Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

angrysoba said:
The Hell is this?

Now we are at, “Don’t wanna get shot dead by the cops? Shoulda lived in a wealthier neighborhood!” as an argument?

Oh yeah, this is the country where a cop can walk into someone’s house, shoot the occupant dead and then say “I thought it was MY house!”
Click to expand...

Well you really can't. You go to prison for murder if you do that, as we saw.
 
Thermal said:
Well you really can't. You go to prison for murder if you do that, as we saw.
Click to expand...

Eventually! It took a lot of protest to actually make the cops care about it enough to even arrest. And I seem to recall there was a thread that went on for many pages due to defences of that same cop.
 
angrysoba said:
Eventually! It took a lot of protest to actually make the cops care about it enough to even arrest. And I seem to recall there was a thread that went on for many pages due to defences of that same cop.
Click to expand...

Soooooo much alternative universe pro-murder fan fiction. Like a half dozen people spent so much time role playing as a member of Officer McTiredNHorny's defense team it was practically an ARG session.
 
Bob001 said:
Great. Let them make that claim to a trial jury. If they couldn't hit what they were aiming at, that at least seems like pretty significant negligence.
Click to expand...

You've got it exactly backwards. The DA would have to prove intent.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So what did you mean?

(Stage Notes. Distracted1 will not directly and honestly answer this question.)
Click to expand...
Very simple, really.

Post #83
"would cops pull this kind of crap in a wealthy neighborhood......."

(apparently "this kind of thing" is a dog whistle- but "this kind of crap" is not. Que cera cera, posters who want there to be a dog whistle also want it to be from who they decide is "against them" based upon what they decide that person thinks)

....implies that this kind of crap does not happen in wealthy neighborhoods.

It seems pretty apparent that a wealthy person living in a neighborhood where this kind of "crap" happens would move- because they have the option to.

Pointing that out is apparently a racist dog whistle.

Carry on, you critical thinkers you.
 
Distracted1 said:
Are Mr. Wallstreets' neighbors unsafe in their neighborhood? Are they at high risk of becoming victims of crime when they walk out their front door (or even in their homes) from addicts desperate to get money to supply an addiction or low level dealers fighting over territory?
Likely not.
It should follow that the most police activity occurs in the areas where the most crime exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, good for them that they have enough money to both engage in illegal activity and insulate themselves from its damaging effects.

Wealthy drug users share just as much blame for any drug-related degredation of a neighbourhood, even if they don't live in it. Due to their resources, they are also far more likely to destroy evidence effectively.
 
Distracted1 said:
Very simple, really.

Post #83
"would cops pull this kind of crap in a wealthy neighborhood......."

(apparently "this kind of thing" is a dog whistle- but "this kind of crap" is not. Que cera cera, posters who want there to be a dog whistle also want it to be from who they decide is "against them" based upon what they decide that person thinks)

....implies that this kind of crap does not happen in wealthy neighborhoods.

It seems pretty apparent that a wealthy person living in a neighborhood where this kind of "crap" happens would move- because they have the option to.

Pointing that out is apparently a racist dog whistle.

Carry on, you critical thinkers you.
Click to expand...

So yeah "It's her fault for living in a poor (black) neighborhood." with more words around it.
 
Leftus said:
You've got it exactly backwards. The DA would have to prove intent.
Click to expand...


No, actually. Negligence is doing or failing to do something that you are supposed to do or not do. Killing somebody that you didn't intend to kill is pretty obviously negligence. You don't have to intend to be negligent.
In the law, the term “negligence” refers to a failure of a person or entity to exercise a level of care necessary to protect others,...
Click to expand...
https://legaldictionary.net/negligence/

Like I said, let a jury decide. A DA's standard for prosecution is probable cause; only the jury applies "beyond reasonable doubt."
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
It's almost as if they want a scenario where they can shoot anyone they want and not be held accountable.

And if that sounds hyperbolic to anyone answer me this, if that isn't what they are doing what would be functionally different if they were?
Click to expand...

It sounds like facts are disputed from both sides, so presuming guilt of one before that is sifted through, is hyperbolic...
 
rockysmith76 said:
It sounds like facts are disputed from both sides, so presuming guilt of one before that is sifted through, is hyperbolic...
Click to expand...

The place to resolve disputes of fact is a trial. A women is dead. Let a jury decide whether the cops were justified.
 
"But the facts are in dispute!" doesn't matter in a post-fact world since the facts are always going to be in dispute regardless of what the evidence says.
 
Bob001 said:
No, actually. Negligence is doing or failing to do something that you are supposed to do or not do. Killing somebody that you didn't intend to kill is pretty obviously negligence.
Click to expand...
Only if it resulted from negligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom