Black Lives Matter

[Brisketexan 106627]

What would justice have looked like to you in the Breonna Taylor case?

It would have started with no stupid warrant in furtherance of the pointlessly destructive war on drugs....and about 50 different things going forward from there.

Shitty systems and processes and shitty laws lead to shitty outcomes and deaths and destruction. From start to finish. Bad systems. Bad laws. Bad results.

There’s only two options here: injustice because the law didn’t work, or injustice because it did. I’m still not sure which is worse.

[Skyline 325]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

And it’s got the DT crowd spun up in a frenzy accusing brisket of being a Marxist, blaming all of this on the protestors while ignoring the circumstances that lead to this rage in the first place.  This is just all-around horrible with real people and police having their lives irreparably shattered...the shooting/looting/riots are absolutely in the wrong for how they’re responding but with essentially monthly reminders that the police are rarely held accountable mixed with an emboldened ‘militia’ culture, completely ignoring why they are so upset is going to lead us nowhere.  

I do not visit DT, but has this board basically split into two safe zones for politics? If so, why do the mods allow DT to exist under it's current form? 

[Thatguy 9293]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

You didn’t really answer the question.

   I did. The investigation AND presentation by the AG was a sham at best. Justice would've been any actual investigation that had any chance of conviction.

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

15 minutes ago, Skyline said:

I do not visit DT, but has this board basically split into two safe zones for politics? If so, why do the mods allow DT to exist under it's current form? 

That's a great fucking question.

I don't expect them to answer though.

[Buzzrock 15115]

   I did. The investigation AND presentation by the AG was a sham at best. Justice would've been any actual investigation that had any chance of conviction.

How do you know that? It’s all sealed. It’s my understanding that all grand jury transcripts are sealed. The answer of course is that you don’t know, you just think so. That’s ok.

What would you like to have seen someone arrested and convicted of? And who would that be?

[hobbes2702 13351]

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

How do you know that? It’s all sealed. It’s my understanding that all grand jury transcripts are sealed. The answer of course is that you don’t know, you just think so. That’s ok.

What would you like to have seen someone arrested and convicted of? And who would that be?

 

I would like to the officers arrested for murder and charged with murder and then defend their self defense claim in the court of law. 
The laws apply the same to them as they do to us. Or at least they should.

Edited September 24, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Thatguy 9293]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

How do you know that? It’s all sealed. It’s my understanding that all grand jury transcripts are sealed. The answer of course is that you don’t know, you just think so. That’s ok.

What would you like to have seen someone arrested and convicted of? And who would that be?

  You are correct. However, you can tell what they are trying to do by the actions they are taking. Did they arrest the officers and charge them? Did they bring in an outside entity for the investigation? No? Then they weren't even trying. I do not have to see the sealed transcripts, the evidence is already there for all to see.

[Buzzrock 15115]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I would like to the officers arrested for murder and charged with murder and then defend their self defense claim in the court of law. 
The laws apply the same to them as they do to us. Or at least they should.

Do you believe that should be the case every time someone kills someone in self defense? That they are arrested and tried for murder?

[hobbes2702 13351]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

Do you believe that should be the case every time someone kills someone in self defense? That they are arrested and tried for murder?

No. I believe when you break into someone’s home and kill them you should be charged with murder.

Do you think police should have to defend their actions to a jury or do you think it’s ok for their cases to simply be thrown out as “justified”?

Edited September 24, 2020 by hobbes2702

[UpperWestside 6263]

10 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Do you believe that should be the case every time someone kills someone in self defense? That they are arrested and tried for murder?

Please stop with the just asking questions guy routine. You know full well why no charges have been brought. If you would like to continue playing dumb I am certain that there is probably a thread over in DT for that.

[wildcat09 29558]

15 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Do you believe that should be the case every time someone kills someone in self defense? That they are arrested and tried for murder?

The devil doesn’t need any more fucking advocates. Try advocating for some goddamned justice.

[washparkhorn 9967]

21 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I believe when you break into someone’s home and kill them you should be charged with murder.

Game, Set, Match.

[fattyflattie 4640]

39 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

You know full well why no charges have been brought.

Why do you believe no charges were brought? 

[Thatguy 9293]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why do you believe no charges were brought? 

