She wasn't even lying down to sleep. She was awake and "Netflix and chilling" with her BF at the time.
What I've read is that she had fallen asleep, and woke up when their door started getting battered down. Either way, this is still ridiculously nitpicky. She was laying in bed at a late enough time that most people would be asleep.
The narrative is that police showed up to the wrong house and bust down the door with guns blazing, causing her to be riddled with bullets as she lie asleep and helpless. There is an implicit emotional appeal present in the technical inaccuracy.
The technical inaccuracies do not alter the nature of the encounter such that the emotional appeal isn't applicable. The common narrative remains a simplified description of in essence what happened. Nitpicking the accuracy with which the encounter is described in public discourse that tries to focus on the issue as it relates to what's wrong with policing serves no purpose but to burden the message of the movement, which is accurate and needed. It's to disallow those who are justifiably angry *and afraid* from talking about what's wrong with what happened on the basis that language which is correct in essence isn't good enough. It has to be recounted in complete detail with technical accuracy to be acceptable. Give me a fucking break.
This serves to distract the audience from the nuances that:
- The police were at the right apartment to which their warrant authorized them
(This could not have all been avoided if police checked the address a little more carefully.)
The basis of the warrant being rooted in classism and racism. The drug war itself being a tool of systemic racism (as openly and explicitly admitted in a quote by Nixon's chief domestic advisor). And even ignoring that background, the justification and execution of this warrant in this specific case being a subject of hot debate on its own. So this nuance doesn't help your case.
- Both Taylor and Walker were awake and aware their door was being pounded down by somebody
(Taylor was not incapacitated in a way that would have prevented her from taking cover.) - Taylor died in the hallway
(From what I can tell, having moved closer to the danger than away from it.)
Jesus fucking christ. Mind explaining your point here? I'd really love to hear it told straight.
- Police did not fire until fired upon
(Police used the appropriate continuum of force.)
After manufacturing the set of circumstances that would make a panicked, spur of the moment act of self-defense by the occupants understandable and expected, and thereby the likelihood that they would have an excuse to return fire. And "guns blazing" would not be an inappropriate characterization of their return fire against a single shot.
It's always the fucking same.
Police approach victim with tactics that are intimidating, confusing, abrupt, and/or low-level violent -> victim responds with fight or flight reflex -> police respond to victim's natural reflex with deadly force -> police/bootlicker narrative argues that the police were justified defending themselves/preventing the victim from escaping, but the victim's reaction wasn't justified.
Bullshit. These scenarios are manufactured. They've played out tens of thousands of times. They know what's going to happen when they do things this way. They do them anyway.
It is this set of facts which makes murder charges against the officers unjust.
And it's refusal to respond to cases like this with murder charges which guarantees sloppy policing that gets thousands of people killed, and makes the job extremely appealing to the worst kinds of people for the job. And worse, it places the expectation 100% on the rest of the population to never act in self-preservation. Ever. Because you never know when the people bursting into your house with guns drawn or stuffing you into a van might be police, and as soon as you react appropriately to danger, you've forfeited your life and any right to justice even after you're dead.