Protesters Arrested at Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron's Home

Arrests at Daniel Cameron's House
Arrests at Daniel Cameron's House
Blast Zone No. 25847 - 0 Comments
Set Up On:
Category: Prosecutors - State
Last Known Home Address:
CENSORED! WHY?

Protesters had the right idea when they marched on the home of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Jay Cameron today, so why did 87 of them leave in handcuffs? It was after all a peaceful demonstration, but the problem was that they staged a sit-in on his lawn without permission from the property owner (Cameron) and were therefore trespassing. That is why they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Had they simply stayed on the sidewalk or in the street they would have just been exercising their First Amendment rights on public property. The lesson to be learned from this is that if you want to protest outside a private residence then make sure you stay outside the residence and off private property.


They were also charged with intimidating a participant in a legal process. That charge is most likely based on the fact that the protesters trespassed on private property and therefore committed a crime for the purpose of influencing a participant in a legal process. The entire point of the protest was to show Cameron that they were serious when they demanded that criminal charges be brought against the Louisville Police officers that killed Breonna Taylor earlier this year. Had the protesters stayed on public property they could not be properly charged with intimidating a participant in the legal process because their conduct would have been protected by the First Amendment, which gives everyone the right to publicly protest government officials on public property no matter how close it is to their homes. If that were not the case then anyone protesting anywhere for the purpose of demanding that prosecutors charge bad cops would be guilty of intimidating participants in the legal process.


Among the arrested was Real Housewives of Atlanta star Porsha Williams. Houston Texans wide receiver Kenny Stills was also arrested.


We encourage you to protest at Cameron's house in the future, but ask that you remember to stay off his property at:


7001 Bedford Lane

LOUISVILLE, KY 40222


Here are three examples to follow if you want to protest a government official at their home:


1) Ammon Bundy protested outside the home of a police officer that arrested a mother for going to a park in violation of a stay at home order. Learn more at https://www.the-sun.com/news/725983/ammon-bundy-protest-cop-arrested-anti-vaxx-mom-playdate-coronavirus/


2) Black Lives Matter protesters in Seattle, Washington marched on the home of Mayor Jenny Durkan despite her address being legally classified as a result of death threats she received back when she was a U.S. Attorney. Learn more at https://copblaster.com/blast/25820/seattle-police-department-command-staff-roster-with-mayor-jenny-durkan


3) Antifa and BLM protesters marched on the home of Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler last month with no arrests. They were peaceful and stayed off his property. Learn more at https://www.kptv.com/news/protesters-gather-in-nw-portland-outside-mayors-home-police-declare-unlawful-assembly/article_731ce0ce-b12d-11ea-9316-df9b4ca549ba.html


UPDATE: After reviewing the Kentucky Revised Statute 524.040 we have concluded that the protesters arrested at Cameron's house are most likely not guilty of intimidating a participant in the legal process. That statute requires "use of

physical force or a threat directed to a person" (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19906) so unless the protesters used physical force against Cameron or threatened to do so, they could not have intimidated him under this statute.


A threat in the context of a violent felony must be a true threat. The Supreme Court recently defined what constitutes a true threat in Elonis v. United States (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2804674/elonis-v-united-states/). A true threat must be objectively threatening. A threat is objectively threatening if a reasonable person in Cameron's shoes would interpret it as a serious expression of intent to commit bodily harm on his person, and the person making the threat must have acted with the intent to make Cameron fear for his personal safety. None of the protesters have been accused of making any specific threats to Cameron, so the best argument the government could try to make is that their actions were the threat and their actions were intended to make Cameron fear for his safety. All they did was sit on his lawn and make a lot of noise demanding justice for Breonna Taylor, none of which constitutes a threat. Finally, Daniel Cameron was not even home, so he never feared for his safety


Login to Comment using a CopBlaster.com Account.


 
 

Register if you don't have a local account.

Use another service to log in.


There are no external authentication services configured. See this article for reasons why ASP.NET applications should not support logging in via external services.