472
submitted 3 weeks ago by Vordimous@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 289 points 3 weeks ago

Judge Simpson said that "there is no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor's death."

What?! How does that make any sense? If the cops didn’t illegally enter her apartment without a warrant, Breonna would still be alive today. Cause meet effect. How is that not a direct link?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 151 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly. The fuck.

Judge was appointed by Reagan

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 58 points 3 weeks ago

Ol' Rotten Ronnie fucking the world from beyond the grave.

[-] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 16 points 3 weeks ago
[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 57 points 3 weeks ago

I think the opinion (as bad as it is) is that if the warrant was good the judge thinks the exact same thing would have happened. So the fact that these assholes knowingly lied to get the warrant isn't a "direct link".

To me making that argument kind of signals that no-knock warrants shouldn't be a thing at all if you accept that an innocent would die either way because it's so fucked up....and on top of that the cops still clearly caused this by lying because this isn't a case of good warrant vs bad warrant - this is a case of bad warrant vs no warrant and Breonna still being alive.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I think the legal principle here is that of a superseding cause. The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge's decision. However, the case described in that Wikipedia article is illustrative:

if a defendant had carelessly spilled gasoline near a pile of cigarette butts in an alley behind a bar, the fact that a bar patron later carelessly threw a cigarette butt into the gasoline would be deemed a foreseeable intervening cause, and would not absolve the defendant of tort liability. However, if the bar patron intentionally threw the cigarette butt into the gasoline because he wanted to see it ignite, this intentional act would likely be deemed unforeseeable, and therefore superseding.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge’s decision.

What are you talking about? Of course you can! Any reasonable person can see that this decision is bullshit, nuances of superseding cause be damned.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

Wow that hurt my head. I read the rest of the Wikipedia page and I think I understand, but damn, I’ll need to read the judge’s full opinion to see just how creatively he applied that principle. Tort law is not for me.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Tort law is essentially legal sorcery

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Sounds like that only reduces it to wilful negligence, not malice. There's still significant liability there.

Also, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the officers that wrote up the warrant request, not the ones actually on scene who did the shooting.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
472 points (98.6% liked)

News

22877 readers
2767 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS