Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WDRB Louisville)   Grand juror in the Breonna Taylor case files motion to make the grand jury proceedings public. Says AG Cameron was misleading the public about the proceedings   (wdrb.com) divider line
    More: News, shot  
•       •       •

3204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 9:19 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



162 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-28 8:09:19 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-09-28 8:21:52 PM  
Make it so.
 
2020-09-28 8:37:25 PM  
The AG seemed like he was lying, but he works with the cops so what motivation might he have?
 
2020-09-28 8:41:02 PM  
Given how comically easy it is to get a grand jury indictment, I'd love to know what case was presented to jurors.
 
2020-09-28 8:45:17 PM  
Guessing the grand jury was not even asked to vote on killing an unarmed woman in her own bed  without even a valid  valid reason for kicking in her door.
 
2020-09-28 8:45:55 PM  
Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?
 
2020-09-28 8:46:31 PM  
Democracy dies in darkness. If the decision was just, releasing the evidence would help get us to support it.

The corollary, while less pleasant to contemplate, is more likely. Far more likely.
 
2020-09-28 8:50:32 PM  

freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?


The only evidence presented to a grand jury is by the prosecution, no exculpatory witnesses or evidence required. A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich...
 
2020-09-28 8:52:23 PM  

freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?


Normally a grand jury is provided by the DA charges to be voted on. Not sure if KY has any weirdness, served in on one in another state. Betting the Trumper AG and turtle relative did if ask for on a vote on the murder.
 
2020-09-28 9:01:33 PM  

uksocal: freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?

The only evidence presented to a grand jury is by the prosecution, no exculpatory witnesses or evidence required. A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich...


Or *not* indict, when that's the outcome they'd prefer.  Prosecutors can tell whatever story they want, with no opposition, to a captive audience.

We need to indict the damn drug war, and the larger process.  The deeper crime here is that nearly everything that happened really was strictly legal.  And I hope we can find out what information was in the affidavit that got the judge to sign the warrant.

A lot of things were rotten here, and in way too many drug war tactics, obviously
 
2020-09-28 9:02:36 PM  
Do it
 
2020-09-28 9:05:27 PM  
That doesn't happen very often.
 
2020-09-28 9:13:48 PM  
Stupid question but can a grand jury tell everyone what they saw? Or does it have to be released by the AG?
 
2020-09-28 9:21:54 PM  
This is a big farkin' deal.
 
2020-09-28 9:22:44 PM  
Grand Jury system is completely broken.

Ditch it.

Someone who kills another person should automatically face trial, period.  You're still presumed innocent until proven guilty, but at least there's a chance to prove it.
 
2020-09-28 9:23:14 PM  

eurotrader: Guessing the grand jury was not even asked to vote on killing an unarmed woman in her own bed  without even a valid  valid reason for kicking in her door.


For the record, she was in the hallway.

Doesn't make it any better, but let's be accurate.
 
2020-09-28 9:23:38 PM  

4seasons85!: Stupid question but can a grand jury tell everyone what they saw? Or does it have to be released by the AG?


I don't think anyone on the jury can say anything.

But witnesses can.
 
2020-09-28 9:23:58 PM  
I've served on two grand juries, and we indicted every single person every time.  The only time we didn't was when some kid had like 20 charges against him and one was clearly stupid (DUI when he wasn't driving the car, his friend was).

I've voted against indicting a few people when it seemed like entrapment (a sting where cops left a backpack with a laptop in a park and then arrested people for picking it up), but even in those cases the person was still indicted.

This AG didn't try to make a case against the cop in the slightest.
 
2020-09-28 9:24:48 PM  

uksocal: freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?

The only evidence presented to a grand jury is by the prosecution, no exculpatory witnesses or evidence required. A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich...


If they want to.

Had to finish that last sentence.
 
2020-09-28 9:25:53 PM  
I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.
 
2020-09-28 9:26:24 PM  

uksocal: freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?

The only evidence presented to a grand jury is by the prosecution, no exculpatory witnesses or evidence required. A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich...


Exactly this. That is the prosecution's grand jury, the defense has nothing to do with it. The defense isn't even allowed in the door. It's a broken system top to bottom.

/All Cops and Prosecutors Are Bastards ACPAB?
 
2020-09-28 9:27:09 PM  

lordjupiter: Grand Jury system is completely broken.

Ditch it.

Someone who kills another person should automatically face trial, period.  You're still presumed innocent until proven guilty, but at least there's a chance to prove it.



Yep
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:27:13 PM  

NoahFenze: eurotrader: Guessing the grand jury was not even asked to vote on killing an unarmed woman in her own bed  without even a valid  valid reason for kicking in her door.

For the record, she was in the hallway.

Doesn't make it any better, but let's be accurate.


Stop defending racist murdering cops.
 
2020-09-28 9:28:18 PM  

eurotrader: freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?

Normally a grand jury is provided by the DA charges to be voted on. Not sure if KY has any weirdness, served in on one in another state. Betting the Trumper AG and turtle relative did if ask for on a vote on the murder.


