Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

Perhaps it was an unofficial report by someone in the office of the postal inspector? It wouldn't be the first time that police have obtained confidential information and then mistakenly believed or reported it came through official channels.
Perhaps there is a reason why somebody does not want to confirm his part in the Breonna Taylor investigation given that two police officers who were not involved in the death were shot by rioting slime buckets?
Considering that people in this thread have justified innocent police officers being shot in the name of justice for Taylor - it seems like a good self preservation for everybody to deny any connection to the case. Breanna Taylor? Who's she?

Those are embarrassingly poor arguments and do not comport with either the facts or reality.

Besides - that was also not the only reason for the warrant and no-one has made the case that the warrant would not have been issued without that information.

There’s actually a lot of questions about whether or not it was a valid warrant. That’s why the FBI is investigating it.
 
The information contained in the warrant is facing serious scrutiny, and the circumstances surrounding its issuance are currently under investigation by the FBI because of that.

So why do you keep citing it as if it were factual?

It is factually legal until it is proven otherwise. That is the way the law works.
 
Yes, there is a reason Walker is not being charged. It's because the person who recommended charges would be lynched by the same insane people who are rioting and have shot two innocent police officers because the correct legal decision has been made exonerating the two police officers of criminal charges in the death of Taylor.
Paying out 12 million was a hope to stop the rioting and civil unrest. It didn't work.

Ah yes, the perfectly unfalsifiable belief. Every piece of information - no matter how contradictory or nonsensical - fits conveniently into your predetermined narrative.
 
Those are embarrassingly poor arguments and do not comport with either the facts or reality.

The bar was set by you and others. I just decided to lower myself to that level and have some fun.



There’s actually a lot of questions about whether or not it was a valid warrant. That’s why the FBI is investigating it.

Because they are questions no-one should be claiming the questions as fact or that the warrant was not valid until the investigation is complete. Right?
 
"If it is possible" is a high bar. Wouldn't that mean that police would be unable to use their guns in residential properties, even to defend themselves from somebody shooting them, and I would have thought many other situations besides.
It would mean that, yes. It does mean that in lots of police situations. If you don't have a clear shot it's often preferable to hold fire. Not always possible though.
 
It is factually legal until it is proven otherwise. That is the way the law works.

Considering that “factually legal” isn’t actually a term used in the law, you clearly don’t have the faintest idea how the law works.
 
The bar was set by you and others. I just decided to lower myself to that level and have some fun.

Making cogent arguments and valid points can also be fun. You should give it a try sometime.

Because they are questions no-one should be claiming the questions as fact or that the warrant was not valid until the investigation is complete. Right?

Questions can’t be facts. You’re just talking gibberish now.
 
Considering that “factually legal” isn’t actually a term used in the law, you clearly don’t have the faintest idea how the law works.

What on earth are you getting at? I am not claiming that the term is a legal term. It is a fact that the warrant was legal. It is a fact that it remains legal until proven otherwise and declared illegal by a judicial authority.
 
Making cogent arguments and valid points can also be fun. You should give it a try sometime.



Questions can’t be facts. You’re just talking gibberish now.

You're twisting words for the sake of being argumentative.
I'll not participate further.
 
What on earth are you getting at? I am not claiming that the term is a legal term. It is a fact that the warrant was legal. It is a fact that it remains legal until proven otherwise and declared illegal by a judicial authority.

The warrant remains technically legal. That doesn’t automatically render factual the information in it. And at least one key piece of information in the warrant has already been disputed.
 
Personally I would say yes, the police should not open fire if they don't know if it is possible an unintended target would get hit. We are talking about a residential property not a warzone.

How many times should the police allow themselves to be shot at before they return fire if they are unable to conduct surveillance to determine if people who are innocent of wrongdoing are in the line of fire? Because when you're being shot at it is not always easy to stick your head up and look around.
 
Seems to me that the only reason for dark-of-night warrants with rams is to give cops overtime and hazzard pay.
If they wanted to search the place, they could have done it during the day.
 
How many times should the police allow themselves to be shot at before they return fire if they are unable to conduct surveillance to determine if people who are innocent of wrongdoing are in the line of fire? Because when you're being shot at it is not always easy to stick your head up and look around.

Do you really wanna make that case? That police don't have to know who or what they're shooting at? Especially in a crowded apartment complex? Does "retreat and regroup" have a place?
 
Last edited:
An ex-U.S. Attorney says he would have charged all three cops with manslaughter.
I’m a former prosecutor, and I would have charged all three officers with manslaughter. I think murder would be overcharging, because the officers did not have the intent to kill Taylor. Still, if three gang members burst into an apartment, were met with gunfire by somebody in the home, and in response shot up the apartment complex and killed an innocent person, they would almost certainly be charged with homicide.

It’s no less of a crime when three cops do the same thing. Self-defense is an issue, but one that a jury should decide. We know the officers continued to fire long after any threat ceased. A neighbor called 911 to report gunfire, and 68 seconds into the call, you can still hear the shots. Further, under Kentucky law, you can’t claim self-defense if your actions placed innocent people in danger, as the police who killed Taylor obviously did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-breonna-taylors-death-is-pathetically-weak/
 
I'm not arguing they were wrong to return fire, but why put themselves in that situation to begin with? Bunch of guys in plainclothes take a battering ram to an apartment door in the dead of night?

I heard 'plainclothes' too and thought they had no markings, but the video of the triage of the shot officer clearly shows they are all wearing POLICE vests with big white lettering. They seem to all be dressed the same.
Is that really what is meant by plainclothes?
..just not being in a full uniform?

Not that any of it matters if it is all dark.
 
Last edited:
So do we have this right? One indictment for a cop that shot at Breonna, but the indictment was for the shots that actually missed her?
 

Back
Top Bottom