SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[TheMeInTeam]

If you write off Black Lives Matter (the movement) because some of their founders had a Marxist background, then should I suspect you write off modern historiography because many of its prominent early figures had a Marxist background?

If it were only the some of the founders, it would just be a bad look. The problem is that many claiming/writing/shouting BLM have taken to actual criminal violence in significant numbers in a way that damages black/white/mixed communities alike. These behaviors appear much more consistent with Marxist patterns of unrest/subversion than it does with actually caring about black (or any) lives that disagree with them.

You haven't posted anything worth more than mockery

Mocking statements of fact while refusing to engage in discussion or provide evidence against the statements is a bad look. It's not respectable forum behavior and I won't respect it. At best I consider it backing off from an argument too difficult for the poster in question to handle. At best.

can't hardly open a thread on this forum without someone whole heartedly excusing murder these days

If you want to openly lie in plain text then you can claim what you've quoted.

Breonna Taylor being black doesn't have anything to do with it, other than the fact police and conservatives can disregard it happening, or, as we see upthread, make up wholesale lies about her being a disgusting degenerate subhuman criminal while white women who were wrongfully shot get their killer put behind bars for 12 years.

Nobody in this thread claims she deserved to be shot. There is significant evidence that she was complicit/actively participating in some of the crimes of man who opened fire.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is that someone fired shots at police, and they returned fire.

This is why Black Lives Matter is a thing. Because, to many people, they don't.

Maybe pick something that's a reasonably comparable case? Or do you feel there is no significant difference between:

"drug warrant criminal opens fire on police"
vs
"unarmed woman approaches police vehicle as the police have already deemed the incident/area safe"?

We have plenty of other examples where the reaction was in no way, shape, or form excusable. For example, some people being killed by the police for things as insignificant as selling cigarettes on a street corner, running away, or even just attempting to hand over their license during a traffic stop, which I personally think was the worst of all of them.

Yes, there are many legitimate incidences of police brutality/bizarre judgment calls that got people killed. If we were seeing protests over those incidents consistently, and not seeing riots where people physically assault unrelated officers/ruin the lives of unrelated people in various communities, the tone of the situation in the USA would be different.

 

[JPetroski]

The flimsy grounds for the warrant in the first place. The fact that the people concerned by the warrant were in fact not guilty of any crimes.

The fact that someone is killed in this situation, and no one is held accountable (whether that be the cops, or the judge who signed off on the warrant, or....somebody) is unacceptable. It means that we functionally already live in a police state. If it happened to Breonna Taylor then it can happen to you. Assuredly, white people also die in mistaken firefights when the cops serve bogus warrants. Their deaths should also offend the sensibilities of any civilized person.

We can find plenty of common ground here and yes, I am offended someone had to die over a bogus warrant. It's a terrible situation.

 

[cardgame]

It's not respectable forum behavior and I won't respect it.

quoted for posterity, and irony, as you continue to

openly lie in plain text

 

[Phrossack]

Well, sometimes the reaction is excusable.

We have plenty of other examples where the reaction was in no way, shape, or form excusable. For example, some people being killed by the police for things as insignificant as selling cigarettes on a street corner, running away, or even just attempting to hand over their license during a traffic stop, which I personally think was the worst of all of them.

Here, however, we seem to have a situation where the police actually had bullets shot at them before they fired back. I mean, really, at that point, what do you want them to do?



How about we just agree that "Fact patterns matter?" From your link:



How is "being spooked" because someone walked up to you, and "actually being shot at" even the same planet?

And with that being said -- I do want to openly concede that you can find plenty of cases where your point is well made. I'm not really arguing with your overall point. I do understand what you're saying overall, and yes, I think the Damon example is unsettling when compared against certain other examples, just not the Taylor example. Basically, if you compare Damon and Taylor, you are comparing complete apples and oranges. There are plenty of other apples to compare the Damon case to that would benefit your point substantially more.

Anyway, it's hard to communicate in writing sometimes, but I'm not really arguing with your overall point. Just in relation to this particular example, if that is fair enough.

Your points are overall fair enough.

The real source of the rage at this ruling is the repeated tendency of the police to use excessive force, recklessly endanger and end lives, and get away with it, particularly if the victims were Black. Months and months went by, even at the height of the outcry against the killing of Floyd, and no charges were brought. Finally, only one officer was charged, and not for shooting Taylor, but for endangering other people, as if Taylor's life was not endangered by her getting shot.

If the government and more conservatives were like you and had expressed genuine empathy over the death of an innocent woman, and took steps to recognize the roots of anger towards the systematic devaluing of human life, it would have gone a long way towards alleviating anger and avoiding protests and riots. Instead we've seen them double down and accuse BLM of being Marxist cretins bent on destruction. There's just no attempt to understand their exasperation with routine killings.

 

[Ajidica]

If it were only the some of the founders, it would just be a bad look. The problem is that many claiming/writing/shouting BLM have taken to actual criminal violence in significant numbers in a way that damages black/white/mixed communities alike.

Here I was thinking systemic disregard and sidelining of black individuals and interests by public and private power centers was harming black and mixed communities, but I guess it is those uppity blacks who are causing all these problems for themselves!

These behaviors appear much more consistent with Marxist patterns of unrest/subversion than it does with actually caring about black (or any) lives that disagree with them.

America already steals its boybands, movie stars, and musicians from the UK. Now we are stealing their conspiracies?

 

[Farm Boy]

like I’m actually considering firearms in my house. That’s definitely new. Either you e had bat**** crazy views for 28-30 years or you’re just in denial about this one.

I don't remember the 90s being happy in national temperament. We had a one term president, if that's the indicator people are caring about. But the 90s, for me, were a big damn step up from the 80s and the savings and loan and farm recessions. Those are starting to feel familiar again.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not mistakenly taking out search warrants on innocent people might be a good start

This is fascinating, as it's happening while the police office personnel and 911 dispatchers are being de deputized and treated as telecoms employees to save costs. Work at home, maybe! Futurized.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont think Taylor's boyfriend who opened fire was the target of the raid, but her previous boyfriend. And both her and her new boyfriend were worried about the former boyfriend. Somebody who knew them said he was there to protect her from him.

As for her involvement with her former boyfriend's drug dealing, that apparently is why they raided her apartment. I dont know what of that is true but she may have extracted herself from that situation. I heard the warrant was a couple months after the alleged illegal activity and Taylor had a new boyfriend.

So the warrant was originally a no knock but was changed to knock and announce - far too many cases where that distinction doesn't really matter. And she was in a hallway talking with her boyfriend about the home invasion, not sleeping in bed.

 

[mitsho]

Even if all those allegations of „she was complicit“ were true, it doesn‘t follow for me that there was a necessity to use force by the police. Or to create a situation where that follows by doing a raid in the middle of the night. That just creates chaos - and as a citizen who wants to live, you simply don‘t want this to happen, to you or to anyone. But I think this discussion belongs to the Gun control thread since it is apparently that athmosphere of guns everywhere that make the police be too much of a Rambo.

And where‘s the connection to the SCOTUS here again?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The "travesty" of cops banging on the door, announcing themselves loudly enough that neighbors answer and later testify to it, and then literally get shot first before firing back.

12 witnesses stated that they did not announce, including the one witness who later changed his own testimony to say that they did announce. So the one witness the police have that says they announced, is a person who originally stated they did not announce, and later changed his testimony around to help the police.

That witness isn't credible, even putting aside the possibility (likelihood) that he just cracked under police pressure to change his story to get them off the hook. The grand jury was allowed to hear only from that one, non-credible, story-changing, likely under-duress witness. They were not allowed to hear from the other witnesses who contradicted the police.

And yes @mitsho , we probably need a Breonna Taylor thread at this point. Care to do the honors? Although I think there is actually already a BLM Thread so...

 

[innonimatu]

12 witnesses stated that they did not announce, including the one witness who later changed his own testimony to say that they did announce. So the one witness the police have that says they announced, is a person who originally stated they did not announce, and later changed his testimony around to help the police.

That witness isn't credible, even putting aside the possibility (likelihood) that he just cracked under police pressure to change his story to get them off the hook. The grand jury was allowed to hear only from that one, non-credible, story-changing, likely under-duress witness. They were not allowed to hear from the other witnesses who contradicted the police.

Interesting. Where did the other witnesses witness? I mean give their statements? And why weren't their heard? Who controls the hearings?

Even if all those allegations of „she was complicit“ were true, it doesn‘t follow for me that there was a necessity to use force by the police. Or to create a situation where that follows by doing a raid in the middle of the night. That just creates chaos - and as a citizen who wants to live, you simply don‘t want this to happen, to you or to anyone. But I think this discussion belongs to the Gun control thread since it is apparently that athmosphere of guns everywhere that make the police be too much of a Rambo.

Here the police are even constitutionally forbidden from exercising warrants on homes during the night. In nearly 50 years that was never a problem: they had no real need to do so.

Reading these stories the impression I have is that the level of violence accepted as normal in he US is one huge failure of that country. Raising the question of why they think they "need" that level of violence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here I was thinking systemic disregard and sidelining of black individuals and interests by public and private power centers was harming black and mixed communities, but I guess it is those uppity blacks who are causing all these problems for themselves!

Have you looked at the distribution of rioters claiming to be "BLM"? It would be a mistake to conflate "BLM" with "black Americans". The former is a political movement, the latter is not.

That witness isn't credible, even putting aside the possibility (likelihood) that he just cracked under police pressure to change his story to get them off the hook. The grand jury was allowed to hear only from that one, non-credible, story-changing, likely under-duress witness. They were not allowed to hear from the other witnesses who contradicted the police.

Like I said, I searched for this but didn't come up with anything to substantiate. I'm willing to accept this might exist, but could someone please link it? Why weren't alleged witnesses allowed to testify? What basis might the court have for making such a decision, if it were in fact made?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Like I said, I searched for this but didn't come up with anything to substantiate. I'm willing to accept this might exist, but could someone please link it? Why weren't alleged witnesses allowed to testify? What basis might the court have for making such a decision, if it were in fact made?

The prosecutor makes that call, because it is the prosecutor that brings charges, whether its against you, me, the cops, anyone. So the prosecutor puts together the package that is presented to the grand jury.

Its the prosecutor's job to prosecute cops and prosecutors have a very strong and very obvious conflict of interest as the prosecutor is essentially on the same team as the cops. The prosecutor needs a good relationship with the police in order to be able to effectively prosecute crimes. So prosecutors are notoriously reluctant to bring cases against the police and even when they do, they pull their punches, because they generally don't really want convictions as it sours their relationship with the department.

Also... TMIT... I'm going to take your claim that you couldn't find anything in good faith but I just googled it and this was literally the first thing that came up:

Crump told "CBS This Morning" his legal team has spoken with a dozen witnesses nearby that night who said they did not. Crump said he wants to know whether grand jurors heard from all 12 witnesses or only the witness referenced by Cameron. That witness, according to Crump and Walker's lawyer Steven Romines, has changed his story.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breonn...e-officers-identify-kentucky-witnesses-claim/

 

[Sommerswerd]

Interesting. Where did the other witnesses witness? I mean give their statements? And why weren't their heard? Who controls the hearings?

At a minimum, to the investigator/attorneys for Kenneth Walker and Breonna Taylor's family. I don't know who else, but it is suspected that they were not permitted to testify to the grand jury.

Also, see above. The prosecutor controls the hearings.

Also, Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, the one who police claim was the guy they were after when they stormed her apartment, has been arrested and stated that Breonna Taylor had no involvement whatsoever with his illegal activities. Note that at the time of the raid that led to her death, she wasn't even with that guy. She had a new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker.

 

[Berzerker]

The witnesses who matter were the neighbors close enough to hear knocking on a door and police identifying themselves. The fact Walker didn't know they were cops tells me this was effectively a no knock raid, but maybe they were asleep inside and woke up when the battering ram was used to enter the apartment.

Crump wants the grand jury proceedings published so we can see if the prosecutors threw the case. I rarely have reason to agree with Crump but I'd like to know what the GJ heard too.

 

[Ajidica]

Have you looked at the distribution of rioters claiming to be "BLM"? It would be a mistake to conflate "BLM" with "black Americans". The former is a political movement, the latter is not.

Do you personally condemn the entire US political right because people claiming to be on the political right held a nighttime tiki-torch parade shouting "Jews Will Not Replace Us", accompanied by SS and Black Sun runes?
Some Eagles fans riot and burn cars when their team wins/loses/exists. Should the Eagles team and overwhelming majority of fans be treated as a public menace carrying out subversion?

The moment black individuals start organizing and promoting their interests in a manner you disagree with, you seize any and all straws to dismiss their concerns out of hand on the ground they are actually a front for Marxist subversion of the United States.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some Eagles fans riot and burn cars when their team wins/loses/exists. Should the Eagles team and overwhelming majority of fans be treated as a public menace carrying out subversion?

The Eagles as an organization does claim to be trained in teachings that advocate this behavior. Though admittedly I wonder sometimes.

The moment black individuals start organizing and promoting their interests in a manner you disagree with, you seize any and all straws to dismiss their concerns out of hand on the ground they are actually a front for Marxist subversion of the United States.

No, but when founding members of an organization claim Marxist training, cite a Marxist goal in their objectives, and have people routinely acting the part with street violence I do object to that. I don't care about the race of the people doing these things and nobody else should either, because it's irrelevant.

Its the prosecutor's job to prosecute cops and prosecutors have a very strong and very obvious conflict of interest as the prosecutor is essentially on the same team as the cops. The prosecutor needs a good relationship with the police in order to be able to effectively prosecute crimes. So prosecutors are notoriously reluctant to bring cases against the police and even when they do, they pull their punches, because they generally don't really want convictions as it sours their relationship with the department.

From what I have seen from DAs in other high profile cases, it's not consistently plausible that DAs operate in alignment with police. Take the McCloskey case for example, where the DAs communication with police involved was downright hostile.

Is there a track record otherwise in this case? The article you link suggests the FBI is sniffing it, so we probably haven't heard the last of new information there.

 

[Sommerswerd]

From what I have seen from DAs in other high profile cases, it's not consistently plausible that DAs operate in alignment with police.

From what I have seen representing actual criminal clients in actual criminal Court its not just "plausible" its standard practice. The State's attorney is law enforcement. In Camden, the prosecutor wore an actual police badge attached to his shirt, under his suit jacket. I once commented on it when I was negotiating the release of a client and he confirmed, "Oh yeah, we prosecutors are considered law enforcement." In some Philadelphia Courts, the Prosecutor is an actual, uniformed police officer as in when I go up to the front of the Court to discuss a potential plea for my client, I am negotiating, not with a guy in a suit, but with a uniformed cop, with the blue, short sleeved shirt, badge, combat boots, the whole nine.

The prosecutor absolutely relies on the police to make their case as they are often the key witnesses in criminal cases. They are in constant alignment. They have to be, as a function of the job they are doing.

The fact that the State's attorney sometimes finds themselves in the reluctant and difficult position of having no choice but to aggressively prosecute their homeys does not change the fact that they are most certainly, for the most part, teammates.

 

[JPetroski]

Some Eagles fans riot and burn cars when their team wins/loses/exists. Should the Eagles team and overwhelming majority of fans be treated as a public menace carrying out subversion?

Yes.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, but when founding members of an organization claim Marxist training, cite a Marxist goal in their objectives, and have people routinely acting the part with street violence I do object to that. I don't care about the race of the people doing these things and nobody else should either, because it's irrelevant.

.

I have Marxist "training", I cite Marxist goals in my objectives for American workers neither of those things make me unamerican not are either of those things necessarily unconsitutional if enacted. You've been brainwashed quite thoroughly. Also, while we should not make a habit of it for obvious reasons, street violence is more American then apple pie. So this entire construct for loathing BLM is wrong on so many levels as to demonstrate your own unamericansim.