Liberal Protests

[DFT]

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.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

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? 

[whatdrought]

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? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

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

[Golden Goat]

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?

[whatdrought]

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

[Orlando Buffalo]

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.

[Buffalo_Gal]

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.

 

[Alaska Darin]

24 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

No knocks are bollocks for sure. But breonna wasn't killed during one, so it's irrelevant to this situation.

I don't think knocking on a door, screaming "police", and then immediately taking the door with guns drawn in the middle of the night is much different.  Liberty versus the state.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

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. 

Are you equating just with law?

 

If so, you just sided with the British during the afore mentioned Boston Massacre.

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

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.

Well, I can explain why:  it’s because you’re wrong, and are protecting a bias.

 

If you’d like, I can dissect it.

[IDBillzFan]

52 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.

 

I heard Rand earlier today commenting on the 'middle of the night' part of this. He was essentially asking "Was there not a better place and time to do this as it related to a drug bust?"

 

If it was a life or death thing, okay. But we're talking about a drug bust. I understand his point, but I wonder what reasoning there is to do this in the middle of the night.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Well, I can explain why:  it’s because you’re wrong, and are protecting a bias.

 

If you’d like, I can dissect it.

No-knocks (and recall in this case they knocked and were ***** shot at) are totes illegal. You may want to read up on the law.

Again, please spend some time with these brave LEOs who serve warrants on these drug dealers. After you have been shot at for trying to serve a warrant on these charming, precious little angels, you may change your tune. 

 

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

I heard Rand earlier today commenting on the 'middle of the night' part of this. He was essentially asking "Was there not a better place and time to do this as it related to a drug bust?"

 

If it was a life or death thing, okay. But we're talking about a drug bust. I understand his point, but I wonder what reasoning there is to do this in the middle of the night.

Standard operating practice because people are less likely to resist...except when the do.

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

I don't think knocking on a door, screaming "police", and then immediately taking the door with guns drawn in the middle of the night is much different.  Liberty versus the state.

 

To what extent though. If someone is in a house with a hostage and has a gun to her head, do the police need to wait for him to take the chain off the door before breaching? We obviously have examples in our system wherein law enforcement breaking down doors and using the element of surprise is acceptable. I’m not saying this example is one of them, but supposedly they didn’t do that anyways.

 

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Are you equating just with law?

 

If so, you just sided with the British during the afore mentioned Boston Massacre.

 

And you in your view are siding with the anarchists in the street who are arguing that laws don’t matter if they don’t fit their definition of “justice.”

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

To what extent though. If someone is in a house with a hostage and has a gun to her head, do the police need to wait for him to take the chain off the door before breaching? We obviously have examples in our system wherein law enforcement breaking down doors and using the element of surprise is acceptable. I’m not saying this example is one of them, but supposedly they didn’t do that anyways.

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

The guy shot at them, how much more dangerous does it get?

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

The guy shot at them, how much more dangerous does it get?

Way to miss the point. 

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

In a practical sense yes, but when we talk about the protection of due process as it pertains to search and seizure it’s really not different as they’re both seen as within the context of due process. (Or in the case of imminent danger, seen as superseding process) 
 

No-knocks became prevalent because people were destroying evidence when police served traditional warrants and it gave highly dangerous criminals the opportunity to prepare to combat the police. 
 

Again, I’m not sure how it’s justified in this situation, but it doesn’t change the facts of what actually happened. 
 

P.s.- if anything, your argument is a point in favor of the no-knock. If in this case they hadn’t knocked and gone in quickly maybe they get him subdued before he gets to the gun. Here it just seems like he wanted to shoot it out with the cops. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by whatdrought

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Way to miss the point. 

What was the point since you think I missed it. You stated there was a "Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation." They served a warrant (and foolishly knocked) so the guy started shooting. That is imminent danger. They shot back.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[keepthefaith]

26 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

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. 

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires?

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by keepthefaith