• 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!

Minnesota attorney general to take over prosecutions in George Floyd's death

ttwtt78640 said:
The jury always has the option of convicting on a lesser included offense - the idea that "overcharging" will result in an acquittal is unlikely, but might well result in ending the (nationwide) "protests" which is a valid reason to aim high and accept a conviction charge reduction (many?) months later.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that is the case, otherwise why did they charge him with 3rd degree murder and manslaughter?
If the jury had the option for convicting for a lessor offense, why have both?
 
longview said:
The way the charges were stated, I.E. 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, implies that the Jury can only find for the stated charges,
not a lesser charge. I think the 1st degree murder charge would be difficult to prove, because premeditation,
means he had to plan the murder before the start of the incident, and that might be difficult.
If for example since they worked at the same club, and someone overheard him saying, "I hate that George Floyd,
and if I every arrest him, he is a dead man!"
I think the risks of an acquittal, far out weigh the desire to see a 1st degree murder charge.
The prosecutor is playing it safe, something that will guarantee a conviction, after that, the Federal Government can
get him for civil rights violation.
A quick look at some of the rules in Minnesota
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/murder-charges-in-minnesota-43141
It looks like murder3 and manslaughter could combine for a 40 year sentence, and that is before the Federal charges.
In My mind the fool should also be fined for all the added expense this has caused around the country!!!
Click to expand...
Even that seems unusaul to me. Typically a prosecutor will overcharge in the begining and leave room for himself to negotiate diwn to a lesser charge and get a garynteed conviction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Even that seems unusaul to me. Typically a prosecutor will overcharge in the begining and leave room for himself to negotiate diwn to a lesser charge and get a garynteed conviction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That may work in New York and Law and Order, but other states have different rules.
These may also be the charges that a Grand Jury returned, we simply do not know.
 
longview said:
I am not sure that is the case, otherwise why did they charge him with 3rd degree murder and manslaughter?
If the jury had the option for convicting for a lessor offense, why have both?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is a difference between 3rd degree murder and manslaughter when the alleged victim was selected (identified?) in advance. It's not as if some random person was killed by a stray gunshot or out of control vehicle here - the police officers concentrated their efforts on a pre-selected person already taken into their custody.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I'm not sure there is a difference between 3rd degree murder and manslaughter when the alleged victim was selected (identified?) in advance. It's not as if some random person was killed by a stray gunshot or out of control vehicle here - the police officers concentrated their efforts on a pre-selected person already taken into their custody.
Click to expand...
Now that the AG has taken over the prosecution, let's just hope he gets it right enough to get a conviction.
 
trouble13 said:
I disagree about this. I think a prosecuter can and should make a case for murder 1.
The cop msintained pressure on a defenless suspect while in custody until he was dead. Imo that satifies both burdens of intent and premeditation

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am not sure they “can” make murder 1, but they can argue it based on the facts.

Was there a point in which the suspect repeatedly telling the officer he cannot breathe, and the officer continues to apply pressure, in which premeditation forms? The premeditation is once the suspect told the officer he can’t breathe, or at some point of being told, the officer then planned going forward to keep his knee on the neck to choke the life out of the suspect and kill the suspect.

That’s tough to convincingly argue. The officer and defense will assert the officer did not plan to continue to keep his knee on his neck to kill him. The officer may say the way he had his knee positioned, it’s location, shouldn’t have presented as a threat to choke the suspect and he didn’t believe so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
I am not sure they “can” make murder 1, but they can argue it based on the facts.

Was there a point in which the suspect repeatedly telling the officer he cannot breathe, and the officer continues to apply pressure, in which premeditation forms? The premeditation is once the suspect told the officer he can’t breathe, or at some point of being told, the officer then planned going forward to keep his knee on the neck to choke the life out of the suspect and kill the suspect.

That’s tough to convincingly argue. The officer and defense will assert the officer did not plan to continue to keep his knee on his neck to kill him. The officer may say the way he had his knee positioned, it’s location, shouldn’t have presented as a threat to choke the suspect and he didn’t believe so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes thats all true and the prosecution can argue that he was a trained professional and knew exactly what he was doing. It will then be left to the jury to decide.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Even that seems unusaul to me. Typically a prosecutor will overcharge in the begining and leave room for himself to negotiate diwn to a lesser charge and get a garynteed conviction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

“Typically”? I’m not sure what you reference is “typical” and I’m equally unsure how prevalent the practice is, but in my experience what you reference is not “typical” for murder charges.

There are inherent risks for a prosecutor to “over charge,” especially “overcharging” with murder, to “leave room” to “negotiate down to a lesser charge.” First, “overcharging,” as I understand the phrase, means the filing of a charge in which the prosecutor believes or knows he lacks the evidence to obtain a conviction or knows there is a high probability of not obtaining a conviction.

Murder is an attention grabbing charge. Murder is recognized as the most serious crime to be committed. Alleging someone committed murder, intentionally killed someone and without proper, legal justification, is the most serious allegation to be made. “Overcharging” with murder to “leave room to negotiate to a lesser charge,” while merely flirting with ethical considerations, can potentially be problematic as wider society may view such a practice as improper. After all, slapping a murder charge on someone just to negotiate a lesser conviction doesn’t present itself as just or fair, may be viewed as abuse of power, given the gravity of the allegation associated with murder for which the prosecutor knew he could never prove but just wanted a favorable plea result.

In addition, there is the victim’s family who wants justice. Filing a murder charge, which carries a lot of years to be served as punishment, gets the family’s hopes up that the suspect will receive the most stiffest penalty in terms of years for the loss of life of their loved one. Talking the family off the murder charge can be difficult, especially where the prosecutor tells the family there is a strong likelihood the jury acquits, prompting the family to then ask why the murder charge was file at all if the prosecutor didn’t think they could win.

So, I’m rather incredulous “typically” will overcharge, especially when it comes to murder, at least based on my own experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
NotreDame said:
“Typically”? I’m not sure what you reference is “typical” and I’m equally unsure how prevalent the practice is, but in my experience what you reference is not “typical” for murder charges.

There are inherent risks for a prosecutor to “over charge,” especially “overcharging” with murder, to “leave room” to “negotiate down to a lesser charge.” First, “overcharging,” as I understand the phrase, means the filing of a charge in which the prosecutor believes or knows he lacks the evidence to obtain a conviction or knows there is a high probability of not obtaining a conviction.

Murder is an attention grabbing charge. Murder is recognized as the most serious crime to be committed. Alleging someone committed murder, intentionally killed someone and without proper, legal justification, is the most serious allegation to be made. “Overcharging” with murder to “leave room to negotiate to a lesser charge,” while merely flirting with ethical considerations, can potentially be problematic as wider society may view such a practice as improper. After all, slapping a murder charge on someone just to negotiate a lesser conviction doesn’t present itself as just or fair, may be viewed as abuse of power, given the gravity of the allegation associated with murder for which the prosecutor knew he could never prove but just wanted a favorable plea result.

In addition, there is the victim’s family who wants justice. Filing a murder charge, which carries a very a lot of years to served as punishment, gets the families hopes up of receiving the most stiffest penalty in terms of years for the loss of life for their loved one. Talking the family off the murder charge can be difficult, especially where the prosecutor tells the family there is a strong likelihood the jury acquits, prompting the family to then ask why the murder charge was file at all if the prosecutor didn’t think they could win.

So, I’m rather incredulous “typically” will overcharge, especially when it comes to murder, at least based on my own experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not only that, but any semi-competent defense attorney will recognize that, and just go to trial.
 
longview said:
The way the charges were stated, I.E. 3rd degree murder and manslaughter, implies that the Jury can only find for the stated charges,
not a lesser charge. I think the 1st degree murder charge would be difficult to prove, because premeditation,
means he had to plan the murder before the start of the incident, and that might be difficult.
If for example since they worked at the same club, and someone overheard him saying, "I hate that George Floyd,
and if I every arrest him, he is a dead man!"
I think the risks of an acquittal, far out weigh the desire to see a 1st degree murder charge.
The prosecutor is playing it safe, something that will guarantee a conviction, after that, the Federal Government can
get him for civil rights violation.
A quick look at some of the rules in Minnesota
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/murder-charges-in-minnesota-43141
It looks like murder3 and manslaughter could combine for a 40 year sentence, and that is before the Federal charges.
In My mind the fool should also be fined for all the added expense this has caused around the country!!!
Click to expand...

I think the 1st degree murder charge would be difficult to prove, because premeditation,
means he had to plan the murder before the start of the incident,
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Under the law of Minnesota, murder 1, premeditation does not necessitate the “plan” had to originate before the “start of the incident.”

One can begin an “incident” with no “premeditation” to murder but then in the middle of the incident, develop “premeditation” to murder. The word “plan” and “premeditation” need not include taking the time to plan out the meticulous details of the murder, such as weapon to be used, clothes to wear, location and time of day. “Premeditation” and “plan” can include, in a few brief moments, the thought of X person needs to die and on the basis of that thought, grabbing a steak knife from the kitchens and stabbing the person to death. That would be 1st degree murder.

Domestic battery is a good example of what I am taking about. At the time the incident of domestic battery occurred, the suspect had no thought, no notion, no plan, of killing his girlfriend when he smacks her. She smacks the suspect back and shoves him, at which point the suspect then thinks she has to die for that, takes out his knife, and stabs her repeatedly. That is 1st degree murder.

As it relates to the facts of the case in Minnesota, the officer’s “premeditation” could have developed after being told, one or more times by the suspect, he can’t breathe, at which point the officer then thought to continue to apply his knee until he has choked the life out of the suspect and kill him. That would be 1st degree murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I agree that the prosecution has to be careful not to overcharge but in this situation imo murder 1 fits.
The cop kept pressure on his neck until the guy died. What is the alternate explination of he wasnt trying to harm the guy?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A defense can be the officer, given the position of his knee, didn’t think or believe his knee was choking the defendant. He may say his knee wasn’t on the defendant’s throat, and wasn’t applying pressure to the throat in any way as to impede breathing. He may also say his knee was positioned as to ensure the defendant remained down and under control.

The prosecutor would have to show either, A.)
at some point, the officer thought to kill the suspect by applying his knee to the suspect in the manner he did or B.) kept his knee their to kill the suspect by choking him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Yes thats all true and the prosecution can argue that he was a trained professional and knew exactly what he was doing. It will then be left to the jury to decide.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I’m not sure the prosecutor wants to argue “trained profession and knew exactly what he was doing” as that can weaken the murder charge. That potentially plays right into the defense the officer did not believe, based on his training and experience as an officer, that his placement of his knee posed any risk to the life of the suspect.

If I were to argue that, I’d want some evidence that he was trained or cautioned not to apply his knee in that manner as it could be life threatening and/or there was experience known to the officer that doing so posed a a risk to killing the suspect. Absent that, I’m not inclined to hold up the “trained professional” angle as it can be spun favorably for the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The jury always has the option of convicting on a lesser included offense - the idea that "overcharging" will result in an acquittal is unlikely, but might well result in ending the (nationwide) "protests" which is a valid reason to aim high and accept a conviction charge reduction (many?) months later.
Click to expand...

The jury always has the option of convicting on a lesser included offense
Click to expand...

I’m unsure how “lesser include offense” works in Minnesota but in Indiana, the jury cannot convict a defender of an LIO unless the LIO is presented to them in the court’s final jury instructions for them to consider during deliberations in determining guilt or innocence. If the LIO isn’t presented to the jury by the court, then the jury cannot convict the defendant of and LIO. Again, this is the case in Indiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
I’m unsure how “lesser include offense” works in Minnesota but in Indiana, the jury cannot convict a defender of an LIO unless the LIO is presented to them in the court’s final jury instructions for them to consider during deliberations in determining guilt or innocence. If the LIO isn’t presented to the jury by the court, then the jury cannot convict the defendant of and LIO. Again, this is the case in Indiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I believe that's the case in most states.
 
NotreDame said:
A defense can be the officer, given the position of his knee, didn’t think or believe his knee was choking the defendant. He may say his knee wasn’t on the defendant’s throat, and wasn’t applying pressure to the throat in any way as to impede breathing. He may also say his knee was positioned as to ensure the defendant remained down and under control.

The prosecutor would have to show either, A.)
at some point, the officer thought to kill the suspect by applying his knee to the suspect in the manner he did or B.) kept his knee their to kill the suspect by choking him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The question is if a jury will buy that as a defense.
Something i have not seen is how the guy went from his feet to the ground. That might show something favorable for the cop. What i have seen shows a man in custody and not resisting being pinned down by the neck until he was lifeless and a little longer. If the cop did not know better, he should have.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
I’m not sure the prosecutor wants to argue “trained profession and knew exactly what he was doing” as that can weaken the murder charge. That potentially plays right into the defense the officer did not believe, based on his training and experience as an officer, that his placement of his knee posed any risk to the life of the suspect.

If I were to argue that, I’d want some evidence that he was trained or cautioned not to apply his knee in that manner as it could be life threatening and/or there was experience known to the officer that doing so posed a a risk to killing the suspect. Absent that, I’m not inclined to hold up the “trained professional” angle as it can be spun favorably for the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sure, you and I are playing armchair lawyer without the benefit of all the evidence. Maybe I am overreaching but imo its very debatable.

Just as an example of premeditation. If you and me arehypothetically in my living room and we get into a fight. If i feel in danger and retreat to my room and get my gun. If you follow me into my room and I shoot you, thats self defense.
But if you dont follow me and instead i leave my room go back to the living room and shoot you. I just met the burden of premeditation, even though it might of all happened in the moment.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
“Typically”? I’m not sure what you reference is “typical” and I’m equally unsure how prevalent the practice is, but in my experience what you reference is not “typical” for murder charges.

There are inherent risks for a prosecutor to “over charge,” especially “overcharging” with murder, to “leave room” to “negotiate down to a lesser charge.” First, “overcharging,” as I understand the phrase, means the filing of a charge in which the prosecutor believes or knows he lacks the evidence to obtain a conviction or knows there is a high probability of not obtaining a conviction.

Murder is an attention grabbing charge. Murder is recognized as the most serious crime to be committed. Alleging someone committed murder, intentionally killed someone and without proper, legal justification, is the most serious allegation to be made. “Overcharging” with murder to “leave room to negotiate to a lesser charge,” while merely flirting with ethical considerations, can potentially be problematic as wider society may view such a practice as improper. After all, slapping a murder charge on someone just to negotiate a lesser conviction doesn’t present itself as just or fair, may be viewed as abuse of power, given the gravity of the allegation associated with murder for which the prosecutor knew he could never prove but just wanted a favorable plea result.

In addition, there is the victim’s family who wants justice. Filing a murder charge, which carries a lot of years to be served as punishment, gets the family’s hopes up that the suspect will receive the most stiffest penalty in terms of years for the loss of life of their loved one. Talking the family off the murder charge can be difficult, especially where the prosecutor tells the family there is a strong likelihood the jury acquits, prompting the family to then ask why the murder charge was file at all if the prosecutor didn’t think they could win.

So, I’m rather incredulous “typically” will overcharge, especially when it comes to murder, at least based on my own experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Im not sure i think ots ethical to not charge someone with a crime if you think they committed it but your not sure if you can convince a jury.
Is that justice or a lawyer padding his record of convictions?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
The question is if a jury will buy that as a defense.
Something i have not seen is how the guy went from his feet to the ground. That might show something favorable for the cop.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The question is if a jury will buy that as a defense.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. The jury cannot “buy that as a defense” and vote to acquit. The government will have to show the officer, with premeditation, applied the knee as he did, or continued to do so after hearing the suspect say he cannot breathe, with the intent to “effect the death” of the suspect.

What i have seen shows a man in custody and not resisting being pinned down by the neck until he was lifeless and a little longer. If the cop did not know better, he should have.
Click to expand...

What are you basing “he should have” upon?

You’ve restated the facts, but the question is whether those facts show premeditation with intent to kill and they do not do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those facts themselves do not inform me as of his intent or that he had premeditation, and I suspect that is a significant reason the prosecutor didn’t file murder 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Im not sure i think ots ethical to not charge someone with a crime if you think they committed it but your not sure if you can convince a jury.
Is that justice or a lawyer padding his record of convictions?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is entirely ethical not to charge someone with a crime when the prosecutor knows he cannot win because of a lack of evidence, even where they believe the person committed the crime.

That’s not necessarily “padding his record of convictions” as that has more with winning jury trials and the vast majority of criminal charges are resolved by plea, not jury trials. Charging doesn’t pad “record of convictions.” Rather, carefully selecting cases for trial, specifically only taking their cases to trial the prosecutor knows he cannot lose, is “padding his record of convictions.”

So, your comment is just misplaced when it comes to not overcharging murder and doesn’t address the other reasons not to overcharge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. The jury cannot “buy that as a defense” and vote to acquit. The government will have to show the officer, with premeditation, applied the knee as he did, or continued to do so after hearing the suspect say he cannot breathe, with the intent to “effect the death” of the suspect.



What are you basing “he should have” upon?

You’ve restated the facts, but the question is whether those facts show premeditation with intent to kill and they do not do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those facts themselves do not inform me as of his intent or that he had premeditation, and I suspect that is a significant reason the prosecutor didn’t file murder 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I feel like we are just going in circles at this point. You dont see premeditation and I do.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
It is entirely ethical not to charge someone with a crime when the prosecutor knows he cannot win because of a lack of evidence, even where they believe the person committed the crime.

That’s not necessarily “padding his record of convictions” as that has more with winning jury trials and the vast majority of criminal charges are resolved by plea, not jury trials. Charging doesn’t pad “record of convictions.” Rather, carefully selecting cases for trial, specifically only taking their cases to trial the prosecutor knows he cannot lose, is “padding his record of convictions.”

So, your comment is just misplaced when it comes to not overcharging murder and doesn’t address the other reasons not to overcharge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Your point about overcharging was taken. I am pointing out that the ethical question is not a black and white one.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I feel like we are just going in circles at this point. You dont see premeditation and I do.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

“Seeing premeditation” isn’t enough. Anyone can see “premeditation” but seeing premeditation isn’t criminal.

Rather, the question is whether there is evidence satisfying the very high burden of beyond a reasonable doubt premeditation exists. What you’ve failed to realize is the facts you’ve focused upon do not show premeditation, specifically the facts do not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer conceived in his mind placement of his knee in such a manner as to kill the suspect.

You can “see” what you want. The beauty of facts is they are less amenable to faulty human perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom