Live data from Hacker News

Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report

usatoday.com

31–40 of 316 posts

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

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prepa…

To clarify, I’m not denying that the Taylor’s boyfriend had the right to shoot first. My point is that the NYT readers generally don’t believe in the right to bear arms, or for armed homeowners to shoot at intruders. If you reject that premise, it becomes much harder to understand why the police did something wrong. That’s why the NYT buries that fact instead of reporting it in the straightforward chronological order.

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

#33
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Louisville PD and the FBI have both announced investigations and the officers involved are on paid leave. Historically, that hasn't generally produced much in the way of prosecutions. Maybe in the current climate things will be different.

The concept of paid leave has always puzzled me. This would be my choice of punishment if I am ever given a choice.

there was a comment posted by rayiner that was quickly deleted

>It’s a Constitutional (and undoubtedly contractual) requirement. Police officers are employed pursuant to a contract. A contractual benefit is considered a property interest that cannot be taken away without “due process.” Hence police officers remain employed (and getting paid) until an investigation establishes they actually did something wrong. Private employers don’t need to provide due process so this doesn’t apply.

probably deleted because it's wrong; deleted before i could submit my response:

>It’s a Constitutional (and undoubtedly contractual) requirement.

you're wrong

> “Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”

so it's a matter of “legitimate entitlements”. in fact "legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in federal employment" and moreover in Bishop v. Wood SC accepted a lower court's opinion that police are employed at will even if discharge is conditional on due process.

all this and more at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/...

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

#34
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Louisville PD and the FBI have both announced investigations and the officers involved are on paid leave. Historically, that hasn't generally produced much in the way of prosecutions. Maybe in the current climate things will be different.

The concept of paid leave has always puzzled me. This would be my choice of punishment if I am ever given a choice.

Greater amounts of paid leave are the primary reward structure for seniority and promotion in my workplace.

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

#35
post #21

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.

> I think that given the well-known bias of NYT

People saying it doesn't make it true. The only argument you've made is quibbling about the order in which the facts are introduced. I see 7 subheadings in the story. The details of who shot when follows the second one. But not putting it first is evidence of an agenda? Come on.

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

#36
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 fault that it happened. Sounds like open and shut manslaughter to me.

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

#37

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…

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 boyfrie…

I feel like my conclusions align in spirit with where you are, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

I feel very strongly, that at midnight, if a door is broken down, into the home of someone who legally owns a gun, it is my expectation that the owner of that gun shoots first and asks questions later.

To be clear: shooting first and asking questions later is stupid. I hope people think more than that, but in a moment of panic, chaos, surprise, and fear, I would do the same.

In this power dynamic, where an organized, state sponsored force is forcibly entering the private home of a citizen unannounced, and plainclothed (though let me admit, I doubt I'd be able to spot a uniform in those circumstances), I do expect the state sponsored force to be trained, experienced, and to be acting in good faith.

I do not read that this situation was acted out in good faith. The fact that there was someone inside with a gun, that the gun was fired, and that happened between a door being kicked in, and any other communication is meaningless to me.

Everything that happened before that is meaningful.

1. All criminals in case already arrested

2. no criminals present at location of raid

3. no (to my knowledge) plan/knowledge/prep for armed people at the location, despite that information seemingly being available (legal gun owner, clear association, I mean, we can assume the police can make that association, since they were able to do so with the ex-boyfriend who was already under investigation? Am I being facetious? Maybe.)

This should have never happened, and what happened after the door was knocked down is not what needs to be reviewed, focus on the top of the funnel: cops executing no-knock warrants on non-violent locations where no criminals are known to be present and also where a known associate of the homeowner is a legal gun owner. Don't kick that door down at midnight in a surprise raid. It's sloppy, and not work I accept.

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

#38
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prepa…

To clarify, I’m not denying that the Taylor’s boyfriend had the right to shoot first. My point is that the NYT readers generally don’t believe in the right to bear arms, or for armed homeowners to shoot at intruders. If you reject that premise, it becomes much harder to understand why the police did something wrong. That’s why the NYT buries that fact instead of reporting it in the straightforward chronological order…

What should the NYT have said, and what forms your opinion of how NYT readers interpret an article like this? Personally, I don't think I could even get anecdata on people I know based on their primary news source.

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

#39
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You clearly skimmed my comment without actually reading it. The police were obviously in the wrong. But the exact way in which they were in the wrong remains extremely relevant to all of the discussions going on right now, yet the media appears to have largely cut it out of the story because that makes for a snappier piece. If we want to solve these issues as a society, we need to be working off of good information.

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

#40
I don't want to be charitable to the police, but this situation is a strange one.

If they were trying to bust a drug smuggling ring, it sounds like maybe there was parallel construction afoot. In other words, they may have been acting according to a supply of information beyond that which would ever be presented to the public, and could not be used to support a prosecution.

Reading between the lines, there's a hint that her role as an EMT put her in contact with pharmaceuticals that could be siphoned from channels of legal medical authority, as she was an insider. That, as an insider, she may have been a sacrifice by illegal operators, or that parallel construction would be the only way to parry criminals that could have access to insider tip offs that allow them to perpetually dodge getting caught.

This raises the spectre whereby, maybe there's more than one layer of misdirection, so where do you draw the line? How would you know whether the murder itself wasn't an internal turf war among rival corrupt operators using the aegis of authority?

If she was a medical operator, acting as a relay runner from an official position of trust, for a smuggling ring, we'll never know.

But the one other angle that bothers me is: maybe they were digital patsies. If the police used digital/mobile device sources of intel to determine that these were crooked operators, would they know or care if these were just regular people who had their devices targeted for squatting in caches and slack space, and remote relay/exit operations? Would it be believable that a sophisticated matador practice could be employed as warning canary devices, so the real operators could throw a kill switch, if their canary croaks?

Hard to say...

The police would use a no-knock warrant if they were corrupt. Or if they thought they had the real target. But they could be made to believe a false target is authentic. I don't think we have dirty cops operating a no-knock death squad. Which means they probably believed they were taking down a legitimate suspect.

That only leaves open 2 possibilities by my count: She and her associates had compromised devices and were being used as canaries by real criminals, or they were the criminals.

The one probable vindicator is if knocking her link from the chain of smuggling relays should have an outwardly observable effect on some unknown portion of the black market. If a drought is induced, could it be that her death disrupted the distribution of drugs? Probably not a crime punishable by death, but this would point to a rational reason to have been seeking her arrest.

Meanwhile, there's probably enough noise introduced by pandemic lockdowns, and the notoriety of the press and media attention, that these other circumstances could play an outsized role in causing a drought in black market drug availability on their own.

Furthermore, in some cases, drug gangs are so powerful that one cannot discount the idea that any such gang that might operate canaries might also retain muckraking journalists with bribes, who might even work for payment in access to drugs. At that level of paranoia, you have to believe this may even be full spectrum warfare, involving very powerful transnational entities, and that this is akin to covert warfare.

Post reply on HN