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:
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."
Intent is not a requirement at all for third degree murder under Minnesota law. I've already quoted the relevant text of the statute. In Minnesota, depraved indifference is the threshold for third degree murder. Says so explicitly in the statute.
In every criminal proceeding, the statutes are the definition of the crime and describe the requisite elements of the crime. Insofar as the courts are concerned, the statute is the only definition of the crime that matters.
Is your claim that Chauvin restrained Floyd in furtherance of some other felony or that Floyd had a protective under against Chauvin? None of this is relevant.
The key word in the 3rd degree statute is depraved. There is no evidence of depravity even if you were to argue that there is evidence of indifference. He executed a maneuver which he had been trained on and instructed that this was a legitimate non-lethal restraint. He had no reason to believe that this restraint would cause death hence there is no depravity.
Fine, I mixed it up from my notes of the interpretations explained in the trial.
All of the charges fall apart for the reason I have explained, prone restraint can not arguably be *expected* to be harmful. You just disagree with that fact. But it's a fact. Being a risk of harm isn't the same as being expectably harmful. And it *wasn't* harmful, it didn't restrict air, it didn't restrict blood, it was just a knee. The biology and medical knowledge are not unclear here.
The DOJ has been telling law enforcement agencies since 1995 that prone restraint IS harmful. The expectation of harm is therefore a given, not a point of contention.
DOJ doesn't train individual officers. Training was detailed in the trial, it included restraint of cuffed suspects. You are arguing with someone who watched every minute of the thing.
Intent is NOT an absolute requirement for second degree murder under Minnesota law.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
" 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."
Intent is not a requirement at all for third degree murder under Minnesota law. I've already quoted the relevant text of the statute. In Minnesota, depraved indifference is the threshold for third degree murder. Says so explicitly in the statute.
In every criminal proceeding, the statutes are the definition of the crime and describe the requisite elements of the crime. Insofar as the courts are concerned, the statute is the only definition of the crime that matters.
Is your claim that Chauvin restrained Floyd in furtherance of some other felony or that Floyd had a protective under against Chauvin? None of this is relevant.
The key word in the 3rd degree statute is depraved. There is no evidence of depravity even if you were to argue that there is evidence of indifference. He executed a maneuver which he had been trained on and instructed that this was a legitimate non-lethal restraint. He had no reason to believe that this restraint would cause death hence there is no depravity.
Fine, I mixed it up from my notes of the interpretations explained in the trial.
All of the charges fall apart for the reason I have explained, prone restraint can not arguably be *expected* to be harmful. You just disagree with that fact. But it's a fact. Being a risk of harm isn't the same as being expectably harmful. And it *wasn't* harmful, it didn't restrict air, it didn't restrict blood, it was just a knee. The biology and medical knowledge are not unclear here.
The DOJ has been telling law enforcement agencies since 1995 that prone restraint IS harmful. The expectation of harm is therefore a given, not a point of contention.
DOJ doesn't train individual officers. Training was detailed in the trial, it included restraint of cuffed suspects. You are arguing with someone who watched every minute of the thing.