Third degree murder and manslaughter

auburnra

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 1, 2004
21,802
18,086
113
Bout what I figured. Just not enough to convict for murder (1st degree).


Edit... 3rd degree murder

Minnesota
Offense Mandatory sentencing
Third Degree Murder Maximum of 25 years
Second Degree Murder Maximum of 40 years
First Degree Murder Life without parole or life with parole eligibility after 30 years
 
Last edited:

auburnra

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 1, 2004
21,802
18,086
113
Third degree murder. Up to 25 years if convicted.
Yeah, should have said 1st... which is what allows for the death penalty (I think I'm correct on this, but don't riot me if I'm not).

That is what people want.... well, a lot of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demeat

demeat

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
28,023
26,196
113
Did they confirm they were coworkers in the presser?
 

Stumpfan

QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Gold Member
Feb 14, 2003
162,528
33,772
113
Well, planning could have started right when he put his knee on his neck and thought “I can make this look accidental.”
That would be Second degree (intentional). Can’t plan once you’re in position to murder.
 

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
Depraved indifference murder.
Just one arrest too.

Observation:

If four guys go into a store to steal something, and one guy pulls out a gun (or even just gets in a scuffle with) and kills the cashier, all four are arrested for murder. Many people have been executed in the United States under the idea of accomplice liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnighttulips

Stumpfan

QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Gold Member
Feb 14, 2003
162,528
33,772
113
Just one arrest too.

Observation:

If four guys go into a store to steal something, and one guy pulls out a gun (or even just gets in a scuffle with) and kills the cashier, all four are arrested for murder. Many people have been executed in the United States under the idea of accomplice liability.
That isn’t the case for police officers. They have to be there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattAU05

demeat

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
28,023
26,196
113
That would be Second degree (intentional). Can’t plan once you’re in position to murder.
Yep. Go with that one. If he is that stupid he probably needs to die anyway to rid society of an idiot. But he isn’t stupid. He knew what he was doing. At best he thought he was administering an unorthodox sleep hold position.
 

aupit

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
5,312
1,733
113
Just one arrest too.

Observation:

If four guys go into a store to steal something, and one guy pulls out a gun (or even just gets in a scuffle with) and kills the cashier, all four are arrested for murder. Many people have been executed in the United States under the idea of accomplice liability.
I'm not sure how far back you're reaching but that isn't the law today, anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumpfan

cookedw

Bunker Legend
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2005
65,396
56,255
113
Just one arrest too.

Observation:

If four guys go into a store to steal something, and one guy pulls out a gun (or even just gets in a scuffle with) and kills the cashier, all four are arrested for murder. Many people have been executed in the United States under the idea of accomplice liability.
That's really not a good analogy. In your scenarios all four guys went into the store to commit a crime. In the case of the cops, they all did not roll up (separate or together) with the intent to commit a crime.

But as I said earlier, any cop who witnessed the cop that has been arrested and did not try to stop him after he was neutralized deserved to be charged with something. But I'm not sure you can charge them at the level of the one who actually killed him.
 

S-Town Enthusiast

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2017
15,340
38,046
113
Miami
Just one arrest too.

Observation:

If four guys go into a store to steal something, and one guy pulls out a gun (or even just gets in a scuffle with) and kills the cashier, all four are arrested for murder. Many people have been executed in the United States under the idea of accomplice liability.
More applicable:

Four employees of a store are working and one of their fellow employees sees a guy shoplifting and shoots him on site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cookedw

aupit

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
5,312
1,733
113
That's really not a good analogy. In your scenarios all four guys went into the store to commit a crime. In the case of the cops, they all did not roll up (separate or together) with the intent to commit a crime.

But as I said earlier, any cop who witnessed the cop that has been arrested and did not try to stop him after he was neutralized deserved to be charged with something. But I'm not sure you can charge them at the level of the one who actually killed him.
You've touched on a good point -- accomplice liability still requires that the accomplice has the intent that the other party commit the crime. I'm not sure the assaulting officer had any specific intent; makes it hard for the other officers to have the specific intent to be an accomplice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AULogistics

IlliniTiger

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
3,453
2,448
113
Yeah, should have said 1st... which is what allows for the death penalty (I think I'm correct on this, but don't riot me if I'm not).

That is what people want.... well, a lot of them.
MN got rid of the death penalty over a century ago.
First degree means he planned it beforehand which seems highly unlikely.
These seem like the correct charges.
 

yy4u

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2007
30,326
31,990
113
Thank you. This is a good first step IMO, it’s just sad that it took so much “convincing”
There is always some hesitation with charging police, and for good reason. But this case is the fastest I’ve seen them provide officer names and arrest. From the videos I’ve watched, I think that there is no doubt that excessive force was used with no regard for the suspect’s safety.

That prolonged pressure under the guise of subduing the suspect is the primary factor leading to his death. Unnecessary and excessive.

