Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Adil Haque Profile picture
@AdHaque110
Sep 24, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
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's death."

This is incorrect. THREAD.

courier-journal.com/story/news/loc…
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.

apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/s…
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.

apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/s…
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Adil Haque

Adil Haque Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdHaque110

Adil Haque Profile picture
Aug 14, 2025
Ezra Klein's interview with Philippe Sands is very good overall.

But I want to reiterate that the ICJ has never said that the definition of genocide requires a "single intent."

Nor does the ICJ's standard of proof preclude a finding of genocide in cases of plural intent.

1/🧵 Image
The definition of genocide is obviously consistent with plural intentions.

If a State got up in from of the ICJ and said "well, yes, we intended to destroy a substantial part of the group, but we also intended [fill in the blank]" that is an admission, not a defense.

2/
The ICJ's standard of proof allows for a finding that the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from a pattern of conduct is that it was intended to destroy a substantial part of a group and also intended to achieve other goals.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Aug 8, 2025
"When large numbers of civilians are systematically and indiscriminately being bombed, shot and starved, states have a legal obligation to stop the violence, regardless of the label applied."

This is what matters now.

A few less urgent thoughts: 🧵
2. The ICJ's "only reasonable inference test" does not imply that genocidal intent must be the perpetrator's exclusive intent.

The only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence may be that the perpetrator acted with both genocidal intent and other aims. Image
Image
3. This point is well explored here:
opiniojuris.org/2025/05/26/gen…
Read 8 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Jul 27, 2025
This piece is mostly excellent (unsurprising since it extensively quotes Juliette and Mike).

1. ICJ cases move *very* slowly.

Bosnia v. Serbia took 14 years.

Croatia v. Serbia took 16 years.

There are many procedural steps and the Court regularly grants extensions.

1/🧵 Image
States cannot wait for an ICJ judgment to take action.

They have a legal duty to act in the face of a "serious risk" of genocide.

They also have a legal duty to ensure that Israel respects IHL, and a legal duty to cooperate to stop crimes against humanity.

2/ Image
Our focus must remain on prevention and protection.

That said, from an accountability perspective, delay strongly favors South Africa.

Every day brings new evidence of genocidal intent, and alternative inferences appear increasingly unreasonable.

3/ Image
Read 8 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Jul 24, 2025
Genocidal intent includes an intent to destroy a substantial part of a group as a means to achieve further military or political aims, such as the forcible displacement of the rest of the group.

This is basically how the ICTY and ICJ saw Srebrenica.

One note to add:

1/🧵 Image
In my view, the ICJ in Croatia v. Serbia did not ignore the possibility of parallel (or plural, or instrumental) intentions, or make genocidal intent impossible to prove when other intentions are present.

2/ Image
The ICJ found that the killings “were not committed with intent to destroy the Croats, but rather with that of forcing them to leave the regions concerned."

The Court found there was only one intent, and it was not and did not involve an intent to destroy part of a group.

3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Jul 23, 2025
"Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel as the occupying power has an obligation to provide unconditional and adequate supplies of essential good and services to the entire population under its control."

"Israel is not fulfilling this obligation."

1/ Image
"When the population is not adequately supplied, the parties ... have an obligation to allow and facilitate the rapid, safe, and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance to all persons in need."

"This obligation is results-based. It's not merely an obligation of means."

2/ Image
"Neither Hamas nor Israel is complying with this obligation."

"We would also like to recall that the use of starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited and constitutes a war crime."

3/ Image
Read 6 tweets
Adil Haque Profile picture
Jul 16, 2025
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has rejected Israel's request to withdraw or vacate the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant and to suspend the ongoing investigation.

I will add a 🧵 below soon. Image
1. The PTC satisfied itself that it has jurisdiction over the case when it issued the warrants per art 19(1).

The Appeals Chamber's decision on Israel's jurisdictional challenge under 19(2) did not invalidate the PTC's 19(1) decision. Image
Image
2. The AC decision also did not affect the PTC's ability to adopt the reasoning or argumentation of (a different composition of) the PTC's 2021 decision that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine. Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(