Running racism in America thread

I've read that one neighbor heard them announce, but none of the others heard it. And of course the boyfriend has testified that he did not hear an announcement.

 

He did testify that he heard "Police!"

 

I haven't read that. I've actually found it difficult to find a cohesive account of that night

 

It's like the case Rayshard Brooks DUI/police shooting case in Atlanta a few months ago. It's not an example of a bad cop so much as it's an example of a bad system. The way police go about their business needs to change. What exactly their business is needs to change. The way they deal with the public, the way they execute warrants, the way they fight drugs, all needs to change. Shitty tragedies like this can't be the cost of police doing business.

 

The Atlanta DA disagreed, considering he charged the cop with felony murder.

 

Ok. I'd be surprised if it sticks, but obviously all just my opinion.

 

The DA did lose his re-election race, so perhaps we'll see.

 

And even then it's typically "Police Open up! then BOOM! they bust down the door. If a "reasonable person" couldn't possibly respond to a request to open the door (at 1 in the morning) before the cops bust in - it's a no-knock warrant whether it says so on the paper or not.

 

I think this tackles some of the questions we all have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...breonna-taylor/#click=https://t.co/zdQsFt1lJo

 

It does and it doesn’t. It’s an article written with a clear belief in mind, the kind a representing attorney would have.

For example, the writer assumes the police lied about a postal inspector telling them a package was suspicious simply because the postal inspector says he (or she) never said that, while simultaneously casting doubt on a witness who says he (or she) heard the police announce themselves because other witnesses didn’t. Anything that could be true in detriment to the police is assumed true by the writer, who then suggests knocking on the door for 45 seconds (the kind of thing that typically comes with announcing oneself) was the worst thing the cops could have done.

To be clear, I’m critiquing the writer here, who isn’t really trying to play it right down the middle (it is, after all, an opinion piece).
The writer is correct when he writes that many people have suggested the dude who shot was also a drug dealer - he’s not - and the writer is right when he makes a distinction between not illegal and not immune to criticism. Both helpful things.

There are things the Louisvllle police should and could have done differently. I don’t think there’s any question.