Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 316 posts

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#21

Post by hkai »

codezero wrote: post #16
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

context: I am a super liberal hippy. I'm really left, like, crazy. I paused reading your comment at "instead you need to go down several" because I wanted to test my current knowledge of this incident: almost nothing, I know, hard to believe, given the claim at the start. (I've been under a lot of stress at work, it's OK, I'm fine, thanks for asking though :) ) So I read the article... Here is the first paragraph und…

Still, would you agree that the wording of the article tries to create an impression that the police fired first, and tries to downplay the fact that the boyfriend fired first?

I do not disagree that the police was wrong to storm the place, but I think that given the well-known bias of NYT, they are trying to create more rage in the community by creating an impression that the police fired first.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#22

Post by [deleted] »

codezero wrote: post #16
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

context: I am a super liberal hippy. I'm really left, like, crazy. I paused reading your comment at "instead you need to go down several" because I wanted to test my current knowledge of this incident: almost nothing, I know, hard to believe, given the claim at the start. (I've been under a lot of stress at work, it's OK, I'm fine, thanks for asking though :) ) So I read the article... Here is the first paragraph und…

[deleted]

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#23

Post by lukifer »

hkai wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

I also hate that there seems to be a point of view that the US police and justice system is the worst in the world. I can attest that in most of the other countries of the world, you can't point a gun at the police and get away with it. Most importantly, you can't even talk about this case in the media, you can't sue the government, you can't hire a lawyer to fight against the government, your family will be threaten…

The US leads the world in prison population, compared to other democracies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in...

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that I don't live in China. But it's pretty embarrassing for the richest and most powerful country in the world (allegedly bearing the mantle of freedom and democracy and Enlightenment values), to have to compare ourselves to totalitarian dictatorships to feel better about ourselves, instead of other democracies, most of whom have yearly counts of deaths by law enforcement in the single digits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#24

Post by codezero »

hkai wrote: post #21
codezero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

context: I am a super liberal hippy. I'm really left, like, crazy. I paused reading your comment at "instead you need to go down several" because I wanted to test my current knowledge of this incident: almost nothing, I know, hard to believe, given the claim at the start. (I've been under a lot of stress at work, it's OK, I'm fine, thanks for asking though :) ) So I read the article... Here is the first paragraph und…

Still, would you agree that the wording of the article tries to create an impression that the police fired first, and tries to downplay the fact that the boyfriend fired first? I do not disagree that the police was wrong to storm the place, but I think that given the well-known bias of NYT, they are trying to create more rage in the community by creating an impression that the police fired first.

No, In fact, I hope I was clear in my description: my assumption is that if a door breaks down, and a confrontation happens, if the people inside have any weapons, I expect them to defend themselves.

(edit: I said Absolutely not... but I changed it to no, I can see how someone would read what was printed as biased/attempting to push a narrative, I just didn't read it that way, and expect better of people who read the news)

That may be where we differ. It's my belief that our homes are private and safe. That's clearly not true given the existence of no-knock warrants, but as long as the two exist together, I will default to the power dynamic being in the hands of the person in the home, not he intruder, legal, or not. Especially when the intruder is a form of authority that I expect to be thoughtful and accountable.

For what it's worth, I might be intentionally ignorant to bias - I read fox news periodically just so I can understand the language used by different views than my own. I am often critical of liberal news sources. I generally agree that news sources, not just the NYT, are involved in low-effort journalism, and a deep lack of critical thinking and introspection. I think this helps me cut through the obvious bullshit, so that when it goes into my memory, it is with less bias than intended maybe? I'm not bias free though.

