Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by trfhuhg » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:29 PM UTC

acallaghan wrote: post #117

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

If you don't like people defending themselves against plain clothed intruders with guns they legally bought, then maybe you need to revoke the 2A. Most cops don't need guns. Almost no normal civilians need guns. The entire developed world that's not the USA gets by just fine without the 'right' to own a semi-automatic machine gun.

Without 2A, people like Breonna would have to rely on gentlemen like those that visited her apartment to defend themselves. For some reason I'm skeptical about this idea. Abolishing 2A would greatly increase safety for the rich, who will get to keep guns and armed guards regardless of any laws, and correspondingly reduce safety for the poor.

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

#232

Post by danharaj » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

twybrobdingnag wrote: post #217

DagAgren wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.

That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?

> I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation

It's a guiding principle of jurisprudence, not conversation. Don't be so pompous as to think the level of your discourse rises to that of a court proceeding.

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

#233

Post by trfhuhg » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #123

fiblye wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the point of contention guns specifically, or people defending their homes to the point of killing someone? America has more than just a few home invasions and murders. If someone is trying to break into your home, especially at night, there's a high chance that that person is not only willing to maim or kill you, but planning to do so. America has around 1 million home invasions per year and help isn't always nea…

It's a matter of culture. This is how the average European imagines an encounter with a criminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woO1Cs6c-oo

I see that even criminals in Europe have manners. Until we figure how to replace domestic criminals with European ones, I'd prefer to keep 2A.

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

#234

Post by jhowell » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

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…

The details are there. It seems you're complaining about their order as evidence of a conspiracy theory, "to make the victim seem more sympathetic."

The only conspiracy is that people want those who are not typically victims of these injustices to be inclusive in their thinking about who deserves life and who should make that determination.

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

#235

Post by jhowell » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:40 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #155

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…

> 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?

How often does that freaking happen... Edge case?

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

#236

Post by DagAgren » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

twybrobdingnag wrote: post #217

DagAgren wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.

That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?

I did not make any accusation. I was clarifying the position of the people who's thought process you "couldn't imagine".

Now you can.

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

#237

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

nodox92 wrote: post #185

This is sensationalist nonsense. The narrative is mostly blank because the media probably couldn’t get the full narrative as it’s an ongoing investigation and thus not subject to open records. It looks like they only got the public narrative [1] which simply states “PIU Investigation” and are pretending to be shocked. In any case, you would expect most details to be contained in supplements or the case file, not the…

> The narrative is mostly blank because the media probably couldn’t get the full narrative as it’s an ongoing investigation and thus not subject to open records.

It's not "the narrative", it's the incident report.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you are correct that they aren't obligated to release the incident report. But they did release the incident report, presumably as a pretense of transparency and/or good will. The fact that it is basically blank shows that the pretense is just that, a pretense.

> In any case, you would expect most details to be contained in supplements or the case file, not the initial incident report narrative.

I would expect the incident report to report the incident. This isn't confusing.

Your argument here is basically, "Oh don't worry, that's just the report with the lies--the report with the truth exists somewhere, you'll get to see it eventually!" But that's no less damning: why is there a report with lies on it, and why is the report with the lies on it the only one the public gets to see?

If you're arguing that not reporting the incident in the incident report, or not having transparency, are police norms, I won't disagree with you there, but that's a huge problem.

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

#238

Post by craftinator » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #109

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…

What you say is obvious is not obvious at all. I expect police not to shoot back if the situation is such that the person that is shooting back could reasonably act in self defense (as was here the case). Then I expect police to take the strategy of simply retreating and getting to safety. Obviously that’s associated with a higher risk for the police but to my mind that is a risk police have to accept if they want to…

> Obviously that’s associated with a higher risk for the police but to my mind that is a risk police have to accept if they want to be able to execute search warrants like that. It comes with the territory.

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this as I'm a former service member who is generally kind of paranoid of people breaking into my safe spaces. In the Marine Corps, there's pretty much two tactical options we are trained to choose from when taking fire: either immediately assault the enemy with fire and maneuver, or break contact and find cover.

An immediate assault should only be used if you know the relative size of the enemy, you're rules of engagement support an assault, and there's no hard cover available. Immediately returning fire increases the likelihood of getting your people killed, but retains the initiative, which is great if the enemy force is likely to advance on your position. There is no benefit of doing this if the enemy is just going to sit behind cover taking pot shots; better to draw them out and gain the cover advantage.

All of that is to say that the police had NONE of those qualifications. There is literally no reason not to pull back. By returning fire, they put themselves in MORE danger, and for no reason. That is the reaction that untrained animals take, not a disciplined unit.

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

#239

Post by craftinator » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #71

newacct583 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Is that not the problem? I don't think anyone is demanding a first degree murder conviction here. They didn't walk in with the intent to kill her. But they sure as shit did kill her, and it's all their fau…

Is the bad guy a couple of cops who we hold to the impossible standard of not returning fire? Or are no-knock warrants the bad guy which routinely cause deaths for the sole purpose of keeping some drugs from being flushed down the toilet? Because one of these is very easy to fix and would 100% mean Taylor would still be alive. The other would be super difficult to fix and who knows if it would have saved her life.

Having been a military servicemember, not returning fire is the bare minimum to expect. If they had no training, no mandate, no authority, and were not kicking someone's door down in the middle of the night, then returning fire would be a risky but understandable choice. But if you have any understanding of tactical urban combat, you know that taking cover here and assessing the situation is the only rational choice. Blindly returning fire in an area filled with civilians (an apartment for god's sake) is a criminal decision, likely to get your officers and random innocent persons killed.

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

#240

Post by alkibiades » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #80

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

Just, Devil's Advocate, but do you think the accident could have been the police kicking in the door of the wrong apartment? The boyfriend shooting at the police does not seem accidental, nor does it seem in any way wrong to my mind. If the officers had kicked in the door of the right apartment, the boyfriend would not have tried to take the officers out. Again, a completely appropriate and well reasoned response in…

i agree with what you said. the entire ordeal was an accident on both sides but my question remained. is there a shred of evidence it was racially motivated since it’s getting lumped in with BLM