George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2

[HarthorneWingo]

From a bulk newsletter I received from Shaun King on the Breonna Taylor case.

The deceit by the AG is just despicable.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron openly admitted that he never recommended any charges for the police who shot and killed Breonna Taylor. He didn’t even give the grand jury an option of charging the police, while publicly attributing the verdict to them.

Essentially, no case was ever really made against the police who murdered Breonna Taylor. It’s infuriating.

Our team at Grassroots Law Project was already in the midst of building a campaign to demand full transparency, for the grand jury’s records to be released, and for an independent overhaul of its findings.

Now the news proves that reopening the case is completely warranted, and a judge is forcing Cameron to release the transcripts of the proceedings tomorrow.

That means we have a chance right now to get the dignity and accountability that Breonna’s family deserves. All hands on deck!!!

Add your name right now to demand that Breonna Taylor’s case be reopened by a new grand jury, immediately.

The more people who sign on, the louder we’ll be heard, and the closer we’ll be to holding police accountable for murdering Breonna Taylor.

Let’s keep fighting!

Shaun

[stuporman]

From a bulk newsletter I received from Shaun King on the Breonna Taylor case.

The deceit by the AG is just despicable.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron openly admitted that he never recommended any charges for the police who shot and killed Breonna Taylor. He didn’t even give the grand jury an option of charging the police, while publicly attributing the verdict to them.

Essentially, no case was ever really made against the police who murdered Breonna Taylor. It’s infuriating.

Our team at Grassroots Law Project was already in the midst of building a campaign to demand full transparency, for the grand jury’s records to be released, and for an independent overhaul of its findings.

Now the news proves that reopening the case is completely warranted, and a judge is forcing Cameron to release the transcripts of the proceedings tomorrow.

That means we have a chance right now to get the dignity and accountability that Breonna’s family deserves. All hands on deck!!!

Add your name right now to demand that Breonna Taylor’s case be reopened by a new grand jury, immediately.

The more people who sign on, the louder we’ll be heard, and the closer we’ll be to holding police accountable for murdering Breonna Taylor.

Let’s keep fighting!

Shaun

The general public has no idea how grand juries work and this ignorance leads them to believe it's a fair and balanced process when it is anything but that.

The only person to present any evidence is the prosecutor and in this case it was the AG. The prosecutor decides which evidence is presented to the jury, which evidence is left out and builds the narrative around what evidence is presented.

There is no rebuttal of that evidence, no counter narrative, no defense evidence presented, it's all one sided and if that side chooses not to present a strong case or is flat out biased in it's motivation then the jury can get a very skewed view of the case.

Since the grand jury process is so secretive it's virtually impossible to know what and how the case is being presented at all so it's surprising any information has gotten out about this case but it isn't surprising at all it was conducted in this way.

Prosecutors have a close relationship with law enforcement because they rely on them to provide evidence in their normal duties in the DA's office which goes all the way up to the AG. So they provide deferential treatment to law enforcement in any criminal or misconduct proceedings.

I know you are an attorney and well aware of this process but I was spelling out for those who may read this and are unaware of these things. If you can provide any more insight to this that I have left out or wouldn't know from my layman's perspective it would be very much appreciated.

[HarthorneWingo]

From a bulk newsletter I received from Shaun King on the Breonna Taylor case.

The deceit by the AG is just despicable.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron openly admitted that he never recommended any charges for the police who shot and killed Breonna Taylor. He didn’t even give the grand jury an option of charging the police, while publicly attributing the verdict to them.

Essentially, no case was ever really made against the police who murdered Breonna Taylor. It’s infuriating.

Our team at Grassroots Law Project was already in the midst of building a campaign to demand full transparency, for the grand jury’s records to be released, and for an independent overhaul of its findings.

Now the news proves that reopening the case is completely warranted, and a judge is forcing Cameron to release the transcripts of the proceedings tomorrow.

That means we have a chance right now to get the dignity and accountability that Breonna’s family deserves. All hands on deck!!!

Add your name right now to demand that Breonna Taylor’s case be reopened by a new grand jury, immediately.

The more people who sign on, the louder we’ll be heard, and the closer we’ll be to holding police accountable for murdering Breonna Taylor.

Let’s keep fighting!

Shaun

The general public has no idea how grand juries work and this ignorance leads them to believe it's a fair and balanced process when it is anything but that.

The only person to present any evidence is the prosecutor and in this case it was the AG. The prosecutor decides which evidence is presented to the jury, which evidence is left out and builds the narrative around what evidence is presented.

There is no rebuttal of that evidence, no counter narrative, no defense evidence presented, it's all one sided and if that side chooses not to present a strong case or is flat out biased in it's motivation then the jury can get a very skewed view of the case.

Since the grand jury process is so secretive it's virtually impossible to know what and how the case is being presented at all so it's surprising any information has gotten out about this case but it isn't surprising at all it was conducted in this way.

Prosecutors have a close relationship with law enforcement because they rely on them to provide evidence in their normal duties in in the DA's office which goes all the way up to the AG. So they provide deferential treatment to law enforcement in any criminal or misconduct proceedings.

I know you are an attorney and well aware of this process but I was spelling out for those who may read this and are unaware of these things. If you can provide any more insight to this that I have left out or wouldn't know from my layman's perspective it would be very much appreciated.

You done good.

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

... and go to jail. You know, for someone who probably sees himself as a tough guy, this guy is a real snowflake to go along with his anger issues.

[Polk377]

From a bulk newsletter I received from Shaun King on the Breonna Taylor case.

The deceit by the AG is just despicable.

The general public has no idea how grand juries work and this ignorance leads them to believe it's a fair and balanced process when it is anything but that.

The only person to present any evidence is the prosecutor and in this case it was the AG. The prosecutor decides which evidence is presented to the jury, which evidence is left out and builds the narrative around what evidence is presented.

There is no rebuttal of that evidence, no counter narrative, no defense evidence presented, it's all one sided and if that side chooses not to present a strong case or is flat out biased in it's motivation then the jury can get a very skewed view of the case.

Since the grand jury process is so secretive it's virtually impossible to know what and how the case is being presented at all so it's surprising any information has gotten out about this case but it isn't surprising at all it was conducted in this way.

Prosecutors have a close relationship with law enforcement because they rely on them to provide evidence in their normal duties in in the DA's office which goes all the way up to the AG. So they provide deferential treatment to law enforcement in any criminal or misconduct proceedings.

I know you are an attorney and well aware of this process but I was spelling out for those who may read this and are unaware of these things. If you can provide any more insight to this that I have left out or wouldn't know from my layman's perspective it would be very much appreciated.

You done good.

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

[HarthorneWingo]

The general public has no idea how grand juries work and this ignorance leads them to believe it's a fair and balanced process when it is anything but that.

The only person to present any evidence is the prosecutor and in this case it was the AG. The prosecutor decides which evidence is presented to the jury, which evidence is left out and builds the narrative around what evidence is presented.

There is no rebuttal of that evidence, no counter narrative, no defense evidence presented, it's all one sided and if that side chooses not to present a strong case or is flat out biased in it's motivation then the jury can get a very skewed view of the case.

Since the grand jury process is so secretive it's virtually impossible to know what and how the case is being presented at all so it's surprising any information has gotten out about this case but it isn't surprising at all it was conducted in this way.

Prosecutors have a close relationship with law enforcement because they rely on them to provide evidence in their normal duties in in the DA's office which goes all the way up to the AG. So they provide deferential treatment to law enforcement in any criminal or misconduct proceedings.

I know you are an attorney and well aware of this process but I was spelling out for those who may read this and are unaware of these things. If you can provide any more insight to this that I have left out or wouldn't know from my layman's perspective it would be very much appreciated.

You done good.

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

[Jeff Van Gully]

The general public has no idea how grand juries work and this ignorance leads them to believe it's a fair and balanced process when it is anything but that.

The only person to present any evidence is the prosecutor and in this case it was the AG. The prosecutor decides which evidence is presented to the jury, which evidence is left out and builds the narrative around what evidence is presented.

There is no rebuttal of that evidence, no counter narrative, no defense evidence presented, it's all one sided and if that side chooses not to present a strong case or is flat out biased in it's motivation then the jury can get a very skewed view of the case.

Since the grand jury process is so secretive it's virtually impossible to know what and how the case is being presented at all so it's surprising any information has gotten out about this case but it isn't surprising at all it was conducted in this way.

Prosecutors have a close relationship with law enforcement because they rely on them to provide evidence in their normal duties in in the DA's office which goes all the way up to the AG. So they provide deferential treatment to law enforcement in any criminal or misconduct proceedings.

I know you are an attorney and well aware of this process but I was spelling out for those who may read this and are unaware of these things. If you can provide any more insight to this that I have left out or wouldn't know from my layman's perspective it would be very much appreciated.

You done good.

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

gross.

if you're here to be taken seriously in productive discourse, you could have easily omitted the bold. you seem to understand the broader context of all of this and that people find this all traumatic. just a thought. but if that's how you feel, i guess it's good we know that.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Read on Twitter

... and go to jail. You know, for someone who probably sees himself as a tough guy, this guy is a real snowflake to go along with his anger issues.

quite curious what this man does for a living.

[stuporman]

You done good.

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

What about all the lies the police have told investigators and testified to the grand jury? The officer who killed Taylor said he shot only 4 times when evidence showed he shot 16. So this professionally trained individual can't remember how many times he shot his weapon? Not the difference between 4 or 5, ok maybe..... but 4 and 16?

One of the officers testified that they saw someone in a military pose with an assault rifle firing multiple times down the hall even telling jurors he saw the muzzle flashes when the evidence showed Taylor's boyfriend shot once, one single bullet from a hand gun, that's all. So again this trained professional can't tell the difference between one shot and many yet he saw the muzzle flashes that never happened?

A dozen people give their account that they didn't hear the officers announce themselves and only one said they did. We don't know how that single account was 'procured' because we do know the techniques the police use to investigate and interview are quite often problematic to put it nicely and then that is the one presented to the jury?

There is even more but this is the type of false testimony and accounts were presented to the jury without any rebuttal or commentary that they were wrong. This is justice? Lies and deceit? Oh wait, 'misremembering' or 'mistaken' and yet they are the ones offered the jury with no counter or clarification. There has been nothing fair or just about this situation from before the warrant was even attained all the way through....well, still ongoing.

There is collusion and plotting going on between officers, investigators, attorney offices and city officials in this case and countless situations like this. Systems don't create and sustain themselves, it takes willing and intentional participation of many people and only a portion of it can be attributed to unconscious bias. There is way too much evidence that quite often they know exactly what they are doing.

All these armchair shrugging apologists are knowingly or not supportive of a violent fascist system and I hope that they never have to experience it first hand as I and so many others have because if they do their lives would never be the same....if they survive. Although, if they do maybe they'd have a different perspective of the intentional brutality and injustice of this corrupt system.

At this point with the repeated and ongoing examples over not just years but decades, wait no, centuries of racism and brutality anyone who is ignorant of the truth is oblivious to reality or they endorse it.

[HarthorneWingo]

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

What about all the lies the police have told investigators and testified to the grand jury? The officer who killed Taylor said he shot only 4 times when evidence showed he shot 16. So this professionally trained individual can't remember how many times he shot his weapon? Not the difference between 4 or 5, ok maybe..... but 4 and 16?

