are hearing is that: it was legal for a police office to shoot an kill an innocent person

I hope you realize how far fetched this sounds

And you're not really trying to have an honest conversation if that's your conclusion.

What's not in dispute:  Kenny Walker shot first.  Kenny Walker freely admitted he shot first.  No doubt in anyone's mind who shot the first shot.

Police are allowed to defend them.  Self defense laws in the State of Kentucky are the same for police as everyone else.  Breonna Taylor was caught in the cross fire of self defense and died.  

If your question for me is:  Is it legal for police to break down a woman's door and shoot her in cold blood unprovoked?  I get it.  That's definitely not legal.  And people seem to want to act like that's the way this went down.  Cops showed up, kicked in the door, unloaded 20 bullets and another black person dead at the hands of racist police.

In reality, they were doing their jobs in executing a warrant.  One of them was shot in the leg and wounded.  They defended themselves--which is legal.  Breonna Taylor was unfortunately hit in the cross fire.  Again it's awful.  Human emotion says there's something horribly wrong with it.

Is it a violation of the law for police to fire back and hit someone?  

No.

I'm trying to have an honest conversation.  However, im giving you a perspective you don't like and one that makes you uncomfortable.  I'm doing this in an effort to provide you a different viewpoint.

Let me ask you a different question:  Was Breonna Taylor's death avoidable?

If your answer to this question is only "Well, if Kenny Walker had just not shot at the door", then we can agree to disagree.

I think a lot about these situations.  Could you imagine if Walker didn't hear them identify themselves?  What if this was the rural south and someone started banging on the farm door in the middle of the night demanding the home owner open it?

We need to stop the senseless violence and senseless killing.  The biggest part of solving this problem is accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JAA said:

I'm trying to have an honest conversation.  However, im giving you a perspective you don't like and one that makes you uncomfortable.  I'm doing this in an effort to provide you a different viewpoint.

Let me ask you a different question:  Was Breonna Taylor's death avoidable?

If your answer to this question is only "Well, if Kenny Walker had just not shot at the door", then we can agree to disagree.

I think a lot about these situations.  Could you imagine if Walker didn't hear them identify themselves?  What if this was the rural south and someone started banging on the farm door in the middle of the night demanding the home owner open it?

We need to stop the senseless violence and senseless killing.  The biggest part of solving this problem is accountability.

Let’s agree on what the actual question is.

if you’re asking me if I think the police violated the law in firing back, the answer is no.

If you’re asking if I think they should be charged with murder or manslaughter, the answer is no.

If you’re simply saying was this avoidable, absolutely.  Lots of things went wrong.  Lots of things can be improved on. 

But a bad process isn’t criminal and shouldn’t mean a murder/manslaughter charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JAA said:

I'm trying to have an honest conversation.  However, im giving you a perspective you don't like and one that makes you uncomfortable.  I'm doing this in an effort to provide you a different viewpoint.

Let me ask you a different question:  Was Breonna Taylor's death avoidable?

If your answer to this question is only "Well, if Kenny Walker had just not shot at the door", then we can agree to disagree.

I think a lot about these situations.  Could you imagine if Walker didn't hear them identify themselves?  What if this was the rural south and someone started banging on the farm door in the middle of the night demanding the home owner open it?

We need to stop the senseless violence and senseless killing.  The biggest part of solving this problem is accountability.

I also want to clarify on Walker:

Kentucky has stand your ground laws.  I think there’s a reasonable belief that he didn’t know who they were.  It’s disputed whether they announced who they were. 
 

I’m not arguing that Walker should be prosecuted for firing on them.  But I’m also not going to buy that the police can’t fire back in self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused on one point.  Did Walker shoot through the unopened door, or did he fire after the police had broken it open?  Seems like a big point that's unclear, to me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Enderdog said:

I'm confused on one point.  Did Walker shoot through the unopened door, or did he fire after the police had broken it open?  Seems like a big point that's unclear, to me anyway.

Quote

Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door and assumed it was Taylor's ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover. Taylor, who had awoken, shouted, "Who is it?" but Walker said there was no response.

He said he and Taylor scrambled to get dressed and that he grabbed his gun, which his attorney has said he legally owns. He said both he and Taylor were yelling, "Who is it?" but received no response.

As they made their way toward the front door, Walker said, the door flew off its hinges.

"So I just let off one shot," he said. "I still can't see who it is or anything."

Police then returned fire, killing Taylor.

link

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If avoiding these situations makes policing drug traffickers harder.  So be it.  
 

My ex-boyfriend got packages delivered here is not a high enough bar.  A drug den?  Sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Yenrub said:
58 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don't think they knew where he lived.  He had gotten packages there in the past which is why they thought he might be there.

I read some place that the police thought Taylor was home alone that night.

https://apnews.com/article/a819916f3b18b2253b157d1300f84713

Yes. This was a separate warrant. It was not an arrest warrant for Glover. It was a search warrant for Taylor's place. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I don't think it's the bad thing that triggered the bad decisions.  

It's the decision.  Everyone has said they want justice.  Justice implies the laws are followed.  For better or worse, I think the decision by the Grand jury and the AG are consistent with Kentucky laws.  I live in Kentucky.  I've spoken to multiple lawyers I'm friends/acquaintances with, and most agree that this was the most likely outcome legally.  Matt Jones is a sports radio host who went to Duke Law school and just happened to make his fortune talking about Kentucky sports.  He's well known as very liberal which often clashes with a conservative fan base.  He agreed with the decision legally.  And I don't think it's necessarily a liberal or conservative issue, but most liberals I've seen speak on it wanted more charges.

But the reality is the mob didn't want "justice."  They wanted a murder charge.  Anything short of that they wouldn't accept as justice.  The mob doesn't get to define justice, try as they may  

So they decided to go and shoot cops.  Ironically, all of this is in the name of Black Lives matter and a black police officer got shot last night.  

Vert well said. So much so I am quoting it just so people get a chance to read it twice because that is exactly what happened, especially the perception of what justice "is".  I lived many years in Ky (#BBN) and you are dead on re: Matt Jones, etc.  

When you see how businesses were boarding up and bracing for this just as they would a hurricane, its fitting because that's what they got. This wasn't a group who said I will accept justice. This was a mob who had pre-planned this. There were U-Hauls rolling up and distributing items like a military convoy as soon as the news broke. That does not suggest a group of people listening, learning, weighing out the reasons. That suggests "our way or we will burn this place to the ground."  That's a problem.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Daywalker said:

If avoiding these situations makes policing drug traffickers harder.  So be it.  
 

My ex-boyfriend got packages delivered here is not a high enough bar.  A drug den?  Sure.

I don't know but I would guess they had done enough leg work to know the contents of th packages weren't dental floss from Amazon or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Vert well said. So much so I am quoting it just so people get a chance to read it twice because that is exactly what happened, especially the perception of what justice "is".  I lived many years in Ky (#BBN) and you are dead on re: Matt Jones, etc.  

 

What if laws and legal processes are inherently unjust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Vert well said. So much so I am quoting it just so people get a chance to read it twice because that is exactly what happened, especially the perception of what justice "is".  I lived many years in Ky (#BBN) and you are dead on re: Matt Jones, etc.  

When you see how businesses were boarding up and bracing for this just as they would a hurricane, its fitting because that's what they got. This wasn't a group who said I will accept justice. This was a mob who had pre-planned this. There were U-Hauls rolling up and distributing items like a military convoy as soon as the news broke. That does not suggest a group of people listening, learning, weighing out the reasons. That suggests "our way or we will burn this place to the ground."  That's a problem.

It is clearly a terrorist organization at this point.  And they plan to keep escalating.  Truth or justice does not satisfy them, it is power that they seek.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

What if laws and legal processes are inherently unjust?

Like which laws?  Don't assault people.  Don't steal.  Don't resist arrest.  Don't charge police while holding weapons.  Which laws are inherently unjust?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

What if laws and legal processes are inherently unjust?

I believe the constitution is crystal clear about that.  See, the problem in this case is that some people don't understand that justice, justice served, and due process of justice do not mean "I get the decision I want". The media and some people have convicted the officers in this case without Any due process.  The grand jury did the due process and issued its verdict. that is how it works. 

 

In other words, it is not that it is unjust. It is that it didn't go the way of some who wanted a very specific, violent reaction to a very tragic situation. 

Edited by Shutout
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Like which laws?  Don't assault people.  Don't steal.  Don't resist arrest.  Don't charge police while holding weapons.  Which laws are inherently unjust?  

In this case, allowing officers to bust down a woman’s door in the middle of the night because an ex-boyfriend received packages there months earlier is unjust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I believe the constitution is crystal clear about that.  See, the problem in this case is that some people don't understand that justice, justice served, and due process of justice do not mean "I get the decision I want". The media and some people have convicted the officers in this case without Any due process.  The grand jury did the due process and issued its verdict. that is how it works. 

 

In other words, it is not that it is unjust. It is that it didn't go the way of some who wanted a very specific, violent reaction to a very tragic situation. 

