Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Judge Simpson said that "there is no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor's death."
What?! How does that make any sense? If the cops didn’t illegally enter her apartment without a warrant, Breonna would still be alive today. Cause meet effect. How is that not a direct link?
Exactly. The fuck.
Judge was appointed by Reagan
Ol' Rotten Ronnie fucking the world from beyond the grave.
Yet again.
Well . . .
I think the opinion (as bad as it is) is that if the warrant was good the judge thinks the exact same thing would have happened. So the fact that these assholes knowingly lied to get the warrant isn't a "direct link".
To me making that argument kind of signals that no-knock warrants shouldn't be a thing at all if you accept that an innocent would die either way because it's so fucked up....and on top of that the cops still clearly caused this by lying because this isn't a case of good warrant vs bad warrant - this is a case of bad warrant vs no warrant and Breonna still being alive.
I think the legal principle here is that of a superseding cause. The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge's decision. However, the case described in that Wikipedia article is illustrative:
if a defendant had carelessly spilled gasoline near a pile of cigarette butts in an alley behind a bar, the fact that a bar patron later carelessly threw a cigarette butt into the gasoline would be deemed a foreseeable intervening cause, and would not absolve the defendant of tort liability. However, if the bar patron intentionally threw the cigarette butt into the gasoline because he wanted to see it ignite, this intentional act would likely be deemed unforeseeable, and therefore superseding.
The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge’s decision.
What are you talking about? Of course you can! Any reasonable person can see that this decision is bullshit, nuances of superseding cause be damned.
Wow that hurt my head. I read the rest of the Wikipedia page and I think I understand, but damn, I’ll need to read the judge’s full opinion to see just how creatively he applied that principle. Tort law is not for me.
Tort law is essentially legal sorcery
Sounds like that only reduces it to wilful negligence, not malice. There's still significant liability there.
Also, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the officers that wrote up the warrant request, not the ones actually on scene who did the shooting.
In the ruling, Judge Simpson said that Taylor's cause of death was due to a gunshot fired by her boyfriend at the police and not a bad warrant.
Jesus Christ
I guess if you're a hostage cops can just kill you and blame the criminal then
Actually yes. That's well established case law.
society
That's what the IDF does.
Travesty of our bullshit system.
That’s an awfully misleading situation. They state that her boyfriend’s gunshot caused her death, which I think most people would reasonably interpret to mean that her boyfriend shot her in the moment, but what they really mean is that if he hadn’t opened fire on police officers entering their home without prior warning, they wouldn’t have returned fire and killed her.
It also sounds like precedent to excuse cops murdering children.
"Their parents killed them by opening fire at the intruders they didn't know were cops with the gun they legally have to protect their family."
Which is not even a sure thing. Black people have been shot for even less than sleep, somehow.
Yup, like the time they broke into a house and shot the girl sleeping on the sofa with her grandma.
Thanks for the link, I was too lazy to look for it. Note that all charges were dropped in that case. I.e. throwing a flash grenade into an apartment, then breaking in and shooting a 7 y/o sleeping in her grandma's arms is A-OK in the US.
~~Who is saying that and where?~~
Edit: Never mind, I found it. Note that this is the newspaper's phrasing. Apparently what the judge actually wrote is more technical and less misleading:
In his ruling, Judge Simpson wrote that the gunshot fired by Walker "became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor's death."
It’s still the same concept. The exciting incident is breaking and entering by the cops. Judge is still stating them entering illegally is not the cause which it is.
They state that her boyfriend’s gunshot caused her death, which I think most people would reasonably interpret to mean that her boyfriend shot her in the moment, but what they really mean is that if he hadn’t opened fire on police officers entering their home without prior warning, they wouldn’t have returned fire and killed her.
Holy shit that's beyond fucked. How can a judge rule that?
edit: Oh nvm, I just saw who appointed that judge, wow.
This commando raid bullshit has got to stop. How many have died since Breonna? How many more will die? Fucking pigs.
Seriously. Dude was gonna leave the house at some point.
They just feel like as alpha badasses when they kick in a door and scream orders of submission. Fucking cowards
Looks like corruption wins again …. I’m tired boss.
They waited nice and long to do this so people wouldn't notice because her murder was discussed a lot.
What fuckers.
That’s amazing. The bullet that struck the victim was not the cause of death, but the bullet before?
So if an LAPD officer goes to raid someone’s home, and a gangster kills a bystander, the officer is responsible? If he hadn’t gone out for the raid, the gangster would not have fired the weapon?
Wait but if the officers in Taylor’ case didn’t show up to the door, her boyfriend wouldn’t have fired the bullet. So it’s the police fault
This is one of those things that I would hope Harris could speak to right now.
My expectations are unrealistic, though.
Presidential candidates don't like doing risky moves
What ever happened to felony murder?
Bastards in blue exempted.
Is there any way this can get overturned?
No. But they are still on trial for falsifying documentation and civil rights violations.
Charges dismissed does not mean he was found not guilty. They could charge him again. Given what we know, the cops fucked this up. No-knock raids are a death sentence.
"She wasn't clear enough on policies"
"I still don't feel like she's ready"
yeah yeah yeah bro whatever.
I read this and I was not surprise because since October they have been blaming Hamas for the genocide in Gaza, and it seems this form of gaslighting is engrave in USA politics.
Hamas: "Israel didn't announce who they were, so I assumed they were intruders and opened fire. Then they shot back and killed my civilians!"
"We didn't do anything to you this is hamas fault" Blinken, USA
Hate to say it, but I called it back when this happened. Shooting at the cops NEVER gets you an expected outcome.
That being said, the no-knock warrant was the reason the cops got shot at.
The bad warrant was the reason for the no-knock raid.
The judge only stopped looking for root cause at step 1.
If anyone wants to know what happened, here's an excellent video by NYT with fancy animations: https://youtu.be/lDaNU7yDnsc