She was the target for the warrant. Not at shooting their guns. The difference is if you’re being fired on of course you return fire. The boyfriend was not being fired on when they entered the house.
Breonna Taylor
- Thread starter naturalmwa
- Start date
As I understand it, only her place was part of the warrant. And why would they fire on her instead of the boyfriend when she was unarmed?
It wasn’t being invaded. She was being served a warrant.
Yes and they were fired on. They didn’t fire on her they returned fire from were they thought the threat was coming from.
No kidding. As her boyfriend had a duty to identify his target before shooting. The police wouldn’t have returned fire if they hadn’t been fired at.
Trained officers of the state have a much hire bar than citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Once again the right attacks the second amendment while the NRA and gun owners remain cowed. Deplorable.
The target of the warrant was Taylor's ex boyfriend who was taken into custody from another location earlier in the evening.
Why were the charges against Kenneth Walker dropped if he was illegally firing his weapon?
Did I say it was illegal? But look what happened after he opened fire. If he would have identified who was coming in none of this would have happened. When your name is on a warrant you’re the target of that warrant.
Lol are you really that unaware how that could have happened? They break in. He opens fire. They returned fire she unfortunately gets hit. Look at Chicago every weekend to see how people get involved in a gun fight even if they don’t have a gun.
You said:
I assumed since you said he didn't have the right to open fire it must be illegal. How am I wrong about your statement?
And he didn't get shot. The police fire 20+ rounds and fail to hit the guy who shot at them but do hit Taylor 6 times. At the very least, that's wildly reckless and incompetent.
Wildly reckless? Unless you’ve been in that situation I caouldnt answer that. If the boyfriend doesn’t shoot she’s alive. If she’s not involved in a drug investigation she’s alive. My mistake I don’t know the laws in Kentucky but a responsible gun owner should identify the target.
If police don't fire, she's alive. If the police don't issue a warrant to search her place that uncovers nothing, she's alive.
This is another example where poor policing resulted in an innocent death. It has to be fixed.
Couple of problems with your scenario but you know that already. The police DID get fired upon and unless you are kreskin-like, how do you know what you are going to find in a search before....you know, .....you search.
L
when you’re being shot at in close quarters it tends to throw off your aim. Especially with hand guns.
I’d like to see where the boyfriend was and where Breanna was when she was shot. Haven’t seen that...
So you’re saying you can shoot at police and expect them to do nothing? I’m guessing you’re in favor of glorifying the career criminals that have caused all these riots? So go fix the problem. You make it sound so easy like flipping a switch.
Sigh - it was simply pointing out the absurdity of his statement of "whatabout". Apparently went over your head.
The police did a shitty job and it cost an innocent life. That's happened too often. Put strategies and actions in place to fix it.
Oh yeah great idea I’m guessing no one has thought of that. Bottom line is if you don’t do crime and put yourself in bad situations you’ll be better off. There’s innocent lives killed every weekend in Chicago by guns but no one cares about that.
She was involved with a drug investigation. That’s why they were there. Remember? Look it’s a very unfortunate situation but to think it’s murder by police is crazy. Again don’t put yourself in bad situations you’ll be better off.
What crime did she do? You implied there was a crime committed by her. What was it? And how did she put herself in the bad situation? She was at home, with her non-criminal boyfriend, minding her own business. How is that a bad situation?
Her name was on the warrant! How many times do you need to hear that? That is a bad situation!
That is not a crime. Nor did she put herself in that situation, the police did. Apparently for no reason.
There was also false information on the warrant that said the Postal Inspector had alerted the police to packages delivered to Taylor's address which the inspector denies happening. Another problem was in addition to it being a no knock warrant, the police executing it were plain clothes police officers. This fact would have made it more difficult for Taylor and her boyfriend to identify them as officers of the law.
So she did nothing to be put on the warrant? The reason was to search for evidence.
What did she do to be put on the warrant? As others have noted, there was misinformation provided to get the warrant.
Her ex boyfriend was a drug dealer. They were investigating him and she had been involved. How do you argue about this without knowing why she was on a warrant? Do you really think the cops wanted to hurt someone that night? Do you think they had nothing better to do then investigate someone for no reason?
2 years prior. You're going down the slippery slope of saying anyone who has associated with a criminal is subject to searches for evidence due solely to the relationship. I hope you're not saying that.
I think the police screwed up and then covered their asses.
She was more then associated. Hey if you want to defend criminal activity that’s your choice. It’s unfortunate she was killed. But investigations can last years. Do you really think the cops just went over there for no reason? How do you think crimes get solved with out investigating “relationships”?
You are using imprecise language that does not rise to the level of reasonable doubt. The specific instance of "involvement" used in the affidavit (Taylor's car at the stash house her picking up a packaged that was mailed) appears to have been, at the minimum, a misunderstanding by LPD of what the USPS said about the package (suspicious) or an outright lie. Further, the boiler print language on the affidavit in support of the no knock warrant was the same on all five warrants that Judge Shaw reviewed an granted during the 12 minute hearing. However, Taylor's "involvement" was down graded to a soft target rather than a person of interest...thus the reason the police were informed they could execute the warrant as a knock & announce. If this is accurate, why did the police executre at 12:30 a.m. as a knock and battering ram on the door. Why didn't they go to the house that morning, knock and what for Taylor to open the door......like the FBI did for Roger Stone who they believed had evidence he would destroy.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Hawkeyes Host Fast-Rising 2025 Three-Star DB, Graceson Littleton
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-