(a duplicate of something I posted on facebook, and wanted here for posterity)

I’ve been thinking a lot about this case lately and why it doesn’t sit well with so many. I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. These are just my musings, an attempt to understand the reason why this whole thing feels so unjust to so many.

So there are a few assumptions at play here that are important. The first is that State is required to act on behalf of its citizens, the second is that if there is a dispute we have a legal place to resolve them, we call it a court of law. Both of these are necessary for “justice.”

The first part is easy to see. If a citizen dies, the State investigates. If their suspect is found guilty of the crime, the State punishes. I know this is pretty basic, but its worth pointing out. The State’s job is to speak on behalf of the dead, and if necessary, punish their perpetrator. We all understand this. It is in every cop show, it is the basis of much of our laws, it is found in almost all crime fiction. This is a culturally excepted practice. Hurt someone and the State comes after you.

The second part is also culturally excepted practice. If there are any disputes regarding a crime, the State resolves them in court. We all know this, and understand it. We all carry with us a sense that we can expect “our day in court.” Again, our laws, our history, our culture, and our media all have this expectation.

But what does a court mean? A court is a strange place. There is a prosecutor, a person who’s sole job is to try and convict the perpetrator. There is a Defender, a person who’s stole job is to defend the perpetrator. There is a judge, a person who’s job is to make sure the court proceeds correctly, smoothly, and follows the law (essentially they defend the law for the State). Finally there is an audience of citizens, a jury, who’s sole job is to determine if the perpetrator is guilty or innocent. 

Note: this is an adversarial process. It is aggressive and partisan. There are sides. There is conflict. This is how it is supposed to be. In fact, long ago court cases could be settled by might of arms. We no longer have those rules (no one is allowed into a courtroom armed except bailiffs), but the idea that we resolve conflict with fierce words is still deeply important.

So, there is a verbal fight, a judge (a referee), and a most importantly, a group of every-day citizens who are the only ones who get to determine guilt or innocence. 

And notice the role of the State is not to determine guilt, only citizens do that. The state determines and defends the law, and it provides one (or both) sides of the conflict, but it does not determine guilt.

This is how we do justice in America.

Now, having laid all that out, lets see how the State of Kentucky did regarding Breonna Taylor.

First of all we know she was killed by employees of the State. While not common, this does happen, but there is a conflict here. The State is now needing to both prosecute and defend its own employees. It is essentially prosecuting itself. This is considered a conflict of interest. At the very least, the State needs to ensure that every legal proceeding has at least one person present to speak on behalf of the dead, because we all understand it would be very easy for the State to simply look away and not prosecute itself. 

So did the State do this? Was there a legal proceeding with some kind of conflict, and both sides represented? The answer is no. There was not. The State looked at a lot of evidence, some of it showing their employees acted correctly, but a lot of it showing they did not. The employees themselves did not follow proper procedures, did not fill out the proper forms, did not follows accepted practices, etc., and they did not provide exculpatory evidence in the form of body camera footage that some at least were wearing at the time.

Still in all of this the State judged their actions did not merit a trial. In effect, the State judged them innocent.

Now it is important to point out, by Kentucky law, it is entirely possible the officers involved acted within the law. It is entirely possible that if they were prosecuted, the case would end with the a not guilty verdict. These things can all be true, but we will never know because the Sate determined we wouldn’t. In effect, the State acted as the role of the Jury, the Prosecutor, and the Defender, in a case that clearly was controversial, and in which its own citizens had demanded more scrutiny.

So was there justice here? No. The state neither acted on behalf of its citizen, Breonna Taylor, nor brought the case against her killers to the proper place to resolve such conflicts. There was no opposing side given a voice in the proceedings. There was no speaker for the dead. It was the State sitting in judgement upon its own actors, and determining, by itself, that they had done nothing wrong.

If you find yourself wondering why people are protesting, this is why.