Breonna killers not charged.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry - reality does not meet your expectaions..

I was under the impression that you believed that we were responsible for creating our reality here?  Demanding equal justice seems to fit with the people taking action.

No one doubts that this is the way it is, we demand that it cease to be the way it is, and we are uniquely and completely empowered to make this demand and to fashion this portion of reality to our liking. We absolutely should do away with no knocks - but..thankfully, we can do two things at once. Some of us might even manage three.

[HappySkeptic]

Blame the law and police procedure. It also sounds like one police officer was a trigger-happy bag of nerves who should never have been on the force.

But none of that is necessarily criminal. The protesters want someone to pay, but BLM and the protests are a political movement that have nothing to do with the law in any particular case.

Bad law and procedures are dealt with in legislatures and in police reform, not in demanding that everyone at the scene go to jail.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't fucking get how the one officer charged, regardless of trial outcome, how he can be charged with endangering the NEIGHBORS, but the actual other officers bullets that DID kill her, are not being charged.

"OOOPS" seems to be the common defense, or "I thought my life was in danger."

It must be very frustrating for the family that the only charges being brought are effectively for missing Breonna instead of hitting her.

[onlinebiker]

The reason the one officer IS being charged - is because he fired blindly - that is - he fired at a screen thinking a hostile target was behind it .

He broke an unbreakable rule - KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LAYS BEYOND IT.

He should do time for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Blame the law and police procedure.  It also sounds like one police officer was a trigger-happy bag of nerves who should never have been on the force.

But none of that is necessarily criminal.  The protesters want someone to pay, but BLM and the protests are a political movement that have nothing to do with the law in any particular case.

Bad law and procedures are dealt with in legislatures and in police reform, not in demanding that everyone at the scene go to jail.

It's not as if there weren't crimes that the officers could be charged with.  This was the expected outcome, another demonstration of the problem that has lead to our current state of civil unrest.

[HappySkeptic]

It's not as if there weren't crimes that the officers could be charged with.  This was the expected outcome, another demonstration of the problem that has lead to our current state of civil unrest.

It isn't a prosecutor's job to charge people with anything they "could" possibly be charged wtih.  They have a duty to only charge if they believe the evidence and law supports a charge, and that there is a reasonable chance of conviction.  Anything else is prosecutorial misconduct.

[Brian37]

It's not as if there weren't crimes that the officers could be charged with.  This was the expected outcome, another demonstration of the problem that has lead to our current state of civil unrest.

It isn't a prosecutor's job to charge people with anything they "could" possibly be charged wtih.  They have a duty to only charge if they believe the evidence and law supports a charge, and that there is a reasonable chance of conviction.  Anything else is prosecutorial misconduct.

Yea, the old saying goes, "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". 

Which is why this ruling is bat shit insane. If the prosecutor is willing to go after the cop's bullets who disturbed the neighbors, but not he other cops's bullets that killed Breonna? 

It is also NOT the job of a grand jury to convict. A grand jury's job is to consider if there is enough evidence to pass on to a court trial.

I don't see how the logic works that other bullets constitute a passing on to a trial for one cop because he didn't hit Breonna, but the other 6 that did hit her  and killed her get a "meh well, what or you going to do"?

[onlinebiker]

It isn't a prosecutor's job to charge people with anything they "could" possibly be charged wtih.  They have a duty to only charge if they believe the evidence and law supports a charge, and that there is a reasonable chance of conviction.  Anything else is prosecutorial misconduct.

Yea, the old saying goes, "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". 

Which is why this ruling is bat shit insane. If the prosecutor is willing to go after the cop's bullets who disturbed the neighbors, but not he other cops's bullets that killed Breonna? 

It is also NOT the job of a grand jury to convict. A grand jury's job is to consider if there is enough evidence to pass on to a court trial.

I don't see how the logic works that other bullets constitute a passing on to a trial for one cop because he didn't hit Breonna, but the other 6 that did hit her  and killed her get a "meh well, what or you going to do"?

That's because you are gun ignorant and refuse to learn the laws, responsibilities and realities of firearms and firearm ownership.

It's what makes your bleating about the subject particularly annoying.

[Brian37]

SARCASM 



"Oopps" is what you say as a restaurant worker. It is not an excuse when your job is to try to detain someone, who has not been convicted. And even worse, when your  target is based on bad info.

Not sarcasm...another of your inane comparisons.

From now on I will just say - It could have been worse...you could have gotten cold fries.

I don't think death without trial is like getting cold fries.

[arewethereyet]

Not sarcasm...another of your inane comparisons.

From now on I will just say - It could have been worse...you could have gotten cold fries.

I don't think death without trial is like getting cold fries.

You are the one who brought up the horror of cold fries.