Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:56 pm
It is never the "correct call" for a grand jury to decide in secret proceedings that a court doesn't even need to look at cops killing an innocent person for no reason. Whether or not it was "murder" is a question of state law, but the determination that it was or wasn't should at least be made in a public forum. Crazy how prosecutors brag that they could get an indictment for a ham sandwich, but somehow they can't manage to do it for cops busting into the wrong home and gunning down the person who lives there. Crazier still that firing into the apartments of white neighbors did warrant charges, even though firing into a black woman's body didn't.
A group of citizens heard the information presented and made the call. That’s far better than it being left up to an elected official who is under political pressure.

Them shooting into her apartment was legally justified. Blindly shooting into her apartment without eyes on the target and some of those rounds entering a neighboring inhabited home in which you didn’t have a warrant or a threat is reckless. So the charges against the one officer is the right call.

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1785
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Oh no

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:47 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:56 pm
It is never the "correct call" for a grand jury to decide in secret proceedings that a court doesn't even need to look at cops killing an innocent person for no reason. Whether or not it was "murder" is a question of state law, but the determination that it was or wasn't should at least be made in a public forum. Crazy how prosecutors brag that they could get an indictment for a ham sandwich, but somehow they can't manage to do it for cops busting into the wrong home and gunning down the person who lives there. Crazier still that firing into the apartments of white neighbors did warrant charges, even though firing into a black woman's body didn't.
A group of citizens heard the information presented and made the call. That’s far better than it being left up to an elected official who is under political pressure.
This is exactly what I am talking about, though. You actually have no idea what information was presented or what charges, if any, were even sought, because grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. You simply believe that the system works, and therefore it worked here, and hey, if that means a young black woman was killed and there will be no consequences for anyone involved, then I guess them's the breaks. If this determination were made in open court, we would at least know whether justice was really served, and if not, then what went wrong. But this is exactly why prosecutors prefer to kill these things at the grand jury stage instead.

Was it "murder," as defined in Kentucky state law? I don't know, I have never researched the relevant statutes, but it should certainly be something. If it really isn't, if there is no law remotely close enough to any of the conduct here to even warrant a charge, then that gets to exactly the point that mean just made a few posts back.

It's also worth pointing out that the warrant itself was illegal, not that it matters. It seems like that should nullify any "legal justification" that might otherwise exist and should expose the judge who signed the warrant to liability as well, but of course, it won't, because, contrary to your earlier post, laws absolutely can "be bent," and they routinely are, when it serves the interests of the right people.
Them shooting into her apartment was legally justified. Blindly shooting into her apartment without eyes on the target and some of those rounds entering a neighboring inhabited home in which you didn’t have a warrant or a threat is reckless. So the charges against the one officer is the right call.
I suppose that this position is based on your years of legal training and deep familiarity with applicable state laws in Kentucky and not just a regurgitation of whatever you heard on TV that most aligned with your preexisting viewpoint.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:04 am
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:47 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:56 pm
It is never the "correct call" for a grand jury to decide in secret proceedings that a court doesn't even need to look at cops killing an innocent person for no reason. Whether or not it was "murder" is a question of state law, but the determination that it was or wasn't should at least be made in a public forum. Crazy how prosecutors brag that they could get an indictment for a ham sandwich, but somehow they can't manage to do it for cops busting into the wrong home and gunning down the person who lives there. Crazier still that firing into the apartments of white neighbors did warrant charges, even though firing into a black woman's body didn't.
A group of citizens heard the information presented and made the call. That’s far better than it being left up to an elected official who is under political pressure.
This is exactly what I am talking about, though. You actually have no idea what information was presented or what charges, if any, were even sought, because grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. You simply believe that the system works, and therefore it worked here, and hey, if that means a young black woman was killed and there will be no consequences for anyone involved, then I guess them's the breaks. If this determination were made in open court, we would at least know whether justice was really served, and if not, then what went wrong. But this is exactly why prosecutors prefer to kill these things at the grand jury stage instead.

Was it "murder," as defined in Kentucky state law? I don't know, I have never researched the relevant statutes, but it should certainly be something. If it really isn't, if there is no law remotely close enough to any of the conduct here to even warrant a charge, then that gets to exactly the point that mean just made a few posts back.

It's also worth pointing out that the warrant itself was illegal, not that it matters. It seems like that should nullify any "legal justification" that might otherwise exist and should expose the judge who signed the warrant to liability as well, but of course, it won't, because, contrary to your earlier post, laws absolutely can "be bent," and they routinely are, when it serves the interests of the right people.
Them shooting into her apartment was legally justified. Blindly shooting into her apartment without eyes on the target and some of those rounds entering a neighboring inhabited home in which you didn’t have a warrant or a threat is reckless. So the charges against the one officer is the right call.
I suppose that this position is based on your years of legal training and deep familiarity with applicable state laws in Kentucky and not just a regurgitation of whatever you heard on TV that most aligned with your preexisting viewpoint.
Did you watch the press conference where the AG presented several of the facts of the investigation? He laid out much of the same information that was presented to the grand jury. Key information was the fact that the two cops who were not charged were justified in their shooting, according to the law.

Also, the warrant they served was not illegal. They did not execute the "no knock warrant" like first reported, they did in fact knock and announce themselves. Likely critical information the grand jury heard in order to come to a conclusion. Thanks for the 3 month old WP opinion article though.

I don't know about you, but I can typically educate myself on something and apply a bit of rational thinking to come to an understanding. Once again, the implication you must be a professional in something to have an opinion or basic understanding is ridiculous. 95% of this forums conversations should be shut down if that's the standard.

Let me break it down for you.

Under Kentuckys self-defense laws, once a shot was fired by someone in the house, it is logical and pursuant to training that the officers or officers would return fire. Despite the fact Taylor was not armed, she was next to someone who was. A murder charge in KY requires the defendant is required to act intentionally to cause a death. His objective must be to kill someone.

On the Wanton Endangerment charge, the defendant has to engage in conduct demonstrating extreme indifference to the value of human life that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. Considering Hankison shot through a sliding glass window, with it's blinds down and some of those bullets entered an occupied apartment with a couple and young child, it seems like an appropriate charge for my college educated yet short of a JD degree self. Shooting without a line of sight is also against LPD policy.

The fact you don't know the latest information on the case is exactly why people are ripping apart cities. They don't take the time to try and understand the laws and reasons why charges are pressed or not. Instead, they'd rather stick with their initial emotionally charged reaction and trust in highly educated folks like LeBron James to tell them what to be angry about.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Instead of quoting bit by bit, just gonna do this with some quick bulletpoints.
  • Unless you were on the grand jury, you don't know what information was presented to them, how it was presented, or what charges were sought. What the AG says at a press conference does not change this. Grand jury proceedings are secret and this decision should not have been made in secrecy.
  • The warrant was a no-knock warrant that was not requested or approved based on any information that was specific to the case or the individuals involved, so yes, that is illegal, and no matter how old the WP article gets, that isn't going to change. NYT (and perhaps others) reported that the order was changed to "knock and announce," but the underlying warrant was the illegitimate no-knock warrant.
  • They knocked, but they either did not announce themselves at all or did not announce themselves audibly enough for the people inside the apartment or neighbors to have heard, which is effectively no announcement. This, of course, actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that Breonna Taylor and Kenneth Walker were not involved in any illegal activity and didn't have any sort of criminal record. If they knew that it was cops pounding on their door, why would they open fire?
  • Just as you were free to have an utterly uninformed opinion about what it is like to be black, you are also free to have an uninformed opinion about the law. I'm not telling you not to have opinions, I'm just telling you that your opinions are not valuable when you do not have an adequate background to form them.
  • There are other forms of criminal homicide besides murder. I suggest that you educate yourself and apply a bit of rational thinking to come to an understanding about the other charges that could potentially have been sought even if murder would have been too much to establish.
  • "Self-defense" is what Kenneth Walker was exercising in opening fire on the unidentified intruders busting down the door. There are different laws to authorize the use of force by cops acting in their official capacity, they don't rely on run of the mill self-defense laws (and if they did, they'd have a hard time proving "self-defense" while breaking into somebody else's home). This is a defense that the cops could raise at trial, if the prosecutor bothered to have one. That defense either would have failed or we at least would have publicly seen it succeed and would know that is why they got off, and then we could decide whether we agree with that or want that law to change. Instead we just have the grand jury black box spitting out "nothing wrong here except shooting into a white person's apartment." You should ask all your black friends what they think of that.
  • I'm not super clear on why you can typically educate yourself on something and apply a bit of rational thinking to come to an understanding, but someone like LeBron James can't. What makes you uniquely qualified to speak intelligently about an area where you actually have no qualifications?

