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

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

#271

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #257

arrrg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "not returning fire" really an impossible standard to you? How about: If you do something that could be met with justified self defense and you encounter that self defense your first instinct as police should be to retreat and clarify the situation? Why is it reasonable to have the first instinct to shoot back?

Do you think that a blanket policy that all officers retreat when fired upon without returning fire wouldn't be exploitable by criminals?

A policy that police do so when it is reasonably foreseeable that they could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers would have very limited opportunity for deliberate exploitation by criminals, and would also provide a strong incentive for even bad police to avoid the occurrence of such situations on the first place, whereas the status quo encourages violence-minded cops to engineer such situations when they can also engineer a lopsided force advantage over anyone likely to be present.

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

#272

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

Scribd link to the report (as much as I hate Scribd, I haven't found a better direct source): https://www.scribd.com/document/465105285/Breonna-Taylor-Inc...

Some "amusing" notes (and by "amusing" I mean "horrifying" and/or "the entirety of the LMPD should be fired and prohibited from ever working for a law enforcement agency again"):

- "Forced Entry: N" (today I learned breaking down a door and shooting people is somehow not "forced entry")

- "Bias Motivation: None (No Bias)" (cough cough bullshit cough cough)

- "Public Narrative: PIU Investigation" (wow, real descriptive there)

Can't really comment on much else given that it's entirely devoid of information.

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

#273

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 8:51 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #36

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…

> 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…

How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created?

Legally speaking, they are generally not responsible for creating the situation that led to their violation of Taylor's rights. The court has broad latitude to ignore events prior to any violation of rights, instead relying on whether the police felt at risk in that specific moment.

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

#274

Post by specialist » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

dzonga wrote: post #260

e40 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

I cancelled mine in 2016. when they had biased reporting against Bernie Sanders. to me, a person from a 3rd world country staying in the states. was a shock. one of the biggest papers in the world, being politically biased. I was mad and sad.

I canceled when they pimped the Iraq War. About every time I'm half tempted to finally forgive and move on, they reoffend.

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

#275

Post by specialist » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

hkai wrote: post #67

e40 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

May I ask why? I assume this is because many people think it is better that a left-leaning newspaper doesn't publish right-wing opinion pieces, but I would think that this creates a "bubble" and prevents readers from challenging their own opinions. A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?

The problem is soliciting an outrageous policy statement and then uncritically publishing it, without any kind of pushback.

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

#276

Post by specialist » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #264

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from. Here’s what it actually said: 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 ban…

>On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived…

I stopped participating in public protests because there's as yet no effective way to counter, neutralize provocateurs.

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

#277

Post by leephillips » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #270

leephillips wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People never talk about the judge in these cases. This only happened because a judge decided to sign a no-knock warrant. So, ultimately, doesn’t the judge bear a large portion of the responsibility for creating the situation, for the death that resulted? Shouldn’t the judge be the adult in the room, saying “no” to the police, saying that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify the issuance of a no-k…

The judge issued a warrant that was requested by the police. Likely by the officers involved (though I don't know if that's been reported). I mean yes: you're right, our judiciary should be serving as a better backstop on public safety concerns than they are. And that's a problem. But the court signed off on the warrant that law enforcement wanted. As I see it it's still the police holding the bag here.

Of course; that’s the way it works. But I’m proposing the radical idea that there is a reason for the 4th amendment, and the judges might consider reviewing the evidence and thinking about—nay, judging, even—whether the situation warrants granting what should be an extraordinary request by the police. And that we the people, and the press, especially, should consider it proper to hold them to account, especially when there is a tragic consequence. Nobody ever asks the judge, “why did you sign this warrant? Why was this extreme measure necessary?”

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

#278

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #271

JamesBarney wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that a blanket policy that all officers retreat when fired upon without returning fire wouldn't be exploitable by criminals?

A policy that police do so when it is reasonably foreseeable that they could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers would have very limited opportunity for deliberate exploitation by criminals, and would also provide a strong incentive for even bad police to avoid the occurrence of such situations on the first place, whereas the status quo encourages violence-minded cops to engineer such situations when they…

I think its much simpler to just eliminate the situations where the police could be reasonably mistaken for violent trespassers, i.e. no knock warrants, instead of having a seperate set of rules of engagement for no knock warrants.

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

#279

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

craftinator wrote: post #239

JamesBarney wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't know much about the military's rules of engagement. But if you are breaking into a residence with a suspected terrorist or enemy combatant and are fired upon, you don't return fire?

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

#280

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

dzonga wrote: post #260

e40 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

I cancelled mine in 2016. when they had biased reporting against Bernie Sanders. to me, a person from a 3rd world country staying in the states. was a shock. one of the biggest papers in the world, being politically biased. I was mad and sad.

While there is no totally unbiased media, in America it's a feature not a bug. Heck, they even publicly endorse candidates which is extremely weird at least for me, someone not living there.