George Floyd

[DJQuag]

On the subject of Floyd and his death.

Can we put this to bed and all agree that neither side is going to ever going to accept the other's, and will think anyone who disagrees with them is either a radical commie or a Hitler worshipper?

We don't know all the facts yet, but from what's out there at the moment looks like the guy was high as *censored* and yet also had some dickhole lean his bodyweight on his neck for nine minutes. Plenty of evidence out there for any and everyone to feed their predecided opinions.

What I will say is this. In my job over here I've got something called duty of care. There's bound to be something similar in the States, might go by a different name though. What it means is if someone is in your care or custody, you have a duty to safeguard their well being because of the very nature of your control over them. And that's why I'm coming down hard, 100 percent, against the officers who were present when Floyd was arrested.

High he might have been, but they had him securely restrained. If they knew he was high, that makes it even worse.

[Crunch]

On the subject of Floyd and his death.

Can we put this to bed and all agree that neither side is going to ever going to accept the other's, and will think anyone who disagrees with them is either a radical commie or a Hitler worshipper?

We don't know all the facts yet, but from what's out there at the moment looks like the guy was high as *censored* and yet also had some dickhole lean his bodyweight on his neck for nine minutes. Plenty of evidence out there for any and everyone to feed their predecided opinions.

What I will say is this. In my job over here I've got something called duty of care. There's bound to be something similar in the States, might go by a different name though. What it means is if someone is in your care or custody, you have a duty to safeguard their well being because of the very nature of your control over them. And that's why I'm coming down hard, 100 percent, against the officers who were present when Floyd was arrested.

High he might have been, but they had him securely restrained. If they knew he was high, that makes it even worse.

What do you mean? I think very nearly everyone agreed that Floyd's death was a criminal act and called for the officer involved to be prosecuted. The officer was quickly fired, charged, and arrested. Floyd's death clearly had something to do with his health and drug abuse but it was Chauvin that did it and he's going down for it. You'd have to look pretty hard to find someone that doesn't support that course of action - it was an incredibly bi-partisan moment.

Where there's disagreement is allowing rampant rioting and looting under the guise of "protest".

[TheDeamon]

It gets a little more complicated than that I think. There are legal liability reasons why they probably don't provide treatment, as screwed up as that may seem. Mostly in the form of lawsuits from criminals who survived because of such efforts, and subsequently sued them for "services rendered."

I don't work in law enforcement, but I highly doubt the law would support letting someone die deliberately to avoid possible lawsuits, especially if you have first aid training, and especially if your employment is as a first responder. But let's get serious, if you are a human being and you let someone die to 'avoid getting in trouble', then you are a monster. There is no hedging on this point.

Its a little more complicated than that, not every state has "Good Samaritan laws" on the books, and even for those that do, there is the added wrinkle of how well such a law would hold up against a scenario where the "Samaritan" in question is the person who them in the first place.

Then on top of that, you have the matter of whether or not the officers in question have been trained in First Aid anytime recently, and more particular, trained in rendering such aid to someone in the context of a traumatic injuries like gunshot wounds... Rather then just the Heimlich Maneuver and CPR.

They've probably had enough training to know that in a number of cases, if you don't know what you're doing, trying to do something can sometimes make things worse... Which brings us back to (personal) liability concerns when it comes to giving medical aid to someone they just gunned down. If they try to give assistance, but a ME determines they made it worse, and the person dies, they're in for even more legal pain than if the person simply bleeds out while EMT's are rushing to the scene.

But at least in regards to training and (lack of) departmental policies, we can ask the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/why-first-aid-is-often-lacking-in-the-moments-after-a-police-shooting.html

[DJQuag]

On the subject of Floyd and his death.

Can we put this to bed and all agree that neither side is going to ever going to accept the other's, and will think anyone who disagrees with them is either a radical commie or a Hitler worshipper?

We don't know all the facts yet, but from what's out there at the moment looks like the guy was high as *censored* and yet also had some dickhole lean his bodyweight on his neck for nine minutes. Plenty of evidence out there for any and everyone to feed their predecided opinions.

What I will say is this. In my job over here I've got something called duty of care. There's bound to be something similar in the States, might go by a different name though. What it means is if someone is in your care or custody, you have a duty to safeguard their well being because of the very nature of your control over them. And that's why I'm coming down hard, 100 percent, against the officers who were present when Floyd was arrested.

High he might have been, but they had him securely restrained. If they knew he was high, that makes it even worse.

What do you mean? I think very nearly everyone agreed that Floyd's death was a criminal act and called for the officer involved to be prosecuted. The officer was quickly fired, charged, and arrested. Floyd's death clearly had something to do with his health and drug abuse but it was Chauvin that did it and he's going down for it. You'd have to look pretty hard to find someone that doesn't support that course of action - it was an incredibly bi-partisan moment.

Where there's disagreement is allowing rampant rioting and looting under the guise of "protest".

Look, I am absolutely not disagreeing that the riots or other disorder are justified. The people doing that are idiots hoping to take advantage.

It's about all the incidents that didn't necessarily end in death. It's about the things that weren't caught on camera. What the people protesting have experienced or heard about.