What appears to happen is that as the officers take the suspect into custody and are approaching the squad car, the suspect takes a dive, possibly claiming a health issue. The officers perceive this action as resisting arrest, and a guise to avoid compliance with getting into the back of the squad car.

Protocol is to subdue the suspect, and call for medical assistance at the scene. But then officer frustration leads to excessive force, by subduing the suspect in a potentially deadly position for an extended period of time, that appears way beyond necessary or safe.

The officers at the scene show poor judgment and a total disregard for the situation and potential consequences. It’s a case where an officer becomes emotionally charged and takes it out on a suspect. Then the others stand by and let it happen.

Jmo based on what I’ve watched.
 

yy4u

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2007
30,326
31,990
113
Medical report said he didn’t die from asphyxiation. Sounds like he had a panic attack and died from heart problems.
This would be the defense’s best case, especially if drug abuse was part of heart issues. Regardless though, the police officer using force to subdue the suspect for an extended period of time is a significant contributor to the death.

It almost seems punitive for suspect not getting into squad car and claiming health issues. Pinning him for nearly 10 minutes is poor judgment, excessive, and unnecessary. At one point multiple officers are pinning the suspect to subdue him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattAU05

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
I'm not sure how far back you're reaching but that isn't the law today, anywhere.
Are you telling me that accomplice liability isn’t the law anywhere? Hmm. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I will stipulate that there’s obviously more nuance to it. Like if everyone goes to shoplift and one dude, unbeknownst to everyone, brings a gun and kills the clerk, that’s different. But if all of them roll up with the intent to use force, and one guy goes too far, they’ll all be charged with murder. That’s why there are people on death row in shooting deaths who never pulled the trigger or touched the gun. That’s not speculation, that’s fact. I’ve worked on appeals investigations for one or two of them. One juror I spoke to looked sick to his stomach when I told him the gunman got life while the accomplice got the death penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenews

Stumpfan

QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Gold Member
Feb 14, 2003
162,528
33,772
113
Are you telling me that accomplice liability isn’t the law anywhere? Hmm. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I will stipulate that there’s obviously more nuance to it. Like if everyone goes to shoplift and one dude, unbeknownst to everyone, brings a gun and kills the clerk, that’s different. But if all of them roll up with the intent to use force, and one guy goes too far, they’ll all be charged with murder. That’s why there are people on death row in shooting deaths who never pulled the trigger or touched the gun. That’s not speculation, that’s fact. I’ve worked on appeals investigations for one or two of them. One juror I spoke to looked sick to his stomach when I told him the gunman got life while the accomplice got the death penalty.
And that has zero to do with 4 policemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cookedw

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
And that has zero to do with 4 policemen.
Criminal law shouldn’t be applied different just because you’re law enforcement. If you commit a crime, you commit a crime. It is irrelevant if they were police officers.

Now if you’re arguing that it wasn’t a joint venture, that’s fine. Maybe they had no idea he was on the dude or that he was going to be on him. There are plenty of great, more specific arguments. My only point was that accomplice liability is a thing, and if you strip off the uniforms and it is just four guys standing around and one of them kills another guys in the same way, you probably have four arrests. Again, it is obviously more nuanced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachb4au

cookedw

Bunker Legend
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2005
65,396
56,255
113
Criminal law shouldn’t be applied different just because you’re law enforcement. If you commit a crime, you commit a crime. It is irrelevant if they were police officers.

Now if you’re arguing that it wasn’t a joint venture, that’s fine. Maybe they had no idea he was on the dude or that he was going to be on him. There are plenty of great, more specific arguments. My only point was that accomplice liability is a thing, and if you strip off the uniforms and it is just four guys standing around and one of them kills another guys in the same way, you probably have four arrests. Again, it is obviously more nuanced.
Again, your entire premise has nothing to do with the cop issue. Not sure why you keep pushing this angle
 

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
Again, your entire premise has nothing to do with the cop issue. Not sure why you keep pushing this angle
I’m not pushing an angle. I made observation. People had opinions about it and disagreements with it, and I’ve replied. In my replies I’ve granted that there’s a lot more to the story and different ways of viewing it. But I guess if I reply to you it means I’m pushing an angle further by virtue of the reply? I disagree, but I guess it doesn’t really matter does it?

At any rate, my premise (if I even really have one...it was more a thought than a premise, but we can keep talking about it since you want to) is that if you remove the fact that they are cops and put them in an otherwise identical situation as civilians, there’s a good chance the other ones would’ve been arrested as accomplices. Just like the cop himself would’ve been arrested immediately instead of days later. I’m not commenting on whether I like how accomplices are treated just like the direct perpetrator, nor am I saying there would be evidence to convict. I’m only comment on how the profession of the four men has played a role in how they’ve been treated, which I think isn’t terribly debatable.