breonna taylor

Freed To Speak, Grand Juror Says Charges in Breonna Taylor's Death Were Never Considered, Let Alone Rejected

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said "the grand jury agreed" that indicting the two officers who shot Taylor was inappropriate.

|

A Kentucky judge yesterday freed the grand jurors who considered criminal charges in the Breonna Taylor case to talk about what happened during those proceedings. One of them promptly accused Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron of misrepresenting their deliberations, saying they did not decline to indict the Louisville police officers who fatally shot Taylor, an unarmed 26-year-old EMT with no criminal record, during a fruitless middle-of-the-night drug raid on March 13. The juror said prosecutors never presented that as an option.

During a post-indictment press conference last month, Cameron said "the grand jury agreed" that Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove were acting legally in self-defense when they fired a total of 22 rounds at Taylor and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, that night. He also said the grand jurors were "presented all of the information and ultimately made the determination" that Detective Brett Hankison, who blindly fired 10 shots from outside Taylor's apartment, "was the one to be indicted." Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment, since some of his bullets entered an apartment behind Taylor's, which was occupied by three people.

According to an unnamed grand juror who responded to Cameron's statements by seeking public disclosure of the proceedings, the wanton endangerment charges against Hankison were the only charges that prosecutors presented. "Questions were asked about the additional charges, and the grand jury was told there would be none because the prosecutors didn't feel they could make them stick," the juror said in a statement issued by attorney Kevin Glogower. "The grand jury didn't agree that certain actions were justified, nor did it decide the indictment should be the only charges in the Breonna Taylor case. The grand jury was not given the opportunity to deliberate on those charges and deliberated only on what was presented to them."

Cameron said state prosecutors determined that charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove were not legally justified because they were responding to a shot fired by Walker, which struck Mattingly in the leg. In those circumstances, he said, the two officers reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent serious injury or death. But according to the juror, "the grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them" and "never heard about those laws." The juror added that "self-defense or justification was never explained either."

Regardless of what prosecutors said, the grand jurors had the power to seek additional information and to consider charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove. But they may not have realized that, especially after prosecutors informed them that "the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves," which "bars us from pursuing criminal charges" in connection with Taylor's death, as Cameron put it during his press conference.

Audio recordings of the evidence presented to the grand jurors were released earlier this month. In a highly unusual decision yesterday making the entire grand jury record public and allowing the jurors to discuss what happened behind closed doors, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Annie O'Connell said Cameron's comments about the deliberations opened the door to further disclosure. She cited "the interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to be assured that its publicly elected officials are being honest in their representations; the interest of grand jurors, whose service is compelled, to be certain their work is not mischaracterized by the very prosecutors on whom they relied to advise them; and the interest of all citizens to have confidence in the integrity of the justice system."

A second anonymous grand juror welcomed O'Connell's decision, saying he or she "will be discussing possible next steps with counsel." Cameron said he disagreed with the ruling but will not appeal it.

"Legal issues like causation, justification, and others were always at the forefront during the months of our investigation and had to be considered as my office analyzed the potential charges," Cameron said in a statement he issued yesterday. "As Special Prosecutor, it was my decision to ask for an indictment on charges that could be proven under Kentucky law. Indictments obtained in the absence of sufficient proof under the law do not stand up and are not fundamentally fair to anyone." Notably, Cameron did not say prosecutors explained the relevant law or their reasoning to the grand jurors, as implied by his statements last month that "the grand jury agreed" and "made the determination" that only Hankison should be charged.

Mattingly, meanwhile, seems to have drawn exactly the wrong lesson from the reckless, legally dubious raid that killed Taylor. In an interview with ABC News yesterday, he said "Breonna Taylor would be alive" if he and his colleagues—who approached the apartment around 12:40 a.m., when Taylor and Walker were both in bed—had not knocked and announced themselves before breaking into the apartment.

Although the no-knock search warrant authorized them to dispense with that step, the officers did bang on the door (for 30 to 45 seconds, according to Walker; 45 seconds to a minute, according to the cops), and they say they identified themselves. Cameron accepted that account, although it was contradicted by Walker, who said he thought he was defending himself and Taylor against dangerous criminals, and by nearly every neighbor who spoke to the press. Walker reported a break-in during phone calls that night, including a 911 call after the shooting in which he said, "I don't know what's happening. Somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend." Local prosecutors, who initially charged Walker with attempted murder, dropped that charge in May.

Given the deadly confusion created by the officers' tactics—a well-known hazard of such raids—it is hard to believe things would have turned out better if they had stormed into the apartment even more precipitously. Yet that is what Mattingly claims. He told ABC that Taylor would not have been shot if "we would've either served the no-knock warrant or we would've done the normal thing we do—which is [wait] five to 10 seconds—to not give people time to formulate a plan, not give people time to get their senses so they have an idea of what they're doing."

