The settlement is legally irrelevant as its not a circumstance surrounding the shooting itself. I can settle for all sorts of reasons other than guilt.

The point I was trying to make was that given the facts, that seem to have been available to the jury, another decision wans't possible. There's a lot of factors surrounding this case that make it stink but it also needs to stick.

A softer shutdown is assumed to lead to less economic impact. The deaths and self regulation are the probable cause for enough economic disruption to offset the benefit of a softer shutdown.

I'm gonna go lawyerly for a moment which result you might not like, based on the info on the Wikipedia page "Shooting of Breonna Taylor".

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.

Walker fired on a cop first under the assumption they were being burglared. Cops fired back. Those cops that didn't fire through a wall and had line of sight to their target, would prima facie not be doing anything wrong. Anyone firing without line of sight is potentially endangering innocents. In Dutch this would be described as either "voorwaardelijke opzet" or "bewuste roekeloosheid" which respectively translates as "conditional intent" (you know there's a risk and wilfully take the risk) or "cognizant recklessness" (you are aware of the risk but dismiss it as unlikely). The difference is hair thin, which is why I mention both. But it would be the difference between manslaughter and murder in the 2nd degree. Some reports stated one of the police officers fired through a window with blinds down but it also appears impossible Breonna was hit by that. If such a person would've hit her, it would've been manslaughter at least. It seems likely, but not clear from the wiki-page, it was these shots that prompted the successful claim from the neighbours and indictment.

I said previously, that firing when having a line of sight is prima facie an argument for no wrongdoing (since Walker fired first). We don't know how Walker moved through the appartment, the positioning of the cops and the trajectories of their bullets. If the spread of the bullets is explained by either a) Walker moving or b) the different positions of the cops. Then the firing cannot be said to be reckless.

If the spread cannot be explained in such a way and the cops fired so wildly that grouping of their shots was impossible, I think we're once again at "cognizant recklessness". However, being shot at would probably excuse that and a jury would accept even trained cops being shot at would forget their training and unload their guns.

Based on that; no justice for Breonna Taylor.

The problem is, I think, that the likelihood of the cops lying about their "knock and announce" is relatively high. Of the 20 neighbours interviewed only one heard "police!". Walker's initial statement to the police claims he repeatedly asked "who is it?" and didn't receive an answer. They also lied previously about the US Postal Inspector's involvement. The warrant stated packages with drugs arrived at Taylor's appartment and that this was confirmed by the US Postal Inspector. In fact, "the U.S. postal inspector in Louisville publicly announced that the collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they concluded, "There's [sic] no packages of interest going there."" It also appears one of them might have been wearing a bodycam but that was probably off.

This doesn't pass "beyond a reasonable" doubt though and the conclusion, from a legal point of view, seems correct.

Of course, if they did lie, it would've at least been manslaughter by all three cops.

I trust we all realise that politics is long past convincing people of a vision and instead politicians pander to whatever voters want to hear so they get power to do what they want?

Of course. And plenty of Conservatives voted for him because of that. But those conservatives aren't defending Trump's racism or delude themselves he isn't racist. They don't need to because they made a cold political calculation.

Oh for fucks sake. Brown nose4a2 isn't going to admit to anything because he's a little racist bitch himself. The Obama Birth certificate things is enough evidence for anyone living in 2010.

Wait. So just saying racist shit to get votes doesn't count as racism?

Isn't that a bit like saying it's OK if I'd call some black person a "stupid monkey" if I did it only to get some laughs from actual racists?

I'm not following this one...

We all knew he was a racist before he got into office. A person has to be a racist himself if he were blind to it.

They use to be Operation Coldfront. If you look through their youtube archives they're actually doing journalism/reporting and they report antifa assaults on numerous occasions (some of these are captured on camera). Are you really going to try to push the thesis that the far left just never gets out of hand? Are you really ready to die on the hill that the far left just doesn't assault journalists, ever? What are they, saints? — BitconnectCarlos

I never pushed that. I'm denying your allegation that Antifa as a group goes out of its way to target journalists. Apart from your really, really low standard of what consitutes a journalist. And let's put things in perspective here: https://www.rcfp.org/black-lives-matter-press-freedom/

Once again, the police is a bigger threat than untrained civilians.

if you're fine with mobs initiating violence against people - in this case a physically small gay minority - then I don't know what else to say here. I guess we can move on. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, he was totally hit for being gay and that's naturally the reason I'm not shedding any tears for him getting hit in the face! :brow:

I don't think Andy Ngo is blameless; a person that goes out of his way to pesker others, most likely even in illegal ways, precisely to get someone to do something illegal so he can push his "Antifa means the end of the USA" bullshit pretty much had it coming. Him being gay and conservative are totally irrelevant - it's about his behaviour. Don't act outraged if you actually get punched in the face when the subtext always was "punch me in the face" (so I can milk it and lie about it afterwards).

My general target here is really just the militant far left. — BitconnectCarlos

And that barely exists pace every FBI report on the issue since the mid 1990s. The FBI recognises that the threat of "right wing" domestic terrorism is much larger than that of "left wing" terrorism.

Of course, we'll see the numbers of "left wing" terrorism blow up as long as Trump remains in office, as a result of him and Barr classifying vandalism during BLM as domestic terrorism. I trust you're not falling for that sleight of hand.

I've never associated the far left with white supremacy or patriotism. — BitconnectCarlos

I know you didn't. So you agree the actual threat to the USA are far right extremists?

You said that it was criminal which is not the same thing as saying that it was wrong. Do you think it was wrong and that it shouldn't have happened?

For multiple journalists you've got Ngo and I said the "colored conservatives" which is a small youtube channel of conservative journalists/reporters. Those are a few I can name off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more. Antifa also routinely shouts down and tries to shut down conservative speakers on college campuses so it really should be no surprise that they've got an anti-conservative journalist bent. I'm sure there are more journalists who have faced assaults or threats; it fits with their view of "fighting fascism."

We're not talking about the police either and I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. The police doing bad things doesn't justify groups in opposition to the police also doing bad things. — BitconnectCarlos

They're comedians not journalists according to their own patreon page. We are talking about these guys right? https://www.facebook.com/TheColoredCons/

And we're not talking about the police but we should. You come up with journalists that aren't journalists to prove a point that doesn't exist. I'm pointing you to the actual problem--> a police force that's either dumb enough to attack journalists or so insulated from repercussions that they think they can get away with it. Probably a combination of both.

Have you seen the medical reports on Andy Ngo? How do you know that he's lying about injuries? I've seen interviews with him and his speech definitely seems off and likely indicates some form of brain or face damage. I don't know how you can immediately conclude that he's lying. I don't even know how Rolling Stones can conclude it unless they've seen the medical reports. There were actually two separate assaults on Andy Ngo, according to Andy Ngo, but then we go down this rabbit hole of you probably not believing Andy Ngo and etc. etc.

If you look on the video though there were numerous men who attacked him with fists and hit him with objects. You can't dispute that. I feel like we should move on from this point because it's not too important to our central discussion. — BitconnectCarlos

I saw one fist fly. The rest was milkshakes and spaghetti spray. Stop exaggerating.

And no I didn't see his medical records. But as I explained, if someone claims SHA and is up and about the next day, then he doesn't have SHA, he's simply lying. I don't need to see his medical records for that - all I need to do is google!

Once the diagnosis is confirmed, admission to an intensive care unit may be preferable, — Wikipedia

The guy is a troll a verified liar and a likely criminal. As a result, I'm on the fence as to whether it was wrong to hit him in the face. Seems fair play to me. The guy who hit him should pay a fine though because he broke the law.

I never said everyone clad in black is antifa, but some % of them are likely to be. The truth is we're just dealing with uncertainty and this makes plenty of people uncomfortable. I'm happy to extend the definition/our conception of antifa to militant far-left groups in general, here in the states we just mostly refer to that group or groups as "antifa." Would you be more satisfied if we referred to them as far left militants? There's also quite a bit of documentary footage and literature out there about these groups. I think the umbrella term used here is just the "antifascist movement." They consider themselves warriors, fighters. — BitconnectCarlos

You're happy to extend a definition to fit your preconceived conclusions. Check.

Antifa isn't destabilizing the government anytime soon. I've never claimed them to be a massive threat to US national security. And yes, like you've said earlier they're often difficult to identify and we can doubt whether random people dressed in black and assaulting others are antifa - but whether we like it or not that's the clothing we've come to associate them with. It could be some other far left group, who knows. The crips and the bloods and other gangs have their own dress codes and we could see people in these dress codes committing crimes but we'll never know for certain whether it's them until much later after they've been arrested and interrogated. I don't think antifa's violence is a real security threat to the US, but the way they go after conservative speakers and try to shut down discourse is disconcerting. — BitconnectCarlos

No. It's the clothing you associate them with, which as explained before is the wrong thing to do. Just stop.

FBI is clear on this: lone wolfs, white supremacists and ultra-nationalists are mostly responsible for domestic terrorism. I have problems associating "far left" with white supremacy and patriotism. Seems like a typical right wing thing to me.

You're chasing ghosts with Antifa.

I've already answered what I thought about Ngo being hit. It's in my previous post.

My problem with your comments was, that you claim multiple journalists were assaulted by Antifa. I haven't seen one example of it and the one you did give is a bad example for various reasons. Meanwhile, there was a lot of footage of journalists being assaulted by police in the beginning of the BLM protests.

I never said antifa started the forest fires. What I am aware of is tons of footage on youtube of black clad men either assualting journalists or looting/burning stores. — BitconnectCarlos

This makes me think you didn't read the WaPo article I shared a few posts back. I wasn't talking about the forest fires to begin with until my last post. From that article:

Oren Segal, vice president of the Center on Extremism at ADL, emphasized, “It’s a challenge [to identify antifa] because this is not an organized group. You’re essentially looking to try to identify what does somebody believe in.” Antifa has been identified by patches, flags, graffiti and black clothing, Segal explained. And at times, they can be identifiable by moving in “black bloc” formation. But, Segal hedged, looking to identify antifa by these visual cues is “not foolproof.”

Jones reviewed protests in more than 140 cities and spoke with U.S. officials within the joint terrorism task force. Most of the violence, Jones said, was committed by “local hooligans, sometimes gangs, sometimes just individuals that are trying to take advantage of an opportunity.”

“There were reports of some antifa at different protests,” he concluded. “But they stood back, did not engage, certainly not in a violent way.”

Officials have arrested more than 14,000 people across 49 cities nationwide since May 27, according to a Washington Post tally of data provided by police departments and included in media reports. Thousands were arrested for low-level offenses, including curfew violations and failure to disperse.

Roughly 80 federal charges, including murder and throwing molotov cocktails at police vehicles, reveal no evidence of an antifa plot. Four people who identify with the far-right extremist “boogaloo” movement are among those facing the most serious federal charges. — WaPo

Your identification of people being clad in black being part of Antifa is problematic because likely to be wrong.

You also dismiss Rolling Stone as left-leaning but it's actually a reasonable article. And even if it is influenced by left leaning politics; there are plenty of facts in the article you can try to independently verify. I did that when you started about Andy Ngo because I had no clue who you were talking about. I spent about 30 minutes on that.

With real partisan talking points; once you scratch the surface most of it turns out to be untrue. Andy Ngo does not deserve to milk this situation and he certainly shouldn't be lying about his injuries. The guy that hit him should be fined. The rest is just milkshakes and spaghetti spray which a provocateur and probable criminal like Ngo deserved.

So, once again: the FBI is clear on Antifa not being a problem. It's not an organisation. Some people identifying as Antifa are suspects in violent crimes. Nevertheless, anti-government movements and white supremacists are much more likely to radicalise and commit violent crimes. Recent events provide no evidence of a violent ideology underlying Antifa or violence perpetrated by people identifying Antifa in such a widespread manner that there is cause for concern.

You can also look at Wray's testimony form 3-4 days ago. The interesting part is how he won't commit to a lef or right wing domestic threat and points to two things in particular: lone wolfs with access to weapons and racially motivated violence (e.g. white supremacism) as the main sources of domestic terrorism. While it's true that some lone wolfs may identify as Antifa, it is not the case that Antifa falls within either category the FBI is really worried about.

did you read the article from rolling stone? Ngo goes out of his way to provoke these sort of situations and isn't a journalist. Your claim was about journalists and the one example you gave isn't one.

Ngo claimed a subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is total bullshit as he was up and about the day after. An SAH requires several days (up to 2 weeks) of monitoring at a hospital.

The guy that hit him committed a crime but it was exactly what Ngo wanted. Precisely because he has an agenda. He has been known to dox a minor.

So really, what journalists are we taking about?

The fires I already referred to with a WaPo article that illustrated there's no Antifa behind the fires during BLM protests or the forest fires for that matter.

Until recently, Antifa wasn't linked to any murders in 25 years. We now have one. The far eight committed 329 murders in the same time period.

Antifa violence and fear thereof are simply not grounded in reality. What you need to be afraid of is white supremacists, various types of extreme nationalists and retards linked to the boogaloo nonsense.

no, I don't. And neither does the FBI worry about Antifa violence. Which journalists are we talking about? I just linked you an expose on Ngo being a fraud and not a journalist.

As to the fires. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/

So you admit knowing next to nothing and then even illustrate you don't know anything about the current situation.

Keegan Hankes, a researcher and analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center, previously told Rolling Stone. “It got a lot of media attention and it reinforced something the Proud Boys have pushed for years, which is the real threat is the violent left.”

The issue with this narrative is that this is verifiably not the case; though members of antifa have committed violent acts, that number is dwarfed by those committed by far-right extremists, says Hankes. That’s also the truth according to FBI director Christopher Wray, who has said that white supremacists constitute “the vast majority” of domestic terrorism threats. And when considering the very real, very immediate threat of far-right radicalization, promoting the conspiracy theories of a huckster like Ngo serves as little more than a distraction. — Rolling Stone

Its history goes back to the 1920s. It's more modern form 70s and 80s.

Maybe read up a little before coming to a judgment.