In this article though, I'm not feeling it, but I will sincerely give it another read with what you mentioned, and try to come back and comment.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#25

Post by zachrose »

rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

Not only was this a no-knock warrant in a country full of guns, but it was also executed by plainclothes police. Figure out how that’s supposed to work.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#26

Post by _bxg1 »

rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

It makes me so upset how distorted all media coverage has been of all sides of this overall topic, from the start. Even if, with the new information you provided, the basic conclusion is the same - "police overreach, especially when it comes to black people" - the details remain extremely important not just for the integrity of that conclusion, but even more so when it comes to forming opinions about where to assign blame and how to solve the problem at a systemic level. I'm mildly infuriated that this is the first I'm hearing these crucial details.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#27

Post by magnusss »

hkai wrote: post #21
codezero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

context: I am a super liberal hippy. I'm really left, like, crazy. I paused reading your comment at "instead you need to go down several" because I wanted to test my current knowledge of this incident: almost nothing, I know, hard to believe, given the claim at the start. (I've been under a lot of stress at work, it's OK, I'm fine, thanks for asking though :) ) So I read the article... Here is the first paragraph und…

Still, would you agree that the wording of the article tries to create an impression that the police fired first, and tries to downplay the fact that the boyfriend fired first? I do not disagree that the police was wrong to storm the place, but I think that given the well-known bias of NYT, they are trying to create more rage in the community by creating an impression that the police fired first.

Exactly this. The single most important question with a shootout is “Who fired the first shot?” The Times clearly misleads the reader to think the police fired first after a “brief confrontation,” only later to reveal that this confrontation was the police being shot at by the boyfriend. The fact that the Times did not report the sequence of shots in that straightforward way (in the purportedly dispassionate “What Happened...“ section of the article) indicates their clear bias.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#28

Post by codezero »

magnusss wrote: post #27
hkai wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, would you agree that the wording of the article tries to create an impression that the police fired first, and tries to downplay the fact that the boyfriend fired first? I do not disagree that the police was wrong to storm the place, but I think that given the well-known bias of NYT, they are trying to create more rage in the community by creating an impression that the police fired first.

Exactly this. The single most important question with a shootout is “Who fired the first shot?” The Times clearly misleads the reader to think the police fired first after a “brief confrontation,” only later to reveal that this confrontation was the police being shot at by the boyfriend. The fact that the Times did not report the sequence of shots in that straightforward way (in the purportedly dispassionate “What Ha…

I think this question becomes more complex when it includes "who fired the first shot when plainclothesed men break down a door into an apartment at midnight where there is a legal gun-owner"

1. They should have known a legal gun owner was present. What would anyone expect a gun-owner to do when their home is broken into? Hasn't Charlton Heston said something about all this?

2. They should have been trained and prepared to execute their warrant under these conditions with a plan for mitigating loss of life, especially since the suspects in the crime were already arrested, and none were thought to be present at the address. None of the people at the address were suspected of criminal activity, and no drugs, or criminal paraphernalia were found. The stakes of the raid were not justified in my opinion - but I of course, do not have all the facts, but I feel like I have enough to make these statements.

I absolutely will not accept "who shot first" that's absurd.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#29

Post by CerealFounder »

_bxg1 wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

It makes me so upset how distorted all media coverage has been of all sides of this overall topic, from the start. Even if, with the new information you provided, the basic conclusion is the same - "police overreach, especially when it comes to black people" - the details remain extremely important not just for the integrity of that conclusion, but even more so when it comes to forming opinions about where to assign…

Are they? If a group of people feel preyed upon and these, plain clothes officers with weapons, no-knock entered, they got what they deserved period.

The onus is on the enforcement to manage damage, not a citizen who doesn't even know its coming. The intelletualizing of this is ridiculous, its a common sense issue.

Re: Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

#30

Post by chrismcb »

codezero wrote: post #16
rayiner wrote: post #7

USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…

context: I am a super liberal hippy. I'm really left, like, crazy. I paused reading your comment at "instead you need to go down several" because I wanted to test my current knowledge of this incident: almost nothing, I know, hard to believe, given the claim at the start. (I've been under a lot of stress at work, it's OK, I'm fine, thanks for asking though :) ) So I read the article... Here is the first paragraph und…

Did you read the entire article? You think that it was OK for some gunfire after some confrontation, but didn't question what the brief confrontation was?what about the past where the police claimed to break the door down and we're immediately meet with gunfire? So what was the brief confrontation? And where does it come from? I don't think anyone involved said there was a brief confrontation. And why did the boyfriend call 911 and report someone kicked his door in and shot his girlfriend?

Personally I would be questioning the need for a no knock warrant on a house that "might" have been a drug drop.

One thing I don't get, is how three officers managed to miss the guy shooting at them.

Post reply on HN