The problem lies with the no-knock warrant.

[Rightguide]

The judge issued a no-knock warrant.

The immediate supervisor of the killer kops told them to knock anyway.

Doesn't matter in any event.

You don't read very well, do you? The warrant may have been issued as a no knock warrant. The key to understanding what really happened is that the warrant was not "executed" as a "no knock"warrant. It was executed as a "knock and notice" warrant. They knocked and announced they were the police. This according to the state AG, witnesses, and an FBI Report. So whoever told you different is a God Damn liar and you helped him perpetuate it. Every tragedy is a tragedy, but not every tragedy is a crime.

Here are the facts:https://www.foxnews.com/us/breonna-taylor-case-no-proof-police-homicide

 

[Rightguide]

Idiotic statement...both from a legal and Constitution perspective. Lawyers have to associate with criminals and do it in a variety of settings. Does the association make them complicit and if they die in a shoot out with police are they partly to blame.

Family often associates with other family who are charged or convicted of crimes...are they complicit and deserving of death by cop.

What a ignorant racist person. I'm sure the story would be different for you if the victim was white.

She had a long running romantic association with Walker, despite being a twice convicted drug dealer and having spent time in prison. She was intertwined with him and past investigations involving him as was her residence. Quite different from the kind of relationship your childishly attempting to compare this to.

 

[Adre]

We could avoid these tragedies by ending the stupid war on drugs.

 

[Rightguide]

We could avoid these tragedies by ending the stupid war on drugs.

We could avoid of lot of things if criminal activity didn't occur. Stopping the war on crime, no matter the crime and absent drugs, is the answer, right?

 

[Adre]

We could avoid of lot of things if criminal activity didn't occur. Stopping the war on crime, no matter the crime and absent drugs, is the answer, right?

My statement was very clear. I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

 

[WillJ8787]

The key to understanding this, as Racist G said, is not to listen to RacistG.

He is a racist who believes all black people should be shot and he will twist any and all information to support his racist end...

...the killing of black people.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Her boyfriend started shooting first, hitting a cop. They fired back and she was accidentally hit. It's unfortunate, but she should have picked her friends more carefully. She decided to associate herself with a criminal and his activity, so she isn't entirely without fault. The city settled her accidental death for $12,000,000 which is a lot more value than she and her felon boyfriend and their activities would have ever contributed to society. What's the lesson here? Obey the law, live a good life, and stay away from criminals and their activity.

Comments like these invite misfortune and disease unto you and yours.

 

[Comshaw]

I think it's debatable whether they should be issued under any circumstances, but in this case? This was not a felony arrest warrant; this was a search warrant. There's no reason to knock down anyone's door in the middle of the night in order to serve a search warrant.

Then there's the fact that our civil liberties should include the right to abuse ourselves as we see fit. How do we go from my body my choice to the war on drugs? How are those even slightly compatible from a privacy standpoint?

Another issue here you will notice that the boyfriend has not been charged for taking shots at the police officer. Nor should he. As far as I'm concerned, unless we see evidence to the contrary he had every reason to believe he was defending himself from a home invasion. Had he shot iand killed one of the cops in this unfortunate incident he should not be prosecuted either.

Once the cops were fired upon, they have every right to return fire. Not simply because they're cops, but because that is an essential right- to defend your own life.

Likely, Breonna's family will prevail at a civil tort because at issue will be the chain of events set in motion by the issuance of a no-knock warrant be abuse she was *suspected* not of dealing drugs but of allowing her place to be used to stash them. That's a pretty big leap, even if evidence shows that to be likely.

The motivation for the police department would not have been the drug bust. The motivation was finding cash, which the PD gets to keep and you have to prove is not drug money to get it back.

Civil asset seizures of suspected criminal proceeds is the problem, here. That needs to be abolished and suddenly police departments are a lit less interested in who might have a pile of cash, where.

A couple of observations
1) You admit there is a problem with policing and that reforms need to be implemented. I agree on both counts.

2) civil asset seizures are in violation of the constitution. All the police need is a judges order and they can seize and keep assets with little or no factual proof. Additionally to get your property back you need to prove it wasn't acquired with illegal gains, which is completely in violation of "innocent until proven guilty" a foundation stone of our legal system. I agree police departments are going to be targeting those with cash. And like this incident, there doesn't have to be much proof at all. They shouldn't be allowed to keep any assets UNLESS the target was found to be guilty in a court of law. That isn't the way it's set up right now and the reason police will keep chasing the money.

