DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Decision

That's the first thing I would do if I thought someone was selling drugs. Kill his girlfriend.

None of this matters a damn bit because none of it was an excuse to kick her door in and kill her or for them to even be at her house! Divisive distractions to feed the pearl clutching Trumpians who would all crap themselves and be ready to raise hell if it happened to white people in their neighborhoods...

yahoo news article.

I just find this interesting. The "jury" was never presented any alternative to the charges except wanton endangerment.

It looks like the prosecutor chose to cover the tracks of the officers.

It is just sad.

I don't think that's true at all. The boyfriend fired first. It was perfectly legal for the cops to return fire. I don't like the outcome. I don't like that she was killed. But that's the reality here.

A prosecutor does not bring charges to a grand jury they know they have no chance to win in court. That's what we saw here.

IMO the fault is do to the no knock warrant not the cops.

To me the details are not clear as I have heard conflicting information. With that caveat, He is my thought on the boyfriend shooting 1st.

What I heard 1st was that the police had a no knock warrant and busted in without announcing themselves. I have since heard that they did announce that they were police well after the fact. I don't know which is true. My statement applies to the 1st scenario. If they did actually identify themselves this does not.

For all you dawgs that own guns. If someone busts into your home are you going to shoot 1st and see who busted down your door or are you going ask 20 questions to figure out who they are and why they are there? The answer is simple and obvious, you shoot 1st because if you wait it's too late.

That's the entire problem. Laws on your rights to protect your property vary from state to state. If someone is breaking down your door and you don't know who it is, it would be a natural instinct to shoot. Now I'm a person who has handled firearms since I was very young. I would never shoot a weapon at a target that I can't identify. But it seems as though gun rights advocates promote that anyone who doesn't have a felony should have the right to have a gun in their home to protect themselves. I firmly believe that also. As such, you have so many gun owners who have little to no experience in actually handling firearms that own them. There are no requirements that to own a firearm you must take a test to show you know and understand the laws regarding when it's legal to fire if someone is breaking into your home. Fear combined with very little experience lends itself to situations where people will fire first and ask questions later.

A no knock warrant insures that you have no idea who is breaking down your door. In this case there are conflicting reports on whether they announced themselves or not. But one fact remains. A no knock warrant means that there is no obligation for the police to announce themselves when such a warrant is issued. It puts in place a very dangerous situation.

So it's actually the system put in place that helped create the situation that caused her death. Now I know I'll hear arguments from both sides on such a conclusion. But the fact is her boyfriend fired first and the police returned fire. That's not a crime by anyone's definition.

And for those who will reply trying to defend no knock warrants, the city of Louisville did away with no knock warrants after her death because they too understand what a dangerous situation they present.

It actually makes no difference. The police were issued a legal warrant which is a legal document that does not require they identify themselves. As a matter of fact, a no knock warrant plainly states they have no legal obligation to identify themselves. Executing a legal warrant according to the very guidelines of that warrant do not constitute a crime on the part of the officers who executed the warrant.

That's the problem here. The officers on the scene did not commit a crime here whether they identified themselves or not. Once they were fired upon they had every legal right to fire back.



As a firearm owner I never shoot without being able to identify the target. Now if I'm in a dark home and the officers aren't dressed in police uniforms but rather wearing some type of street clothes or dress in a manner that I can't identify they are officers once they enter, I may too have fired first. I think anyone who tries to give you a definite answer without being in that situation is only making a wild projection.

But I'm not sure how any of that changes the fact that it's the laws that are in place which are flawed, not the officers on the scene.

They had the legal right to enter the home unannounced. They had the right to return fire once fired upon. When everything you did was legal, there is no crime.

Like I said, this was a sad outcome that didn't have to happen if the laws were not set up the way they are. They certainly needed to be changed and Louisville did away with no knock warrants after the event took place. That however won't bring her back.

Following that thought process which I pretty much agree with. The police shooting here boyfriend was perfectly legit. But how do they justify shooting her?

Curious a bout something.
Some bullets went through the wall and fortunately didn't hit anyone. What if someone in the apartment next door had been hit by a police bullet and died? Would that have been a crime? Involuntary manslaughter? Or would they get a free pass on that as well?

"A free pass on that too"? Nobody is giving anyone a free pass here. We're talking about the fact that it was legal for them to return fire when shot at. Nothing about that is a "fee pass". We all have the right to return fire when fired upon.

Your supposition would be that the two of them were far apart. If the two of them were very close together, it would be easy to understand how she would be shot during the exchange.

Now if you mean how could she be shot what, six times, and he wasn't shot? Good question but I would find it highly doubtful they targeted her instead of the man with the gun. Obviously the accuracy portion of their firearms training wasn't given the importance it deserved because that is disgusting.

Now as for the rest of your questions in the last paragraph. I have no idea. Since none of those things happened I never really looked into those scenarios. I'm not much of a "coulda, shoulda, woulda" person.

Guess my free pass statement was not clearly presented. You said the police shooting when shot was not a crime. I should have phrased it as: if they shot someone in the nexrt apartment would that have been a crime?

I think that is a legit question.
What happens when an innocent bystander get caught in the cross fire and killed by cops? Whether it is the people in the apartment next door, or a hostage or in this case Breonna. To me, all 3 of those scenarios are basically equivalent.

Police are supposed to be trained to not randomly fire into a crowd. They are supposed to be trained not to randomly shoot someone who they don't know needs to be shot.

If I am a cop. OCD fires his gun so I shoot you. How is that acceptable?

Especially when we got 2A guys constantly talking about not shooting your weapon at an unidentified target.

No knock warrants are a problem. Especially when the police decide to show up at 1 am to serve them. The police could have announced themselves, but it is very possible that they were sleeping and did not hear it.

I think you are confusing what's acceptable with what's legal. So to a great extent I think we're on the same page here.

I tried to address your "what if" scenarios by saying I really don't know. The law is far muddier and less defined on some of the questions you presented. The law is very clear that of someone shoots at you, you have the right to return fire.

So if someone shot at you, you're going to wait to identify who is shooting at you before you return fire? No, you aren't. The entire "identify your target" is when you plan to initiate firing your weapon. Once fired upon, all bets are off.

I dunno, someone busting down your door has (more often than not) identified themselves as hostile.

This weekend..........