Trump tries to exploit the outrage in this case in 3, 2, 1…
I would not be surprised if conservatives are hoping for riots. Black people rioting scares white suburban women into voting for Trump.
Of course, conservatives and Trump are what got us here but they (mostly) will not see it that way.
I can’t seem to find anyone who has actually posted the video, but “They chased the unarmed boy and then shot him” is not a sequence of words that suggests to me the shooting was justified.
Well, he’s not wrong about that last part. He just doesn’t know which side of the versus he’s on.
A few months ago, I confess that I didn’t see an opening for the GOP/Trump. I thought that the momentum was clearly a wave of support in favor of racial equality and that it benefited Biden and Democrats.
But support for BLM has fallen. I think part of this is inevitably the result of social justice fatigue: people get impacted by an injustice, react to it, want to feel some degree of sympathy to make themselves feel better about who they are as people. But social justice has been part of the news cycle the entire summer. I think white moderates are tired of thinking about social justice. They want to move on. Dwelling on the topic is making them feel uncomfortable.
And I think that this is exactly why Trump wants to keep feeding the situation with more outrage.
Gosh, it’s so hard to be white nowadays… 
I think you need to realize how grave that charge is. Those neighbors could have been white.
Even worse, bullets were wasted.
Yeah, you have to remember that #DryWallLivesMatter .
Hoping for? How about instigating? I don’t doubt that right now there are Republican operatives in Louisville “helping along” the riots. It’s one of the few things conservatives are doing these days that’s not unprecedented.
For those incensed that those two cops were not charged with a crime for killing Breonna Taylor, what crime exactly do you think they should have been charged with? Can you cite the statute? Or articulate a legal/ethical principle? Can you say precisely what they should have done differently?
Keep in mind that:
–The officer who was charged did not hit Taylor with any of his wildly-sprayed bullets.
–The two officers whose bullets did kill her were not involved in seeking this warrant, they were just assigned to enforce it, and did not shoot until they were shot at.
–The detective who sought this (seemingly bogus) warrant was not in the running to be charged with anything; nor was the judge who okayed the (again, seemingly bogus) warrant.
If you want to argue that we shouldn’t have a “war on drugs” that leads to these kinds of situations, you’ll get no argument from me. In fact, you’ll get a strong endorsement of your argument.
But that is not what was being debated here. The question is whether these two cops, assigned as part of their jobs to execute this warrant, did something wrong that ought to have led to their being arrested, indicted, convicted, and sent to prison for a crime of some sort, that would override the presumption of innocence and satisfy the “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” standard. What crime would that be, exactly? At what exact moment did they stop acting legally and begin doing something illegal? And what exactly was that illegal thing they began doing at that moment?
3 officers fired over 20 bullets and not one bullet hit their target. which means that either they’re all really bad at shooting or none of the officers saw what they were shooting at and all were firing blindly. So all should, at a minimum, be charged with reckless endangerment, not just the one. Unintentional homicide wouldn’t be a stretch either. If a civilian had killed an innocent bystander by firing blindly at a perceived or even real threat, even if found to be justly defending themselves, they would most certainly face charges.
My impression is that only the one who didn’t hit Taylor was firing wildly. If you have evidence to show otherwise, let’s see it. (Burden of proof is on your side of the argument.)
If they weren’t firing wildly, does that mean that those who hit her were aiming at her?
Wasn’t the exchange of gunfire through a closed door? Are you saying when bullets are coming out of an apartment through a closed door, you should open the door and get right in that door frame and look around before you return fire?
ETA: This is very sad, just like it’s sad when you use a drone to blow up a terrorist and a cute little girl becomes collateral damage. But I don’t believe it’s 100 percent possible to completely avoid ever having either scenario happen without letting some very violent and dangerous people run roughshod over an even greater number of innocents and striking continual fear in many more.
No, you should duck behind a corner, have one guy cover the door, and send the other two in through a window. If there’s no other way in then there’s no other way out, so just surround the target, sit tight and call in the negotiators. Whatever you do, don’t shoot at someone you can’t see.
I mean, my own infantry training taught me that if you come under fire, the first thing you should do is take cover and assess the situation. You don’t just blast away blindly - not only is it irresponsible, it’s also stupid.
In other words, you said they weren’t firing wildly, but firing through a closed door is firing wildly. You can’t aim through a door, after all, which means all of the shots were unaimed - which means they were wild.
I think the words depraved indifference fit the situation.
The fact that nobody will go to jail for organizing this fiasco, for failing to do their due diligence in planning an armed invasion of an American’s home, is an insult to the concept of justice.
I thought that a basic tenet of firearm safety and usage is that one should always be sure of one’s target, and be aware of the potential for harm to non-targets; for example, via over-penetration of walls and doors. How, exactly, can an officer be sure of his or her target if they are shooting through a closed door?
Seems to me that either the police were so poorly trained that they were never taught these principles (in which case, I suppose the blame falls on, “the system”), or they disregarded that training in the moment. If the latter, then they should be subject to civil and criminal penalties for acting outside of their training and their remit. At the very least, it would demonstrate that they are easily panicked or angered, and not fit to wield deadly force.
The legal principle is that jackbooted thugs engaging in summary executions of people who are NOT EVEN AWAKE is straight up murder. In my younger, more naive days I thought that people generally agreed that murdering people in their sleep was not OK, but apparently it’s not a universal concept and some people think that murdering people in their sleep is open to debate.