One of the officers testified that they saw someone in a military pose with an assault rifle firing multiple times down the hall even telling jurors he saw the muzzle flashes when the evidence showed Taylor's boyfriend shot once, one single bullet from a hand gun, that's all. So again this trained professional can't tell the difference between one shot and many yet he saw the muzzle flashes that never happened?

A dozen people give their account that they didn't hear the officers announce themselves and only one said they did. We don't know how that single account was 'procured' because we do know the techniques the police use to investigate and interview are quite often problematic to put it nicely and then that is the one presented to the jury?

There is even more but this is the type of false testimony and accounts were presented to the jury without any rebuttal or commentary that they were wrong. This is justice? Lies and deceit? Oh wait, 'misremembering' or 'mistaken' and yet they are the ones offered the jury with no counter or clarification. There has been nothing fair or just about this situation from before the warrant was even attained all the way through....well, still ongoing.

There is collusion and plotting going on between officers, investigators, attorney offices and city officials in this case and countless situations like this. Systems don't create and sustain themselves, it takes willing and intentional participation of many people and only a portion of it can be attributed to unconscious bias. There is way too much evidence that quite often they know exactly what they are doing.

All these armchair shrugging apologists are knowingly or not supportive of a violent fascist system and I hope that they never have to experience it first hand as I and so many others have because if they do their lives would never be the same....if they survive. Although, if they do maybe they'd have a different perspective of the intentional brutality and injustice of this corrupt system.

At this point with the repeated and ongoing examples over not just years but decades, wait no, centuries of racism and brutality anyone who is ignorant of the truth is oblivious to reality or they endorse it.

If officers lied to the grand jury, then they should be charged with perjury under the state statute.

With respect to everything else you wrote, trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for radical transformation of law enforcement throughout this country. I know how police lie and conspire to falsify evidence, etc. I've also experienced it first hand. But, in the end, it still doesn't add up to murder charges against the individual officers and you can't charge "the county" with a homicide.

If officers filed false reports and/or lied to the grand jury, then they should be held accountable. It's one of may ways you use to rebuild trust in the community, if that's your goal.

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

... and go to jail. You know, for someone who probably sees himself as a tough guy, this guy is a real snowflake to go along with his anger issues.

quite curious what this man does for a living.

Smoke meth?

He's been arrested, I know that.

[stuporman]

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

What about all the lies the police have told investigators and testified to the grand jury? The officer who killed Taylor said he shot only 4 times when evidence showed he shot 16. So this professionally trained individual can't remember how many times he shot his weapon? Not the difference between 4 or 5, ok maybe..... but 4 and 16?

One of the officers testified that they saw someone in a military pose with an assault rifle firing multiple times down the hall even telling jurors he saw the muzzle flashes when the evidence showed Taylor's boyfriend shot once, one single bullet from a hand gun, that's all. So again this trained professional can't tell the difference between one shot and many yet he saw the muzzle flashes that never happened?

A dozen people give their account that they didn't hear the officers announce themselves and only one said they did. We don't know how that single account was 'procured' because we do know the techniques the police use to investigate and interview are quite often problematic to put it nicely and then that is the one presented to the jury?

There is even more but this is the type of false testimony and accounts were presented to the jury without any rebuttal or commentary that they were wrong. This is justice? Lies and deceit? Oh wait, 'misremembering' or 'mistaken' and yet they are the ones offered the jury with no counter or clarification. There has been nothing fair or just about this situation from before the warrant was even attained all the way through....well, still ongoing.

There is collusion and plotting going on between officers, investigators, attorney offices and city officials in this case and countless situations like this. Systems don't create and sustain themselves, it takes willing and intentional participation of many people and only a portion of it can be attributed to unconscious bias. There is way too much evidence that quite often they know exactly what they are doing.

All these armchair shrugging apologists are knowingly or not supportive of a violent fascist system and I hope that they never have to experience it first hand as I and so many others have because if they do their lives would never be the same....if they survive. Although, if they do maybe they'd have a different perspective of the intentional brutality and injustice of this corrupt system.

