Breonna Taylor investigation announcement today, Wed 23 Sept @ 1330

[foszoe]

The difference is in the turn of phrase. It's not could have been different, it's could be different. Different by design not a different by utopia.

As to the interval, isn't that all speculation at this point or does objective evidence exist? Speculation leads to hypotheticals. Evidence leads to truth.

I don't think the interval between the occupants awareness of something going on and breaching the door is quite as short as you do

Since we're so caught up in how things could have been different, what if Taylor had stayed in the bedroom calling 911?

 

[BugI02]

Didn't they?

Someone knocking down your door, do you grab the gun or the phone first? When the help needed is seconds away the police are minutes away....oh wait that may not apply here, but you know what I mean.

The difference is in the turn of phrase. It's not could have been different, it's could be different. Different by design not a different by utopia.

As to the interval, isn't that all speculation at this point or does objective evidence exist? Speculation leads to hypotheticals. Evidence leads to truth.

You mean speculation like that first quote, which is framed in a way that makes it seem like they were awakened by the attempt to breach the door when I believe walker's own testimony says they had time to shout inquiry about who it was at the door

 

[foszoe]

Asking you what you would do is hardly speculation. You didn't answer. Gun or phone first?

You mean speculation like that first quote, which is framed in a way that makes it seem like they were awakened by the attempt to breach the door when I believe walker's own testimony says they had time to shout inquiry about who it was at the door

As to the timing it IS speculation but we do have this:

And there’s the 2015 study by criminologist Bryan Patrick Schaefer, who was allowed to embed himself with the Louisville police department. As Schaffer wrote, “Of the 73 search warrant entries observed, every entry involved using a ram to break the door down. Further, the detectives announce their presence and purpose in conjunction with the first hit on the door. A detective explained, ‘As long as we announce our presence, we are good. We don’t want to give them any time to destroy evidence or grab a weapon, so we go fast and get through the door quick.‘”Schaefer added that in the raids he observed, the difference between how police served a no-knock warrant and a knock-and-announce warrant was “minimal in practice.”

Schaeffer also found that for warrant service, Louisville police fill out a “risk matrix” to determine whether to bring in a SWAT team. A case has to meet a minimum score before determining whether SWAT will be used. The other raids done in conjunction with the Glover investigation did use SWAT, which also means police ensure there are ambulances and medical personnel nearby.

Which cites this:

https://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Knockingonthedoor-policedecisionpointsinexecutingsearch.pdf

 

[actaeon277]

Jeez. Are you guys still going on.

 

[foszoe]

I was ALMOST done but since you posted I feel duty bound to continue for your amusement!

Jeez. Are you guys still going on.

 

[jamil]

You are old enough to understand what I was saying in the analogies. Churchmouse got it.

I believe it is difficult for someone who hasn't ever been poor to understand what it means to live in poverty. It isn't something one can truly grok unless you are in it, tooth & nail.

There is a certain hunger that exists and Judeo/Christian middle class values don't mean much. And anger. And a lifelong disrespect for authority.

I say that as a white kid from the 50's who came from a large Irish-Catholic family and had a job at 12 slinging newspapers to 100 folks pre-dawn 7 days a week.

I'm not poor any more, but I can still taste it when I think about it.

First thing I want to cover, it seems that you think people need to be lectured about being poor. Do you assume that everyone who comes from poverty should think like you do? Should have the same worldview? I've lived in poverty. Not 3rd world poverty--thankfully the US isn't that. But no money for food poverty/clothes/etcetera, oh yes. BTDT. Things got better, sure. I took advantage of some opportunities and made the best with the abilities I have. I kinda sense that you're in the same boat. Once poor. Has some ability. Developed skills. Now you're retired and not doing too bad. I haven't forgotten what it's like to be poor either.

But that has nothing to do with my statement that ability is the reason we have wealth inequality. I suppose if you're of a certain worldview, you might not understand that statement the way I do.

Lot's of people start out poor and end not poor. It's not all because of privilege that they bring themselves out of poverty. It's not all because of luck. It's not all because they're oppressed that they're there in the first place. Of course it isn't all because they have no ability either. I didn't say that. You just inferred it. I think if you fail to acknowledge that ability fits prominently into the equation, you're not accepting all the things that might be true about it. I don't require that you esteem ability as primary. I think it's the most common factor found in all the people who are successful. But if you think that it's tertiary, I think you refuse to accept obvious things.

So now is where I have to say what I'm not saying to try to head off where you're sure to go. Lack of opportunity, education, positive influences, even privilege, oppression, also are prominent factors. Those are all modifiers of ability. They enhance or negate ability. But if all those things were corrected, and you don't have ability, well...

We can improve opportunities. But we can't fix it for everyone. Not everyone can have the same opportunities because not everyone has the same capacity to capitalize on those opportunities. You have to have some ability to capitalize on even the best opportunity.

We can improve education, but without some ability you can't be successful at learning. That's not to say it's impossible. I know a kid who has autism. His mother spent every waking hour of her life after he was born, trying to teach him how to do everything for himself. She knew that she could not take care of him forever. She taught him simple things at first and then built onto that. By the time he was an adult, he was be employable. His mother passed away. He has a job now. He's not wealthy, but he doesn't live in poverty, and he takes care of himself. He is privileged that he had a mother like that, who had the will to sacrifice everything, and had the ability to teach him. He has ability enough.

We can maybe improve positive influences, and that's where the nuclear family comes in. The mom of the autistic kid makes that point so obviously. Parents are not the only source, but if that's not replaced with something as good, if people don't have good role models, correct influences, teachers of skills, it's more likely that they'll fail in life.

We can't do a lot about privilege. We can fix the parts of privilege that attach to immutable characteristics. That's definitely a human behavior that needs overridden. We can't really fix the privilege that comes from accomplishment without ****ing up what's good about accomplishment. But where privilege attaches to immutable characteristics, that would help alleviate racial privilege as a cause of poverty to the extent that it is.

We can improve oppression to the extent that we can override some human nature. And we have largely done that through Western enlightenment principles even if it took many centuries to apply that fairly. I don't think in the US that people are impoverished because of oppression. People are oppressed, because many people are *******s. But I don't see it as a primary cause of poverty in the US.

So that leaves *ability* to talk about. It's not true that ability is directly proportional with success on a linear scale with 100% correlation. That's obviously not true and I haven't said such. I kinda get the idea from the way you reacted that you inferred it between the lines. I've seen plenty of exceptions to success vs ability. People promoted who are idiots, idiots living large off their parents' wealth, people who might have high ability but have zero opportunity to capitalize, so they're dirt poor. People who were oppressed and not allowed to use their abilities and capitalize to their fullest. But, why I say ability is most prominent is because all those other factors are improvable. And to the extent that they haven't affected people, we still have people who are poor. If you have *some* ability, improving all those things will improve your success, like the autistic guy. He has combined responsibility with every bit of his ability, and has made a life for himself. But if you don't have any ability, you need to have rich parents or you're ****ed.

There are a lot of things not said here. But I ask you that instead of inferring the worst between the lines, maybe consider that what I'm saying is not what you think, because you've gotten some major things wrong about many points I've made.

 

[jamil]

In relation to other Americans, I wouldn't say privileged. I would say "blessed". I rose above my roots and succeeded even in the circumstance where parents and in-laws did their best to make it as difficult as possible.

And I have traveled around the world for various reasons and seen how people live and surmise how their worlds worked for them. Or not. A billion people without toilets? How many more without consistently fresh water?

Yes, I'm privileged.

Do I want to give that up? For what? A hair shirt. Or because someone wants to take what I've retained into old age? Of course not.

Being cognizant of the effects of poverty, especially in a country as wealthy as ours is having a conscience. Those who ignore it or act as apologists for the great gulf between economic social classes in this country are part of a club I do not wish to join.

