OT:Jake Gardner found

VandallHuskerJulie

Blackshirt
Oct 13, 2001
3,101
497
83
I am not sure what "unbreakable" means in this context. It this a typo?

First, all Grand Jury proceedings are secret, both State and Federal. I have never had any prosecutor ever tell me anything about the proceedings ever. I have managed to see transcripts from a total of one Grand Jury hearing ever and that was in 1999. In one state courthouse where I practiced extensively, even the lawyers were forbidden from carrying their phones into the building to make sure none of the Grand Jurors would be videoed or otherwise recorded. Color me skeptical that anyone outside of the GJ knows what evidence was presented.

Second, under the GJ statute, the GJ has a right to request the production of documents or other evidence. This includes social media posts. It is very important to remember that like a Preliminary hearing in County Court (which all those charged with a felony have the right to have), the Rules of Evidence do not apply, as apposed to trial, and the standard of proof is very low (Does Probable Cause exist to show that a felony may have occurred and that the accused may have had something to do with it). If so the case is bound over to the District Court for trial. In GJ cases, if that low burden is met, then the case is directly filed to the District Court for trial (as here).

Third, Self Defense is an affirmative defense. That means that the accused has the burden of presenting evidence (this is important) AT TRIAL TO THE FINDER OF FACT (jury or judge is accused waives right to jury trial). It is the finder of fact that weighs
the evidence and decides if the accused acted in self defense.

I have no dog in this fight. It is tragic that two young men are dead before their time. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but the amount of garbage spewed by those who have grossly uninformed opinions is breathtaking.
Thank you for an excellent summary of the Grand Jury process.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,870
17,491
113
Highly doubtful. This looks every bit like a crooked prosecution that was meant to appease the mob.



This was a travesty of justice and everyone involved should face consequences.
I don't believe it was a "crooked prosecution". Grand Juries are called to determine what if any charges are warranted. They are not charged with determining guilt of innocence. Obviously based on what the original investigation turned up the prosecutor didn't believe he had a convictable case or he would have charged him. That prosecutor won't charge somebody for a crime he doesn't believe he can convict him on. He doesn't want to waste his office's time or taxpayer money trying a case he has little hope of winning. The grand jury doesn't have that disincentive to deliver charges. I don't blame them for calling a grand jury. I also don't believe that Gardner would have been convicted of the more serious charges they delivered.
 
Last edited:

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,870
17,491
113
Moral to the story, when you get invited to a riot, decline.
Scurlock's arrest record and history of domestic abuse showed a pattern of bad decisions. There is one less violent criminal on the streets thanks to Jake Gardner. I'm sorry if that offends some people but they need to read the arrest report of his domestic assault arrest. I don't care if he was white, black or green. That dude was no good.
 

newAD

Head Coach
Oct 14, 2007
11,073
5,817
113
Omaha
d


You keep saying in your opinion he could have been charged. Do you believe he should of been charged initially, or no? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I was about 1 block away when this incident happened. On a side note, I’ve never been so ashamed to be an Omaha native as I was that night.

My responsibility on that night wasn’t that incident. However, I would have had zero problem with him being arrested initially, because as I have said, I feel there was plenty of probable cause (PC) to make an arrest. Prosecuting a case to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s the prosecutors job. Should he have been? Not unless the prosecutor was comfortable with arresting him at that time.

I’m not trying to dodge the question. In a case involving a homicide, it is the prosecutor’s decision whether or not to charge. I’m merely trying to explain what the burden of proof level there was for a grand jury to indict is the same for a police officer to make an arrest. That is...probable cause.

There are critics out there that take the grand jury’s indictment as proof that Don Kleine screwed up. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the old saying goes, “I could indict a ham sandwich.”
 

newAD

Head Coach
Oct 14, 2007
11,073
5,817
113
Omaha
I don't believe it was a "crooked prosecution". Grand Juries are called to determine what if any charges are warranted. They are not charged with determining guilt of innocence. Obviously based on what the original investigation turned up the prosecutor didn't believe he had a convictable case or he would have charged him. That prosecutor won't charge somebody for a crime he doesn't believe he can convict him on. He doesn't want to waste his office's time or taxpayer money trying a case he has little hope of winning. The grand jury doesn't have that disincentive to deliver charges. I don't blame them for calling a grand jury. I also don't believe that Gardner would have been convicted of the more serious charges they delivered.
Gardner’s attorney’s are some of the best there are in Omaha. However, I question the fact that they could have really been that surprised that an indictment happened. And again, I don’t think the evidence could lead to a conviction.
 

newAD

Head Coach
Oct 14, 2007
11,073
5,817
113
Omaha
d


You keep saying in your opinion he could have been charged. Do you believe he should of been charged initially, or no? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
To further answer your question, I am aware of numerous cases in the past including shootings (non-fatal and homicides), where a suspect was taken into custody for questioning, and arguably there was enough probable cause to arrest, but the person was not charged at that time. The investigation continued. In many of these cases, the original suspect was arrested per the county attorney’s office after further investigation.

So the fact that Gardner was not immediately charged was not surprising, despite what the critics say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
560
743
93
I don't believe it was a "crooked prosecution". Grand Juries are called to determine what if any charges are warranted. They are not charged with determining guilt of innocence. Obviously based on what the original investigation turned up the prosecutor didn't believe he had a convictable case or he would have charged him. That prosecutor won't charge somebody for a crime he doesn't believe he can convict him on. He doesn't want to waste his office's time or taxpayer money trying a case he has little hope of winning. The grand jury doesn't have that disincentive to deliver charges. I don't blame them for calling a grand jury. I also don't believe that Gardner would have been convicted of the more serious charges they delivered.
I think it was in Sidney Powell's book "License to Lie" where she described that the basic job of a prosecutor is to see that justice is served. Part of that is to view all the evidence and see if it would be proper to bring charges, not just to see if there's enough evidence to win a case. The DA did that and determined that charges wouldn't (or shouldn't?) be brought against Gardner.

I'm aware of the old adage about indicting a ham sandwich, but I think some are getting too wrapped up around the legal steps involved and ignoring the basic question of whether charges 'should' have been brought up. I don't think they should have been. It doesn't matter that it's unlikely he would have been found guilty. He still would have had to go through a trial, somehow pay for his attorneys, and in the end maybe still face some jail time - all for having the gall to defend himself and his property.

The thing about all of this that really bothers me (beyond the tragic life that was lost - Gardner's), is that this is yet another example of the "system" telling you that you better not try to defend yourself, your family or your property from the mob. If you do, the mob will dox you online, harass your family, maybe cost you your job and the local legal system will throw the book at you. This is simply not right.
 

TampaBaySkers

Sophomore
Oct 30, 2010
1,382
1,715
113
I was about 1 block away when this incident happened. On a side note, I’ve never been so ashamed to be an Omaha native as I was that night.

My responsibility on that night wasn’t that incident. However, I would have had zero problem with him being arrested initially, because as I have said, I feel there was plenty of probable cause (PC) to make an arrest. Prosecuting a case to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s the prosecutors job. Should he have been? Not unless the prosecutor was comfortable with arresting him at that time.

I’m not trying to dodge the question. In a case involving a homicide, it is the prosecutor’s decision whether or not to charge. I’m merely trying to explain what the burden of proof level there was for a grand jury to indict is the same for a police officer to make an arrest. That is...probable cause.

There are critics out there that take the grand jury’s indictment as proof that Don Kleine screwed up. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the old saying goes, “I could indict a ham sandwich.”
What an odd comment. Why were you ashamed? Were you part of the protesters that turned riot?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

oldjar07

First Team All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
3,839
2,279
113
I think it was in Sidney Powell's book "License to Lie" where she described that the basic job of a prosecutor is to see that justice is served. Part of that is to view all the evidence and see if it would be proper to bring charges, not just to see if there's enough evidence to win a case. The DA did that and determined that charges wouldn't (or shouldn't?) be brought against Gardner.

I'm aware of the old adage about indicting a ham sandwich, but I think some are getting too wrapped up around the legal steps involved and ignoring the basic question of whether charges 'should' have been brought up. I don't think they should have been. It doesn't matter that it's unlikely he would have been found guilty. He still would have had to go through a trial, somehow pay for his attorneys, and in the end maybe still face some jail time - all for having the gall to defend himself and his property.

The thing about all of this that really bothers me (beyond the tragic life that was lost - Gardner's), is that this is yet another example of the "system" telling you that you better not try to defend yourself, your family or your property from the mob. If you do, the mob will dox you online, harass your family, maybe cost you your job and the local legal system will throw the book at you. This is simply not right.
He shot and killed a guy. You don't have the right to defend your property by shooting and killing someone. You do have the right to defend yourself though. Although he should have been charged for manslaughter, I don't think he should or would have been convicted as he was very likely acting in self defense.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,870
17,491
113
He shot and killed a guy. You don't have the right to defend your property by shooting and killing someone. You do have the right to defend yourself though. Although he should have been charged for manslaughter, I don't think he should or would have been convicted as he was very likely acting in self defense.
The testimony from Scurlock's accomplisses was that Scurlock had jumped Gardner from behind and put him in a chokehold. Regardless of what had transpired leading up to that point, he was justified in taking his attacker's life unless the guy was walking away which he wasn't. I'm not sure how you convict or even charge a guy of manslaughter regardless of what he may have said, written or done in the past when somebody had him in a choke hold. That said, the grand jury may have received testimony different from what was initially available. I have no doubt though that the grand jury kept in the back of their mind the potential repercussions of not charging him with something.
 
Last edited:

huskerfan1414

Graduate Assistant
Oct 25, 2014
5,523
6,174
113
The testimony from Scurlock's accomplisses was that Scurlock had jumped Gardner from behind and put him in a chokehold. Regardless of what had transpired leading up to that point, he was justified in taking his attacker's life unless the guy was walking away which he wasn't. I'm not sure how you convict or even charge a guy of manslaughter regardless of what he may have said, written or done in the past when somebody had him in a choke hold. That said, the grand jury may have received testimony different from what was initially available. I have no doubt though that the grand jury kept in the back of their mind the potential repercussions of not charging him with something.
Bingo.
this was mob rule, plain and simple.
 

newAD

Head Coach
Oct 14, 2007
11,073
5,817
113
Omaha
What an odd comment. Why were you ashamed? Were you part of the protesters that turned riot?
Uh, no. I was there wearing a riot helmet and gas mask, hoping to not get hit by a rock or some other type of flying object (24 hours after someone threw an explosive device in my direction at 72nd and Dodge). I was ashamed seeing the results of and hearing mindless, unjustifiable destruction of property by 'citizens'.
 

MikeRileyGBR

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 27, 2016
552
572
93
Mars
Scurlock's arrest record and history of domestic abuse showed a pattern of bad decisions. There is one less violent criminal on the streets thanks to Jake Gardner. I'm sorry if that offends some people but they need to read the arrest report of his domestic assault arrest. I don't care if he was white, black or green. That dude was no good.
And Jake Gardner was a widely known racist in Omaha with an arrest record and his dad was a drug smuggler and arrested for it. Who knows if Jake partook in that? Either way, one less racist maniac on our streets.

If there was only some sort of way to help these people out in our society, and I mean that for both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VandallHuskerJulie

leodisflowers

Graduate Assistant
Feb 25, 2011
5,405
2,930
113
North Carolina
And Jake Gardner was a widely known racist in Omaha with an arrest record and his dad was a drug smuggler and arrested for it. Who knows if Jake partook in that? Either way, one less racist maniac on our streets.

If there was only some sort of way to help these people out in our society, and I mean that for both.
I don't live in the area, but is this correct that he was a racist or are you just another follower that believes every white person is racist in some way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker

TampaBaySkers

Sophomore
Oct 30, 2010
1,382
1,715
113
And Jake Gardner was a widely known racist in Omaha with an arrest record and his dad was a drug smuggler and arrested for it. Who knows if Jake partook in that? Either way, one less racist maniac on our streets.

If there was only some sort of way to help these people out in our society, and I mean that for both.
Do you have proof for these wild claims? Please share.
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
560
743
93
Do you have proof for these wild claims? Please share.
I'd be interested in seeing some proof, beyond hearsay. This is an all too common tactic of the Left. Smear, defame and lie about anyone right of center as being a racist and then using that as an excuse to "justify" violence.

There's a lot I could say about this whole concept, but the short version is:

1- Racism is wrong, maybe even evil; however, it's not an excuse to justify violence
2- Racism is not a major problem in our country - not even close
3- The term "racist" has pretty much lost all meaning to many because of its overuse - not every perceived slight is due to racism
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne

VandallHuskerJulie

Blackshirt
Oct 13, 2001
3,101
497
83
"Court officials are saying they cannot, by law, release the grand jury transcript or exhibits because Scurlock’s death didn’t occur in police custody. Further compounding the case: Jake Gardner killed himself in Hillsboro, Oregon, on Sunday, the day he was scheduled to turn himself in.

In a strange sight, the City County Building became a battle of prosecutors: Kleine, the elected Douglas County attorney since 2006 who is the most experienced prosecutor in the state, versus Franklin, a veteran attorney himself, who retired recently after 22 years as a federal prosecutor."
https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-...e3313786f.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
560
743
93
Scurlock was a violent criminal and his actions in this matter do nothing but support that narrative. This was clearly self defense. The mob mentality in this town and nationally is not going to end until force meets force.
It's getting there. The election may end up being the spark. When Trump's lead on election night begins to fade in the days following the election as all the "late mail-in votes" are counted and are overwhelmingly for Biden.
 

mwulf

All-American
Dec 15, 2013
4,861
2,695
113
Thigh Land
I'd be interested in seeing some proof, beyond hearsay. This is an all too common tactic of the Left. Smear, defame and lie about anyone right of center as being a racist and then using that as an excuse to "justify" violence.

There's a lot I could say about this whole concept, but the short version is:

1- Racism is wrong, maybe even evil; however, it's not an excuse to justify violence
2- Racism is not a major problem in our country - not even close
3- The term "racist" has pretty much lost all meaning to many because of its overuse - not every perceived slight is due to racism
Not sure of the validity of any of this but here is a tale
 

Rick Chick

Walk On
Jun 9, 2020
193
124
43
It's getting there. The election may end up being the spark. When Trump's lead on election night begins to fade in the days following the election as all the "late mail-in votes" are counted and are overwhelmingly for Biden.
Whether Biden wins or Trump wins the protests, looting, and riots are not going to stop. The “mob” could care less who is in the White House all they want is to create fear and havoc and pain. If anyone thinks the outcome of a Presidential election is going to end this you are crazy. The lack of any type of a response from law enforcement around the nation has unleashed an evil you are not going to put back in the bottle.
 

TampaBaySkers

Sophomore
Oct 30, 2010
1,382
1,715
113
Whether Biden wins or Trump wins the protests, looting, and riots are not going to stop. The “mob” could care less who is in the White House all they want is to create fear and havoc and pain. If anyone thinks the outcome of a Presidential election is going to end this you are crazy. The lack of any type of a response from law enforcement around the nation has unleashed an evil you are not going to put back in the bottle.
Exactly. Look how they went after their progressive mayor in Portland. Need to arrest rioters, and put them in prison for a few years. Or ship them off to a developing country for a bit.
 

LUVNHAIGHT

Newbie
Sep 15, 2013
54
32
18
Haven’t read one comment here where Jake’s own family members came out the next day after the shooting claiming Jake held racist views. A cousin of his said this. Further, Jake’s father, according to family members, served time in prison for drug trafficking where he aligned himself with Aryan Nation beliefs. Jake was an avid Trump supporter. Jake was former military as well and essentially heeded the command from Trump the day before- when the looting starts the shooting starts. Both men, James and Jake, had records. Both men were acting on emotion that night and when I review the footage what I see is a big ball of stupid. Jakes attorneys said something interesting the other day in the wake of Jake’s suicide. Jake told his attorneys that - the night in Omaha felt like a war zone. His attorney went onto say - Jake had “behavioral health issues”. So now think about a war vet with PTSD thinking he’s in a war zone with behavioral health issues wielding a gun. Wow. Do you think we need sensible gun laws? Or how about the city of Omaha giving this guy a liquor license in the first place? I mean come on people. The special prosecutor the other day made a statement shedding light on new evidence that the grand jury was privy to and it revealed some fascinating revelations. What he shared came via texts sent from Jake’s phone. Jake, according to texts he sent, was setting up an ambush that night in his bar the hive. He was in communication with others outside the hive updating Jake on the position of the protesters. Jake was frustrated that there wasn’t a clear line of fire within the confines of the hive. There was a shotgun plus 3 handguns in the hive. They were waiting for protesters to enter the building. They had lights on inside the hive and once they got word via his informants on the position of the protesters they shut off the lights. When no protesters entered the hive, the party inside the hive got frustrated and moved out into the street. Jake, according to texts he sent, wanted to- light them up. I mean, is this Baghdad? The prosecutor brought up that Jake was ideologically opposed to the protest and that taking his views out onto the street he could thus execute his mission. Jake‘s father, by eye witness statements, is the one who started the physical altercation by shoving a protester. It escalated from there as you all well know and someone was killed. Windows were broke that night. No looting or fires were set. Two individuals are now dead. Guns and blind ideology. PTSD plus guns. Sensible gun laws? Anyone?
 

