Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 May 2020, 12:15 am

I just dont get what the officer was thinking keeping his knee on his neck and the guy is saying he cant breathe. No conversation from the officer. He just sits there with his knee on his neck for a while. Four officers. He couldnt say hey I take my knee off of your neck you aint going to give me trouble? I mean, hes constricting the guy's airway. Just horrible. Having all that weight on the guy's neck. And three other officers letting it happen. They deserved to be fired. Rodney King was not nearly as bad.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 27 May 2020, 6:29 am

freeman3 wrote:And three other officers letting it happen. They deserved to be fired.


Just fired? Isn't that a crime what they did? If so, what would you charge them with? Second degree? Manslaughter? Something else?

The guy with the knee needs to do time. The other people were depraved in their indifference. Not sure what crime that is, but it should be one.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 27 May 2020, 10:53 am

I am PRO Law enforcement, and PRO justice. The officer kneeing the apprehended alleged criminal needs to be charged criminally, and sent to prison pending jury trial and execution of sentence.

The other 3 should be tried with criminal indifference, and loss of pension.

But then again, I am for justice against ALL perpetrators regardless of criminal/ Law Enforcement/ civilian. You do something wrong, you go to jail for the full sentence, and you don't get parole. I guess I want more justice exacted.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 May 2020, 11:12 am

I'll quote from a California Supreme Court case People v. Blakeley:

"As we did in the companion case of People v. Lasko, supra, 23 Cal. 4th 101, we begin our analysis by exploring the differences between murder and the lesser offense of manslaughter. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) fn. 3 Malice may be either express or implied. It is express when the defendant manifests "a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." (§ 188.) It is implied "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." (Ibid.) This statutory definition of implied malice, we have said, "has never proved of much assistance in defining the concept in concrete terms" (People v. Dellinger (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1212, 1217 [264 Cal. Rptr. 841, 783 P.2d 200]), and juries should be instructed that malice is implied "when the killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life" (id. at p. 1215). As in the companion case of People v. Lasko, for convenience we shall describe this mental state as "conscious disregard for life."

[2] Manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice." (§ 192.) A defendant lacks malice and is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in "limited, explicitly defined circumstances: either when the [23 Cal. 4th 88] defendant acts in a 'sudden quarrel or heat of passion' (§ 192, subd. (a)), or when the defendant kills in 'unreasonable self-defense'the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense.

Under California law the conduct of the one officer observed on the video could fit a second degree murder charge.

As for the other officers, perhaps involuntary manslaughter? Here are the elements (as quoted from California's jury instructions):

1. The defendant had a legal duty to <insert name of

decedent>;

2. The defendant failed to perform that legal duty;

3. The defendant’s failure was criminally negligent;

AND

4. The defendant’s failure caused the death of <insert

name of decedent>.

For sure the Minneapolis Police Department needs thorough review of its officer training . One bad officer is one thing; three others not intervening?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 27 May 2020, 11:30 am

I am fine with Murder 2 and Manslaughter for the rest.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 27 May 2020, 3:05 pm

Thanks Freeman. Now can you do Minnesota law? ;-)

freeman3 wrote:One bad officer is one thing; three others not intervening?


Depending on the details, I might be sympathetic for the by-standers. If the guy doing the crime was of a higher rank, with a lot more experience, and the the by-standers were kids out of the academy, I'd have more sympathy for them, maybe wrongly, but it IS a quasi-military organization.

Details matter there.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 May 2020, 4:03 pm

Both good points, George. Minnesota law is what would control of course but I am assuming (always dangerous) that their penal code would be similar because those legal principles originated in the Common Law. In law school they didnt teach us California criminal law but the model criminal code (I think, it's been so long). Manslaughter and murder definitions in particular having evolved over many centuries are likely to be similar in most states (except for perhaps Louisiana which has its origins in the Napoleonic Code) But, yes, my analysis should be read with the caveat that applicable Minnesota law is almost certain to have some differences, maybe even very significant ones.

And, yes, good points about the hierarchical nature of police and the experience of officers affecting their culpability here.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 May 2020, 7:16 am

geojanes
I'd have more sympathy for them, maybe wrongly, but it IS a quasi-military organization.


They were just following orders?
American Articles of War protect a soldier or officer who disobeys an obviously unlawful command.

Police officers are under no obligation to follow an unethical order, and are obligated to either intervene or report an illegal act.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 May 2020, 11:00 am

There is a difference though right between actively engaging in unlawful behavior and intervening to stop a more experienced officer, perhaps superior in rank, from doing something unlawful? At least if the conduct was borderline. That being said, there is now video of two more officers sitting on Floyd. There is one officer who doesnt get involved. I do expect everyone to get charged because the conduct was so awful--the one officer putting his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes while he was in handcuffs until he died-that they all should face significant charges. I think the one officer should be charged with first degree murder with a special circumstance of torture and face the death penalty.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 29 May 2020, 12:52 pm

freeman3 wrote:I think the one officer should be charged with first degree murder with a special circumstance of torture and face the death penalty.


Really? There is no death penalty in Minnesota state law. You thinking some kind of Federal crime?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 May 2020, 2:13 pm

Sorry, my bad! Just thinking California law again and the elements more than the actual situation. More than anything just expressing my opinion that's the kind of conduct that was. 9 minutes of not letting a man breathe? That's torture. And in California I think he could be charged that way.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 May 2020, 2:52 pm

I am fine with the death penalty in this case. Anyone else?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 May 2020, 7:59 pm

As George rightly pointed out, there is no death penalty in Minnesota. Whether federal authorities could seek a death penalty for a murder committed in violation of civil rights I dont have the knowledge to say. I am not really a proponent of the death penalty, because of the cold-blooded nature of it. But when a murder is committed in a sadistic manner indifferent to another human being's suffering...I am more inclined to support it.

Right now, it's my understanding the officer is charged with third-degree murder, which carries a 25 year max. That's a little light.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 May 2020, 8:40 pm

I saw one commentator saying that it would be difficult to prove intent to kill (part of the willful, deliberation and deliberation requirement that classically distinguishes first murder murder). California allows a different murder one theory when the murder occurred during torture (even without intent to kill). It would be interesting to know if Minnesota law has something similar.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 31 May 2020, 2:25 pm

No comment on the riots?

The rioters are just as much criminals as the ex-police officer. The should all be in the same cell.

Please note I did not say protesters. A peaceful protester is well within their rights to assemble.