There's disagreement how the cops entered, particularly whether they announced themselves. There's no definitive proof one way or the other. The working hypothesis then has to be that we should try to reach a decision without this being a factor one way or another. — Benkei
I differ. Having taken on the project, they were responsible all the way through for its consequences, including the unintended consequences. To say otherwise is to say they are not responsible for what they do.
Further, there are so many guns in the US that every person and every household must be presumed to have one. Many do not, of course, but that cannot be the presumption. And a question, if bad guys break in and identify themselves as police, what does the defense-minded homeowner do in that case?
And was a break-in necessary? The element of surprise? What good did that do? And who was the more surprised? It was all disgustingly unnecessary and incompetent. Criminally incompetent. — tim wood
Nonsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.
The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. — 180 Proof
Many of which can not be led back sufficiently clearly to actions by the cops. There are a variety of contributory factors, many of which are not proximate causes and ought to be dismissed. — Benkei
:shade:Again, on the basis of the factsavailable to the jury... — Benkei
onsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.
The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. No, Benkei, I think your interpretation of "the facts" misses the forest for the trees.
Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof
The prosecutor apparently chose to make the case for the police who killed Breonna Taylor as if he was their defense attorney rather than the attorney for the public which includes Ms. Taylor. :shade: — 180 Proof
Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof
Are you familiar enough with the facts to aver that process-in-principle conforms here to process-in-fact? You're satisfied no crime was committed? None? Against the argument that who shot who cannot be determined, I submit it was a criminally negligent enterprise and that criminal guilt inheres in all participants.
They, the police, are constrained by a prior responsibility to get it right. Everyone and anyone can make mistakes, but this was no mere mistake, not a slip twixt lip and brim. This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood
If what happened was that the police were at the home legally via a warrant and the occupants were in the home legally because that's where they resided, then both had the right to protect their right to be there. Neither were at fault. I'd say the same thing if the police officer had been killed. It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. — Hanover
t's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed. — Hanover
This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood
Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not. — StreetlightX
What would you say might be the responsibility of the police, then? Do they have any? How about not to kill anyone unless they had to? Whitewashed with a ten-inch brush, your argument looks good, but with the facts, even as we at a distance know them, the argument does not stand even the brief attention of a passing glance. The police were out of control, and they should not have been. As mere mistake - could happen to anyone - that's a civil matter. But they're not just anyone. They're presumed trained professionals given police powers on the understanding they know what to do and how to do it. Failure in that is criminal negligence. As to a crime, how about killing someone who should not be killed.and I don't even see any negligence in that situation. — Hanover
:100:It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.
— Hanover
Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not. — StreetlightX
Reread my previous posts and my replies below. I stand by what I wrote.↪180 Proof You were saying? — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.