The truth on Breonna Taylor

[K Graham]

Louisville police release the Breonna Taylor incident report. It's virtually blank

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Nearly three months after Louisville Metro Police officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her South End apartment, the department has released the incident report from that night.

Except, it is almost entirely blank.

The four-page report lists the time, date, case number, incident location and the victim's name — Breonna Shaquelle Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female.

But it redacts Taylor's street number, apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported.

And it lists her injuries as "none," even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.

It lists the charges as "death investigation — LMPD involved" but checks the "no" box under "forced entry," even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor's apartment door.

So while ajax is whining about poor white cops being poor victims of a "media narrative" the evidence demonstrates the opposite. In fact, this police dept is guilty of making black people the victims of their own desperate attempts to manufacture self serving narratives by flat out lying.


The Louisville police claimed that none of the officers were wearing body cameras, as all three were plainclothes narcotics officers. On September 4, several news sources, including The Courier-Journal, reported that photographs of police officers taken late that day showed that at least one wore a body camera. In the later photographs, one of the officers who fired his weapon, Myles Cosgrove, was wearing a mount for a body camera; another detective who was present wore a body camera, although it is not known whether it was active. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/n ... 710493002/

Why would they turn off their cameras if what they were doing was kosher?

Moreover, Walker insists he couldn't have fired the bullet that his Sgt Mattingly because he fired a warning shot in a different direction. The ballistics report couldn't determine who fired the shot that hit him, but based on the forensic evidence at the scene it could have easily been from friendly fire.

[K Graham]

Why does it have to be about me?

A better question is why does everything you post have to be about black people in a negative way? Why does everything you post always have to be about Brietbart?

Why can't we discuss the facts of this case that have been presented by the other side?

You haven't presented any facts, all you've done is share a well reported testimony from a disgraced cop who denies any wrongdoing. Everything he says you categorize as "facts" when the only fact here is that you weren't there, so you really don't know what happened. But you choose to believe a cop because he's white, testifying against black people who claim he's lying. Don't try to confuse your racist bias as legitimate "discussion of facts."

I didn't write the original piece. This was written by the Daily Wire which has agreed to publish Officer Mattingly's book.

You mean an extreme Right Wing hack site is going to publish a racist cop's memoirs? Color me shocked.

If you reject or believe that the mainstream media had the facts right from the beginning, tell me why.

I already demonstrated that the police dept lied multiple times about what happened. The media reports what eye witnesses tell them. The cops were ignoring the witnesses so they could come up with a narrative for the purposes of a coverup. That's just part of systemic racism in America.

I'm interested to hear your side of it too.

No you're not. We discussed this when it happened and all you did was attack Walker for having a criminal history and did everything that you could to justify the forced entry and the spraying of gunfire.

[Dr. Shades]

Even if the police shout out "Police! Search Warrant!" first?

There is no evidence he did that aside from his say so.

Granted, but NOT shouting "Police! Search Warrant!" immediately after breaching the door violates all known standards of police procedure. The only reason I can think of for not doing that is if they took gunfire before getting a chance.

Why do you believe him over the black victims and their black neighbors?

Because of the sentence I typed immediately before this one. BUT, I concede that this violates what he said happened in the opening post, so I guess I'm back to square one.

[canpakes]

Even if the police shout out "Police! Search Warrant!" first?

From what I understand there is conflicting evidence as to whether it was no-knock vs announced. Police say they announced before they entered. Witnesses at the scene share conflicting testimony, with some saying there was no announcement and others saying they only announced once they breached the door. My criticism is against no-knock warrants. I should have been more specific.

And being plainclothes officers probably didn’t help matters.

If a trio of unknown dudes in plain clothes suddenly pounded on my door or entered while shouting, “Police!” and brandishing weapons, I’m not sure that I would automatically assume that they are who they say they are, without first having a more defensive reaction.

Then again, I’ve lived in some rougher neighborhoods, and learned to be both cautious and cynical.

[Res Ipsa]

The truth is that Ms. Taylor is dead and she did nothing to deserve it. The truth is that black folks have been raising how they are treated by police for decades but the treatment persists. The truth is that the guy with the gun has a constitutional right to defend himself with lethal force. The truth is that walking people up in the middle of the night, especially in a high crime neighborhood, by banging on the door, shouting or not, and then breaking the door down, has a high likelihood of leading the occupants of a home that they are under attack and in danger.

If the police switched from the original plan of no knock to knock and announce because they determined there wasn’ta risk that evidence was destroyed, why the hell were they in a hurry to use a battering ram on the door? If they did the same thing at my front door in the middle of the night, I doubt I’d have my door open in even two minutes. in my opinion, this was the result of Piss poor training and Piss poor planning that resulted in an innocent citizen’s death.

[Kishkumen]

Why does it have to be about me? Why can't we discuss the facts of this case that have been presented by the other side? I didn't write the original piece. This was written by the Daily Wire which has agreed to publish Officer Mattingly's book. If you reject or believe that the mainstream media had the facts right from the beginning, tell me why. I'm interested to hear your side of it too.

There’s this concept, a useful one, called “revealed preferences.” You reveal your real preferences in what you do. If you consistently post things that favor the white person’s side of the argument in a racial issue, that says something about you. It suggests that you are racially biased, and probably a racist.

We can talk about the facts, but Mattingly’s view, which you quote in the OP, is riddled with problems. First of all, he has every reason to bend the truth to exonerate himself. You are motivated by your biases to take what he says at face value. I doubt him.

[Xenophon]

There is no evidence he did that aside from his say so.

Granted, but NOT shouting "Police! Search Warrant!" immediately after breaching the door violates all known standards of police procedure. The only reason I can think of for not doing that is if they took gunfire before getting a chance.

Why do you believe him over the black victims and their black neighbors?

Because of the sentence I typed immediately before this one. BUT, I concede that this violates what he said happened in the opening post, so I guess I'm back to square one.

The counter to this is of course to point out that the department fired Jaynes and Hankins directly for violating department policies. If they failed to follow protocol both when obtaining the warrant and then also following their kicking in the door why should I suspend disbelief that they did that one part right, especially given the dozen or so witnesses countering their claim?

[ajax18]

There’s this concept, a useful one, called “revealed preferences.” You reveal your real preferences in what you do. If you consistently post things that favor the white person’s side of the argument in a racial issue, that says something about you. It suggests that you are racially biased, and probably a racist.

I'll agree that I'm biased as is most everyone else on this board. But I don't hate black people as K Graham contends. Does it count when I post the black person's side of the argument and the black person is a conservative? I've posted on Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, etc.

We can talk about the facts, but Mattingly’s view, which you quote in the OP, is riddled with problems. First of all, he has every reason to bend the truth to exonerate himself. You are motivated by your biases to take what he says at face value. I doubt him.

So ultimately it just comes down to who we choose to believe. I think officer Mattingly's testimony disproves several things the media reported initially. The fact that the mainstream media consistently erred in a way that favored the criminal rather than the police demonstrates their bias to me and therefore I don't trust the mainstream media.

[Chap]

There’s this concept, a useful one, called “revealed preferences.” You reveal your real preferences in what you do. If you consistently post things that favor the white person’s side of the argument in a racial issue, that says something about you. It suggests that you are racially biased, and probably a racist.

I'll agree that I'm biased as is most everyone else on this board. But I don't hate black people as K Graham contends. Does it count when I post the black person's side of the argument and the black person is a conservative? I've posted on Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, etc.

We can talk about the facts, but Mattingly’s view, which you quote in the OP, is riddled with problems. First of all, he has every reason to bend the truth to exonerate himself. You are motivated by your biases to take what he says at face value. I doubt him.

So ultimately it just comes down to who we choose to believe. I think officer Mattingly's testimony disproves several things the media reported initially. The fact that the mainstream media consistently erred in a way that favored the criminal rather than the police demonstrates their bias to me and therefore I don't trust the mainstream media.

Note the difference between this post and one by AtlanticMike. Ajax does not agree with his interlocutor, and explains his reasons for that at some length. There is no abuse, or nonsensical distraction. Nor, thankfully, are there acres of emojis. This is a post appropriate to a discussion board.

[Kishkumen]

Note the difference between this post and one by AtlanticMike. Ajax does not agree with his interlocutor, and explains his reasons for that at some length. There is no abuse, or nonsensical distraction. Nor, thankfully, are there acres of emojis. This is a post appropriate to a discussion board.

Indeed! Ajax participates like a member of the community, and so, no matter how objectionable his views may be, there is no hue and cry to give him a break from the board.