Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar
I beg to differ, the State of Minnesota is the one which charged the officer with 2nd degree murder. I figure if anyone would know more about MN statutes it would be the State prosecutors office that won the case.
|
Here are the relevant statutes:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.18 (defines premeditation)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185 (murder 1)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 (murder 2)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195 (murder 3)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20 (manslaughter 1)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205 (manslaughter 2)
Murder 1 requires premeditation and intent.
Murder 2 requires intent unless it was unintentional while in the process of committing another felony or by a person who has a restraining order
Murder 3 requires depraved mind - which legally means he had to have been judged morally lacking - which means he should never have been hired as a police officer to begin with.
Manslaughter 1 requires intent while in the heat off passion - he wasn't charged with 5th degree assault, in which case MS1 wouldn't need intent.
Manslaughter 2 requires culpable negligence - i.e. "he should've known better."
The murder 3 was initially thrown out before an speaks cost reinstated it.
For unintentional murder 2, he should have been charged with whatever felony he was alleged to be in the process of committing.
The only one that logically applies is MS2. They never established intent, premeditation, etc.
This is a case of an overcharge by a politically-motivated AG, relying upon an uneducated jury to not understand the charges and to react emotionally to prosecution testimony.
Don't get me wrong, Chauvin no saint. But, between prosecutorial overcharge, what appears to potentially be an inadequate defense in light of the reinstatement of the murder 3 charge, and interference by politicians, this will be going to appeal.
Doesn't matter though, since the mob is gonna riot no matter what.