Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And????? The laws didn’t support other charges. For God’s sake it was a tragic event.
Really? Says who? Cameron? Maybe we just add that to his growing list of lies...
Quote:
Frankfort, KY— In an interview with Louisville TV station WDRB, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is now admitting that his office never presented any charges against two of the officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s death, after initially telling reporters five times last week that the grand jury had made such decisions themselves.
I don't think anyone here denies that it was a "tragic event". But all evidence should be fully examined, and it appears that Cameron has contradicted himself rather significantly.
At least three grand jurors have questioning Cameron's version of events in regard to their dealings. That right there should be enough to raise questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions, have an investigation.
The truth - the whole truth - needs to be made public, to help prevent additional "tragic events" involving the Louisville Police's practices.
I don't think anyone here denies that it was a "tragic event". But all evidence should be fully examined, and it appears that Cameron has contradicted himself rather significantly.
At least three grand jurors have questioning Cameron's version of events in regard to their dealings. That right there should be enough to raise questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions, have an investigation.
The truth - the whole truth - needs to be made public, to help prevent additional "tragic events" involving the Louisville Police's practices.
In light of the present day situation, and knowing your political affiliation, I find it amusing that you would be calling for, "The truth - the whole truth" on any matter. I have a lot of questions without satisfactory answers. And, no matter what your politics is it should be alarming to everyone.
As for the Camron controversy, it's my understanding, you and many others, for the sake of Louisville, probably don't want to know the whole truth. Besides, AG Camron presented the case as outlined in the law as it's written. Come January I have indication that some other laws will be, lets say, looked at to say the least so we won't have to cross these bridges again.
In light of the present day situation, and knowing your political affiliation, I find it amusing that you would be calling for, "The truth - the whole truth" on any matter. I have a lot of questions without satisfactory answers. And, no matter what your politics is it should be alarming to everyone.
As for the Camron controversy, it's my understanding, you and many others, for the sake of Louisville, probably don't want to know the whole truth. Besides, AG Camron presented the case as outlined in the law as it's written. Come January I have indication that some other laws will be, lets say, looked at to say the least so we won't have to cross these bridges again.
Do you fear "the truth - the whole truth"? You surely sound like that's the case, which saddens me, as I've always respected and enjoyed most of your posts, though I don't think we agree politically. But we are both loyal Kentuckians who love our beautiful Commonwealth and have much in common otherwise.
I also have questions without satisfactory answers - I think any thinking, reasonably well-informed adult does as well. Nothing unique about that. But in this particular case, my unanswered questions concern a tragedy which resulted in the needless death of a young woman due to police error, and it happened in my own state, less than 80 miles from my home.
Not sure what you're implying about laws being examined in January, unless this is meant to be an oblique reference to the highly Republican General Assembly's upcoming session and potential changes in Kentucky's laws which may result.
Nor do I see what my political affiliation has to do with wanting to learn the entire truth of how this tragedy came about, and wanting to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.
That ought to transcend politics.
Oh, yeah, it's "Cameron", not "Camron". Careless errors don't help you persuade others to your argument.
Do you fear "the truth - the whole truth"? You surely sound like that's the case, which saddens me, as I've always respected and enjoyed most of your posts, though I don't think we agree politically. But we are both loyal Kentuckians who love our beautiful Commonwealth and have much in common otherwise.
I also have questions without satisfactory answers - I think any thinking, reasonably well-informed adult does as well. Nothing unique about that. But in this particular case, my unanswered questions concern a tragedy which resulted in the needless death of a young woman due to police error, and it happened in my own state, less than 80 miles from my home.
Not sure what you're implying about laws being examined in January, unless this is meant to be an oblique reference to the highly Republican General Assembly's upcoming session and potential changes in Kentucky's laws which may result.
Nor do I see what my political affiliation has to do with wanting to learn the entire truth of how this tragedy came about, and wanting to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.
That ought to transcend politics.
Oh, yeah, it's "Cameron", not "Camron". Careless errors don't help you persuade others to your argument.
Oh no MrCreek, don't be saddened, I'm with you, like you said, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I just hope I live long enough to witness the justice. Right is right and wrong is still wrong, I don't care who ye are. I agree, most issues should transcend politics but, some peoples inability to think and reason for themselves prevents that from happening. A lot more I could say on the subject but, I'll leave it right there.
Oh, Yeah, thanks for clearing up the Cameron mistake, foolish me, I'm sure I'll sleep better tonight just knowing I have been corrected by the best. You ain't going to turn me in to the spelling police are ye? But, I wasn't attempting to persuade anyone or to present an argument though, it was just my thoughts.
I don't think anyone here denies that it was a "tragic event". But all evidence should be fully examined, and it appears that Cameron has contradicted himself rather significantly.
At least three grand jurors have questioning Cameron's version of events in regard to their dealings. That right there should be enough to raise questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions, have an investigation.
The truth - the whole truth - needs to be made public, to help prevent additional "tragic events" involving the Louisville Police's practices.
A Grand Jury does not determine the innocence and guilt, they only determine whether or not there is enough evidence to charge the person with the crime that they’re accused of committing. The real purpose of Grand Juries is to prevent oppressive prosecutions, not to add charges beyond what is requested by the prosecutor. They are only allowed to consider charges presented by the prosecutor. The prosecutor has a moral obligation to not push for prosecution of charges that are not supported by the laws - that is the very definition of oppressive prosecution. In reality, Grand Juries generally almost always just rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor wants so prosecutors often use them for the opportunity to fish for information from witnesses who now are sworn in under penalty of perjury. Because of this lawyers for the accused when they know there is sufficient evidence to indict will often advise their clients to waive indictment by a Grand Jury.
Cameron presented the evidence and recommended charges based on the laws. The laws are the laws, this isn’t a TV show, prosecutors can’t just twist laws to fit community outrage. At least we better all hope they can’t, because if they can twist the laws to suit your calls to prosecute someone they can later twist laws to prosecute you based on a different person’s calls to prosecute you. And don’t think it can’t happen to you, I imagine all three of those cops never imagined they would be the subject of a Grand Jury instead of testifying at it.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The real purpose of Grand Juries is to prevent oppressive prosecutions, not to add charges beyond what is requested by the prosecutor. They are only allowed to consider charges presented by the prosecutor.
According to Cameron, that's not true at all. Here's what he has to say about that -
Quote:
"They're an independent body. If they wanted to make an assessment about different charges, they could have done that," Cameron said at the time.
So... I dunno... I guess in this case, I'm gonna have to assume the attorney general is right and you're mistaken.
Furthermore, Cameron's backpedaling statements after the grand jury are directly contradicted by numerous members of the jury, who say that Cameron told them they were not allowed to consider other charges...
Quote:
“I felt like there should’ve been more charges,” she said in a phone interview. She echoed two other grand jurors’ complaints that the panel wasn’t allowed to consider additional charges because prosecutors told them the use of force was justified.
So... someone's lying. Either Cameron, or numerous grand jurors. Considering that Cameron has already been caught completely contradicting himself at least 5 times so far, I'm inclined to believe he's the liar here. For some reason, you seem to believe otherwise. Could you explain why?
Quote:
In reality, Grand Juries generally almost always just rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor wants....
Which appears to be exactly what happened here. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Quote:
Cameron presented the evidence and recommended charges based on the laws. The laws are the laws, this isn’t a TV show, prosecutors can’t just twist laws to fit community outrage.
Correct. Nor are they allowed to twist them for any other reason, either. Thanks to the integrity of some of those jurors, I think we're getting a lot closer to finding out to exactly what purpose Cameron was twisting the laws.
Quote:
I imagine all three of those cops never imagined they would be the subject of a Grand Jury instead of testifying at it.
Which is exactly the problem with police culture in America - they have been taught to believe they are above the law. This looks like one of those times they finally went too far, though, so we'll have to see how this plays out this time.
It's way, waayyy past time police in this country did start "imagining" that they could someday be the subject of a grand jury. If and when the day ever comes that police officers start doing their jobs with that thought in mind, we'll be one major step closer to becoming a modern, civilized society.
So... I dunno... I guess in this case, I'm gonna have to assume the attorney general is right and you're mistaken.
Furthermore, Cameron's backpedaling statements after the grand jury are directly contradicted by numerous members of the jury, who say that Cameron told them they were not allowed to consider other charges...
So... someone's lying. Either Cameron, or numerous grand jurors. Considering that Cameron has already been caught completely contradicting himself at least 5 times so far, I'm inclined to believe he's the liar here. For some reason, you seem to believe otherwise. Could you explain why?
As I said in the original post, the purpose of grand juries is to prevent malicious or oppressive prosecution, so no they aren’t supposed to consider charges the prosecution doesn’t ask them to consider. They have zero to do with determining guilt or innocence, only whether or not there is enough to justify charging and taking the accused to court in the first place. Grand juries are designed to protect the accused, not avenge the victim. They do NOT get to direct the prosecutor to pursue harsher charges, that would constitute a de facto violation of the accused’s 5th Amendment rights. They consider all the charges the prosecutor presents to them, the evidence presented (including things like hearsay that are not allowed in an actual trial), and return either a “true bill” indictment (yep, you should charge them) or “no bill” endorsement (no, you don’t have a legitimate case). So, yeah, Cameron or one of his folks probably did tell them they couldn’t consider other charges, and RIGHTFULLY so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between
Which appears to be exactly what happened here. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Correct. Nor are they allowed to twist them for any other reason, either. Thanks to the integrity of some of those jurors, I think we're getting a lot closer to finding out to exactly what purpose Cameron was twisting the laws.
He isn’t twisting the laws. If you are a police officer, and someone shoots at you, you are allowed to shoot back.
It. Was. A. Tragedy. Not every tragedy is a crime. The boyfriend who started the shooting had a legitimate reason to fear for his life. The cop who shot Breonna Taylor, who been shot at himself and whose partner had (in case you forgot) been wounded, had a legitimate reason to fear for his life. Now, the guy blindly shooting away in an apparent panic was a different story, but he was not who shot at Breonna Taylor so he can not be charged for her death. The laws are the laws and, contrary to what happens on TV shows, prosecutors aren’t supposed to twist the laws to quell community outrage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between
Which is exactly the problem with police culture in America - they have been taught to believe they are above the law. This looks like one of those times they finally went too far, though, so we'll have to see how this plays out this time.
It's way, waayyy past time police in this country did start "imagining" that they could someday be the subject of a grand jury. If and when the day ever comes that police officers start doing their jobs with that thought in mind, we'll be one major step closer to becoming a modern, civilized society.
I agree “no knock warrants” should be so rare they are almost never done. I think the practice of serving warrants between the hours of 9 pm to 7 am should be restricted to only cases where there is a legitimate reason it can’t be served during normal waking hours, and no, “it’s easier” isn’t a legitimate reason.
Understand something, 283 police officers have been shot in 2020 as of November 30th, and 44 of those were fatal. There have been 1,020 suspect fatalities during that same time. During the first 6 months Jan-Jun 2020), which is the latest data set, 27 police officers have been feloniously killed compared to 24 unarmed suspects who have been killed by police during the same period. In 2019, 48 police officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty compared to 55 unarmed suspects killed by police. The norm is that slightly more unarmed suspects are shot than law enforcement officers, but there is reason to believe more officers killed may become the new norm. Just FYI, the unarmed suspects killed were 25 white suspects, 14 black suspects, five Hispanic suspects, with rest considered other or unknown. That peril to the officer’s life can not be just dismissed as immaterial.
How do you expect LMPD to recruit individuals to do a job that consists of making split second decisions where they have to decide whether they’d rather risk being killed or risk spending the rest of their life in prison for $24/hr? The end result will be more and more crime being ignored which means crime rates will skyrocket. I just wonder how bad crime will have to get before the average citizens demand crime reform. I lived through this before - Louisville was an absolute nightmare and there were parts where no one felt safe, including the people who had the misfortune of being stuck living in a neighborhood that by the early 80’s was a practical war zone.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
