Name: The 'very troubling' questions AG Cameron isn't answering on the Breonna Taylor decision
Brand: courier-journal.com
SKU: courier-journal-com-87
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

The 'very troubling' questions AG Cameron isn't answering on the Breonna Taylor decision

preview

Louisville Courier JournalView CommentsLOUISVILLE, Ky. — Attorneys and citizens&nbsp;say in Breonna Taylor’s shooting death — and Attorney General&nbsp;Daniel Cameron’s limited explanation of it — raises troubling questions&nbsp;he has so far refused to answer.The grand jury indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment for firing bullets that went into an apartment next to Taylor's during the attempted March 13 search that went awry.But no indictments were&nbsp;returned against, who fired the bullets that struck and killed the 26-year-old unarmed Black woman in her hallway that night.Police said they announced their presence before using a battering ram to break in the door shortly before 1 a.m., but Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said they&nbsp;didn't hear anyone say anything and fired a warning shot at what he thought was someone trying to break in. Police say his bullet hit&nbsp;Mattingly in the thigh, severing an artery, and the officers returned fire, killing Taylor.Breonna Taylor live updates:Still, troubling questions remain about the grand jury's decision:&nbsp;Cameron declined to respond to those&nbsp;and other questions The Courier Journal posed.&nbsp;In an email, spokeswoman Elizabeth Kuhn said, "We are not scheduling interviews at this time."She also said: "Grand jury proceedings are confidential and not subject to disclosure. … As such, we have no further comment."But answers&nbsp;to those questions&nbsp;may be coming soon.&nbsp;Attorneys for Hankison and Walker are demanding the release of the grand jury transcript and the underlying evidence. Walker's civil lawyers — Frederick Moore II, Steve Romines and Kevin Burke —&nbsp;filed a motion Saturday for that and all evidence collected by LMPD's Professional Integrity Unit.Romines is calling for the expedited discovery and release of the grand jury transcripts and recording by the attorney general's office.Related:And Gov. Andy Beshear is .&nbsp;"It's time for people to be able to see the basic information, facts and evidence, and to be able to come to their own conclusions about justice,” he said.&nbsp;Announcing the results Wednesday,&nbsp;Cameron said: “According to&nbsp;Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove&nbsp;was&nbsp;justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor's death.”&nbsp;He said he would&nbsp;not&nbsp;“get into the specifics”&nbsp;because&nbsp;"the&nbsp;proceedings themselves are secret. But what I will say is that our team walked&nbsp;them through every homicide offense."“What we did was uncover all the information and facts related to the morning of March 13, and then provided that information to the grand jury,” he said. “Ultimately, their conclusion was that the decision needed to be made to indict Mr.&nbsp;Hankison.”&nbsp;Cameron’s office declined to respond to 14 questions submitted&nbsp;by email&nbsp;Thursday and again Friday by The Courier Journal about the case.&nbsp;The&nbsp;email Friday was addressed to Cameron and to his special prosecutors, Jim Lesousky and Barbara Whaley.See also:Here are some of those questions:Criminal defense attorneys say Cameron misrepresented Kentucky’s law on self-defense.&nbsp;And they say that defense should not have prevented Hankison from being charged with wanton&nbsp;endangerment — at the least — for firing blindly into Taylor’s apartment.&nbsp;Under Kentucky law, it is permissible to use deadly force against someone who threatens your life,&nbsp;defense lawyer Ted Shouse and others say.&nbsp;But self-defense does not get you off the hook if you wantonly or recklessly create a risk to an innocent third party.&nbsp;“If Hankison wantonly endangered neighbors, he has to have wantonly endangered Breonna Taylor,” Romines said Wednesday night on CNN.&nbsp;He said Hankison had no right to use deadly force just because he heard that a fellow officer had been hit.&nbsp;“Under Kentucky law … you must identify the person who is imminently using&nbsp;deadly force against&nbsp;you, and then you’re entitled to use deadly force against them," Romines said.Shouse, who&nbsp;is not involved&nbsp;in the case, said: “Cameron’s comments regarding Kentucky’s laws on self-defense&nbsp;are simply wrong. KRS 503.120 specifically removes&nbsp;the right of self-protection from a person who acts wantonly or is reckless in defending himself.”&nbsp;For subscribers:Some criminal defense lawyers, including Tricia Lister, say Mattingly and Cosgrove should have been charged with killing Taylor because of that exception to the self-defense law.&nbsp;“They are ineligible to claim self-defense as a justification of killing bystander Breonna, particularly since Mattingly&nbsp;knew it&nbsp;was the male&nbsp;who had the gun,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “He has no justification for shooting bystander Breonna,&nbsp;thus he can be prosecuted for her death. Had he shot Walker, the story would be different, of course.”&nbsp;As Sam Aguiar, one of the lawyers for Taylor’s family, put it in a tweet:&nbsp;“If you unlawfully&nbsp;shoot at someone … they can shoot at you.&nbsp;But they sure as hell can’t shoot at your unarmed spouse, child, friend or loved one. At&nbsp;all. Let alone dozens of times. That’s the law.”&nbsp;Aguiar noted that Walker had the lawful right to fire in defense of himself and Taylor when he thought intruders were breaking into her apartment.&nbsp;Other lawyers, however, have said Cosgrove and Mattingly had a right to return fire and that the&nbsp;death of Taylor was a tragic mistake, rather than a crime.Under Kentucky&nbsp;law, negligence is not a criminal offense, though victims can be compensated for it, and the city of Louisville.&nbsp;Les Abramson, a professor at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, said the U.S.&nbsp;Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which is already looking at the case, could&nbsp;explore whether Mattingly and Cosgrove had a legal right to firing in self-defense.&nbsp;He said that, in turn, could hinge on where Walker and Taylor&nbsp;were in&nbsp;the hallway of her apartment.&nbsp;“If Walker was way to the left of the officers’ angle and Taylor was way to the right, there may be an issue about whether their response was appropriate when far more bullets went in her direction than&nbsp;his,” Abramson said in an email.&nbsp;Related:Attorneys say it is likely that Cameron or his special prosecutors decided on their own that the officers could not be charged with homicide on self-defense grounds.That would mean grand jurors never voted on whether to return a homicide indictment against Mattingly or Cosgrove.&nbsp;The attorneys&nbsp;base that conclusion on the fact that the grand jury did not file a report on either officer. The only officer it mentioned was Hankison.&nbsp;Abramson said the lack of a “no true bill” on those officers suggests the grand jury did not get to cast votes on those defendants.&nbsp;“We question whether any charges involving Breonna Taylor’s death were even presented,”&nbsp;Lonita Baker, an attorney for Taylor’s family, said Wednesday night&nbsp;on CNN.&nbsp;Although Kentucky allows prosecutors to decide on self-defense, rather than submitting that issue to a grand jury,&nbsp;Shouse said it would be&nbsp;“very&nbsp;troubling”&nbsp;if Cameron did so in&nbsp;this case.&nbsp;"A trial jury could have made the determination of whether&nbsp;30&nbsp;rounds fired in response to one shot was reckless or wanton," Shouse said. "Here, the commonwealth has made that determination unilaterally."Shouse theorized that if the three men were not police officers, they would have been charged.&nbsp;“These suspects were treated very differently from other suspects in homicide investigations,” he said. “We are all supposed to be treated the same.”&nbsp;Fact check:Reach Andrew Wolfson: 502-582-7189; awolfson@courier-journal.com; Twitter: .&nbsp;View Comments

Louisville Courier JournalView CommentsLOUISVILLE, Ky. — Attorneys and citizens&nbsp;say in Breonna Taylor’s shooting death — and Attorney General&nbsp;Daniel Cameron’s limited explanation of it — raises troubling questions&nbsp;he has so far refused to answer.The grand jury indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment for firing bullets that went into an apartment next to Taylor's during the attempted March 13 search that went awry.But no indictments were&nbsp;returned against, who fired the bullets that struck and killed the 26-year-old unarmed Black woman in her hallway that...

The 'very troubling' questions AG Cameron isn't answering on the Breonna Taylor decision

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS