Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

My questions are who signed off on that warrant, was it that necessary? They knew where he was, why not wait until daylight and wait for him to come out or execute the warrant properly then? She died for no reason, and people are arguing it's somehow her fault for being mixed with her boyfriend, or his fault he shot first. I really don't think it's that cut and dry at all.

*SHE*. It was Taylor on the warrant. It was Taylor who they believed to be involved with her ex's drug dealing. It was Taylor, her house and her car that they were going to search. Her boyfriend was not on the warrants. They did not know he was with Taylor that night (despite watching them come home...).

But no, there's not going to be anyone able to convince me that no-knock warrants, especially no-knock raids conducted at night by plain clothed officers with no body cameras to prevent some drug flushing and cash hiding will ever be considered necessary.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This isn't true.

He's as much as an angel as any other stranger can be. He had no criminal history, he was not under investigation, Taylor's family loves him, by all accounts he appears to be an innocent legal gun owner.

It was her ex that got her involved with the drug dealing. He was arrested at a different location that night.

You are correct, I got that part mixed up. Which makes this whole thing even worse.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

*SHE*. It was Taylor on the warrant. It was Taylor who they believed to be involved with her ex's drug dealing. It was Taylor, her house and her car that they were going to search. Her boyfriend was not on the warrants. They did not know he was with Taylor that night (despite watching them come home...).

But no, there's not going to be anyone able to convince me that no-knock warrants, especially no-knock raids conducted at night by plain clothed officers with no body cameras to prevent some drug flushing and cash hiding will ever be considered necessary.

Cripes, I'm on a real roll here today. Yes you are correct again. I was reading the NY Times while eating lunch and watching TV and was getting Taylor and Walker and the ex all mixed up. Maybe I need a beer or something.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

There's no evidence they made any false or misleading statements. Meanwhile the lawyer on the other side most certainly did.

The police’s incident report contained multiple errors. It listed Ms. Taylor’s injuries as “none,” even though she had been shot several times, and indicated that officers had not forced their way into the apartment — though they used a battering ram to break the door open.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breo...=linked-google

[nik-]

After hammering it with the battering ram they didn't have to force the door open.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

So what is the specific system in place that caused this to happen because she's black?

Where would you like start?

Because my answer would likely be all of them.

The wide answer is you have a collection of historical systems that kept wealth out of the hands of black peoples especially around Drug policy, property acquisition and education which led to a higher number of POCs living in poverty

Then you have current policies which enforce the law disproportionately on those in poverty and prevent people from escaping policy.

So the collection of US policy leads to a person like her being killed more often then her white counterpart who behaves in the same manner.

But if you want to pick one system to fix to reduce events like this I would go with Public Education Funding practices.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

There is definitely a disconnect between the facts and the narrative surrounding the Breonna Taylor case.

In the end, I’m not sure how much the details matter, in the big picture, because all people see is “unarmed black woman shot by police in her own home”.

There’s little to no evidence that the police who shot her were racially motivated. But it’s also likely true that the only reason they were there and entered the way they did, was due to the colour of her skin. However I think that’s more a sign of systemic racism rather than the individuals being motivated by race.

It’s probably the right choice the officers who stormed her home weren’t charged. But it’s so hard for people in the USA right now to exercise restraint given the dozens and dozens of other overtly racist murders and shootings by police.

I view cases like these as more symbolic of the nations problems rather than a perfect example of them. It’s the tipping point.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breo...=linked-google

They also lied to obtain a warrant, pictures showed evidence tampering and they lied that no persons in the Narcotics division wearbody cams then photos show them wearing body cams that were indeed suppose to be on.

Hard not see the peoples trust in facts vs lies in this case.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No way it costs him his job. Maybe a transfer, maybe. That would be a massive penalty and would likely go thru review via his union.

That's probably more likely.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by dammage79

From what I was told from Police here, hate speech isn't actually against the law?

Its protected under the freedom of expression in the charter of rights and freedoms or some such bologna.

To be clear, hate speech is protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. It can nonetheless be against the law if it contravenes s.319. Hate speech in private conversation is not against the law, but in public, if it ticks all the boxes, it is a criminal offense.

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

There's a dispute between the officers and the boyfriend how they entered. The cops say they knocked, announced who they were and then busted the door open. The boyfriend said they just banged on the door, no announcing and busted the door open.

This has been bugging me - isn't the name of this measure a "no-knock warrant"? If so, why did they knock at all?

He was a licensed gun owner and if some people busted into your place at night and you didn't know who they were you'd probably shoot first too, in America anyways.

Totally understandable for him to react the way he did. Also totally understandable for the police, seeing one of them get shot in the leg, to shoot back - albeit not reasonable to just spray bullets everywhere like they did.

My questions are who signed off on that warrant, was it that necessary? They knew where he was, why not wait until daylight and wait for him to come out or execute the warrant properly then?

I think you're mixing up Walker, who was in the apartment with Taylor, and her ex boyfriend Glover.

What happened, as I understand it, was that the Police were attempting to apprehend Glover. They believed he was at location X, thought that was the most likely place, but they weren't sure - he could also have been at location Y. Location Y was Taylor's apartment. Glover was, in fact, at location X. Only Taylor and Walker were at her apartment.

The Police executed two no-knock warrants simultaneously - one at location X and one at Taylor's apartment. The reason for this is that if you go to location X first, and he's not there, someone might call him at Taylor's apartment and go, "hey, the cops raided your place, you should make yourself scarce." That is the rationale. The rationale for barging in without warning is similar - you don't give the suspect time to run.

Those rationales make sense, they are clearly aimed at achieving a valid law enforcement goal: catching suspects without giving them time to flee. The potential risk created by doing things this way is one of the main things that is objectionable about this case.

She died for no reason, and people are arguing it's somehow her fault for being mixed with her boyfriend, or his fault he shot first. I really don't think it's that cut and dry at all.

She didn't die for no reason. She died because the guy next to her shot a police officer and she got hit with the return fire. But no one, as far as I can tell, is saying it's in any way her fault. It's clearly not. I don't even think it's Walker's fault for shooting the officer, because as you note, his reaction is totally understandable. But all of that doesn't suggest that the police officers in Taylor's home were wrong to shoot at a guy who shot at them first.

There are a lot of things that went wrong here, from the process of obtaining the warrant, to the policy of no-knock warrants in general, to the broader problems with gun culture in the United States. But charging the police who shot her for any of those things doesn't make any sense.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This has been bugging me - isn't the name of this measure a "no-knock warrant"? If so, why did they knock at all?

This is all I could find for that, from the NY Times article I linked to earlier.

While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves.

The officers have said they did announce themselves, but Mr. Walker said he did not hear anything.

[afc wimbledon]

I guess my view is if you are a policeman in a country where the citizens have the legal right to own guns for self defense then I dont think you should be legally allowed to return fire just because you have been shot at under these kind of circumstances, I get that the US is effed and so they were allowed to precipitate a gun battle with a guy who was only trying to legally defend himself and then attempt to kill him and anyone else within half a block, I just dont think they should be allowed to

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

There's a dispute between the officers and the boyfriend how they entered. The cops say they knocked, announced who they were and then busted the door open. The boyfriend said they just banged on the door, no announcing and busted the door open. He was a licensed gun owner and if some people busted into your place at night and you didn't know who they were you'd probably shoot first too, in America anyways.

The fact the initial report by the cops was false or misleading makes me think the boyfriend was correct and it's understandable why he shot first.

Not saying the boyfriend is an angel, obviously he wasn't, but there were no drugs in the apartment so was what happened worth it? No, of course not. There were screw ups everywhere.

My questions are who signed off on that warrant, was it that necessary? They knew where he was, why not wait until daylight and wait for him to come out or execute the warrant properly then? She died for no reason, and people are arguing it's somehow her fault for being mixed with her boyfriend, or his fault he shot first. I really don't think it's that cut and dry at all.

You raise some good points, but I fail to see how this is evidence of a racist system as some people are suggesting.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This is all I could find for that, from the NY Times article I linked to earlier.

Yes, I read this as the cops didnt want to knock in the first place, all but one witness has said they didnt knock or announce themselves, my guess is the 'knock' if it took place at all was so quiet as to be intentionally impossible to hear by anyone

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I guess my view is if you are a policeman in a country where the citizens have the legal right to own guns for self defense then I dont think you should be legally allowed to return fire just because you have been shot at under these kind of circumstances, I get that the US is effed and so they were allowed to precipitate a gun battle with a guy who was only trying to legally defend himself and then attempt to kill him and anyone else within half a block, I just dont think they should be allowed to

I'm going to vehemently disagree with that. You're taking away the police's right to defend themselves and the public by saying they can't return fire if they're fired at? I cannot get behind that.

If you want to be critical of the search warrant itself or even the way in which it was executed, fine. But there are reasons why police carry guns and taking away their ability to return fire if they're being shot at is silly.

That being said, America and their stupid guns and lack of gun laws make a lot of this violence happen in and of itself.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by metallicat

I'm going to vehemently disagree with that. You're taking away the police's right to defend themselves and the public by saying they can't return fire if they're fired at? I cannot get behind that.

If you want to be critical of the search warrant itself or even the way in which it was executed, fine. But there are reasons why police carry guns and taking away their ability to return fire if they're being shot at is silly.

That being said, America and their stupid guns and lack of gun laws make a lot of this violence happen in and of itself.

In a country where the population has the right to arm and defend themselves you get to choose who dies, the cops or the citizens, I think we pay the cops to be the ones who get shot

[metallicat]

Haha, no. You pay the cops to stand in front of the bullets to protect others, but you don't pay them to stand there and not shoot back when being shot at.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by metallicat

Haha, no. You pay the cops to stand in front of the bullets to protect others, but you don't pay them to stand there and not shoot back when being shot at.

I think we do, but then I come from a country where that has always been the case, you join the Police in the UK it is drilled into you that your job is to lay down your life to protect the public

[metallicat]

It is absolutely not said, even in the UK, that you don't defend yourself.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by metallicat

It is absolutely not said, even in the UK, that you don't defend yourself.

Yes, but mostly in the UK that involves the cops taking a beating while they wait for support, they have no guns or tasers for the most part, they are intentionally not given the means to defend themselves effectively in order to keep the public safe