Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[KLB]

I agree. I don't know what the jury will do (they are deliberating), but I don't see that charge.

I agree that in a civil case, negligence seems crystal clear. If Minnesota had a straight negligent homicide statute, liability as well, but straight negligence as a crime is VERY rare. Generally speaking, the law is fine with people paying damages caused by negligence- a mistake- but there are very few places where mere negligence can result in a deprivation of liberty. Even where "criminal negligence" is on the books, it usually looks more like recklessness, as in this case or at least "gross" negligence.

Is it negligent if she was justified in using lethal force to begin with?

 

[HoughMade]

Is it negligent if she was justified in using lethal force to begin with?

No. But In a civil context, that is even a harder case to make because she has to argue that even though she didn't believe deadly force was necessary, deadly force was necessary.

 

[KLB]

No. But In a civil context, that is even a harder case to make because she has to argue that even though she didn't believe deadly force was necessary, deadly force was necessary.

I haven't watched this one, but from what I have read they made that case in the trial.

 

[HoughMade]

I haven't watched this one, but from what I have read they made that case in the trial.

They argued that. They also argued that Daunte Wright caused his own death by fleeing and not getting first aid from the police. Both colorable arguments, but if she is found not guilty, I don't think they are the arguments that did it.

But what do I know. Having tried a bunch of jury trials only reinforces my belief that a jury's going to do what a jury's going to do and we're only guessing at what they will find most persuasive.

 

[nonobaddog]

No. But In a civil context, that is even a harder case to make because she has to argue that even though she didn't believe deadly force was necessary, deadly force was necessary.

Is there a legal difference between justified and necessary?

 

[HoughMade]

Is there a legal difference between justified and necessary?

Not legally. I use the term "necessary" to speak of her thought process and in common parlance. "Justified" is the legal standard, but "necessity" may be an element in some statutes defining what is justified.

 

[HoughMade]

2 jury questions.

First- How long should be deliberate if we can't agree on a verdict? She gave the Allen charge- essentially go back and try harder.

Second- Can the zip ties be taken off of Potter gun so we can hold it? Answer was "yes".

 

[buckwacker]

2 jury questions.

First- How long should be deliberate if we can't agree on a verdict? She gave the Allen charge- essentially go back and try harder.

Second- Can the zip ties be taken off of Potter gun so we can hold it? Answer was "yes".

Am I just dumb or could I see these questions as an indication this is a very unserious jury?

 

[HoughMade]

Am I just dumb or could I see these questions as an indication this is a very unserious jury?

They have been deliberating for about a day and half. I've had a hung jury with 2 hours of deliberation. It just depends on how firm people are about their conclusions.

The second one, I see that as one (or more) jurors want to see how similar the gun and Taser feel.

Speculation.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Am I just dumb or could I see these questions as an indication this is a very unserious jury?

That or they're afraid the jury won't return the verdict that the mob demands...

 

[buckwacker]

They have been deliberating for about a day and half. I've had a hung jury with 2 hours of deliberation. It just depends on how firm people are about their conclusions.

The second one, I see that as one (or more) jurors want to see how similar the gun and Taser feel.

Speculation.

Ahhh....i saw it possibly as, we've been here for a day, and we wanna go home. We're bored, I wonder if we can take these zip ties off and play with this gun to pass the time. I'd feel much better about it if you're right.

 

[HoughMade]

On the live stream I am listening to, they put it this way:

"What do we do if we can't agree and can we have a working gun?"

 

[nonobaddog]

The gun could possibly speed things up.

 

[buckwacker]

On the live stream I am listening to, they put it this way:

"What do we do if we can't agree and can we have a working gun?"

Oh geez, that sounds worse. They want something they can use to persuade the hold out, agree on a verdict, and go home. Lol.

 

[nonobaddog]

2 jury questions.

First- How long should be deliberate if we can't agree on a verdict? She gave the Allen charge- essentially go back and try harder.

Second- Can the zip ties be taken off of Potter gun so we can hold it? Answer was "yes".

I was the jury foreman on a murder trial where a young man repeatedly stabbed his ex-girlfriend right in the entry to her parents house. The jury went to deliberation at about 1:00 pm and after deliberating for several hours on the first day, it was now about 10:00 PM, we had a difference of opinion on what one of the witnesses said and we decided to get some clarification. I wrote up the question like - "Could we have a transcript of the testimony of <one witness> regarding <some subject>?" - and gave it to the bailiff. Well, he didn't come back for a long time, maybe 50 minutes or an hour. Then he finally came and ushered us all back to the court room and into the jury box. In the mean time they had brought in the judge, the defendant, both attorneys and both families to the court room. The judge read the question, looked up at the jury and simply said - "No" - then he dismissed court and banged his gavel.

We all just looked at each other like WTF?! We sure didn't expect that. We gave up for the night and were sequestered at a local motel.

 

[KG1]

If the jury were following the wording of the two charges specifically and correctly applied them to the facts they should've come to a unanimous not guilty verdict by now.

There is no evidence to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "consciously " knew she drew her firearm and deployed it instead of the taser therefore she could not have been "consciously" aware of the criminally negligent risk of creating great bodily harm by using deadly force.

The prosecution tried to argue that she "should have" known that she had mistakenly drawn her firearm simply based on her training and the differences between a firearm and a taser and that in and of itself constituted the inherent criminally negligent risk that they believe the defendant consciously "ignored"

I think it had an effect on what the jury is deliberating right now and that's why they asked if they could handle the firearm. They wanted to compare it to the taser. IMO it's due to a misdirection by the prosecution and they want the jury to focus on that instead of how the facts actually relate to the wording of the law. They want the jury to convict on what they feel she "should have" known and not her actual intent.

At the end of the day this amounted to a mistake made by the defendant in the heat of the struggle who did not mean to use deadly force to gain control of an unlawful combatant. I think the evidence clearly shows that she intended to tase him instead in order to prevent him from what she believed in good faith to be creating the risk of great bodily harm to fellow officers by attempting to drive away while they were engaged.

IMO there can be an argument made and I believe it was that she would have been justified under the circumstances in using deadly force as well.

 

[KG1]

Verdict in. Guilty on both counts.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know what that jury saw. I didn't see it.

 

[Leadeye]

Riots, burning cities, people visiting their houses, who can say.

Media attention to juries in recent history is disturbing.

 

[KLB]

I don't know what that jury saw. I didn't see it.

Politics.