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:03 pm
Instead of quoting bit by bit, just gonna do this with some quick bulletpoints.
  • Unless you were on the grand jury, you don't know what information was presented to them, how it was presented, or what charges were sought. What the AG says at a press conference does not change this. Grand jury proceedings are secret and this decision should not have been made in secrecy.
  • The warrant was a no-knock warrant that was not requested or approved based on any information that was specific to the case or the individuals involved, so yes, that is illegal, and no matter how old the WP article gets, that isn't going to change. NYT (and perhaps others) reported that the order was changed to "knock and announce," but the underlying warrant was the illegitimate no-knock warrant.
  • They knocked, but they either did not announce themselves at all or did not announce themselves audibly enough for the people inside the apartment or neighbors to have heard, which is effectively no announcement. This, of course, actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that Breonna Taylor and Kenneth Walker were not involved in any illegal activity and didn't have any sort of criminal record. If they knew that it was cops pounding on their door, why would they open fire?
  • Just as you were free to have an utterly uninformed opinion about what it is like to be black, you are also free to have an uninformed opinion about the law. I'm not telling you not to have opinions, I'm just telling you that your opinions are not valuable when you do not have an adequate background to form them.
  • There are other forms of criminal homicide besides murder. I suggest that you educate yourself and apply a bit of rational thinking to come to an understanding about the other charges that could potentially have been sought even if murder would have been too much to establish.
  • "Self-defense" is what Kenneth Walker was exercising in opening fire on the unidentified intruders busting down the door. There are different laws to authorize the use of force by cops acting in their official capacity, they don't rely on run of the mill self-defense laws (and if they did, they'd have a hard time proving "self-defense" while breaking into somebody else's home). This is a defense that the cops could raise at trial, if the prosecutor bothered to have one. That defense either would have failed or we at least would have publicly seen it succeed and would know that is why they got off, and then we could decide whether we agree with that or want that law to change. Instead we just have the grand jury black box spitting out "nothing wrong here except shooting into a white person's apartment." You should ask all your black friends what they think of that.
  • I'm not super clear on why you can typically educate yourself on something and apply a bit of rational thinking to come to an understanding, but someone like LeBron James can't. What makes you uniquely qualified to speak intelligently about an area where you actually have no qualifications?
Are you a lawyer? What makes your opinion more valuable than mine? Why don't you just stick to your side of the argument instead of constantly telling me my opinion is irrelevant as you than spew on countering mine with yours. We have no idea of each others backgrounds, so we can just stop assuming things. I'm also not here to get votes or make friends, so the value of my posts is irrelevant and much like the current state of the world, people who agree with me tell me so privately and wish to remain to appear neutral.

They had 5 warrants that night. It's been verified that the warrant they had was for the correct address. It's been verified they knocked and witnesses say they announced themselves. She was part of the investigation because they thought it may be a drug house considering her car was spotted at other known drug houses and her former boyfriend was seen picking up packages from her apartment. You expect cops to knock and wait it out while the occupants could be potentially getting rid of evidence?

I'm obviously aware of the various levels of homicide, you think because I didn't list all the options out I need to educate myself more? Honestly, any idiot that watched a few hours of the "ID" channel should have a basic understanding of the various levels of homicide.

Kenneth Walker was exercising self-defense, thus the reason charges were dropped against him for shooting a cop in the leg.

I didn't say LeBron James can't understand or educate himself. I'm talking to his influence and ability to fire people up, regardless of the facts. Many people will believe what he says or get behind a movement because of a celebrity.

It's tragic that her life was taken, I won't disagree with that and I don't support the people who say, "well don't date drug dealers" because that's ignorant. I don't think individual cops should be legally held responsible in cases like this. They did everything correct according to department policy, minus the cop who shot into the windows.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10976
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

You guys seem to me to be arguing past each other a little bit, so I feel like it's my role as moderator (not that kind of moderator, you idiot!) to get things on track.

I think we can all agree that her being killed is tragic. I further think we can probably agree that the violence in the wake of the grand jury decision is as unfortunate as it is unsurprising. I'm not seeing anyone argue that it would not have been preferable to have the grand jury proceedings conducted in an open court instead, so I think we can agree that an open court would have been preferable. I think we can all agree that the police had the warrants, and for the most part followed the law, although there does seem to be some ambiguity about which warrant they were supposed to execute vs. which warrant they did execute, and whether the warrant was illegal. But the primary source of disagreement, as far as I can tell, is over whether or not there should have been murder charges, with one side saying it's impossible to know whether there should have been murder charges because grand jury proceedings are secret (and furthermore, asserting that the point of their secrecy is to shield LEOs from accountability). The other side seems to be that it doesn't matter whether or not we know what went on in the proceedings, it's safe to assume they are fair and just without knowing what transpired therein, and it is either irrelevant or inaccurate that the point of keeping them secret is to shield LEOs from accountability.

That seem like a fair assessment?

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Politics

Post by shinatoo »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:31 pm
You expect cops to knock and wait it out while the occupants could be potentially getting rid of evidence?
Yes, especialy if the consiquences of no knock is police being fired upon, neighboring units getting fired into (could have hit someone, maybe a kid) and an innocent woman getting murdered. None of these things are worth the chance someone might flush some drugs.

If it was a drug house ( a retail location with inventory and cash) they would not have had time to despose of all that evidence after the police had announced themselves and entered.

I would rather see this at least go to trial so everyone could see the evidence.

To many lives lost, people incarcerated and police hurt or killed in the name of busting some low level drug users or dealers. It's just not worth it.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

To DColeKC: I realize that because we are arguing, it is tempting to view each of our points as sort of a simple mirror of the other's, that if I take a dig at you for not being a lawyer, it would be similarly appropriate for you to dig at me because we're both having the same conversation. But whether I'm a lawyer or not is actually neither here nor there because I'm not the one pontificating on what Kentucky law says about this or that and I'm not the one arguing that the grand jury made the "correct call" based on laws I'm not familiar with and evidence that wasn't presented to me. I'm just saying that when cops, who are entrusted with the authority to employ deadly force in appropriate situations, exercise that authority, the determination that they did so legitimately and should face no consequences for doing so should not be made behind closed doors, especially when the person they killed wasn't even involved in any illegal activity. This is more of a public policy argument than a legal argument, so it doesn't really matter whether I'm a lawyer. But since you asked, actually yes I am a lawyer.

I'm not really interested in just going back and forth about the facts, which are in dispute anyway, and neither one of us was there. I will simply point out that "witnesses" don't say that the cops announced themselves, a witness who was on the stairs says they announced themselves, while like a dozen neighbors who were in their apartments said they didn't hear an announcement. The inhabitants of the home were not aware that it was police knocking down their door. An ineffective announcement is functionally no announcement. And yes, I expect cops to follow the rules, which exist for a reason. Individuals may have their own interests that outweigh the police's interest in obtaining evidence or the public's interest in having a particular law enforced in a particular situation. This is exactly why there are rules for police, and if you don't believe that an individual's own interests can ever outweigh those other interests, that would be a police state.

To mean: my point isn't that there definitely should have been murder charges, which in Kentucky does require intent to kill (did the cops have this? I don't know. Even if they did, could it be proven in court? Almost certainly not). My point is that something should have been charged. Having taken a look at the statutes, it seems like reckless homicide at the very least could be charged: "A person is guilty of reckless homicide when, with recklessness he causes the death of another person." Second degree manslaughter, which is a more serious charge, could also fit: "A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person..." First degree manslaughter has another intent requirement ("with intent to cause serious physical injury" or "with intent to cause death"), so becomes harder to prove. Maybe the cops invoke "use of force by law enforcement" as a defense to any of these charges and get off anyway, but the public at least deserves to see how that happens.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10976
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

Sure, my point was more that it's hard to know which charges would have been most appropriate without the facts, and that the public deserves the facts in these situations. As an impartial (as I can be) observer who enjoys reading the back-and-forth and is occasionally swayed one way or the other on a particular point, I found that to be the weakest part of DColeKC's argument, which is why I wanted to repeat it back to him to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing it. If indeed he thinks that secret proceedings are a perfectly just solution in this situation, that the public doesn't deserve to see the evidence, and that this isn't at a minimum shielding police from accountability whether or not it was explicitly designed to, then I think that's where he kind of loses the plot and the argument.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

mean wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:51 pm
You guys seem to me to be arguing past each other a little bit, so I feel like it's my role as moderator (not that kind of moderator, you idiot!) to get things on track.

I think we can all agree that her being killed is tragic. I further think we can probably agree that the violence in the wake of the grand jury decision is as unfortunate as it is unsurprising. I'm not seeing anyone argue that it would not have been preferable to have the grand jury proceedings conducted in an open court instead, so I think we can agree that an open court would have been preferable. I think we can all agree that the police had the warrants, and for the most part followed the law, although there does seem to be some ambiguity about which warrant they were supposed to execute vs. which warrant they did execute, and whether the warrant was illegal. But the primary source of disagreement, as far as I can tell, is over whether or not there should have been murder charges, with one side saying it's impossible to know whether there should have been murder charges because grand jury proceedings are secret (and furthermore, asserting that the point of their secrecy is to shield LEOs from accountability). The other side seems to be that it doesn't matter whether or not we know what went on in the proceedings, it's safe to assume they are fair and just without knowing what transpired therein, and it is either irrelevant or inaccurate that the point of keeping them secret is to shield LEOs from accountability.

That seem like a fair assessment?
Fair assessment. I do know grand juries bring charges something like 95% of the time considering there is no defense lawyers involved. So that makes me feel like they were presented all the evidence available. As far as I know, a member of the grand jury can volunteer to discuss what happened in there. They’d likely need to do this anonymously for safety. Would like to hear it though.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

shinatoo wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 am
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:31 pm
You expect cops to knock and wait it out while the occupants could be potentially getting rid of evidence?
Yes, especialy if the consiquences of no knock is police being fired upon, neighboring units getting fired into (could have hit someone, maybe a kid) and an innocent woman getting murdered. None of these things are worth the chance someone might flush some drugs.

If it was a drug house ( a retail location with inventory and cash) they would not have had time to despose of all that evidence after the police had announced themselves and entered.

I would rather see this at least go to trial so everyone could see the evidence.

To many lives lost, people incarcerated and police hurt or killed in the name of busting some low level drug users or dealers. It's just not worth it.
I can certainly understand that take. I’d like to see the war on drugs come to an end myself.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

mean wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:20 pm
Sure, my point was more that it's hard to know which charges would have been most appropriate without the facts, and that the public deserves the facts in these situations. As an impartial (as I can be) observer who enjoys reading the back-and-forth and is occasionally swayed one way or the other on a particular point, I found that to be the weakest part of DColeKC's argument, which is why I wanted to repeat it back to him to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing it. If indeed he thinks that secret proceedings are a perfectly just solution in this situation, that the public doesn't deserve to see the evidence, and that this isn't at a minimum shielding police from accountability whether or not it was explicitly designed to, then I think that's where he kind of loses the plot and the argument.
I would have loved for it to be public. Since I’m not a lawyer, I’m not familiar with how that process works. I think that of this would have been public, the defendants have the right to have representation involved. To me, it seems like the secrecy of a grand jury was the safest route for not only the jurors, but the prosecutors office. If the local prosecutor would have made the call to not press charges, I can’t imagine the hell they’d go through. So I tend to want to believe the grand jury route was the best option and they made the correct call based on the facts presented. Honestly, in my opinion, the facts the Kentucky AG revealed at the press conference were all the facts I needed. I do lean towards supporting cops though. That I can admit.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10976
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

I appreciate that we can have these types of conversations like adults on this forum, for the most part. Thanks for that, guys.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

mean wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:38 pm
I appreciate that we can have these types of conversations like adults on this forum, for the most part. Thanks for that, guys.
And this is why we have mean around everyone! :lol:
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

It’s starting to sound like the Kentucky AG is going to release the Grand Jury recordings. So we will have a bit of transparency.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Breonna Taylor case grand juror: We weren’t given the option of indicting the two cops who shot her
The juror filed a motion calling for the release of the transcripts on Monday so that "the truth may prevail."

...

An attorney for the juror told The New York Times that Cameron "misrepresented" the deliberations and "failed to offer the panel the option of indicting the two officers who fatally shot the young woman."

The attorney general's office said it is "confident" in the case they presented but acknowledged that jurors were not given the option of indicting Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove in Taylor's shooting.

...

Glogower told the outlet that the juror was "unsettled" by the fact that they were only presented with possible charges for Hankison. He said in the petition that it was "patently unjust" that Cameron "attempted to make it very clear that the grand jury alone made the decision."

"Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors," the petition said.
Wow, I can't believe it!

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Well that debate was a complete shit show.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9297
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

DColeKC wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:55 pm
Well that debate was a complete shit show.
Indeed it was. I would hesitate to even call it a debate. There was no "winner" (well Biden won by default because Trump would not follow the rules) and I learned nothing about either candidate I did not already know. I see absolutely no reason to hold the other two debates. They would be pointless.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

They absolutely have a point to continue, it's about Biden looking like not Trump. It's about turnout.

If someone who is for Biden was going to sit out the election because Trump will win the state of Missouri, the Democrats need them to vote. They need to make these people feel good about voting.

Statewide items like Amendment 3 will pass or not based on tiny changes in turnout across the state.

There's 7 state house seats in KC close enough in the primaries that it doesn't take that much to flip a seat one way or the other.

(rounded to nearest 5)
Lee's Summit 470 corridor 630
east Independence 440
central Independence 400
Platte County outside KC 350
Liberty 340
Shoal Creek to Staley 30
Blue Springs to Lotawana 5

There's only three more seats statewide as close, and two are edge suburbs of St. Louis and one is central to SW Springfield


If Biden can use the debates to look better than Trump, a sad affair to reach, and affect turnout, he will come out the winner for the party's benefit

Post Reply