There is never an excuse for violent rioting. End of. I'm there with you. On the other hand, judiciously used legal protesting, I feel, should be supported.

[Fenring]

Its a little more complicated than that, not every state has "Good Samaritan laws" on the books, and even for those that do, there is the added wrinkle of how well such a law would hold up against a scenario where the "Samaritan" in question is the person who them in the first place.

An officer of the law is not a bystander, so not sure why Good Samaritan laws are relevant in this discussion. Police afaik are first responders. But you miss my point. If there's a guy dying in front of you, and you are uninterested in that, boom, sociopath. No real need to go further than that. If you literally don't know what to do to help, what happened to just kneeling over and trying to talk to the person, "are you still with us? don't go to sleep!" and all that. How about just being worried that they'll die, even if you know you're helpless to stop it? But nah, you need to watch these videos, they shuffle around the area, an entire group of dudes (out of whom probably a few do know CPR), not even really looking at the dying person, and certainly unconcerned. I've seen MANY videos of this sort. That's not a normal human reaction to a dying person, especially one you shot.

Then on top of that, you have the matter of whether or not the officers in question have been trained in First Aid anytime recently, and more particular, trained in rendering such aid to someone in the context of a traumatic injuries like gunshot wounds... Rather then just the Heimlich Maneuver and CPR.

If that was the entire issue then they could get a refresher course once every year or two. That's the same as corporate people do to renew their certification and although it's not ideal it's at least something. If someone was bleeding on my floor, sure it would waste time to have to flip through my notebook for what to do, but at least I'd be trying. I don't buy the "oh they're out of practice" argument.

[DonaldD]

It gets a little more complicated than that I think. There are legal liability reasons why they probably don't provide treatment, as screwed up as that may seem. Mostly in the form of lawsuits from criminals who survived because of such efforts, and subsequently sued them for "services rendered."

I don't work in law enforcement, but I highly doubt the law would support letting someone die deliberately to avoid possible lawsuits, especially if you have first aid training, and especially if your employment is as a first responder. But let's get serious, if you are a human being and you let someone die to 'avoid getting in trouble', then you are a monster. There is no hedging on this point.

Its a little more complicated than that, not every state has "Good Samaritan laws" on the books, and even for those that do, there is the added wrinkle of how well such a law would hold up against a scenario where the "Samaritan" in question is the person who them in the first place.

"Duty of Care" is not the same as 'Good Samaritan laws" - it is a concept of common law, and specifically relates to the police generally having a responsibility to protect individuals from dangers the police have created as a result of their own actions.

[DJQuag]

On the subject of Floyd and his death.

Can we put this to bed and all agree that neither side is going to ever going to accept the other's, and will think anyone who disagrees with them is either a radical commie or a Hitler worshipper?

We don't know all the facts yet, but from what's out there at the moment looks like the guy was high as *censored* and yet also had some dickhole lean his bodyweight on his neck for nine minutes. Plenty of evidence out there for any and everyone to feed their predecided opinions.

What I will say is this. In my job over here I've got something called duty of care. There's bound to be something similar in the States, might go by a different name though. What it means is if someone is in your care or custody, you have a duty to safeguard their well being because of the very nature of your control over them. And that's why I'm coming down hard, 100 percent, against the officers who were present when Floyd was arrested.

High he might have been, but they had him securely restrained. If they knew he was high, that makes it even worse.

What do you mean? I think very nearly everyone agreed that Floyd's death was a criminal act and called for the officer involved to be prosecuted. The officer was quickly fired, charged, and arrested. Floyd's death clearly had something to do with his health and drug abuse but it was Chauvin that did it and he's going down for it. You'd have to look pretty hard to find someone that doesn't support that course of action - it was an incredibly bi-partisan moment.

Where there's disagreement is allowing rampant rioting and looting under the guise of "protest".

What I mean is, he was securely retained. At that point, his health, under duty of care, does not just become Chauvin's problem. It was all of the police officer's. It became their duty.

If they are going to detain him and restrain his rights, then they also need to take care of his health. Is this not fair play?

They didn't actually drop the knee, but they were there and they *could* have stopped it. That becomes a thing, legally. Most especially if you have that duty of care. Again, Crunch is starting to act like it's not a thing in the States, is it a thing there?

Ya know, maybe he was high. Maybe he was just some drugged up person from the wrong side of the tracks.

Doesn't matter. The same laws the same white people laid down, those cops are still guilty.

[TheDeamon]

What I mean is, he was securely retained. At that point, his health, under duty of care, does not just become Chauvin's problem. It was all of the police officer's. It became their duty.

If they are going to detain him and restrain his rights, then they also need to take care of his health. Is this not fair play?

They didn't actually drop the knee, but they were there and they *could* have stopped it. That becomes a thing, legally. Most especially if you have that duty of care. Again, Crunch is starting to act like it's not a thing in the States, is it a thing there?

Ya know, maybe he was high. Maybe he was just some drugged up person from the wrong side of the tracks.

Doesn't matter. The same laws the same white people laid down, those cops are still guilty.

Duty of Care does exist in the US Legal system as well to my understanding, although it gets complicated and often has blame deflected onto the organization rather than the people in it. To further confuse things, George Floyd was in one of those weird legal "grey zones" where so far as the officers were concerned, they were still in the apprehension stage of things, as he wasn't "in custody" in the cruiser or otherwise "awaiting transport" as he had (evidently) just forcefully removed himself from the cruiser.

So "assumed custody" could be disputed. How well that defense would work, that's open to a very wide and far ranging debate.

[DJQuag]

I get what you're saying and I appreciate the response, but I'm not seeing much of a grey zone here. The guy was handcuffed, face down on the pavement, for nine minutes minimum with Chauvin's knee pressing into his neck. Grey zones are, to my understanding, supposed to revolve around areas of uncertainty. There was nothing uncertain about whether Floyd was safely contained and under arrest. This is so apparent that even the conservatives (no offense) have been out there saying that yeah, this was outrageous.

[wmLambert]

That is why Murder 3 was the appropriate charge. Moving it to Murder 2 opens too many defense opportunities. This will now take months or years to litigate, if a jury pool can even be drawn.

[TheDrake]

That is why Murder 3 was the appropriate charge. Moving it to Murder 2 opens too many defense opportunities. This will now take months or years to litigate, if a jury pool can even be drawn.

well:

Local prosecutors previously charged Chauvin with third-degree murder, which is punishable by up to 25 years in prison, and second-degree manslaughter, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years. Ellison changed the first charge to second-degree murder, increasing the maximum sentence to 40 years.

So they changed it from 25/10 to 40/10.

Ellison apparently agreed with Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and Minnesota criminal attorney Albert Turner Goins, who argued that the third-degree murder charge against Chauvin was inappropriate. Minnesota law defines that offense as causing someone's death by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Tribe and Goins noted that state courts have interpreted the statute as limiting the charge to "reckless or wanton acts…without special regard to their effect on any particular person." Instead they recommended the sort of second-degree murder charge that Ellison has now filed.

IT sounds like based on the state court precedent, it might have been harder to prove 3rd degree - but I'm no expert.

As for selecting a jury, they'd better not pull the trick they did to get Rodney King's assailants off the hook.

[cherrypoptart]

Are they supposed to get a jury of their peers or a jury of their victim's peers?

[TheDrake]

You realize that peers simply means regular citizens, right? As opposed to magistrates or nobles. Not your friends and family, or people that share your ethnic background.

[DJQuag]

I actually agree with you here. In my opinion, the charge should have been manslaughter. I've got no reason to believe that Chauvin was trying to kill him. Rather, it was depraved indifference in regard to his actions that ended up killing someone, when a normal person would have stepped back and said, "Oh, I shouldn't do this, it might kill them."

It's like drunk driving. We do charge them with manslaughter when they kill someone, but it's because despite the fact they drove home drunk 100 times before and didn't kill anyone a reasonable person would look on their actions and agree that they should have known their actions *could* kill someone.

[Kasandra]

I'll speculate without knowing that I'm not 100% sure he didn't know what could happen. His record speaks of disrespect for members of the public. He could have gone just a little further than he could take back knowing what might happen and not caring. Police rarely pay any penalty when subjects, especially black subjects, die at the scene. Speculating again without evidence, he may have gone there on purpose ;hence Murder 2.

[TheDrake]

I actually agree with you here. In my opinion, the charge should have been manslaughter. I've got no reason to believe that Chauvin was trying to kill him. Rather, it was depraved indifference in regard to his actions that ended up killing someone, when a normal person would have stepped back and said, "Oh, I shouldn't do this, it might kill them."

It's like drunk driving. We do charge them with manslaughter when they kill someone, but it's because despite the fact they drove home drunk 100 times before and didn't kill anyone a reasonable person would look on their actions and agree that they should have known their actions *could* kill someone.

He doesn't have to be trying to kill him, the second degree count is based on it happening accidentally during the commission of a felony as I understand it. The felony is the degree of assault.

Minnesota code for MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Emphasis theirs, I just don't want to retype it. Subd. 1 does indeed talk about intentional murders, but this is the applicable one.

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.

[rightleft22]

Getting convictions on police with the current laws are very difficult. I would like to see new laws or murder/assault statute specifically directed towards police conduct   

[DJQuag]

I actually agree with you here. In my opinion, the charge should have been manslaughter. I've got no reason to believe that Chauvin was trying to kill him. Rather, it was depraved indifference in regard to his actions that ended up killing someone, when a normal person would have stepped back and said, "Oh, I shouldn't do this, it might kill them."

It's like drunk driving. We do charge them with manslaughter when they kill someone, but it's because despite the fact they drove home drunk 100 times before and didn't kill anyone a reasonable person would look on their actions and agree that they should have known their actions *could* kill someone.

He doesn't have to be trying to kill him, the second degree count is based on it happening accidentally during the commission of a felony as I understand it. The felony is the degree of assault.

Minnesota code for MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Emphasis theirs, I just don't want to retype it. Subd. 1 does indeed talk about intentional murders, but this is the applicable one.

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.

Yeah, seeing the statutes in Minnesota I can see where it's getting a bit sticky.

