Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (4 Viewers)

[First Time Poster]

So I got busy the other day with the intention to revisit this topic and answer some of the responses put forward but I realized the thread was deleted. But, I felt we had good dialogue happening before I left so I wanted to restart the topic to get the conversation going again. We started some dialogue about it on the liberal board but I feel this topic transcends party lines so I'm making a MCB thread. Post #2, or my next post, is the post I made on the liberal board when asked to elaborate how I felt.

 

[MT15]

As a longtime poster at tigerdroppings, I can affirm that this does not come as a surprise.

so they just casually drop in towards the end of the article that he also talks about sexually assaulting and harassing women and getting oral sex on the job? What a sweetheart.

 

[coldseat]

As a longtime poster at tigerdroppings, I can affirm that this does not come as a surprise.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but props to the Baton Rouge Police Union for turning over the information to the Department.

 

[B4YOU]

As a longtime poster at tigerdroppings, I can affirm that this does not come as a surprise.

No surprise. That place is a hotbed for racism. I’m not a fan of people losing their job over speech outside of work, but those last few sentences about sexual assault and on the job BJs sounds like actions that justify firing.

 

[CoolBrees]

First, there seems to be a lot of bad apples on police forces across the country. Imagine if there were this many bad apples at your job or place of business.

And I don’t agree that you shouldn’t be punished for outside of work comments. One, first amendment doesn’t have anything to do with your employer. And two when you act a fool on the internet and get outted, the place you work can receive negative press and attention. Which can affect the bottom line. When that occurs- bye bye

Re the Uhaul- You can really tell who has never protested in their lives. I see uhauls full of stuff like that every day. They have been protesting in Louisville since the beginning of summer

Oh Yeah, signs and a U-Haul can be had in about two hours. Especially with that new internet thing. They started boarding up the courthouse the day prior for god sakes. It didn’t take a massive conspiracy to know what was coming and that the streets were going to be filled.

Oh and protests ARE organized. By those who organize protests. They’re called Organizers for jeebus sakes. Do you think thousands of people just wander out into the streets without a call to action from someone? Really?

 

[MT15]

This is a really good compilation of the Taylor case. I would encourage everyone to read it, he seems to be pretty even handed and has done extensive reporting on the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Adding a quote. This is a really good article.

“Cameron’s statement gives the implication that Walker should have known that the men were police. But if police and prosecutors truly believed Walker knew, or should have known, that the raiding men were police, they would have prosecuted Walker for knowingly trying to kill them. Police and prosecutors don’t take that sort of thing lightly. They did arrest him for firing at the officers. But they later dropped those charges and released him. That speaks volumes.

The really sad part about this is that Cameron’s misleading statement about the witness who heard police announce — along with the fact the Walker fired first — has led some to put the blame for Taylor’s death on Walker. What Walker did that night is what just about anyone would have done if they thought they or their loved ones were under attack. Walker and Taylor were in love. They had been discussing marriage. He was defending a woman he wanted to marry, and with whom he wanted to raise a family. To put her death on him only adds to his pain and grief. It’s just incredibly cruel.”

FWIW, he doesn’t think the officers in the apartment should have been charged. But he points out several ways that the AG and the police have left out critical facts or been dishonest.

 

[coldseat]

This is a really good compilation of the Taylor case. I would encourage everyone to read it, he seems to be pretty even handed and has done extensive reporting on the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Adding a quote. This is a really good article.

“Cameron’s statement gives the implication that Walker should have known that the men were police. But if police and prosecutors truly believed Walker knew, or should have known, that the raiding men were police, they would have prosecuted Walker for knowingly trying to kill them. Police and prosecutors don’t take that sort of thing lightly. They did arrest him for firing at the officers. But they later dropped those charges and released him. That speaks volumes.

The really sad part about this is that Cameron’s misleading statement about the witness who heard police announce — along with the fact the Walker fired first — has led some to put the blame for Taylor’s death on Walker. What Walker did that night is what just about anyone would have done if they thought they or their loved ones were under attack. Walker and Taylor were in love. They had been discussing marriage. He was defending a woman he wanted to marry, and with whom he wanted to raise a family. To put her death on him only adds to his pain and grief. It’s just incredibly cruel.”

FWIW, he doesn’t think the officers in the apartment should have been charged. But he points out several ways that the AG and the police have left out critical facts or been dishonest.

This right here!

The really sad part about this is that Cameron’s misleading statement about the witness who heard police announce — along with the fact the Walker fired first — has led some to put the blame for Taylor’s death on Walker. What Walker did that night is what just about anyone would have done if they thought they or their loved ones were under attack. Walker and Taylor were in love. They had been discussing marriage. He was defending a woman he wanted to marry, and with whom he wanted to raise a family. To put her death on him only adds to his pain and grief. It’s just incredibly cruel.

 

[brandon]

You can shoot anyone who you suspect doesn’t belong on your property, but it is wrong unless you fear for your life.

You can claim that Walker feared for his life, but it is wanton disregard for someone else’s life if you shoot without knowledge of who you’re shooting at.

This is such a ridiculous argument. If we have a second amendment, and you support it, then a group of men with guns busting into your house after midnight who don’t identify themselves as police is the second-most logical reason to have a gun in the first place.

The first, of course, being the right to oppose the tyranny of tan suits.

 

[brandon]

First, there seems to be a lot of bad apples on police forces across the country. Imagine if there were this many bad apples at your job or place of business.

It’s unfortunate that so many people have forgotten the actual phrase. It’s not “It’s just a few bad apples.”

It’s “A few bad apples spoils the bunch.”

 

[JimEverett]

This is a really good compilation of the Taylor case. I would encourage everyone to read it, he seems to be pretty even handed and has done extensive reporting on the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

Adding a quote. This is a really good article.

“Cameron’s statement gives the implication that Walker should have known that the men were police. But if police and prosecutors truly believed Walker knew, or should have known, that the raiding men were police, they would have prosecuted Walker for knowingly trying to kill them. Police and prosecutors don’t take that sort of thing lightly. They did arrest him for firing at the officers. But they later dropped those charges and released him. That speaks volumes.

The really sad part about this is that Cameron’s misleading statement about the witness who heard police announce — along with the fact the Walker fired first — has led some to put the blame for Taylor’s death on Walker. What Walker did that night is what just about anyone would have done if they thought they or their loved ones were under attack. Walker and Taylor were in love. They had been discussing marriage. He was defending a woman he wanted to marry, and with whom he wanted to raise a family. To put her death on him only adds to his pain and grief. It’s just incredibly cruel.”

FWIW, he doesn’t think the officers in the apartment should have been charged. But he points out several ways that the AG and the police have left out critical facts or been dishonest.

Good point.

Also - do we expect people to accept others as the police simply when they say "police"?
Seems like an easy way for criminals to gain an element of surprise if they so want.

 

[Lapaz]

This is such a ridiculous argument. If we have a second amendment, and you support it, then a group of men with guns busting into your house after midnight who don’t identify themselves as police is the second-most logical reason to have a gun in the first place.

The first, of course, being the right to oppose the tyranny of tan suits.

1st of all, any right should have its limits. I believe the 2nd amendment is interpreted too broadly to allow people to shoot other people. I assume that since you think my argument is ridiculous, then you agree with a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Have you ever acknowledged that something is legal, yet disagreed with the law that allows it? Do you agree with the way stand your ground is interpreted? Do you agree with open carrying of machine guns?

I agree that one should be able to defend their homes, but I also believe that one should only use lethal force as a last resort. I find it hard to believe that most people would start shooting without knowing who they were shooting at. Also, I'm fairly confident that the cops identified themselves, unless they had a death wish. That is much more likely, than the scenario where they bursted into the house and expected no violent conflict without saying why they were there or who they were. That makes no sense to me. None of us know for sure, but that makes the most sense. Any of you can choose to believe Walker's side of the story, but it doesn't pass the common sense test to me.

 

[MT15]

Lapaz, please read the article I posted. The police, despite supposedly having her apartment under surveillance, didn’t know she had a man living with her. You are assuming things which are probably not correct, it’s not that long of an article, just give it a look.

 

[brandon]

1st of all, any right should have its limits. I believe the 2nd amendment is interpreted too broadly to allow people to shoot other people. I assume that since you think my argument is ridiculous, then you agree with a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Have you ever acknowledged that something is legal, yet disagreed with the law that allows it? Do you agree with the way stand your ground is interpreted? Do you agree with open carrying of machine guns?

I don't agree with a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I'm on the fence about whether I think the second amendment should even exist.

That said, if there's ever a time I would want a gun in my house, and a time where I would shoot first and ask questions later, it's if it's after midnight, my door has just been kicked in, there's now multiple armed men in my home, and I don't know what their intentions are.

As someone who largely thinks that gun nuts overblow the necessity for having guns in the home, if this happened to me and I owned a gun, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to open fire. This scenario is literally the most justified scenario I can think of for shooting people.

I'd also argue the castle doctrine very much applies here. No duty to retreat, justified use of deadly force, and immunity from prosecution.

According to Wikipedia, in Kentucky, the following statute applies:

Kentucky

KRS 503.055

No duty to retreat from dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't agree with a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I'm on the fence about whether I think the second amendment should even exist.

That said, if there's ever a time I would want a gun in my house, and a time where I would shoot first and ask questions later, it's if it's after midnight, my door has just been kicked in, there's now multiple armed men in my home, and I don't know what their intentions are.

As someone who largely thinks that gun nuts overblow the necessity for having guns in the home, if this happened to me and I owned a gun, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to open fire. This scenario is literally the most justified scenario I can think of for shooting people.

I'd also argue the castle doctrine very much applies here. No duty to retreat, justified use of deadly force, and immunity from prosecution.

According to Wikipedia, in Kentucky, the following statute applies:

Kentucky

KRS 503.055

No duty to retreat from dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

That castle doctrine is why Walker wasn't prosecuted, but I believe shooting without knowing who you're shooting at is irresponsible and wrong.

 

[brandon]

That castle doctrine is why Walker wasn't prosecuted, but I believe shooting without knowing who you're shooting at is irresponsible and wrong.

Sure, if you're just out on the street in broad daylight and start firing into an alley for the hell of it, that's absolutely irresponsible and wrong. And you'd be charged with wanton endangerment, as you should be.

Firing at plainclothes armed intruders in your home who just busted open your door at 3AM? You have no idea what they plan to do to you or your family? Nope. Time to empty the mag.

The castle doctrine justifies this scenario because it's freaking justified.

 

[Lapaz]

Lapaz, please read the article I posted. The police, despite supposedly having her apartment under surveillance, didn’t know she had a man living with her. You are assuming things which are probably not correct, it’s not that long of an article, just give it a look.

That Washington Post article doesn't change the point that I've repeatedly made about Walker starting the shootout being the fatal error. In my opinion, the cops should not have raided Taylor's home, and they made other mistakes, but it was a legal raid. Whether they executed a no-knock or not, I still find it hard to believe that they didn't announce themselves as police once inside, and I find it irresponsible to start shooting at people without demanding they announce themselves. Even after they announced themselves, Walker could've further demanded IDs.

 

[Lapaz]

Sure, if you're just out on the street in broad daylight and start firing into an alley for the hell of it, that's absolutely irresponsible and wrong. And you'd be charged with wanton endangerment, as you should be.

Firing at plainclothes armed intruders in your home who just busted open your door at 3AM? You have no idea what they plan to do to you or your family? Nope. Time to empty the mag.

The castle doctrine justifies this scenario because it's freaking justified.

By that justification, every no-knock warrant should justifiably result in a shootout. They exist to prevent evidence from being destroyed and to reduce the likelihood of shootouts, but you believe emptying your magazine is justified and no other response is merited. I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

 

[SFIDC3]

Even after they announced themselves, Walker could've further demanded IDs.

Sure he could have demanded anything, and got shot while doing so....why is it so hard to believe the police didn't identify themselves adequately? You seem hung up on that one issue.

My feeling is the way the local police department/judicial system has handled this case is beyond disturbing. Offering immunity to the ex-boyfriend to testify that Taylor was part of his drug operations?

I don't trust them one bit to bring justice and do the job they are supposed to do. Their only interest is protecting themselves.....

 

[brandon]

By that justification, every no-knock warrant should justifiably result in a shootout.

Uh, yea.

That's why there's calls to end no-knock warrants and why Louisville Metro ended the policy in their city. There's a significant chance that they end really badly through no fault of the person whose home is being entered.