Yet it is precisely the use of deliberately discombobulating tactics, which intentionally do not "give people time to get their senses," that predictably leads to fatal confrontations like this one. "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason," Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) observed in June. "The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announced before it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

NEXT: Pope Francis Declares Support for Civil Unions for Gay Couples

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. need a grand jury to investigate if what the juror is saying is true. that will get the correct result this time. I’m sure.

    1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily Cvb and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here

      1. PART TIME JOB FOR STUDENTS
        Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined TOP this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………Click here

    2. I’d investigate further, but having worked in a mushroom farm as a teen, what would I learn?

      No knock searches really need to be discontinued, they have no excuse outside rare hostage situations.

      1. Why would you need a no knock *search warrant* in a hostage situation?

        You don’t need an arrest warrant in that situation either.

        1. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for Abe three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

    3. Sounds reasonable until you realize it’s the same State Attorney General (or prosecutor working for him) that will be presenting the evidence.

      This whole episode shows the means by which the political class uses the system so they don’t get prosecuted, starting with not holding anyone in government accountable for bad decisions so as a government employee you aren’t targeted by the prosecutors.

      However, you will be prosecuted if you brandish your gun at threatening rioters while on your own property, in a Democrat run city. Imagine prosecuting police for brandishing a gun in public. It used to be the police were subject to the same laws as the people.

  2. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Here… Click here.

  3. What I want to is whether they heard any facts on the warrant? That is what this case hinges on, if the officer lied in order to obtain the warrant then they should be charged with the murder of Breonna Taylor and felony assault with a firearm/attempted murder of the police officers that BT’s boyfriend shot and breaking and entering charges. Love to see the judge hang regardless for signing it; but judges are a protected class and they can’t be held responsible for their decisions while the rest of us…shit out of luck I guess.

    1. You would have to prove it to be a lie. Not just incorrect information on a warrant. Incorrect information on a warrant has not helped any other previous case to my knowledge.

      This is a problem with the war on drugs. Yet the dems want to elect the guy that helped expand that war.

      1. Yep. Trump should speak about ending the war on drugs.

        1. Trump is just as much a drug warrior as Biden.

          1. If you want to end the drug war, write in Willie Nelson.

          2. Maybe, maybe not.

            Trump has not written any legislation that would give people longer jail times for crack cocaine vs powder.

            Biden is on record expanding the drug war. What has Trump done to expand it?

            1. the question is not what trump has done to expand it, but what has he done to end it? (Nothing).

              If you’re an elected official, inaction on the drug war is the same as actively supporting it.

              1. I take it you are an anti racist?

                1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time.UGv Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page..HERE……… Home Profit System

              2. Trump passed the First Step Act that reduced sentences for drug crimes.

              3. inaction on the drug war is the same as actively supporting it.

                No it isn’t. What an incredibly asinine statement.
                Actively supporting and perpetuating it is infinitely worse.

            2. And that action that Trump promised in 2016 to allow for medical MJ and deference to the states on legalization is where…?

              Does he not have some powers to move MJ from Schedule I?

              We’re still waiting, Mr. President.

            3. Trump reinstated the portions of the 1033 Program that Obama revoked, allowing police to once again get surplus offensive military hardware. Much of that hardware is, of course, used to wage the Drug War.

              1. The stuff is used to protect themselves in a hostage situation and-or a barricaded suspect, too.

                The problem is not the tools, weapons, or the vehicles. The problem is the people that become detectives and sergeants and their incentives to abuse their power.

          3. “Trump is just as much a drug warrior as Biden”

            lol bless your heart

            1. Aside from certain cannabis related issues, the drug war rages on. Trump is no more likely to legalize heroin than anyone else. He is all for the WOD as far as I can tell.
              Biden has a lot to answer for historically, but he was a Senator forever and Trump wasn’t. Who knows what awful bills Trump might have voted for as a senator in the early 90s. I doubt their policies as president on the drug war would differ much. Though if someone can convince Trump that a certain policy will make him popular and look like a winner, you can probably convince him to get behind anything.

              1. Who knows what awful bills Trump might have voted for as a senator in the early 90s.

                Fantasy speculation over something that never happened is a demagogue’s game. What if Trump was a tugboat captain in the early 90s? What if he was the computer on the Enterprise? What if he sang the high parts in Little Orphan Annie?

                You know what isn’t speculation WK? That Biden is on record expanding the drug war.
                You know what else isn’t speculation? That Trump successfully pushed for reduced sentences for drug crimes with the First Step Act.

                1. …and Don Trump as Oliver Nobucks….

              2. “He is all for the WOD as far as I can tell.”

                Which Biden constructed the apparatus for then perpetuated.

                “Who knows what awful bills Trump might have voted for”

                I know what he DID vote for. None. This is ridiculous.