At this point with the repeated and ongoing examples over not just years but decades, wait no, centuries of racism and brutality anyone who is ignorant of the truth is oblivious to reality or they endorse it.

If officers lied to the grand jury, then they should be charged with perjury under the state statute.

With respect to everything else you wrote, trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for radical transformation of law enforcement throughout this country. I know how police lie and conspire to falsify evidence, etc. I've also experienced it first hand. But, in the end, it still doesn't add up to murder charges against the individual officers and you can't charge "the county" with a homicide.

If officers filed false reports and/or lied to the grand jury, then they should be held accountable. It's one of may ways you use to rebuild trust in the community, if that's your goal.

You know how it works for police, they have been trained to say things in ways that shield them from prosecution if it ever is shown to be erroneous. With DA and AG offices rarely going out of their way to hold them accountable and as a default giving them the benefit of the doubt for any discrepancies between their statements, testimony and what is the evidence.

Until qualified immunity is removed the police will not be held accountable except for very rare instances and often even in those cases it's not to fullest extent of the law. They even are permitted to amend statements in reports if shown to be false and testimony is given 'in their perspective' so the difference between it and reality is not considered a lie but as innocently mistaken.

I know you are well aware of all this but it's really invidious the way there are so many layers of legal and systematic protection for law enforcement even when they are intentionally corrupting the justice system.

There's always been a level of systematic protection ever since policing was instituted as a slave era mechanism of enforcement but the SC ruling in 83 cemented QI in law and virtually impossible to get justice for anyone from their wrong doing.

[HarthorneWingo]

What about all the lies the police have told investigators and testified to the grand jury? The officer who killed Taylor said he shot only 4 times when evidence showed he shot 16. So this professionally trained individual can't remember how many times he shot his weapon? Not the difference between 4 or 5, ok maybe..... but 4 and 16?

One of the officers testified that they saw someone in a military pose with an assault rifle firing multiple times down the hall even telling jurors he saw the muzzle flashes when the evidence showed Taylor's boyfriend shot once, one single bullet from a hand gun, that's all. So again this trained professional can't tell the difference between one shot and many yet he saw the muzzle flashes that never happened?

A dozen people give their account that they didn't hear the officers announce themselves and only one said they did. We don't know how that single account was 'procured' because we do know the techniques the police use to investigate and interview are quite often problematic to put it nicely and then that is the one presented to the jury?

There is even more but this is the type of false testimony and accounts were presented to the jury without any rebuttal or commentary that they were wrong. This is justice? Lies and deceit? Oh wait, 'misremembering' or 'mistaken' and yet they are the ones offered the jury with no counter or clarification. There has been nothing fair or just about this situation from before the warrant was even attained all the way through....well, still ongoing.

There is collusion and plotting going on between officers, investigators, attorney offices and city officials in this case and countless situations like this. Systems don't create and sustain themselves, it takes willing and intentional participation of many people and only a portion of it can be attributed to unconscious bias. There is way too much evidence that quite often they know exactly what they are doing.

All these armchair shrugging apologists are knowingly or not supportive of a violent fascist system and I hope that they never have to experience it first hand as I and so many others have because if they do their lives would never be the same....if they survive. Although, if they do maybe they'd have a different perspective of the intentional brutality and injustice of this corrupt system.

At this point with the repeated and ongoing examples over not just years but decades, wait no, centuries of racism and brutality anyone who is ignorant of the truth is oblivious to reality or they endorse it.

If officers lied to the grand jury, then they should be charged with perjury under the state statute.

With respect to everything else you wrote, trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for radical transformation of law enforcement throughout this country. I know how police lie and conspire to falsify evidence, etc. I've also experienced it first hand. But, in the end, it still doesn't add up to murder charges against the individual officers and you can't charge "the county" with a homicide.

