1. The Kentucky AG says: "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& #39;s death."

This is incorrect. THREAD. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/breonna-taylor-decision-kentucky-ag-daniel-cameron/3507419001/">https://www.courier-journal.com/story/new...

2. Under the Kentucky Penal Code (503.120), self-defense is unavailable as a justification in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19678">https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statu...

3. Even if Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in defending themselves against Walker, they may have wantonly or recklessly injured or risked injury to Taylor.

Self-defense does not preclude charging them accordingly.

4. Under Kentucky law, a person who uses force "as permitted" by its self-defense rules is immune from criminal prosecution.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19674">https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statu...

5. However, self-defense rules *do not permit* wantonly or recklessly injuring or risking injury to innocent persons.

The immunity provision does not bar prosecution in such cases. If it did, it would deprive 503.120(2) of legal effect, which is absurd.

6. If the AG believes that Mattingly and Cosgrove did not wantonly or recklessly injure or risk injury to Taylor, then he should explain why not. His legal rationale is incorrect.

End.