zlacker

[return to "Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report"]
1. rayine+c6[view] [source] 2020-06-11 03:31:04
>>evo_9+(OP)
USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html

A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under the heading “What Happened in Louisville?” doesn’t mention Taylor‘s boyfriend shooting first. Instead, you need to go down several paragraphs to learn that fact. Which leaves the whole article deeply confused: at first you think police just started shooting for no reason, and then later you learn they shot because they were fired upon. Which of course leaves the reader with little understanding of what police actually did wrong. Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? Is that the problem?

Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon. What the police did wrong, instead, is failing to respect black peoples’ second and fourth amendment rights. This happened in Kentucky, where if you barge into someone’s house in the middle of the night you can expect to get shot. Police barging into people’s homes in the middle of the night unannounced is fundamentally incompatible with what the Constitution and Kentucky law gives homeowners the right to do: shoot at intruders in their home. And as such the practice of serving these no-knock warrants is an infringement of that right. It leads to tragic consequences under predictable circumstances where homeowners are just exercising their rights. And of course, it’s doubtful that officers display the same callousness to the possibility of armed homeowners when it comes to policing white neighborhoods. It’s another one in a long pattern of cases where black people are murdered for daring to exercise their second amendment rights.

◧◩
2. newacc+Za[view] [source] 2020-06-11 04:40:30
>>rayine+c6
> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them?

How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Is that not the problem?

I don't think anyone is demanding a first degree murder conviction here. They didn't walk in with the intent to kill her. But they sure as shit did kill her, and it's all their fault that it happened. Sounds like open and shut manslaughter to me.

◧◩◪
3. JamesB+nh[view] [source] 2020-06-11 06:07:05
>>newacc+Za
Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Or are no-knock warrants the bad guy which routinely cause deaths for the sole purpose of keeping some drugs from being flushed down the toilet?

Because one of these is very easy to fix and would 100% mean Taylor would still be alive. The other would be super difficult to fix and who knows if it would have saved her life.

◧◩◪◨
4. crafti+fj1[view] [source] 2020-06-11 15:01:56
>>JamesB+nh
Having been a military servicemember, not returning fire is the bare minimum to expect. If they had no training, no mandate, no authority, and were not kicking someone's door down in the middle of the night, then returning fire would be a risky but understandable choice. But if you have any understanding of tactical urban combat, you know that taking cover here and assessing the situation is the only rational choice. Blindly returning fire in an area filled with civilians (an apartment for god's sake) is a criminal decision, likely to get your officers and random innocent persons killed.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. JamesB+Al2[view] [source] 2020-06-11 21:44:32
>>crafti+fj1
I don't know much about the military's rules of engagement. But if you are breaking into a residence with a suspected terrorist or enemy combatant and are fired upon, you don't return fire?
[go to top]