Black Lives Matter

[GRHorn 105]

What would y’all want these cops charged with under the current law? They served a warrant, received fire, and returned it. If cops receive fire, what are they supposed to do?
 

Even Stephen A Smith pointed this out earlier today on tv. You want a different outcome, you need to try to change some of the law. Hopefully LeBron and some of these athletes were watching him today. Acting outraged at an obvious outcome, without realizing why it happened is just inciting violence. 
 

Get mad at the war on drugs or other things that lead cops down the path of this kind of thing happening. 

[Dahobbs 18190]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What would y’all want these cops charged with under the current law? They served a warrant, received fire, and returned it. If cops receive fire, what are they supposed to do?
 

Even Stephen A Smith pointed this out earlier today on tv. You want a different outcome, you need to try to change some of the law. Hopefully LeBron and some of these athletes were watching him today. Acting outraged at an obvious outcome, without realizing why it happened is just inciting violence. 
 

Get mad at the war on drugs or other things that lead cops down the path of this kind of thing happening. 

You don't get to start a dangerous situation then divorce yourself completely from the consequences. At least, the rest of us don't. Apparently the cops do, and you agree with it because you're morally, ethically, emotionally, and intellectually challenged. 

But, here you go, they should be charged with:

• Section 507.020 - Murder - A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person

Maybe they have a defense. Maybe they can say they didn't intend to cause her death. Let them make that argument to a jury. 

• Section 507.030 - Manslaughter in the first degree - A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when: (a) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person

Again, if they have a defense, let me present it to a jury. 

• Section 507.050 - Reckless homicide - A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person

Their actions in serving the warrant were the very definition of reckless, as was the blinding shooting into a residence. 

• Kentucky Statutes 507.040 – Manslaughter in the second degree  - A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person
• Kentucky Statutes 519.060 – Tampering with public records  - A person is guilty of tampering with public records when: (a) He knowingly makes a false entry in or falsely alters any public record or (b) Knowing he lacks the authority to do so, he intentionally destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the availability of any public records

• Kentucky Statutes 508.010 – Assault in the first degree  - A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when: (a) He intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or (b) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person.

• Kentucky Statutes 522.020 – Official misconduct in the first degree - (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly: (a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or (c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.

• Kentucky Statutes 524.100 – Tampering with physical evidence  - 1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when, believing that an official proceeding is pending or may be instituted, he: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters physical evidence which he believes is about to be produced or used in the official proceeding with intent to impair its verity or availability in the official proceeding; or (b) Fabricates any physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the official proceeding or offers any physical evidence, knowing it to be fabricated or altered.

[Huckleberry 34407]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you realize that "murder" isn't the same thing in all states?  In Kentucky, murder is:

A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;

Now, these guys were bastard assholes, but it's a stretch to say that any of them intended to kill Breonna Taylor.  In some states, like Texas, it would be with intent to cause death or serious injury.  But that's not the way it is in Kentucky.  First Degree Manslaughter in Kentucky includes intent to cause serious bodily injury.

So, frankly, I think "murder" is an overreach.

A homicide offense is within the realm of possibility, though.

I stated on the other thread that I think it is incorrect to present justification, necessity, self-defense, and other such defenses or affirmative defenses to a grand jury.

 

Huh?

When they fired their weapons they intended to cause the death of the boyfriend. Breonna Taylor is the third person whom they caused the death of. The facts clearly fit that definition of murder.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Huh?

When they fired their weapons they intended to cause the death of the boyfriend. Breonna Taylor is the third person whom they caused the death of. The facts clearly fit that definition of murder.

Typically, proof of intent to kill is going to involve proof of some degree of premeditation or "malice aforethought."  That the killer wanted them dead, not just injured or incapacitated. Intentionally shooting a gun at someone, by itself, only shows intent to cause serious bodily injury.  That's murder in Texas, probably not in Kentucky.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 106628]

45 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What would y’all want these cops charged with under the current law? They served a warrant, received fire, and returned it. If cops receive fire, what are they supposed to do?
 

Even Stephen A Smith pointed this out earlier today on tv. You want a different outcome, you need to try to change some of the law. Hopefully LeBron and some of these athletes were watching him today. Acting outraged at an obvious outcome, without realizing why it happened is just inciting violence. 
 

Get mad at the war on drugs or other things that lead cops down the path of this kind of thing happening. 

Well, GR is a brave man who blocked me, so he won't read this, but I'll answer anyway.

Both things are true -- the law failed in its application here, AND, the law is shitty from the start.

It failed in its application because whether they were justified in firing back in "self-defense" can and will turn on the question of whether the resident knew that they were cops.  As far as I know and understand, the mere existence of a warrant does not mean that they automatically have the defense of self-defense.  So, there's an important fact question -- did they announce?  And it sure looks like the DA purposefully screwed the pooch on that one.  There were 12 objective witnesses -- 11 reported hearing no announcement, 1 reported hearing them say "police."  That is ample evidence to clear the "probable cause" standard to pass a case forward out of the grand jury.  Let that evidence be tested on direct and cross examination at trial to determine whether the defense applies.

But yes, from the very beginning -- starting with the folly of the war on drugs, then on to no knock warrants, then on to the bullshit cowboy culture of the LMPD, then on to the fact that they had cameras and didn't use them because it wasn't required, then on to the ridiculous benefit of the doubt/benefit of not even having to create doubt that various criminal statutes provide to police....that needs to be fixed.

There was injustice here because the law didn't work as designed.  That is on the actors here -- the cops and the AG, primarily.

There was also injustice here because the law here worked EXACTLY as designed.  That, on the other hand, is on US -- we the people.  These are our laws, passed by our lawmakers, doing what we have asked them to do repeatedly for decades: be "tough on crime!" and "protect our hero cops!"  We created a large element of the problem.  We should fix that.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Also, it's probably worth noting that grand juries are not presented with self-defense evidence or other justifications, or exculpatory evidence, when the defendant is an ordinary joe.  It happens from time to time in high-profile cases, but it's not the usual thing.

It's all too common in grand juries considering cops.

[Dahobbs 18190]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Typically, proof of intent to kill is going to involve proof of some degree of premeditation or "malice aforethought."  That the killer wanted them dead, not just injured or incapacitated. Intentionally shooting a gun at someone, by itself, only shows intent to cause serious bodily injury.  That's murder in Texas, probably not in Kentucky.

Does Kentucky make that distinction? Certainly malice aforethought had its place in the common law, but I don't see anything in Kentucky's statute that indicates it was kept in their law. States that keep that distinction usually have a separate section on "premeditated murder" or just stick the words "malice aforethought" right in the statute. 

Were I the prosecutor, my evidence of intent would be every training manual and instructor on firearms: if you shoot at someone, you do it to kill them. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Does Kentucky make that distinction? Certainly malice aforethought had its place in the common law, but I don't see anything in Kentucky's statute that indicates it was kept in their law. States that keep that distinction usually have a separate section on "premeditated murder" or just stick the words "malice aforethought" right in the statute. 

Their section on mental states indicates that you must intend to cause the result, death, as it is used in the murder statute, not merely intentionally engage in the conduct that causes death. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19651

So, while there isn't an express requirement of those common law things, I don't know how you prove an intent to kill without some extra facts, which would seem necessarily to include them.  While intentionally shooting a gun at someone creates a high probability of death, it doesn't mean you intend to kill.  

Conversely, I don't know how you intentionally shoot a gun at someone and avoid intending the result of serious bodily injury.  If murder is written that way, then it's murder, as it would be in Texas.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 34407]

lulz

You don't shoot a gun directly at someone like that without the intent to kill them. Especially trained police officers who know full well to aim for center body mass. Cops aren't out there shooting out knees.

[Dahobbs 18190]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Their section on mental states indicates that you must intend to cause the result, death, as it is used in the murder statute, not merely intentionally engage in the conduct that causes death.

So, while there isn't an express requirement of those common law things, I don't know how you prove an intent to kill without some extra facts, which would seem necessarily to include them.  While intentionally shooting a gun at someone creates a high probability of death, it doesn't mean you intend to kill.  

Conversely, I don't know how you intentionally shoot a gun at someone and avoid intending the result of serious bodily injury.  If murder is written that way, then it's murder, as it would be in Texas.

If you shoot a gun at someone, particularly if you are a police officer, you intend to kill them. That's the training. The issue of malice aforethought/premeditation is usually about something more than heat of the moment. You can intend to kill in the moment, but not necessarily have planned anything. It doesn't appear to me that Kentucky as kept that distinction in their statute, or if it has it buried it somewhere as an aggravator during punishment. Intent to kill is just that: doing x with the intent that y dies. The cops shot into the apartment intending to kill the person shooting at them. They killed Taylor, a third person. It fits the statute very well. Scalia would be on board with it, as would I believe Gorsuch or any textualist. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

lulz

You don't shoot a gun directly at someone like that without the intent to kill them. Especially trained police officers who know full well to aim for center body mass. Cops aren't out there shooting out knees.

You can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt based on shooting alone.

[Foosters 18226]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

You want a different outcome, you need to try to change some of the law. Hopefully LeBron and some of these athletes were watching him today. Acting outraged at an obvious outcome, without realizing why it happened is just inciting violence. 
 

Get mad at the war on drugs or other things that lead cops down the path of this kind of thing happening. 

Is this a serious post? 

[Dahobbs 18190]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt based on shooting alone.

I damn well can. 

Q. Mr. Trainer, you were the firearms instructor for the Defendant, right? 

A. Yes.

Q. It is true, isn't it, that you instructed the Defendant to never fire his weapon at another person unless he intended to end their life?

A. It is. 

Q. And, Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the training guide you used during your firearms course, right?

A. It is.

Q. And, it says on page 10 - the exact same thing, don't fire unless you intend to kill, right?

A. It does.

Q. And that is consistent with how you've taught every police officer you've trained, right?

A. It is. 

Q. Did the Defendant pass your course?

A. Yes he did.

Q. Would you have passed him if you thought he didn't understand that instruction?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe he understood that instruction?

A. Yes. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Foosters 18226]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt based on shooting alone.

Dude.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Just now, Foosters said:

Dude.

You think a court of appeals would affirm that judgment?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I damn well can. 

Q. Mr. Trainer, you were the firearms instructor for the Defendant, right? 

A. Yes.

Q. It is true, isn't it, that you instructed the Defendant to never fire his weapon at another person unless he intended to end their life?

A. It is. 

Q. And, Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the training guide you used during your firearms course, right?

A. It is.

Q. And, it says on page 10 - the exact same thing, don't fire unless you intend to kill, right?

A. It does.

Q. And that is consistent with how you've taught every police officer you've trained, right?

A. It is. 

Q. Did the Defendant pass your course?

A. Yes he did.

Q. Would you have passed him if you thought he didn't understand that instruction?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe he understood that instruction?

A. Yes. 

You are effectively conceding that you need some evidence of intent beyond the inference of pointing and shooting a gun.

And I don't think the examination would go quite like that.  They'll all admit being taught to shoot "center mass" to incapacitate and because its a larger target than head or extremities.  You'll never get anyone to admit that it is with the intent to kill.

All of this is a little different from the usual homicide because the reason they started shooting, reasonable/self-defense or not, was being fired upon.  In most murder cases that aren't "provoked" some way or another, you're going to have some evidence evincing an intent to kill; some kind of "means, motive, opportunity."

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 18190]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are effectively conceding that you need some evidence of intent beyond the inference of pointing and shooting a gun.

And I don't think the examination would go quite like that.  They'll all admit being taught to shoot "center mass" to incapacitate and because its a larger target than head or extremities.  You'll never get anyone to admit that it is with the intent to kill.

No more so than you need in any case regarding intentional conduct. I'm quite confident a jury can conclude a Defendant intentionally killed (or tried to kill) another human being based on the fact that the Defendant pointed and fired a loaded weapon at the other person. You are really stretching here. And, again, I'm also pretty sure you are mixing up intent to kill with pre-meditated intent to kill. They are different things. 

[HenryJames 67116]

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[HenryJames 67116]

Clay Travis quoting Charles Barkley is the worst thing that has happened in 2020.

[Jive Turkey 12930]

 

[Rougarou 594]

3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

 

Chuck is a man after my own heart.

[lemonlime 5503]

Meanwhile, 

And what's with the passive reporting on this.  They weren't magically "struck by a car."  Someone chose to drive into them, and leave the scene.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

“Clay Travis makes a good point”

-nobody

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Meanwhile, 

And what's with the passive reporting on this.  They weren't magically "struck by a car."  Someone chose to drive into them, and leave the scene.

It's human nature. Power tripping.

I don't want to say "SEE???" cuz there's more than enough posters here that actually make me optimistic for the future- that have demonstrated an ability to assess new information detached from their ego/identity, adapt (the key to Darwinism- not fitness, agility) and plot a course with the highest likelihood for success.

I fucking volleyed just about every response on TOS's cyclist thread. The shit happening here is just volume. I wasn't exaggerating on TOS. It's just more publicized and politicized now.

[tantric superman 4668]

This was a good one.  And exactly what most rational people expect happens when their are big protests and calls for abolishing an essential function of government.  A counter-reaction and a more balanced approach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/podcasts/the-daily/george-floyd-police-reform-election.html

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

This was a good one.  And exactly what most rational people expect happens when their are big protests and calls for abolishing an essential function of government.  A counter-reaction and a more balanced approach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/podcasts/the-daily/george-floyd-police-reform-election.html

Jesus christ, no one is saying to abolish the policing function of the government. They are saying to get rid of current incarnation and start fresh with something better. It is hilarious to me that you still think this "more balanced approach" is somehow different from "defunding" the police. When facing a major remodel, it is often cheaper to just start over from the slab. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

On the one hand "defunding the police," is a snappy, provocative slogan that doesn't really mean what it may sound like.  That is, defund =/= abolish or dismantle.

But, it does seem to play into the hands of the "sound bite" politicians, and that's unfortunate.

Probably unavoidable in this day and age.

[tantric superman 4668]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Jesus christ, no one is saying to abolish the policing function of the government. They are saying to get rid of current incarnation and start fresh with something better. It is hilarious to me that you still think this "more balanced approach" is somehow different from "defunding" the police. When facing a major remodel, it is often cheaper to just start over from the slab. 

Jesus Christ, I guess you didn't listen to the podcast.

[tantric superman 4668]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the one hand "defunding the police," is a snappy, provocative slogan that doesn't really mean what it may sound like.  That is, defund =/= abolish or dismantle.

But, it does seem to play into the hands of the "sound bite" politicians, and that's unfortunate.

Probably unavoidable in this day and age.

Yep, that's exactly what Trump is doing, and it's a relative softball for Biden to handle.  As much as people hate Biden going off on a tangent, I think he could be very effective in riffing on this. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by tantric superman

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

Sole Witness Who Heard Cops Announce Themselves in Breonna Taylor Raid Changed His Story https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB19sepA?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
 

[Brisketexan 106628]

Sole Witness Who Heard Cops Announce Themselves in Breonna Taylor Raid Changed His Story https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB19sepA?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
 

But what’s important is that the story of one witness who changed his story and was never cross-examined was the determinative “fact” that meant that the cops shouldn’t even face charges. That’s the way it should be, right?

[UpperWestside 6263]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But what’s important is that the story of one witness who changed his story and was never cross-examined was the determinative “fact” that meant that the cops shouldn’t even face charges. That’s the way it should be, right?

It’s as good as the Gospel for McConnell’s prized protege.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

 

[Brisketexan 106628]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

 

I mean, he'll bond out immediately -- dude won millions in the lottery.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

County Attorney booked on same charges

[Neonmoon 38130]

All corrupt pieces of shit

[Brisketexan 106628]

15 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

County Attorney booked on same charges

Yeah, that one is the curious one for me.  He either must have known something pretty specific, and/or taken part in communication with Live PD telling them to destroy the evidence.  That's an unusual charge.

[Gourmand 7778]

This is fucking greatness. 

Hoooo boy I look forward to rubbing this in the face of all my idiot gooper neigbors on Nextdoor.

[Gatorubet 30631]

 

That’s “Chode” in Old English, right?

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

This seems extremely unusual. Lawdawgs- is this unusual?

 

[lemonlime 5503]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This seems extremely unusual. Lawdawgs- is this unusual?

 

Yes.  I never heard of anything like this.

[Brisketexan 106628]

Yes.  I never heard of anything like this.

Neither have I. And that’s nuts...it directly implies that the AG lied like a motherfucker about what they were actually provided with.

Fucking interesting.

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This seems extremely unusual. Lawdawgs- is this unusual?

 

That's wild. I recommend reading the whole thing for anyone that hasn't. It is a compelling document that says a ton despite not saying much directly. 

[Brisketexan 106628]

That's wild. I recommend reading the whole thing for anyone that hasn't. It is a compelling document that says a ton despite not saying much directly. 

It really is well- written, and does a damned fine job of directly calling out the AG as a fucking liar....without revealing the alternate story at all.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Debates are going to be lit outside the CWR university auditorium, too.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

Picture what this guy looks like in your head before clicking link.

https://atlantablackstar.com/2020/09/29/baton-rouge-sergeant-who-said-racism-worked-out-pretty-good-so-far-is-on-leave-after-comments-surface/

The police union discovered Kuhn’s comments on the website Tigerdroppings, where he posted under the screen name “Pesticide” and made remarks denigrating Blacks, Asians, and those of the Jewish faith.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Bama Chick 28596]

Picture what this guy looks like in your head before clicking link.
https://atlantablackstar.com/2020/09/29/baton-rouge-sergeant-who-said-racism-worked-out-pretty-good-so-far-is-on-leave-after-comments-surface/
The police union discovered Kuhn’s comments on the website Tigerdroppings, where he posted under the screen name “Pesticide” and made remarks denigrating Blacks, Asians, and those of the Jewish faith.

I took your advice and tried to picture him before I clicked the link.



Very surprised Shemar Moore is now a racist Louisiana cop lol.

(Very bad ad placement but it did make me chuckle for the first time tonight.)

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

https://ktxs.com/news/local/report-former-hsu-football-player-killed-by-police-while-intervening-in-domestic-fight

[Brisketexan 106628]

20 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

https://ktxs.com/news/local/report-former-hsu-football-player-killed-by-police-while-intervening-in-domestic-fight

Yeah...saw that story this weekend, and it makes you want to puke.  Don't have many facts on it, so really can't figure out how I come down on it, other than.....another unarmed (black) man shot dead by a cop.  It's a shitty fucking outcome, and fucking WHY?