If officers filed false reports and/or lied to the grand jury, then they should be held accountable. It's one of may ways you use to rebuild trust in the community, if that's your goal.

You know how it works for police, they have been trained to say things in ways that shield them from prosecution if it ever is shown to be erroneous. With DA and AG offices rarely going out of their way to hold them accountable and as a default giving them the benefit of the doubt for any discrepancies between their statements, testimony and what is the evidence.

Until qualified immunity is removed the police will not be held accountable except for very rare instances and often even in those cases it's not to fullest extent of the law. They even are permitted to amend statements in reports if shown to be false and testimony is given 'in their perspective' so the difference between it and reality is not considered a lie but as innocently mistaken.

I know you are well aware of all this but it's really invidious the way there are so many layers of legal and systematic protection for law enforcement even when they are intentionally corrupting the justice system.

There's always been a level of systematic protection ever since policing was instituted as a slave era mechanism of enforcement but the SC ruling in 83 cemented QI in law and virtually impossible to get justice for anyone from their wrong doing.

Qualified Immunity applies to civil rights lawsuits, not criminal liability. The family settled the civil suit for $12 million. If they wanted, they could have litigated the civil suit in order to expose all of these lies, etc., but chose not to.

[stuporman]

If officers lied to the grand jury, then they should be charged with perjury under the state statute.

With respect to everything else you wrote, trust me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for radical transformation of law enforcement throughout this country. I know how police lie and conspire to falsify evidence, etc. I've also experienced it first hand. But, in the end, it still doesn't add up to murder charges against the individual officers and you can't charge "the county" with a homicide.

If officers filed false reports and/or lied to the grand jury, then they should be held accountable. It's one of may ways you use to rebuild trust in the community, if that's your goal.

You know how it works for police, they have been trained to say things in ways that shield them from prosecution if it ever is shown to be erroneous. With DA and AG offices rarely going out of their way to hold them accountable and as a default giving them the benefit of the doubt for any discrepancies between their statements, testimony and what is the evidence.

Until qualified immunity is removed the police will not be held accountable except for very rare instances and often even in those cases it's not to fullest extent of the law. They even are permitted to amend statements in reports if shown to be false and testimony is given 'in their perspective' so the difference between it and reality is not considered a lie but as innocently mistaken.

I know you are well aware of all this but it's really invidious the way there are so many layers of legal and systematic protection for law enforcement even when they are intentionally corrupting the justice system.

There's always been a level of systematic protection ever since policing was instituted as a slave era mechanism of enforcement but the SC ruling in 83 cemented QI in law and virtually impossible to get justice for anyone from their wrong doing.

Qualified Immunity applies to civil rights lawsuits, not criminal liability. The family settled the civil suit for $12 million. If they wanted, they could have litigated the civil suit in order to expose all of these lies, etc., but chose not to.

Yea, it's sad to have to consider the only way to get their attention is if their personal fortunes are affected and not on the basis of the people's lives they are impacting. The people's lives they destroy with their actions have no such luxury of financial insulation from them.

The onus on the family to expose themselves to ongoing trauma of a civil trial after already losing a family member in such a tragic way just to bring out the truth seems like an unnecessarily cruel way to try to get criminal justice when one doesn't mean the other will even happen.

It really disgusts me that this malfeasance of the justice system is just common practice and resists any attempt to change it.

[HarthorneWingo]

You know how it works for police, they have been trained to say things in ways that shield them from prosecution if it ever is shown to be erroneous. With DA and AG offices rarely going out of their way to hold them accountable and as a default giving them the benefit of the doubt for any discrepancies between their statements, testimony and what is the evidence.

Until qualified immunity is removed the police will not be held accountable except for very rare instances and often even in those cases it's not to fullest extent of the law. They even are permitted to amend statements in reports if shown to be false and testimony is given 'in their perspective' so the difference between it and reality is not considered a lie but as innocently mistaken.

I know you are well aware of all this but it's really invidious the way there are so many layers of legal and systematic protection for law enforcement even when they are intentionally corrupting the justice system.

There's always been a level of systematic protection ever since policing was instituted as a slave era mechanism of enforcement but the SC ruling in 83 cemented QI in law and virtually impossible to get justice for anyone from their wrong doing.

Qualified Immunity applies to civil rights lawsuits, not criminal liability. The family settled the civil suit for $12 million. If they wanted, they could have litigated the civil suit in order to expose all of these lies, etc., but chose not to.

Yea, it's sad to have to consider the only way to get their attention is if their personal fortunes are affected and not on the basis of the people's lives they are impacting. The people's lives they destroy with their actions have no such luxury of financial insulation from them.

The onus on the family to expose themselves to ongoing trauma of a civil trial after already losing a family member in such a tragic way just to bring out the truth seems like an unnecessarily cruel way to try to get criminal justice when one doesn't mean the other will even happen.

It really disgusts me that this malfeasance of the justice system is just common practice and resists any attempt to change it.

If you want to really get their attention, you have to humiliate them publicly in a trial and hit them hard in the pocket.

I understand the family’s decision. They’re in a lot of pain. They were offered a huge sum and decided that it was an admission of wrongdoing, in and of itself, and that the state will do its investigation to uncover the details.

[Pointgod]

So we know from the tapes that Cameron never suggested anything other than reckless endangerment and there were multiple witnesses that said the police never announced themselves. Apparently the jury didn’t know that they could pursue other charges because they were never presented by Cameron. There should be a special prosecutor assigned to the case but is there a non corrupt prosecutor in the state of Kentucky? If you don’t pursue certain charges it should be explained plainly why charges couldn’t be pursued.

https://www.theroot.com/breonna-taylor-s-family-calls-for-kentucky-governor-to-1845277248

[NYKAL]

You done good.

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

exactly. JUST because something is LAWFUL does not make it right or just. Too many atrocities have been perpetrated by people who were "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS." I'm sure the guys working at death camps were Just Following Orders. They fell in line with the "Rules of Conduct." which allowed them to continue the atrocities. Yeah, that's a Gross example but, its accurate too.

[Polk377]

I don't know why so many people are fixated on this one case like it was the JFK assassination. Get over it. There is no mass collusion or nefarious plot in this case. The evidence was presented and backed up with reasonable cause. We can call for a reform of the "no knock" warrent which I support but that is it.

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

exactly. JUST because something is LAWFUL does not make it right or just. Too many atrocities have been perpetrated by people who were "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS." I'm sure the guys working at death camps were Just Following Orders. They fell in line with the "Rules of Conduct." which allowed them to continue the atrocities. Yeah, that's a Gross example but, its accurate too.

Like I said, I believe in reforming the laws so these types of situations are less likely to occur. What I can't support is the over politicizing of this case that is causing cities to burn down in it's name when in facts it is still lawful. You don't change opinion with exteme violence, you just create division.

[HarthorneWingo]

I've made that point earlier in the thread. I think the reason is because people are just, generally, fed up with police killings regardless of whether it was of malicious intent or as the result of reckless police policies of which they have been subjected to for decades since the civil rights era. So while I understand that there is no criminal liability here, there is still a great need to reform police departments and their procedures.

exactly. JUST because something is LAWFUL does not make it right or just. Too many atrocities have been perpetrated by people who were "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS." I'm sure the guys working at death camps were Just Following Orders. They fell in line with the "Rules of Conduct." which allowed them to continue the atrocities. Yeah, that's a Gross example but, its accurate too.

Like I said, I believe in reforming the laws so these types of situations are less likely to occur. What I can't support is the over politicizing of this case that is causing cities to burn down in it's name when in facts it is still lawful. You don't change opinion with exteme violence, you just create division.

But it’s not just “this case.” You have to look at it in context of the Black experience in America. I don’t think you can separate this out.