Serious questions about Breonna Taylor case

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 2:36pm

There is a lot of outrage stemming from the lack of murder charges against Louisville police officers.  The death of Breonna Taylor is tragic, and searching for answers as to how this could have been avoided is completely reasonable. But, specifically, how does this tragedy rise to the level of criminality on the part of the police?

The warrant appears to be 100% lawful.  The no knock aspect appears to not have been utilized, but even if it had it would have still been 100% legal.  The police legally entered the residence and were met with a man who shot at them, hitting one officer.  The conclusion made in the investigation and by a grand jury was that the police were justified in using their firearms in self-defense.  There does not appear to be evidence indicating the police specifically targeted Breonna Taylor (it appears she was standing in the hallway right near her boyfriend, which is where the gun was fired from). How is legal self-defense a false conclusion and instead should indicate criminal behavior/murder?  I'm asking from the point of view of the law, not what anyone feels should be the case.

I am all for scrutinizing this case, as well as others like it.  And we should learn from it.  Obviously, the potential for things to go south and become deadly should be and should have been apparent to everyone.  The police failed to protect themselves (with one officer being shot), and someone who was not a threat to the police died.  Certainly, this case should be scrutinized.  But what of the criminality in this specific case?  Why has no one articulated how this, legally, rises to murder?

Why are leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer - and mainstream media - stating this was a murder and that justice was denied?  This claim is baseless without articulating the laws that were violated.  It is reckless and contributes to the unrest in our cities and encourages violence against our police.

[carnzee]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 4:34pm

I'm sorry I can't answer your question as well as others more familiar with the law might.
But in my opinion, this was a legal murder. I'm not saying the officers should be charged, but a system that allows an innocent person to be killed like this with no consequences is immoral.
I've never supported legalizing anything except weed; but this case has made me change my mind.
Legalize it all: weed, heroin, meth, anything for those over 21 along with aggressive anti-drug campaigns such as those we currently use for nicotine. To many innocents have died, not because of the drugs themselves, but the war on them.
We have a group in our society (the police) who can kill with almost no consequences. That is terrifying.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 4:39pm

carnzee hit the nail on the head. If we want to save innocent lives like Breonna’s, we must end drug prohibition in its entirety. 

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 4:40pm

Pauly3 said: "Why are leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer - and mainstream media - stating this was a murder and that justice was denied?."

 

Because common sense dictates that this was a murder and that justice was denied.

 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 5:02pm

The people applying the law disagree this was a murder, and they have stated why.  No legal scholar or even a legal professional (or anyone else) has (yet) demonstrated how this was a murder by using any element of the criminal statute of murder.  You don't find this problematic?  How do you reconcile this with your version of "common sense"?

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 6:11pm

There are just so many pieces to this case. Her possible continued involvement with the ex that brought the cops to the door. But if communication within the police district there was what it should have been, the cops would not have had to show up. They had the person they were looking for at the police station. That part is what really gets me.

As far as the gunshots, the cop that was charged shot into the wall of a white neighbor. They are saying that shots were also fired into her black neighbor's walls (or floor above) and there were no charges for that. Only one of something like 23 supposed witnesses heard the police announce themselves so the attorney wants to know why the other witnesses statements were not taken into account. It's a mess.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 6:28pm

It is a mess.  Holding up actual evidence and using correct terms is what I wish people would do in an effort to limit the mess that is the aftermath.  The warrant allowed police to specifically go into Breonna Taylor's house as the house was suspected of being a sort of trap or safe house for drugs.  Police were not looking for Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend at the house at that time.  There was no miscommunication regarding this.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 7:00pm

Fact: The police failed to notice that her and her boyfriend went into her home that night. They were expecting to only find her in her home. Shoddy police work but expected. 

Fact: When your girlfriend has an ex who is abusive, violent and has broken into the house before, you are going to defend yourself and her. He stated he thought it was her ex, Jamarcus. 

Fact: The warrant was changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves. The sole person (out of 53) who claimed he "heard it" wasn't even in the same building and he has ties to the police. Whoops. 

Fact: If someone is breaking into your home, you have EVERY right to defend yourself. Due to them not announcing anything, breaking the law, and entering her home, she was killed. Of course they should be charged with manslaughter. They caused her death. No one else. 

There are your facts, Fox News. Bye!

 

Updated On: 9/24/20 at 07:00 PM

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 7:36pm

None of these facts amount to murder.  And it is not a fact that they did not announce themselves, nor is it a fact that they did.  The first shooter did indeed appear to fire in his own self-defense, and agreed, he had that right.  That doesn't negate the police officer's right to their self-defense though.  It was a horrible situation, but nothing about it has (yet) to indicate murder.  If murder is truly warranted, we should expect a legal expert to lay out the evidence.  That hasn't happened yet, but I'm willing to hear it if/when that does occur.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 7:43pm

Super. As I already stated, they should be charged with Manslaughter. I said nothing about murder, which is a pre-meditated offense.

And why they are not being charged? It's called systemic and systematic racism.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 8:04pm

What evidence would lead to a conviction of manslaughter?

They are not being charged because, according to those who have evaluated the entirety of actual evidence, the police were legally justified in shooting back toward the gunman.  Breonna Taylor was hit in the crossfire.  Tragic but not criminal.  The Attorney General of Kentucky, a black man, is at the top of this system as well as the investigation, so asserting systemic racism is the reason the officers aren't being held criminally liable seems to be an emotional argument - and is absent any supporting evidence.

To correct you, you did specifically say Breonna Taylor was murdered - but should be charged with manslaughter.

Edited to correct the spelling of Breonna Taylor's name.

Updated On: 9/25/20 at 08:04 PM

[carnzee]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 8:19pm

The race of the AG has nothing to do with whether or not systemic racism is at play. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that's irrelevant. Systemic racism goes beyond any one person.
But you know how those emotional libs are and how contemptuous they are of evidence. They are anti maskers who still support trickle down economic and voted for a reality show host for president.
Oh wait.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 8:37pm

When focusing in on one case, a case in which the AG responsible for the investigation is black, the race of the person in charge of the system does matter.  But I'm OK saying race does not matter for the sake of argument.  What evidence exists that systemic racism is at play here?

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 9:11pm

Thank You, Speaker Pelosi

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 9:28pm

This prosecutor argues, among other things, that the officers’ actions go well beyond what would normally be allowed in a case of self-defense. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/im-former-prosecutor-charge-breonna-taylors-death-is-pathetically-weak/

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/24/20 at 11:56pm

Brianna Taylor

Her name was BREONNA. If you are going to start a bull$hit thread with racist arguments, make sure you get her goddamn name right. 

 

[javero]

Posted: 9/25/20 at 12:51am

^This 2x, and...

"Why are leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer - and mainstream media - stating this was a murder and that justice was denied? This claim is baseless without articulating the laws that were violated. It is reckless and contributes to the unrest in our cities and encourages violence against our police."

Nancy & Chuck didn't start that fire. Social justice is not a fad nor a mere intellectual exercise, especially for those who have a nation's foot on their collective necks. On account of not holding a license to practice law in any jurisdiction in the US, I don't attempt to do so on this message board. But, know this...I ain't stupid, nor is anyone else who bothered responding beforehand to your latest thinly-veiled attempt at "shaite-stirring".

"The Attorney General of Kentucky, a black man, is at the top of this system as well as the investigation, so asserting systemic racism is the reason the officers aren't being held criminally liable seems to be an emotional argument - and is absent any supporting evidence."

Nothing new under the sun about "house ..." and "field ...". And, as a black man who rarely tackles the topic of race here, let me add that we've finally reached a point in this young republic's timeline where we no longer hesitate to elect so-called black leaders who aren't light, bright, and damn-near white which is a throw-back to an antebellum plantation system & reconstruction era politics on the part of both major parties which led to multiple stages of black exodus (aka Great Migration) )from the Old South to parts of the industrial north east, Rust Belt, and Mid-West by the forebears of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, pioneering individuals who often met with abject housing discrimination in the form of restrictive covenants and egregious workplace discrimination whereby "last-hired first-fired" was the rule rather than the exception. Sadly, many law enforcement officers at the time were complicit in those self-same shenanigans.

Finally, if I may, I'd like to make an edit to one of your sleights of hand from above:

"The police failed to protect themselves (with one officer being shot), and someone who was not a threat to the police (nor armed) was gunned down in her home."

Updated On: 9/25/20 at 12:51 AM

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 9/25/20 at 1:07am

And Thank You, Senator Schumer

 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/25/20 at 1:12am

kdogg36 said: "This prosecutor argues, among other things,that the officers’ actions go well beyond what would normally be allowed in a case of self-defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/im-former-prosecutor-charge-breonna-taylors-death-is-pathetically-weak/"

 

Professor Paul Butler makes an interesting argument.  I would even say it is compelling and makes me question how I feel about this case.  Thanks for linking to it.

There are issues though.  The author makes a weak argument when he equated fictional gang members breaking into a home and killing an innocent person as being the same thing that police did in this case.  His statement serves to manipulate readers, and I don't imagine he would make the same statement in a court room because he likely knows very well the flaw in the comparison.  The circumstances in this specific case make the two situations incomparable.

I think the professor loses some additional credibility as he previously uploaded a video to the Georgetown Law YouTube channel where he makes what he calls his opening statement in the death of Breonna Taylor - if he were in charge of the prosecution.  This video was posted on August 29, 2020,  This too was reckless and inappropriate, in my opinion.  Someone of his status and position should not publicly argue guilt of those who are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If the professor's overall argument is indeed valid and the very best argument that can be made, it still backs up my statement that Pelosi and Schumer were wrong to make statements saying Breonna Taylor was murdered.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 9/25/20 at 1:30am

javero, with respect, I never claimed or implied Pelosi or Schumer started a fire.  I implied they were fanning the flames.  I'm also not attempting to stir anything, nor have I stated or implied that anyone participating here is stupid.  I have questions and desire to discuss to expand my own viewpoint.  In that endeavor, I believe that I am expanding my viewpoint.  I have asked reasonable questions and have been respectful, and there is no credible reason to assume I am attempting to stir things up.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/25/20 at 8:13am

It's best to to feed the racist trolls.