TakeYouToTasker Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said: I just can't get behind any of this. I don't see the reason for this particular "take down". There are very few reasons to go through someone's door when they're sleeping that make sense to the libertarian in me. If you don't see the government overreach here, you need to take a step back. If they didn't know he had a gun, they're fools. If they knew he had a gun and went through his door in the middle of the night when they thought he'd be sleeping, they're even bigger fools. This is the absolute correct take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: I am not an LEO or attorney, and do not play one on the internet. With that caveat... apparently no-knocks are so the drug deals do not start shooting at the cops coming with a warrant. That was pretty common before no-knocks. In this case, it was a no-knock that they knocked for (do not ask me why). She was probably her sainted boyfriend's human shield, and why she is dead, and he is alive. No-knocks are an atrocity. How does one distinguish them from a home invasion? And then the police justify shooting based on an individual’s response to a perceived home invasion? Also, it’s wildly short sighted to justify policy and law which, in all probability, will be unjustifiably detrimental to regular citizens, for the purpose of insulating agents of the state from harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No-knocks are an atrocity. How does one distinguish them from a home invasion? And then the police justify shooting based on an individual’s response to a perceived home invasion? Also, it’s wildly short sighted to justify policy and law which, in all probability, will be unjustifiably detrimental to regular citizens, for the purpose of insulating agents of the state from harm. Welp, how do you expect the police to try and arrest some big time drug dealer? "Hello Mister Big-time Drug Dealer. We are here to arrest you. Would you mind coming with us?" Why don't you do a month ride along with some big city LEOs and come back and answer that question. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Welp, how do you expect the police to try and arrest some big time drug dealer? "Hello Mister Big-time Drug Dealer. We are here to arrest you. Would you mind coming with us?" Why don't you do a month ride along with some big city LEOs and come back and answer that question. 🙂 Easy. They call ahead to schedule an appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Welp, how do you expect the police to try and arrest some big time drug dealer? "Hello Mister Big-time Drug Dealer. We are here to arrest you. Would you mind coming with us?" Why don't you do a month ride along with some big city LEOs and come back and answer that question. 🙂 You say that as if I haven’t. Youve come down on the side of the state murdering innocents (not specific to this case). If the state insulates itself, then they aren’t “protecting and serving”; they’ve put themselves ahead of their citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No-knocks are an atrocity. How does one distinguish them from a home invasion? And then the police justify shooting based on an individual’s response to a perceived home invasion? Also, it’s wildly short sighted to justify policy and law which, in all probability, will be unjustifiably detrimental to regular citizens, for the purpose of insulating agents of the state from harm. I mean, we can debate the wisdom and constitutionality is no-knocks (and I don’t like them either) but it doesn’t matter to this case: 1- evidence shows they did knock and identify themselves. 2- Whether or not they knocked, they were executing a just warrant legally and got shot at, so of course they’re going to shoot back. 3- much of the narrative is that they bust in the door guns blazing and killer her while she slept. According to something I read (maybe upthread, and potentially incorrect, but going off that) the ag stated that they did identify themselves, and when they entered she and the boyfriend were in the hallway and the boyfriend shot at the cops. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You say that as if I haven’t. Youve come down on the side of the state murdering innocents (not specific to this case). If the state insulates itself, then they aren’t “protecting and serving”; they’ve put themselves ahead of their citizens. Sure, that is exactly what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Don't worry, the NYTs immediately questioned this finding saying that one witness isn't enough to make that claim. 22 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said: I just can't get behind any of this. I don't see the reason for this particular "take down". There are very few reasons to go through someone's door when they're sleeping that make sense to the libertarian in me. If you don't see the government overreach here, you need to take a step back. If they didn't know he had a gun, they're fools. If they knew he had a gun and went through his door in the middle of the night when they thought he'd be sleeping, they're even bigger fools. Assuming that the AG’a report is accurate (and I haven’t seen solid sourcing that indicates it’s not) I don’t agree with your take, though I agree that no-knocks are questionable at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I mean, we can debate the wisdom and constitutionality is no-knocks (and I don’t like them either) but it doesn’t matter to this case: 1- evidence shows they did knock and identify themselves. 2- Whether or not they knocked, they were executing a just warrant legally and got shot at, so of course they’re going to shoot back. 3- much of the narrative is that they bust in the door guns blazing and killer her while she slept. According to something I read (maybe upthread, and potentially incorrect, but going off that) the ag stated that they did identify themselves, and when they entered she and the boyfriend were in the hallway and the boyfriend shot at the cops. I’m speaking to no-knock raids. If this wasn’t a no-knock raid, them I’m not speaking to this. However, I don’t trust the government to investigate itself, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 No knocks are bollocks for sure. But breonna wasn't killed during one, so it's irrelevant to this situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Sure, that is exactly what I said. I follow things out to their natural eventualities. This is the reduced logical outcome of your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I’m speaking to no-knock raids. If this wasn’t a no-knock raid, them I’m not speaking to this. However, I don’t trust the government to investigate itself, do you? I mean, I certainly don’t trust the liberal media narrative that is the antithesis of the government investigation. We’re stuck with two options and one of them is currently burning my city down. That being said, the evidence of those case has been very consistent throughout. He shot first. Once your shoot at the cops, you and those around you become downrange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 Unfortunately, there are no winners here. Truly unfortunate. The facts will be ignored (as will the fact a jury made this decision) and Ms Taylor’s family will have to live without her and without feeling as though they received justice. Just awful. No winners. Also, Ms Taylor’s tragic death will be used by a liberal media that truly doesn’t care. She deserved and still deserves better. RIP Breonna. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I mean, I certainly don’t trust the liberal media narrative that is the antithesis of the government investigation. We’re stuck with two options and one of them is currently burning my city down. That being said, the evidence of those case has been very consistent throughout. He shot first. Once your shoot at the cops, you and those around you become downrange. What are your thoughts on the Boston Massacre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: What are your thoughts on the Boston Massacre? What is your point in existing in this thread? Are you genuinely arguing that police don’t have the right to return fire when they’re lawfully performing their duties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: What is your point in existing in this thread? Are you genuinely arguing that police don’t have the right to return fire when they’re lawfully performing their duties? Are you genuinely arguing that police only enforce just laws, that there are no laws they enforce which infringe on rights, and that if the laws they enforce do infringe on rights that they don’t do this by choice? Edited September 24, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Are you genuinely arguing that police only enforce just laws, that there are no laws they enforce which infringe on rights, and that if the laws the enforce do infringe on rights that they don’t do this by choice? Completely unrelated, but -- I always thought your avatar was a menorah. The little red trophies being the candles. Anyone else see it or -- too much beer? Edited September 24, 2020 by Golden Goat Edit: Or not enough? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Are you genuinely arguing that police only enforce just laws, that there are no laws they enforce which infringe on rights, and that if the laws the enforce do infringe on rights that they don’t do this by choice? Nope. Not at all. I’m saying that when police serve a just warrant and get shot at it, they’re well within their rights to shoot back and if someone dies in the crossfire, it’s the fault of whoever fired the first shot. I will grant that there’s clearly ambiguity if the shooter doesn’t know it’s police, but as has been established, that’s not the case here. Edited September 24, 2020 by whatdrought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 In the Brionna Taylor case I still don't understand why people are so upset with the cops on the scene when the issues, IMO, are all before the raid. No knock raids should never be allowed unless you are 100% certain the target is present and there is some feel for who else is present in home. The judge who signed this warrant should be held accountable if he was told this was not the scum bags residence and still allowed a no knock. The only cop that should be in trouble is the one who was shooting all crazy inside the home, the rest is in the structure of the court that allowed the warrant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 24, 2020 Share Posted September 24, 2020 20 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I follow things out to their natural eventualities. This is the reduced logical outcome of your position. Yup, sure Jan. Sometimes I follow your logic and even if I do not agree, I find it has a logical explanation. In this case? I think your take is nuts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts