Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

pgwenthold said:
"The prosecutor didn't think it would stick"

Isn't that the job of the grand jury?
Click to expand...
The job of the grand jury is to provide political cover for the DA.

The fact they typically aren't allowed to comment (on how lopsided a presentation they were given) makes it very easy to accomplish.
 
Why would police officers executing a legally obtained warrant, and returning fire when one of them was shot, ever be charged with any form of homicide whatsoever? In what universe does that make one molecule of sense?

"We're charging you with murder"

"Um, what? We were given a warrant and told to assist in one of the simultaneous raids on a drug connected house, we went in risking our lives and one of us was shot with a potentially very fatal wound, and we returned fire. This was entirely normal and justified under the circumstances. What officer wouldn't return fire?"

"Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, true... true... but um, you see, a bunch of black people are upset."
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
Why would police officers executing a legally obtained warrant, and returning fire when one of them was shot, ever be charged with any form of homicide whatsoever? In what universe does that make one molecule of sense?

"We're charging you with murder"

"Um, what? We were given a warrant and told to assist in one of the simultaneous raids on a drug connected house, we went in risking our lives and one of us was shot with a potentially very fatal wound, and we returned fire. This was entirely normal and justified under the circumstances. What officer wouldn't return fire?"

"Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, true... true... but um, you see, a bunch of black people are upset."
Click to expand...

I'm glad all the wounds I suffered were potentially only barely fatal. "Potentially very fatal" probably hurts more?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Why would police officers executing a legally obtained warrant, and returning fire when one of them was shot, ever be charged with any form of homicide whatsoever? In what universe does that make one molecule of sense?
....
Click to expand...


There are plenty of questions to be asked, starting with whether the cops identified themselves and if so whether they gave the residents adequate time to wake up, understand what was happening and respond appropriately. There is also the question of whether they rendered immediate aid to Taylor after they shot her. And of course there is the question of why they pumped at least six bullets into someone who had not shot at them, not to mention the rounds that entered a unit where another family was sleeping. Requiring cops to be sure of their target seems like a minimal professional standard. They killed a citizen for no good reason; let a jury decide what to do with them.
 
casebro said:
I'm glad all the wounds I suffered were potentially only barely fatal. "Potentially very fatal" probably hurts more?
Click to expand...

Well I guess there are small wounds that can be fatal if they become infected, and I guess if you got a finger cut off and didn't do anything to stop the bleeding or your body doesn't clot blood properly, that could be fatal.

But the officer here took a shot to the femoral artery which can reliably be expected to lead to death by blood loss within minutes without treatment.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Well I guess there are small wounds that can be fatal if they become infected, and I guess if you got a finger cut off and didn't do anything to stop the bleeding or your body doesn't clot blood properly, that could be fatal.

But the officer here took a shot to the femoral artery which can reliably be expected to lead to death by blood loss within minutes without treatment.
Click to expand...

Let's note here that there continues to be suspicion that the cop was actually hit by one of the 32 rounds police fired.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ballistic...na-taylor-shooting-attorney/story?id=73279097
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
Why would police officers executing a legally obtained warrant, and returning fire when one of them was shot, ever be charged with any form of homicide whatsoever? In what universe does that make one molecule of sense?

"We're charging you with murder"

"Um, what? We were given a warrant and told to assist in one of the simultaneous raids on a drug connected house, we went in risking our lives and one of us was shot with a potentially very fatal wound, and we returned fire. This was entirely normal and justified under the circumstances. What officer wouldn't return fire?"

"Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, true... true... but um, you see, a bunch of black people are upset."
Click to expand...

Either A) The cops intentionally shot an unarmed person (Breonna Taylor) on purpose, or B) They pulled an "Archer" style SUPPRESSIVE FIRE, and just fired blindly into a building with no regard to whom they hit. And lets remember, the one officer facing charges is because he put bullets into another apartment unit. They could've fallen back and taken cover as an alternative option.

So, yes I think any cop who discharges his weapon without it at least aimed* at the person they intend to kill should face, at least, manslaughter charges. And if they have a problem with that, they can find a new line of work.

*If theres reason to think they were indeed aiming at a legitimate target and missed due to stress, then charges are not fair
 
lobosrul5 said:
Either A) The cops intentionally shot an unarmed person (Breonna Taylor) on purpose, or B) They pulled an "Archer" style SUPPRESSIVE FIRE, and just fired blindly into a building with no regard to whom they hit. And lets remember, the one officer facing charges is because he put bullets into another apartment unit. They could've fallen back and taken cover as an alternative option.

So, yes I think any cop who discharges his weapon without it at least aimed* at the person they intend to kill should face, at least, manslaughter charges. And if they have a problem with that, they can find a new line of work.

*If theres reason to think they were indeed aiming at a legitimate target and missed due to stress, then charges are not fair
Click to expand...

It's a matter of public record that one of the cops shot through a window that was closed with blinds and curtains. He had no idea where his gunfire was going. Complete disregard for human life.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's a matter of public record that one of the cops shot through a window that was closed with blinds and curtains. He had no idea where his gunfire was going. Complete disregard for human life.
Click to expand...

Which he was rightfully charged for.
He was outside and was not in the line of fire as the police officers whose bullets hit Taylor.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Either A) The cops intentionally shot an unarmed person (Breonna Taylor) on purpose, or B) They pulled an "Archer" style SUPPRESSIVE FIRE, and just fired blindly into a building with no regard to whom they hit. And lets remember, the one officer facing charges is because he put bullets into another apartment unit. They could've fallen back and taken cover as an alternative option.

So, yes I think any cop who discharges his weapon without it at least aimed* at the person they intend to kill should face, at least, manslaughter charges. And if they have a problem with that, they can find a new line of work.

*If theres reason to think they were indeed aiming at a legitimate target and missed due to stress, then charges are not fair
Click to expand...

Based on my training, knowledge, and experience as an RCMP firearms instructor and as a former member and eventual officer in charge of an RCMP Emergency Response Team (ERT) - I can tell you that shooting under such circumstances that these officers found themselves under would result in many misses.
There are just not enough training hours or large enough budgets or military discipline to train police officers to the absolute pinnacle of near perfection that I have seen in either the SAS of the UK or Australia or the GSG 9 of Germany.
Police are highly trained - but are not trained daily with near limitless supplies of time and ammunition as are some military or paramilitary units.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Let's note here that there continues to be suspicion that the cop was actually hit by one of the 32 rounds police fired.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ballistic...na-taylor-shooting-attorney/story?id=73279097
Click to expand...

There is very remote possibility that it was not Taylor's gunslinger friend whose bullet hit the officer. However, since he did admit that aimed his firearm and shot multiple times at the police officers - they were within their right to shoot back.
The law does not differentiate between whether the person shooting at you is either a good shot or a bad shot when deciding whether you have the right to defend yourself.

Sounds like a great comedy routine:

Lawyer: Your honor - my client is a very bad shot and the woman who shot him in self defence should have been able to ascertain that as the bullets whizzed by her head. Forget the fact that he admitted to actually aiming at her and shooting at her and wanting to hit her - the fact he actually missed means her life was not in any danger!

:D
 
Last edited:
If person X, standing in the vicinity of say, the POTUS, pulls out a gun, and fires into a crowd, and person Y returns fire, and accidentally kills the POTUS while trying to hit person X....

Person Y is going away for the rest of his life. But I guess Breonna wasn't POTUS at the time, so... guess she was in the wrong profession.
 
bignickel said:
If person X, standing in the vicinity of say, the POTUS, pulls out a gun, and fires into a crowd, and person Y returns fire, and accidentally kills the POTUS while trying to hit person X....

Person Y is going away for the rest of his life. But I guess Breonna wasn't POTUS at the time, so... guess she was in the wrong profession.
Click to expand...

Your little scenario is certainly nonsensical in that it does not even begin to offer enough information to make any sort of determination of anything relevant to the discussion of self defence.
However, it does demonstrate that you - like the vast majority of people in this thread - have very little grasp of the laws of self defence in the US.
 
Yeah, didn’t think you’d have an answer for that one.
“But it’s 3 am in the morning! If someone’s shooting at me in the house I burst into, I’m responsible for only hitting the person with the gun?! When did America turn into the USSR?!!”
 
Louisville police officer sues Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, for emotional distress, assault and battery [CBS News]

An officer involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor has filed a civil suit against the 26-year-old's boyfriend for emotional distress, assault and battery on the night she was killed. The lawsuit claims Louisville Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly experienced "severe trauma, mental anguish, and emotional distress" because of Kenneth Walker's actions on March 13.


Mattingly and two other officers entered Taylor's apartment early in the morning that day with a warrant in an attempt to carry out a drug investigation. Walker, a licensed gun owner who said he thought the officers were intruders, allegedly fired a shot that hit Mattingly in the leg. Police opened fire, killing Taylor. Taylor had no criminal record and no drugs were found.

"Walker's conduct in shooting Mattingly is outrageous, intolerable, and offends all accepted standards of decency and morality," the lawsuit said...
 
Matthew Best said:
Louisville police officer sues Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, for emotional distress, assault and battery [CBS News]

An officer involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor has filed a civil suit against the 26-year-old's boyfriend for emotional distress, assault and battery on the night she was killed. The lawsuit claims Louisville Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly experienced "severe trauma, mental anguish, and emotional distress" because of Kenneth Walker's actions on March 13.
Click to expand...
Well that's countersuit waiting to happen. I'm sure Walker experienced emotional distress as someone was battering down the door of the apartment. He says he wouldn't have shot if he'd known it was the cops, which I tend to believe. He then had the emotional distress associated with seeing his girlfriend shot 8 times. So I'd say it's a wash.

In my state if you sue someone they're automatically given a chance to sue back. I really can't see this lawsuit going anywhere. It was just a ****** situation. I mean, fingers can be pointed and blame apportioned, but shaking down Walker seems like a losing proposition.
 
Matthew Best said:
Louisville police officer sues Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, for emotional distress, assault and battery [CBS News]

An officer involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor has filed a civil suit against the 26-year-old's boyfriend for emotional distress, assault and battery on the night she was killed. The lawsuit claims Louisville Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly experienced "severe trauma, mental anguish, and emotional distress" because of Kenneth Walker's actions on March 13.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Clearly it's time to file a class action suit against Mattingly. His actions have caused severe trauma, mental anguish, and emotional distress - worrying that I or those I care about might be murdered in the middle of the night by police conducting a no-knock warrant and seizure for reasons that have nothing to do with me; even though I am not dark-skinned and do not reside in the state of Kentucky. Furthermore his actions have eroded my trust in the police and what little public accountability there is for police officers who recklessly and callously cause the deaths of others without justification.

Since the majority of witnesses to the event did not hear any sort of announcement that the perpetrators of Taylor's murder were police, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Mattingly and his fellow officers lied about the situation - specifically so as to pervert the course of justice.

I'm guessing that I'm not the only person has felt this distress and trauma?
 
Very surprised to see the cops voluntarily bringing this matter before a court after the system has done so much to sweep it under the rug.

Civil litigation means discovery, it means the entry of evidence into the public record. Hell of a way to show gratitude to a DA that bent over backwards to make this case disappear from public scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom