To avoid any ambiguity, I going to state my position plainly and will not address it anymore. As you said, I never stated specifically if Walker resisted an arrest that's because it isn't clear. As I previously stated, if Walker knew they were the police then, yes, he resisted by shooting at them. If he didn't, then it was self-defense.
No, what I said is that you didn't use the exact words "Walker resisted arrest". What YOU DID say is that it is obvious that when these things occur it's because they resisted police. Since you were talking about the Taylor incident, it seemed pretty obvious that you meant that in reference to this case, but now you seem to be backtracking. There was no caveat about whether or not Walker knew they were the police.
So, here's the flaw with this logic, pellius. We're discussing a civilian shooting at the police. You said "the charges were stupid and should have been dropped". So, if we take your amended caveat at face value, then why would you think it would be stupid to charge someone for shooting at the police if he was aware that they were the police? This whole segment seems like a weak attempt at backtracking. The idea that you think the charges were unwarranted if he knew it was the police makes even less sense than how you originally wrote the statement.
I just explained the first part of your statement, and as far as the second, you can absolutely shoot someone and not intend to kill them let alone murder them.
What I actually wrote is "
kill or seriously harm". And this is another example of Olympic-level cognitive dissonance. You just spent several pages saying that you didn't believe Walker's version of events that it was a warning shot, you favored the cops' version, there was no way they could know if it was meant as a warning shot, etc. Yet here, to buoy an amended statement that it seems pretty clear you didn't mean, you compare Walker's situation and intentions to examples of people who administered what were essentially warning shots.
These statements didn't clear up any ambiguity. You changed statements you made into something you didn't actually say and, as a result, they are even more contradictory than the original versions. It's too bad you won't be responding anymore, but I guess it's understandable. Everyone knows how much you hate to argue on the internet and it's not like you've ever bragged about how relentless your debating skills are -- as recently as one page ago in this very thread.
And just to repeat what I said earlier, this is not me harping on a minor inconsistency in your post and trying to grind you down to admit it.
If you're going to have a no-knock warrant, then execute a no-knock warrant. If you're going to have a knock-and-announce, then execute a knock-and-announce. If the cops actually knocked for a minute or more without identifying themselves until the first ram, that is the absolute worst option, by orders of magnitude. To give the people behind the door that amount of time to create fear and suspicion would inevitably lead to something like this at some point.
If the cops lied about the justifications for a search warrant, if they didn't do proper pre-raid surveillance (which we know they didn't do because they weren't aware Taylor's boyfriend was with her), if they conducted the raid improperly, I would consider those all procedural breakdowns that may have resulted in Taylor's death. Not to mention the fact that there's a possibility that the grand jury may not have been allowed to charge the cops with any more serious charges and there may be camera footage that can clarify how the raid was conducted, but we don't know. There are so many parts of this case and pieces of evidence that the ag has been cagey about.
On paper this sounds like exactly the type of case some conservatives would support, or at least be interested in- a legal gun owner protecting his significant other's property from possible government overreach. But at the very least it does show how
certain lives matter far less depending on things like race and socio-economic status and it is super easy for people to justify the law applying to different people differently. Even when it creates a notable contradiction in their personal beliefs.