[fattyflattie 4640]

Genuinely curious. Because they are cops? Racial issues? Politically charged AG?   I’m curious what is so clear to him. 

[Thatguy 9293]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Genuinely curious. Because they are cops? Racial issues? Politically charged AG?   I’m curious what is so clear to him. 

  I cannot answer for him, but it's pretty clear they did not want to charge them. There was def enough evidence to do so. So the only answer left is because they were cops.

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  I cannot answer for him, but it's pretty clear they did not want to charge them. There was def enough evidence to do so. So the only answer left is because they were cops.

I guess. He spoke like it was a fucking black and white deal, piqued my interest. Also, charges have been brought, just not for murder, correct?  Wanton disregard safety of the neighbors and whatnot.  Anyhow, back to your regular scheduled CR shitflinging. 

[washparkhorn 9967]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why do you believe no charges were brought? 

Crafted laws and procedures in most states. Beancounters justify it for some reason. Structural defect with human consequences.

[Michael Knight 13187]

2 hours ago, Skyline said:

I do not visit DT, but has this board basically split into two safe zones for politics? If so, why do the mods allow DT to exist under it's current form? 

Because one mod in particular needs that safe space and pretends political shit doesn't exist there

[Michael Knight 13187]

3 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

I don’t condone violence in response to violence, but here we are. This is a really sad indictment of what we are right now as a country that people are so angry over police not being held accountable for murder that now we have police getting shot. It does not solve a thing and I think the guy I look up to the most on this, John Lewis, would say he does not condone this behavior and would not want to see officers get shot, but that he would understand the rage people are feeling, even if it is misplaced. We are on the precipice of widespread chaos and we seem content to keep stoking the flames. No words really can be adequate to say what I think of today’s decision.

Literally any other president in history would have handled this better than Trump. Trump believes it benefits him to keep fanning the flames and hammering at the divide, he does not give 2 fucks about the long term damage this is doing

[Michael Knight 13187]

On 9/21/2020 at 4:46 PM, GRHorn said:

This is a little strange. I wonder if parts were polling poorly or what. I was told here that it totally didn’t mean what it said. If that’s the case they should’ve left it. 
 

 

 

Those fucking monsters

 

[Buzzrock 15115]

No. I believe when you break into someone’s home and kill them you should be charged with murder.
Do you think police should have to defend their actions to a jury or do you think it’s ok for their cases to simply be thrown out as “justified”?

I don’t think it’s an either/or, that’s a false equivalency. I’ve seen plenty of situations where a civilian shoots and injures or kills someone and they aren’t charged due to self defense.

I think your first response is a reasonable take. I might take a little different approach and say that if a cop shoots and kills a completely innocent bystander during the course of a police action that they should be charged with a felony, hell maybe even come up with a new one just for that situation.

[Thatguy 9293]

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I don’t think it’s an either/or, that’s a false equivalency. I’ve seen plenty of situations where a civilian shoots and injures or kills someone and they aren’t charged due to self defense.

I think your first response is a reasonable take. I might take a little different approach and say that if a cop shoots and kills a completely innocent bystander during the course of a police action that they should be charged with a felony, hell maybe even come up with a new one just for that situation.

 

  And this post is exactly why we are where we are in this country.

[hobbes2702 13351]

8 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I don’t think it’s an either/or, that’s a false equivalency. I’ve seen plenty of situations where a civilian shoots and injures or kills someone and they aren’t charged due to self defense.

I think your first response is a reasonable take. I might take a little different approach and say that if a cop shoots and kills a completely innocent bystander during the course of a police action that they should be charged with a felony, hell maybe even come up with a new one just for that situation.

 

Yea what we definitely need are more special rules for cops so they can continue escaping accountability 

[Buzzrock 15115]

The devil doesn’t need any more fucking advocates. Try advocating for some goddamned justice.

I actually started the BT thread in DT. I’m trying to figure out what justice should look like.

I think there is a large segment of people who want the cops in this case arrested for murder, tried, and convicted. Unfortunately Kentucky law is not on those peoples’ side. The law has determined that those officers acted properly so there is nothing to charge them with. I’m floored by that but that’s the case.

Those officers are not going to be charged. It doesn’t matter how many protests there are. So where does that leave us?

To me that means there needs to be massive change on law enforcement so that cops cannot do that sort of thing legally any more. End the war on drugs. No breaking into peoples’ homes for non-violent criminal activity, and no breaking in period unless there is imminent danger to someone. It’s ludicrous to think that the only option these cops had was to break a door down in the middle of the night. I mean they were ASKING to get shot at, and then claimed self defense when it happened. W. T. F.

The no-knock warrant ban is a start (but might not have even mattered in this case, as the AG said that it was not served as no-knock) but they need to do more. A lot more.

[Buzzrock 15115]

Yea what we definitely need are more special rules for cops so they can continue escaping accountability 

I’m open to ideas. The laws are currently set up so that everything that those cops did was a-ok. If Barney Fife hadn’t shot through some drywall there would have been no charges filed at all. The no-knock ban fixes nothing. I am not ok with that.

[Thatguy 9293]

38 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I actually started the BT thread in DT. I’m trying to figure out what justice should look like.

I think there is a large segment of people who want the cops in this case arrested for murder, tried, and convicted. Unfortunately Kentucky law is not on those peoples’ side. The law has determined that those officers acted properly so there is nothing to charge them with. I’m floored by that but that’s the case.

Those officers are not going to be charged. It doesn’t matter how many protests there are. So where does that leave us?

To me that means there needs to be massive change on law enforcement so that cops cannot do that sort of thing legally any more. End the war on drugs. No breaking into peoples’ homes for non-violent criminal activity, and no breaking in period unless there is imminent danger to someone. It’s ludicrous to think that the only option these cops had was to break a door down in the middle of the night. I mean they were ASKING to get shot at, and then claimed self defense when it happened. W. T. F.

The no-knock warrant ban is a start (but might not have even mattered in this case, as the AG said that it was not served as no-knock) but they need to do more. A lot more.

 

 

   When I was young and everything was black and white I used to think we didn't have a problem. Drugs were bad. People who sold drugs were bad. People who did drugs were bad. Police who caught drug dealers were good.

   Then I got educated. I realized that the first drug war was simply a politically motivated attack on the communities who could negatively affect that current Presidency, and the political climate of the day. That President was pandering to a voter base who wanted their thumb placed squarely on the heads of the minorities. That President would go on to be the "Bill Walsh" of the Republican Party, and his "West Coast Offense" playbook would be passed along to all his understudies. Reagan would come along with the same strategy, except this time His Administration would actually be pumping the drugs into the streets themselves as a way to fund their behind the scenes activities.

  So now I know that Politicians are actively creating a situation where Law and Order needs to be implemented. Then they are inflating sentencing. Inflated sentences require more prison. More prisons are built. Enveloped handshakes are made. Police are taking money to turn a blind eye, and then raiding certain shipments to eliminate certain competition on the street for one cartel over another. The confiscated drugs then go missing from evidence and end up right back on street, and it's rinse and repeat.

  Once I learned that I wanted an end to the war on drugs. It is an absolute success as far as it's real intention, but an utter failure as it was presented to the American public. This Breonna Taylor case is a direct descendant of the war on drugs, and another life was senselessly taken in an effort to put yet another person in prison to line the pockets of the man. Time for it all to end.

  An end to the war on drugs is an end to the need for no knock raids and kicked in doors.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Thatguy

[Jive Turkey 12930]

Nothing will happen to this officer. 

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

I actually started the BT thread in DT. I’m trying to figure out what justice should look like.

I think there is a large segment of people who want the cops in this case arrested for murder, tried, and convicted. Unfortunately Kentucky law is not on those peoples’ side. The law has determined that those officers acted properly so there is nothing to charge them with. I’m floored by that but that’s the case.
 

 

Absolutely incorrect. The law has not determined that. The people in charge of law enforcement determined it, and in doing so consciously abandoned their obligations to enforce the law. A prosecutor who fails to get a grand jury indictment in this situation is intentionally trying not to get one. It is that simple. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Thatguy 9293]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Absolutely incorrect. The law has not determined that. The people in charge of law enforcement determined it, and in doing so consciously abandoned their obligations to enforce the law. A prosecutor who fails to get a grand jury indictment in this situation is intentionally trying not to get one. It is that simple. 

This here!!!

[TwiceHorn 31987]

11 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

No. I believe when you break into someone’s home and kill them you should be charged with murder.

Do you think police should have to defend their actions to a jury or do you think it’s ok for their cases to simply be thrown out as “justified”?

Well, you realize that "murder" isn't the same thing in all states?  In Kentucky, murder is:

A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;

Now, these guys were bastard assholes, but it's a stretch to say that any of them intended to kill Breonna Taylor.  In some states, like Texas, it would be with intent to cause death or serious injury.  But that's not the way it is in Kentucky.  First Degree Manslaughter in Kentucky includes intent to cause serious bodily injury.

So, frankly, I think "murder" is an overreach.

A homicide offense is within the realm of possibility, though.

I stated on the other thread that I think it is incorrect to present justification, necessity, self-defense, and other such defenses or affirmative defenses to a grand jury.

 

[hobbes2702 13351]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you realize that "murder" isn't the same thing in all states?  In Kentucky, murder is:

A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;

Now, these guys were bastard assholes, but it's a stretch to say that any of them intended to kill Breonna Taylor.  In some states, like Texas, it would be with intent to cause death or serious injury.  But that's not the way it is in Kentucky.  First Degree Manslaughter in Kentucky includes intent to cause serious bodily injury.

So, frankly, I think "murder" is an overreach.

A homicide offense is within the realm of possibility, though.

I stated on the other thread that I think it is incorrect to present justification, necessity, self-defense, and other such defenses or affirmative defenses to a grand jury.

 

Ok then charge them with another homicide offense. You’re arguing the legalese when they weren’t charged at all. Do you think there isn’t “intent to cause bodily injury” here?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A prosecutor who fails to get a grand jury indictment in this situation is intentionally trying not to get one. It is that simple. 

This is certainly true in the case of anonymous defendants in the usual grand jury proceeding.

I can't help but think that a GJ is a bit more conscious of their role in a police defendant case and a highly publicized one.  And I think someone who "volunteers" for grand jury duty is, unfortunately, probably more likely to be sympathetic to cops than someone plucked off the streets as in a petit jury.  Their experience as grand jurors is also likely to produce some of the same mentality that seems to govern law enforcement generally, e.g. "fucking animals."

[TwiceHorn 31987]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Ok then charge them with another homicide offense. You’re arguing the legalese when they weren’t charged at all. Do you think there isn’t “intent to cause bodily injury” here?

I specifically brought up the serious bodily injury intent because I think it fits here.  And it's how Guyger was charged with murder under Texas law.  Whether murder is the correct charge is going to vary from state to state.

It's facile to say they should be charged with "murder."  Granted, it's a perhaps minor, technical mistake, but when you're looking at something like whether someone was or was not charged with "the right offense," you have to pay attention to the details. 

In other words,  in this context, you don't get to discount it by incanting "legalese."  We're in the legalese arena here.

Here, one has to think that the grand jury considered self defense or whatever other justifications Kentucky law offers, and they only did that at the behest of the AG.  I suppose it is possible that the grand jury has considered enough homicide indictments to be sufficiently aware of the law to consider factors of justification whether prompted to or not.

In sum, I agree that they probably should have been indicted on one of the homicide offenses.  Man 1 seems to fit and that would seem to be it unless the grand jury considered justifications, which I think is or should be improper.

I took issue with the whole thing because frankly, I'm pretty sure the mob, with whom I am mostly sympathetic, would have been dissatisfied with a charge of manslaughter in the first degree because it isn't murder, notwithstanding what the law actually says.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Gap03 3374]

Sorry if I missed it, but did we ever get a straight answer for why there was no body camera footage of this?  I had seen that at least one of the officers involved actually had a body cam on his vest, but apparently there was no video? 

Given recent history, it feels like the absence of video should cut against the police in instances where there is an expectation of potential escalation.  Cops forgot to start their body cams?  We should be starting with the presumption that the victim's account of what happened is accurate and needs to be overcome by third party testimony / evidence.  Fuck this whole "You forgot to start your cam but say that you announced yourself? Oh, okay, fire away" bullshit.  You have the camera to support your version of what happened; if cops hadn't proven themselves so untrustworthy, we wouldn't be here.

[4th&Five 41904]

13 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

I’m sure they’ll call it wanton endangerment, right?

Welp 

 

[wildcat09 29558]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you realize that "murder" isn't the same thing in all states?  In Kentucky, murder is:

A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;

Now, these guys were bastard assholes, but it's a stretch to say that any of them intended to kill Breonna Taylor.  In some states, like Texas, it would be with intent to cause death or serious injury.  But that's not the way it is in Kentucky.  First Degree Manslaughter in Kentucky includes intent to cause serious bodily injury.

So, frankly, I think "murder" is an overreach.

A homicide offense is within the realm of possibility, though.

I stated on the other thread that I think it is incorrect to present justification, necessity, self-defense, and other such defenses or affirmative defenses to a grand jury.

 

Make lying on a warrant application a felony and hit them with felony murder. It should be an automatic life sentence for cops. You lie on a warrant application and someone ends up dying? You caused that death. I don't care if you weren't even the one to pull the trigger.

[Gourmand 7778]

42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Absolutely incorrect. The law has not determined that. The people in charge of law enforcement determined it, and in doing so consciously abandoned their obligations to enforce the law. A prosecutor who fails to get a grand jury indictment in this situation is intentionally trying not to get one. It is that simple. 

Exactly, and the first part of the answer to the question of "what would justice look like?" is transparency. The sham jury process in this instance only protects those that the justice system already overwhelmingly protects in the first place. That's not justice, that's a rigged game in favor of law enforcement at the expense of the law abiding public.  

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Make lying on a warrant application a felony and hit them with felony murder. It should be an automatic life sentence for cops. You lie on a warrant application and someone ends up dying? You caused that death. I don't care if you weren't even the one to pull the trigger.

makes legal sense, in that if you drive the getaway car, you get hit with the murder charge as well.

 

[hayden_horn 11401]

54 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Absolutely incorrect. The law has not determined that. The people in charge of law enforcement determined it, and in doing so consciously abandoned their obligations to enforce the law. A prosecutor who fails to get a grand jury indictment in this situation is intentionally trying not to get one. It is that simple. 

yeah, this was a whitewashing for the cops. i'm actually even more shocked after a day of reflection. the shit that attorney general was shoveling in his presser has really started to smell. they found one guy who said police announced themselves. one. meanwhile the press said 11 others said "no announcement." further, wasn't there one dude who peeked in the hallway who the police told to stay in his apartment? was that the guy that said they announced their presence? he said that the grand jury was presented all the evidence, but he also refuses to release a grand jury report. 

this was a flat out cover up.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Make lying on a warrant application a felony and hit them with felony murder. It should be an automatic life sentence for cops. You lie on a warrant application and someone ends up dying? You caused that death. I don't care if you weren't even the one to pull the trigger.

I'm coming around to the idea that we need special criminal laws for cops.  More tailored to the situations we find them in.

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, this was a whitewashing for the cops. i'm actually even more shocked after a day of reflection. the shit that attorney general was shoveling in his presser has really started to smell. they found one guy who said police announced themselves. one. meanwhile the press said 11 others said "no announcement." further, wasn't there one dude who peeked in the hallway who the police told to stay in his apartment? was that the guy that said they announced their presence? he said that the grand jury was presented all the evidence, but he also refuses to release a grand jury report. 

this was a flat out cover up.

Let me point out that grand jury shit is secret in every jurisdiction for a pretty good reason.  That reason is that grand juries consider evidence against and implicating innocent people.  And even many of the people they indict are innocent.  Making that public outside the context of an adversarial trial with an opportunity to defend would be a shitstorm.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me point out that grand jury shit is secret in every jurisdiction for a pretty good reason.  That reason is that grand juries consider evidence against and implicating innocent people.  And even many of the people they indict are innocent.  Making that public would be a shitstorm.

If the accused were working for the public at the time of being accused does the public not have the right of know?

