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

151–160 of 316 posts

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

#151

Post by bregma »

The highest authority in the country directed police to dominate the public. This is how they dominate the public: fear, intimidation, the deployment of chemical weapons and physical violence against crowds, the 3 AM knock on the door. Next come the targeted killings, roving death squads, and the mothers of the disappeared protesting in public squares. It's alomost like an international standard being followed to the letter. Will no one rid us of the meddlesome priest?

The poor police were just following orders.

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

#152

Post by jacquesm »

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…

> Obviously nobody

You mean you. I actually do. Without situational awareness the police should hold their fire lest innocent people be murdered. It isn't all that hard to understand, really.

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

#153

Post by satyrnein »

alkibiades wrote: post #69

and not a single shred of evidence it was racially motivated rather than an accident having to do with the fact that her boyfriend shot a police officer

The issue is the no knock warrant, which are disproportionately used against black people.

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

#154

Post by asah »

e40 wrote: post #56
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 recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

You can re-subscribe: the editor who made this bad call has already resigned.

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

#155

Post by Mirioron »

Grollicus wrote: post #84
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…

> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got…

>A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves.

Can you actually believe them though? What if the intruder does what the shooter in Canada did and impersonates the police?

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

#156

Post by mcv »

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…

This exactly. You cannot first say people have a right to own guns, a right to defend themselves with them, and a right to shoot intruders in their homes, and then give police a no-knock warrant to enter people's homes unannounced. You're asking police officers to get shot. It's an incredibly stupid and dangerous combination.

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

#157

Post by Mirioron »

berdario wrote: post #106
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…

> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon. I do. They should temporarily cover to safety, understand the situation, announce themselves and attempt to de-escalate. Only if gunfire persist after that, it's reasonable to use deadly force. That's the LAST thing they should do (because in fact, mistakes at that point will be final, with mortal consequences)

Does identifying work though? What's stopping an intruder from doing that? I just don't see how no-knock warrants like this are supposed to work.

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

#158

Post by jakelazaroff »

leereeves wrote: post #127
bagels wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mea…

You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted: > disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers

What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?

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

#159

Post by mcv »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #124
Grollicus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got…

That's great that German police are trained to react that way. But American police are not. American police are trained to prioritize their own safety and survival above the safety and survival of suspects or even innocent bystanders. There's no consideration of intention or what information people are acting on - if there's a potentially lethal threat to the policeman, it must be dominated and suppressed. So yes, wi…

> "American police are trained to prioritize their own safety and survival above the safety and survival of suspects or even innocent bystanders."

But they're trained very badly at that. They're trained to escalate, which endangers everybody, including themselves.

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

#160

Post by Mirioron »

bagels wrote: post #125
leereeves wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or kill…

"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mea…

>I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.

It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.

Post reply on HN