Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Is sarcasm really how you should respond to a reasoned rebuttal of your statements?

...

...

I'm seriously having trouble processing how to even respond to this.  If you genuinely think this way, I don't think I know how to communicate with you.  If you genuinely believe that was a "reasoned rebuttal", then I'm not sure how you would even be able to recognize sarcasm so dry.  If you actually believe that the outrage against the police's actions in this case is 100% predicated on it being 100% true in a strictly technical sense that Taylor was sleeping in bed at the moment she was shot, then you should have no reason to suspect sarcasm when I'm corrected on this point and drop my outrage, right?  Unless you know that the technicality being pointed out is completely superfluous and does nothing to address the spirit of the issue.  So I will respond as if you're not addressing me in bad faith, even though you reek of it.

Imagine I've just cooked some food, made a plate, and sat down at my dining room table, intending to eat with my family.  Before taking my first bite, suddenly my front door crashes open and people with guns pour through and start shouting at me.  Reflexively, I dive from the dining room chair to the kitchen floor.  It's on the kitchen floor that I am shot.  My death sparks protests, and the protesters go with a narrative that I was shot while eating at my dining room table.  But interviews with my family reveal that I had not yet taken a bite, and I was not at the dining room table with my plate of food at the moment I was shot.  Is it a reasoned rebuttal of the protester's narrative to point out that technically I wasn't shot while eating at my dining room table?  Is there any good faith reason to bother pointing out this purely technical distinction?

[Doomblade187]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ballistics-report-raises-questions-breonna-taylor-shooting-attorney/story?id=73279097

https://apnews.com/article/breonna-taylor-us-news-kentucky-shootings-38705b83a586e96bce672732624cfbb2

[Dunamisdeos]

So what I'm hearing is that the police shouldn't be allowed to gun innocent people down in their homes without concrete reason or cause, but that the law 100% allows them to do so as long as a judge tells them they can first.

[Rolan7]

Along with the second layer of defense that "We *coulda* gone in without knocking, but we found a witness willing to say we knocked".  The old "We totally didn't do it, but if we did, it wouldn't have been illegal under the law" defense.

Defense in detail to avoid talking about whether it's okay.  No past tense - this is an example case out of all the no-knock warrants that take place every fucking night.

[Bumber]

Imagine I've just cooked some food, made a plate, and sat down at my dining room table, intending to eat with my family.  Before taking my first bite, suddenly my front door crashes open and people with guns pour through and start shouting at me.  Reflexively, I dive from the dining room chair to the kitchen floor.  It's on the kitchen floor that I am shot.  My death sparks protests, and the protesters go with a narrative that I was shot while eating at my dining room table.  But interviews with my family reveal that I had not yet taken a bite, and I was not at the dining room table with my plate of food at the moment I was shot.  Is it a reasoned rebuttal of the protester's narrative to point out that technically I wasn't shot while eating at my dining room table?  Is there any good faith reason to bother pointing out this purely technical distinction?

She wasn't even lying down to sleep. She was awake and "Netflix and chilling" with her BF at the time.

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.

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.)
• 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.)
• Police did not fire until fired upon
        (Police used the appropriate continuum of force.)

It is this set of facts which makes murder charges against the officers unjust.

[Bumber]

So what I'm hearing is that the police shouldn't be allowed to gun innocent people down in their homes without concrete reason or cause, but that the law 100% allows them to do so as long as a judge tells them they can enter the home and somebody else shoots first.

FTFY

[Doomblade187]

Nah, they just have to claim their life was in danger.

[SalmonGod]

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.

[hector13]

So what I'm hearing is that the police shouldn't be allowed to gun innocent people down in their homes without concrete reason or cause, but that the law 100% allows them to do so as long as a judge tells them they can enter the home and somebody else shoots first, even if they don’t identify themselves as police before bursting through the door.

FTFY

FTFY

Imagine I've just cooked some food, made a plate, and sat down at my dining room table, intending to eat with my family.  Before taking my first bite, suddenly my front door crashes open and people with guns pour through and start shouting at me.  Reflexively, I dive from the dining room chair to the kitchen floor.  It's on the kitchen floor that I am shot.  My death sparks protests, and the protesters go with a narrative that I was shot while eating at my dining room table.  But interviews with my family reveal that I had not yet taken a bite, and I was not at the dining room table with my plate of food at the moment I was shot.  Is it a reasoned rebuttal of the protester's narrative to point out that technically I wasn't shot while eating at my dining room table?  Is there any good faith reason to bother pointing out this purely technical distinction?

She wasn't even lying down to sleep. She was awake and "Netflix and chilling" with her BF at the time.

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.

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.)
• 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.)
• Police did not fire until fired upon
        (Police used the appropriate continuum of force.)

It is this set of facts which makes murder charges against the officers unjust.

They didn’t murder her, no, but they did kill her, and despite the wrongful death lawsuit being settled, nobody is being punished for her death.

They were at the right apartment. They found no evidence (neither drugs nor money) to show they should have been there. Even then, the warrant was justified as a result of varying degrees of falsehood.

They were both awake, and they both wanted to know who was pounding on their door. A normal response to people hammering on your door at 1am, I would imagine, hence the journey to see who is bothering them.

Police did not identify themselves, which is why they were fired upon when they smashed through the door. The AG said a witness said they did, but lawyers for Taylor’s family and Walker say 12 neighbours suggest otherwise, and the “independent witness” changed their story.

The police shot and killed an innocent unarmed woman in her apartment, because her legally armed boyfriend fired a warning shot to protect them from an unidentified threat that bust their door open in the wee small hours.

In the 32 bullets the cops fired, they managed to not hit the actually armed person once.

Despite one of them being charged with a crime, it is recklessly firing bullets into the walls of the apartment, and not killing the innocent unarmed woman wondering who’s breaking into her apartment.

Eh ninja’d but fuck it

[Rolan7]

Despite one of them being charged with a crime, it is recklessly firing bullets into the walls of the apartment, and not killing the innocent unarmed woman wondering who’s breaking into her apartment.

Two very good posts, but I'd like to point out this point in particular.  One shot being fired doesn't justify spray-and-praying an apartment.  Even if they identified themselves (despite obtaining a no-knock warrant), they didn't know who else was in the apartment.  Their actions were definitely third degree murder:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

And only because they didn't intend the death of their victim.  It's probably arguable that it was 2nd degree.
(Edit:  Well definitely, since criminal teams all get charged with murder if anyone on their crew kills someone (even by accident))

They didn't intend to kill her, but it was a result of their blatantly irresponsible use of force.  A firearm discharge can mean a lot of things, and their response should have been to fall back, contain, and communicate.  Not hose down the area with lead.  What if there were hostages?  Or, just a thought, it was a misunderstanding?  This isn't even protocol, it's just the natural result of cops being brainwashed to fear and kill people.

[Maximum Spin]

Anger and fear are never justifiable. They are maya, pure and simple. Eliminate them from your mind.

[Rolan7]

Also I have to wonder how one justifies a no-knock warrant on an apartment.  Isn't it about the risk of the suspect evading capture?  (Which is already a pretty weak justification, good luck living in the Information Age as a fugitive from justice)

I'm pretty sure it's more to keep kids from flushing their slightly-too-large bags of pot before their doors get busted open.  But surely that's not the supposed reason.

[scriver]

Do you know what they did after shooting those 32 bullets? They withdrew and awaited backup, because the environment wasn't suitable to have a firefight in.

This should have been their immediate response. Not firing score and a half of bullets blindly into a home they know have civilians in it.

[Bumber]

This serves to distract the audience from the nuances that:
1. 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.

Only the execution of the warrant has any bearing on the officers' liability. I'm not debating whether or not the warrant should've been granted. I'm debating whether or not Breonna Taylor was "murdered in [her] sleep because police showed up to the wrong address".

2. 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.)
3. 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.

Besides that she wasn't murdered in her sleep?

Your example involved reflexively diving under a kitchen table. Breonna, unfortunately, did not. She got up into a standing position, unwittingly increasing her profile. Not by any means her fault, but it increased her chances of getting hit. I guess the point is the poignant irony that being actually asleep might have prevented her death.

4. 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.

How many shots is enough to start shooting? How many returned shots are allowable per shot? Should the officers do an analysis of the probability of additional shots coming their way, and how many shots are required to prevent that outcome? Walker's shot hit its mark. The officer's return fire hit everywhere but their target. Maybe they didn't shoot enough bullets?[/s]

For real, though, the point I was making is they didn't start shooting from the get-go. They started shooting after being fired upon, which a justifiable use of lethal 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.

They didn't charge Walker with shooting the police, though. Kentucky has a "stand your ground" law, so Walker is justified in shooting the cops* at the same time they're justified in shooting back.

*As long as he doesn't know they're cops.

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.

You can't charge someone with a crime you feel is justified and expect it to stick. They must be convicted based on what the written law actually states. Otherwise, you'd get charged with murder after running over somebody's dog, because you totally just murdered that dog.

[delphonso]

Manslaughter, then?