Bye Bye Louisville

except 95% of the time the cops are following all proper laws and self-defense standards in these situations
So someone knocking down a cops door in the middle of the night wouldnt be met with gunfire?

If I am in a situation where a guy shoots at me and I hit his woman I dont get to claim self defense when I am in trial. Instead this cop is only in trouble for the shots that didnt hit Breona.

If the cop could hit his target, the actual gunman, this wouldnt be an issue at all. But again they have a different standard than the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So someone knocking down a cops door in the middle of the night wouldnt be met with gunfire?

If I am in a situation where a guy shoots at me and I hit his woman I dont get to claim self defense when I am in trial. Instead this cop is only in trouble for the shots that didnt hit Breona.

If the cop could hit his target, the actual gunman, this wouldnt be an issue at all. But again they have a different standard than the rest of us.
At that point he is considered a civilian if he is not on duty, so yes the same standard applies. And if somebody is shooting at you, self defense does apply even if someone else gets shot I would think. Unless you were not even trying to shoot in the direction of the person who shot at you.
 
So someone knocking down a cops door in the middle of the night wouldnt be met with gunfire?

If I am in a situation where a guy shoots at me and I hit his woman I dont get to claim self defense when I am in trial. Instead this cop is only in trouble for the shots that didnt hit Breona.

If the cop could hit his target, the actual gunman, this wouldnt be an issue at all. But again they have a different standard than the rest of us.

No officer was in trouble for hitting Breonna because they didn't do anything wrong with it, she was hit because she was standing right next to or directly behind a guy shooting at them. You clearly have never been in an actual gunfight with people shooting at you, Their shots weren't negligent except for the one officer who got fired because he blindly fired through a covered door, and he will be punished for his negligence.
 
Lol. Love the sensationalist thread title. Straight out of the Trump “how to scare my unintelligent base” playbook.
 
I'm sure you're completely satisfied with the anonymous witness changing his/her story in the third interview to deliver the testimony they needed.
And I am sure you are completely satisfied with the testimony of alleged drug dealers. The actual facts of the events will never be known to us. There are agendas on both sides to be less than 100% truthful. The only facts that are not in dispute: 1. the woman was shot and killed during the raid. 2. the police were there with a valid, legal warrant.
 
And I am sure you are completely satisfied with the testimony of alleged drug dealers. The actual facts of the events will never be known to us. There are agendas on both sides to be less than 100% truthful. The only facts that are not in dispute: 1. the woman was shot and killed during the raid. 2. the police were there with a valid, legal warrant.

I don't even know what their testimonies are.

I just know cops turned off their body cams and did a completely unnecessary raid to try to get evidence that didn't exist and they killed a girl.
 
I don't even know what their testimonies are.

I just know cops turned off their body cams and did a completely unnecessary raid to try to get evidence that didn't exist and they killed a girl.
They did not actually search the apartment after the shooting, so whether there was evidence there or not remains to be seen. Again, the actual truth will never be known. She was killed unnecessarily. It could have been handled better all the way around. Or she could have not associated with alleged drug dealers and not have been getting her door broken down by cops. But that is not part of the discussion usually.
 

VN Store



Back
Top