ADVERTISEMENT

Charges elevated to 2nd Degree Murder

SUPERPOKES

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,654
13,259
113
DFW
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

The DA is facing a double edged sword. The masses want 1st Degree Murder, which would be impossible to prove. Second degree will still be hard, and 3rd Degree would be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but would not be enough justice for those who want blood.

What’s going to make 2nd Degree Murder tougher to prove is that the Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct says that the method used by the cop is justifiable.

Can you imagine what will happen if the DA does not get a conviction?!? It’s going to make the last week seem like a picnic.

Also, the other three cops are now charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder.
 
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

The DA is facing a double edged sword. The masses want 1st Degree Murder, which would be impossible to prove. Second degree will still be hard, and 3rd Degree would be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but would not be enough justice for those who want blood.

What’s going to make 2nd Degree Murder tougher to prove is that the Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct says that the method used by the cop is justifiable.

Can you imagine what will happen if the DA does not get a conviction?!? It’s going to make the last week seem like a picnic.

Also, the other three cops are going to be charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder.
Uh, I think that's the whole point.
keith_ellison_antifa.jpg
 
I was thinking about this earlier today... this should have been 3rd degree and an explanation not 2nd degree and no justice.
 
Saw some black man talking head on the news earlier saying the fires and all the other crap going on was not done by the protestors, they were started by Police Injustice. Zero Accountability but they sure demand it and will kill, loot and burn your City down if they don't get it.
 
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

The DA is facing a double edged sword. The masses want 1st Degree Murder, which would be impossible to prove. Second degree will still be hard, and 3rd Degree would be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but would not be enough justice for those who want blood.

What’s going to make 2nd Degree Murder tougher to prove is that the Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct says that the method used by the cop is justifiable.

Can you imagine what will happen if the DA does not get a conviction?!? It’s going to make the last week seem like a picnic.

Also, the other three cops are now charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder.

The Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct saying it is justifiable (if it actually does, I don't know for sure one way or the other) would have affected a prosecution of 3rd Degree murder as well.

Primary difference between 2nd and 3rd, just taking a quick look at the statutes on Westlaw...is proving intent to cause death.

Prosecutors face this double edged sword in charging decisions ("slam dunk" lesser crime....though in reality there are rarely any slam dunk cases...vs. more serious crime that is tougher to make the case).
 
The Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct saying it is justifiable (if it actually does, I don't know for sure one way or the other) would have affected a prosecution of 3rd Degree murder as well.

Primary difference between 2nd and 3rd, just taking a quick look at the statutes on Westlaw...is proving intent to cause death.

Prosecutors face this double edged sword in charging decisions ("slam dunk" lesser crime....though in reality there are rarely any slam dunk cases...vs. more serious crime that is tougher to make the case).

If you were Prosecutor on this case what would you file, this is right up your alley.
 
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

The DA is facing a double edged sword. The masses want 1st Degree Murder, which would be impossible to prove. Second degree will still be hard, and 3rd Degree would be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but would not be enough justice for those who want blood.

What’s going to make 2nd Degree Murder tougher to prove is that the Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct says that the method used by the cop is justifiable.

Can you imagine what will happen if the DA does not get a conviction?!? It’s going to make the last week seem like a picnic.

Also, the other three cops are now charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder.
They will be tried in Blue State Minnesota which elected the likes of Ellison and Omar among other notable liberal democrats like Humphrey, Mondale, Franken, and Khobachar. If they don't get convictions they can only blame themselves. Not like it would be if they were tried and found not guilty in a Red State.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
If you were Prosecutor on this case what would you file, this is right up your alley.

I don't do that type of thing.

I don't have the same evidence in front of me that the deciding prosecutor does.

I don't have a feel for the judges or juries in the jurisdiction.

I won't want some other prosecutor second guessing my judgments based upon limited information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OKSTATE1
The Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct saying it is justifiable (if it actually does, I don't know for sure one way or the other) .

Minneapolis Police
Policy and Procedure Manuel


5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

  1. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
  2. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
    1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
    2. For life saving purposes, or;
    3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
 
The prosecutor has to be prudent.
If he caves to the clarion call of the mob, the grievance culture and bites off more than society can chew, they'll acquit him, on those draconian charges.
He'll be retried but, my point stands.
It's a tightrope I wouldn't wish on anyone I like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
If you were Prosecutor on this case what would you file, this is right up your alley.

Based on the evidence we have seen to date, I would have done exactly what was done today from the beginning. File the second degree with the lesser includedes.

Any prosecutor worth his/her salt would jump at the opportunity to prove second degree murder in this case.
 
I don't do that type of thing.

I don't have the same evidence in front of me that the deciding prosecutor does.

I don't have a feel for the judges or juries in the jurisdiction.

I won't want some other prosecutor second guessing my judgments based upon limited information.

Had not thought of this from your point of view but I totally get it and it is the high road.
 
Minneapolis Police
Policy and Procedure Manuel


5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

  1. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
  2. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
    1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
    2. For life saving purposes, or;
    3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.

I don’t know if what I saw on the video meets that standard description or authorization of when it can be used. Not saying it definitely doesn’t. Not saying it clearly does.

Thank you for quoting it for me though. Good information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
I don't do that type of thing.

I don't have the same evidence in front of me that the deciding prosecutor does.

I don't have a feel for the judges or juries in the jurisdiction.

I won't want some other prosecutor second guessing my judgments based upon limited information.
I have no similar constraints. Death by murder hornets, fire ants, those really nasty centipedes, and tiny fragment bullet ricochets. Maybe it takes a bit. Maybe it doesn't. After all 4 are dead, the animals at the local animal shelters get fed well.
 
Question: Doesn't the jury have the option to convict of a lesser version than whats charged? Or have I watched too many law room shows?
 
This may be the Left’s “October surprise”: all back to normal only to start new riots when one or more of the officers gets a partial acquittal
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

The DA is facing a double edged sword. The masses want 1st Degree Murder, which would be impossible to prove. Second degree will still be hard, and 3rd Degree would be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but would not be enough justice for those who want blood.

What’s going to make 2nd Degree Murder tougher to prove is that the Minneapolis PD Code of Conduct says that the method used by the cop is justifiable.

Can you imagine what will happen if the DA does not get a conviction?!? It’s going to make the last week seem like a picnic.

Also, the other three cops are now charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder.
If the audio holds up, likely going to first degree...
 
That’s going to make it harder to prove. Now it has to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cop had an intent to murder.

Saw an interview the the Minnesota A.G. this morning. He said that intent to kill is not necessary for 2nd Degree. He said that intentional assault, that results in death, is all that is needed.
 
Saw an interview the the Minnesota A.G. this morning. He said that intent to kill is not necessary for 2nd Degree. He said that intentional assault, that results in death, is all that is needed.

09.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subdivision 1. Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of 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 with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

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; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

609.205 Manslaughter in the second degree.


A person who causes the death of another by any of the
following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree
and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years
or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:


(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person
creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of
causing death or great bodily harm to another; or


(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous
weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a
deer or other animal; or


(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or
other like dangerous weapon or device; or


(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal,
known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have
caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run
uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to
keep it properly confined; or


(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of
section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder
in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.


If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be
an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4)
that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
@CowboyJD

Just to clarify, your post confirms (not refutes) my post about what the A.G. said in his interview?

That is what I am seeing, but I am not adept at reading/understanding legal language, so I just want to verify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
@CowboyJD

Just to clarify, your post confirms (not refutes) my post about what the A.G. said in his interview?

That is what I am seeing, but I am not adept at reading/understanding legal language, so I just want to verify.
If the knee on the neck is a felony in Minnesota, then yes. Paragraph 2 under unintentional murder is not applicable.
 
And, glory be, it is:

609.221 ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Great bodily harm.

Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
 
People need to prepare themselves for the possibility Ellison will intentionally run this off a bridge specifically to let the guy off and trigger more rioting.

Not saying he will but I’d put it at a 30% chance.
 
@CowboyJD

Just to clarify, your post confirms (not refutes) my post about what the A.G. said in his interview?

That is what I am seeing, but I am not adept at reading/understanding legal language, so I just want to verify.

Actually, it's more complicated than that.

2nd degree murder statute has an intent to kill element generally, but doesn't have an intent to kill requirement if: 1) decedent was killed during the commission or attempted commission of a felony spoken to in the statute, or 3) attempted to inflict great bodily harm upon someone with a protective order of some type against the defendant.

2nd degree manslaughter appears to have no intent element other than culpable negligence.

You speak to hearing the AG saying 2nd Degree required no intent to cause death element.

It's possible you misheard or misinterpreted something he said about 2nd degree manslaughter as applying it to 2nd degree murder.

It's possible that there is case law that I don't know about in Minnesota that led him to have that opinion.

It's possible he misspoke.
 
It's possible you misheard or misinterpreted something he said about 2nd degree manslaughter as applying it to 2nd degree murder.

It's possible that there is case law that I don't know about in Minnesota that led him to have that opinion.

It's possible he misspoke.

Definitely not the first one. The 2nd or 3rd are possible. The interview was this morning on GMA. Someone with more time can try to find the video for confirmation of what I am claiming to have heard.
 
If the knee on the neck is a felony in Minnesota, then yes. Paragraph 2 under unintentional murder is not applicable.

Yes, that is a possibility.

And, glory be, it is:

609.221 ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Great bodily harm.

Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

Glory be, there it really is. Good analysis.

I should point out that I’m about to go stand in a hole and cut a water pipe and get soaked as I attempt to fix a leak. Does that make me smart enough to offer a legal opinion? Answers will vary.

I think you probably got this one right. A scenario where a defendant assaulted a victim and inflicted great bodily harm, would have been committing a felony that caused the death, and that scenario, no intent to cause his death would have to be shown.

@Been Jammin
 
Definitely not the first one. The 2nd or 3rd are possible. The interview was this morning on GMA. Someone with more time can try to find the video for confirmation of what I am claiming to have heard.

Turns out it's none of them.

It's subdivision 2(1) in the statute....which I mentioned.

I'd bet his statement was based upon the theory that the officer committed the felony of Assault in the First Degree and in doing so caused Mr. Floyd's death. Under that theory, the officer would not have to have the intent to cause Mr. Floyd's death....it would have only had to be proven that he committed or attempted to commit the felony assault and Mr. Floyd died as a result of that commission of a felony.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT