I’m sorry but does this judge understand what proximate cause is? You take each sequence of events and see which one was the significant cause of the chain of events that ultimately resulted in...
Simpson concluded that Walker’s “conduct became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor’s death.”
I’m sorry but does this judge understand what proximate cause is? You take each sequence of events and see which one was the significant cause of the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the final outcome. Sure, firing at a police officer in self defense resulted in them shooting Breonna Taylor, but why did he shoot at a police officer? Because they broke into the house with a no-knock warrant, the wrong house might I add. Why did they break into the wrong house? Falsified warrant. Were it not for the bad warrant, none of the following events would have taken place. That is the proximate cause.
This just sounds like “look what you made me do” victim blaming mentality. “I broke into your house without a knock on a bad warrant. How dare you try to defend your house and possibly your life like any reasonable person would? Look what you made me do now, this is your fault your girlfriend is dead.”
This ruling essentially comes down to the opposite of "Castle Law" interpretations of the second amendment, doesn't it? This ruling means that, per this judge's interpretation, there is no...
This ruling essentially comes down to the opposite of "Castle Law" interpretations of the second amendment, doesn't it? This ruling means that, per this judge's interpretation, there is no constitutional right to self defense. If someone is breaking into your house, you must assume it might be the police and you must therefore submit to any intruders or they will execute your family with no consequences.
I am a lawyer. I don’t know enough to comment directly on the judge’s decision, but proximate cause has to do with which action in a chain if events results is close enough to be the “legal” cause...
I am a lawyer. I don’t know enough to comment directly on the judge’s decision, but proximate cause has to do with which action in a chain if events results is close enough to be the “legal” cause as he calls it. Distinguis “but for.” A but for cause, meaning the harm would bot have happened “but for” the event in question, may be necessary but not sufficient and too remote to hold anyone liable.
More problematic is that the boyfriends actions were considered the “legal” cause. This assigns way too much protection to the police, and perhaps more importantly, the judge who signed the warrant. The judge should at a minimum have to undergo some training.
A federal judge has thrown out major felony charges against two former Louisville officers accused of falsifying a warrant that led police to Breonna Taylor’s door before they fatally shot her.
U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson’s ruling declared that the actions of Taylor’s boyfriend, who fired a shot at police the night of the raid, were the legal cause of her death, not a bad warrant.
Simpson’s ruling effectively reduced the civil rights violation charges against Jaynes and Meany, which had carried a maximum sentence of life in prison, to misdemeanors.
This is just one judge's ruling so far. The Justice Department is looking into appealing this. It still could end up swinging the other way and proving that it does protect people.
This is just one judge's ruling so far. The Justice Department is looking into appealing this. It still could end up swinging the other way and proving that it does protect people.
I mean she's dead. He was charged with her murder before the charges were dropped. They were still shooting at him. If they're held legally accountable, which would be the bare minimum, it still...
I mean she's dead. He was charged with her murder before the charges were dropped. They were still shooting at him.
If they're held legally accountable, which would be the bare minimum, it still doesn't do much. I could list similar situations here but that justification for gun ownership just doesn't apply IMO
What are the rippling legal implications of a decision like this, can any lawyers explain? This seems like a branch of new legal thinking that protects police.
What are the rippling legal implications of a decision like this, can any lawyers explain? This seems like a branch of new legal thinking that protects police.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's new legal thinking. It seems like it's always been this way, but now 1) there is more visibility into police conduct and misconduct – cameras are everywhere and...
Unfortunately, I don't think it's new legal thinking. It seems like it's always been this way, but now 1) there is more visibility into police conduct and misconduct – cameras are everywhere and 2) there is more attention being paid to the racialized nature of policing.
That just means that there is more "being seen to do something about the problem" when the news is hot, which means officers are charged, then something like this happens after the furor has died down. That also means these decisions are made at a higher, more visible level. Ironically, I think this is progress of a sort (though not nearly enough). 20 years ago, these officers would never have been charged in the first place and the murder would not have received national attention.
For me (straight white cis male in the US) the journey has been learning how much the lived experience of others differs from my own. My parents taught me that the police were there to help me. Most Black people I know teach their children to be extremely cautious with the police. The general shape of that thinking is that getting stopped by the police means this might be the day they die.
It's not only race either. In the last year, I have been trying to find part-time work so that I can prioritize child and house care. I'm a safety and software engineer, so it should be perfectly possible to contribute meaningfully to a team at 3/4 time. But mostly I get turned down flat, and what I have found doesn't pay nearly as well. When I talk to women about this, they are like, "uh huh, yeah, welcome to the party. It's always been that way."
Unfortunately, it's very threatening to one's self-image to confront the fact that one's success might be due as much to luck in the genetic lottery as to hard work or intelligence. Privilege is a hell of a drug. A great quote:
The logic of whiteness is that [white people] are supposed to be protected by the law without being bound by the law, and the people of color are supposed to be bound by the law and not protected by the law.
~ Baynard Woods, Inheritance: An Autobiography of Whiteness
It is the nature of privilege to insulate itself from the knowledge of these things. I think one of the ways to make progress is to do more to pop those bubbles. The more people have a real awareness of the problem and empathy for the lived experience ofnothers, the more it could create a desire for real change.
I recommend the book Caste : The Origins of our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. She digs into this line of thinking with a depth I haven't really seen anywhere else. The audiobook reading is...
I recommend the book Caste : The Origins of our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. She digs into this line of thinking with a depth I haven't really seen anywhere else. The audiobook reading is fantastic.
That's not all it is about, she also compares our social structure with India's caste system and covers the chain of events that got us here, starting at the beginning.
What I don't understand is that shouldn't unaccountability of the police mean that basically anyone can reasonably be "afraid for their lives" when interacting with police and therefore willing to...
What I don't understand is that shouldn't unaccountability of the police mean that basically anyone can reasonably be "afraid for their lives" when interacting with police and therefore willing to resort to self-defense?
Of course it wouldn't play like that in court since it's apparently a wild wild west out there where only one side can carry a gun, but why chance your life instead of putting an officer to the ground permanently and hopefully getting away with it?
I really don't understand why I haven't seen this as part of the conversation. Everyone's digging their own graves here.
I’m sorry but does this judge understand what proximate cause is? You take each sequence of events and see which one was the significant cause of the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the final outcome. Sure, firing at a police officer in self defense resulted in them shooting Breonna Taylor, but why did he shoot at a police officer? Because they broke into the house with a no-knock warrant, the wrong house might I add. Why did they break into the wrong house? Falsified warrant. Were it not for the bad warrant, none of the following events would have taken place. That is the proximate cause.
This just sounds like “look what you made me do” victim blaming mentality. “I broke into your house without a knock on a bad warrant. How dare you try to defend your house and possibly your life like any reasonable person would? Look what you made me do now, this is your fault your girlfriend is dead.”
This ruling essentially comes down to the opposite of "Castle Law" interpretations of the second amendment, doesn't it? This ruling means that, per this judge's interpretation, there is no constitutional right to self defense. If someone is breaking into your house, you must assume it might be the police and you must therefore submit to any intruders or they will execute your family with no consequences.
Is this what "land of the free" means?
I've always heard of it as "The land of the free to follow the rules"
I am a lawyer. I don’t know enough to comment directly on the judge’s decision, but proximate cause has to do with which action in a chain if events results is close enough to be the “legal” cause as he calls it. Distinguis “but for.” A but for cause, meaning the harm would bot have happened “but for” the event in question, may be necessary but not sufficient and too remote to hold anyone liable.
More problematic is that the boyfriends actions were considered the “legal” cause. This assigns way too much protection to the police, and perhaps more importantly, the judge who signed the warrant. The judge should at a minimum have to undergo some training.
The only way I can understand this logic is if you begin the chain of events with officers already in the apartment.
This is so disheartening. And it's proof to me that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect anyone from the government.
Breonna Taylor deserved more
This is just one judge's ruling so far. The Justice Department is looking into appealing this. It still could end up swinging the other way and proving that it does protect people.
I mean she's dead. He was charged with her murder before the charges were dropped. They were still shooting at him.
If they're held legally accountable, which would be the bare minimum, it still doesn't do much. I could list similar situations here but that justification for gun ownership just doesn't apply IMO
What are the rippling legal implications of a decision like this, can any lawyers explain? This seems like a branch of new legal thinking that protects police.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's new legal thinking. It seems like it's always been this way, but now 1) there is more visibility into police conduct and misconduct – cameras are everywhere and 2) there is more attention being paid to the racialized nature of policing.
That just means that there is more "being seen to do something about the problem" when the news is hot, which means officers are charged, then something like this happens after the furor has died down. That also means these decisions are made at a higher, more visible level. Ironically, I think this is progress of a sort (though not nearly enough). 20 years ago, these officers would never have been charged in the first place and the murder would not have received national attention.
For me (straight white cis male in the US) the journey has been learning how much the lived experience of others differs from my own. My parents taught me that the police were there to help me. Most Black people I know teach their children to be extremely cautious with the police. The general shape of that thinking is that getting stopped by the police means this might be the day they die.
It's not only race either. In the last year, I have been trying to find part-time work so that I can prioritize child and house care. I'm a safety and software engineer, so it should be perfectly possible to contribute meaningfully to a team at 3/4 time. But mostly I get turned down flat, and what I have found doesn't pay nearly as well. When I talk to women about this, they are like, "uh huh, yeah, welcome to the party. It's always been that way."
Unfortunately, it's very threatening to one's self-image to confront the fact that one's success might be due as much to luck in the genetic lottery as to hard work or intelligence. Privilege is a hell of a drug. A great quote:
It is the nature of privilege to insulate itself from the knowledge of these things. I think one of the ways to make progress is to do more to pop those bubbles. The more people have a real awareness of the problem and empathy for the lived experience ofnothers, the more it could create a desire for real change.
I recommend the book Caste : The Origins of our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. She digs into this line of thinking with a depth I haven't really seen anywhere else. The audiobook reading is fantastic.
That's not all it is about, she also compares our social structure with India's caste system and covers the chain of events that got us here, starting at the beginning.
I have absolutely no hope for the United States.
What I don't understand is that shouldn't unaccountability of the police mean that basically anyone can reasonably be "afraid for their lives" when interacting with police and therefore willing to resort to self-defense?
Of course it wouldn't play like that in court since it's apparently a wild wild west out there where only one side can carry a gun, but why chance your life instead of putting an officer to the ground permanently and hopefully getting away with it?
I really don't understand why I haven't seen this as part of the conversation. Everyone's digging their own graves here.
Deescalate, please.