KY v. Brett Hankison Trial Day 1 - Defense Opening Statement - Stew Mathews
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- LIVE COVERAGE: Fired Detective Brett Hankison on Trial - The Breonna Taylor Case
Happening in Court:
Defense Opening Statement - Stew Mathews
One of the police officers who opened fire on Kentucky woman Breonna Taylor is on trial, but not for killing her. Fired Louisville police Detective Brett Hankison faces jurors for allegedly endangering people in a nearby apartment during the tragic encounter on March 13, 2020. You can watch in the player above.
Police executed an allegedly flimsy search warrant on Taylor’s apartment that night for a drug case. Her boyfriend Kenneth Walker fired on them because they forced their way inside and he did not know they were law enforcement. He struck Sgt. Jon Mattingly in the leg. Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove also opened fire with Hankison, but they did not get in trouble. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who announced that the FBI determined that Cosgrove fired the fatal round, argued that these two were justified because they were firing back to protect themselves, while Hankison shot into a neighboring apartment.
But at least three grand jurors who reviewed the Taylor shooting said prosecutors never presented other charges than the wanton endangerment charges.
“They never gave us the opportunity to deliberate on anything but the charges for Hankison,” Juror 2 told CBS This Morning‘s Gayle King in an interview. “That was it. As a matter of fact, when they announced that those were the only charges, it was an uproar in that room. There were several more charges that could’ve gone forward on all of those officers. Or at least the three shooters.”
They said Cameron lied about their take on the case. Here is how the state AG phrased his decision-making:
While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation showed, and the grand jury agreed, that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker. Let me state that again: According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor’s death.
“I really felt that this was all Cameron,” Juror 2 said. “This was up to him. We didn’t get the choice in that at all. So I was livid. By the time I heard what he was saying, everything that came out of his mouth, I was saying ‘liar.’ Because we didn’t agree to anything. We never met Cameron.”
#BreonnaTaylor #BrettHankison
Watch Law&Crime Network NOW on CZcamsTV!
tv.youtube.com....
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH LAW&CRIME NETWORK IN YOUR AREA:
lawandcrime.co...
READ MORE GREAT ARTICLES FROM LAW&CRIME NETWORK HERE:
lawandcrime.com
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF Law&Crime Network CZcams Channels:
Main Channel: www.youtube.co....
Channel B: www.youtube.co....
Channel C: www.youtube.co....
Channel D www.youtube.co....
Who To Follow On Twitter:
@LawCrimeNetwork
@LawCrimeVerdict
@Cathy Russon
@AddiTCTrials
This attorney is so clear and precise despite his age. A far cry from the prosecutor.
Most defense attorneys I've heard just run out the clock bumbling from one misdirection to another. But not this guy (at least not here in this video). It's a relief to listen to him after hearing the prosecutor's half-assed opening. Though I'll say he better be able to establish his client could actually see what he was firing at, and beyond it, as it's one of the basic rules of gun safety. Otherwise, _wanton endangerment_ looks much more likely.
@@AnotherPlanetsHell won't the standard be " concious disregard " .
He was concious of the risk ( of his bullets trajectory) disregarded it ?
@@marcie3032 Well, two things: First, I actually wasn't even making a legal point. I was saying that even if he were just a civilian at the time of the shooting (which he is now that he's been fired as a cop), he would've been expected to know and follow the basic rules of gun safety, one which is to know your target and what's beyond.
Second, legally speaking, the standard is "Wanton endangerment in the first degree" because per the Indictment in this case (Case No. 20-CR-1473), that's what Hankison is charged with (three counts thereof). Under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS 508.060), this is a Class-D felony, which is defined as follows: "A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person." In other words, a person is guilty of wanton endangerment if he consciously disregards creating substantial danger.
@@AnotherPlanetsHell but if these were brick walls and not wafer crackers he'd have a cautionary note in his file , still be doing his job and not be looking at life in prison.
If he actually hit someone I would say there's a justifiable case here.
This is a political case for SJW who put pressure on the DA seeking public revenge for Brianna, and a more financial viable civil case if this guys convicted.
If you wanna talk gun safety we can talk Baldwin, trained in firearms , daddy was an instructor , refused 1 on 1 with armour, failed to check, pointed and shot 2 people, he's free .
But this guy deserves life in prison for shooting back to save lives and because the walls were too thin he dies in prison. Nope not behind this at all.
@@marcie3032 Your first paragraph is built on an oversimplified, retrospective and therefore untestable hypothesis. It's sanctimoniously self-serving and meritless. Your second paragraph ironically makes _you_ sound overtly prejudicial, personally defensive, and unreasonably dismissive of the facts. In short, you seem to be your own special brand of SJW. As for gun safety, again, you're working way too hard to miss a basic point I made not once, but twice. I see now that it's totally lost on you because you're too busy pushing your agenda. As for "Baldwin," I have no idea what you're referring too, but I suspect that given the context, you're off topic, conflating disparate things, muddying the waters, and ultimately just rambling on some more about your biases.
I find him babbling, I hope he's got a great " use of force " expert on the payroll.
No use, prosecution isnt even going to try