Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

Distracted1 said:
Wow.
Just, Wow!

One would need a telescope to see the point from the distance you are from it.
Click to expand...

You’re right, I did miss your point.

But in fairness to me, it was a stupid and irrelevant point. So if anything, I’m at fault for expecting better from you. My bad. It won’t happen again.
 
Distracted1 said:
Look on the bright side.
Your being wrong gave you yet another chance to be insulting.
So I guess it wasn't all bad.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are correct. I shouldn’t be so critical.

When someone asks a semi-rhetorical question about whether or not police treat rich white people the same way they treat poor black people, “No, because rich people can move” is a genius response that demonstrates amazing clarity of thought and a firm grasp of the issue being discussed.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Two cops shot last night night during the Louisville protests. The state and the cops might not see the 100% avoidable killing of Taylor as reason to change their ways, perhaps they'll change their tune when they are the ones in danger
Click to expand...

This is the logic of terrorism. It won't work. Whatever we need to do to fix problems in our justice system, it isn't going to involve reforming the thugs and racists cops and judges by beating them into submission with a "taste of their own medicine". It is going to involve removing the thugs and the racists and preventing them from being cops in the first place. It is going to be up to us on how to figure out how to prevent search warrants like this being issued in the first place. I see that the judge, Mary M. Shaw, hardly gets mentioned and she is a big reason this *********** happened in the first place.
 
johnny karate said:
Once again, you are correct. I shouldn’t be so critical.

When someone asks a semi-rhetorical question about whether or not police treat rich white people the same way they treat poor black people, “No, because rich people can move” is a genius response that demonstrates amazing clarity of thought and a firm grasp of the issue being discussed.
Click to expand...
You assume a subtext that was unstated in the original posters' statement.
(that "this kind of crap" does not happen in rich neighborhoods)
One that you only just now care to outline. Yet you feel confident enough to insult a poster who does not automatically assume the veracity of that subtext prior to it being stated.

You do not desire a discussion, you wish to shout into an echo chamber.
Carry on.
 
Distracted1 said:
You assume a subtext that was unstated in the original posters' statement.
(that "this kind of crap" does not happen in rich neighborhoods)
One that you only just now care to outline. Yet you feel confident enough to insult a poster who does not automatically assume the veracity of that subtext prior to it being stated.

You do not desire a discussion, you wish to shout into an echo chamber.
Carry on.
Click to expand...

What discussion would you like to have? Please be specific.
 
Change.org has a petition to remove Judge Mary Shaw
In March 2020 Judge Mary Shaw signed a number of no-knock warrants in aid of a narcotics case. She failed to do her due diligence in authorizing such dangerous and aggressive police tactics. She signed five warrants in 12 minutes source. Due to her haste and disregard for public safety 26 yearl old EMT Breonna Taylor was killed by police.
Click to expand...
 
portlandatheist said:
This is the logic of terrorism. It won't work. Whatever we need to do to fix problems in our justice system, it isn't going to involve reforming the thugs and racists cops and judges by beating them into submission with a "taste of their own medicine". It is going to involve removing the thugs and the racists and preventing them from being cops in the first place. It is going to be up to us on how to figure out how to prevent search warrants like this being issued in the first place. I see that the judge, Mary M. Shaw, hardly gets mentioned and she is a big reason this *********** happened in the first place.
Click to expand...

I get that you don’t like the riots and associated violence. Neither do I. It’s tragic that it’s come to this.

But when it comes to the underlying issues, all you do is mouth vague platitudes.

People are angry. And they have a right to be angry. They’re dealing with literal oppression.

What specific remedy do you offer these people?
 
Bob001 said:
Like failing to be sure of your target before you open fire? Like I said, let a jury decide.
Click to expand...
Didn't the grand jury already decide this? In any case, it clearly depends on the circumstances. One can't just say that if somebody shot you in a hallway and you defend yourself and hit somebody standing behind the person who shot you that it was necessarily negligent. That would be a ludicrous position.
 
Bob001 said:
The place to resolve disputes of fact is a trial. A women is dead. Let a jury decide whether the cops were justified.
Click to expand...


And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?
 
cmikes said:
And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?
Click to expand...

You seem to think that the prosecutor wanted the indictment instead of the political cover for dropping the charges.
 
rockinkt said:
Yep. That is why it is important to obey the commands of a police officer and not give them reason to believe you are a danger to them.

There are a million or so police/citizen interactions in the US every day. The statistical odds of getting shot and killed by a police officer during one of these interactions is incredibly small.
Click to expand...

To be fair, your chances of getting shot and killed by a police officer increases substantially if you shoot at a police officer first.
 
cmikes said:
And a jury did. If the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment for Taylor's death through a Grand Jury where they're the only ones presenting evidence and there's no opposing attorney involved, what chances for a conviction are there with another attorney defending the officers?
Click to expand...

The prosecutor couldn't get what he didn't want in the first place. If you or I had shot Breonna, the prosecution would not have argued on our behalf in in the grand jury hearing.

This is not an example of a well-functioning system.
 
Black people: "The system is broken!"
White people: "Well we keep asking the system if it's broken and it keeps saying no."

ETA: Hell it's even more stupid than that. It's arguing that the system not working is proof that the system is working.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Black people: "The system is broken!"
White people: "Well we keep asking the system if it's broken and it keeps saying no."

ETA: Hell it's even more stupid than that. It's arguing that the system not working is proof that the system is working.
Click to expand...

"An internal review found no evidence..." is the bureaucratic version of "I am not a racist, but..."

*I know that's not really applicable to this thread
 
It's basically "Well we'll ask a jury if juries value black lives less" and then taking that answer as the factual truth.

Of course a jury wasn't going to bring down meaningful consequences against a white cop who murdered a sleeping black woman.

THAT'S THE WHOLE ******* BLOODY GODDAMN PROBLEM.

You couldn't miss the point more if you had an automatic Missing the Point Machine and were using it on the Point Missing Equinox during the Point Missing Festival if you look at this situation and your response is "Well the jury said..."
 
Last edited:
It's worth noting that the two officers who where shot were not at the protests themselves and it is unclear those shootings are even tied to the protests at all.

'Officers shot after the announcement' is not the same as 'because of the announcement'. 'Shot during the protests' is also not the same as 'at the protests'.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I mean they made up the evidence and claimed the post office said things they didn't but that is normal police procedure. You need to put your thumb on the scales of justice sometimes. That is perfectly normal and allowed in america.
Click to expand...

What evidence did the police make up? What did the police say the post office said that the post office says they did not say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom