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."
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.
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.
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
And we're off. Gilad Noam striking a more combative different tone than in January.
Objects to the short timeline. Says the rest of the legal team was unavailable today. Asked to reschedule, was denied. Notes that SA changed its first request.
Opens by reframing facts. Israel is fighting a war of self-defense, rocket fire ongoing. Rafah is a Hamas stronghold. 120 rockets fired last two weeks, hostages likely held. Says Palestinians will be "liberated" only if Hamas is defeated in Rafah.
Invokes self-defense, says civilians and hostages are human shields. Says there has not been a major assault on Rafah, only targeted operations.
2. The Court found "plausible" the rights claimed by South Africa.
For some judges, that just means it's plausible that the rights exist under international law (obvi).
For other judges, that also means it's plausible that the rights have been violated.
3. In other words, some judges think provisional measures are all about preventing harm and preserving rights, and shouldn't even touch the merits of the case.
Other judges think the Court shouldn't grant interim relief if a case is obviously baseless.
1. The Court mentions self-defense twice, when it summarizes Israel's arguments (a) that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction and (b) that the rights claimed by South Africa are not plausible.
The Court rejected both arguments.
2. When the Court turns to South Africa's request that it order Israel to suspend military operations, the Court does not mention Israel's argument that this order would impair its right of self-defense.
It only mentions Israel's argument that this order would reverse precedent.
3. Israel invoked the Bosnia case for the proposition that, when genocidal acts allegedly occur in the context of an armed conflict, the Court should order the prevention and punishment of the genocidal acts but not the suspension of all military operations.
2. The same UNGA resolution, as well as the Dec. 22 UNSC resolution, affirm that IHL requires both parties to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief.
3. This is significant because Israel has argued that it is taking advantage of an exception to its legal obligation, reflected in GC IV art. 23.
1. All States have a legal obligation to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).