What Would Be Justice For Breonna Taylor
The Kentucky AG's Press Conference detailed the events of the night Breonna was killed, and the results of the Grand Jury verdict.
Based on the details provided by the AG, I agree with the Grand Jury's decision.
Here is a brief summation of his official statements, (which are not the same as many will read from various "news" articles.
The police did not execute a no-knock warrant. The original no-knock warrant was changed to a Knock-and-announce warrant before the police went to Ms. Taylor's apartment.
According to the officer's statements and a statement from a witness that was described as 'in close proximity', the police did knock and announce—multiple times.
When the police did break in the door, because no one responded, they were confronted by a man standing with a gun extended towards the police. That man fired first and shot a police officer.
Two of the officers returned fire and the third officer ran around to the side of the apartment and fired through a patio door and window.
The Grand Jury found that the two officers that returned fire were acting in valid self-defense, and declined to indict them. The third officer that shot through the patio door was indicted.
A major point to remember is that the decision to charge was made or declined by a Grand Jury of citizens, not the AG's office or other law enforcement people.
The mob, (protesters?), response was not surprising, but VP candidate Harris' response to the verdict was; she claims there must be justice for Breonna Taylor. And this is coming from a former State AG and prosecutor. Geesh.
For the folks that think there was no justice, in this case, just what would you call a just result of the investigation?
Here is a segment of the press conference talking specifically about why no further charges will be made:
Here is the full AG press Conference, but skip to start at about 13:30 to bypass the static logo images and empty podium.
GAGA, I am going to go along with your statements as to what was stated by the Kentucky AG.
But here are my issues:
I have to question the technique law enforcement uses in theseinstances, generally. The possibility of a shoot out always is there. In enclosed environments like apartment buildings, we have to be concerned about errant bullets from either the suspect's or police weapons perforating walls and ceiling or floors, injuring or killing people in adjacent apartment units.
I heard that one officer indicted was firing into side entrances and windows without being aware if there were a target, reckless endangerment to be sure.
I propose that police use gas, for example, to flush people out as that may allow innocents to at least to avoid becoming fatalities from OK Corral type shootouts, that does not take into consideration others within the domicile and adjacent units.Three is zero indication that what you heard - that one cop fired without knowing if there was anyone there and if there was even a target at all. It is much like hearing that Brianna was asleep when killed or that there was no announcement. Don't believe what you hear on social media or even mainstream media today.
Yes, we could use gas. Gas that would force everyone in the building out (including Brianna) and will inevitably infiltrate nearby apartments, potentially causing harm or even killing people there if their health is poor or perhaps very young. How is that superior? We already hear that cops should never gas rioters - is it better to gas innocent people in the building?Wilderness, use a canister and fire through the windows of the apartment, I am not talking about cyanide gas, more like an irritant at best. How much gas will affect other apartment units then? At least the consequences are not lethal which most assuredly would be the case in your advocacy of the present methods.
Bullets are more lethal than gas.
Who should I believe, Wilderness? I am willing to accept the AG's determination and therein was a case for reckless endangerment. Am I to dismiss that as well?You didn't listen to the video, did you?
The "wanton endangerment" the one cop is indicted for was because he fired three shots into an adjacent, occupied, apartment. Nothing to do with Brianna - just an excited fool that didn't think about "collateral damage".
As far as any form of "irritant" gas, sufficient to drive a murderer or other criminal outside into the waiting arms of police, not being lethal to sensitive people, the very young or people with existing physical problems - you need to do some serious thinking on this. Dreaming that such things will be effective while not causing massive harm or death to innocent people, is just that - a dream (what about the newborn baby in the same apartment, or the old mother with copd sitting in the chair in the same room?
When you fire wide range, untargeted weapons you WILL cause harm, and at a greater rate than tiny, targeted weapons (even if the shooter of either has almost no skill, as was apparent here).
Plus, of course, there is the possibility (probability for some criminals) that they won't exit the building, instead breaking into a nearby apartment and taking hostages.I disagree, and the reckless endangerment is serious and is more involved than an "excited fool". If you are prone to being that excited you need to find another job. People could have been killed.
There is always the danger of problems for sensitive people, I just think that bullets flying everywhere can affect more than just "sensitive people".
We will to agree to disagree on your assessment, I wonder what others think about this?"If you are prone to being that excited you need to find another job."
Absolutely. Which is why he was fired and then indicted for wanton endangerment.
Yes, I guess we will have to disagree. It sounds like you're saying that every warrant should be preceded by a gas barrage through windows and I would never accept that as reasonable.
Use gas? OMG Cred, I can hear the Left's indignant outrage now. "They gassed an innocent woman!"
I understand how callus this will sound, but Breonna Taylor was, in effect, collateral damage. That she was standing beside, or slightly behind a person shooting at police in a confined hallway was an unfortunate result of circumstances.
Had she been standing anywhere else she would probably still be alive. Real-life isn't like the movies—the police, (usually the good guy), isn't an expert marksman firing at the heart of a target. Ms. Taylor was part of a mass target. It was a tragedy. But it was an understandable one.
The officer you mention shooting into a side entrance deserves to be indicted. His actions were dangerously wrong and he deserves to be held accountable.
But, from my perspective, the police acted correctly in every other aspect of this incident.
GAI don't know, GA - 27 shots fired by the police, 8 striking Brianna and none hit the target.
This is more than just "life isn't a movie, with expert marksmen". I wonder if Kathryn is right and the man use Breanna as a shield - that kind of "marksmanship" is not acceptable, and makes me wonder what the rest of the story is.I agree that such marksmanship isn't acceptable—if there isn't more to the story.
However, we see that type of police gunfire too frequently. I recall one instance where several Sheriff Dept. offices shot dozens and dozens, (50+ rings a bell), of shots at a suspect standing beside a car, (not hiding behind it), and all they hit was the car.
I think it is the adrenalin rush that pushes nervous policemen to just point and spray. But that is just a thought, not an accusation.
GA
Better gassed than shot dead, don't you think?
And what about Wilderness' comment about 27 rounds being fired with 8 hitting the target, that a lot of rounds without a specific target,
Reminds me of a "Dirty Harry" movie you shoot it all up a later find out if you hit something.
We did get something from it, the 12 million settlement and an agreement to change police tactics to avoid such a thing happening again. Enough municipal lawsuits will encourage the police departments to rein in the gunslingers. Operating body Cameras are to MANDATORY so we can all see, gather evidence and make the appropriate judgements.Wilderness did not say 8 hit the target: he very specifically not a single one hit the target. "I don't know, GA - 27 shots fired by the police, 8 striking Brianna and none hit the target."
And that brings us back to the topic of the thread: what is "justice" for Brianna? Perhaps a hanging for the man that started, and was the sole cause, of the shootout - her boyfriend that shot a cop?
Didn't her family get over 12 million dollars from the police? I mean that's more than enough I think. Plus, there's not much more you can do considering it was reported that her boyfriend shot at the cops first, which prompted them to return fire and she just got hit in the crossfire, so I doubt seriously any court would convict the officers involved. I say justice is already served because most people don't even get compensation when their family member is gunned down by anyone; even by the police. Not saying a person's life is measured in money, nor am I saying it makes up for the loss of a loved one. Just saying is all. Breonna's family already got financial compensation which is more than what most people would get considering the circumstances.
I agree, justice has already been served.
Would you rather have $12 million dollars and be dead or be alive without $12 million dollars?
Would $12 million be enough for you if you were dead?
To my understanding, it was Breonna's family that got the money, as you obviously can't give money to a dead person. Therefore, I think you mean to ask "would 12 million dollars be enough if someone I loved was dead?" As I think that would be more of the question you're looking for. And to that question alone, I would say no, but let's be honest. Most people who have family and friends shot by others, even the police, rarely get any kind of compensation for their pain and misery. Breonna's family getting 12 million dollars as compensation for her death is more than what most people would get given the circumstances. That's all I was getting at.
Two cents is sufficient. A penny for each eye.
Breanna was shot six times. The one who fired the first shot had no bullet hole wounds.
Did he use her as a human shield?
Apparently, it is possible, that is how she died.
Why did she not answer the darn door?
HE shot FIRST after the police entered with a search warrant.
The protestors need to accept the truth of the matter:
If you con't comply, and shoot first, you could die.
Stop protesting and learn!What is justice for Breanna? Admit that girls can get involved with bad guys and sow their own demise.
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0At the very least, those officers who shot Breonna Taylor performed so poorly on the job that they should be fired and forbidden to work in any job that uses guns.
According to the GA's report, they were unable to say who fired the deadly shot. Who would you fire? Both of the cops that fired in self defense after one had already been shot? The one that (apparently) missed everything but the next apartment and has already been fired? Will you fire any cop that misses his target by more than a foot, even while under deadly fire themselves (applying the same to our armed forces would remove every soldier we have from the battlefield).
I dunno, wilderness, but the boyfriend was apparently a better shot than all those cops.
Perhaps he was. And perhaps he should suffer any penalty as "justice" for Breonna, for he is the one that started the carnage and provoked an almost automatic reaction from the cops? Or was that "almost" automatic reaction the real culprit - the training that caused them to immediately return fire...or was that the "fight or flight" response built into ALL of us?
Truthfully, if we believe the claim of the boyfriend that he (and Brionna, for she was right beside him) heard no announcement of Police, then "justice" was like asking for "justice" from a sudden rockslide onto the highway that killed a passing motorist. Blame is not ALWAYS available to assign to someone.We'll just have to disagree on what started the deadly chain of events.
Perhaps. If you go back far enough, you will find that Breonna was heavily involved in drug trafficking, that she was still in close contact with a drug dealer, even holding his ill-gotten cash until she could launder it as needed. If she was not the warrant to enter her home would not have been issued, her boyfriend would not have shot a cop and she would not have been injured that day.
So she set it in motion. Or perhaps it was her parents - parents that didn't raise her right. Maybe even the evil white guy that held people with similar colored skin in slavery 200 years ago if you want to go that far out of reality.
But whoever it was, it was NOT the judge that wrote out a warrant for a drug dealer and it was NOT the cops that defended themselves after being shot while serving that warrant.Where did you get that information? Breonna Taylor had no drug offenses on her record. Further, there's a meme going around about her running drugs, being involved in drug trafficking and the like. Most of the meme is untrue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 531905001/
She certainly, at one time, had a relationship with a guy involved with drugs.
This case seems to come down to one thing: did the police announce themselves or did they not? If the police announced themselves and then were fired upon, they have every right to fire back. If they did not announce themselves and broke in, then the defense of being scared and firing in self-defense carries more weight.And we have the answer to that announcement. Some deny it isn't true, that because some people didn't hear the announcement means it didn't happen and that all 3 cops plus a witness all lied. They will claim that a tree falling in the forest makes no noise because no person heard it, too. Or even that it did not fall because no one heard the crash.
The much bigger question is whether it is reasonable to think that neither the boyfriend nor Brionna heard the announcement that was made. Did they have the TV up loudly? Were they engaged in "energetic exercise"? Was their dog barking? The kitchen blender running? Were they near an open window with heavy machinery outside?
Does anyone care, or have they simply assumed that the cops intended to murder a black person?The police lie all the time, particularly in the execution of duties related to black people. Body cam footage could have easily answered this question.
There are many people who dispute the police version. Looks like this is merely a case of who you choose to believe based on the testimony and evidence.
If there wasn’t footage of George Floyd having his life extinguished, everyone would just take the police at their word. The police are not going to admit they screwed up in a situation like that.
Still, where is your evidence that she was involved in drug trafficking as a way to justify her death? Isn’t that the point of the comment? She was a bad person who put herself in the situation?You're right - people lie all the time.
Yes - we must decide who to believe. The testimony of 4 people, including an independent witness, or the testimony of those that didn't hear any announcement, and then assume that because they didn't hear it, it never happened? (Was there a reason you didn't address that question - does not hearing it mean it didn't happen, just like the tree in the forest?). We must also believe the testimony of the boyfriend, who ALSO heard nothing...and has the best reason of all to lie about it.
And then we must put history into the equation; history that says most people "hear nothing and see nothing" when questioned by cops about a crime, and history of cops shouting out "POLICE!".
And when we're done, we have to decide if we, having heard nothing from police OR witnesses, can make a better decision than the Grand Jury that DID hear from them and saw ALL the evidence presented.
But we only do that if we're serious about trying to understand rather than simply hang a cop. If the goal is to assign blame to cops that returned fire after being shot then we will find an excuse to blame them - believing that people did not lie when stating they heard nothing AND that it means that nothing was said is a good start.
I have to say you appear to be correct about Brionna's activities - although the detective in the matter, that requested the warrant, felt there was sufficient evidence to get a warrant, there is insufficient hard evidence to accuse her of criminal activity. At least at this time (and likely forever, as that investigation will not be dropped). My bad, and I should have looked into that more thoroughly - my only excuse is that I picked it up from a source (friend) that is usually pretty good at vetting his sources. It certainly did not come from that meme of Brionna (I've seen it) - I wrote that off as just more lies the day I first saw it.First, I just don't see how anyone can push for charges against cops who were acting on a judges order and who were fired upon. If this was a no-knock raid, then that's certainly a discussion because in that case, anyone inside the house has a legal right to defend him or herself. There was no intent on the part of the cops to kill somebody they couldn't see.
However, you really have to question the process by which police are allowed to break into a person's house when the person who owns the house hasn't done anything wrong and has no criminal record. Because it's a bad neighborhood, does that mean police can do whatever they want? What about a warrant instead of a battering ram? What about going in during the day instead of the middle of the night? Anyway, the police doing their jobs in this case cannot be faulted for defending themselves. Did somebody not do a little research to find out if maybe Taylor's boyfriend had a firearm? That might have been smart.
That all said, how is it somebody can be in their own home, doing nothing wrong, and then be killed by police gun fire? That's fundamentally not right.
This is the dilemma people are faced with and we're all taking sides according to our experiences with the police. You and I have every reason to believe the police. Many African-Americans, because of their experiences with the police, do not. Many people in this forum are actually blaming Taylor for being shot by the police. Oh, she had a bad boyfriend. Oh, she had a gun in her house. Oh, she lived in a bad neighborhood. It was her fault. That's what a LOT of white people are saying. Well, the black reason is simple. She was black.
It's just a simple matter of having the ability to see the situation through the eyes of somebody with different experiences than us and discuss how they might arrive at their conclusion about what "justice" means.Yep, that is how I see it too
There is always an excuse on the shelf that somehow the victim is at fault.
The Right is full of bovine excrement to have us believe that the City of Louisville would shell out millions of dollars in compensation to Brionna's family, if either it or its police tactics were beyond reproach.
------
"Many African-Americans, because of their experiences with the police, do not. Many people in this forum are actually blaming Taylor for being shot by the police. Oh, she had a bad boyfriend. Oh, she had a gun in her house. Oh, she lived in a bad neighborhood. It was her fault. That's what a LOT of white people are saying. Well, the black reason is simple. She was black"
---------
Well said and most interesting, this ludicrous sort of reasoning is the reality from many that would do anything to defend THEIR system, be it fair or foul. Perhaps, the fact that she lived in a bad/black neighborhood was sufficient license for the right wingers on the forum to excuse the Dirty Harry style of bullet barrage tactics because THEY ALL somehow morally always have it coming, such that if it something like this had occurred in a white neighborhood it would have been the lead story on "60 Minutes".
Stay tuned for the next installment "As the Stomach Turns"....Out of curiosity, who do YOU blame for her death? Who would YOU punish?
It obviously isn't the woman standing next to an armed man preparing to shoot at police (or anyone else) - she carries no blame.
Is it the man that fired first, without identifying his target?
Is it the cop that fired back after being shot?
Is it the cop that fired in support of his injured partner?
Is it the judge that gave a warrant?
Is it the police chief that sent them on the task?
Is it the detective that asked for, and received, a warrant on what appears to be rather sketchy evidence?
Is it the citizens of the town, both black and white, that will have to pay the 12 million?
Who, in YOUR opinion should have to bear the brunt of "Justice for Brionna", and why?Wilderness, I am not discrediting your points in their entirety, scripture says that "bad association spoils useful habits". There is some truth in that.
But the tendency of the Right to treat Brionna like some 'gangster's moll' is not warranted. There is not an indication that she was an accomplice relative to the person being sought, she just lived in the house for all anyone really knew. It was her house.
Before I answer your question, a couple of examples may be in order.
High speed police chases were banned in my Denver suburb because of the danger that they posed to other motorists and to pedestrians. The city needed to find a safer and smarter way to track down suspects when they are in pursuit. The smart way now is to use the video cameras to track suspects in these circumstances.
I saw a story about Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where law enforcement operates from a helicopter firing 50 caliber machine guns at moving vehicle narcotic suspects in the slums located in the hills above the city. This would not happen at Copa Cabana where all the posh heroin users would never be subjected to such an inconvenience
It is an attitude, that if you are poor or not the right color, anything goes. And it is obviously not confined to just the American experience. While the law says we are all equal under it, the reality says something different. That kind of disparity is a focus of those of us on the left.
The culprit? The blame falls upon the system itself. A system that can excuse the firing of 27 rounds of ammunition by law officers in a relatively enclosed environment without one round finding the correct target, has to be subject to review. The risk to other apartment dwellers and passersby was unacceptable in my opinion.
When we on the left talk about "reform" and not defunding, these are the kind of things that I speak of. The cost of an errant policy will cost the city dearly and may serve as a warning to other municipal police departments to clean up their act. Yes, everybody has to pay.Then, in your opinion, there is no fault to be found by the cops, Brionna or the boyfriend. The boyfriend was right in pulling the trigger as soon as the door opened, before he had a chance to identify who was there. I disagree.
I'll copy what I wrote to Crank: "We seem to entering a phase in our society that demands police be perfect and that no suspect or criminal ever be injured as a result of their own actions. IMO this is foolish in the extreme - behave yourself and you won't be hurt. " It is my considered opinion that everyone in the Taylor even acted properly, except the boyfriend and the cop outside, who has been fired. The action by the two cops inside was not only acceptable but was required.
As you, I do have massive concerns about the cops ability to hit a target...but also recognize that I've never been in a gunfight and have zero idea of how I would react, either. In spite of that I do believe that we need to something (I don't have a clue what) to improve the marksmanship of cops in general - while I'm sure some are true marksmen, most seem unable to hit the broadside of a barn when stressed.
First, it was not a no knock raid - we have independent testimony that belies that. You may not believe it, but it is what we have.
The "black reason" may well be that she was black. But then the ugly question of truth enters the picture, and there is zero evidence supporting that. In spite of you claim that she hadn't "done anything wrong", judges don't issue warrants for people that have done nothing wrong, or at least they don't issue them when there is no evidence that she had (meaning warrants are issued before a court case, but that does NOT mean there is no suspicion).
Certainly there is a difference on what "Justice" means. In this matter it is quite apparent that "Justice" means that a caucasian person must suffer. It doesn't matter if they "did nothing wrong" - they must suffer.You seem to be suggesting that the black perspective is always or usually in contradiction to the facts. Or is it just in this case? I find it depressing that you don't understand or are unwilling to understand that black people have an entirely different experience with the police throughout their lives. Some have that experience because they're involved in bad things (just like whites), but some have that experience just because they're black.
There is a mountain of evidence that black people are treated differently under the law. So why does their perspective not count? Why are your facts right and there's wrong? Why is the white perspective always the right, factual perspective?
And finally, what do you think Taylor did wrong? Did she deserve to be shot and killed? When an innocent person is shot by the police in her own home, should that act be ignored?
And I haven't suggested a white person needs to suffer. I've suggested that when an innocent person is shot and killed in her own house, something is wrong. A mistake of some sort occurred that should not have occurred and it's worth asking what decisions resulted in that happening and how they can be avoided."You seem to be suggesting that the black perspective is always or usually in contradiction to the facts."
The "black perspective", at least as presented by media, IS almost always in contradiction to the facts. This is because it is made and given before any facts are available, and is always "Whitey was looking for a black to shoot". And no, that isn't just MY perception; one has only to look at the claims that were made to find it. I have yet to hear "Well, the boy was bad to the bone, armed and ready to shoot his way out of trouble" - it is always "Poor bobby was a great kid, never in trouble (ignoring the lengthy police record), didn't have a gun (the one in his pocket didn't count) and wouldn't hurt a flea".
There is some (not a "mountain") of evidence that blacks are treated differently. Have you examined possible causes or just assumed that whites are out to "get" blacks?
"Why is the white perspective always the right, factual perspective?"
Be careful; your racism and profiling are showing here. It isn't the "white perspective" that is right - it is whatever the facts show.
"And finally, what do you think Taylor did wrong?"
The only error Taylor made that day was standing in close proximity to a man with a gun that was primed and ready to shoot anything that came through the door. And that was mostly just stupid, not anything "wrong" in the eyes of the law. What she may have done in the past is another question, as I said - you are claiming she was innocent of any wrongdoing but, just as the "black perspective" you mentioned, you have no reason to make that claim. A warrant WAS issued, and with her name - she was under suspicion of something.
I didn't say you want a white person to suffer; that question was addressed to Credence, who seems to be positive that a white person did wrong and must pay to see Justice. Personally, it is my belief, based on the evidence I've heard, that the only error was by the boyfriend (and the cop that shot into the next apartment). The cops that returned fire were absolutely right to do so and they would have been derelict in their duty had they NOT done so. No mistake was made there, and if the detective and the judge both agreed evidence was sufficient for a warrant it is unlikely that they did wrong, either.
We seem to entering a phase in our society that demands police be perfect and that no suspect or criminal ever be injured as a result of their own actions. IMO this is foolish in the extreme - behave yourself and you won't be hurt. Brionna would not have been killed had her boyfriend acted in a rational manner - shooting without identification is just as irresponsible for private citizens as it is for cops."Credence, who seems to be positive that a white person did wrong and must pay to see Justice."
I am positive that it is a corrupt system, that is designed to work against poor and minorities rather than be neutral, and the way that it worked with a blatant disregard for collateral casualties in this raid makes that point.
Yes, police are to be held to higher standard than the private citizen and should be.
In consolation, police are henceforth prohibited from any more use of so-called no knock warrants. More lawsuits and emptier public coffers will get people's attention far more than protests.I rather doubt that the cop that was shot would agree that he had a "blatant disregard for collateral casualties". The one that shot through the wall might though, if he was honest. Pretty sure those cops shooting at boyfriend did their best to hit the target and end the threat.
You may find that it's OK to shoot without knowing what your target is - I don't.
That's neat, that there are no more no-knock warrants issued...as a result of serving a knock warrant. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Certainly it wasn't due to the (lying) screams about serving it no-knock! Besides, it will allow criminals, some violent and deadly, to escape without injury - always a good thing, right?"Besides, it will allow criminals, some violent and deadly, to escape without injury - always a good thing, right?"
-----
But if that is what it takes to avoid the unnecessary slaughter of innocents in the process, that is a trade off that I can live with.Not sure I can. I see our country deteriorating badly when it comes to crime, from shoplifting and graffiti to murder, and we are walking down a road of hobbling our law enforcement even as it happens.
This is not something I approve of. I have watched, and I'm sure you have as well, as citizens are forced to take on more and more of their own security...and the law takes steps to forbid them from doing so. It is an untenable situation, IMO, and must be halted before we really DO return to the days of the old west with everyone responsible for their own safety.I believe that it is better to save one innocent even at the risk of not capturing the criminal.
Everybody will be called upon now to bring their (A game).
Citizens have cell phone cameras and most municipal police departments in the know require their officers to be so equipped to protect themselves as well as whoever it is that they may encounter. All the old assumptions about the "man of the beat" are out the window these days.
Municipal Police departments can no longer be allowed to operate independently of city administration creating a empire unto themselves. I saw this with Darrell Gates in Los Angeles, back in the 1970's while the Mayors just come and go.
The immunity they receive will no longer be blanket, but applies only when they follow department procedures and policy, which should be understood by all the officers.
Citizens armed with proof in the form of a video record can and will become more litigious and that would not be good for the municipal tax payers nor the police department.
I would not want the job, but a focus on the kinds of people that are hired should be in order.
A lot of Blacks distrust the police because there is a fear in such encounters between blacks and heavy handed police department tactics that have left resentment and mistrust in its wake.
Police will have to raise the bar at getting the bad guys without violating rights of suspects and using the least amount of force needed to deescalate matters. That is going to require smarter cops than the Keystone variety. Again, I would not want the job and it is a fact that everyone who has it needs to possess the right temperament to do it and do it properly.Much of this appears based on two things: the false impression that there are no controls on police and the equally false impression that cops do whatever they wish to. The things you are concerned about, such as psych evaluations before hiring, are already being done as controls. Police are already watched carefully, and have no "blanket immunity" that you suggest they do.
A lot of black people distrust the police...because they have been trained to do so by criminal fathers (and mothers, for that matter) and by their peers. Not because of any "heavy handed police tactics" that they have suffered from.
It's real easy to say that we have to have cops not of the "keystone" variety...when we already do. It's also easy to say they have to possess the right temperament...as we micro manage them without any idea of what they go through and demand absolute perfection from them. When I see cops with rioters inches from their face, screaming at them and doing their best to provoke a reaction while their buddies act illegally, I find that the average cop is so far above the average citizen in this regard that it isn't going to be possible to do much better.
Finally, it isn't about protecting one innocent by letting one criminal go - it's about protecting one innocent while letting a thousand criminals go. Go, to repeat their actions and harm to other innocent people. The idea that after allowing and actively encouraging criminal behavior we can stop it without that "collateral damage" is ludicrous. We have built this problem, and the price is now due. We WILL pay for our past behaviors and that means innocent people will be hurt. At best, we can and should try to minimize it, but not to the point that criminals roam free as a matter of course.
I'm really sorry, but the inability to understand and acknowledge the systemic racism in policing is just fundamentally racist.
That doesn't mean that any one case isn't justifiable by the facts given. It doesn't mean that systemic racism is the cause of any particular action by any particular cop. It doesn't mean that being a police officer isn't one of the hardest, most dangerous, and most thankless jobs in the world.
However, one of the principle reasons policing has existed in this country is the suppression of the rights of black people - to keep them from voting, to keep them from drinking from the wrong water fountain, to keep them from protesting, to keep them from entering white neighborhoods.
If you don't acknowledge, understand, and come to grips with that fact, you can't being to provide solutions to modern policing issues.
And just to reiterate, I simply don't see how any of the police officers in the Taylor case can be charged with wrongdoing given the lawful order they were instructed to carry out and what happened once they opened the door, provided they announced themselves.Just wondering where you get your information. Was listening to NPR and these are the facts as they explained them:
1. The police were serving a NO-KNOCK warrant. They did not have to knock.
2. The police along with a single witness said they announced themselves and knocked.
3. Other witnesses said that they DID NOT announce themselves. They just burst in.
So this raises the question about what a person's rights are if somebody barges into their home without warning. How would you react to such a scenario?
That said, the police cannot be faulted for doing what they were ordered to do. You simply can't charge the individual officers involved in the raid. Vilifying the individual officers is just wrong. However, whoever ordered the raid and/or put in for the warrant turned out to be wrong about drugs being on the premises. And somebody died. Certainly, somebody has fault in this situation?
Perspective is everything, isn't it?
Your experience and mine is that if a gaggle of police show up at your house and break down your door, it's likely because you're engaged in criminal activity or you're associated with it, right? I've never had that happen.
However, if you're black in this country, your experience is that police assume you're guilty of something. They pull you over even when you're obeying the law. They stop you on the street even if your'e doing nothing wrong.
So, the white perspective here is that the police obviously had justification to break down her door because she was either associated with bad people or was doing something wrong. And certainly, everyone in the apartment should have complied.
The black perspective is that the entire episode was part of the system mistreating a person who had not done anything wrong. The system assumed something bad was going on because the occupants were black. Why would a law-abiding person fire at police? Doesn't it make sense he was protecting himself from what he thought was an attack by a bad person?
These two distinct experience of the world need to be acknowledged. From my perspective, it's impossible to charge police with anything if they're following the order of a judge and fired upon. No knock warrants obviously exist because you don't want to announce to armed drug dealers that you're about to barge in on something illegal so they have time to shoot you.
Personally, I can't see how you charge these officers with anything under the circumstances I understand. However, how do you also explain away the death of an innocent person who didn't do anything wrong? Giving Taylor all the benefit of the doubt, is she at fault for living in a neighborhood where there are drugs?
As an aside, I owned an apartment that I renovated and flipped. It wasn't in a great neighborhood. One day, I look out the window, and a SWAT team is walking toward the building, armed to the teeth. Apparently, there was a drug dealer upstairs potentially holding somebody hostage. If the police had accidentally barged into my place and shot me, am I at fault? Would I have been at fault if they had accidentally killed me because they fired in the wrong direction? Fortunately, it all turned out fine, but it's interesting to think about now.
- Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago0
Without reading everyone's response, I think we need to keep in mind that the police are people too. And like all people, they tend to make mistakes as well. As a minority myself being half Chinese, part native American and part Hispanic, I know all about racism firsthand. Hell my native American blood makes me arguably more of a minority than most people in the USA right now.
However I also have a father who used to be a cop, and I've been fortunate enough to meet many police officers throughout my life. And contrary to what the media says, most cops are decent people just trying to do their job. Are there bad eggs on the police force that abuse their power sometimes? Absolutely.
Should we vet our police members more prior to hiring them? Definitely. Should we try training them better to handle situations? Of course I would definitely be in favor of that hence why we need police reform.
But to abolish the police completely? That's insane and unnecessary. If you close down the police then all your going to be doing is opening up a door you might not be able to close. Crime is already going up in various cities where they've defunded the police. Do we really need to make it worse?
Yes you have celebrities like LeBron James, Alissa Milano, Colin Kaepernick and etc all wanting to abolish the police, but here's what they're not going to tell you. Those same celebrities have bodyguards so even if there was no police they would still be protected. The only people we'd be screwing over is people like ourselves, and I'm assuming most of you can't afford your own army of bodyguards like those other celebrities mentioned.
And before anyone says Colin Kaepernick is poor because he doesn't have a job in the nfl anymore, keep in mind he was given a huge endorsement deal by Nike last year and his shoes were almost as popular as their Jordan brand so trust me he's not going broke right now.
While one of you did point out how the police also used to and I quote, "However, one of the principle reasons policing has existed in this country is the suppression of the rights of black people - to keep them from voting, to keep them from drinking from the wrong water fountain, to keep them from protesting, to keep them from entering white neighborhoods."
I'm just going to say this. Yes this person is right. The police did do that a lot during the civil rights era and it's one of our darker moments in history. Can't deny that. Is it as dark as our slavery days? Or the days when USA settlers slaughtered and killed several native Americans? No but it's still fairly close.
However that was in the past. I have yet to see one police officer suppressing anyone's right to vote these days nor have I seen one try to keep a person from drinking out of the wrong water fountain in recent years. Hell, my mom, who's Chinese, and my step dad, who's black, lives in a predominantly white neighborhood and not once has a police officer ever told me I'm not allowed to enter the neighborhood to visit my own mother.
Look I'm not trying to say there isn't a racial issue in this country, as there is. I'm also not saying that there aren't bad cops out there because there are. However we need to stop making this a racial issue because all we're going to do is cause a further divide in this country. There's been several white people that were victims of police brutality as well yet the media rarely talks about that so we need to stop finger pointing and start making this more of a police brutality issue than turn it into a racial one.
Yes the police aren't perfect and many of them probably need to be trained better to apprehend people. However we can't abolish them completely as they're too essential in our society. If you get rid of the police then what's going to replace them? What should happen if a person's house is robbed and there's no police? Who's going to take care of that problem if we have no police? What about if someone gets murdered? Or what happens if a drug cartel kidnaps one our kids and sells them into slavery? Who handles that issue and how when there's no cops around? Or God knows what else. Until someone can answer those questions, I can't see myself changing my opinion on this matter. Again the police aren't perfect but we need them in our society. So instead of trying to abolish them, we should be asking ourselves how we can reform them to make them better at doing the jobs they're supposed to do. That's what we should be focusing on more than anything else.I'll address just one of your points while admitting you have a unique perspective worth listening to.
My understanding of defunding the police does not mean abolishing the police. You are absolutely right. Police are people. They should not be asked to perform tasks for which they are not trained. So when somebody says defund the police, it simply means that we should focus police departments on what they are trained to do and fund other people to do the things police are not trained to do. That seems fair to the police, particularly.
Related Discussions
- 80
Why did you shoot me? - I don't know.
by IslandBites 7 years ago
So, another one?South Florida police shoot an autistic man's black caretaker who was lying down with his arms raised."Sir, there's no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, he’s an autistic guy. He got a toy truck in his hand."He was shot anyway."When he hit me, I'm like, I still got my...
- 42
Why are so many people shot and killed by police officers?
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
- 61
Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy
by Mike Russo 16 months ago
Finally Justice is being servedRhodes and the other defendants were charged with disrupting the peaceful transfer of power by conspiring to oppose by force the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral college victory on Jan. 6, 2021, among multiple other...
- 27
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Condemns U.S. Constitution
by Reality Bytes 12 years ago
Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions for guidance as they craft their own in the coming months.The U.S. Embassy in...
- 20
Attorney General Lynch Must Resign
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
Attorney General Loretta Lynch must resign.She has broken the sacred trust of the American people.By meeting secretly with former President Bill Clinton – the husband of someone subject to an ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal investigation and a potential witness himself in that...
- 36
Police Targets Trayvon Martin
by SpanStar 10 years ago
Here in America we want to respect law enforcers and for the most part I believe many Americans do that yet time and time again we are sorely disappointed with some of their behaviors. I don't see anyone asking this police officer who felt the need to vilify a dead child with a gun target I'm...