                1. Biden’s record on the WoD is bad, but he objectively has a more ambitious platform in 2020 to pull back on it. Will he go far enough? Certainly not, but Trump seems to thinks the First Step Act solved all problems with the criminal justice system, rather than being, you know, a first step. If you want to hang your hat on Biden being a drug warrior in the “tough on crime” days of the 80s and 90s when Trump wasn’t in politics at a time when he nonetheless was calling for the death penalty for the Central Park 5 (who he’s still insisted were guilty decades after they were absolved) and other “tough on crime” policies (read up his thoughts on the matter in his 2000 book that he wrote when he was considering running on the Reform Party ticket), praising the CCP for their actions in Tiananmen Square, etc. and insist that this indicates Trump would be better on criminal justice reform the next four years than Biden would be, then you can make that argument. But it’s not a very logical or convincing one.

                  1. The criticisms of Biden’s drug war are stupid. Yes, he was zealous, but it was what the BLACKS and whites wanted at the time. Blacks were sick of crime in their communities and whites didn’t want it spilling over to their communities.

          4. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new ad after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier So i try use. Here’s what I do…>>Home EASY Work

    2. What I want to is whether they heard any facts on the warrant?
      The jury only hears what evidence the prosecution wants to present in order to get an affirmative vote on the bills of indictment the prosecution offers.

      1. Yes, I know. I want to know if the prosecutor investigated that and presented evidence to Grand Jury regarding the warrant. That to me has always been the biggest issue with this case. The fact they got a warrant to raid a citizens house based on knowing an alleged drug dealer and receiving packages in their name is a travesty of justice. That doesn’t rise to probable cause and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment.

        My thought is the prosecutor didn’t want to explore that avenue to avoid a stain on the judiciary and keep them from getting the next available seat on the bench.

      2. Grand jurors can direct a DA to bring them any evidence they want to review. They can also direct the DA to file different charges. They speak for the people of the state and have the power.

        The DA is not in charge of the grand jury process. She merely serves as its legal advisor and go-between.

    3. 1) I would think that a Judge should only hang if they are derelict of their duty. Did they have cause to believe that the warrant is inaccurate and signoff anyways? That’s actionable. But they aren’t mind readers, and they don’t have the Executive power of investigation that would allow them to investigate whether the investigators are telling the truth.

      2) This remains to me a drug war problem- that society has deemed it so important to capture suspects and evidence, that we expect cops to kick down a door in the middle of the night.

      3) It is further a travesty that police departments feel that charging into an apartment and getting shot at should result in just blind firing into the residence. Why isn’t the procedure to back off and wait for the situation to stabilize?

      4) This all leads me to say these are structural/procedural problems that would likely allow the police to get off without prosecution- unless you could somehow show that their actions were egregious.

      1. From my understanding the only evidence against Breonna Taylor was she knew the defendant and she received packages in his name. Neither of which is a crime. So the judge should hang for it. The cops evidently went to the carrier (UPS or USPS) and the carrier stated their was nothing suspicious about them. If the cop failed to make that clear in their affidavit, then they should be held accountable.

        The whole signing of that warrant stinks to high heavens and I have yet to see any real examination of that.

        1. The document I read- and I’m sorry I can’t dredge it up again- had multiple pieces of evidence. A major one was that at the guy’s house was a bank statement with her address on it. But in addition, they had phone recordings between him and Taylor (recorded when he was in jail) where they discuss her holding money for him. After the shooting, they also have recordings between him and his grilfriend talking about how Taylor still had like $8K that he was never getting back.

          In your or my case, I think there is enough room for a warrant. But I want to repeat that reasonable suspicion for a warrant is NOT the same as “kick down doors in the middle of the night”. IMHO there is no reason for those to exist except in a case of imminent harm to an innocent person.

          1. And, let me also clarify something. The new story is that the prosecutors didn’t think they could make more serious charges stick. Well then the DA is fucking lying, and that isn’t a crime, but it should show that he is a douchebag that ought to be punished by his constituency in the next election.

            The DA *could* have tried bringing additional charges and let the Grand Jury shoot them down. Then he’d have a nice CYA. He could have even done it by offering those charges and presenting a bunch of really bad evidence that kept the GJ from prosecuting. But they didn’t do so, which not only makes him a liar, but a really terrible one at that.

            1. D.A. has an ethical obligation to not bring charges to a Grand Jury that they reasonably do not think can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Stop laughing.) It’s not a situation where, ‘Fuck it, charge them and see if the Grand Jury agrees’, should apply.

              Honestly, I don’t think you can get murder from these facts.

      2. It’s not that the warrant was necessarily inaccurate, but that it was woefully insufficient in alleging probable cause of criminal activity. Signing off on that makes the judge complicit.

    4. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

      what I do………Click here

    5. There’s more than one officer involved here and the guy who fired into the apartment could very likely know nothing – he was just grabbed to fill out the raid team.

  4. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..Visit here to earn thousands of dollars

  5. Can a prosecutor ethically introduce charges that he doesn’t believe can be sustained under the law?

    Hard to see how the cops could be guilty of murder since the boyfriend fired first.

    Not blaming the boyfriend since his confusion was understandable, but this has been a problem with these raids since forever.

    1. Yes, the prosecutor can absolutely do that.

      They don’t, because conviction rate is how they get raises/promotions. They don’t want to take anything to court they aren’t 100% sure they can get a conviction on. “I dunno, lets try to prove it in court and see what a jury thinks” is not how successful career prosecutors operate.

      1. Isn’t the SOP that you overcharge, try to get a plea, and drop some overcharging if they don’t plea?

        1. Police are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else is overcharged and coerced into a plea, guilty or not.

          1. This.

            Also, you only do the overcharging game if you’re pretty sure you’re going to get a plea deal out of it. Having to drop charges for nothing in return isn’t good publicity either. Not as bad as actually losing in court, but still bad. “DA drops charges against alleged murderer” is not a headline they want.

          2. That is a glaring and HORRIBLE double standard. Also, how many of US get to sit at home still drawing OUR PAY if we are suspected of a crime? Why should officers have a nice, comfy “cool-off period” before having to justify the use of deadly force? Shouldn’t they have to answer for their actions on the spot just like any of the rest of us?

            1. Who has to answer “on the spot”?
              Don’t you watch all those TV cop dramas where the suspect is immediately told “you have the right to remain silent”?
              That happens in real life, when asked about a crime you are suspected of committing.
              After the “cool-off period”, cops have to answer the questions that you don’t.

          3. That’s the way it is in Texas. Only lately the serfs have taken to exercising Second Amendment rights even there, so Nuremberg-defense cops are being thinned out by natural processes.

    2. The cops were committing a felony; bad warrant, bad execution. Self-defense does not turn a criminal executing a crime into the good guy.

      1. The warrant wasn’t necessarily bad. The evidence I have read was that there was reasonable suspicion that the suspect, or evidence of their drug ring would be there. They had taped recordings, and other information from following her for awhile to indicate that she periodically held money and/or drugs for the suspect’s drug operation.

        So the warrant was justified, and it is an unfortunate fact that this country has long felt that getting some evidence was enough cause to allow busting down a door in the middle of the night. That is a systemic problem, not the cops’.

        All the above is bullshit, and shouldn’t exist- but we should indict every voter of that damn city if we are going to hold the police accountable. It is their voting for years that created a culture of “get the drug convictions, no matter the cost”.

        As for the execution, the procedure- when confronted with armed resistance when serving a warrant- *should* be to back off, secure the area and then try to negotiate a settlement. Storming in should be the LAST thing you do, not first. But that *isn’t* the procedure that the police have instituted, so calling that a felony doesn’t seem right.

        Once bullets are firing, trying to prosecute someone for firing 10 bullets instead of 1 doesn’t seem to serve justice. But YMMV.

        1. Killing the suspect in a victimless crime sounds bad.

        2. Yep, unless there were overt lies or massive omissions in the warrant it’s a good warrant.

          Nobody seems to notice that this has been happening to people of all races for more than a decade. This is nothing that hasn’t happened a thousand times. For a long while there was an egregious double standard – citizen gets shot then tough shit, cop gets shot citizen goes to prison. At least that’s started to even out as juries are calling bullshit.

          But no, there aren’t any juries that are going to convict cops for shooting back. And honestly, all of y’all that are pissed at the cops would have done the same fucking thing in their shoes.

          The problem is the drug war and these types of raids. Let’s fix the problem.

        3. Reasonable suspicion is not the evidentiary standard they must meet to obtain a warrant. The 4th clearly states probable cause. While probable cause isn’t well defined, I don’t they even came close.

        4. There was never any evidence she held drugs for him.

          As far as I’m aware, the only evidence was that she received packages for him from Amazon.

          If you have any proof otherwise, provide a link or you’re just making stuff up.

          And systemic problems only get solved if you hold the people responsible for implementing those systems accountable. That means judges and cops. Otherwise they’re going to continue behaving poorly.

          1. Thank you. Yes, there was zero credible evidence. The only evidence they had was what they wanted to believe, but which no objective person would believe. It was fraudulent.

          2. Perhaps an advocacy group could pressure cities to stop these dangerous dynamic early morning raids. I know it’s hard to find time between burning Walgreens and blocking highways, but I personally think it would be a swell thing to try.

        5. You seem to be relying on misleading released documents that were never official and were materially false in their implications. Here’s some fact-checking for you:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/

          1. “Here’s some fact-checking for you”

            “www.washingtongpost.com’

            i loled

            1. LOL, indeed, and the first word is “opinion”.
              Failed to mention the recorded conversations between Taylor and Glover, when he was in jail – as understand it, a major cause for the warrant.

              1. It is mentioned, you might want to try re-reading the linked article. In particular, the so called recorded conversation as its been publicly presented does not represent the actual conversation – it’s been selectively quoted.

                Also, the recorded jailhouse phone conversations weren’t part of the warrant affidavit at all, because they happened *after* he was arrested the same night Taylor got shot. Indeed, they didn’t involve her speaking either, because she was already dead. (That she was a subject of some of the conversations is a different matter, given Glover already knew she was dead. Some direct quotes:

                “…didn’t have no business looking for me at no Bre house.”

                “At the end of the day, I know she didn’t … I know she didn’t to deserve none of this shit, though,”

                It would be super impressive if the warrant affidavit involved evidence gained via time travel, but that doesn’t seem super likely.

                And here’s some more fact checking: warrant application was misleading according to the police department’s own investigation:
                https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/breonna-taylor-warrant-was-misleading-louisville-police-investigators-find/article_5066abb4-08ee-11eb-983a-6f7458a23340.html

                1. A source on timing and nature of jailhouse calls:
                  https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/new-court-records-reveal-jail-phone-calls-after-breonna-taylor-shooting/article_7b75f76c-e899-11ea-96de-4bbf9536d026.html

                  (I’d like to see a full transcript before i trust what was disseminated to and through media).

            2. Check their links, not just where it was published.

              (Also, i’d have more faith in it as an Op-Ed than if it were a Wapo regular journalism piece.

          2. That’s a great link with multiple links in the article to validate the story. Furthermore, none of it is behind a paywall.

            Thank you. This clears things up nicely.

    3. The prosecutor should have simply said from the beginning: “We did not seek such-and-such charges because we didn’t believe we had enough evidence to prove such charges,” etc.

      Instead he dragged the grand jury into it, claiming the grand jurors vouched for his version of events. In reality, the grand jurors didn’t have a chance to agree or disagree.

      So the problem is the prosecutor misstated what the grand jury did, while the grand jurors (until recently) faced punishment for correcting the misstatements.

      1. Prosecutors should generally not comment on what people were or weren’t charged with.

        1. …sort of a wink and a nudge for people to blame the grand jury? No, he should explain why he didn’t seek an indictment when the press and mob are baying for blood.

          1. No, he shouldn’t. None of this should have come out.

            1. I thought the rule was that, when the prosecutor wanted an indictment but the grand jury didn’t, the grand jury said “no true bill,” or some such phrase, and the public would know the grand jurors rebuffed the prosecutor.

              So if that were the system under which they were operating, the failure of the grand jury to act one way or another – no indictment, no “no true bill” – would let the public know that the prosecutor never referred anything to the grand jury in the first place.

              That would be my preferred method, so it really ought to be public record whether the prosecutor wanted charges, and whether the grand jury agreed or wasn’t asked.

  6. Anyone who has been here since the days of Radley Balko already knows there have been many situations like this and they pretty much all turn out the same.

    How much case law is there against holding an officer actions accountable after they have been fired up on?

  7. This judge should be jailed.

    1. What? It’s the judge that allowed the truth to be spoken. It’s the Attorney General that needs to be woodchippered.

      1. I think he meant the judge that signed Taylor’s death warrant.

        1. You’ll have to forgive erandybuck, who isn’t veru smart. Earlier he said “Trump is as big of a drug warrior as Biden” so…yeah.

          1. Well he did appoint Wiiliam Barr and congratulate Duterte for mass murdering drug users.

            1. Yup. Dutarte is one of Trumps heroes.

  8. I’m Joe Biden and I am saddened by these draconian drug laws I never wrote. Also I never wanted wars in Iraq and always loved gay marriage. I was forced to do all these things by the vast right wing conspiracy and the cast of Seinfeld.

    1. In other words a cheap imitation of a Republican.

      1. Posted by a cheap imitation of a sentient being.

      2. Stroozele never gives up.
        Ganbatte, Stroozele.

    2. Joe Biden? But your speech on mandatory minimums, asset forfeiture, invading foreign countries to spray poison, shoot people and meddle in elections is up at Libertariantranslator dotcom! Your doddering buddy Leahy bragged about the same thing in HIS speech there. In fact, both of you senile fossils and the Hero of Chappaquiddick are on the Congressional Record saying potheads mug old ladies for plant leaves and need to be shot by thousands of added agents with billions of extra dollars–and bank accounts confiscated!

  9. “Questions were asked about the additional charges, and the grand jury was told there would be none because the prosecutors didn’t feel they could make them stick”

    Grand juries are no substitute for voters that are willing to hold city counselors and district attorneys accountable at the ballot box for protecting the police when they shouldn’t.

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    1. Obama was paid about $450k/year for 8 years and then bought a $19m 2nd home. Joe just wanted to dip his beak.

      1. The math adds up… just like it does for Runter and Mandatory Minimums Biden.

  10. Suddenly everybody’s acting like the prosecutor did something wrong here in misleading the grand jury in what they were allowed to do. A grand jury is a rubber stamp for the prosecutor, it’s supposed to do whatever the prosecutor tells it to do. Just because 99 times out of a hundred the prosecutor tells them to return a true bill and they do it, the one time he tells them not to return a true bill and they don’t doesn’t make it an anomaly.

    1. A grand jury in this case is supposed to be a way for a prosecutor to dodge responsibility from the police union if a the grand jury indicts a cop and a way for a prosecutor to dodge responsibility from the voters if the grand jury decides not to indict a cop.

      Kentucky elects its DAs, and the next time the DA is up for reelection, the voters in that district should take this knowledge into consideration before they vote to reelect him.

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. Exactly, the prosecutor makes what may well be the right decision, but knows it will be unpopular, so he hides behind the skirts of the grand jury.

        And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for that pesky judge who let the grand jurors talk.

      2. The next time the DA is up for election, the voters in the district will be outspent by Soros about 25 to 1.

      3. A grand jury in this case is supposed to be a way for a prosecutor to dodge responsibility from the police union if a the grand jury indicts a cop and a way for a prosecutor to dodge responsibility from the voters if the grand jury decides not to indict a cop.

        Grand juries exist to prevent people from malicious or careless prosecution; that’s all. Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be private, including the charges that the prosecutor did or did not want to bring.

        I don’t understand what your problem is. The prosecutor could not reasonably have brought murder charges in the first place; he brought the charges he thought he could make stick and the grand jury agreed. What else would you have wanted to happen?

    2. Grand juries exist to protect citizens from excessive charges by prosecutors; that is, their purpose is to prevent prosecution.

  11. As a Joe Biden fan, I want to know how this whole shooting incident didn’t end when Kenneth Walker shot Officer Mattingly in the leg. That SHOULD have stopped everyone in their tracks, no?

    1. No, because Biden isn’t President yet. Shooting people in the leg to end a conflict is merely a proposal at this point, not a mandate.

    2. Hahaha. I see what you did there.

    3. Well played sir. *slow clap* Well played.

    4. Wow, nice. 😀

    5. Trump told an auditorium of pigs to assault American citizens. You mfers have zero credibility to say a fucking word.

    6. Cameron’s head on a pike, maybe. I have no sympathy whatsoever for no-knock prohibitionism and expect all of them to get just desserts–off camera.

    7. Only if you use a shotgun, Bender.

      Though it did, AFAIK, stop that particular cop from firing back. Unfortunately for Walker (and Breonna) the cop brought friends…

      A for effort.

  12. That a grand juror had to get a judge to let him speak to tell the world that the attorney general was lying through his teeth is profoundly sad. The system is broken. Maybe it time attorney generals and district attorneys to be outside the partisan political system. I don’t know how to do that, but some cracker AG not even bothering to press actual charges in the highest profile crime of the year, and then lying out his ass at every press conference, is proof the current justice system does not provide justice. Or just do away with the pretense of grand juries and just have the AG and DAs prosecute whoever they want. Just as corrupt, but more honest.

    There aren’t enough woodchippers in the world.

    1. “Or just do away with the pretense of grand juries and just have the AG and DAs prosecute whoever they want. Just as corrupt, but more honest.”

      No, the grand jury was wrongly taking heat for an unpopular (but perhaps correct) decision by the prosecutor – that doesn’t discredit grand juries, it discredits the prosecutor.

      From time to time, grand jurors wake up enough to say a charge is BS and refuse to indict, or indict on a lesser charge.

      So long as we realize that’s *not* what happened in *this* case.

    2. It used to be that the grand jury was secret because only the prosecutor gets to speak; there is no representation for the accused. In theory, the grand jury is supposed to keep blatant malicious prosecution from happening. The need for secrecy is to protect the accused when there is no evidence of guilt.
      Kiss that part goodbye now. Any time the politicos want to destroy someone, they just form up a grand jury, present bullshit evidence, then leak the rumors to assassinate the accused.
      No actual trial of proof needed.

      1. OK, maybe trial OR proof

        1. A real manly Republican would kick in the door and shoot the girl himself, not hide behind a throwdown warrant, qualified immunity and the pigs packing Union. Heck… Bubba here could long to be free just like Robert Dear…

    3. What makes the AG a “cracker”?

      1. He’s a white dude from Kentucky?

      2. I didn’t know Kentucky had “black crackers.” Atlanta used to have a baseball team of those in various Negro leagues, including a year in the Negro American League.

    4. I don’t have a problem with it. Grand jury proceedings should be secretive, and one should get buy-off before speaking about them. But I have a huge problem that Cameron spoke about the proceedings without any buy-off from anyone and no one is discussing what sanctions he should receive.

    5. “Cracker AG”? No, that’s not racist at all. Even if the AG in question is black and not a “cracker”.

  13. Also, in the interest of truth, the stories about a dead body being found in the trunk of Breonna Taylor’s care are untrue– some of them having being carried through “trustworthy” sources.

