this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023

338 points (98.3% liked)

News

37047 readers

2480 users here now

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.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

338

Ex-cop who fired into Breonna Taylor’s apartment in flawed, fatal raid goes on trial again (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/news@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 68 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is that why he smashed his cruiser into a truck at a trailer park last week, sent the truck flying, and brandished his gun at bystanders? Aw geez, no wonder then, he must’ve been just so stressed out!

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Until cops get consequences for their actions and I mean prison time they will not only continue to do this shit but get worse.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

My prediction is this will stay roughly the same until a major event involving someone killing or grievously wounding a cop, claiming self defense (or defense of others) , and being acquitted of any major charges. And I don't mean a no knock warrant situation where a good ole boy shoots at "intruders" just busting down the wrong door. I mean like a George Floyd case or a Daniel Shaver case. Something with a ridiculously over aggressive cop starting shit and losing.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There was an incident years ago where police carried out a no-knock raid at the wrong house and killed a baby with a flashbang grenade and they suffered no consequences that I can recall.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah not even that will deter them. Only way this changes for the good is if majority of progressive take charge of the government and they pass a law forcing cops to carry liability insurance then you will drastic changes.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And settlements need to come out of the Police Union's pocket and not be covered by taxpayers.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I like it lets get it done.

[–] SynAcker@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Wasn't that in Detroit where they threw it in the kid's crib? And also while being filmed for a reality TV show? Edit: I was a little wrong on the details, in fact, she was flashbanged first and then shot. Wiki

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

I don't remember anything about a reality TV show, but yes, the flashbang landed in the crib.

[–] jasory@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

You realise this has already happened? Plainclothes officers attempted to arrest someone without identifying themselves, one was shot and it was ruled as self-defence.

Police get killed all the time, and nothing happens. I'm not exactly sure why you think this specific situation, that has already happened, will suddenly change things.

[–] nulluser@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks like that's a different guy, but thanks for the reminder that they're all pieces of shit.

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago

Shit, my bad. But also, that guy’s ~bad~ worse.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Police shouldn't have guns. Because their ultimate go to for any situation is, "so anyway I started shooting"

[–] youstolemyname@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

If the only tool you have is a gun, everything looks like a target

[+] broface@lemm.ee -71 points 2 years ago (2 children)

🥱

I hope you don't really believe this.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Why does every cop need a gun to ~~protect public safety~~ case law has established they're not responsible for that....protect capital interests when police in countries like England don't?

[+] jasory@programming.dev -23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Case law established that police do not have a responsibility to act, (because nobody has a responsibility to act and making an exception would cause problems). This does not mean that there isn't an expectation to act, or that being armed would make individuals more willing to act.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It seems as though you're correcting me saying they're not responsible for protecting public safety, by telling me they're not responsible for protecting public safety. If you say so.

Why do they need guns to ~~not protect public safety~~ not protect public safety? Seems as though having all police carry a tool literally designed to kill people at the press of a button at all times might enable, and potentially encourage them to kill members of the community.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bingo! This guy just shot his own argument in the foot. (pun intend) "So if police have no obligation to protect the community they patrol than not having a gun should be a problem." but simultaneously boot lickers will also argue they need guns to stop the methical bad guy with a gun. Remember everyone, giving the state/government a license to do violence will never just be used against just those "bad people / enemies" it will also be used to subjugate the citizens

[–] jasory@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago

Except that wasn't the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.

"It will also be used to subjugate the citizen"

All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.

The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.

[+] jasory@programming.dev -8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.

Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.

"It seems as though"

Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We have the legal precedent that protecting public safety isn't their job because this was challenged in court, and their jobs were protected. They can't be sacked for not doing what's not their job.

If I don't do my job, I get sacked - I assume it's the same for you... But what do I know - maybe it's different for you enlightened English scholars.

Let's try to bring you back a third time... Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button? We have courts to deal out death sentences with due process and separation of powers, other countries' cops don't need guns.

Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand, eh?

[–] jasory@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button"

Why prohibit them? Everyone else can carry guns, why aren't police permitted to have an equal amount of weaponry? In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.

Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton? It's not that difficult, you characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.

"Let's try to bring you back a third time" Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I've already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.

You've been playing a grand Motte and Bailey, alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job, to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.

"Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand"

No, I'm not the one here who talks out of my ass. So let me ask you two questions.

How many people have been shot by police in the US?

What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter? Not an armed person, an active shooter that is firing a weapon to kill either police or another person. (You know a clear and obvious attempted homicide case).

Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn't mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.

People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Keep in mind that the vast majority of police killings would be classified as self-defence if committed by any other citizen. There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is an awfully long-winded way of asking "why not?" in response to being asked why police need an incredibly easy means of killing anyone they encounter if they seem it necessary.

Why prohibit them?

You've dodged my question again - who was talking about prohibiting then from carrying guns? Why do we need to hand all police the ability to Kelly people with the press of a button? This is what we call a mott and bailey

In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.

You'd need to point out why this is bad - you're supporting my assertions otherwise.

Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton?

You can do it with your bare hands - what's your point?

characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.

There's a reason "you brought a gun to a knife fight" is a thing - with a gun, you can stand back and execute people with the press of a button. Not so much with a baton. This is self-evidently dumb - how many people are killed by police batons?

Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I've already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.

Flatly refuse to acknowledge what? feel free to quote where you explained why police need to carry guns when they don't in other countries - I'll wait.

You've been playing a grand Motte and Bailey

Go on, language lord - pull a definition of mott and bailey, and tell me it's relevant here.

alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job

That's a long, rather dishonest bow to draw. Their laziness is also irrelevant - why would you lie to create this narrative? We've already established that protecting people explicitly isn't their job.

to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.

Speaking of long, dishonest bows... I've simply asked why they need the guns. As for the 9mm, you might want to look at where a huge chunk of the military equipment from the past few decades wars went, and how the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are spent.

No, I'm not the one here who talks out of my ass.

In that case, it seems you're so full of shit, it's spewing from your fingertips on to the Internet. Maybe get that looked at.

How many people have been shot by police in the US?

They've fought the collection of this data - though they shoot and kill over a thousand people per year, trending steadily upward. There's also race disparities in their victims which begs some tricky questions.

What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter?

Based on figures from NYT and statista, about 14/1048 in 2021 - 1.3% - fewer than the number that left the scene, fewer than the number that killed themselves, and fewer than the number stopped by the general public. What did I say about studying the topic at hand?

Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn't mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.

Completely irrelevant statement with incredibly loaded language - why?

People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential.

Police killings are a leading cause of death for men aged 25–29 (Esposito, Lee, and Edwards). Why are you so willing to shrug your shoulders at it when you're so incapable of articulating why it's necessary for them to carry guns?

There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).

How would they have reacted differently without guns in say... Uvalde - there were 376 police there, armed with more than 9mms.

You're a dogshit advocate for your views - evasive, dishonest, irrelevant, sensationalist language, and the closest you've come to an answer to why police need guns is asking why not and what wild happen if they didn't have them.

[–] jasory@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Asking why not, and what would happen if they didn't have them".

You realise this is the basis for arguing for the permissibility of possession of any object? Why do you keep denying this as an argument? (Because you are stupid).

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What's stupid is asking me to make your argument for you when I've pointed to countries where there's no significant downsides to not giving every cop a gun. Let's say "nothing" and invite you once again to actually make a point.

Calling me stupid when you're doing such a terrible job of showing it isn't exactly having the desired effect, my dude.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

nobody has a responsibility to act

Yeah, let me use that as a defense when a patient codes and I ignore it. Get the fuck out of here with this shit.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Regardless of any legal outcome, I wish every one of these fuckers, plus the judge who signed the warrant, has nightmares about what they did that night every time they close their eyes for as long as they live.

I know they'd have to give a shit in order to have nightmares about it, but a man can dream.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, they don’t care. This is what they wanted to happen.

[–] broface@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

I'm sure they don't even care about what happened.

It's just a paycheck to them.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Ex-cop who ~~fired into Breonna Taylor’s apartment in flawed, fatal raid~~ murdered Breonna Taylor goes on trial again

Fixed that for them.

edit: Oh yeah... I almost forgot - fuck the police.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

Forget the individual cops, the whole notion of a no-knock raid needs to be jettisoned.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I am vehemently pro-union, but the police union either needs to be broken up or made to seriously reform. Protecting cops from corrupt superiors and getting them fair pay is one thing. Protecting them from the public is quite another. Unions are supposed to do the former, not the latter.