Comshaw

 

[PaxNurgle]

I think it's debatable whether they should be issued under any circumstances, but in this case? This was not a felony arrest warrant; this was a search warrant. There's no reason to knock down anyone's door in the middle of the night in order to serve a search warrant.

Then there's the fact that our civil liberties should include the right to abuse ourselves as we see fit. How do we go from my body my choice to the war on drugs? How are those even slightly compatible from a privacy standpoint?

Another issue here you will notice that the boyfriend has not been charged for taking shots at the police officer. Nor should he. As far as I'm concerned, unless we see evidence to the contrary he had every reason to believe he was defending himself from a home invasion. Had he shot iand killed one of the cops in this unfortunate incident he should not be prosecuted either.

Once the cops were fired upon, they have every right to return fire. Not simply because they're cops, but because that is an essential right- to defend your own life.

Likely, Breonna's family will prevail at a civil tort because at issue will be the chain of events set in motion by the issuance of a no-knock warrant be abuse she was *suspected* not of dealing drugs but of allowing her place to be used to stash them. That's a pretty big leap, even if evidence shows that to be likely.

The motivation for the police department would not have been the drug bust. The motivation was finding cash, which the PD gets to keep and you have to prove is not drug money to get it back.

Civil asset seizures of suspected criminal proceeds is the problem, here. That needs to be abolished and suddenly police departments are a lit less interested in who might have a pile of cash, where.

This is surprising, coming from you of all people- who are usually a pro-police state, militant Qanon Trump supporter.

 

[Conager]

Just because the left has spent the last four years projecting their authoritarians desires and tendencies doesn't make that a trait of conservatism. You are conflating my rejection of collectivism (which requires authoritarian control to enact) with the ineptly named social conservatism, which is not conservatism.

What happened was for the Reagan election cycle, they sought out the evangelicals who had been pushed out of the blue dog wing of the Democratic Party by the radical secularism that the Dems still embrace. So-called social conservatism was called the third leg of the stool. There is nothing conservative about social engineering regardless of whether it comes from the left nor the right.

I've come around on the error of the war-hawk wing as well. There is nothing conservative about imposing truth, justice, and the American way on human beings in third world countries that choose to accept their culture and governance either through agreement or lacking a drive to throw it off. The same guns that enforce tribalism could easily be used to gain their freedom if they were interested.

I have never favored a "police state." I just disagree with setting up laws, asking policemen to enforce them and then bitching about law enforcement doing what we, as a society have asked them to, especially while excusing lawlessness for whatever the rationalism.

What happens when weed is legalized nationally? Do all the weed dealers get their confiscated lives and property back?

All of this used to be well understood. Keep in mind in order for us to make alcohol illegal, we had to pass a constitutional amendment. Where's the Constitutional amendment that forbids weed or other substances? You can't piggyback off of the Constitutional amendment that made prohibition of alcohol possible because that amendment was repealed when the unintended consequences became apparent. One of those unattended consequences was having a national police force. Something that is not constitutional. We got rid of prohibition, why didn't we get rid of the BATF? Because of the ratchet effect. Whenever anyone gets power they never want to give it back.

Somewhere years ago, I pointed out that it's not left in right it's whether you are going clockwise or counterclockwise towards or away from authoritarianism. If you go for enough to what people call the right you will find libertarian. If you go for enough on the left you will also find libertarian. Libertarianism is the American spirit.

What the left the right diisagree on is simply what aspects of a citizens life should be controlled by the state. The obvious answer is as little as possible.

Barry Goldwater was the father of modern conservatives them. His competitor at that time was Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson Rockefeller Wing of the party would include your basic New York liberal like Trump. Goldwater was married to the Arizona president of Planned Parenthood. People thought that odd. It isn't. It also is not odd that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had a mutual respect for each other. Where they differed as probably on where the line is on States rights and responsibilities.

 

[WillJ8787]

I understand your points here....

The difference can be summed up in one of many ways... Conservatives want little govt control and regulations, Liberals want way more govt control and regulations.

One gets into an interesting area with far left progressive thinking...some folks don't see govt as a solution either and they have been described(usually by the right) using the term Anarchist/Anarchy.

I often think this is the area where the far left and right have similarities, especially, with neo-liberal thinking on the right. This is akin to a type of Anarchy (a state of transactional winners and losers).

