It doesn't help the community to destroy businesses where other people are now going to lose their jobs though. I absolutely get the frustration and I want police officers to be held to much higher standards, but the people that these rioters are standing up against are just going to use these actions as justification for police using increased force. Violence and destruction begets violence and destruction. I think it would be better if we had more leaders that promoted peaceful change similar to that brought on by Dr. King. Looting is counterproductive.
Thank you for this explanation. I knew there was a difference and I got blasted by someone on Twitter for saying the likelihood they get charged with manslaughter is greater because of intent. There's more to it as you explained so there might be a case to be made for a murder charge.
Normally, they are right. A 22 year old bouncer or target loss prevention guard that leans on a guy to restrain him until the cops shows up that ends up killing him, that’s classic manslaughter. He initiated physical contact with the intent to restrain him, not kill him. As long as he isn’t committing some other felony, that’s classic manslaughter. But in this case, the training level and the method of the restraint may be enough that a jury could determine that they had sufficient awareness of what they were doing was risky to form the intent to purposefully kill. I would charge second degree murder if I had those facts if I was the prosecutor and would likely vote guilty on a lesser included of manslaughter if I was a juror, based solely on what I’ve seen on video. There could be other considerations we don’t know that “justifies“ the risk of that restraint that would still make the conduct criminal but not murderous or manslaughtery. Either way focus on the obvious risk of the behavior rather than the brutality or the result, and you still arrive at criminal liability. That would be my advice to the prosecutors.
See my discussion above, a few states, including Minnesota and Florida, have third degree murder. In recent posts I’ve talked about “felony murder” where you are guilty of murder if during the commission of a violent felony you intend to commit, a death occurs that you didn’t intend to commit. That’s one type of crime where you unlawfully killed but didn’t intend to kill, so the harsh punishment of murder isn’t appropriate. It’s called third degree murder. Third degree can also be a “depraved heart” murder. The reasoning being that you might not intent to kill but you commit an act that causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind without regard for human life. Which was what I was talking about above. The jury could find that the act of laying on his neck was so eminently dangerous and known to any reasonable officer to be dangerous that the commission of the act itself is evidence of the necessary mens rea or mindset to prove he intended to commit unpremeditated murder. That would be second degree murder. In Florida the max penalty for third degree murder with no priors is 25 years. For second degree murder it’s up to life in prison of which 14 consecutive years must be served on that sentence with no gain time or good behavior, hard years, before parole eligibility can be determined. Most serve at least 27 years and are typically released only when their medical bills are too costly. So you tell me. What does he deserve? 18 months to 25 years at the discretion of the judge or at least 14 years, maybe life?
That is interesting. But it doesn’t change my analysis. And the people burning things have their own reasons to do so.
Not really. It will make it easier to raise a doubt in the juror’s minds but it doesn’t change the analysis. Compliance techniques/policies are in place to prevent/minimize injuries like this. Techniques/policies that account for unseen vulnerabilities like coronary or respiratory distress.
So, I can file charges against the GOP for "allowing" gun violence to persist?
It doesn’t work that way. MN has a sentencing enhancement statute that allows for a 25 percent increase in the maximum sentence. The prosecutors have to charge that, which they didn’t here, but that could change. So he would have to get the maximum for the hate crime enhancer to make any difference. I’m skeptical a judge would give the full 6.25 extra years and risk appeal since there’s no direct evidence of prejuduce in this case. Unless he said something on tape like “Help me hurt this ______” and even then it may not be enough. It’s not that the incident might be caused by bias or the jury finds that. You need direct evidence that they acted with specific intent to commit the crime to injure someone of a protected class. This is a cross burning statute. A lynching statute. A KKK shoots the only black guy in the lobby during a bank robbery statute. A murder the radio host because he’s a Jew statute. It’s not enough to be a racist or that your racism caused the crime, the evidence has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime because of, or in furtherance of, your racism. We don’t have that here — yet.
This is exactly the reason there must be direct evidence of the intent to commit the crime based on racial bias. I reviewed too many cases that had racial facts to them, cases that the cops coded as a hate crime for the FBI statistics. Usually guys saying dumb stuff in the parking lots of bars. I only charged it once. It’s not enough to shout to your friends “Hit this ____” as he exits a bar where he was seen hitting someone else himself moments before hand. You’ve gotta to have facts like a guy sitting in his car in the parking lot texting his friends “Come down to Sparkey’s and we will jump the first ____ we see leave the bar.”
I care less about the racial motivation and more about poor training and misuse of force with these police officers. This isn't just something that can only happen to blacks.
No. They can file their own separate prosecution against the guy, but their own guidelines on civil rights/hate crimes prosecutions state that they must let the state take the lead, so long as they are doing a good job. If it looks like the public won’t have confidence that the state prosecution will meet constitutional minimums, then they can step in.
