Breonna Taylor Grand Jury recordings released....

[Josie]

 

[Josie]

And here is the video of the body cam footage when the police went back into the apartment after the shooting:



I had heard from the beginning that she was asleep in bed when she was shot, but the body cam footage shows her at the door to the bedroom or in the hallway (image is blurred out).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Breonna Taylor case grand juror: We weren’t given the option of indicting the two cops who shot her

I admit that I don't know a lot about the case, which is why I've only made one or two remarks about it, and that was a long time ago. But the above confounds me.
How does one withhold the option of indictment in a case like this?
How is that even possible?

 

[Josie]

Breonna Taylor case grand juror: We weren’t given the option of indicting the two cops who shot her

I admit that I don't know a lot about the case, which is why I've only made one or two remarks about it, and that was a long time ago. But the above confounds me.
How does one withhold the option of indictment in a case like this?
How is that even possible?

The Attorney General determined that the evidence supported self-defense, therefore, didn't present that to the grand jury.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Tell you what, seeing as how I don't know enough to really weigh in with much credibility, I don't have a lot of takeaway on this yet except for this: I know that all of this is the result of a botched warrant service, correct?
If that's right, my only takeaway from all of this right now is that there's been WAY TOO MUCH "botching" going on and no consequences other than the taxpayers being forced to be held accountable for it.

Forget the criminal aspect for a moment, let's look at the civil.
Twelve million here, a few more million there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.
And this is not one of those William J. Lewinsky dealios where he can come in and paper over the s**t storm by scaring the crap out of a jury with tales of hardened criminals and their superior reflexes, and how cops should have the unencumbered right to shoot first and ask questions later.

And through it all, police are never held accountable! No, not necessarily the individual officers, the POLICE UNION, who protects them with a qualified immunity the President wishes he had, and a blue union shield thicker than the Great Wall of China protecting just plain lousy or crooked officers from even being fired.

Bad cops, poor performing cops, even criminal cops gone full rogue, police unions throughout the country are now veritable playgrounds for them in most major cities.
And the taxpayers get the bill for all of it, so there is NO incentive, ZERO...to reform anything.
Why should anyone in cop land be motivated to reform when they know there's zero consequences?

The overwhelming majority of cops are actually good people, but they're not stupid either. They aren't going to stick their necks out and object to bad cops either, because for them, the consequences for
"being a rat" might just mean paying the ultimate price.

Until that changes, until at least SOME of the pain and consequences are felt directly by someone other than the taxpayers, nothing is going to change for the better and in fact, things might just get a whole lot worse.

 

[d0gbreath]

The Attorney General determined that the evidence supported self-defense, therefore, didn't present that to the grand jury.

I was always under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to decide what the evidence supports. Silly me.

 

[Josie]

I was always under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to decide what the evidence supports. Silly me.

A regular jury does that after the indictment. A grand jury determines the indictment based on what the state presents.

 

[d0gbreath]

A regular jury does that after the indictment. A grand jury determines the indictment based on what the state presents.

Why seat a grand jury if the state AG is going to determine what the evidence supports?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was always under the impression that the grand jury was supposed to decide what the evidence supports. Silly me.

Nope, the GJ simply decides whether (or not) the charges proposed to them by the state are supported by the evidence presented to them by the state.

 

[d0gbreath]

Nope, the GJ simply decides whether (or not) the charges proposed to them by the state are supported by the evidence presented to them by the state.

Which I can see working well when the state wants to convict someone of charges. When they want to let them off, why don't they just let them off. Why seat a grand jury that's hearing evidence that the perps are innocent with no contrary decisions allowed?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which I can see working well when the state wants to convict someone of charges. When they want to let them off, why don't they just let them off. Why seat a grand jury that's hearing evidence that the perps are innocent with no contrary decisions allowed?

The state does that by simply not presenting a potential charge (criminal allegation) to the GJ. This is officially called prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency or officer to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case. A law-enforcement officer who declines to pursue a case against a person has favorably exercised prosecutorial discretion. In the criminal system, for example, police officers frequently decline to arrest people for minor infractions (e.g. jaywalking) and prosecutors often bring lesser charges against defendants to facilitate plea bargaining.

Prosecutorial Discretion: A Statistical Analysis

In August 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would review more than 300,000 pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion. The initiative was officially launched in November 2011 and is expected...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

 

[d0gbreath]

The state does that by simply not presenting a potential charge (criminal allegation) to the GJ. This is officially called prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial Discretion: A Statistical Analysis

In August 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would review more than 300,000 pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion. The initiative was officially launched in November 2011 and is expected...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

That's some good information on prosecutorial discretion, but it doesn't answer my question of why they would have a GJ hearing when they are not prosecuting. It sounds like a ploy to hand off the decision in the public's eyes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's some good information on prosecutorial discretion, but it doesn't answer my question of why they would have a GJ hearing when they are not prosecuting. It sounds like a ploy to hand off the decision in the public's eyes.

They did choose to prosecute (and the JG concurred) - just not on any homicide charges.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why seat a grand jury if the state AG is going to determine what the evidence supports?

The purpose of a Grand Jury is to vote whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment leading to a trial.

It is NOT like a Jury selected FOR a trial.

As such, the Prosecution presents witnesses and other evidence it deems supports their case for charges and trial.

It is usually up to the Prosecutor what evidence they choose to provide, although in some cases Grand Juries may request to see specific evidence.

Point being, the old homily that a Prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich is based on this.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why seat a grand jury if the state AG is going to determine what the evidence supports?

It’s basically to show that the AG had received public approval to proceed with a given indictment (criminal charge). That, of course, does not preclude the prosecutor from later offering/accepting a plea deal (usually to a lesser charge and/or potential sentence) instead of going to trial (on the initial charge).

 

[Josie]

That's some good information on prosecutorial discretion, but it doesn't answer my question of why they would have a GJ hearing when they are not prosecuting. It sounds like a ploy to hand off the decision in the public's eyes.

The evidence supported the charge that the one officer was indicted for. The evidence didn't support a crime occurred other than that.

 

[d0gbreath]

It’s basically to show that the AG had received public approval to proceed with a given indictment (criminal charge). That, of course, does not preclude the prosecutor from later offering/accepting a plea deal (usually to a lesser charge and/or potential sentence) instead of going to trial (on the initial charge).

So he'll bargain to plead guilty to reckless endangerment for a year of probation.

Just us done.

 

[notquiteright]

The Attorney General determined that the evidence supported self-defense, therefore, didn't present that to the grand jury.

HUH, I thought it was up to the grand jury to determine that. I have a feeling it ain't over... ✌

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I know that all of this is the result of a botched warrant service, correct?

What did they "botch?"

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Why seat a grand jury if the state AG is going to determine what the evidence supports?

Because the alternative is to allege the defendants committed every crime on the books and leave it to the grand jury to sort it out with their extensive legal training. It's also an ethical obligation of prosecutors to do justice (as opposed to winning cases), and if the evidence clearly doesn't support a particular charge, they would be violating their ethical obligations if they pursued it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Tell you what, seeing as how I don't know enough to really weigh in with much credibility, I don't have a lot of takeaway on this yet except for this: I know that all of this is the result of a botched warrant service, correct?
If that's right, my only takeaway from all of this right now is that there's been WAY TOO MUCH "botching" going on and no consequences other than the taxpayers being forced to be held accountable for it.

Forget the criminal aspect for a moment, let's look at the civil.
Twelve million here, a few more million there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.
And this is not one of those William J. Lewinsky dealios where he can come in and paper over the s**t storm by scaring the crap out of a jury with tales of hardened criminals and their superior reflexes, and how cops should have the unencumbered right to shoot first and ask questions later.

And through it all, police are never held accountable! No, not necessarily the individual officers, the POLICE UNION, who protects them with a qualified immunity the President wishes he had, and a blue union shield thicker than the Great Wall of China protecting just plain lousy or crooked officers from even being fired.

Bad cops, poor performing cops, even criminal cops gone full rogue, police unions throughout the country are now veritable playgrounds for them in most major cities.
And the taxpayers get the bill for all of it, so there is NO incentive, ZERO...to reform anything.
Why should anyone in cop land be motivated to reform when they know there's zero consequences?

The overwhelming majority of cops are actually good people, but they're not stupid either. They aren't going to stick their necks out and object to bad cops either, because for them, the consequences for
"being a rat" might just mean paying the ultimate price.

Until that changes, until at least SOME of the pain and consequences are felt directly by someone other than the taxpayers, nothing is going to change for the better and in fact, things might just get a whole lot worse.

What do you mean by “police are never held accountable”?

virtuallt all the black shootings BLM brings up are self evidently justified. Every police officer is held accountable, if it’s a justified shoot accountable means no charges

 

[Hamish Howl]

What did they "botch?"

The warrant was for a guy they already had in custody.

 

[Ouroboros]

On a related note— honestly not hijacking— I keep hearing vague references in the media to someone who testified in support of the cops’ version of the incident— but I can’t find anything online. Today on The View Whoopi Goldberg said someone lied for the cops, though she made the statement vague enough that she probably won’t be sued.

 

[lurchadams]

Tell you what, seeing as how I don't know enough to really weigh in with much credibility, I don't have a lot of takeaway on this yet except for this: I know that all of this is the result of a botched warrant service, correct?
If that's right, my only takeaway from all of this right now is that there's been WAY TOO MUCH "botching" going on and no consequences other than the taxpayers being forced to be held accountable for it.

Forget the criminal aspect for a moment, let's look at the civil.
Twelve million here, a few more million there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.
And this is not one of those William J. Lewinsky dealios where he can come in and paper over the s**t storm by scaring the crap out of a jury with tales of hardened criminals and their superior reflexes, and how cops should have the unencumbered right to shoot first and ask questions later.

And through it all, police are never held accountable! No, not necessarily the individual officers, the POLICE UNION, who protects them with a qualified immunity the President wishes he had, and a blue union shield thicker than the Great Wall of China protecting just plain lousy or crooked officers from even being fired.

Bad cops, poor performing cops, even criminal cops gone full rogue, police unions throughout the country are now veritable playgrounds for them in most major cities.
And the taxpayers get the bill for all of it, so there is NO incentive, ZERO...to reform anything.
Why should anyone in cop land be motivated to reform when they know there's zero consequences?

The overwhelming majority of cops are actually good people, but they're not stupid either. They aren't going to stick their necks out and object to bad cops either, because for them, the consequences for
"being a rat" might just mean paying the ultimate price.

Until that changes, until at least SOME of the pain and consequences are felt directly by someone other than the taxpayers, nothing is going to change for the better and in fact, things might just get a whole lot worse.

The other major conflict of interest is that non-incentive for a D.A. to ever indict a cop. The D.A. needs the cops cooperation when trying to get convictions. Cops are the D.A.'s foot soldiers. The system, therefore is set up to be corrupt from the get go.

 

[Ouroboros]

The other major conflict of interest is that non-incentive for a D.A. to ever indict a cop. The D.A. needs the cops cooperation when trying to get convictions. Cops are the D.A.'s foot soldiers. The system, therefore is set up to be corrupt from the get go.

So by what evidence do you believe that the cops in this case are corrupt?