SectionC3

Whatevs. Nothing says leadership like standing idly by while the country that he is supposed to lead literally and figuratively burns. He’s a loser.

That was pretty suave of him to quote a Jim Crow era police chief. When the looting starts, the shooting starts. Fuel meet fire.

Obama used to be the president. Trump is the president. And, frankly, trump has done a pretty crappy job in the last several months. last I checked trump is the president of the United States if america. Not of only the 47% percent of the electorate who voted for him in 2016. Not only of the ”red” states. And not only of the self-identified conservatives. He is the president of the entire country. It’s time for him to get off his hands and show a little leadership with respect to a problem that is not of his causing but that is within the ambit of his responsibility to help to resolve.

Nobody said anything about adults being children. Remember GW Bush after 9/11? Reagan after the challenger? That’s how it’s done. Trump is a chump on a number of levels. But this week he also failed the country. In fairness to him, he’s obviously not up to something like this. It’s not who he is. But it’s part of the job, and if he can’t do it then he shouldn’t be the president.

Unfortunately it's becoming political. Democratic turnout will be driven by frustration, with respect to protests, COVID, and the last 3.5 years. Nationalist/deep red Republican turnout will be driven by the usual anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-establishment, nationalist sentiments, coupled with disgust over what "those people" did during the riots. The few people in the middle are the ones to keep an eye on. Impressionable Republicans and independents are critical to both sides right now, and Trump is starting to play this like it's 1968 again. I don't agree with the approach -- I think he has failed the country this week not because there have been riots, but because he is supposed to be a voice of reason, the mourner in chief, and a soothing presence during a time like this. He's been none of those things. But he is making a shrewd selfish political calculation in proceeding as he has done. After all, Nixon won in 1968.

It’s beyond the other three cops. The protestors have complaints that transcend the Floyd incident. And the looters have nothing but crime and anarchy on the mind. This is an historic mess.

According to the AP the man charge is man 2. I looked at the links you posted (thanks; nice job) and man 2 seems to make more sense than man 1 here. good points on your end about reasons for no immediate arrest and on the civil end of things. Nicely done.

We also don’t know what those cops saw and might have been doing at the time. Any criminal liability with respect to those actors is a lot murkier. the speculation here is that the ME’s report was the catalyst for the arrest. As soon as that was in and the prosecutor was comfortable on causation the trigger was pulled on the arrest. The last thing anyone would want here is an arrest and charges defeated by an ME report attributing death to an OD or an underlying medical event. Reasonable cause to believe it was counterfeit, more likely than not.

This is one of the best observations I’ve read on an Internet message board. Well said. We have lost our way.

The country is on fire literally and figuratively and we’re actually having a decent conversation about some of the issues that underlie the literal fire in Minnesota. Please keep your conspiracy theory material out of it for now. Later, fine, we can talk all you want about Russia this and Comey that and we’ll go back to having our usual fun. But this Minnesota stuff is common ground, and important, and we shouldn’t disturb it with something so far afield as this. Thank you.

Not sure. Juggling a couple of things here. Will look later. I’d say doubtful at this point, but we’ll see.

Anything re: any of the other officers?

So they went with the Minnesota equivalent of depraved indifference murder. Note “without intent” and “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind” phrases in the statute. I’m curious to know how the Minnesota legislature and courts have defined “depraved mind.” That’s the key to the charge. In New York State, it’s very difficult to convict of depraved indifference murder in a one-on-one setting. (Read the case Peo v Barboni.) The definition of “depraved mind” there likely is different from the definition of “depraved indifference” here, so who knows. I’m curious whether the prosecutor included a fallback manslaughter charge.

He always has a shot at getting off. If nothing else there’s always a hope for jury nullification. But a manslaughter charge here probably increases the likelihood of conviction for practical and legal reasons because it’s most consistent with the evidence (at least the evidence that I’ve seen).