I've always thought murder one was "I'm going to kill someone next week," and then they go through with it.

Murder two was a bar fight or someone walking in on their spouse in bed with someone else and doing something unfortunate in the heat of the moment.

And manslaughter/murder 3 basically being what I described above. I'm understanding if the actual state laws make that more complicated.

[Kasandra]

I think murder 2 in most states could be described as a murder of opportunity rather than premeditation (murder 1).

[TheDeamon]

Minnesota code for MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Emphasis theirs, I just don't want to retype it. Subd. 1 does indeed talk about intentional murders, but this is the applicable one.

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

Cause the death of a human being - check
without intent to effect the death of any person - reasonable conclusion given current evidence.
while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense - Uhhhhhhhhhh, this one might be a but a high bar for them to clear. I'm reading this as an "and" clause because of the whole "while committing or attempting to", you need to meet all three conditions for the charge to stick. They only have a clear case for two.
The rest of that clause was N/A

(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.

Second clause is also n/a while some may want to read "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 being relevant, it isn't talking about physical restraints, it's talking about legal restraints as per " under an order for protection" which isn't to mention the issue of "flipping" who the perpetrator is in this case if you wanted to read it as applying to a physical restraint.

[TheDeamon]

I think murder 2 in most states could be described as a murder of opportunity rather than premeditation (murder 1).

No, that could fall under murder 1.

Murder 2 is generally any "unintended death" that occurs in the process of committing a crime where it is "reasonable to conclude" that a confrontation(/death) may occur as a consequence of the act.

That why there typically are more generic homicide/manslaughter laws on the books as well. To deal with the non-criminal situations where people end up dead for one reason or another without premeditation. (Such as the enraged husband killing the man found in bed with his wife)

[TheDeamon]

I think murder 2 in most states could be described as a murder of opportunity rather than premeditation (murder 1).

No, that could fall under murder 1.

Murder 2 is generally any "unintended death" that occurs in the process of committing a crime where it is "reasonable to conclude" that a confrontation(/death) may occur as a consequence of the act.

To clarify the distinction here:
"A murder of opportunity" where the perp decides to kill someone "because they can" is no longer causing an "unintended death" and thus will go up for Murder 1.

While a perp who kills someone while defending themselves while in the process of carrying out a crime, would fall under murder 2.

Likewise, an arsonist who sets fire to a building that they believed to be unoccupied, but had someone in it who subsequently dies, would be brought up on murder 2, as the victim died as a consequence of the crime of Arson being committed against the building they were in.

Meanwhile the person who knowingly set fire to a building that has people in it could face murder 1 charges should that fire kill someone.

The biggest challenge in a Murder 1 trial is establishing both knowledge and intent when it comes to the death of another person.

The problem they have with the Murder 2 charge for the officer in the George Floyd case is the state law requires another felony to have been carried out(or attempted) by the officer(s) in connection with Floyd's death. If they cannot get a jury to convict the officer(s) for that "other felony" then the Murder 2 case against them immediately falls apart.

[Kasandra]

The problem they have with the Murder 2 charge for the officer in the George Floyd case is the state law requires another felony to have been carried out(or attempted) by the officer(s) in connection with Floyd's death. If they cannot get a jury to convict the officer(s) for that "other felony" then the Murder 2 case against them immediately falls apart.

TheDeamon, I don't know where you're getting your definition of Murder 2.  According to Minnesota law, it includes the following:

Second-degree murder can be an intentional killing, but it is not as serious as first-degree murder. Second degree murder can be charged when a defendant intentionally kills another human being but the murder is not premediated. Second-degree murder may result when a person kills out of an intense emotional response or impulse. Additionally, killing someone during a drive-by shooting, killing someone during the commission of a crime that is not sexual assault or killing someone unintentionally while intended to inflict great physical harm to a victim for whom an order of protection was obtained can result in second-degree murder charges. Second-degree murder has a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison.

[TheDeamon]

The problem they have with the Murder 2 charge for the officer in the George Floyd case is the state law requires another felony to have been carried out(or attempted) by the officer(s) in connection with Floyd's death. If they cannot get a jury to convict the officer(s) for that "other felony" then the Murder 2 case against them immediately falls apart.

TheDeamon, I don't know where you're getting your definition of Murder 2.  According to Minnesota law, it includes the following:

Second-degree murder can be an intentional killing, but it is not as serious as first-degree murder. Second degree murder can be charged when a defendant intentionally kills another human being but the murder is not premediated. Second-degree murder may result when a person kills out of an intense emotional response or impulse. Additionally, killing someone during a drive-by shooting, killing someone during the commission of a crime that is not sexual assault or killing someone unintentionally while intended to inflict great physical harm to a victim for whom an order of protection was obtained can result in second-degree murder charges. Second-degree murder has a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison.

TheDrake quoted the actual statute in full. The statute requirement is very clear in that another felony needs to be involved.

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.

"Either of following" indicates meeting to criteria for one of the two sub-sections. Subsection 2 is for violation of restraining orders and N/A with regards to George Floyd. Which leaves subsection 1.

Your quoted interpretation is technically correct, but it also incomplete.