Does that mean that everything done legally must be just automatically? You see, I don’t agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is clearly a terrorist organization at this point.  And they plan to keep escalating.  Truth or justice does not satisfy them, it is power that they seek.  

What an absurd statement.

From Politifact:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/30/facebook-posts/black-lives-matter-not-terrorist-organization/

No, Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist organization

- The State Department keeps a list of foreign groups that have been formally designated terrorist organizations. Black Lives Matter, a domestic organization, is not on it.

- There is no legal process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations.

- Black Lives Matter is not listed as a perpetrator group in a global database of nearly 200,000 terrorism incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Does that mean that everything done legally must be just automatically? You see, I don’t agree.

It means that everything done legally goes through the exact same due process of justice and that THAT is protected to ALL citizens by the US constitution without exception and that is a big part of what protects our universal freedom in this country. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I don't know but I would guess they had done enough leg work to know the contents of th packages weren't dental floss from Amazon or something. 

What is the evidence against Taylor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shutout said:

It means that everything done legally goes through the exact same due process of justice and that THAT is protected to ALL citizens by the US constitution without exception and that is a big part of what protects our universal freedom in this country. 

Do the poor get the same due process as the rich and powerful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daywalker said:

What is the evidence against Taylor?

My understanding is that she was not a target and was hit in the return fire from police after Mr. Walker fired upon the police.  Not to make light of it but, in simplest terms, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

Do the poor get the same due process as the rich and powerful?

 

3 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Do the poor get the same due process as the rich and powerful?

The 6th amendment guarantees all Americans the right to a fair trial, even if the tax payers must foot the bill to pay for it. 

If you ask the question beyond that, we are no longer talking about the judicial system, we are talking about individual economic systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shutout said:

 

The 6th amendment guarantees all Americans the right to a fair trial, even if the tax payers must foot the bill to pay for it. 

If you ask the question beyond that, we are no longer talking about the judicial system, we are talking about individual economic systems. 

Perhaps “individual economic systems” affect outcomes in the judicial system? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Perhaps “individual economic systems” affect outcomes in the judicial system? I think so.

I feel like we're getting really sideways here.

We can go way down the rabbit hole.  At the end of the day, the police are allowed a fair process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

I feel like we're getting really sideways here.

We can go way down the rabbit hole.  At the end of the day, the police are allowed a fair process.

I think we’re getting to the root of the problem.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shutout said:

I don't know but I would guess they had done enough leg work to know the contents of th packages weren't dental floss from Amazon or something. 

So we don’t know if she knew about it.

An ex-boyfriend.  Who was not there.

IMO that is not enough to break down someone’s door in the middle of the night with guns drawn putting presumed innocent people in extreme danger.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Perhaps “individual economic systems” affect outcomes in the judicial system? I think so.

That may be true but it sounds like you are diverging on a different path as the root for your frustration. 

Would the best lawyer in the world have been able to change the FACTS of this case? 

The police knocked.  There was no response. They entered. The police were shot at and an officer was wounded. In ANY situation, if you fire a gun at a police officer, you are opening up their right to return fire. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

I think we’re getting to the root of the problem.

That the cops got a fair process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm192 said:

That the cops got a fair process?

No, that Breonna Taylor didn’t get a fair process. Nor do other people like Breonna Taylor get a fair process.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I think we’re getting to the root of the problem.

We are but it is not what you may think it is. To be honest, your comments suggest you are , and I'm sorry to sound so blunt, "mad because a poor person got shot and she didn't get her eye for an eye" but that is NOT what is going on. We are talking about the facts of the case and the legal right of the process of justice; not "I am upset because i think a poor person got bullied and somebody got away with it".  This was an investigation. Lots of professional attorneys and evidence and witnesses and reports. That outweighs your emotional take based on what you saw on CNN in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shutout said:

We are but it is not what you may think it is. To be honest, your comments suggest you are , and I'm sorry to sound so blunt, "mad because a poor person got shot and she didn't get her eye for an eye" but that is NOT what is going on. We are talking about the facts of the case and the legal right of the process of justice; not "I am upset because i think a poor person got bullied and somebody got away with it".  This was an investigation. Lots of professional attorneys and evidence and witnesses and reports. That outweighs your emotional take based on what you saw on CNN in this case. 

For what it’s worth, I think the charging decisions on the officers were appropriate. I think I’m probably less emotional about it than you think I am.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit.  NVM.  Previous post answered question.

Edited by jm192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

OK.  I'll agree what happened to Breonna was awful.  Nothing can bring her back.  She was killed in a cross fire.  That isn't denying her a fair process.  

Because she died--should we deny the police a fair process?  

No, police should always get fair process.  Everyone should.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.