'No-knock' searches plus stand-your-ground laws: A deadly combo for civilians and police

[RandomGuy]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Kentucky’s “stand your ground” law allows its residents to use deadly force against intruders they believe are breaking into their home.

So why is Kenneth Walker charged with attempted murder for allegedly shooting a Louisville police sergeant March 13 who forced his way with two other officers into Breonna Taylor’s apartment while serving a "no-knock" warrant?

When the officers returned fire, Taylor, an ER technician and former Louisville EMT who was unarmed, was struck at least eight times and died on her hallway floor.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine wouldn't discuss Walker's pending prosecution. But Wine told The Courier Journal in an email that the "stand your ground" statute "is central in any determination of how to proceed.”

Enacted in 2006, the law says it doesn’t apply to force used against police officers — but only if police identify themselves "in accordance with any applicable law."
https://news.yahoo.com/no-knock-searches-plus-stand-144300844.html

[boutons_deux]

... a deeply ill, dysfunctional, uncivilized, shoot-em-up brutal shithole of a country.

Azar implication: the pandemic (for white people) isn't really that bad (we don't give a shit about non-white C19 bodies)

[spurraider21]

incompatible laws tbh...terrible result

[Thread]

incompatible laws tbh...terrible result

Sad-but-true.

[Nathan89]

Yeah, we should get rid of the no knock searches.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, we should get rid of the no knock searches.
they are usually limited to circumstances where there exists a reasonable possibility that evidence will be destroyed (ie flushing drugs down the toilet) or if a knock and announce approach would endanger cops (ie about to raid a home where there are believed to be multiple armed suspects)

[RandomGuy]

Sad-but-true.

Holy moly. Agreement.

Now... which do we get rid of? Police overreach, or "blast away" gun laws?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, we should get rid of the no knock searches.

Alrighty then. There is a take.

Keep the "blast away" self defense gun laws. Stop the police from barging in.

I would point out, as a devils advocate, the shooting in the OP would not have happened if the warrant had bee on the right address.

[SnakeBoy]

they are usually limited to circumstances where there exists a reasonable possibility that evidence will be destroyed (ie flushing drugs down the toilet) or if a knock and announce approach would endanger cops (ie about to raid a home where there are believed to be multiple armed suspects)


Sixty percent of the time, the searches found no illegal drugs or other contraband, as was in the case of the police raid on Taylor's apartment at 3003 Springfield Drive.

There really isn't much to debate on this one. Nathan summed it up perfectly.

[spurraider21]

There really isn't much to debate on this one. Nathan summed it up perfectly.
i dont necessarily disagree with what he was saying, i was just providing what the rationale to no-knock searches are

[Thread]

Holy moly. Agreement.

Now... which do we get rid of? Police overreach, or "blast away" gun laws?

The former.

[RandomGuy]

There really isn't much to debate on this one. Nathan summed it up perfectly.

Well, shit. Hold the HTML coding.

There is bi-partisan support for ending the practice. Color me shocked.

[DMC]

If the residence has illegal activities like drugs and such that would result in a warrant for a no-knock search, I don't think "stand your ground" matters. The cops aren't going in expecting people to be playing Twister. Stand all you want, you'll still get shot. So stand your ground should not apply if there is indeed illegal activity but if not, the cops are taking their lives into their own hands by recklessly barging into people's homes.

Black woman in Dallas gets shot through her window for standing her ground, suddenly it's a cop problem. It's both. The black woman wasn't doing anything wrong but to a cop there's really no difference until it's established. This is why discretion is important. Not everything is going to be easy.

[Trainwreck2100]

:lol anyone thinking the cops would be charged with murder, the cops murdered her but they didn't break the law.
:lol the family getting 12 million but the cops did nothing wrong
:lol Walker the only other real victim here, not getting shit

[DarrinS]

They knocked
Boyfriend shot at cops
Cops returned fire

/thread

[Trainwreck2100]

They knocked
Boyfriend shot at cops
Cops returned fire

/thread

The neighbors can't corroborate the knocking, and their cameras were off. Why would a guy with no criminal history shoot at cops? Who pays 12 million dollars when they did nothing wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

They knocked
Boyfriend shot at cops
Cops returned fire

/threadThe body cam footage backs this up?

