• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All four former officers involved in George Floyd's killing now face charges, Sen. Klobuchar says

longview said:
What we do not know is if Minnesota is one of the states where
the charges have the fit the crime exactly, I.E. no lessor charges can be considered. This would appear to be the case because the first
charges were 3rd degree Murder and Manslaughter.
Had a lessor charge been available to the jury then just 3rd degree murder would suffice, and the Jury could convict on the lessor charge.
Here is the 2nd degree murder qualifications.
Minnesota Second-Degree Murder


For 2nd degree murder the state will have to prove that Derek Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd,
He did kill him, but how do you prove that was his intent?
As to the other elements.
It was not a drive-by shooting
No other felony was involved, or at least is not charged.
And George Floyd did not have an order of protection against Derek Chauvin.
I think it is a large risk, to look good for the press! They should go with the sure thing!
Click to expand...
That is my worry as well :(
 
sjmay said:
I haven't read anywhere that the Minnneapolis DA wouldn't charge the other 3, got a link on that?
Click to expand...

Just the fact that they did not do so. Keith Ellison took over the case from the Minneapolis prosecutors. Likely because they hadn't brought charges against the others.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who is taking over the prosecution in George Floyd's death, said Monday night that he will "hold everyone accountable."
Minnesota Attorney General Ellison says he will 'hold everyone accountable' in Floyd case - CNN
 
Metric Mouse said:
Wow. That long? That was a sad deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah took them 8 months with a white victim no problem. And the nation is rioting because it took them a whole week for the black victim.
 
longview said:
What we do not know is if Minnesota is one of the states where
the charges have the fit the crime exactly, I.E. no lessor charges can be considered. This would appear to be the case because the first
charges were 3rd degree Murder and Manslaughter.
Had a lessor charge been available to the jury then just 3rd degree murder would suffice, and the Jury could convict on the lessor charge.
Here is the 2nd degree murder qualifications.
Minnesota Second-Degree Murder


For 2nd degree murder the state will have to prove that Derek Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd,
He did kill him, but how do you prove that was his intent?
As to the other elements.
It was not a drive-by shooting
No other felony was involved, or at least is not charged.
And George Floyd did not have an order of protection against Derek Chauvin.
I think it is a large risk, to look good for the press! They should go with the sure thing!
Click to expand...

For the last 3 minutes that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd, he knew the man had no pulse. It was his responsibility to begin CPR immediately.
 
sjmay said:
Possibly, but he wasn't even the first officer on the scene, he rolled up on it as the first two officers were trying to get him in the car, I'm thinking he took over halfway being senior etc, but I don't know if there was enough time for premeditation etc.

I think hey had a slam dunk on 3rd degree murder, and they kowtowed to political pressure and are now running 50/50.

Smart defense lawyer will hammer this in trial, that even the prosecution didn't think there was intent until xxxxxxxxxxxxx etc.
Click to expand...

Floyd and Chauvin knew each other.
Chauvin worked moonlight as front door security at a night club and Floyd worked inside as a bouncer.
Premeditation will be easy to prove when the club owner gets on the stand.
 
dixon01767 said:
Yeah took them 8 months with a white victim no problem. And the nation is rioting because it took them a whole week for the black victim.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it took hours for them to be fired, and only days for them to be charged, and now a week later there are more charges. So moving quite quickly.
 
Since the four officers have been charged it indicates they were in the act of a crime on that street.

What would happen if civilians attacked the officers to free and save the life of George Floyd? Would they be arrested or called heroes?
 
Metric Mouse said:
I don't see how your link supports your position that intent will be easy to prove. Getting nervous at a nightclub doesn't prove intent to murder, that I can see.
Click to expand...

Long Post Warning - If you're not serious about discussing this on any real level you will likely want to dismiss this as too long, but don't bother wasting my time with announcing it because I really don't care. If you really DO want to talk about this with me, a former Minneapolis resident AND customer of that bar, then take a minute to really read what I have to say please. Otherwise don't bother.

You're right, it doesn't, in and of itself.

What it does do however, is interest the prosecution into discovering other evidence that proves a link between the two men's interactions with each other, seeing as how both worked the same kind of job at the same club.
Chauvin worked outside at the door and Floyd was a bouncer.

The prosecution might dig up evidence that the two had bad blood and that might lead to further discovery that establishes the fact that Chauvin might have thought he could settle a score and get away with murdering him to settle it.

None of that is outside the realm of possibility between two men working security.
It may even be a rather typical issue in the industry.
From my own experience as a former professional rock musician playing in a band, I came to know bouncers and security pretty well, because we were also their responsibility as well.
Thus once you've been doing this awhile, you begin to learn a bit about their personality types.
I've known more than a handful of bouncers who had bad blood between them.
And in a couple of cases it was partly a racial thing and in other cases it was just a fragile male ego thing, thus one very deadly serious and the other quite pathetic and laughable.

I do recall the night we played a club near Lake Winona, and the bouncer wasn't too keen on a couple of black girls that came to see us play, and first break I went out to the parking lot and found them, pissed off.
I'd had eyes on one of them and was confused as to why she had left suddenly after making it very clear she dug me.
The bouncer...that's what it was.
Goddamn redneck, nigger jokes, then the n***** jokes turned downright evil.

The only reason they had stuck around is because the one wanted to talk to me at the first opportunity.

So the whole point in this is, what one has to believe in order to rule out a case of bad blood between two tough guys working security at a club is a mental stretch that would span the diameter of The Sun.

Id' bet fifty bucks that's going to be discovered in short order by the prosecution and will be featured in the case, not only by the club owner's testimony but by bunches of other relevant witnesses as well.
El Nuevo Rodeo was mainly a hispanic club but they rotated their musical bill of fare because The Twin Cities are very diverse and very open for the most part.
The suburbs? Maybe not quite as much but Minnesota's pockets of redneck bigotry are matched by some very unique small towns that have played prominent historical roles in the abolitionist movement and which also played prominent historical roles in desegregation and black enterprise stretching back to the Nineteenth Century.

The point in that is, club people know their people and they know their clientele or else the club goes out of business.
El Nuevo Rodeo catering to a lot of different races and cultures is a cornerstone policy that must be endorsed and supported by all employees, so if a few of those employees had knowledge of any friction between these two men, it's gonna come up at trial.
 
Metric Mouse said:
To be fair, it took hours for them to be fired, and only days for them to be charged, and now a week later there are more charges. So moving quite quickly.
Click to expand...

Lightening speed when compare to the usual.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Long Post Warning - If you're not serious about discussing this on any real level you will likely want to dismiss this as too long, but don't bother wasting my time with announcing it because I really don't care. If you really DO want to talk about this with me, a former Minneapolis resident AND customer of that bar, then take a minute to really read what I have to say please. Otherwise don't bother.

You're right, it doesn't, in and of itself.

What it does do however, is interest the prosecution into discovering other evidence that proves a link between the two men's interactions with each other, seeing as how both worked the same kind of job at the same club.
Chauvin worked outside at the door and Floyd was a bouncer.

The prosecution might dig up evidence that the two had bad blood and that might lead to further discovery that establishes the fact that Chauvin might have thought he could settle a score and get away with murdering him to settle it.

None of that is outside the realm of possibility between two men working security.
It may even be a rather typical issue in the industry.
From my own experience as a former professional rock musician playing in a band, I came to know bouncers and security pretty well, because we were also their responsibility as well.
Thus once you've been doing this awhile, you begin to learn a bit about their personality types.
I've known more than a handful of bouncers who had bad blood between them.
And in a couple of cases it was partly a racial thing and in other cases it was just a fragile male ego thing, thus one very deadly serious and the other quite pathetic and laughable.

I do recall the night we played a club near Lake Winona, and the bouncer wasn't too keen on a couple of black girls that came to see us play, and first break I went out to the parking lot and found them, pissed off.
I'd had eyes on one of them and was confused as to why she had left suddenly after making it very clear she dug me.
The bouncer...that's what it was.
Goddamn redneck, nigger jokes, then the n***** jokes turned downright evil.

The only reason they had stuck around is because the one wanted to talk to me at the first opportunity.

So the whole point in this is, what one has to believe in order to rule out a case of bad blood between two tough guys working security at a club is a mental stretch that would span the diameter of The Sun.

Id' bet fifty bucks that's going to be discovered in short order by the prosecution and will be featured in the case, not only by the club owner's testimony but by bunches of other relevant witnesses as well.
El Nuevo Rodeo was mainly a hispanic club but they rotated their musical bill of fare because The Twin Cities are very diverse and very open for the most part.
The suburbs? Maybe not quite as much but Minnesota's pockets of redneck bigotry are matched by some very unique small towns that have played prominent historical roles in the abolitionist movement and which also played prominent historical roles in desegregation and black enterprise stretching back to the Nineteenth Century.

The point in that is, club people know their people and they know their clientele or else the club goes out of business.
El Nuevo Rodeo catering to a lot of different races and cultures is a cornerstone policy that must be endorsed and supported by all employees, so if a few of those employees had knowledge of any friction between these two men, it's gonna come up at trial.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. Having seen the video you posted, with the night club owner being interviewed, I don't see anything explosive coming out. If it was, she would have known about it and would have shared it. The only thing she came up with was that the police officers called for backup too fast. Especially in light of the two autopsies that state Chauvin didn't kill him, but perhaps the guy kneeling on his back did, I'm not expecting that anything quite so damning will be revealed. The real world isn't often that neat, sadly.
 
poweRob said:
Elevated charge against Chauvin to 2nd degree murder and brought charges on the others. This is the right move.

George Floyd: All four former officers involved in his killing now face charges, Sen. Klobuchar says - CNN

(CNN)Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is increasing charges against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to second-degree murder in George Floyd's killing and also charging the other three officers involved in the incident, according to a tweet from US Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Ellison's official announcement is expected to come Wednesday afternoon, more than a week after Floyd was killed while in police custody in Minneapolis, sparking nationwide protests that call for the end to police violence against black citizens.​
Click to expand...
As some of you may know my Dad was a DA for 15 years. He said the absolute hardest cases to prosecute were cops in these kinds of cases. He said he'd rather prosecute a priest, a lawyer, a nun, a politician or a doctor over a cop. Its incredibly hard to win these cases. You have the 'blue wall' to contend with ( cops protecting cops) , the uniform itself is filled the nothing but symbolism of authority, and association with protection and courage, the fact that police officers are the closest thing to a 'professional' witness' you can find ( they are the hardest witnesses to break secondary to tons of experience both with the rules of evidence, and testifying) the burden of proof and the assumption of risk, and the fact they end up hiring the best attorneys per buck ( they know the good ones from bad ones, and know exactly what they are looking for, and the police union often helps fund them through an insurance policy)

You have to find 12 jurors willing to convict that cop. If just one of them simply won't convict a cop or insists on giving them the benefit of EVERY DOUBT, or won't believe the black man should be trusted, you have a hung jury at best. Just one.

In case you are curious, lawyers are not as tough on a witness stand as cops, according to my Father, because they can't stop thinking like lawyers to settle in on the 'witness' role. They inevitably end up being argumentative, or playing coy, and coming across as arrogant or slightly deceitful.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
As some of you may know my Dad was a DA for 15 years. He said the absolute hardest cases to prosecute were cops in these kinds of cases. He said he'd rather prosecute a priest, a lawyer, a nun, a politician or a doctor over a cop. Its incredibly hard to win these cases. You have the 'blue wall' to contend with ( cops protecting cops) , the uniform itself is filled the nothing but symbolism of authority, and association with protection and courage, the fact that police officers are the closest thing to a 'professional' witness' you can find ( they are the hardest witnesses to break secondary to tons of experience both with the rules of evidence, and testifying) the burden of proof and the assumption of risk, and the fact they end up hiring the best attorneys per buck ( they know the good ones from bad ones, and know exactly what they are looking for, and the police union often helps fund them through an insurance policy)

You have to find 12 jurors willing to convict that cop. If just one of them simply won't convict a cop or insists on giving them the benefit of EVERY DOUBT, or won't believe the black man should be trusted, you have a hung jury at best. Just one.

In case you are curious, lawyers are not as tough on a witness stand as cops, according to my Father, because they can't stop thinking like lawyers to settle in on the 'witness' role. They inevitably end up being argumentative, or playing coy, and coming across as arrogant or slightly deceitful.
Click to expand...

Yet we still see police officers get arrested, tried and convicted, or otherwise punished for their actions.

I will not pretend that the blue-wall doesn't exist. But everyone forgets that most of these instances, such actions are considered justified, or ruled as some other form of unfortunate necessity. You can't have someone who courts the justice system in such a way, just end up dead and everyone just starts to act surprised.

Floyd's case is a definite. He is getting his justice as we speak and even then, we have people who're doing their best to take things too far and cause as much chaos as they can. Which has caused more lives taken, by the actions of law enforcement.

It's a vicious circle that sees no clear end anytime soon.
 
From the very beginning I thought those other officers had a duty to stop what was happening.


What we were privy to is this cop who was white putting his knee on a black man's neck while he was begging for air.


Well today they released the pictures of the other three that were involved. It is quite a "diverse" group . Only one of the three is white.


So my sincere question is how can there be a systemic racial problem in this country when people of color in police departments are involved?


And since Ms. Klobuchar is mentioned in the OP, she was the top prosecutor in Minneapolis prior to becoming a senator. During her time as prosecutor she was faced with multiple complaints of officer Derek Chauvin, and she refused to prosecute him. I think she needs to be asked about that because if she would have pursued a prosecution Chauvin would not have been on the force and Floyd may still be alive.
 
Oborosen said:
Yet we still see police officers get arrested, tried and convicted, or otherwise punished for their actions.

I will not pretend that the blue-wall doesn't exist. But everyone forgets that most of these instances, such actions are considered justified, or ruled as some other form of unfortunate necessity. You can't have someone who courts the justice system in such a way, just end up dead and everyone just starts to act surprised.

Floyd's case is a definite. He is getting his justice as we speak and even then, we have people who're doing their best to take things too far and cause as much chaos as they can. Which has caused more lives taken, by the actions of law enforcement.

It's a vicious circle that sees no clear end anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The 'blue wall' is less a problem now than it has ever been thanks to stronger internal affairs divisions but the emboldened is a huge problem. Intent becomes a far larger problem because the police end up using their own policies and their own written procedures and training manual as shields from accountability
and juries buy their justifications almost blindly. Jurors on a gut level, do not want to second guess cops, and those written policies and that training manual become an excuse not to, in essence the manual and professional standards become a witness for the defense. Jurors move the standard from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'beyond any doubt' when a uniform is involved and between those two mountains, the state's case is left swinging from a rope.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
The 'blue wall' is less a problem now than it has ever been thanks to stronger internal affairs divisions but the emboldened is a huge problem. Intent becomes a far larger problem because the police end up using their own policies and their own written procedures and training manual as shields from accountability
and juries buy their justifications almost blindly. Jurors on a gut level, do not want to second guess cops, and those written policies and that training manual become an excuse not to, in essence the manual and professional standards become a witness for the defense. Jurors move the standard from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'beyond any doubt' when a uniform is involved and between those two mountains, the state's case is left swinging from a rope.
Click to expand...

Then my first suggestion is to have all of this unified. My facility keeps armed guards to protect the staff and the patients alike.

Yet when something happens and someone is injured. We must ratify any and everything that happened for the purposes of accountability.

If our police forces weren't so decentralized, we'd have a much easier time of this.
 
longview said:
What we do not know is if Minnesota is one of the states where
the charges have the fit the crime exactly, I.E. no lessor charges can be considered. This would appear to be the case because the first
charges were 3rd degree Murder and Manslaughter.
Had a lessor charge been available to the jury then just 3rd degree murder would suffice, and the Jury could convict on the lessor charge.
Here is the 2nd degree murder qualifications.
Minnesota Second-Degree Murder


For 2nd degree murder the state will have to prove that Derek Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd,
He did kill him, but how do you prove that was his intent?
As to the other elements.
It was not a drive-by shooting
No other felony was involved, or at least is not charged.
And George Floyd did not have an order of protection against Derek Chauvin.
I think it is a large risk, to look good for the press! They should go with the sure thing!
Click to expand...
To clarify/correct something - AG Ellison explained the charge: "felony murder". That does not require proof of intent, but another felony. The difference, in this case, between the charges is NOT intent to kill.

Second degree felony murder requires death while in commission of another felony. For example: a burglar encounters a homeowner unexpectedly, and knocks the victim down while running out the door, causing the victim to strike their head and die from the fall. The burglar can be charged with felony murder even with no intent for the victim to die because they were in the commission of a felony (burglary) at the time the death was caused. Here, Ellison is asserting that Chauvin was engaged in an assault at the time of the death, since his lawful authority ended once Floyd was restrained.

Third degree murder is based upon "depraved indifference" - that the perpetrator engaged in an action not necessarily anticipating death, but with indifference to the consequences of their action.

Generally, this can be considered a "lesser included" offense to the felony murder charge because the course of conduct is the same (all of the elements od the third degree charge are included except commission of a felony (although I am not a Minnesota lawyer, so I've not researched the issue in iMinnesota law). If sto, the jury could conclude that the officer's actions were "indifferent" and caused the death, but did not rise to the level of an assault. Depending on instructions, they could, potentially, even conclude that it was manslaughter - voluntary or involuntary - one implying the intent to do "harm" but not kill, the other being just negligence.

When I first heard about the increased charge i thought it might be a stretch, but when I heard the actual briefing, I realized that the theory was it was "a felonious assault that led to death", and that seems to follow the facts as we know them.

BTW, it doesn't actually matter (legally) if it was asphyxia or an induced stroke/ heart failure, only that "but for" the officer's action he would not have died, but that could be a whole different discussion.
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Is rioting, arson and looting in the streets now considered "political pressure" in the US?
Click to expand...

Look to your past; what changes occurred after the MLK murder and riots? Look to France and their revolution; England and our revolution, and your own. Writing polite letters to leaders asking them to change things doesn't work. People will stand injustice for only so long.

How MLK'''s death changed America
 
Last edited:
ldsrptcvt said:
For the last 3 minutes that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd, he knew the man had no pulse. It was his responsibility to begin CPR immediately.
Click to expand...
That is indeed what is being said, but who said it, was it captured that someone who could check said he did not have a pulse?
 
NWRatCon said:
To clarify/correct something - AG Ellison explained the charge: "felony murder". That does not require proof of intent, but another felony. The difference, in this case, between the charges is NOT intent to kill.

Second degree felony murder requires death while in commission of another felony. For example: a burglar encounters a homeowner unexpectedly, and knocks the victim down while running out the door, causing the victim to strike their head and die from the fall. The burglar can be charged with felony murder even with no intent for the victim to die because they were in the commission of a felony (burglary) at the time the death was caused. Here, Ellison is asserting that Chauvin was engaged in an assault at the time of the death, since his lawful authority ended once Floyd was restrained.

Third degree murder is based upon "depraved indifference" - that the perpetrator engaged in an action not necessarily anticipating death, but with indifference to the consequences of their action.

Generally, this can be considered a "lesser included" offense to the felony murder charge because the course of conduct is the same (all of the elements od the third degree charge are included except commission of a felony (although I am not a Minnesota lawyer, so I've not researched the issue in iMinnesota law). If sto, the jury could conclude that the officer's actions were "indifferent" and caused the death, but did not rise to the level of an assault. Depending on instructions, they could, potentially, even conclude that it was manslaughter - voluntary or involuntary - one implying the intent to do "harm" but not kill, the other being just negligence.

When I first heard about the increased charge i thought it might be a stretch, but when I heard the actual briefing, I realized that the theory was it was "a felonious assault that led to death", and that seems to follow the facts as we know them.

BTW, it doesn't actually matter (legally) if it was asphyxia or an induced stroke/ heart failure, only that "but for" the officer's action he would not have died, but that could be a whole different discussion.
Click to expand...

I didn't catch that,but that does explain how they think they can get to 2nd murder. Thinking on it, that's a sound strategy, the only pause I would have with it, is if the cops followed protocol, ie, kneeling on the neck like that is actually in the training, I think they are going to have a hard time proving felony assault without running into qualified immunity.
 
vesper said:
From the very beginning I thought those other officers had a duty to stop what was happening.


What we were privy to is this cop who was white putting his knee on a black man's neck while he was begging for air.


Well today they released the pictures of the other three that were involved. It is quite a "diverse" group . Only one of the three is white.


So my sincere question is how can there be a systemic racial problem in this country when people of color in police departments are involved?


And since Ms. Klobuchar is mentioned in the OP, she was the top prosecutor in Minneapolis prior to becoming a senator. During her time as prosecutor she was faced with multiple complaints of officer Derek Chauvin, and she refused to prosecute him. I think she needs to be asked about that because if she would have pursued a prosecution Chauvin would not have been on the force and Floyd may still be alive.
Click to expand...

She spoke out on this, in regards to the 2006 DIRECT charge, she was already in the Senate. As far as the others, she said they pushed everything through a grand jury and most of the time did not come back with an indictment, she said it was SOP at the time, but she now thinks it was wrong etc.
 
NWRatCon said:
To clarify/correct something - AG Ellison explained the charge: "felony murder". That does not require proof of intent, but another felony. The difference, in this case, between the charges is NOT intent to kill.

Second degree felony murder requires death while in commission of another felony. For example: a burglar encounters a homeowner unexpectedly, and knocks the victim down while running out the door, causing the victim to strike their head and die from the fall. The burglar can be charged with felony murder even with no intent for the victim to die because they were in the commission of a felony (burglary) at the time the death was caused. Here, Ellison is asserting that Chauvin was engaged in an assault at the time of the death, since his lawful authority ended once Floyd was restrained.

Third degree murder is based upon "depraved indifference" - that the perpetrator engaged in an action not necessarily anticipating death, but with indifference to the consequences of their action.

Generally, this can be considered a "lesser included" offense to the felony murder charge because the course of conduct is the same (all of the elements od the third degree charge are included except commission of a felony (although I am not a Minnesota lawyer, so I've not researched the issue in iMinnesota law). If sto, the jury could conclude that the officer's actions were "indifferent" and caused the death, but did not rise to the level of an assault. Depending on instructions, they could, potentially, even conclude that it was manslaughter - voluntary or involuntary - one implying the intent to do "harm" but not kill, the other being just negligence.

When I first heard about the increased charge i thought it might be a stretch, but when I heard the actual briefing, I realized that the theory was it was "a felonious assault that led to death", and that seems to follow the facts as we know them.

BTW, it doesn't actually matter (legally) if it was asphyxia or an induced stroke/ heart failure, only that "but for" the officer's action he would not have died, but that could be a whole different discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps CNN was unclear with their opening statement in the OP article,
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is increasing charges against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to second-degree murder in George Floyd's killing
Click to expand...
That sure sounds like they are charging him with second-degree murder to me, but again if AG Ellison explained it differently,
then CNN just got it wrong. That is actually good news, as I thought 2ed degree was a bar too far, considering that this will
almost certainly see a change of venue.
 
longview said:
Perhaps CNN was unclear with their opening statement in the OP article,

That sure sounds like they are charging him with second-degree murder to me, but again if AG Ellison explained it differently,
then CNN just got it wrong. That is actually good news, as I thought 2ed degree was a bar too far, considering that this will
almost certainly see a change of venue.
Click to expand...
The "felony murder" rule is a throwback to the common law in England, but has been codified in most jurisdictions. Different jurisdictions put it in different areas of their codes. Most US jurisdictions follow some aspects of the "Model Penal Code" - a uniform set of recommendations from the 60s. Minnesota is one of these.
Common law crimes are abolished and no act or omission is a crime unless made so by this chapter or by other applicable statute, but this does not prevent the use of common law rules in the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this chapter or other statute. Crimes committed prior to September 1, 1963, are not affected thereby.
Click to expand...

I have been perusing the Minnesota criminal code to try to understand the details of this case. Some chapters that may be of interest to others:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2. Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;
Click to expand...
vs
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
Click to expand...
609.05 LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF ANOTHER.
Subdivision 1.Aiding, abetting; liability. A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom