What Would Be Justice For Breonna Taylor

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (51 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 10 months ago

    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:
    https://hubstatic.com/15214756.png


    Here is the full AG press Conference, but skip to start at about 13:30 to bypass the static logo images and empty podium.

    https://hubstatic.com/15214741.png

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      GA, 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.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to 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.

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I 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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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."

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I stand corrected

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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?

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image86
      Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
        Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I agree, justice has already been served.

        1. crankalicious profile image93
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Would you rather have $12 million dollars and be dead or be alive without $12 million dollars?

      2. crankalicious profile image93
        crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Would $12 million be enough for you if you were dead?

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image86
          Stevennix2001posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Two cents is sufficient.  A penny for each eye. lol

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

    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!

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

    What is justice for Breanna? Admit that girls can get involved with bad guys and sow their own demise.

  4. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

    At 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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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).

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I dunno, wilderness, but the boyfriend was apparently a better shot than all those cops.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            We'll just have to disagree on what started the deadly chain of events.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. crankalicious profile image93
                crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. crankalicious profile image93
                    crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

                  2. crankalicious profile image93
                    crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

  5. Stevennix2001 profile image86
    Stevennix2001posted 10 months ago

    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.

    1. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)