[Trainwreck2100]

The body cam footage backs this up?

Must have been shown a real fuck up for all of them to be "off"

[spurraider21]

they werent wearing body cams

plain clothes narcotics officers, from what i understand

i believe 1 neighbor said he they announced, a bunch said they heard nothing

[DMC]

they werent wearing body cams

plain clothes narcotics officers, from what i understand

i believe 1 neighbor said he they announced, a bunch said they heard nothing

Only takes 1

[Trainwreck2100]

they werent wearing body cams

plain clothes narcotics officers, from what i understand



this is true, apparently they changed it to respond to this.

[Trainwreck2100]

Only takes 1

that's not how the law works because if it was the family would be 12 mil poorer and Walker would be in prison

[spurraider21]

Only takes 1
could be. normally would depend on how much credibility the jury assigns to that one witness. but without charges, we may never know

[DMC]

that's not how the law works because if it was the family would be 12 mil poorer and Walker would be in prison

non sequitur. It only takes one person to acknowledge they heard it, since the cops weren't yelling for the neighbors to hear. If it was heard, it had to have been said. Everyone in HEB doesn't need to remember you being there, one cashier will suffice.

[DMC]

could be. normally would depend on how much credibility the jury assigns to that one witness. but without charges, we may never know

Same with 12 witnesses if they all lived together. It depends on how it was asked. "did you hear anything the night of"... "yes"... "what did you hear".... "open up, police"...

Instead of "did you hear 'open up, police?" ... "yes".

[ChumpDumper]

non sequitur. It only takes one person to acknowledge they heard it, since the cops weren't yelling for the neighbors to hear. If it was heard, it had to have been said. Everyone in HEB doesn't need to remember you being there, one cashier will suffice.HEB has cameras.

Strange the cops don't since cameras can only help them.

[spurraider21]

Same with 12 witnesses if they all lived together.
huh?

if 12 different people living together all heard it, it would be much stronger evidence than 1 person hearing it

[DMC]

this is true, apparently they changed it to respond to this.

That's it, don't let your rational mind be ass fucked by impulse. You got this.

[DMC]

huh?

if 12 different people living together all heard it, it would be much stronger evidence than 1 person hearing it

Not if the jury didn't believe them

[spurraider21]

Not if the jury didn't believe them
would be much more difficult for a jury to look past 12 witnesses than 1

[DMC]

would be much more difficult for a jury to look past 12 witnesses than 1

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.

[spurraider21]

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.
you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme

[Trainwreck2100]

non sequitur. It only takes one person to acknowledge they heard it, since the cops weren't yelling for the neighbors to hear. If it was heard, it had to have been said. Everyone in HEB doesn't need to remember you being there, one cashier will suffice.

Only one person said trump sexually assaulted them, it must be true because by your own definition all we need it one person to be a witness

[DMC]

you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.

[DMC]

Only one person said trump sexually assaulted them, it must be true because by your own definition all we need it one person to be a witness

If someone in the building heard the cops say they were entering, without being coached to say it, then there is evidence that the cops announced their presence. Whataboutism deflected successfully.

[Trainwreck2100]

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.

Oh i see, it appears you think the grand jury took a neighbors word into account when they found the cops not guilty rather than the other 12. The cops were found not guilty because the cops had a warrant to search the premises, hence why I said they murdered her, but didn't break the law. The same reason Walker gets away with shooting a cop, he shot a cop but didn't break the law. The same reason that cop was fired, he broke the law.

:lol thinking the grand jury's decision came down to some ESL witness.

[pgardn]

Stop DMC.

There is still some time to save your...
Never mind.

continue.

Man I hate reruns, seen this slaughter before.

[spurraider21]

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.
i didnt use the term odds but i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, to which you said "Not if the jury didnt believe them"

when i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, the obvious implication is that it would be more difficult for a jury to overlook that amount of evidence than it would for them to overlook 1

[DMC]

Only takes 1


could be. normally would depend on how much credibility the jury assigns to that one witness. but without charges, we may never know


Same with 12 witnesses if they all lived together. It depends on how it was asked. "did you hear anything the night of"... "yes"... "what did you hear".... "open up, police"...

Instead of "did you hear 'open up, police?" ... "yes".


Oh i see, it appears you think the grand jury took a neighbors word into account when they found the cops not guilty rather than the other 12. The cops were found not guilty because the cops had a warrant to search the premises, hence why I said they murdered her, but didn't break the law. The same reason Walker gets away with shooting a cop, he shot a cop but didn't break the law. The same reason that cop was fired, he broke the law.

:lol thinking the grand jury's decision came down to some ESL witness.
Obviously you don't see.

"Trainwreck claims to have been at HEB when the murder took place, did anyone see him there?"

"Just the cashier, but we asked 12 other people who worked there and no one else saw him"

The cashier is a valid witness and your alibi would be solid unless it was discovered the cashier was in on it.

Lack of evidence against doesn't equal evidence for.

[DMC]

you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme


i didnt use the term odds but i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, to which you said "Not if the jury didnt believe them"

when i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, the obvious implication is that it would be more difficult for a jury to overlook that amount of evidence than it would for them to overlook 1
You're mixing shit up to suit your cause.

Just quote, it's much easier, unless you prefer to paraphrase to defend your position with inaccurate recollection.

[DMC]

Stop DMC.

There is still some time to save your...
Never mind.

continue.

Man I hate reruns, seen this slaughter before.
Retard following me around trying to salve his injured ego. You hate to see it.

[Trainwreck2100]

Obviously you don't see.

"Trainwreck claims to have been at HEB when the murder took place, did anyone see him there?"

"Just the cashier, but we asked 12 other people who worked there and no one else saw him"

The cashier is a valid witness and your alibi would be solid unless it was discovered the cashier was in on it.

Lack of evidence against doesn't equal evidence for.

Trainwreck claimed to be at home
"That one heb cashier said she saw him at HEB down the road from the victim even though 12 other people didn't"

Appearance of evidence does not equal confimation (trainwreck was at home)

[DarrinS]

Two cops shot already.

[spurraider21]

You're mixing shit up to suit your cause.

Just quote, it's much easier, unless you prefer to paraphrase to defend your position with inaccurate recollection.
for fucks sake i think you're just being intentionally obtuse.

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.
when you said "no one mentioned the odds" i went on to acknowledge that while i had not previously used the word "odds" it had implied in my previous post

[DMC]

Trainwreck claimed to be at home
"That one heb cashier said she saw him at HEB down the road from the victim even though 12 other people didn't"

Appearance of evidence does not equal confimation (trainwreck was at home)

You are clueless about burden of proof.

[DMC]

for fucks sake i think you're just being intentionally obtuse.

when you said "no one mentioned the odds" i went on to acknowledge that while i had not previously used the word "odds" it was implied in my previous post

Is it true or not true that whether or not any witness testimony is useful depends on whether or not the jury finds them credible?

This has absolutely nothing to do with how credible or the odds of finding them credible. Basically you offered a throwaway line - only if the jury finds them credible. This is assumed to always be the case.

[DMC]

Two cops shot already.

They deserved it

[spurraider21]

Is it true or not true that whether or not any witness testimony is useful depends on whether or not the jury finds them credible?

This has absolutely nothing to do with how credible or the odds of finding them credible. Basically you offered a throwaway line - only if the jury finds them credible. This is assumed to always be the case.
yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

[Trainwreck2100]

You are clueless about burden of proof.

Yeah that makes no sense how you came to that conclusion, my scenario is just as plausible as yours

[spurraider21]

Two cops shot already.
no good

[Trainwreck2100]

yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

I don't know why he keeps harping on that either, if there was evidence that they announced themselves Walker is in jail and Taylor's family doesn't get anything. The juries decision most likely didn't come down to that because as I've said previously they were executing a warrant, I believe that's why they did not press charges for murder.

[Trainwreck2100]

no good

one stable, one in surgery

[DMC]

Yeah that makes no sense how you came to that conclusion, my scenario is just as plausible as yours
No, you cannot prove you were at home just because you said you were at home, that's circular reasoning. If someone told police they saw you at HEB, you'd be questioned and you'd need to provide an alibi. People get arrested all the time on false witness testimony.

If one person can put you at the scene of the crime, that one person is all that is needed to put you at the scene of the crime IF THE JURY FINDS THEM CREDIBLE.

If 30 people put you at the scene of the crime and the jury finds that all 30 of them were lying or mistaken "are these magic grits?" then number of times they saw more witnesses means nothing. It's all about credibility.

[DMC]

one stable, one in surgery

Seems like the BLM folks need to get with some mass shooters to learn accuracy.

[DMC]

yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

That's a red herring. You gave the caveat, not me.

You only need 1 credible witness to hear something to prove it was said. If it wasn't said it couldn't have been heard. Not the same with eye witnesses who think they saw something (without vivid recollection... he pulled up in a green Pontiac Tempest, he and a friend robbed the Sac-o-Suds...)

[spurraider21]

That's a red herring. You gave the caveat, not me.
its not a red herring. we have multiple neighbors saying one thing and one neighbor saying another thing

[ChumpDumper]

Seems like the BLM folks need to get with some mass shooters to learn accuracy.Is that humor?

[Trainwreck2100]

No, you cannot prove you were at home just because you said you were at home, that's circular reasoning. If someone told police they saw you at HEB, you'd be questioned and you'd need to provide an alibi. People get arrested all the time on false witness testimony.

If one person can put you at the scene of the crime, that one person is all that is needed to put you at the scene of the crime IF THE JURY FINDS THEM CREDIBLE.

If 30 people put you at the scene of the crime and the jury finds that all 30 of them were lying or mistaken "are these magic grits?" then number of times they saw more witnesses means nothing. It's all about credibility.

I'm saying I was at home. And the witness is mistaken. I can't provide an alibi I'm at home alone. The witness i wrong i go to jail. Hence "the appearance of evidence does not mean confirmation". A sentence you appear to disagree with.

[DMC]

its not a red herring. we have multiple neighbors saying one thing and one neighbor saying another thing

They are saying they cannot corroborate it was said. They are not corroborating the claim that it wasn't said. One person who heard it corroborates it was said. Not seeing something doesn't make you a witness.

[baseline bum]

Two cops shot already.

It is what it is

[DMC]

I'm saying I was at home. And the witness is mistaken. I can't provide an alibi I'm at home alone. The witness i wrong i go to jail. Hence "the appearance of evidence does not mean confirmation". A sentence you appear to disagree with.

Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.

[Trainwreck2100]

Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

Proof of me being at home is proof against me being with victim

[DMC]

Proof of me being at home is proof against me being with victim

You said you have no proof you were at home.

[spurraider21]

They are saying they cannot corroborate it was said. They are not corroborating the claim that it wasn't said. One person who heard it corroborates it was said. Not seeing something doesn't make you a witness.


yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

[Trainwreck2100]

You said you have no proof you were at home.

you said "proof for isn't the same as proof against"

I said "proof for is the same as proof against". Because evidence is evidence and there are no qualifiers for what you are trying to prove. The appearance of evidence does not magically absolve you of sin, and it does not condemn you either.

[DMC]

they werent wearing body cams

plain clothes narcotics officers, from what i understand

i believe 1 neighbor said he they announced, a bunch said they heard nothing




This was your original statement. The subsequent statements are after my response "it only takes 1". You offered caveats and I allowed the same caveats for all witnesses because those are accepted caveats always.

If you had 12 people who heard it and one who did not, it still wasn't loud enough for all people to hear it. You said the claim was they announced. You didn't say the claim was they announced loud enough for everyone in the building to hear.

If even 1 person heard them announce, that's corroborating evidence they announced.

"You better hope no one saw you" vs "you better hope 12 people didn't see you"

Do you think cops ever consider whether or not their announcements are loud enough for everyone in the building to hear when they door kick a neighborhood or apt door? They announce because they are required to, by law.

[spurraider21]

This was your original statement. The subsequent statements are after my response "it only takes 1". You offered caveats and I allowed the same caveats for all witnesses because those are accepted caveats always.

If you had 12 people who heard it and one who did not, it still wasn't loud enough for all people to hear it. You said the claim was they announced. You didn't say the claim was they announced loud enough for everyone in the building to hear.
strawman

obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus

[spurraider21]

If even 1 person heard them announce, that's corroborating evidence they announced.

"You better hope no one saw you" vs "you better hope 12 people didn't see you"

Do you think cops ever consider whether or not their announcements are loud enough for everyone in the building to hear when they door kick a neighborhood or apt door? They announce because they are required to, by law.
a lesser person would say something like "I'm not revisiting your edits. Slow your F5 spamming and think about what you want to say before rapid fire shit posting."

one person saying it would be corroborating evidence. but it may or may not be sufficient evidence for a jury to be convinced. if several other neighbors who were equally distant or possibly even closer said they heard nothing of the sort before gunshots, they jury would have to decide if one side is full of shit, or perhaps if the other neighbors are harder of hearing, or if the one neighbor is just wanting to be pro police, etc etc

evidence =/= proof

[DMC]

you said "proof for isn't the same as proof against"

I said "proof for is the same as proof against". Because evidence is evidence and there are no qualifiers for what you are trying to prove. The appearance of evidence does not magically absolve you of sin, and it does not condemn you either.

If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.

In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. So if someone you don't even know proves you were at the scene of the crime (proof for you being suspect), and you have proof that you were at home (proof against you being suspect), then we are in two different universes or someone is wrong/lying. Only one of you can have proof. Sure, proof of anything means proof of other things or proof against other things. Higgs boson, for example.. doesn't exist. One found provides proof against the negative claim of non-existence. Two different claims, existence vs non-existence. They are not necessarily contingent upon one another.

[DMC]

a lesser person would say something like "I'm not revisiting your edits. Slow your F5 spamming and think about what you want to say before rapid fire shit posting."

one person saying it would be corroborating evidence. but it may or may not be sufficient evidence for a jury to be convinced. if several other neighbors who were equally distant or possibly even closer said they heard nothing of the sort before gunshots, they jury would have to decide if one side is full of shit, or perhaps if the other neighbors are harder of hearing, or if the one neighbor is just wanting to be pro police, etc etc

evidence =/= proof

That's what I said.

[DMC]

strawman

obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus

Now you're getting into subjective conditions. If the one who said they did hear it was further away, that would put the testimony of that 1 in doubt. But if that 1 was the closest, then it stands to reason that they would be the one to hear it. Unless there are standards for distance witnesses need to be to have heard it, else it wasn't said... but you never know.

[Trainwreck2100]

Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.



If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.

In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. So if someone you don't even know proves you were at the scene of the crime (proof for you being suspect), and you have proof that you were at home (proof against you being suspect), then we are in two different universes or someone is wrong/lying. Only one of you can have proof. Sure, proof of anything means proof of other things or proof against other things. Higgs boson, for example.. doesn't exist. One found provides proof against the negative claim of non-existence. Two different claims, existence vs non-existence. They are not necessarily contingent upon one another.

It would appear that

You are clueless about burden of proof.


The prosecution rests

[spurraider21]

That's what I said.
yes. because i was agreeing with you, in part.

[spurraider21]

Now you're getting into subjective conditions. If the one who said they did hear it was further away, that would put the testimony of that 1 in doubt. But if that 1 was the closest, then it stands to reason that they would be the one to hear it. Unless there are standards for distance witnesses need to be to have heard it, else it wasn't said... but you never know.
you introduced the "farther away" element by suggesting everyone in the building had to hear it

[pgardn]

Retard following me around trying to salve his injured ego. You hate to see it.

Wow.

this is exactly what you do to me.
good catch.

wiggle and squirm, try to extricate yourself from your self burial
You hate/love to see it.

[pgardn]

Two cops shot already.

it’s the boutons pushback he desired

[DMC]

it’s the boutons pushback he desired

Who are you gas lighting? It's the pushback many on the left desired.

[DMC]

It would appear that



The prosecution rests

No idea what you are talking about. The same something is implied with "it" in the 1st quote. In the 2nd quote I used "something" twice. Then I explained two completely different somethings. Something is either true or it's not true, and the proof cannot be both ways, but evidence can be.

[DMC]

strawman

obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus


you introduced the "farther away" element by suggesting everyone in the building had to hear it

No, you introduced it. There are various reasons others might not hear it that are not contingent upon distance from the sound source.

[Winehole23]

(DMC reflexively defends out of control cops.)

[RandomGuy]

Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.


If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.

In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. ... [remainder omitted-RG]

It would appear that


You are clueless about burden of proof.

The prosecution rests

Props for that one.

[RandomGuy]

(DMC reflexively defends out of control cops.)

.. and if they lie about the culpability of a sleeping woman, then try to extort her boyfriend to testify to her poor charactor to make the cops look less bad... well that is ok too.

Fascists gotta fascist. You can't have an authoritarian police state without doing so.

[RandomGuy]

Stop DMC.

There is still some time to save your...
Never mind.

continue.

Man I hate reruns, seen this slaughter before.

The wall got more justice in this case than the woman did. :/

[RandomGuy]

So now we are approaching a Low Level Conflict, with the police force viewed as an occupying army in a nation with more guns than people.

Incident where police were shot filmed live. Didn't capture much. Shots fired at about 37:00 mark, after initial group being filmed, rapid response-d to a large crowd.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=388619612145234&ref=watch_permalink

The vietnam vet screaming at six state troopers "I am not afraid to die" early on, shows how high tensions are running.

[elbamba1]

yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

Do we know this to be true? Or did the neighbors say they did not hear the police? I would like to see the neighbor's statements. Hopefully they release them some day.

[spurraider21]

Do we know this to be true? Or did the neighbors say they did not hear the police? I would like to see the neighbor's statements. Hopefully they release them some day.
The part of my post in parentheses addresses this

[SnakeBoy]

1299586040223600641

[ChumpDumper]

:lol ST Trump supporters and their Malaysian porn.

[Spurminator]

1299586040223600641

I heard "Laurel"

[SnakeBoy]

So now we are approaching a Low Level Conflict, with the police force viewed as an occupying army in a nation with more guns than people.


Hopefully we can get those guns confiscated

[Bogie]

Hopefully we can get those guns confiscated

why don’t you answer the very simple question I asked you over a week ago.

what is it specifically that you support about trumps Russia policy? Use your own words derp.

[spurraider21]

1299586040223600641
criminals deserve justice as well

thats the beauty (or ugliness, based on perspective) of justice. it's blind.

-insert Arrested Development reference-

[RandomGuy]

Hopefully we can get those guns confiscated

Be kind of ironic that gun culture turns on your party when it tries to go all fascist.

Are you going to work at the camps when they start setting them up? Practiced goose-stepping yet?

[DMC]

If the residence has illegal activities like drugs and such that would result in a warrant for a no-knock search, I don't think "stand your ground" matters. The cops aren't going in expecting people to be playing Twister. Stand all you want, you'll still get shot. So stand your ground should not apply if there is indeed illegal activity but if not, the cops are taking their lives into their own hands by recklessly barging into people's homes.

Black woman in Dallas gets shot through her window for standing her ground, suddenly it's a cop problem. It's both. The black woman wasn't doing anything wrong but to a cop there's really no difference until it's established. This is why discretion is important. Not everything is going to be easy.


(DMC reflexively defends out of control cops.)

Whinehole off bubble again, misses the mark per par.

[Winehole23]

Whinehole off bubble again, misses the mark per par.Not at all, charges were laid to a cop who fired wildly into other apartments. That's not out of control? :lol

[pgardn]

Who are you gas lighting? It's the pushback many on the left desired.

Many....

So like over 50% of the people on the left want to see cops hunted down and executed?
That was what boots said after the officers were shot in Dallas.

And then YOU write "gas lighting".
You are such a hypocritical asshole.
And you need to be told this because you cant see it for yourself.

[DMC]

Many....

So like over 50% of the people on the left want to see cops hunted down and executed?
That was what boots said after the officers were shot in Dallas.

And then YOU write "gas lighting".
You are such a hypocritical asshole.
And you need to be told this because you cant see it for yourself.
So your standard for "many" is now a majority?

Shut your stupid ass up already, moron.

[DMC]

Not at all, charges were laid to a cop who fired wildly into other apartments. That's not out of control? :lol

Who said they weren't out of control? That's your narrative. You and SR21 concoct claims no one else said then set out to debunk them.

[boutons_deux]

So like over 50% of the people on the left want to see cops hunted down and executed?
That was what boots said after the officers were shot in Dallas.


YOU LIE

[DMC]

YOU LIE

He's not only a compulsive liar, he's also bipolar.

[pgardn]

So your standard for "many" is now a majority?

Shut your stupid ass up already, moron.

wtf is many then asshole? it has zero meaning in your sentence.

did you take a poll? The DMC conservatard poll?

[pgardn]

YOU LIE

Oh you know it well boots.
Tell us again.
Its about time...

You said I lied when it happened I posted your response and posters from all sides kicked your shit in.

[pgardn]

He's not only a compulsive liar, he's also bipolar.

cool I got you agreeing with boots.
I got two liars agreeing.

Now I know DMC is backed into a hole.
Lets keep this thread alive.

DMC also playing psychiatrist is cool. Lets keep playing.

[pgardn]

Who are you gas lighting? It's the pushback many on the left desired.

MANY on the left want police hunted down and executed.

-DMC

[DMC]

cool I got you agreeing with boots.
I got two liars agreeing.

Now I know DMC is backed into a hole.
Lets keep this thread alive.

DMC also playing psychiatrist is cool. Lets keep playing.

dissociative disorder

You hate to see it.

[DMC]

MANY on the left want police hunted down and executed.

-DMC

Who was executed?

[DMC]

By Jackson West • Published March 23, 2009 • Updated on March 25, 2009 at 6:42 am

In the wake of the weekend shooting incident in Oakland, in which four police officers were killed, tough questions are being asked about the relationship between the community and the police department.

The history of antipathy between many Oaklanders and law enforcement authorities is a long one, and currently tensions are once again high.

About 20 bystanders taunted police at the scene of the first shooting that left two motorcycle officers dead Saturday, and Craig's List had postings asking people to celebrate in the streets if indeed it was announced that the officers had died.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/why-would-anyone-cheer-opd-killings/2091487/

No one other than the shooter is responsible for the gunfire ambush Saturday of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies as they sat in their patrol car. But the same can’t be said for the protesters who blocked the entrance to the hospital where the two are being treated, and chanted “we hope they die.” The latter is a cultural poison nurtured by the left-wing anti-police movement sweeping the country.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-hope-they-die-11600031160

:lol pgardn the bipolar hermit

[pgardn]

You dont have any idea what I was referring to and you got yourself in a mess.

Boots posted in 2016 on the sniper picking off cops in Dallas.

Go find it captain Clousseau.

or just keep sticking your nose into posts you have not a clue about.
Asshat...

[pgardn]

MANY on the left want police hunted down and executed.

-DMC

Explain it old man.

[DMC]

wtf is many then asshole? it has zero meaning in your sentence.

did you take a poll? The DMC conservatard poll?

Have many people died of COVID? Was it the majority of the population?

[pgardn]

Have many people died of COVID? Was it the majority of the population?

Your avoidance is hilarious.

Yet again you stick your big retarded nose into something you have know nothing about.
A post boots made that was commented on in 2016.

So now you ask me a question about covid... Nope.

Lets try this again:
MANY on the left want police hunted down and executed.

DMC

Explain many old man.

Oh so you find an article as bad as what you wrote? Good for you. Answer por favor.

[DMC]

You said

it’s the boutons pushback he desired
Then I said

Who are you gas lighting? It's the pushback many on the left desired.


Your avoidance is hilarious.
Now you say...
Yet again you stick your big retarded nose into something you have know nothing about.
A post boots made that was commented on in 2016.

So now you ask me a question about covid... Nope.

Lets try this again:
MANY on the left want police hunted down and executed.

DMC

Explain many old man.

Oh so you find an article as bad as what you wrote? Good for you. Answer por favor.

Do any of you have enough mental fortitude to actually stick with the conversation without creating a strawman and engaging in narrative building?

Where did I say anything close to what you have bolded?

[DMC]

You dont have any idea what I was referring to and you got yourself in a mess.

Boots posted in 2016 on the sniper picking off cops in Dallas.

Go find it captain Clousseau.

or just keep sticking your nose into posts you have not a clue about.
Asshat...

2 officers were shot.. that's what Darrin said and what you responded to. It's what I responded to and called you out for gaslighting as if only Boutons wanted that.

2016 :lol

[pgardn]

2 officers were shot.. that's what Darrin said and what you responded to. It's what I responded to and called you out for gaslighting as if only Boutons wanted that.

2016 :lol

because he did you stupid ass hole.
that’s where you stuck your nose into something you know nothing about.
you post articles and state many on the left want that.

I gave an example of boots calling for that after the Dallas sniper attack on Dallas police.
Then you call me a liar without knowing a thing about the situation and the statement I am referring to. The date boots told us his true feelings is germane. It’s given only as proof of the statement.

don’t change the sequence old man when you step in shit.

keep going on man, you are on your way to multiple Ls
squirm and wriggle.

[boutons_deux]

Oh you know it well boots.
Tell us again.
Its about time...

You said I lied when it happened I posted your response and posters from all sides kicked your shit in.

You Lie

[pgardn]

You Lie

Seriously Boots.
Here is what you posted.

:lol TB:lol G F Y stalker.

It's about time the fucking cops got some push back.

And if you would like me to go further people can look at the whole thread in which you claimed +500 people were dead and only two cops...

Do you really want this? You want the addresses to your humanity?
Everyone can follow the thread(S) and see for themselves, you want that?

You lying sack of shit...

[pgardn]

Or I can screenshot it for you boots.

It was so sweet for DMC to show up and take up your case, a liar helping a liar.
You crossed party lines in a show of solidarity in red-blue lying.

[boutons_deux]

https://news.yahoo.com/no-knock-searches-plus-stand-144300844.html (https://news.yahoo.com/no-knock-searches-plus-stand-144300844.html)

Internal Probe Casts Doubt On Police Claim Of Suspicious Mail At Breonna Taylor’s Home

Louisville, Kentucky, police were told “repeatedly” that no suspicious packages had been received at her address, according to an internal police investigation.


When a police officer in Louisville, Kentucky, requested a search warrant for Breonna Taylor (https://www.huffpost.com/topic/breonna-taylor)’s apartment,

he told a judge that a drug suspect had been receiving potentially suspicious packages at the woman’s home.

It was a key reason (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report-details-why-louisville-police-wanted-search-breanna-taylors-home/5706161002/) provided by the Louisville Metro Police Department to convince the judge that a warrant was necessary.

LMPD Det. Joshua Jaynes penned a sworn affidavit seeking a judge’s permission to search her home.

In the affidavit, Jaynes said a suspect in a narcotics investigation — Taylor’s ex-boyfriend Jamarcus Glover — had been seen retrieving a “suspected USPS package in his right hand” from Taylor’s apartment in January before driving to a “known drug house,”

Glover, Jaynes wrote (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/10/breonna-taylor-louisville-detective-joshua-jaynes-no-knock-warrant-reassigned/5333604002/), “may be keeping narcotics and/or proceeds from the sale of narcotics” at Taylor’s home “for safekeeping.”

The officer added that he’d verified “through a U.S. postal inspector” that Glover had been receiving packages at Taylor’s address.

A U.S. postal inspector in Louisville, however, told WDRB-TV in May (https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisville-postal-inspector-no-packages-of-interest-at-slain-emt-breonna-taylor-s-home/article_f25bbc06-96e4-11ea-9371-97b341bd2866.html) that the LMPD had not used his office to verify that Glover was receiving packages at Taylor’s home.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/louisville-police-breonna-taylor-packages_n_5f7519dec5b6d698bb27d636?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgnews

Will Jaynes be indicted, punished for LYING on a affidavit to the court that got an innocent women killed?