I think you're fighting an imaginary foe. You certainly aren't arguing against what conservatives actually think. Sure, there are some people who look down upon the poor who think that it's their fault for being there. You're not the only person to have compassion. It's absurdly arrogant and elitist to believe you have a unique perspective on the poor. You write as if you think conservatives don't want to help the poor. That's a failure of your own interpretation. You try to understand them them through your own colored lens. If they don't want the same solutions you want, that must mean they don't care.

Conservatives tend to want to help the poor by helping them help themselves. You hear the saying, give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he'll eat for a lifetime. That's an old proverb attributed to many different people because it's a common and and ancient truth. Lot's of cultures have come to that conclusion independently. That's a good indication that there's something true about it. And that's the crux of conservative thinking about lifting people out of poverty. They don't believe handouts will lift them permanently, that all it does is create dependency.

And I'd like to contest the idea that you seemed to have put forward earlier that personal responsibility and self-sufficiency is uniquely a Judeo-Christian idea. Or maybe that was foszoe. Either way, that's insulting to every culture in human history which has figured that out the hard way.

 

[jamil]

By that logic, the war on poverty has also been a failure and thus should be abolished

There is truth in this statement.

 

[jamil]

20/20 hindsight. Happens after every disaster, but only helps people going forward. It can never be applied ex post facto except as a basis for recriminations

Should the Hindenberg have attempted that landing in Lakehurst? It still seems to me you are putting too much significance in saving the Breonnas and too little on saving the truly innocent. Have you examined why? Do you think the people in the hood cannot be saved or are less worthy than Breonna

Yeah, but we can learn from hindsight, can't we? In hindsight, we can figure out that the raid was actually unnecessary. Can't we try to figure out how we can learn that before hand rather than after someone was shot that didn't need to be shot?

Oh. And one more thing. I don't think it's an issue of saving the Breonnas, or that truly innocent is even a part of that conversation. I did not think that a Christian would speak in terms of rank-ordering salvation by innocence. The only relevant part about deciding is, did she need to die? We can talk about the part she may have played to increase the changes of that outcome. There is some value in that. But that doesn't determine the importance of whether to fix some things that should have been done differently.

 

[BugI02]

Asking you what you would do is hardly speculation. You didn't answer. Gun or phone first?

As to the timing it IS speculation but we do have this:



Which cites this:

https://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Knockingonthedoor-policedecisionpointsinexecutingsearch.pdf

No supposition needed. In his own words they heard at least two knocks at the door and had time to start getting dressed. Still waiting to hear why no one was calling 911

https://www.whas11.com/article/news...view/417-06549281-7240-4ecb-875a-07c726841fea
Audio of police interviews with Kenneth Walker, LMPD sergeant released

In his interview, Walker then cries explaining what happened when he heard a knock at Taylor's door.
"We both get up, start putting on clothes, another knock on the door, she's like 'Who is it?' loud on the top of her lungs," Walker said. "No response."
In his interview, Mattingly did say police announced themselves.
"Banged on it again, no response, at that point we started announcing ourselves 'Police, come to the door. Police, we have a search warrant," Mattingly said.
Walker, though, said he thought someone was breaking in.
"All of a sudden there's a whole lot of shots and we both just dropped to the ground and the gun like fell and I liked kicked it because I'm like scared to death and now we're seeing lights and stuff," Walker said.
Mattingly said he saw Walker with his gun once police tried knocking down the door.
"And as I turn the doorway he's in a stretch out position with his hands with a gun and as soon as I clear fires boom."
When asked if it was his officers who returned fire, Mattingly answered: "I don't know…I never saw anyone return fire. I don't think they did, especially my initial four, I know nobody did it was just me and this guy."
Walker says after firing one shot in self defense he and Taylor dropped to the ground.
"I'm yelling, 'Help' because she's right over here bleeding, and nobody is coming and I'm just confused and scared," Walker said.

 

[jamil]

Asking you what you would do is hardly speculation. You didn't answer. Gun or phone first?

As to the timing it IS speculation but we do have this:



Which cites this:

https://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Knockingonthedoor-policedecisionpointsinexecutingsearch.pdf

That's a bit of a fallacy though to apply a 2015 study to this raid, assuming that it supports your claim. From all the testimony of the officers and Walker, there would have to have been several seconds between the knock and the door being breached. Walker alleges, as Bug said, that they heard someone bang on the door. Breonna asked several times who was there. They had to have waited some period to determine that there was no answer, correct? There also had to be some number of seconds for Walker to get his gun and he and Breonna to walk to the hallway. It sounds like as soon as he got to the hallway he was ready to shoot, and that's when the door was breached. How many seconds? I don't know, but for Walkers testimony to be truthful, it would have to have been several seconds. The shortest time I might imagine all that could happen in, maybe 20 seconds or so? Of course that is speculation, but that the cops executed the raid the way the 2015 study says doesn't seem likely here.

 

[foszoe]

What claim am I making? Short answer is none.

I just got through stating the interval is speculative. I have also stated, in different language, that from the time of the knock on the door to the final shots, all the critical moments had already past. What was in motion was mostly inevitable except for the wreckless endangerment.

"Seems to have been" is also speculation. Want to avoid speculation? Ask what Walker did do. Is there anything in the testimony that establishes any sort of time frame from the initial knock/Police ID to the first shot fired? If so we have no need to just speculate we can agree or disagree about accuracy. Ask did the police stop and listen for a response? I don't know the answers to those questions so if you do please let me know.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Bug and got no answer. Which do you grab first gun or phone? I go one further, when the door is breached, do you drop the phone or the gun?

Shooting at someone who doesn't answer but knocks the door down would seem pretty reasonable in my neighboorhood.

Lets do some speculating ...

Someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night.

What does the word knock mean? Is it loud? Incessant? Insistent? Does it sound like someone in need of help? Do they answer when I ask who it is? (Something I wouldn't do but since we are speculating?)

If it's two or three raps. pause two or three raps. I might take the time to put on clothes.

Its incessant, loud, shaking the door in the frame? Gun first.

Lets speculate its the second, I would try to move to a position of concealment if not cover and get an id on who it is. Do they look threatening? What are they carrying? Do they look panicked or scared? Are they in aggressive postures or stepping away from the door so when/if I open it I don't feel immediately threatened.

If they breach the door its gonna be hard not to take immediate action.

I can yell Police at my door, beat on it, have my wife call out "Who's there"? Which if the person knocking doesn't pause to listen would never hear, breach and shoot in less than 10 seconds which is just as reasonable a speculation as 20. I can speculate that she probably didn't phrase it as "May I ask who is there, please?"

There now that's speculating.

That's a bit of a fallacy though to apply a 2015 study to this raid, assuming that it supports your claim. From all the testimony of the officers and Walker, there would have to have been several seconds between the knock and the door being breached. Walker alleges, as Bug said, that they heard someone bang on the door. Breonna asked several times who was there. They had to have waited some period to determine that there was no answer, correct? There also had to be some number of seconds for Walker to get his gun and he and Breonna to walk to the hallway. It sounds like as soon as he got to the hallway he was ready to shoot, and that's when the door was breached. How many seconds? I don't know, but for Walkers testimony to be truthful, it would have to have been several seconds. The shortest time I might imagine all that could happen in, maybe 20 seconds or so? Of course that is speculation, but that the cops executed the raid the way the 2015 study says doesn't seem likely here.

 

[Alpo]

First
.

TLDR

ibid

ibid

 

[jamil]

What claim am I making? Short answer is none.

I just got through stating the interval is speculative. I have also stated, in different language, that from the time of the knock on the door to the final shots, all the critical moments had already past. What was in motion was mostly inevitable except for the wreckless endangerment.

"Seems to have been" is also speculation. Want to avoid speculation? Ask what Walker did do. Is there anything in the testimony that establishes any sort of time frame from the initial knock/Police ID to the first shot fired? If so we have no need to just speculate we can agree or disagree about accuracy. Ask did the police stop and listen for a response? I don't know the answers to those questions so if you do please let me know.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Bug and got no answer. Which do you grab first gun or phone? I go one further, when the door is breached, do you drop the phone or the gun?

Shooting at someone who doesn't answer but knocks the door down would seem pretty reasonable in my neighboorhood.

Lets do some speculating ...

Someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night.

What does the word knock mean? Is it loud? Incessant? Insistent? Does it sound like someone in need of help? Do they answer when I ask who it is? (Something I wouldn't do but since we are speculating?)

If it's two or three raps. pause two or three raps. I might take the time to put on clothes.

Its incessant, loud, shaking the door in the frame? Gun first.

Lets speculate its the second, I would try to move to a position of concealment if not cover and get an id on who it is. Do they look threatening? What are they carrying? Do they look panicked or scared? Are they in aggressive postures or stepping away from the door so when/if I open it I don't feel immediately threatened.

If they breach the door its gonna be hard not to take immediate action.

I can yell Police at my door, beat on it, have my wife call out "Who's there"? Which if the person knocking doesn't pause to listen would never hear, breach and shoot in less than 10 seconds which is just as reasonable a speculation as 20. I can speculate that she probably didn't phrase it as "May I ask who is there, please?"

There now that's speculating.

From the time of the first knock on the door to the shots that killed Taylor (I think we could agree that's the important interval) can we know that time period? How accurate do you want to be? We can speculate, but there is a point where the time speculated is unreasonable. So it's like defining the boundaries of uncertainty you talked about elsewhere. Walker didn't just say knock on the door, who'se there, listen for reply, get gun, run to the halway, bang, bang. He also said they put on clothes. How completely did they dress? I don't know. Enough to think it was important to mention it. So okay. I think 10 seconds for all that is outside of the boundaries of reasonable to do all that. 20 seconds, 30 seconds? Maybe 30 is pushing it on the other end.

 

[foszoe]

Let's just say, I feel like you want to focus on the trees when I would rather look at the forest.

From the time of the first knock on the door to the shots that killed Taylor (I think we could agree that's the important interval) can we know that time period? How accurate do you want to be? We can speculate, but there is a point where the time speculated is unreasonable. So it's like defining the boundaries of uncertainty you talked about elsewhere. Walker didn't just say knock on the door, who'se there, listen for reply, get gun, run to the halway, bang, bang. He also said they put on clothes. How completely did they dress? I don't know. Enough to think it was important to mention it. So okay. I think 10 seconds for all that is outside of the boundaries of reasonable to do all that. 20 seconds, 30 seconds? Maybe 30 is pushing it on the other end.

 

[actaeon277]

Los Angeles

[video=youtube_share;mAn-l01SB2k]https://youtu.be/mAn-l01SB2k[/video]

 

[jamil]

Let's just say, I feel like you want to focus on the trees when I would rather look at the forest.

I have to admit that I don't really know what your point is. My entry into this part of the conversation was about using that article to support that the time was arbitrarily short.

 

[Doug]

New police policies:

1. Unknown suspects will not be pursued.
2. Known suspects will be sent emails and/or text messages asking them to come down to the station and turn themselves in.
3. Search warrants will be replaced with requests for an invitation to come in and search for evidence.

 

[printcraft]

Los Angeles

[video=youtube_share;mAn-l01SB2k]https://youtu.be/mAn-l01SB2k[/video]

Guy drives around protestors, protestors chase him down and block his vehicle, protestors assault driver and smash windshield with skateboard.





Driver was later arrested by the police...






Cops...

You are ****ting in your own nest here by siding with the *******s breaking the law in the first place.
Time to pick a side.

 

[Pin]

Riot police downtown indy... be aware of your surroundings.