Here you go: Minnesota v. Rosemary Charles (Mn. Ct. of Appeals, 2001) - "Because the state was required to prove that appellant committed the predicate felony, the district court should have instructed the jury on all essential elements of second-degree assault as found in 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.10 (1999). Because the district court failed to fully instruct the jury, we find that the court committed plain error."Can anyone provide another Minnesota case where a felony murder conviction was achieved where the underlying felony was itself the act that led to the death of the victim? I'm unfamiliar with such a use of the felony murder statute. It's used to prosecute stuff like an accomplice dying in a car crash during the getaway chase after a bank robbery. I've never heard of the provision being used to prosecute someone whose underlying felony was the assault that caused the death in the first place.
Even if we were to assume that Chauvin did not directly cause Floyd's death, he is still guilty of (at least) assault. Minneapolis use of force policy prohibits the use of a neck hold on someone who is less than actively resistant. When Floyd lost consciousness, it was no longer possible for him to actively resist Chauvin. Chauvin therefore clearly exceeded the authorized use of force and crossed the line into assault.On this particular event, I remain uncertain as to the cause of death but it is equally plausible that his severe heart disease and drug usage contributed to or primarily caused his death, triggered what is usually non lethal stress and force employed in the arrest.
Then the text is nonsensical. I honestly couldn't tell you where Man 1 ends and felony murder 2 begins.Here you go: Minnesota v. Rosemary Charles (Mn. Ct. of Appeals, 2001) - "Because the state was required to prove that appellant committed the predicate felony, the district court should have instructed the jury on all essential elements of second-degree assault as found in 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.10 (1999). Because the district court failed to fully instruct the jury, we find that the court committed plain error."
I had suspected that was the case, but I hadn't actually researched it before. It directly follows the statutory language.
Even if we were to assume that Chauvin did not directly cause Floyd's death, he is still guilty of (at least) assault. Minneapolis use of force policy prohibits the use of a neck hold on someone who is less than actively resistant. When Floyd lost consciousness, it was no longer possible for him to actively resist Chauvin. Chauvin therefore clearly exceeded the authorized use of force and crossed the line into assault.
You're right. It is approved. But only on actively resisting persons. When Floyd lost consciousness, it became impossible for him to actively resist. At that point, Chauvin lost any rationale he may have had for using the restraint and he was then using excessive force.Chauvin's particular "crime" wasn't probable murder or assault. From what I has been reported, the face down, knee on neck, restraint position is not prohibited in Minneapolis but it is taught that "stomach down" it can be dangerous and must be used judiciously. In the circumstances, even if we fully accept the prosecutions portrayal of events, this was a largely understandable misjudgment and, at worst, grossly negligent use of an approved method of restraint.
Chauvin's particular "crime" wasn't probable murder or assault. From what I has been reported, the face down, knee on neck, restraint position is not prohibited in Minneapolis but it is taught that "stomach down" it can be dangerous and must be used judiciously. In the circumstances, even if we fully accept the prosecutions portrayal of events, this was a largely understandable misjudgment and, at worst, grossly negligent use of an approved method of restraint.
According to the charge summaries:
As the two arresting officers tried to put Floyd in their squad car he resisted, stiffening up and falling to the ground. He told officers he didn't want to get in the car because he was claustrophobic.
Chauvin and Thao then arrived.
Then three of the officers made several attempts to get floyd into the backseat, he repeatedly resisted, now saying he could not breath. After physically struggling, they tried to get him into the car and made one final attempt.
Chauvin gave up and pulled him out of his position in the passenger seat, and Floyd went to the ground face down. At that point Chauvin placed his knee on his head and neck area, and two officers held his back and legs.
Floyd protested loudly, claiming (again) that he couldn't breath imploring "I'm about to die."
One officer noted "you are talking just fine", as Floyd continued to move. Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him. Lane then said something about worrying over Floyd's excited delirium (hyper aggression and unusual strength from drugs), and Chauvin said "that's why we have him on his stomach".
At 8:24:24 Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 Floyd ceased to breath or speak. Lane suggest rolling on his side, , another officer checked floyds right wrist and said that he couldnt find a pulse. For two more minutes Chauvin held him under his knee.
Conclusion:
Most likely the officers believed the foam mouthed individual battling to stay out of the back seat of the police car was in a state of drug induced agitated or excited delirium. Apparently Chauvin decided the only way to get him under control and too cooperate was to use a restraint method that took the fight out of him. In the process, due to Chauvin's heart condition (and other factors) he may well have perceived that he was short of breath PRIOR to being restrained, which apparently was not due to a lack of breath.
Chauvin mistake and negligence was in not immediately stopping his restraint when told that there was no pulse, and then in not immediately rendering first aid. Although it was likely too late, three minutes of neck (or back) restraint AFTER all movement ceased, and two minute after he ceased to breath, was arguably grossly negligent and chargeable under second degree manslaughter (3rd degree murder in Minn.).
Whether or not that would "stick" will depend on several factors.
Your entire pontification lacks both consistency and any fidelity to the law. You're just making **** up to posture your agenda. Indeed, your description of the events, skewed as it is, undercuts your assertions. "Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him." At that point, it was not about necessary restraint, it was about inflicting punishment for having the temerity to resist. That does not appear anywhere in the training manual, except in the warning text: "keep your emotions out of your evaluations, or you may take actions that are contrary to procedures. Objective evaluation is paramount." (Or words to that effect). In any circumstance, officers are trained to use only that force necessary to secure the objective. Going beyond that risks discipline, or worse. See, e.g. What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? – WCCO | CBS Minnesota
What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? (cbs, local).
Not really. After questioning the person he most likely had multiple reasons (after all, the guy was on drugs driving a vehicle) and chose the one most convenient.What was the potential charge against Floyd? Attempting to pass a bogus $20. That didn't even require his detention, much less the violence. (My son once used a $100 at a grocery store he just got from the bank that turned out to fail the chem test check. Even the bank didn't catch it.) It doesn't appear that issue was even followed up on. Why did the clerk think it was fake? Where did the $20 come from? What was their basis for detaining Floyd in the first place? There are a lot of questions that need resolution.
Seemingly true, but as it is common for drug affected perps to be hysterical and make things up to resist arrest going to jail, unless one wishes to dispatch a paddy wagon with a medical crew on every arrest it is understandable that he was not believed.But the critical factor here was the reasonableness of the restraint. Once Floyd was under control, there was no need to continue the hold. When he said "I can't breathe" and "I think I'm gonna die" he was, objectively, telling the truth.
There are even points we agree on (e.g., "Obviously the officer either misjudged the point of release, and/or was indifferent to crossing the threshold to excessive force."), but your credibility is.. well, shall we say, "lacking".Nor do I have an agenda
I had a hard time stopping laughing at this one... There are even points we agree on (e.g., "Obviously the officer either misjudged the point of release, and/or was indifferent to crossing the threshold to excessive force."), but your credibility is.. well, shall we say, "lacking".
Maybe, just maybe..Remember, when in 2017, in the same Minneapolis, a black police officer, Mohammed Noor, shot and killed an australian woman, Justine Damon, what kind of horrible riots were organized by whites?
I don't remember either.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZmnqvxWoAcrPwR?format=jpg&name=small
On March 20, 2018, Noor was charged with second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder. Prosecutors later upgraded the charges against Noor to second-degree intentional murder. In April 2019, Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter, but acquitted of intentional second-degree murder.[7]*In June 2019, Noor was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison.[8]
Took 9 months from event happening to conviction.
And I'm explaining why white riots don't happen. People who kill white people in this country go to prison. People who kill black people in this country get suspended without pay.I'm not talking about sentences, I'm talking about white riots. You need to go back in history to see one.
Maybe, just maybe..
Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia
Took 9 months from event happening to conviction.
July 15, 2017 she was shot.
And I'm explaining why white riots don't happen. People who kill white people in this country go to prison. People who kill black people in this country get suspended without pay.
Ja sam Baba Yaga [emoji328]
Imagine my surprise when I realized you missed the point that the difference isn't how long it took, but that in one case a conviction happened and in several others it didn't.
And that's more than likely why in one case rioting didn't happen, and several riots have happened after other cases have ended up differently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?