Yep- that was my experience as a Grand Juror, although the jury I was on was in DC, operating under Federal rules, and had an AUSA presenting the cases.

We actually "went rogue" a couple of times- refusing to indict for Possession With Intent to Distribute on a drug change (knocking it down to misdemeanor possession), and in another case we actually got the US Atty's Office to add an additional felony charge for a dude who tried to run over a cop with his car.
 
2020-09-28 9:28:45 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Another wrinkle, though these seem to be comments the cops made after the fact to say what they witnessed was mishandled and they thought the raid was a bad idea. Also will be interesting if the grand jury was shown any body cam footage considering one of the officers released the body cam of his reaction to having been shot and another video of one of the shooters going inside and looking for weapons/bullets at the scene and asking questions on what they had found when he had already been instructed to stay out until the forensics was done/the people to interview him arrived when it was previously assumed there was no footage from that night.
 
2020-09-28 9:28:55 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:29:13 PM  
Does a juror requesting it mean anything legally speaking, or does it just put more public pressure on them?
 
2020-09-28 9:29:45 PM  
So this means one of two things:
1) The Prosecution presented evidence which clearly showed police were within their right to rights to shoot Taylor.
2) The Prosecution never presented murder/manslaughter charges and only gave the grand jury a chance to vote on wanton endangerment then told the public these were the only charges the grand jury found fit to charge.

Which one do you think is more likely?
 
2020-09-28 9:30:33 PM  

uksocal: freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?

The only evidence presented to a grand jury is by the prosecution, no exculpatory witnesses or evidence required. A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich...


People keep saying this like they don't know what that farking sandwich did.
 
2020-09-28 9:30:56 PM  

Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:31:03 PM  

freakay: Call me confused...

So the grand jury said no charges except against the one guy, right?  And thats a decision that the grand jury itself made, not the Attorney General?

So if the grand jury did not bring charges against them all, based upon the evidence that this person wants to release, it would seem to me that the attorney general wouldn't care about the evidence because the ruling let the cops off...?

Or are they saying that there was evidence not introduced?


Pretty much, yeah.  The AG gets to choose what to show the Grand Jury.  If the AG doesn't want an indictment, just don't show the evidence that would get an indictment.
 
2020-09-28 9:31:09 PM  

Gubbo: Given how comically easy it is to get a grand jury indictment, I'd love to know what case was presented to jurors.


The police kicked down the door and found these people shot in the apartment.

They couldn't save the woman, but they were able to use their police life saving skills to get the man to a hospital.

No, the bodycams all malfunctioned again. But here are 20 character witness statements from members of the police union about what great people each of these cops really are.

Heroes all.
 
2020-09-28 9:32:29 PM  

aleister_greynight: Does a juror requesting it mean anything legally speaking, or does it just put more public pressure on them?


I think it puts a shiat ton of pressure on the judge to release the transcripts.

Someone who was asked to review and refer is telling the judge that they know they weren't told everything neededto make a sensible, correct decision.

That's a big farkin' deal.
 
2020-09-28 9:32:48 PM  

Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.


Nah, the fact that he isn't going to let one little mistake ruin these poor cops lives is gonna win him friends in high places even if the public generally ends up seeing it as corrupt.

(To be honest, I think the hammer falls even harder on whoever approved this and didn't wait to confirm if the suspect was in custody because a no knock to obtain evidence seems like it could end poorly which it did.)
 
2020-09-28 9:32:52 PM  

Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.


This is Kentucky. Any malfeasance that Cameron may have committed will be irrelevant because the result was a dead black woman.

The only thing going against Cameron in Kentucky is that he himself is black.
 
2020-09-28 9:33:56 PM  

NoahFenze: eurotrader: Guessing the grand jury was not even asked to vote on killing an unarmed woman in her own bed  without even a valid  valid reason for kicking in her door.

For the record, she was in the hallway.

Doesn't make it any better, but let's be accurate.


Too soon.
 
2020-09-28 9:35:22 PM  

Dimensio: Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.

This is Kentucky. Any malfeasance that Cameron may have committed will be irrelevant because the result was a dead black woman.

The only thing going against Cameron in Kentucky is that he himself is black.


Hey now, it also resulted in holes in a landlord's property, and put some white people at potential risk.
 
2020-09-28 9:35:56 PM  
This is exactly why cops commit crimes.  They know that the prosecutors need to work with them in the future, so they'll protect them.  Our justice system is beyond broken.
 
2020-09-28 9:36:05 PM  

Grungehamster: Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.

Nah, the fact that he isn't going to let one little mistake ruin these poor cops lives is gonna win him friends in high places even if the public generally ends up seeing it as corrupt.

(To be honest, I think the hammer falls even harder on whoever approved this and didn't wait to confirm if the suspect was in custody because a no knock to obtain evidence seems like it could end poorly which it did.)


He's a black man. The people he was trying to impress will let him swing (metaphorically, that is, but it is Kentucky).
 
2020-09-28 9:36:36 PM  

Grungehamster: Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.

Nah, the fact that he isn't going to let one little mistake ruin these poor cops lives is gonna win him friends in high places even if the public generally ends up seeing it as corrupt.

(To be honest, I think the hammer falls even harder on whoever approved this and didn't wait to confirm if the suspect was in custody because a no knock to obtain evidence seems like it could end poorly which it did.)


It was not a no-knock warrant.

Whether it was served as such is disputed, but the warrant itself was not for a no-knock entry.

Also, the warrant was not specifically for Breonna Taylor's ex so his whereabouts were not relevant to the warrant. Breonna Taylor was named in the warrant and the warrant was made specifically to search her known residence based upon the belief that she was acting as a courier -- based upon a supposed investigation conducted with the local postal inspector that the postal inspector himself denied.
 
2020-09-28 9:37:59 PM  
I've been on a grand jury.  They are all shams.  They are an exercise in a prosecutor giving legitimacy to his desires through the use of laymen.  Prosecutors have 100 sales tricks.
 
2020-09-28 9:40:07 PM  
Maybe there's hope.
 
2020-09-28 9:41:39 PM  
Hitting the news now: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/g​r​and-jury-member-says-kentucky-ag-used-​jurors-shield-seeks-n1241294

"Cameron said his office's investigation found that officers announced themselves based on one witness account, though other witnesses have said they did not hear police announce themselves that night. "

Guess which witness the grand jury heard from?
 
2020-09-28 9:41:49 PM  

Master P but not that one: So this means one of two things:
1) The Prosecution presented evidence which clearly showed police were within their right to rights to shoot Taylor.
2) The Prosecution never presented murder/manslaughter charges and only gave the grand jury a chance to vote on wanton endangerment then told the public these were the only charges the grand jury found fit to charge.

Which one do you think is more likely?


I think the wording of it is pretty interesting:  they're basically arguing that the AG is making public certain things that they're not allowed to talk about because the proceedings were "secret," which is an imbalance, and also that these are people who are being held accountable for what's transpired, despite being powerless to affect any of the information they received or was withheld from them.  It isn't fair that they get dragged through the mud for this if they're not allowed to speak up for themselves, and that's what this release of information would do--it would allow them a defense, and it would allow the public to see what actually happened.
 
2020-09-28 9:42:13 PM  

Dimensio: Grungehamster: Candy Colored Clown: I'm thinking Cameron is going to regret this. Hopefully it ends his political career.

Nah, the fact that he isn't going to let one little mistake ruin these poor cops lives is gonna win him friends in high places even if the public generally ends up seeing it as corrupt.

(To be honest, I think the hammer falls even harder on whoever approved this and didn't wait to confirm if the suspect was in custody because a no knock to obtain evidence seems like it could end poorly which it did.)

It was not a no-knock warrant.

Whether it was served as such is disputed, but the warrant itself was not for a no-knock entry.

Also, the warrant was not specifically for Breonna Taylor's ex so his whereabouts were not relevant to the warrant. Breonna Taylor was named in the warrant and the warrant was made specifically to search her known residence based upon the belief that she was acting as a courier -- based upon a supposed investigation conducted with the local postal inspector that the postal inspector himself denied.


It most certainly was a no-knock warrant. However, the cops said they knocked. 12 witnesses said they heard no knock, and 1 did, AFTER he said he didn't.

And they were subsequently banned in Louisville after this all went down.
 
2020-09-28 9:43:01 PM  
I bet the jury wasnt infromed that she was shot in her bed.
 
2020-09-28 9:43:08 PM  

Master P but not that one: So this means one of two things:
1) The Prosecution presented evidence which clearly showed police were within their right to rights to shoot Taylor.
2) The Prosecution never presented murder/manslaughter charges and only gave the grand jury a chance to vote on wanton endangerment then told the public these were the only charges the grand jury found fit to charge.

Which one do you think is more likely?


3) Plot twist he gave them all a ham sandwich.

Not each. All.
 
2020-09-28 9:43:13 PM  
Things just got very interesting. 2020 is shaping up to be a hell of a year. The exposure of systemic abuses--and the acknowledgment of them by Main Street America--is an incredible shift, and only a positive thing, despite the temporary tumult that might occur.

Seismic changes are happening.
 
2020-09-28 9:43:50 PM  

God_Almighty_Himself: NoahFenze: eurotrader: Guessing the grand jury was not even asked to vote on killing an unarmed woman in her own bed  without even a valid  valid reason for kicking in her door.

For the record, she was in the hallway.

Doesn't make it any better, but let's be accurate.

Stop defending racist murdering cops.


When is being accurate defending racist murdering cops?
Are you trying to imply that only lying through your teeth is woke enough for you?
 
2020-09-28 9:44:14 PM  

thorpe: Hitting the news now: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/gr​and-jury-member-says-kentucky-ag-used-​jurors-shield-seeks-n1241294

"Cameron said his office's investigation found that officers announced themselves based on one witness account, though other witnesses have said they did not hear police announce themselves that night. "

Guess which witness the grand jury heard from?


The one who initially said they hadn't heard the announcement either, but changed their story?
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.