It’s probably better cast as evidence of recklessness, not of intent, for the reasons that I noted earlier. You can try to argue intent . . . But I’m skeptical for the aforementioned reasons. Murder requires intent, manslaughter requires recklessness. Taking all of the videos, rioting, and histrionics out of this, this case has all the appearances of a manslaughter.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s why we investigate. Practically speaking, intentional murder is going to be tough to prove. You’re going to have to sell a jury on the idea that a cop intended to choke to death the victim in broad daylight in uniform on a somewhat crowded street and while he might have been aware he was being recorded. Maybe we get more information that would support a murder charge. I’m still skeptical not that such a charge will be levied (this officer, in addition to being in pretty deep ess, also has become a political football), but that such a charge would stick based on what we’ve seen to this point.

Please leave this crap out of this thread. We’re actually getting along for once. There will be a time for politics and discussion of such things as that Warren comment and Trump’s twitter comments from last night. But that time isn’t now.

The review here was conducted by a pissed-off mayor and lasted about as long as it took to watch one of the videos of the incident and dismissed the cops immediately. There may be PBA action under the CBA to reinstate one or more of the terminated officers. The employment status of the officers and any DA or State AG criminal investigation operate separately from one another.

Murder normally is a crime based on intent to kill. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t know how easy it would be to convict of intentional murder. Manslaughter (probably the equivalent of man 2 in NYS), again based on what I’ve seen, looks like a likelier charge. But this also is exactly the type of case that could be overcharged, so we could see at least one count of murder 2, man 1, and man 2 each levied in an indictment. I’ll add that this almost certainly is a homicide (that’s not the same as murder), and that the uncertainty with respect to whether a murder charge would stick is part of the reason why it’s important to proceed prudently and investigate before charging.

Disagree. A process must be followed because we have due process of law in this country. In the state criminal context the “badge” doesn’t make for a different review process. It may be that the process is more difficult because of the role played by the person under investigation at the time of what apparently was a homicide here, but there’s no special or different treatment here because the “target” of the investigation acted in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident in question.

That . . . Certainly adds another layer to the onion. How bizarre.

I agree. Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about. This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law. I’d like to leave politics out of this one. It’s nice to find an issue that transcends politics and focuses on our (supposedly but not always) neutral justice and law enforcement systems. There will be a political discussion later, and it’s going to cut both ways, just as it did in 1968. But the focus now should rest on process and the prompt and fair administration of justice.

Sort of. I suspect the “color of law” issue probably arises in the context of 42 USC 1983. But that’s out of my lane. With respect to the most culpable officer, the state criminal case most likely is going to be about culpable mental state (intent to cause death, intent to cause physical injury that resulted in death, recklessly causing death, etc.) and whether the exertion of what in this case was deadly physical force was justified (that is, privileged under the circumstances and therefore lawful). The other officers might have issues with respect to accomplice liability, and depending on what the evidences shows the review might be a lot more complicated with respect to them.

What crime should the officer have been charged with if he was arrested? Intentional murder? Depraved indifference murder (assuming there is such a crime in Minnesota)? Man 1? Man 2? Criminally negligent homicide? And do you want the other cops at the scene to roll on the guy? Maybe you do, depending on what the evidence says. If you jump the gun on the primary target the less culpable guys might completely clam up (I realize they’re unlikely to talk without some sort of cooperation agreement) because they fear a rush to judgment against them, too. (This, of course, also assumes that the prosecutor is willing to accept cooperation from the potentially less culpable officers in exchange for potential leniency.) This case might not be as clear-cut as you think, and for that reason it makes sense to look at everything you can (within a reasonable amount of time) before proceeding against the most culpable officers and potentially the other officers. There are a lot of calculations to be made here. Justice isn’t always an immediate or fast-moving thing.

We’re clear on the basic vocabulary. Frankly the only reason to arrest the most culpable officer now would be to prevent absconder (unlikely here; there’s probably eyes on the guy) or to quell the riots. But to arrest now also kick-starts a process involving indictment, disclosure, and speedy trial considerations. Sometimes it takes a little time to administer justice the right way.