    The facts of the case are that Breonna Taylors boyfriend loaned her rental car to a friend. That friend was the victim of a violent robber and was shot multiple times. He drove the car and died behind the wheel, the vehicle crashing shortly thereafter.

    So in my opinion, that lowers the profile of Taylors “attendance” to her boyfriends drug business. We still have the jailhouse recordings which are important, but she could have still just been generally aware of what he did, not necessarily an active participant.

    1. Those jailhouse recordings quotes that have been made public are misleading and taken out of context.

      What’s indisputable is that the ‘no knock’ part of the warrant was illegally granted – there was no individualized evidence in the warrant that Breonna Taylor represented a risk that required a no knock warrant, and such individualized evidence is *required* for no knock warrants by SCOTUS precedent. Instead, the cops just cut and paste generic statements from the other warrants to justify the no knock on Breonna Taylor. Both the cops and judge who signed it are culpable for that.

      1. I don’t know what ‘out of context’ there was as I saw the transcripts. And I still am being careful to say that what I read in the transcripts is not rock-solid proof that she was engaged in anything illegal, but merely indicative that she was aware of his… business model… if you will.

        Also, it should be noted that no matter what the context of the jailhouse recordings, none of it is to suggest that she deserved her fate.

        1. It’s probably worth noting the jailhouse phone calls occurred *after* Breonna Taylor was already dead, so they weren’t evidence used for the warrant affidavit.

      2. “are misleading and taken out of context.”

        i loled again

      3. All this discussion about “no -knock warrants” is not relevant, since the cops did knock and did announce themselves.

        1. They were given a no knock warrant, so it’s definitely relevant, regardless of whether they served it as a no knock warrant.

          Whether or not they announced themselves is disputed. Of 12 witnesses, only one remembers hearing them do so, and he didn’t remember it the *first* or *second* time he was asked. As such, whether or not they announced themselves is a matter of fact to be decided by a jury, not a known and indisputable fact.

          And 30-45 seconds of knocking with a brief announcement is not sufficient to satisfy the ‘knock and announce’ standard. You have to give the person reasonable time — enough to understand what’s going on, come to the door, and voluntarily let you into the house — to have properly knocked and announced.

          1. No, it’s not relevant to the guilt of the police in the shooting. The police acted legitimately and gave the people in the apartment more time than required under the warrant. If the warrant was invalid, go after the judge

            1. When has ‘i was just following orders’ ever been a defense of behavior?

              -They should have known the warrant was deficient. Not realizing that is on them as well, even if less so than the judge.
              -They should have used the legally required announce protocols established by SCOTUS that gives residents time to respond before forcing entry.
              -Even given the terminally stupid entry strategy, they should not have started opening fire immediately, but withdrawn and announced again.
              -They should at no point have opened fire at a target none of them could see clearly, or probably at all.

              -The judge should be charged, but he can’t be, because he’s immune. He should have known the warrant clearly did not justify a ‘no knock’ provision, and he should have seen there was no actual probable cause.

              -The cop who filed the warrant affidavit should be prosecuted under whatever the relevant legal statutes that cover falsifying sworn statements, fraudulently acquiring a warrant, and murder (under the theory that if you participate in a crime and someone dies as a result, you’re guilty of murder even if you didn’t pull the trigger – his behavior was criminal and someone died as a result).

          2. The debate over whether or not the announcement was heard is a red herring. To what degree are such claims of hearing tested? Do they measure the decibel level of an announcement? Is there a required standard of volume? Are any of these “witnesses” even capable of hearing? Did someone recreate the scene exactly and figure out if the neighbors could hear an announcement? Why do we assume that the one who claims they did is lying and not the others? Do we even know if Breonna Taylor or Kenneth Walker could have heard the announcement? I thought they were asleep at first; obviously they heard something that woke them up.

            We still don’t know how much time passed, but we know that enough time passed for Walker to arm himself in preparation. Why do we not ask questions about his behavior? Shouldn’t he have asked who was there instead of recklessly shooting at them? Police would have to identify themselves at that point. If he’s concerned about them lying (valid concern) there are ways to verify it.

            If there wasn’t a racial angle and national outrage over this…just remember that Walker was charged initially as well.

            1. They were not asleep, they were in bed and watching a movie iirc. And clearly they didn’t announce very loudly, assuming they announced at all, because Walker and Taylor did not hear them – and we know this because they *called 911* to report people breaking into the apartment. (That they could have been asleep is something police should have allowed for when announcing – and are likely legally required to allow for in a late night raid, given the supreme court precedent on announcing – and giving enough time for a resident to awaken and respond).

              And if someone breaks your door down unexpectedly, you’re going to be in fear of your life. Why would you ever assume it was someone you could reason with – they just broke your door down! Walker wasn’t a criminal, nor was Taylor – there was zero reason for them to think it even could be police officers.

              30-45s isn’t enough time for someone watching a TV in the room with the front door to realize what’s happening, walk to the front door, and open it. It’s clearly insufficient. And we’re talking about a late night warrant where people may well be sleeping or preparing to be so or otherwise not ready to answer the door immediately. I like to at least put pants on before going to the door.

              Walker was charged solely because they were police officers, and the DA’s default reaction is to defend police officers. If it had been non-government criminals, Walker would never have been charged. Only government criminals get the backing of the DAs office. (You’ll note those charges were dropped pretty quickly).

    2. Seems as though Kenneth Walker has about as many dead bodies associated with him as a politician from Arkansas. Just saying.

  14. Say it ain’t so. A lying pos Republican. If there’s a R by your name pretty good chance you are trash and fake as fuck.

    1. Obama got book money for allowing a ghost writer to use his name, as did the Wookie. Biden got graft the old fashioned way – bribery.

      1. ‘the wookie’, lol amazing.

  15. When all participants of a “system” are feeding from the same nose-bag, free from competition — and are allowed (by your neighbors and friends — hopefully not you) to
    • Make the laws,
    • Enforce the laws,
    • Prosecute the laws,
    • Hire the prosecutors,
    • License the “defense” attorneys,
    • Pay the “judges”,
    • Build the jails,
    • Contract jails out to private entities,
    • Employ and pay the wardens,
    • Employ and pay the guards,
    • Employ and pay the parole officers,
    One can’t honestly call it a “justice” system. It’s a system of abject tyranny.

  16. Grand Juror Says Charges in Breonna Taylor’s Death Were Never Considered

    That’s some piss-poor phrasing.

  17. The Dems erased all urgings to shoot kids in the back over plant leaves from their 5-hour platform. God’s Own Prohibitionists are so bent on bullying girls into involuntary labor and servitude that their endorsement of murdering cops is STILL at the top of their platform. The GOP platform makes it clear Republicans will have First Responders™ shoot and strangle everyone they can, until every last cop is murdered by posse comitatus’ in retaliation. May they choke on a record harvest of Libertarian spoiler votes the way the other looters did in 2016! Make “I can’t breathe” the fascist slogan.

    1. Make “I can’t breathe” the fascist slogan.

      “I can’t breathe” most certainly is the slogan of the fascists: namely woke Democrats, BLM, and Antifa.

  18. It is literally for the prosecutor to decide, yes. And his/her duties include preventing the grand jury from going on fishing expeditions unsupportable in law, regardless of uninformed, politicized public sentiment. In fact, that’s the very point of grand juries. It could be argued that preliminary hearings are more fair and open.

    The Ancient Times Sculptures HD Images

  19. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot….. Read More  

  20. It is a business sites broking …..Doing that & earn thousands of dollars ……Visit here to earn thousands of dollars

  21. It comes down to if this was a no knock warrant or if they knocked and announced themselves as claimed.

  22. This reminds me of the first affidavit and resulting search warrant in the Danielle van Dam missing child case in San Diego in 2002. It was full of errors and misinformation, and left out much relevant and important information. And the judge only asked one question, and that was about the suspect’s polygraph test, so she acted virtually as a rubber stamp.

  23. The prosecutor CANNOT offer charges that do not fit. It is his professional responsibility to make such determinations, not the grand jury’s. If they were seriously bothered by the fact he made such a professional determination, then they should have asked about it. They did not and instead chose to make it political by suing and they got extremely lucky that a judge gave in to political pressure and made grand jury evidence public.

    I’m really disgusted with the jurors who are doing this and I hope you lawyers out there devise some new practices to filter out activists because whatever you’re doing right now isn’t working.

  24. awildseaking:

    The problem is that he told a lie about the grand jury’s role. If a prosecutor doesn’t think he should bring charges, he needs to own his decision, and not attempt to blame the grand jury for his decision.

    1. Doesn’t that depend on how you look at it? If the jurors were so concerned about what was brought before them, they should have addressed it while they were jurors, not after the fact. What they did was purely political. They had real power to ask such questions, apparently chose not to, and have resorted to using public pressure.

      We have zero evidence indicating that AG Cameron lied. Doesn’t it strike anyone else as odd how these jurors sued immediately? That isn’t raising red flags for anyone about whether this may have been a premeditated stunt?

      1. “We have zero evidence indicating that AG Cameron lied. Doesn’t it strike anyone else as odd how these jurors sued immediately? That isn’t raising red flags for anyone about whether this may have been a premeditated stunt?”

        Nope. None at all. Juries are well-known for being stupid and naive sheep who trust everything the prosecutor tells them. They’re even known for speaking out after the fact once they find out they’ve been fooled. It’s happened several times; these people are no different.

  25. I’m glad she acknowledged the monstrous premise of this otherwise good comedy. A couple breaks up, so they decide to divide up their infant twins — so each girl will never see the other parent, her sister, or any of her other relatives again? Or even know she has a sister? Just as in the original version of this movie, the real villains a re clearly both parents…….. Read More  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.