Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WookieeSteakIsChewie t1_j04lilx wrote

From the article...

>“Breonna Taylor was a superhero. She was a first responder risking her life to keep people alive during the historic pandemic,” said Welbeck. 

Uh.. Didn't she die before the pandemic started?

10

Muscadine76 t1_j04zr3u wrote

She was killed on March 13. WHO declared a pandemic March 11 and Trump declared a national emergency March 13. Louisville was seeing cases start appearing by that week. So no, but it was right at the beginning.

−2

TreeMac12 t1_j07fuct wrote

Also from the article...

"The inspiration for the proactive approach to address prejudice and bigotry was brought to life...following the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020.'

Was Breonna Taylor ruled a murder?

from the NYT, two days ago:

"No officer has ever been charged with shooting Ms. Taylor"

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html

How does this make it past a proofreader?

2

Muscadine76 t1_j07x8be wrote

Given that part of the whole BLM/racial l-justice-in-policing critique is that police are often protected from prosecution, and given that many people consider Taylor’s death to be a murder, I’m not sure of your point here other than to argue semantics.

−1

TreeMac12 t1_j085gsn wrote

>many people consider Taylor’s death to be a murder

Semantics? Murder is a legal term with a very specific meaning. Just because "many people consider' something doesn't make it true. In fact, calling someone a murderer when they have not been convicted of it opens you up to charges of defamation.

It's the reason Kyle Rittenhouse will be a multi-millionaire soon.

The Bucks County Beacon should know better. That's my point.

https://www.atrlawfirm.com/post/killer-murderer-defamation

2

Muscadine76 t1_j09hq79 wrote

So, you are wanting to argue about semantics then, yeah. The meaning people ascribe to words. You are asserting one meaning but it’s not the only meaning, as your own source explores. Did you even read the article you linked to?

Stating someone is a murderer is a direct accusation and as the article you linked to states, it might be grounds for defamation. But especially if it’s not an organization that would just rather settle its not clear suing against even a direct accusation would be successful.

But that’s also different from describing a person’s death as “a murder”. Saying you believe a person’s death was a murder or is best described as a murder isn’t clearly grounds for defamation at all.

In addition, as your article states, even if we’re talking about direct accusations “legal standard” isn’t the only understood meaning:

> If we assume for now that the term "murder" refers to the intentional killing of another person without justification, a private person may look at the situation and reach the conclusion the officers acted without justification when they shot and killed Breonna Taylor…

> Additionally, it could be argued that the gist of being called a murderer isn’t an accusation the officers committed the crime of murder. Rather, the essence of the accusation is that the officers intentionally shot at Taylor and her boyfriend, killing Taylor for no good reason.

> Many people genuinely believe there was no justification for killing Taylor, even if it is determined there was a justification under the law.

0

TreeMac12 t1_j09nbb8 wrote

It’s not semantics, it’s the actual dictionary definition: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.

A publisher should be aware of this before publishing. Her killing, while awful, does not meet this definition.

0

Muscadine76 t1_j0b919j wrote

>It’s not semantics, it’s the actual dictionary definition

Bless your heart.

0

TreeMac12 t1_j0bejmh wrote

This is what’s wrong with modern journalism. Words don’t have objective meanings, only feelings.

0

Muscadine76 t1_j07xde9 wrote

Interesting reaction to a sharing of basic facts.

1

PopeGeraldVII t1_j0475ti wrote

Is this center to fight racism going to promote any sort of structural changes to society in order to deal with the legacy of racism in people's daily lives?

Or is it going to tell people that they should be against racism, and not be ashamed of that?

4

Open_Veins_8 OP t1_j04gmzn wrote

Both

1

WookieeSteakIsChewie t1_j04l4a0 wrote

How?

4

chrimack t1_j06bzkk wrote

> Some of those priorities include providing value for all students, leading to exceptional success and accelerating commitment to impactful civic engagement and future-oriented thought leadership

It's right there in the article.

/s

5

BramDeccapod t1_j06zi4s wrote

A scam.

This org will do nothing but look for things to be outraged over.

3

Open_Veins_8 OP t1_j042rss wrote

The Center for Anti-Racism will educate students so that they can “unapologetically stand against bigotry” and help build a better world as engaged citizens. This is going to trigger right-wing school board members across the state.

−4