Charges Issued In Breonna Taylor Case

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
That could be true; but again Marv all of this is pure speculation when the records/testimony are sealed. Honestly as long as the cops returned fire homicide was never going to stick.

As stated by so many others the real point is why are we doing 1 am no knock raids over drugs
Right, it is all speculation. Part of the problem is that some do not trust the system. So having the system investigate itself and say, "we are clean" does not necessarily solve the trust issue.

As a nation we need to consider thoughtfully what is kept secret and why. Reading the book on the Pacific war has a couple examples. Hen Wake Island fell, we told the media they could announce an island had fallen but could not name it. As if the Japanese had no idea which island had fallen and were hoping we would tell them.

Or later when we sank a carrier and would not let it be announced, as if the survivors did not tell Tokyo what happened to their ship.

Did the AG ask the Grand Jury to consider charges on the other two officers should not be secret. Maybe yesterday's lack of mention was a mistake and it will be cleared up today. If so, great. But if not, why is it a secret?

The secrecy hurts the police effort. They lack the ability to control any narrative beyond, "you should always trust the police".
 

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
45,895
16,468
113
Duckburg
Sounds like she was definitely a drug dealer.

I've never head of the "Tatum Report" but I'm not sure I'd completely trust it. (Hell, I don't even trust any "news" reports anymore, much less individual internet posters. The truth in media is an accident these days.)

There were lots of rumors flying around Louisville about Taylor and her boyfriends and her other associates.

I have not commented on them much because they were just rumors. Most remain unconfirmed - even after yesterday. A few were clarified. More might come out at the trial of this indicted cop, but until then - I stick to what has been confirmed.

But based on AG Cameron's comments yesterday - including both what he did and and what he did NOT say - I'm inclined to believe that Taylor was not the drug-dirty criminal she was "rumored" to be. I'm pretty sure that if she had been "drug-dirty" that info would have been prominent in (1) the warrant affidavit (which mostly said "her drug-dirtyex-boyfriend got packeages at her apartment - let us search there") and (2) the AG report. Instead, Cameron portrayed Taylor as an innocent and tragic victim. Thus, until further proof develops, I have no reason to challenge that portrayal (and I trust Cameron on this issue way more than Taylor's family lawyers - they are now surrounded by folks who will use Taylor's death down to the last dollar, then disappear as quickly as they arrived - just watch.)
 

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
I think what he is say is live a virtuous life and these things don't happen. My cousin who is a painter filled a prescription for one of the bottom feeders he use to employ, guess what the next day the police came to his house with a search warrant. Cost him $3000.00 to get out of the mess, all because of who he was associated with he got zero sympathy from the family. Guess what he started to hire a bit more reputable people and issues like that mysteriously went away.
Or we could not treat addiction like a crime. We could not bust down doors with guns drawn (well, at least in some neighborhoods). We could actually focus on demand (god forbid) and not the supply side. We could understand we’ve created neighborhoods where it’s really hard NOT to associate people who, I guess, are just asking to be shot by cops (at a higher rate than white folks committing the same acts).

Okay, back to shooting the symptoms with guns...
 
Last edited:

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,814
2,796
113
Right, it is all speculation. Part of the problem is that some do not trust the system. So having the system investigate itself and say, "we are clean" does not necessarily solve the trust issue.

As a nation we need to consider thoughtfully what is kept secret and why. Reading the book on the Pacific war has a couple examples. Hen Wake Island fell, we told the media they could announce an island had fallen but could not name it. As if the Japanese had no idea which island had fallen and were hoping we would tell them.

Or later when we sank a carrier and would not let it be announced, as if the survivors did not tell Tokyo what happened to their ship.

Did the AG ask the Grand Jury to consider charges on the other two officers should not be secret. Maybe yesterday's lack of mention was a mistake and it will be cleared up today. If so, great. But if not, why is it a secret?

The secrecy hurts the police effort. They lack the ability to control any narrative beyond, "you should always trust the police".
i don't know marv. i guess like everything else it's a balance. the public's right to know vs the purpose(s) behind having secret grand jury proceedings: the accused fleeing; unfettered disclosure by witnesses; and protecting the innocent who are accused from reputational harm etc.

many of the above don't apply to "known" cops accused. but again when you start trying to apply shit on a piecemeal basis it invites problems.

so long story short i don't have an answer
 

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
Does anyone else wonder why she was in the hallway with the boyfriend? If they thought it was an intruder wouldn't it have been wise to lock her in the bedroom and have her call 911? I'm 100% sure that if this were my house and I choose to go explore the last thing I would do is have my wife come with me.
Huh? So they somehow screwed up because they didn’t know where to be in the house when they thought their house was being broken into? That’s what you were getting at? Not saying you are but I’m not getting your point then.
 
Last edited:

Lucy01

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2014
8,011
3,078
113
Don't act naive.

Accurate statement: "Reports are that a police officer has been shot."
Inflammatory shitpost: "Protesters just shot a cop."
No, The accurate post is that a Black Thug shot the hero police officers! He has also been arrested! So you’re the one that has the shit post, wanna to be!
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
i don't know marv. i guess like everything else it's a balance. the public's right to know vs the purpose(s) behind having secret grand jury proceedings: the accused fleeing; unfettered disclosure by witnesses; and protecting the innocent who are accused from reputational harm etc.

many of the above don't apply to "known" cops accused. but again when you start trying to apply shit on a piecemeal basis it invites problems.

so long story short i don't have an answer
The attorney was saying things like he has seen the ballistic report and the report says it is not possible to identify the bullet. The AG said it was a 9mm.

I have no idea who is right. If the lawyer is making that up, there should be serious sanctions. If the AG gave out the wrong information, he too should face serious sanctions
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
45,895
16,468
113
Duckburg
So a USAToday article says that no one indicated, "no true bill was returned". The article suggests the lack of that could indicate the grand jury was never asked to consider charges on the other two officers. So lawyers, what does that mean? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-charges-breonna-taylor-decision/3510392001/

Walker's (the boyfriend's) attorney was interviewed last night and said that in Kentucky self-defense law one is still required to identify their target and is still responsible if their rounds hit a third party. He said there is no law enforcement exemption. It would seem certain that murder would be off any table given what that USAToday article says. But it seems some other crimes could fit, including the wanton endangerment. So whether or not a "no true bill" exists and what that means might well matter as far as knowing what the grand jury was asked to consider.
It means you read propaganda media that has no idea what they are talking about, and irresponsibly prints half facts, based on quarter understanding, derived from shitty interviews of people with agendas, edited by people with agendas. (As I said elsewhere, truth in media is now an accident.)

The MAIN reason no "true bill" was "returned" against anyone for the DEATH of Taylor is because the two cops who shot at her in that apartment hallway were shot at and - statutory exception or not - were entitled to shoot back.

With or without "hold your ground" statutes, and with or without whatever "law enforcement exemption" the lawyer meant to discuss, the law of self-defense as it applies to cops performing police duties is different than the law of self defense that applies to non-police citizens defending a home or the life of another (or now, in Kentucky and many other states, defending even just "property"). At my last count, there may be a dozen different Kentucky statutes that can figure into such an analysis, plus 200 years of court decisions. A statement that "there is no law enforcement exception" (even if accurately reported) is barely a beginning, not an end. And Kentucky firearm and "carry" statutes have been amended in each of the last 5 or six legislative sessions to EXPAND, not limit, gun and self-defense rights.

But its illegal (with some exceptions) to reveal what happens in a grand jury. (Imagine you got a notice and wound up serving jury duty on that grand jury. You would immediately have a much better understanding of just ONE reason why it is illegal to discuss grand jury testimony. Mostly, there are still criminal investigations on-going - including in the drug war on the ground in Louisville which produced this specific event - and leaking grand jury info can compromise those investigations too. The day will come when more info gets out, but its not gonna be soon LEGALLY.) So NOBODY who wasn't in the room "knows" what was "presented" to the grand jury for good reasons. Those who now speculatively ask "what did AG Cameron tell them" - like the Taylor family attorney - KNOW that nobody knows, and they are just stirring the hate pot for dollars because their convenient speculation can't and won't be challenged by useful idiots in media.
 

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
45,895
16,468
113
Duckburg
Got it! The (fake) war on drugs needs to be fought violently, especially against folks who have criminal records.

Welcome to the world you created. Now please walk into that glorious light, Boomer! Warning: there are mountains of drugs in Heaven. Lol
We all dodge different bullets, I guess.

Part of me says legalize all vice, let Darwin be Darwin, and let junkies be junkies.

Another part of me says I hope you never have a friend or family member die as a junkie or as an alcoholic, or kill themselves to end the pain.

Some lessons can only be learned in a harsh and ugly way.

Cheers bro.
Don't bogart that joint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hondo314

The Vid

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2005
7,508
3,938
113
I'm not a boomer, but you are apparently a child. We're done here....go take another hit of the bong maaaaan.
It’s perfectly legal to hit the bong in any state in this union worth a damn with a handful of exceptions. Don’t worry though, you will always be able to drink 20oz Miller lights and smoke cigs indoors at your local in Indiana.

It’s funny how people throw around the term “drugs” when discussing this case. What drugs? How much? It doesn’t matter because all the old crusty Raegan pubes have their moral high ground. Old crusty policies that do nothing but drain resources and cause pain for everyone involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hondo314

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
Right, it is all speculation. Part of the problem is that some do not trust the system. So having the system investigate itself and say, "we are clean" does not necessarily solve the trust issue.

As a nation we need to consider thoughtfully what is kept secret and why. Reading the book on the Pacific war has a couple examples. Hen Wake Island fell, we told the media they could announce an island had fallen but could not name it. As if the Japanese had no idea which island had fallen and were hoping we would tell them.

Or later when we sank a carrier and would not let it be announced, as if the survivors did not tell Tokyo what happened to their ship.

Did the AG ask the Grand Jury to consider charges on the other two officers should not be secret. Maybe yesterday's lack of mention was a mistake and it will be cleared up today. If so, great. But if not, why is it a secret?

The secrecy hurts the police effort. They lack the ability to control any narrative beyond, "you should always trust the police".
The "system" protects the public every day. Criminal procedure, including G.J. secrecy, benefits the jurors, witnesses, the accused, and all of us. It serves no purpose to have one system for cops and another for each of us. People who criticize the system, in particular journalists, need to understand that without the system, they themselves would be much more at risk.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
We all dodge different bullets, I guess.

Part of me says legalize all vice, let Darwin be Darwin, and let junkies be junkies.

Another part of me says I hope you never have a friend or family member die as a junkie or as an alcoholic, or kill themselves to end the pain.

Some lessons can only be learned in a harsh and ugly way.

Cheers bro.
Don't bogart that joint.
Legalizing but treating addictions isn't exactly Darwin. It is what we do with alcohol, and tobacco. We need to work to remove the stigma from people who need help.

Has anyone met someone who they believe would legitimately become a heroin addict if it were only legal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianiu

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
The "system" protects the public every day. Criminal procedure, including G.J. secrecy, benefits the jurors, witnesses, the accused, and all of us. It serves no purpose to have one system for cops and another for each of us. People who criticize the system, in particular journalists, need to understand that without the system, they themselves would be much more at risk.
But does not the system try to protect its own? Is that not exactly what is claimed in the use of the words "deep state"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
It means you read propaganda media that has no idea what they are talking about, and irresponsibly prints half facts, based on quarter understanding, derived from shitty interviews of people with agendas, edited by people with agendas. (As I said elsewhere, truth in media is now an accident.)

The MAIN reason no "true bill" was "returned" against anyone for the DEATH of Taylor is because the two cops who shot at her in that apartment hallway were shot at and - statutory exception or not - were entitled to shoot back.

With or without "hold your ground" statutes, and with or without whatever "law enforcement exemption" the lawyer meant to discuss, the law of self-defense as it applies to cops performing police duties is different than the law of self defense that applies to non-police citizens defending a home or the life of another (or now, in Kentucky and many other states, defending even just "property"). At my last count, there may be a dozen different Kentucky statutes that can figure into such an analysis, plus 200 years of court decisions. A statement that "there is no law enforcement exception" (even if accurately reported) is barely a beginning, not an end. And Kentucky firearm and "carry" statutes have been amended in each of the last 5 or six legislative sessions to EXPAND, not limit, gun and self-defense rights.

But its illegal (with some exceptions) to reveal what happens in a grand jury. (Imagine you got a notice and wound up serving jury duty on that grand jury. You would immediately have a much better understanding of just ONE reason why it is illegal to discuss grand jury testimony. Mostly, there are still criminal investigations on-going - including in the drug war on the ground in Louisville which produced this specific event - and leaking grand jury info can compromise those investigations too. The day will come when more info gets out, but its not gonna be soon LEGALLY.) So NOBODY who wasn't in the room "knows" what was "presented" to the grand jury for good reasons. Those who now speculatively ask "what did AG Cameron tell them" - like the Taylor family attorney - KNOW that nobody knows, and they are just stirring the hate pot for dollars because their convenient speculation can't and won't be challenged by useful idiots in media.
Thanks for answering, so we do not know the GJ was asked to consider anything regarding two of the officers. So when people say the GJ determined the officers acted perfectly legally, we do not know that at all. Someone determined that, we do not yet know who.
 

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
The "system" protects the public every day. Criminal procedure, including G.J. secrecy, benefits the jurors, witnesses, the accused, and all of us. It serves no purpose to have one system for cops and another for each of us. People who criticize the system, in particular journalists, need to understand that without the system, they themselves would be much more at risk.
Yay! The system protects us from awful things that the system also perpetuates? Got it.

That you gave an extra shout out to journalists is just sooo *chef’s kiss*

Good Job!
 

Hoopsdoc1978

Senior
Apr 13, 2016
2,567
1,708
113
Legalizing but treating addictions isn't exactly Darwin. It is what we do with alcohol, and tobacco. We need to work to remove the stigma from people who need help.

Has anyone met someone who they believe would legitimately become a heroin addict if it were only legal?
Of course there would be more heroin addiction if heroin were legal. To say otherwise is naive.

I don’t know a lot of people who I could say for sure would become addicts if they tried it, but I know a LOT of people who would try heroin if it were legal.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,441
10,486
113
Of course there would be more heroin addiction if heroin were legal. To say otherwise is naive.

I don’t know a lot of people who I could say for sure would become addicts if they tried it, but I know a LOT of people who would try heroin if it were legal.
Interesting. I have never met anyone who has said they wish heroin were legal so they can try it.

It can go the other way, there are people who try things because it is forbidden. They like being seen as the rulebreaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
Yay! The system protects us from awful things that the system also perpetuates? Got it.

That you gave an extra shout out to journalists is just sooo *chef’s kiss*

Good Job!
Believing the system perpetuates “awful things” sounds like the systemic racism dodge to me. You can’t or won’t address real issues so you fall back on your comfort zone of issues with “the system”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

Hoopsdoc1978

Senior
Apr 13, 2016
2,567
1,708
113
Interesting. I have never met anyone who has said they wish heroin were legal so they can try it.

It can go the other way, there are people who try things because it is forbidden. They like being seen as the rulebreaker.
If heroin were legal like alchohol and tobacco and was easily available, a lot of people would try it who wouldn’t now. That’s just common sense.
 

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
Believing the system perpetuates “awful things” sounds like the systemic racism dodge to me. You can’t or won’t address real issues so you fall back on your comfort zone of issues with “the system”.
Dodge? Lol. Here’s a list of things you’ll dodge on this board all afternoon:

That black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during similar police encounters?
That black people are incarcerated longer for the exact same crimes?
That crack cocaine sentencing bumps ever existed?
That the effects of redlining are still rotting out urban cores?
That voting laws favor rich, mobile folks?
That we tax income way more than capital?
That gerrymandering slices and dices black communities, giving them less political power?
That we keep the poor trapped in the legal system with bullshit fees?


Now dodge away!
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,100
3,317
113
It’s perfectly legal to hit the bong in any state in this union worth a damn with a handful of exceptions. Don’t worry though, you will always be able to drink 20oz Miller lights and smoke cigs indoors at your local in Indiana.

It’s funny how people throw around the term “drugs” when discussing this case. What drugs? How much? It doesn’t matter because all the old crusty Raegan pubes have their moral high ground. Old crusty policies that do nothing but drain resources and cause pain for everyone involved.
Whatever floats your boat on the bong. I did the party thing in my early 20's (alcohol, as you alluded to) but then I grew up. I can see equating marijuana to alcohol in some ways. The "legalize it" crowd loses me as you start to move down the drug list.

It has just been my experience that most of the legalize it zealots tend to not be the best advertisement for how awesome weed can be in ones life. It would be like making Barney Gumble the poster boy to end prohibition. Yeah, mostly a harmless guy, but not really someone you want to put up as the "see this isn't really bad" guy for your argument.
 

hoosboot

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2001
13,531
3,625
113
If heroin were legal like alchohol and tobacco and was easily available, a lot of people would try it who wouldn’t now. That’s just common sense.
It's obviously not a direct comparable, but the "war" against alcohol seems like a fair look at how things might change. Are there more alcoholics now as a percentage of the population than there were during prohibition? Did legalizing alcohol reduce criminality and violence around the sale and distribution of alcohol? Are we able to measure the negative impacts of legalizing alcohol to society and evaluate the net positives/negatives? Where does the best balance for serving society lie on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianiu

dbmhoosier

Senior
Nov 23, 2005
2,978
1,892
113
I wasn't making light. Sometimes I find a little irreverence makes it easier to digest serious shit.
If heroin were legal like alchohol and tobacco and was easily available, a lot of people would try it who wouldn’t now. That’s just common sense.
They might pop hydros from CVS but they wouldn't be shooting heroin that they got out of a brown bag.
 

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
Whatever floats your boat on the bong. I did the party thing in my early 20's (alcohol, as you alluded to) but then I grew up. I can see equating marijuana to alcohol in some ways. The "legalize it" crowd loses me as you start to move down the drug list.

It has just been my experience that most of the legalize it zealots tend to not be the best advertisement for how awesome weed can be in ones life. It would be like making Barney Gumble the poster boy to end prohibition. Yeah, mostly a harmless guy, but not really someone you want to put up as the "see this isn't really bad" guy for your argument.
Ahhh — it’s making sense now. You like cartoonish stereotypes. You equate pot smokers to Cheech & Chong and not people like Elon Musk, who does smoke pot. And this way of thinking informs your worldview.

My condolences to your people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,209
3,673
113
But does not the system try to protect its own? Is that not exactly what is claimed in the use of the words "deep state"?

This is really a reach.

"Deep State" refers to DC politicians + DC bureaucrats + the national MSM with national and international agendas, not the petty graft/prejudices of local/state court/LE systems. In the latter case, the level of corruption varies dramatically in different locales. In many places, the system is about as clean as can be expected from humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,100
3,317
113
Ahhh — it’s making sense now. You like cartoonish stereotypes. You equate pot smokers to Cheech & Chong and not people like Elon Musk, who does smoke pot. And this way of thinking informs your worldview.

My condolences to your people.
No condolences needed. I am doing quite well.
 

TDHoosier

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 11, 2001
7,035
3,222
113
Huh? So they somehow screwed up because they didn’t know where to be in the house when they thought their house was being broken into? That’s what you were getting at? Not saying you are but I’m not getting your point then.
If she was "in bed" at the time I am curious as to why both got up only one holding a gun to see what was up? Common sense to me says, for the one with the gun to say stay here and call 911 I'm going to go see, but then again we are asking some to have common sense.

I also find it interesting that the boyfriend said he thought it was a drug dealer breaking into his house? Why a drug dealer? I hate that she was killed, but there are many things that just don't add up.
 

TDHoosier

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 11, 2001
7,035
3,222
113
Or we could not treat addiction like a crime. We could not bust down doors with guns drawn (well, at least in some neighborhoods). We could actually focus on demand (god forbid) and not the supply side. We could understand we’ve created neighborhoods where it’s really hard NOT to associate people who, I guess, are just asking to be shot by cops (at a higher rate than white folks committing the same acts).

Okay, back to shooting the symptoms with guns...
In my experience (I've had 5 members of my family OD in the past 5 years and one that has been hit with a pin twice to survive) it is incredibly hard to break them off habits. I would like to see reform of individuals as much as anybody, it just doesn't seem to work. I like the mentality of keeping drugs off the streets so potential new users aren't exposed. I guess it is like cutting the head off the snake?

Harsher punishments for those who deal might help as well, IMO we are way to soft on criminals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mushroomgod_1

hoosboot

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2001
13,531
3,625
113
a jury cleared oj after a long protracted trial. here there wasn't even enough evidence to bring a case. apples to oranges to the extreme.

Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
·
Jul 21
It's been 130 days since Breonna Taylor was murdered by police in her own home. After they shot her, they left her there to die.

hoosboot the vp candidate saying "murdered by police" without knowing the facts is pathetic. murder is an unlawful, premeditated killing. people, regular folks in louisville reviewed the facts involved in this case and brought zero charges against these cops related to breonna. nothing. kamala's post is shameful pandering that does nothing but incite. and she's our hope to mend fences. good grief.
Appreciate your sentiments on this. Disagree on the apples to oranges, but that's beside the point. I'd also quibble about your statement that "murder" is "premeditated killing". Most states have murder charges for killings that aren't premeditated. That's also beside the point.

If she looked back on that post, I wonder if she would change the phrasing. Should she have said "Breonna Taylor was "justifiably homicided"? It seems like "tragically and needlessly killed by police" would have been better phrasing. As a former prosecutor, she should be more careful with her wording. As a national political candidate, I get it. While I think her wording could have been better. I don't think the difference between my wording and hers substantially changes thoughts on the issue outside of lawyers. So, on my list of issues with Senator Harris, that one is pretty far down the list. I might call it slightly disappointing, but I wouldn't label her a "disappointment" because of it.

All that said, I think I mostly agree with your sentiments in what's happening in Louisville. 😱
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,478
6,381
113
Dodge? Lol. Here’s a list of things you’ll dodge on this board all afternoon:

That black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during similar police encounters?
That black people are incarcerated longer for the exact same crimes?
That crack cocaine sentencing bumps ever existed?
That the effects of redlining are still rotting out urban cores?
That voting laws favor rich, mobile folks?
That we tax income way more than capital?
That gerrymandering slices and dices black communities, giving them less political power?
That we keep the poor trapped in the legal system with bullshit fees?

Now dodge away!
No I’ll leave the biggest dodge to you.

Black young boys are the mostly badly educated group of all in the U.S. That disgraceful statistic lies at the root of most of what you said. You ignore it as do most Democrats. Trump and DeVos have been addressing this and the Democrats resist. Right here in river city the school board recently rejected a DSST (a highly successful charter program partially funded by Bill and Melinda Gates) because Democrats being Democrats. This school would have been substantially minority. The leading board member opposing the charter is a highly visible BLM demonstrator. I’ve had it with the systemic racism stuff. The way forward must involve better education and all the Dems want to do is throw more money at it and ignore basic reform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUJIM and 76-1

hoosboot

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2001
13,531
3,625
113
This is really a reach.

"Deep State" refers to DC politicians + DC bureaucrats + the national MSM with national and international agendas, not the petty graft/prejudices of local/state court/LE systems. In the latter case, the level of corruption varies dramatically in different locales. In many places, the system is about as clean as can be expected from humans.
😂
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,814
2,796
113
Dodge? Lol. Here’s a list of things you’ll dodge on this board all afternoon:

That black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during similar police encounters?
That black people are incarcerated longer for the exact same crimes?
That crack cocaine sentencing bumps ever existed?
That the effects of redlining are still rotting out urban cores?
That voting laws favor rich, mobile folks?
That we tax income way more than capital?
That gerrymandering slices and dices black communities, giving them less political power?
That we keep the poor trapped in the legal system with bullshit fees?


Now dodge away!
Intersting here's my take
1. black people are killed at a higher rate - not accdg to stats 1004 killed, 235 black. black 53% murders 60% robberies 13% population. zero evidence of what you state.
2. blacks are incarcerated longer for exact same crimes. that's not racism in my opinion but classism. blacks with expensive lawyers do just fine. whites with public defenders don't do well.
3. crack cocaine. see number two above. may have disparate impact but not racism imo.
4. 100% agree on redlining rotting urban cores.
5. voting laws. Agree.
6. tax income more than cap. agree.
7. i don't know enough on gerrymandering nationwide. that seems like an equal political move or effot.
8. we keep poor trapped in the legal system with bullshit fees? 100% agree.

all thought-provoking good stuff. we need to do more to elevate these communities that need help with sweat and financial equity and we need to simultaneously ask help from black leaders to become louder about personal responsibility and accountability. 53% of murders and 60% of robberies for 13% of the population is not okay. it's a shame we can't all work together because inures to our collective benefit. trump. forget it. but kamala harris tweeting this is murder in the breonna taylor matter with zero facts long before a grand jury received anything is frightening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

hondo314

All-Big Ten
Feb 10, 2016
3,660
3,362
113
In my experience (I've had 5 members of my family OD in the past 5 years and one that has been hit with a pin twice to survive) it is incredibly hard to break them off habits. I would like to see reform of individuals as much as anybody, it just doesn't seem to work. I like the mentality of keeping drugs off the streets so potential new users aren't exposed. I guess it is like cutting the head off the snake?

Harsher punishments for those who deal might help as well, IMO we are way to soft on criminals.
We always turn to harsher punishment (see crack) but when has ever worked for users or sellers?
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,814
2,796
113
Appreciate your sentiments on this. Disagree on the apples to oranges, but that's beside the point. I'd also quibble about your statement that "murder" is "premeditated killing". Most states have murder charges for killings that aren't premeditated. That's also beside the point.

If she looked back on that post, I wonder if she would change the phrasing. Should she have said "Breonna Taylor was "justifiably homicided"? It seems like "tragically and needlessly killed by police" would have been better phrasing. As a former prosecutor, she should be more careful with her wording. As a national political candidate, I get it. While I think her wording could have been better. I don't think the difference between my wording and hers substantially changes thoughts on the issue outside of lawyers. So, on my list of issues with Senator Harris, that one is pretty far down the list. I might call it slightly disappointing, but I wouldn't label her a "disappointment" because of it.

All that said, I think I mostly agree with your sentiments in what's happening in Louisville. 😱
Biden's comments yesterday were spot on. paraphrasing he said that he hasn't had a chance to review the details yet so is reserving commenting. he'll give his thoughts at a later time after he gets more information. the bigger picture "disappointment" with harris in my view re her statements was/is that it evokes this jump on the bandwagon pandering - form over substance. i hope it was an anomaly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
7,317
6,730
113
Appreciate your sentiments on this. Disagree on the apples to oranges, but that's beside the point. I'd also quibble about your statement that "murder" is "premeditated killing". Most states have murder charges for killings that aren't premeditated. That's also beside the point.

If she looked back on that post, I wonder if she would change the phrasing. Should she have said "Breonna Taylor was "justifiably homicided"? It seems like "tragically and needlessly killed by police" would have been better phrasing. As a former prosecutor, she should be more careful with her wording. As a national political candidate, I get it. While I think her wording could have been better. I don't think the difference between my wording and hers substantially changes thoughts on the issue outside of lawyers. So, on my list of issues with Senator Harris, that one is pretty far down the list. I might call it slightly disappointing, but I wouldn't label her a "disappointment" because of it.

All that said, I think I mostly agree with your sentiments in what's happening in Louisville. 😱
You have no issue with overt pandering? I guess that’s disappointing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

hoosboot

Hall of Famer
Nov 7, 2001
13,531
3,625
113
Biden's comments yesterday were spot on. paraphrasing he said that he hasn't had a chance to review the details yet so is reserving commenting. he'll give his thoughts at a later time after he gets more information. the bigger picture "disappointment" with harris in my view re her statements was/is that it evokes this jump on the bandwagon pandering - form over substance. i hope it was an anomaly.
Good thoughts there, mcm. One of my big early criticisms of Senator Harris was that I felt that she needed more time to bake to be a standout national candidate. This is one of those many instances where the dreaded e-word (experience) is a positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

Latest posts