Third degree murder and manslaughter

Stumpfan

QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Gold Member
Feb 14, 2003
162,528
33,772
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.
Wow. Just wow.
 

SonofSeaborn

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 12, 2018
2,734
6,466
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.
If you’re insinuating that the other officers should be charged as well, you’re an idiot.
 

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
If you’re insinuating that the other officers should be charged as well, you’re an idiot.
Why am I an idiot? I think what you meant is, “I disagree,” followed by why. I think some of y’all forget we can have discussions, even disagreements, without it being some big adversarial thing where we insult one another.
 

Mikecb22

YOUR 'BAD' UNCLE
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2004
44,383
148,785
113
Auburn
Why am I an idiot? I think what you meant is, “I disagree,” followed by why. I think some of y’all forget we can have discussions, even disagreements, without it being some big adversarial thing where we insult one another.
I challenged you to a game of one on one and you never even replied.
 

SonofSeaborn

All-American
Gold Member
Apr 12, 2018
2,734
6,466
113
Why am I an idiot? I think what you meant is, “I disagree,” followed by why. I think some of y’all forget we can have discussions, even disagreements, without it being some big adversarial thing where we insult one another.
It’s not a good use of time to argue with a ridiculous premise. You either enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an idiot or nutjob.
 

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
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.
I agree but we may not see many more charges out of this. The two officers on the ground are pushing for getting up and one makes a request to give aid. They did not show up together and it is going to be hard to push they had intent to do bodily harm from the earlier actions. It is only the fact that they stayed too long, they did not throw him down, that moves it to manslaughter. The guys not on the neck may get nothing but fired.

I do not know a ton of officers but all I do say it is necessary to sit on them until they calm down. All said they have no idea why they are still on him that long especially after it appeared he stopped struggling. It is just appalling that they seem to not give a darn about him crying, but they say all of the criminals they arrest put on a show. Not one of them said it was normal or acceptable to take that long to get off someone.
 

GG32

FLIGHT RISK
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2012
19,222
38,118
113
I like how people itt are arguing about the law with a guy who graduated law school.

All I know is that if this guy is acquitted they are gonna burn MN to the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnighttulips

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
It’s not a good use of time to argue with a ridiculous premise. You either enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an idiot or nutjob.
I don’t see how it is useful to dismiss me as stupid or crazy, but you do you my man. It’s all good.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make their idea stupid, nor does it make them stupid. I may be right, I may be wrong, but there’s a parallel between this situation and the one I described. Differences? Of course there are. But I think I explained the concept. Hell, I’m not even sure if I think it should absolutely be applied as such in this scenario, but I do think there’s some validity to the idea. Again, it is fine to disagree. I’m sorry it’s so upsetting to you.
 

cookedw

Bunker Legend
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2005
65,396
56,255
113
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.
This still doesn't make any logical sense when discussing the topic at hand
Why am I an idiot? I think what you meant is, “I disagree,” followed by why. I think some of y’all forget we can have discussions, even disagreements, without it being some big adversarial thing where we insult one another.
He went overboard by calling you an idiot, but you have haven't really given logical reasoning.

You keep wanting to compare a scenario (4 guys goes into rob the place but one guy kills someone) to a scenario that has ZERO comparison (cops and Floyd).

I'm all for discussion of differing opinions, but it's hard to have a discussion with someone making an argument/opinion that isn't logical.

The cops did not have an intent to commit a crime, therefore you can't make the comparison you are trying to make.
 

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
I agree but we may not see many more charges out of this. The two officers on the ground are pushing for getting up and one makes a request to give aid. They did not show up together and it is going to be hard to push they had intent to do bodily harm from the earlier actions. It is only the fact that they stayed too long, they did not throw him down, that moves it to manslaughter. The guys not on the neck may get nothing but fired.

I do not know a ton of officers but all I do say it is necessary to sit on them until they calm down. All said they have no idea why they are still on him that long especially after it appeared he stopped struggling. It is just appalling that they seem to not give a darn about him crying, but they say all of the criminals they arrest put on a show. Not one of them said it was normal or acceptable to take that long to get off someone.
Good points. It is a difficult scenario to just put in a box. And what is also crazy is that prior to the social media age, it might be that no one ever questioned it, let alone called for the cop to get arrested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenews

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
I like how people itt are arguing about the law with a guy who graduated law school.

All I know is that if this guy is acquitted they are gonna burn MN to the ground.
In my experience going to law school doesn’t actually make you smart. I know plenty of dumb lawyers. Hell, I might be one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stutsman23

MattAU05

'FULL HOUSE' FAN
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2010
47,423
84,073
113
37
Daphne, AL
This still doesn't make any logical sense when discussing the topic at hand


He went overboard by calling you an idiot, but you have haven't really given logical reasoning.

You keep wanting to compare a scenario (4 guys goes into rob the place but one guy kills someone) to a scenario that has ZERO comparison (cops and Floyd).

I'm all for discussion of differing opinions, but it's hard to have a discussion with someone making an argument/opinion that isn't logical.

The cops did not have an intent to commit a crime, therefore you can't make the comparison you are trying to make.
I think I explained it somewhere in this thread, but maybe not, so I’ll try again. You don’t have to have specific intent to commit murder to get charged for someone’s death. You can be executing another felony and someone dies in the course of it, you can be charged with felony murder. As to them not having intent to commit any crime, that doesn’t really matter. Intent to commit the act is what is relevant, not knowledge that your act is a crime. I think you’re saying they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, so it couldn’t be a crime. Which isn’t the case. But maybe I’m missing your point. If so, my apologies.
 

cookedw

Bunker Legend
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2005
65,396
56,255
113
I think I explained it somewhere in this thread, but maybe not, so I’ll try again. You don’t have to have specific intent to commit murder to get charged for someone’s death. You can be executing another felony and someone dies in the course of it, you can be charged with felony murder. As to them not having intent to commit any crime, that doesn’t really matter. Intent to commit the act is what is relevant, not knowledge that your act is a crime. I think you’re saying they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, so it couldn’t be a crime. Which isn’t the case. But maybe I’m missing your point. If so, my apologies.
If you, me and two others go into a has station to get snacks and you, with no one having any knowledge about what you are about to do, decide to rob and murder while there, we are not accomplices and won't be charged with felony murder

The other cops were not in any way committing "another felony" when the murder happened, which would be needed to make your "scenario" logical
 

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
Good points. It is a difficult scenario to just put in a box. And what is also crazy is that prior to the social media age, it might be that no one ever questioned it, let alone called for the cop to get arrested.
This is what looks to be the scenario:
1) Got a guy passing a supposed counterfeit 20$ with his buddies, told to leave.
2) Guy comes back with another 20$ and the cops are called.
3) Original 2 cops arrive and get man cuffed and wait for help.
4) Four cops walk him around to put him in car and he falls out, at which point they pin him to the ground.
5) Guy pleads for them to get up but they do not for 8 minutes, with the final few minute a couple of the cops suggest getting up.
6) Guy may have died from his heart attack and the officers 2 minutes later decide to finally get off the man.

So if I got this right I feel very comfortable with depraved mind officers actions leading to his death. The question I have is do you get all three of the other officers of being accomplices because the man on top is the one who is in best position to tell if he is in need says no? I see firing them because they are not competent to serve. What should the charge be because I am afraid if you go for accomplice they may all walk.
 

aupit

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
5,312
1,733
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.
“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.”

Here, you seem to be implying that all four could be charged with a capital offense under your hypothetical. This is not so.

First of all, that’s not a capital offense. Capital offenses have an intentional murder plus an enumerated circumstance elevating the murder. It looks like you’re describing shoplifting or some other basic theft; there is no corresponding capital offense for murder during the course of a theft.

If you add some facts, like you did in your response, maybe you could get to a burglary or robbery, and a murder during the course of a first- or second-degree burglary or robbery is a capital offense, but then you run into a bigger problem that is absolutely fatal — capital murder requires a specific intent to kill. If four guys go into steal something and one of them decides to kill someone, the other three cannot be convicted of a capital offense. Only those that intended that a person be killed could be convicted of a capital offense.

Maybe you could argue felony murder, because that doesn’t require a specific intent to kill, but only the intent to commit the underlying felony. However, my thoughts on that are most thefts aren’t felonies and, even if the guys in your hypothetical are committing a felony theft, theft isn’t enumerated in the felony murder statute. There is a catch-all for other inherently dangerous felonies; if you want to make the case that shoplifting is inherently dangerous, good luck. If you’re talking about a murder during the course of a first- or second-degree burglary or robbery, then, yes, the other three could get felony murder.

To your broader point, sure, accomplice liability does apply to capital offenses. Ulysses Charles Sneed, for instance, is on death row as a non-triggerman — if I recall correctly, he and another entered a gas station to commit a robbery. Both were armed and his accomplice killed the cashier. Sneed got the capital offense based on a jury finding that he intended the death, even though he wasn’t directly responsible. Also, he was held vicariously liable for the manner in which his accomplice committed the murder as the aggravator heinous, atrocious, or cruel was hung on him. But you’ve got to have the intent to kill to get convicted of a capital offense. Just being present isn’t enough.