George floyd was murdered by the MPD on tape.

[CountValentine]

You need to read further that the one line you quoted on that page

Minnesota law prohibits intentional and unintentional killings under most circumstances. Those killings prohibited as second-degree murder include:

    Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before)
    Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting
    Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
    Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order

Third-degree murder in Minnesota is causing someone’s death by one of two ways:

    A depraved heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life (such as shooting a gun into a crowd for fun, but not intending to kill anyone)
    Causing someone’s death by selling, giving away, or administering a Schedule I or II controlled substance (such as selling someone adulterated heroin that kills them)

Which line are you looking at?

[aygart]

Which line are you looking at?

3rd

[CountValentine]

3rd

That will be even a harder sell.

[aygart]

That will be even a harder sell.

Why?

[CountValentine]

Why?

Because what of what you laid out. He will say he was following procedure.

[ExGingi]

You need to read further that the one line you quoted on that page

Minnesota law prohibits intentional and unintentional killings under most circumstances. Those killings prohibited as second-degree murder include:

    Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before)
    Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting
    Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
    Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order

Third-degree murder in Minnesota is causing someone’s death by one of two ways:

    A depraved heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life (such as shooting a gun into a crowd for fun, but not intending to kill anyone)
    Causing someone’s death by selling, giving away, or administering a Schedule I or II controlled substance (such as selling someone adulterated heroin that kills them)

So basically this will be decided over who can convince the jury (and presumably Minnesota Supreme Court) on the technicalities and intricacies of the law as written.

Though if he's in Jail long enough, the verdict might be given by another "justice system".

[aygart]

Because what of what you laid out. He will say he was following procedure.

That would be an argument which would trump any charge if they can convince the jury of that. It would mean that it was a justified use of force and nothing criminal happened at all. It would also mean he sues for his job back.

[CountValentine]

So basically this will be decided over who can convince the jury (and presumably Minnesota Supreme Court) on the technicalities and intricacies of the law as written.

Just the jury.

Though if he's in Jail long enough, the verdict might be given by another "justice system".

This isn't the movies. 

[aygart]

So basically this will be decided over who can convince the jury (and presumably Minnesota Supreme Court) on the technicalities and intricacies of the law as written.

Like any other criminal proceeding. Part of the job of the judge is to give understandable guidelines of the law. The jury follows the instructions of the judge. Arguments of legal intricacies are made to the judge without the jury present.

[ExGingi]

Just the jury.

So you think the jury acquits?

This isn't the movies. 

Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't in the movies either. Though AFAIK those sentences are usually reserved for child molesters.

[CountValentine]

So you think the jury acquits?

Wild guess, yes at this point.

Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't in the movies either. Though AFAIK those sentences are usually reserved for child molesters.

Waiting for trial is different.

[aygart]

Just the jury.

The jury decides fact not law. Legal arguments are not made to the jury and can be cause for a judge to sanction the attorneys.

[CountValentine]

The jury decides fact not law. Legal arguments are not made to the jury and can be cause for a judge to sanction the attorneys.

I meant by that if the jury says not guilty it is all over. If they say guilty it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

[aygart]

I meant by that if the jury says not guilty it is all over. If they say guilty it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

Yes, but that will be based on the instructions of the judge not which lawyer convinces an ignorant juror of the intricacies of the law.

[ExGingi]

Yes, but that will be based on the instructions of the judge not which lawyer convinces an ignorant juror of the intricacies of the law.

Not about the lawyer convincing the intricacies of the law, but whether the current case fits the intricacies of the law like a glove.

[aygart]

Not about the lawyer convincing the intricacies of the law, but whether the current case fits the intricacies of the law like a glove.

Like every court proceedings and why they charge multiple charges.

[CountValentine]

Yes, but that will be based on the instructions of the judge not which lawyer convinces an ignorant juror of the intricacies of the law.

I served on three juries and I would not say that is correct based on my small sample.
That brings up something else. Why am I 3 for 3 for serving. For some reason I think it is 4 for 4.

[grodnoking]

That brings up something else. Why am I 3 for 3 for serving. For some reason I think it is 4 for 4.

Based on your posts on this forum, I am not surprised. You play devil's advocate and you won't stop till everything is proven beyond doubt. That's an impartial juror.

[aygart]

I served on three juries and I would not say that is correct based on my small sample.
That brings up something else. Why am I 3 for 3 for serving. For some reason I think it is 4 for 4.

That is not what happened at the 2 trials where I served as an expert witness.

[CountValentine]

That is not what happened at the 2 trials where I served as an expert witness.

Were you in the jury room?