468
submitted 2 months ago by Vordimous@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 289 points 2 months ago

Judge Simpson said that "there is no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor's death."

What?! How does that make any sense? If the cops didn’t illegally enter her apartment without a warrant, Breonna would still be alive today. Cause meet effect. How is that not a direct link?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 151 points 2 months ago

Exactly. The fuck.

Judge was appointed by Reagan

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 59 points 2 months ago

Ol' Rotten Ronnie fucking the world from beyond the grave.

[-] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 16 points 2 months ago
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago
[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago

I think the opinion (as bad as it is) is that if the warrant was good the judge thinks the exact same thing would have happened. So the fact that these assholes knowingly lied to get the warrant isn't a "direct link".

To me making that argument kind of signals that no-knock warrants shouldn't be a thing at all if you accept that an innocent would die either way because it's so fucked up....and on top of that the cops still clearly caused this by lying because this isn't a case of good warrant vs bad warrant - this is a case of bad warrant vs no warrant and Breonna still being alive.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the legal principle here is that of a superseding cause. The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge's decision. However, the case described in that Wikipedia article is illustrative:

if a defendant had carelessly spilled gasoline near a pile of cigarette butts in an alley behind a bar, the fact that a bar patron later carelessly threw a cigarette butt into the gasoline would be deemed a foreseeable intervening cause, and would not absolve the defendant of tort liability. However, if the bar patron intentionally threw the cigarette butt into the gasoline because he wanted to see it ignite, this intentional act would likely be deemed unforeseeable, and therefore superseding.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge’s decision.

What are you talking about? Of course you can! Any reasonable person can see that this decision is bullshit, nuances of superseding cause be damned.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

Wow that hurt my head. I read the rest of the Wikipedia page and I think I understand, but damn, I’ll need to read the judge’s full opinion to see just how creatively he applied that principle. Tort law is not for me.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Tort law is essentially legal sorcery

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sounds like that only reduces it to wilful negligence, not malice. There's still significant liability there.

Also, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the officers that wrote up the warrant request, not the ones actually on scene who did the shooting.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 149 points 2 months ago

In the ruling, Judge Simpson said that Taylor's cause of death was due to a gunshot fired by her boyfriend at the police and not a bad warrant.

Jesus Christ

[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago

I guess if you're a hostage cops can just kill you and blame the criminal then

[-] alienzx@feddit.nl 33 points 2 months ago

Actually yes. That's well established case law.

[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago
[-] jonne@infosec.pub 13 points 2 months ago

That's what the IDF does.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 2 months ago

Travesty of our bullshit system.

[-] faltryka@lemmy.world 107 points 2 months ago

That’s an awfully misleading situation. They state that her boyfriend’s gunshot caused her death, which I think most people would reasonably interpret to mean that her boyfriend shot her in the moment, but what they really mean is that if he hadn’t opened fire on police officers entering their home without prior warning, they wouldn’t have returned fire and killed her.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 70 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It also sounds like precedent to excuse cops murdering children.

"Their parents killed them by opening fire at the intruders they didn't know were cops with the gun they legally have to protect their family."

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 58 points 2 months ago

Which is not even a sure thing. Black people have been shot for even less than sleep, somehow.

[-] Bonifratz@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

Yup, like the time they broke into a house and shot the girl sleeping on the sofa with her grandma.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago
[-] Bonifratz@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Thanks for the link, I was too lazy to look for it. Note that all charges were dropped in that case. I.e. throwing a flash grenade into an apartment, then breaking in and shooting a 7 y/o sleeping in her grandma's arms is A-OK in the US.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

~~Who is saying that and where?~~

Edit: Never mind, I found it. Note that this is the newspaper's phrasing. Apparently what the judge actually wrote is more technical and less misleading:

In his ruling, Judge Simpson wrote that the gunshot fired by Walker "became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor's death."

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

It’s still the same concept. The exciting incident is breaking and entering by the cops. Judge is still stating them entering illegally is not the cause which it is.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They state that her boyfriend’s gunshot caused her death, which I think most people would reasonably interpret to mean that her boyfriend shot her in the moment, but what they really mean is that if he hadn’t opened fire on police officers entering their home without prior warning, they wouldn’t have returned fire and killed her.

Holy shit that's beyond fucked. How can a judge rule that?

edit: Oh nvm, I just saw who appointed that judge, wow.

[-] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 79 points 2 months ago

This commando raid bullshit has got to stop. How many have died since Breonna? How many more will die? Fucking pigs.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago

Seriously. Dude was gonna leave the house at some point.

They just feel like as alpha badasses when they kick in a door and scream orders of submission. Fucking cowards

[-] aloeTGL@lemmy.world 74 points 2 months ago

Looks like corruption wins again …. I’m tired boss.

[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 66 points 2 months ago

They waited nice and long to do this so people wouldn't notice because her murder was discussed a lot.

What fuckers.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 56 points 2 months ago

That’s amazing. The bullet that struck the victim was not the cause of death, but the bullet before?

So if an LAPD officer goes to raid someone’s home, and a gangster kills a bystander, the officer is responsible? If he hadn’t gone out for the raid, the gangster would not have fired the weapon?

Wait but if the officers in Taylor’ case didn’t show up to the door, her boyfriend wouldn’t have fired the bullet. So it’s the police fault

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 34 points 2 months ago

This is one of those things that I would hope Harris could speak to right now.

My expectations are unrealistic, though.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago

Presidential candidates don't like doing risky moves

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

What ever happened to felony murder?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

Bastards in blue exempted.

[-] Korne127@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

Is there any way this can get overturned?

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

No. But they are still on trial for falsifying documentation and civil rights violations.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Charges dismissed does not mean he was found not guilty. They could charge him again. Given what we know, the cops fucked this up. No-knock raids are a death sentence.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

"She wasn't clear enough on policies"

"I still don't feel like she's ready"

yeah yeah yeah bro whatever.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I read this and I was not surprise because since October they have been blaming Hamas for the genocide in Gaza, and it seems this form of gaslighting is engrave in USA politics.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Hamas: "Israel didn't announce who they were, so I assumed they were intruders and opened fire. Then they shot back and killed my civilians!"

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

"We didn't do anything to you this is hamas fault" Blinken, USA

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Hate to say it, but I called it back when this happened. Shooting at the cops NEVER gets you an expected outcome.

That being said, the no-knock warrant was the reason the cops got shot at.

The bad warrant was the reason for the no-knock raid.

The judge only stopped looking for root cause at step 1.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

If anyone wants to know what happened, here's an excellent video by NYT with fancy animations: https://youtu.be/lDaNU7yDnsc

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
468 points (98.5% liked)

News

23301 readers
1034 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS