Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Jefferson County grand jury has indicted one of three Louisville officers in the March 13 fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor.

But the charges are for putting Taylor's neighbors in danger, not for killing her.

The grand jury's decision Wednesday:

Former detective Brett Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment.
Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly was not indicted.
Detective Myles Cosgrove was not indicted.
A wanton endangerment charge is a class D felony and carries a penalty of one to five years in prison. The charges read by Judge Annie O'Connell on Wednesday said that Hankison "wantonly shot a gun" into adjoining Apartment 3.

The occupants of that apartment were identified by initials. None of victims identified in the indictment was BT — Breonna Taylor.

That means the grand jury did not find that Hankison wantonly fired into Taylor's apartment the night she died or that any of the officers are criminally liable in her death.

In May, Taylor's neighbor, Chesey Napper, filed a lawsuit against the LMPD officers, claiming that the officers' shots were "blindly fired" and nearly struck a man inside. Napper was pregnant and had a child in the home, according to the lawsuit.



https://www.courier-journal.com/news/

If one or more of the officers didn't also "blindly fire" at an unarmed woman named Breonna Taylor then that means that they intentionally fired at her so either way they have to be guilty of something. So why didn't the grand jury indict one or more of them for needlessly shooting unarmed Breonna Taylor?

Also, why was shooting into another close apartment an act of wanton endangerment if shooting into the Taylor apartment wasn't? Did the officers know for sure that the shot they heard didn't come from that apartment? If they did why in the world did one of them fire into that apartment? And why would such reckless, dangerous shooting just be wanton endangerment instead of attempted murder? Shooting into any apartment without knowing who fired the shot and having that specific target to shoot at would appear to qualify at a minimum as wanton endangerment because you could easily kill as many innocent people as your bullets could reach.

There was nothing justified about shooting into Breonna's apartment in the middle of the night at an unarmed person nor anything justified about trying to break into that apartment in the first place. But once again a jury shows how little regard it has for the victim of a needless homicide. A woman who did not receive emergency medical attention for quite some time after she was shot.

Last edited by Philer, 9/23/2020, 8:26 pm
9/23/2020, 6:41 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


I don't think the police should even have gone to that address, and certainly should not try to smash down the door in the middle of the night.
9/30/2020, 6:13 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


A Grand Jury gets what is presented to them, the DA left out huge facts. Would it have made a difference, I don't know.
9/30/2020, 8:08 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

I don't think the police should even have gone to that address, and certainly should not try to smash down the door in the middle of the night.



The police should not be invading anyone's home to try to find illegal drugs.
9/30/2020, 5:48 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

A Grand Jury gets what is presented to them, the DA left out huge facts. Would it have made a difference, I don't know.



It might not have mattered. Juries tend to greatly favor the police just like they tend to greatly disfavor women.

Last edited by Philer, 9/30/2020, 5:50 pm
9/30/2020, 5:49 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


I think grand juries are hand picked rubber stamps, and used just to deflect responsibility.
10/1/2020, 3:33 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

I think grand juries are hand picked rubber stamps, and used just to deflect responsibility.



I believe it's said in legal circles that a district attorney or county prosecutor can use a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he or she wants to. They can also let someone off the hook by using one. Getting one that favors police officers is no problem.
10/1/2020, 7:50 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

I think grand juries are hand picked rubber stamps, and used just to deflect responsibility.



If you are getting one sides "facts" without question, it is a set up for bias.
10/3/2020, 2:12 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

I think grand juries are hand picked rubber stamps, and used just to deflect responsibility.



If you are getting one sides "facts" without question, it is a set up for bias.



Yes, primarily the bias of the prosecution. How the "facts" are presented by the prosecution indicates the nature of their bias. They can present them to get an indictment or avoid getting one.
10/4/2020, 4:01 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Grand juries are not too bright either


Well of course, there is no "defense" in the grand jury hearings.
10/6/2020, 12:04 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)