Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "NO JUSTICE for Breonna Taylor, Grand Jury Decision" video.

  1. Anyone in this case being convicted of a criminal charge would not be justice. You don't understand the meaning of justice. This is revenge. The no-knock warrant, at that time, was legal. It was their protocol. It was standard operating procedures. It wasn't changed in time for Breonna to still be living (notwithstanding decisions by the civilian individuals therein that even led to this), but that doesn't make it criminal. That does not give the officers who partook in requesting or acting on the warrant culpable mindsets. Ex post facto legislation is considered bad for a good reason. Are the survivors of Breonna due a buttload of civil awards for what happened? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Is there room for any criminal prosecution? If there is, then every single voter is culpable in her death for voting in no one who changed that law.
    3
  2.  @ReapDaProductions  Yeah, yeah, people can't speak their mind without being called a Russian bot or whatever. I'm used to it already. Thanks for being today's idiot. Sometimes I agree with TYT's opinion--often times I don't. This is one of the times I don't. The police involved in the execution of the warrant are so painfully not culpable in Breonna's death that it takes someone with either a staggering amount of ignorance in what justice is and how the law works or someone so bigoted that they see red as soon as anyone doesn't just agree in lockstep with their own opinions.
    3
  3.  @KCGainz  You just want revenge, not justice.
    2
  4. They will call them racist names like "Uncle Toms" and "race traitors." They'll say that they're not "real" black people. It's the same mentality that came out when Biden said, "If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black."
    2
  5. Be heartbroken that Breonna's dead, because that's sad. But no officer was culpable in her death. It's so painfully clear.
    2
  6.  @jameseet  The burden is to prove criminal negligence.
    2
  7.  @jameseet  Can you prove that they knew the information was bad when they acted on it?
    1
  8.  @ReapDaProductions  This isn't a matter of intelligence; it's a matter of knowledge. It's not a matter of competition either. You speak beyond what your knowledge can back up. This is an issue with what you espouse externally versus what you've first developed internally. "Your whole worldview and ideology seem to ride on the idea that everything that has happened in modern history is just and empirically right because the average citizen created their environment..." Just no. I've already corrected this misconception. I'm not going to repeat the same thing in different words. If you want to understand where you're wrong in my view, go back and read my replies again. "and not the fact that the largest owners of capital have manipulated us into accepting their agency through the veil of a shrinkingly democratic government" Repeating yourself isn't helping your case that you belong in this conversation. You must address my objections and points.
    1
  9.  @ReapDaProductions  I have corrected you. You may disagree with the corrections, but the corrections stand until you address them. "That is the picture you are painting of your position. If you can’t articulate well enough it’s not my problem." Or maybe your bigoted brain doesn't allow you to see it any differently--even when told specifically how you're wrong. "I don’t need to do anything." If you want to have a rational discussion, yes, you have duties. "It won’t really matter when public opinion and demonstration outweighs the paper sitting in the government building." Right now, all of this nonsense is absolutely abusing the luxury and privilege of a public very slow to anger and action. But let me make this perfectly clear: the law of nature, which you opt to live by when acting outside of civil law, will be revisited in full force. If your terms are war without your perception of justice, then those terms will be met on the former, not the latter.
    1
  10. How do you explain and intend to to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone was culpable in her death?
    1
  11. ​ @ReapDaProductions  Since you had no idea what qualified immunity is in the other thread you never replied to, I question your knowledge of ex post facto. "We haven’t even come to the conclusion that what they did was legal, and justified use of police force" A grand jury just decided it. It's settled. It was legal and a justified use of force. A grand jury is not a jury of police peers. "straw-manned" You mean I was begging the question, because that's what you described you think is happening (that's not what's happening either, but you didn't even describe a strawman argument--you described begging the question). I don't think that you're anywhere near as smart as you think you are.
    1
  12. ​ @jameseet  Unless you were in commission of a felony or misdemeanor at the time you kill someone, no, you're not charged with manslaughter.
    1
  13. ​ @ReapDaProductions  What you're talking about is supporting the doctrine of ex post facto. Something happens, not illegal, you figure that should have been illegal, pass a law, charge someone based on what was legal 10 minutes ago. Yeah, absolutely no way that could be horrifically abused. You just can't see more than two feet in front of your nose. You don't take time to consider the wide-reaching ramifications that issue from the logic of your ideas.
    1
  14.  @ReapDaProductions  Ordinary. Citizens. Still. Are. The. Ones. That. Ultimately. Vote. No excuse. I've never argued every law is awesome and just. I HAVE argued that it is the law regardless. If we're just going to judge people on feelings and not law, then remove laws altogether. While any system made by man will be fallible as man is fallible, justice systems establish checksafes that try to catch most of the injustices. It's not perfect and it will never be perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than justice by way of whims.
    1
  15.  @jameseet  None of that has to do with the question I asked. All of it is speculative to boot. All they have to answer with, "That's standard operating procedures," and you'll get no further.
    1
  16. Because it's clear to anyone that there's no culpability in Breonna's death.
    1
  17.  @mnomadvfx  "Sure sure, a 'cop' fired through a covered window into civilian housing and their is no culpability." You say that then present arguments like these are the only facts surrounding the incident.
    1
  18.  @ReapDaProductions  "now it's really the voters who are responsible" Reading comprehension. I said if anyone is culpable then the voters would also be culpable. Meaning both. There is no shift. It's a matter of what's rational and can be logically argued. If you're saying the police are culpable for following the law, then the voters who authorized such laws must also be culpable. You'd have no logical defense against such extremities if you want to punish people for following established laws.
    1
  19.  @ReapDaProductions  If anyone is culpable in this tragedy, then so would every voter who voted into office the people that allowed this to occur. Culpability has its limits. It's a state of mind, not an action.
    1
  20.  @Demion83  Being responsible and being culpable are two entirely different things.
    1
  21. There is clearly no one culpable in the death of Breonna Taylor. If you think there is, then explain how you intend to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
    1
  22.  @whovian2476  The people that shot the cops were likely culpable. The police in Breonna's death are so painfully not culpable.
    1
  23. It wouldn't be justice to charge any officer the the death of Breonna. There was CLEARLY no culpability there.
    1
  24. What occurred that was criminal to morally warrant criminal charges as opposed to only civil liability?
    1
  25.  @ReapDaProductions  No matter what you read into my question, the only way you could take it is in a way that is unfavorable to the doctrine of qualified immunity... I quite clearly alluded that civil liability should stand. I have a feeling that you actually have no idea what qualified immunity is.
    1
  26. What part of the legislative body of the various states and federal government are duly elected representatives not able to participate in?
    1
  27.  @therealivydawg  The unlawful killing of an individual is murder. I do not see an unlawful killing in the case of Breonna Taylor. I see a duly issued search warrant issued by law that was executed where police were shot at and they responded with force. An unfortunate loss of life, as any life, but not criminal. We can certainly speak of civil responsibility in the death and qualified immunity therein where a reasonable discussion may be had.
    1