Posted on 09/24/2020 7:44:14 AM PDT by karpov
The criminal law is not designed to address every human tragedy. That is the lesson of the tragic death of Breonna Taylor. It was also the theme repeatedly struck by Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron on Wednesday, in announcing the indictment of one of the three officers involved in the raid that lead to her death.
The charge will not satisfy the mob. Neither the peaceful protesters nor the radical rioters, who have taken to the streets since shortly after Ms. Taylor was killed on March 13, are interested in the facts of the case. They could not care less how the law applies to the evidence a Lexington grand jury pored over this week. Their interest is only to set in stone a distorted narrative: Police officers on the hunt for a young black man, callously gunned down an innocent young black woman after supposedly crashing into an apartment without warning.
In light of that, the indictment will just fuel the mob’s outrage. The two officers who actually shot Ms. Taylor a total of six times were not charged. The indictment, instead, lodges three counts of wanton endangerment — not homicide — against Brett Hankison, then a detective (since fired), whose wild firing put neighbors in harm’s way but did not kill the young woman.
Police will be relieved that no charges were brought against Sergeant Jon Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove, whose shots in the dark chaos struck Ms. Taylor only after the officers were fired upon by her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker — who himself may have been justified, in the confusion, in shooting at what he says he believed was an intruder. The cops were doing their job in executing a lawful search warrant at a location that was quite justifiably tied to a notorious criminal
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
But, then again, they don't believe anyone has a right to self-defense, so that is just an extension of that particular lunacy.
Of course, drug dealer bf claims he was confused and thought the cops were intruders. Hmm, what short of intruders would he be so afraid of? Perhaps intruders from another drug running gang? Yeah, he’s such an upstanding citizen and Breonna was such a sweet little angel who shacked up with thugs and her apartment was used as a drug drop.
Agreed. If they’d read the facts of this story instead of making molotov cocktails and making up stupid rhymes, they would be embarrassed. If you fire a gun at cops, you can expect to receive return fire. But when did a fact get in their way of violence and destruction?
they also were quick to drop the possibility of charges against the boyfriend. If you start a gun battle bystanders may be hit.
There is a saying: The law is an ass.
Figure it out.
If you don’t like it, change it. But doing all you can to antagonize others is not the way.
The demands for justice have become an injustice to EVERYONE else. When you demand justice but create an injustice to people’s lives and safety, YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.
The media should be charged with inciting riots. In these cases, they never report what actually happened, but just the leftist narrative. I am so sick of them. In every single instance, like George Floyd, the guy in Atlanta, the guy in Kenosha, this case, the media makes out the police to be guilty and the perp to be just some innocent person just minding their own business. The media should be sued out of business.
Breonna did not fire a gun at the cops. If a citizen did what the police did, i.e. accidentally kill a non-threat actor in the course of self-defense, would he be charged?
Breonna was involved with the drug enterprise, according to her business partners. That doesn’t mean she should have been executed, but if you are standing next to your boyfriend and he starts shooting at cops, you should expect return fire. The answer to your question obviously depends on multiple factors.
Very interesting read. It’s a summary prepared by law enforcement, but uses quotes from those around BT.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1
I am familiar with evidence that she was certainly surrounded by drug dealing, and perhaps even that she knew about it or participated willingly. But this isn’t germane to the question of whether, if a citizen accidentally killed a non-threat while attempting to engage in self-defense against an actual threat, would that citizen be charged?
Very interesting. The dealer saying she was holding thousands of his money for him, as well as picking up money for him.
He gave her address as his address numerous times, as well as her phone number as his.
But this isn’t germane to the question of whether, if a citizen accidentally killed a non-threat while attempting to engage in self-defense against an actual threat, would that citizen be charged?
Do you mean legitimately, randomly, or punitively?
Interesting that, per that document, Glover (drug dealing ex boyfriend) blames Walker for her death, and says that if he had been there, “Bre would be alive, bruh... I don’t shoot at no police.”
The question is nebulous. There are too many variables. But generally, if a private citizen was being shot at, he would obviously fear for his life and be justified in shooting back. In a case like that, you can’t call up and ask if there is anyone standing next to the shooter.
I'm trying to understand your question.
Are you asking whether the boyfriend should be charged in Taylor's death, because his actions led to the events that resulted in her death?
-PJ
I still wish to know the details behind the fact that recently, a DEAD BODY was found in the truck of HER RENTAL CAR.
Not the same boyfriend, there were two. The current BF that fired the shot, and the ex BF that was a drug dealer and was already in police custody.
The real lesson here is don’t date women that used to date gangsters.
No.
Actual situation: cop goes into room, botfried shoots, cop shoots back, accidentally kills Breonna. Cop not guilty; shooting was self defense against boyfriend.
Hypothetical: non-police citizen goes in, gets into argument with boyfriend,say, boyfriend shoots, man shoots back, accidentally kills Breonna. The shooting is still legit self-defense, but now Breonna was killed by a non-police officer.
Does the same law that shielded the cop, above, from liability in killing Breonna also shield the non-cop shooter, below, who also accidentally killed Breonna?
1. Even though we'd like to equate the police officer with the citizen, the officer is sworn by the state, given a badge and a gun. With that power comes certain expectations and certain protections.
2. In the hypothetical with the citizen, if we compare to the Breonna case she is standing next to the shooter as he took a shooting stance. She wasn't sitting on a couch, or in another room hit by a penetrating bullet. If your hypothetical citizen shot back and hit the person standing next to the shooter, that might be viewed differently than hitting someone who is separated from the argument.
If a citizen accidentally discharged a gun in an apartment and it went through wall into another apartment, they would also be charged with reckless endangerment. If they killed someone in the next apartment, it would likely be manslaughter. In your scenario where two citizens shoot at each other and a third-party dies, they would both likely be charged with manslaughter.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.