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;

Criminal sexual conduct is n/a, and the case being brought wasn't a drive-by shooting, so that's N/A.

Which leaves:

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

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

So they'd require a felony conviction on another charge in order for Murder 2 to apply to this case. As the case would be brought forward at the same time, that puts you back to what I previously said. You need to 1) Get the jury to convict on the other felony (attempt), and then 2) Get them to convict on 2nd Degree murder.

If the legal defense can defeat whatever that "other charge" would be(or is, as I understand they were arraigned today), there is no way to convict on 2nd degree murder.

[Kasandra]

TheDrake quoted the actual statute in full. The statute requirement is very clear in that another felony needs to be involved.

He quoted a sub-division of the definition that referred specifically to unintentional murder: "Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.". Here's the part of the definition that preceded that:

609.19 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).

Felony murder is an extension of Murder 2 that considers the context in which the murder occurred, not a definition.

[Crunch]

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

That is the big deal in this. They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony. It's a pretty standard part of the job, happens any time someone resists arrest. To say it's a felony is beyond absurd and to get a conviction on that would mean every police officer in MN would not be able to arrest anyone ever again. It just won't happen.

Keith Ellison is once again showing how to be a stupid reactionary and what it can cost.

[Fenring]

They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony.

Aside from the fact that you ignored Kasandra's correction to the point (which seems reasonable to me although I'm not a lawyer), you seem to also be ignoring the fact that from the footage we saw he was not resisting arrest. Anything else is conjecture on your part. Further, it might very well be felonious assault to execute illegal maneuvers (like a knee choke) on a person, even if they are resisting arrest. Just because someone is resisting does not mean you now have carte blanche to use any and all deadly maneuvers that are not part of the training.

[wmLambert]

They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony.

Aside from the fact that you ignored Kasandra's correction to the point (which seems reasonable to me although I'm not a lawyer), you seem to also be ignoring the fact that from the footage we saw he was not resisting arrest. Anything else is conjecture on your part. Further, it might very well be felonious assault to execute illegal maneuvers (like a knee choke) on a person, even if they are resisting arrest. Just because someone is resisting does not mean you now have carte blanche to use any and all deadly maneuvers that are not part of the training.

No, Crunch has it right on this. It is almost impossible to prove intent. Without intent there is only Murder 3. Remember Floyd did resist arrest and fought his way out of the patrol car and threw himself to the ground. The defense will argue that there is no end of that struggle because Chauvin himself told another officer that he was just faking. That single statement will destroy intent. The trial could well take years - but anything but Murder 3 will just give Chauvin a chance to skate.

[Fenring]

You know you can charge someone with murder 2 *and* murder 3, right?

Anyhow you're ignoring the clause in the statute that says that any death occurring during a felony could be considered 2nd degree. All you need to show is that an illegal knee choke is a felony and you don't need intent to kill; the only intent you need is to show he intentionally did the illegal choke.

[TheDeamon]

Anyhow you're ignoring the clause in the statute that says that any death occurring during a felony could be considered 2nd degree. All you need to show is that an illegal knee choke is a felony and you don't need intent to kill; the only intent you need is to show he intentionally did the illegal choke.

But that brings us right back to:

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

That is the big deal in this. They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony. It's a pretty standard part of the job, happens any time someone resists arrest. To say it's a felony is beyond absurd and to get a conviction on that would mean every police officer in MN would not be able to arrest anyone ever again. It just won't happen.

Because you just set the standard to 100% perfection 100% of the time for police officers in the state of Minnesota when it comes to restraining an individual. Even the slightest mistake, or the perp doing just the right(wrong) thing, and you've now turned the police officer into a felon under such an interpretation. Under that kind of circumstance, good luck getting any LEO to forcibly restrain someone in the state of Minnesota ever again.

[TheDeamon]

TheDrake quoted the actual statute in full. The statute requirement is very clear in that another felony needs to be involved.

He quoted a sub-division of the definition that referred specifically to unintentional murder: "Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.". Here's the part of the definition that preceded that:

609.19 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).

Felony murder is an extension of Murder 2 that considers the context in which the murder occurred, not a definition.

Okay, let's break this down:

609.19 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).

So we're left with:

§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

"With intent to effect death of that person or another" is the operative part for this section of the law. NOW the prosecution has to make the case that Chauvin knowingly and deliberately did what he did with the intent of killing Floyd. While being openly recorded by bystanders.

Good luck trying to prove that "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a jury trial. If the prosecution is lucky, they'll get a hung jury. More likely, they'd get an acquittal for Chauvin.

Thankfully they should be given the choice of finding him guilty of a lesser charge, if the prosecution allows it. But I don't see Murder 2 playing out in court, under either subsection of their statute for Murder 2.

[yossarian22c]

Okay, let's break this down:

"With intent to effect death of that person or another" is the operative part for this section of the law. NOW the prosecution has to make the case that Chauvin knowingly and deliberately did what he did with the intent of killing Floyd. While being openly recorded by bystanders.

Good luck trying to prove that "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a jury trial. If the prosecution is lucky, they'll get a hung jury. More likely, they'd get an acquittal for Chauvin.

Thankfully they should be given the choice of finding him guilty of a lesser charge, if the prosecution allows it. But I don't see Murder 2 playing out in court, under either subsection of their statute for Murder 2.

A man is laying on the ground saying he can't breath, bystanders are yelling that you're killing him, the man passes out and you leave your knee there for a couple more minutes for good measure. Intent to kill may not be as hard to prove as you think. He certainly showed no concern about killing him. I hope Ellis keeps the lesser charges for a jury to convict on. Messing it up so the cop walks would be a disaster. But I bet he opts for a bench trial. There is no where in America he can get a fair trial.

[ScottF]

I hope Ellis keeps the lesser charges for a jury to convict on. Messing it up so the cop walks would be a disaster. But I bet he opts for a bench trial. There is no where in America he can get a fair trial.

This is key. It is dangerous territory when public sentiment drives charges instead of the law. By ramping up the charges and rhetoric, Ellis could end up helping a good defense attorney force a jury to conclude not guilty. Ironically, even if it's the right judgment by the letter of the law, it will simply be further evidence of systemic racism - and Ellis will have tee'd it up.

[Fenring]

TheDeamon, I don't know why you're ignoring the clause that you, yourself posted above:

(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

And I don't know what you're talking about re: 100% perfection. It means if the officer is committing a felony then any death that results is on them as murder. I guess, yeah, they'd better not commit any felonies! I don't even know what desire you would have to argue that they shouldn't be jailed for felonious assault just because their job description permits them to use violence in certain ways under certain circumstances. You seem to imply that it's just a battle royale out there and it's impossible to avoid illegal knee-holds on people.

[wmLambert]

...A man is laying on the ground saying he can't breath, bystanders are yelling that you're killing him, the man passes out and you leave your knee there for a couple more minutes for good measure. Intent to kill may not be as hard to prove as you think. He certainly showed no concern about killing him. I hope Ellis keeps the lesser charges for a jury to convict on. Messing it up so the cop walks would be a disaster. But I bet he opts for a bench trial. There is no where in America he can get a fair trial.

It is far easier for the defense to prove that Chauvin was stupid and clueless than attempting murder. If 2 and 3 are invoked simultaneously, what will be the result if 2 is thrown out in the trial?

A bystander from outer space with no axe to grind will say it doesn't matter what happens down the road, because the force behind the outrage is really aimed at the Trump economy, not Floyd, and by then it should have come roaring back, with no election in sight.

[Fenring]

the force behind the outrage is really aimed at the Trump economy, not Floyd

You are woefully mistaken, sir.

[TheDrake]

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

That is the big deal in this. They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony. It's a pretty standard part of the job, happens any time someone resists arrest. To say it's a felony is beyond absurd and to get a conviction on that would mean every police officer in MN would not be able to arrest anyone ever again. It just won't happen.

Keith Ellison is once again showing how to be a stupid reactionary and what it can cost.

Kneeling on someone's neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds isn't restraining someone, it is felony assault.

[Crunch]

They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony.

Aside from the fact that you ignored Kasandra's correction to the point (which seems reasonable to me although I'm not a lawyer), you seem to also be ignoring the fact that from the footage we saw he was not resisting arrest. Anything else is conjecture on your part. Further, it might very well be felonious assault to execute illegal maneuvers (like a knee choke) on a person, even if they are resisting arrest. Just because someone is resisting does not mean you now have carte blanche to use any and all deadly maneuvers that are not part of the training.

Ignoring Kasandra is reasonable and something everyone should do more. He rarely has any idea what he’s taking about.

From the footage we saw he was not resisting arrest. The key part is “from the footage we saw”. As far as I know, we don’t have full coverage of the entire incident. If we do I haven’t seen it. I’ve just seen clips. The police reports say he was resisting arrest although I think a better phrase might be he was not being cooperative. My understanding was he refused to be placed in the car and was resisting being cuffed. Not so unreasonable if he really was having some kind of medical emergency. But it was really low grade resistance as far as I could tell.

And of course, I never said resisting arrest gave police the freedom to use “any and all deadly maneuvers”. In fact, I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is saying that.

[Crunch]

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

That is the big deal in this. They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony. It's a pretty standard part of the job, happens any time someone resists arrest. To say it's a felony is beyond absurd and to get a conviction on that would mean every police officer in MN would not be able to arrest anyone ever again. It just won't happen.

Keith Ellison is once again showing how to be a stupid reactionary and what it can cost.

Kneeling on someone's neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds isn't restraining someone, it is felony assault.

No matter how many times you say that, almost everyone will still agree with it. So, not sure why that point needs to be constantly made.

[Fenring]

The police reports say he was resisting arrest although I think a better phrase might be he was not being cooperative.

From our vantage point we are going to have to speculate either way. We know two things: 1) The footage we did see showed no resistance, and in addition a person not in any kind of aggressive mood or posture. He looked defeated, actually. 2) That police lie in their reports frequently to avoid looking bad. It is pure speculation to say they did so this time, but given the footage, given what happened, and given how little I trust police reports, the balance of evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to felony assault with an unintentional death, with the police trying to cover their butts after the fact as they always do.

And of course, I never said resisting arrest gave police the freedom to use “any and all deadly maneuvers”. In fact, I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is saying that.

But that is strangely the effective argument being made if "maybe he was resisting" is invoked as a mitigating factor. It's only mitigating if someone resisting gives carte blanche to use illegal maneuvers. If it does not then it's irrelevant whether he was resisting, and the only reason to even bring it up would be to defend the knee-choke as somehow justified.

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon, I don't know why you're ignoring the clause that you, yourself posted above:

(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

And I don't know what you're talking about re: 100% perfection. It means if the officer is committing a felony then any death that results is on them as murder. I guess, yeah, they'd better not commit any felonies! I don't even know what desire you would have to argue that they shouldn't be jailed for felonious assault just because their job description permits them to use violence in certain ways under certain circumstances. You seem to imply that it's just a battle royale out there and it's impossible to avoid illegal knee-holds on people.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm expressing extreme reservations about a legal interpretation that strips away limited immunity on the basis of "you did it wrong."

Because you just set the standard to 100% perfection 100% of the time for police officers in the state of Minnesota when it comes to restraining an individual. Even the slightest mistake, or the perp doing just the right(wrong) thing, and you've now turned the police officer into a felon under such an interpretation. Under that kind of circumstance, good luck getting any LEO to forcibly restrain someone in the state of Minnesota ever again.

People move in unexpected ways, people misjudge how quickly they're moving themselves, never mind how quickly somebody else may be moving.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.02

Subd. 2.Felony. "Felony" means a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed.

...

Subd. 6.Dangerous weapon. "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm, or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily harm.

...

Subd. 7.Bodily harm. "Bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

Subd. 7a.Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.

Okay, so the Minnesota statutory definition for "Substantial bodily harm" definition was clearly met for George Floyd, and is likely met more often than many LEO's would care to admit. Although the "Bodily harm" definition is going to be frequently met by many LEO's.

Subd. 9.Mental state. (1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in this chapter, such intent is indicated by the term "intentionally," the phrase "with intent to," the phrase "with intent that," or some form of the verbs "know" or "believe."
(2) "Know" requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.

(3) "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. In addition, except as provided in clause (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor's conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word "intentionally."

(4) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.

Subd. 10.Assault. "Assault" is:
(1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

Where "bodily harm" as referenced above can simply mean pain.

609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

Where Substantial bodily harm includes "a temporary but substantial disfigurement" which doesn't get clarified in the code. So if a police officer happens to tackle a suspect and he gets roughed up when he comes in contact with the ground(lots of scratches and abrasions), we have a potential third degree assault charge on the officer. And since that's punishable by up to 5 years, it's a felony.

609.222 ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Dangerous weapon. Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both.
Subd. 2.Dangerous weapon; substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon and inflicts substantial bodily harm 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.

Well, can't use a police baton, it meets the criteria of "any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm."

Even most other riot control options become problematic, Second Degree assault charges are now on the table, and with an up to 7 year sentence, it's a felony too. All they need is a Prosecutor who decides they want/need "to send a message."

Safer for the officer if they simply decide to not do anything which could get them an Assault 2 or Assault 3 charge if somebody decides they "didn't do it right."

[TheDrake]

The "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense" part becomes the operative part. Without the felony offense (attempt), you cannot chargeconvict on Second Degree Murder under that statute. And I doubt the court is going to allow recursion on that front.

That is the big deal in this. They won't get a conviction on 2nd degree because it would mean saying the police attempting to restrain someone resisting arrest is a felony. It's a pretty standard part of the job, happens any time someone resists arrest. To say it's a felony is beyond absurd and to get a conviction on that would mean every police officer in MN would not be able to arrest anyone ever again. It just won't happen.

Keith Ellison is once again showing how to be a stupid reactionary and what it can cost.

Kneeling on someone's neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds isn't restraining someone, it is felony assault.

No matter how many times you say that, almost everyone will still agree with it. So, not sure why that point needs to be constantly made.

Because some posters here are arguing this shouldn't be murder 2.

[TheDeamon]

The police reports say he was resisting arrest although I think a better phrase might be he was not being cooperative.

From our vantage point we are going to have to speculate either way. We know two things: 1) The footage we did see showed no resistance, and in addition a person not in any kind of aggressive mood or posture. He looked defeated, actually. 2) That police lie in their reports frequently to avoid looking bad. It is pure speculation to say they did so this time, but given the footage, given what happened, and given how little I trust police reports, the balance of evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to felony assault with an unintentional death, with the police trying to cover their butts after the fact as they always do.

I'll have to see if I can find it online at this point, but I do believe one of the national nightly news programs (ABC or NBC) actually did subsequently show some additional footage from the time period immediately after Floyd was initially being placed in the Cruiser. They were clearly fighting with him at that point -- from both sides of the cruiser.

The prosecution can make the justified case that Floyd was having a panic attack, and the ME's report of a heart attack would help bolster that claim. So they can try to sell the jury on the police "responded inappropriately to a panic attack." Which is great from a 20/20 hindsight perspective.

The problem is police also have this nasty habit of running into fakers with great regularity. Which would be bolstered for the defense by the transcript comment from Chauvin of "he's faking it." The prosecution then has to try to establish that law enforcement almost never encounters people who fake physical/medical distress after getting caught, and that Chauvin knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Floyd was actually in medical distress.

[TheDeamon]

No matter how many times you say that, almost everyone will still agree with it. So, not sure why that point needs to be constantly made.

Because some posters here are arguing this shouldn't be murder 2.

More like I'm arguing Murder 2 won't be able to get a conviction. But whatever.

Don't be surprised when we see more rioting when Murder 2 doesn't happen in the trial verdict.

[Fenring]

TheDeamon, I have to be honest, I think you're just arguing to argue on this point re: bodily harm. There are legal grey lines, but a choke hold that kills a guy isn't a case where we need dictionary definitions. And you're getting silly once you say this implies police can't use batons. Yes they can, if that's part of their training. If batons are not part of their training, then no, they shouldn't have them. If they are then they should. Not sure what's complicated about that. Think of a choke hold as being a weapon on their belt: if it's not in the training manual they shouldn't have it.

Regarding this point:

I'm not ignoring it. I'm expressing extreme reservations about a legal interpretation that strips away limited immunity on the basis of "you did it wrong."

That's a strawman interpretation of what I (or the law) said. Unless by "you did it wrong" you mean "deviated beyond any rational version of the suggested implementation." I mean, if you want to get ludicrous you could say that a guy raping a lady is just him trying to get closer to her and "he did it wrong." I don't know what the point of such a statement would be. Anyhow it has nothing to do with doing it wrong, as in, an error in technique. If patting you on the back is being a bud, and punching you in the back is assault, one is not an example of doing it wrong, it suggests an outright different intention. Restraining a perp has an intention, but choking him with a knee and ignoring pleas to stop has another intention. It is not a slight technical error in the application of the first intention.

Do you watch MMA? These are many rules of what you can and can't do there, and even though you're fighting with all your might against someone struggling with you and attacking you, the participants seem to know the difference between a leg kick and kicking someone in the groin. They actively avoid the latter, because they know that's a DQ. You are telling me that a police officer whose job it is to serve and protect the public - not to win titles in a cage match - can't knowingly avoid deadly and illegal maneuvers? No, it is not so difficult to know how to avoid those things. Even beginners in class don't have trouble in the heat of the moment avoiding banned tactics. And this was also not a fight or flight life and death situation for the copy; he was in the utterly dominant position from the start.

[Fenring]

The problem is police also have this nasty habit of running into fakers with great regularity.

They also have a nasty habit of shooting people with mental illness rather than trying to talk to them.

The prosecution then has to try to establish that law enforcement almost never encounters people who fake physical/medical distress after getting caught,

No, they really don't.

and that Chauvin knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Floyd was actually in medical distress.

Not sure why you're making hyperbolic argument on this particular topic. No one *ever* needs to know beyond a reasonable doubt someone is really having a medical emergency if they seem to be having one. What the hell kind of standard is that, anyhow?

[TheDeamon]

and that Chauvin knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Floyd was actually in medical distress.

Not sure why you're making hyperbolic argument on this particular topic. No one *ever* needs to know beyond a reasonable doubt someone is really having a medical emergency if they seem to be having one. What the hell kind of standard is that, anyhow?

The jury does. If a member of the jury has a reason to doubt that Chauvin knew Floyd wasn't faking it, then that juror is instructed to not vote to convict. Because they have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Kasandra]

Ignoring Kasandra is reasonable and something everyone should do more. He rarely has any idea what he’s taking about.

Good example of what sets you apart from the rest of us. What you want to ignore that I said is a direct quote from the Minnesota state statutes.  You have demonstrated over and over again that you are willing to overlook and ignore facts when they are inconvenient to your deeply held beliefs. 

FWIW, I'm surprised how many parlor lawyers have weighed in on this.  You all speak using an authoritative voice, but don't actually know what you're talking about.  The simple facts are:

* Keith Ellison is charging him with Murder 2.
* Murder 2 includes intentional killing without premeditation.

What is there to debate, esquires?

[Fenring]

The jury does. If a member of the jury has a reason to doubt that Chauvin knew Floyd wasn't faking it, then that juror is instructed to not vote to convict. Because they have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It doesn't matter whether he was faking it or not. What does that have to do with using a barred choke maneuver? You seem to be zeroing in on these details and missing the argument.

[TheDrake]

Ignoring Kasandra is reasonable and something everyone should do more. He rarely has any idea what he’s taking about.

Good example of what sets you apart from the rest of us. What you want to ignore that I said is a direct quote from the Minnesota state statutes.  You have demonstrated over and over again that you are willing to overlook and ignore facts when they are inconvenient to your deeply held beliefs. 

FWIW, I'm surprised how many parlor lawyers have weighed in on this.  You all speak using an authoritative voice, but don't actually know what you're talking about.  The simple facts are:

* Keith Ellison is charging him with Murder 2.
* Murder 2 includes intentional killing without premeditation.

What is there to debate, esquires?

Your argument is that he INTENDED to kill him?