By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kentucky State University released a statement following the grand jury’s decision not to indict Jacob Bard in connection with the fatal shooting. The university expressed continued mourning for the loss of life and a commitment to supporting the campus community. The university stated that it would continue cooperating with law enforcement and reinforcing safety measures. Counseling and support resources remain available to students, faculty, and staff.
Read the original article here
Grand jury finds KSU shooting was self-defense, declines to indict father who shot student. This whole situation is a wild ride, isn’t it? It seems like this case has more layers than an onion. It’s hard to wrap your head around, honestly. What’s immediately clear is that a father, defending his son, shot and killed a student at Kentucky State University (KSU). And the grand jury, after reviewing the evidence, decided it was a case of self-defense, declining to indict the father. This alone is a pretty big deal.
Now, what makes this even more complex is the context. Apparently, the father’s son was being targeted by a large group, a mob of people, and the police weren’t exactly rushing to the rescue. Reports mention the son had reported a burglary at the university, and somehow, this report led to him and his family becoming targets of threats and violence. That the university didn’t secure their campus properly, leading to a situation where a father felt compelled to defend his son, is a major failure. It also means this wasn’t just a random event; it involved a history of harassment and, frankly, a disturbing level of animosity towards the father and his sons.
The initial reporting also seems to have been incomplete, and it’s easy to see why people are frustrated by the initial presentation of this story. The focus was on the shooting, seemingly without much exploration of the underlying reasons. This father isn’t getting charged, and the lack of clarity and potentially biased reporting really adds fuel to the fire. There’s a lot of emotion wrapped up in this case, and it makes you think about how we report on these events.
Adding to the complexity, there are allegations and reports of the deceased student’s mother publicly calling for revenge, even appealing to a criminal gang. This adds another layer of drama to an already charged situation. You can see how this escalates beyond just a shooting. And it’s no wonder people are asking what will happen to the rest of those involved in targeting the son and the failure of the university to protect its students and staff.
One of the most concerning things is the lack of support the police gave to the family. And it leads to some serious questions about how the university handled the situation, right? People are asking why the son was being targeted in the first place, and why the article has the father’s mug shot front and center. It paints a picture that is at best unclear, and at worst, biased. It’s almost a given that the university is going to be facing a lawsuit here.
The whole concept of “snitching” gets thrown around a lot in situations like this. It’s worth considering the distinction between reporting a crime and participating in one. Reporting a crime is an obligation of citizenship, the idea of turning a blind eye and letting your community become unsafe is something that resonates with people. Everyone wants to protect their own.
There’s clearly a deep-seated anger and frustration surrounding this case, and it’s understandable. You have a father defending his son against an apparent mob, a university that seemingly failed to provide a safe environment, and now a mother potentially seeking revenge. This isn’t just about a shooting; it’s about a community grappling with violence, safety, and justice. And the fact that the grand jury declined to indict the father underscores how complex and troubling this whole thing really is.