TampaBaySkers

Sophomore
Oct 30, 2010
1,382
1,715
113
Haven’t read one comment here where Jake’s own family members came out the next day after the shooting claiming Jake held racist views. A cousin of his said this. Further, Jake’s father, according to family members, served time in prison for drug trafficking where he aligned himself with Aryan Nation beliefs. Jake was an avid Trump supporter. Jake was former military as well and essentially heeded the command from Trump the day before- when the looting starts the shooting starts. Both men, James and Jake, had records. Both men were acting on emotion that night and when I review the footage what I see is a big ball of stupid. Jakes attorneys said something interesting the other day in the wake of Jake’s suicide. Jake told his attorneys that - the night in Omaha felt like a war zone. His attorney went onto say - Jake had “behavioral health issues”. So now think about a war vet with PTSD thinking he’s in a war zone with behavioral health issues wielding a gun. Wow. Do you think we need sensible gun laws? Or how about the city of Omaha giving this guy a liquor license in the first place? I mean come on people. The special prosecutor the other day made a statement shedding light on new evidence that the grand jury was privy to and it revealed some fascinating revelations. What he shared came via texts sent from Jake’s phone. Jake, according to texts he sent, was setting up an ambush that night in his bar the hive. He was in communication with others outside the hive updating Jake on the position of the protesters. Jake was frustrated that there wasn’t a clear line of fire within the confines of the hive. There was a shotgun plus 3 handguns in the hive. They were waiting for protesters to enter the building. They had lights on inside the hive and once they got word via his informants on the position of the protesters they shut off the lights. When no protesters entered the hive, the party inside the hive got frustrated and moved out into the street. Jake, according to texts he sent, wanted to- light them up. I mean, is this Baghdad? The prosecutor brought up that Jake was ideologically opposed to the protest and that taking his views out onto the street he could thus execute his mission. Jake‘s father, by eye witness statements, is the one who started the physical altercation by shoving a protester. It escalated from there as you all well know and someone was killed. Windows were broke that night. No looting or fires were set. Two individuals are now dead. Guns and blind ideology. PTSD plus guns. Sensible gun laws? Anyone?
If you’re going to change handles, at least change your poor writing style as well. PARAGRAPHS man.. try them.

Scurlock is a thug who destroyed another business prior to the altercation. He also served hard time for robbing someone at gunpoint. Also was charged for domestic violence last year. He was a piece of dog crap that should of been in jail, and not on the street.

Scurlock decided more assault, burglary, and vandalism crimes should be committed that night. Unfortunately for him, he assaulted a guy with a gun.

I don’t care what Gardner’s cousin’s dog told you in your wet dream about his “racism.” Video evidence is clear that this was self defense.
 
Last edited:

tro80

Redshirt Freshman
Nov 17, 2014
578
620
93
He shot and killed a guy. You don't have the right to defend your property by shooting and killing someone. You do have the right to defend yourself though. Although he should have been charged for manslaughter, I don't think he should or would have been convicted as he was very likely acting in self defense.
Did you read what you wrote? Charge him, even though you don't think he should be convicted. Why do you arrest a person for committing a crime that you don't think he should be convicted of? Seriously?
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
560
743
93
Did you read what you wrote? Charge him, even though you don't think he should be convicted. Why do you arrest a person for committing a crime that you don't think he should be convicted of? Seriously?
If you're expecting logic, you're looking in the wrong place. You may find glimpses here and there on this board, but it's uncommon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoelBittner

oldjar07

First Team All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
3,839
2,279
113
Did you read what you wrote? Charge him, even though you don't think he should be convicted. Why do you arrest a person for committing a crime that you don't think he should be convicted of? Seriously?
Because the guy shot and killed someone in public. That's not up for debate. The courts will then determine the facts on if it was justified self defense or not.
 

TampaBaySkers

Sophomore
Oct 30, 2010
1,382
1,715
113
Because the guy shot and killed someone in public. That's not up for debate. The courts will then determine the facts on if it was justified self defense or not.
Hmm ok. So even if obvious self defense you say press charges? You do realize the innocent victim will have to go through hell because of this.

I’m glad TX has more common sense than you, and didn’t press charges against the Uber driver who shot and killed a man in public defending himself.

You’re on the wrong side Oldjar.. but keep defending thugs.
 

VandallHuskerJulie

Blackshirt
Oct 13, 2001
3,101
497
83
Clearly the board experts have declared that it was self defense so no trial was needed. Douglas County/City of Omaha should come to this board instead of wasting money and people's time with silly things like grand juries, trials and the like. Silly things like the US Constitution are obviously not needed anymore. We have the wonderful, unbiased but all knowing posters here to solve everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GILL T

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
560
743
93
Clearly the board experts have declared that it was self defense so no trial was needed. Douglas County/City of Omaha should come to this board instead of wasting money and people's time with silly things like grand juries, trials and the like. Silly things like the US Constitution are obviously not needed anymore. We have the wonderful, unbiased but all knowing posters here to solve everything.
The DA also thought it was self defense and apparently felt justice would not be done by charging Gardner with a crime. It was only after the mob started to make noise that the DA relented and allowed a second review of the case. Once that happened, there was no way that they weren't going to come out of the grand jury empty handed. They needed to have something to appease the mob. That's not justice.
 

Latest posts