[hayden_horn 11401]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me point out that grand jury shit is secret in every jurisdiction for a pretty good reason.  That reason is that grand juries consider evidence against and implicating innocent people.  And even many of the people they indict are innocent.  Making that public would be a shitstorm.

i don't need to know who they are. but my curiosity as to the evidence they considered...well, that's a different story.

i find it...suspect....how every time a cop grand jury is convened they seem to not indict the cops for the worst charge, whereas for a layperson, it's commonly a throw the book at em moment. 

it's clear to me that district attorneys, and in this case, the attorney general presented evidence favorable for the alleged defendants rather than all the evidence. did he march all the apartment complex residents in front of the grand jury so they could say they heard nothing but knocking? or did he march the one dude who claims they announced? i think we know the answer to that. and if we know the answer to that, we know the answer to the rest of the questions.

a poster on DT pointed out that the only indictments issued were for the bullets that missed. i need to go back and rep that, because it's really taken root in my brainpan over the past hour or so.

edit: it was @lemonlime

Edited September 24, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Brisketexan 106627]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Making that public outside the context of an adversarial trial with an opportunity to defend would be a shitstorm.

Yeah.....which is why they should have let an actual jury consider and weigh the evidence.

Evidence supporting the cops barging in, creating a dangerous situation and thus not justifying self-defense -- something like 11 witnesses?

Evidence supporting the cops announcing themselves beforehand -- 1 witness, who was not subject to any cross examination as to both what he heard and the timing of same.

Sure as hell seems like more than enough for probable cause, and up to a petit jury, after the evidence is vetted and tested on direct and cross, to determine whether it supports a conviction under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.....which is why they should have let an actual jury consider and weigh the evidence.

Evidence supporting the cops barging in, creating a dangerous situation and thus not justifying self-defense -- something like 11 witnesses?

Evidence supporting the cops announcing themselves beforehand -- 1 witness, who was not subject to any cross examination as to both what he heard and the timing of same.

Sure as hell seems like more than enough for probable cause, and up to a petit jury, after the evidence is vetted and tested on direct and cross, to determine whether it supports a conviction under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Can't disagree with that.

But, after having examined grand jury secrecy in the context of the Mueller report, I think it's a valid and reasoned thing.

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can't disagree with that.

But, after having examined grand jury secrecy in the context of the Mueller report, I think it's a valid and reasoned thing.

Oh, I don't disagree with Grand Jury secrecy.  The problem is, it creates the opportunity for shenanigans, particularly when the authorities have destroyed all public trust.  And based on this case, I strongly suspect shenanigans.  11-1 on objective witnesses saying there was no announcement.  It's effectively impossible for me to read that as not being sufficient evidence under a "probable cause" standard to refer the case forward.  Shit, that exact same evidence may be enough to support conviction under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- it depends on what the jury thinks of the accuracy and credibility of each witness after hearing them on direct and cross.

So, yeah....shenanigans.  

[TwiceHorn 31987]

24 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

If the accused were working for the public at the time of being accused does the public not have the right of know?

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have a process to obtain grand jury information/evidence.  The interest of the public is not one of the factors permitting its release.

This is not, of course, a federal proceeding, but most state laws are pretty analogous.

The only point being that the refusal by the Kentucky AG to disclose grand jury proceedings may be convenient for him, but it is not some abuse of authority; it's a long-standing rule.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I don't disagree with Grand Jury secrecy.  The problem is, it creates the opportunity for shenanigans, particularly when the authorities have destroyed all public trust.  And based on this case, I strongly suspect shenanigans.  11-1 on objective witnesses saying there was no announcement.  It's effectively impossible for me to read that as not being sufficient evidence under a "probable cause" standard to refer the case forward.  Shit, that exact same evidence may be enough to support conviction under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- it depends on what the jury thinks of the accuracy and credibility of each witness after hearing them on direct and cross.

So, yeah....shenanigans.  

Again, I don't find the announcement or lack thereof probative of a homicide offense.  It might go to justification, as to who shot first and why, but I have already said I don't think grand juries should consider justification-type or affirmative defenses. Hell, they don't consider any other defenses the defendant may have.

[hobbes2702 13351]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have a process to obtain grand jury information/evidence.  The interest of the public is not one of the factors permitting its release.

This is not, of course, a federal proceeding, but most state laws are pretty analogous.

The only point being that the refusal by the Kentucky AG to disclose grand jury proceedings may be convenient for him, but it is not some abuse of authority; it's a long-standing rule.

I understand it’s not an abuse, my point is more forward looking