I covered this issue in another post but I will make a few comments again since the issue will not go away anytime soon. What I said was that I need to understand Minn law a bit more before concluding that the prosecutor did the right thing and that he was just being ultra-smart by making sure that the defendant did not get a acquittal and walk. It sounds good and reasonable but I am not there yet. As I said, many states allow for a prosecutor to charge at a higher level but that the jury can convict on a lesser crime if it is upon the same set of circumstances. Thus, for example, a person could be charged with 2nd degree but the jury could still convict on 3rd degree if they found sufficient facts for that. In a quick look, I see that that is allowed in Minn in general, although maybe there is a specific statute not allowing for homicide. I doubt it but just state again, that I need to see full clarification of that issue before giving kudos to the prosecutor for doing the right thing. Prosecutors are also always protecting their arses and want to see wins to advance their political careers. They dont want a total loss but they dont want to lose on the original charge either for reasons that may have more to do with their career than justice. Secondly, and I covered this in my other post, your point about whether the defendant's reflection, demeanor, and careful attentiveness to the killing process constitutes "pre-meditation" is very much subject to argument and decision by the jury. If his actions were part of the heat of the moment, emotional rage, or the fog of conflict that would probably get him off the "premeditation" charge, but we don't see that there do we. We see a deliberate action being implemented to a handcuffed person, thus eliminating any defense that the officer's life and safety were at risk. My view is that the prosecutor may be a chickenshit. That the proper charge is 2nd degree and the jury can also be charged by the judge with finding 3rd degree if they find sufficient facts for that. I am not married to that view. A clarification of Minn law could do that, but I did a little research and it did not cause me to change my view. It is also possible that I am right about the ability to change charges but there is a different scenario going on. ie the prosecutor just charged on the lower crime to satisfy the mob but is reserving the right to charge at a higher level as the facts develop. That could be okay and that would actually be a smart move by the prosecutor and I will say so if that develops.
No. But I think you're misunderstanding me. How do you know that their complaint won't match the autopsy report? Or why would you think that it wouldn't?
If he died from a heart attack due to the stress his body was being put in by the cop using excessive force with a knee on his neck for 8 minutes while he was already subdued, then he did cause the the death. You guys are confusing cause of death and who caused the death to occur. If I sit on you for an hour and your appendix explodes causes sepsis and you die.....my defense can never be that the appendicitis killed you. There is a doctrine in criminal law called frail victim or something like that. You take your victim in whatever condition they are in whether you knew it or not and if you are the proximate cause, you are guilty.
Premdiation is a clear showing of proof that this was a planned act and not a heat of the moment action. The cop could never have planned for George to have the police called on him to set this up so he could push him down and knee his neck. I plan with my girlfriend to kill my wife....that is premediatated. Google premediation to see clear examples and this is nto that. I go to your house with a gun and evidence comes out that I told several people I was going to kill you and I do... that is premediatated. Premediatation is a high burden of proof to have to prove and is impossible in a random case like this of these cops showing up for this call for this person. His actions are closer to depraved indifference and criminal negligence which is Murder 3 or Man 2.
Thanks ... learned something today. I wasn't suggesting the charges, cod, or manner. I basically just wanted to know how gwb knew what the complaint indicated.
My understanding is that premeditation can be as simple and quick as cocking a gun. Something I heard years ago; never verified it. But I would think it is possible that between the time where he first put his knee on his neck, and before he died; it is possible that the officer might have decided ... I'm just going to do this until he dies. IOW, he didn't wake up that morning with intent to kill him; but that intent could have still come before he actually, in fact, killed him. I'd think that the argument for premeditation could be made; of course the real question is, how viable would it be.
Wapo put together a time-line video that shows all available video. Sheds some light on some things. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/30/video-timeline-george-floyd-death/?arc404=true
You can read the complaint from a link in this article - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/derek-chauvin-criminal-complaint.html or see if directly here - https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...d9e96e708a9b0c8ba58/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 Still I expect the biggest point his defense will use during the trial will be the cause of death from the autopsy. The entire complain narrative is written around George Floyd stating he cannot breath. The complaint itself includes the following - so it does reference the Medical Examiners initial report: "The Hennepin County Medical Examiner(ME) conducted Mr. Floyd's autopsy on May 26 , 2020. The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
I saw one legal pundit on TV stating that he believes it may not matter... but would be the way that he would approach it if he was the defense lawyer.