 

[IsItBad]

either way

the fact is that the "law" announced their presence 5 times before knocking the door down......when the police are yelling "Police open the door" as loud as they can and you decide to go for your gun......you have taken a position that is likely to get you or someone else killed

it is really this simple.....if the police are not respected and if the public decides they can be the arbiters of when it is appropriate to follow directions or not.....then what will ensue is portlandish chaos

all of this ongoing bullshit about police brutality is brought to you by people ignorant as fuck as to what the life of a police officer actually is......the people that have to be dealt with.....unstable people, crazy ass people, downright mean and evil people.....these are the people encountered day after day.....the other aspect that apparently escapes people is.....it is scary as fuck.....EVERY time you approach someone .....they MAY be going to try their best to kill you.....you HAVE to be on guard and highly reactive 100% of the time OR you die......so.....is the response sometimes excessive? sure. it sure the fuck is.....because you had your chance to stand down but you decided you were above the law and not going to adhere to any instructions.....so....you set the stage and however much asphalt gets in your teeth when you are taken to the ground is completely on you!

all of this rioting because some criminal got their ass killed by being stupid is such bullshit

as IF anyone is concerned about sanctity of life when you have 10s if not hundreds of people being shot every single weekend in places like Chicago......almost exclusively black people shot by other black people all of whom have no gun license, no legal gun, all operating in a place with the strictest gun laws in the country - none of which make a fucking iota of difference to anyone except a law abiding citizen.

so....it is unfortunate that the police had to shoot a drug dealing lady who got in the cross fire.....BUT.....she was NOT a sunday school teacher.....and the police simply did what they had to do

the tone of the focus is totally fucked up and simply instigated by people who are hell bent to try their best to divide the country.......

 

[WillJ8787]

"The fact is that the "law" announced their presence 5 times before knocking the door down......when the police are yelling "Police open the door" as loud as they can and you decide to go for your gun......you have taken a position that is likely to get you or someone else killed"

A bunch of witnesses​ say otherwise so this is going to get investigated by non-locals to get to the bottom of it.

It's not over by a long shot

 

[IsItBad]

"The fact is that the "law" announced their presence 5 times before knocking the door down......when the police are yelling "Police open the door" as loud as they can and you decide to go for your gun......you have taken a position that is likely to get you or someone else killed"

A bunch of witnesses​ say otherwise so this is going to get investigated by non-locals to get to the bottom of it.

It's not over by a long shot

its not going to take any investigating....EVERY police officer involved was wearing a camera....the entire event is recorded........

what kind of local witnesses would you expect to be present at that event?

 

[Rightguide]

Comments like these invite misfortune and disease unto you and yours.

Not really, her actions put her into the position she found herself in. It's unfortunate she was killed, but not every tragedy is a crime. She chose a certain path that placed herself in jeopardy.

 

[Bray123]

Whether the cops knocked, yelled, or sang nursery rhymes has little relevance to 'no-knock warrants'.

Because this wasn't a no-knock warrant.

 

[WillJ8787]

I don't know all the details of this incident for sure...

...and it sounds like you don't either.

We will see...if cameras were on and in use and that evidence corroborates the police account, so be it. I can accept that.

If not, well, the US citizens who lived there, Brianna's neighbors, will come forward with that testimony.

 

[WillJ8787]

its not going to take any investigating....EVERY police officer involved was wearing a camera....the entire event is recorded........

what kind of local witnesses would you expect to be present at that event?

From what I can tell from local reporting....your facts are incorrect. The three officers who did the shooting had no body cameras on them... others arriving at the scene did and only had video of the aftermath, not the shooting.

Looks like a federal investigation is gonna happen to root out why the cops didn't have cameras on, why they say they did and it proves their story....and why they still refuse to release the video they say they have.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sa...her-is-there-body-cam-footage?template=ampart

 

[Conager]

The entire premise changes if either they did clearly ID and/or this was not a no-knock warrant.

It seems like the very basic facts ought to be known and not in dispute, yet in every single one of these cases, things that do not have to be muddy, inexplicably are.

Rand Paul sponsored legislation to eliminate no-knock warrants. It seems odd that he would do so specifically in response to this case if it were not a factor. That's not to say that he could not be operating off of assumptions based off of media reports.

The state of basic journalism in America is abysmal. We are supposed to be in the information age yet pretty basic information that some reporter oughta ask, oughta verify and oughta be able to document doesn't seem to be available.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

She had a long running romantic association with Walker, despite being a twice convicted drug dealer and having spent time in prison. She was intertwined with him and past investigations involving him as was her residence. Quite different from the kind of relationship your childishly attempting to compare this to.

How many criminals has Trump had a long relationship with?