Since when has Antifa been active and what do you know of their history? What do they believe according to you? How often have they instigated violence? How often has that resulted in deaths?

“Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” McConnell said in a statement. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Mitchy Mitch.

But but... AUTISM!

Wrong thread Mr Red Herring.

I don't think Trump was referring to immunisation by other means than contracting covid-19.

Nevertheless, I think the number of cohorts that would die from covid-19 is much lower than 6 million. The chance of the virus "meeting" someone who will die from it is much higher in the beginning than in the end as not only group immunity starts kicking in at around 60% infection rate but the cohort group of those who will die from it has then already diminished greatly.

don't get me wrong. I think religion is very interesting. Historically is course, it is an interesting source for moral and ethical thinking and a clear cultural influence. I'd guess at least 50% of our moral intuitions today are Christian (in the EU and former colonies) - otherwise we'd still be dueling it (Germans, Franks and Saxons used to) out in the streets and having family feuds. And a lot of those Christian ideas have been exported through various treaties and how we conclude agreements. Of course Christianity itself borrows from Greek philosophy and older religions and much of it's legal work is a continuation of Roman law.

The problem with the philosophical discussions is that belief in God is a question of faith. There's no discussion to be had as they are ontological assumptions about how the world works. If you believe God exists then you will look at the world through that assumption. There's nothing here to disprove that assumption because it's a way of looking arrived at through faith not through a scientific enquiry.

I'd call that bluff. Even without the good faith negotiating obligations of the withdrawal agreement, it's still a breach of the Good Friday agreement. I'm pretty sure treaty trumps local law so it will never survive a court case even if the bill was passed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-tells-prosecutors-to-consider-charging-violent-protesters-with-sedition-11600276683?mod=hp_lead_pos7

Banana. Republic. Well, if Trump and Barr would get their way.

I post here to meet bigger cunts than I actually meet in real life so I can put things in perspective.

I stand corrected. Someone did just say it. :chin:

If your infantile interpretation of what I have said reduces to the above quote then your problem isn't just logic but language in general.

Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc. — Harry Hindu

Where have I or 180proof said that? Nowhere. So now you're resorting to lying.

Reducing my argument to whatever statistics I might have shared is another straw man. Does it ever stop with you?

Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc. — Harry Hindu

Nobody here has argued that, so as usual a straw man fallacy.

This is rich - you both now want to be so "concerned" about logical fallacies after having blatantly committed them yourselves and didn't care, so why should I? — Harry Hindu

This is again a red herring. Point the fallacy out where I made it or shut up.

But you missed all the fallacies made by your side. So you're inconsistent in your application of the rules and thats the worst fallacy if them all- hypocrisy. It makes us think that you really aren't interested in avoiding logical fallacies at all. — Harry Hindu

1. We're not in debate teams so there is no "your side". 2. Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. 3. You haven't pointed out any fallacies yourself so you "missed" them just as much. 4. You were trying to have an argument with me and failed. 5. Your latest point is another big, fat red herring.

You're on fallacy number 4 now. You could go back to my initial comment and try again but I suspect you'll persist in missing the point.

Well, Trumpet. You could downplay the risk to avoid a panic AND take action to avoid the worst. The problem is he recognised the danger and didn't do anything.

I wish for useful contributions but that's not bound to happen any time soon either.

#indyref2?

What are you, a Hobbit? Because my arguements are flying over your head. — Harry Hindu

Ad hominem. That's three fallacies in a row. I'm labelling the nonsense you call arguments and not missing a beat.

Hence the official BLM isn't, let's say, a great friend of the heterosexual black male believing in traditional values. And this is very notable, because this is, perhaps unintentionally, meant to divide the black community: it's not about systemic racism, it's also dismantling cisgender privilege, where black male himself seems to be the problem. And this is a problem when the whole thing is especially about young black males and their profiling by the police as violent criminals. — ssu

Being equals is really divisive...

How do you do that? I can't reread anything without going totally bored. I only reread legal texts to verify the exact argument or rule.

And as a bonus we get a non sequitur. Why are you even on a philosophy forum if you don't even know how to argue a point?

When a black woman calls the police because her ex black lover (Jacob Blake) with a criminal record of sexual assault is trespassing on her property and steals her car keys, then she's racist and sexist for calling the those racist cops on a black man, right Benkei? When he then ignores the police and proceeds to reach into his vehicle, then its the cops fault for shooting him in the back, right Benkei? — Harry Hindu

Cool strawmen. Once you're capable of articulating an argument I'll get back to you.

No. I mean what "systemic" means. Embodied in a system. Systemic racism is a formal, structural phenomenon whereby institutions deny services or discriminate against people based on race. Systemic racism has been reduced in the aggregate over the last few decades, but it still remains, particularly in the criminal justice system. — Pro Hominem

Every system has emergent properties which therefore do not require them to be formal.