• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officer charged with 2nd-degree manslaughter in Daunte Wright killing

You don't know that. From the video it appears as if he was squirming in the drivers seat. He fled after being shot.

In the past, he fled from police. This time he fought off the officers to jump in a moving car, and in fact, fled. Do you think he had an urge to change the radio station?
 
When on duty, everything a cop does is legal. Who knew?

You know that's not the argument and so your dishonesty must be apparent even to you. Your argument is at a 6 year old level. A smart or honest 6 year old could do better.
 

2020 Minnesota Statutes

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.


(1) I don't think she consciously discharged a gun.

in a deliberate and intentional way.
in a way that is directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned.
"most players don't think consciously about a throw"


 
I understand that - which is why I cited the Graham v. Connor Factors, which all have to be taken into consideration.
1. What was the Severity of the Crime?
2. Was the Suspect an Immediate Threat?
3. Was the Suspect Resisting Arrest? Resisting an arrest, or other lawful seizure?
4. Was the Suspect Fleeing from a Lawful Arrest?

Fleeing in a vehicle - with another occupant - taken into consideration his history, clearly poses a threat to the life safety of others.
Please cite case law that came to the same conclusion with a substantially similar fact pattern.
 
You don't know that. From the video it appears as if he was squirming in the drivers seat. He fled after being shot.

We do know this, or at least can come to that reasonable conclusion. He was out of the car, and as soon as the handcuff started to go on, he wrestled free and got in the car.
 

2020 Minnesota Statutes

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.


(1) I don't think she consciously discharged a gun.

in a deliberate and intentional way.
in a way that is directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned.
"most players don't think consciously about a throw"


If she's found not guilty, it's going to be because of that one word.

And I think it's a high bar to clear to prove she consciously took an action that chanced death or great bodily harm, given the video evidence.
 
This is what I imagine your law professors said to you on Day One:

giphy.gif
 
This is what I imagine your law professors said to you on Day One:

{failed meme removed}
This isn't law school. You aren't a 'professor'. If you want to do more research on your own, go for it. There are plenty of examples of criminals fleeing the police and hurting someone.
 
This isn't law school. You aren't a 'professor'.
Never said it was, never said I was. The point was that your "argument" was completely unconvincing.

If you want to do more research on your own, go for it.
Supporting your arguments is your job, not mine.

There are plenty of examples of criminals fleeing the police and hurting someone.
Sure. We should probably install missile launchers in the front of police cruisers to take out anyone who runs, just in case.
 
Never said it was, never said I was. The point was that your "argument" was completely unconvincing.


Supporting your arguments is your job, not mine.


Sure. We should probably install missile launchers in the front of police cruisers to take out anyone who runs, just in case.
lol. If you don't find it convincing that a wanted criminal who resists arrests, fighting off police officers, and fleeing in a motor vehicle, is dangerous to themselves or others - I can't help you. And fyi - I actually did support the position that he was dangerous. If you aren't convinced, you can explain how it's safe. How he couldn't possibly hurt his passenger, the officers, or innocent bystanders.

It's obvious you've dug in and are going to fight any other ideas. Take care.
 
lol. If you don't find it convincing that a wanted criminal who resists arrests, fighting off police officers, and fleeing in a motor vehicle, is dangerous to themselves or others - I can't help you.
I don't know where you got the idea that I ever said he wasn't dangerous.

Not every danger is deadly force, however.

It's obvious you've dug in and are going to fight any other ideas.
Said the pot to the kettle.
 
I don't know where you got the idea that I ever said he wasn't dangerous.

Not every danger is deadly force, however.


Said the pot to the kettle.

I gave you the points and the reference. You can either lean more about it, or not.

You certainly implied that a suspect fleeing in a car isn't dangerous. Note that Graham v Connor doesn't require deadly force, but "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others". Worth noting, however, that cars are considered pretty dangerous, and can be considered a deadly weapon.

Pot/kettle dig is pretty weak, given that I was trying to share ideas with you.
 
You certainly implied that a suspect fleeing in a car isn't dangerous. Note that Graham v Connor doesn't require deadly force, but "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others".
You appear to be under the impression that the Graham factors only apply when gauging the reasonableness of a use of deadly force. They do not. They are used to gauge the reasonableness of all uses of force. The three factors, combined, are used to determine if the government's interest in apprehending the suspect outweighs the suspect's right to be free from unreasonable seizures. If a suspect advances on an officer, with raised, closed fists, he is certainly an immediate threat to the officer's safety. That doesn't mean the officer can jump right to deadly force. Just like the factor that examines whether the subject is attempting to flee doesn't authorize deadly force if they just run away.

Pot/kettle dig is pretty weak, given that I was trying to share ideas with you.
Then share the ideas and leave at home the not-so-subtle implication that I'm refusing to listen to you.
 
You appear to be under the impression that the Graham factors only apply when gauging the reasonableness of a use of deadly force. They do not. They are used to gauge the reasonableness of all uses of force. The three factors, combined, are used to determine if the government's interest in apprehending the suspect outweighs the suspect's right to be free from unreasonable seizures. If a suspect advances on an officer, with raised, closed fists, he is certainly an immediate threat to the officer's safety. That doesn't mean the officer can jump right to deadly force. Just like the factor that examines whether the subject is attempting to flee doesn't authorize deadly force if they just run away.


Then share the ideas and leave at home the not-so-subtle implication that I'm refusing to listen to you.
We're talking about a specific case where deadly force came into play.

I've been trying to have a conversation. Participate, or not. You were not listening when I made the comment, and now you seem to be really hung up on it.
 
He was attempting to flee in a vehicle. Based on his history, he could also be armed. He obviously could have hit or drug one of the officers in his escape, but high speed chases are inherently dangerous. Either he or the perusing police could have an accident or hit an innocent bystander.

Remember that he also had another person in the car with him. She was effectively an innocent bystander. Ultimately, he did flee, he did have an accident, and she was injured.

He had the accident because he was shot and dying. Without being shot, and absent a high speed chase that takes those risks away.
 
No one should be a police officer in any Democratic Party run city because being a cop and human is criminally illegal.

Those Democrats should talk to Elon Musk and Bill Gates about how to put implants into some of their peasant-slaves after being lobotomized, for which remote AI is in total control of any police officers - probably importing Chinese slave laborers for this.
 
He had the accident because he was shot and dying. Without being shot, and absent a high speed chase that takes those risks away.
It doesn't take the risks away, because 1) they would chase the guy - he's already a wanted person and then fleeing. 2) even if they didn't the guy doesn't know that, and will take risks.
 
It doesn't take the risks away, because 1) they would chase the guy - he's already a wanted person and then fleeing. 2) even if they didn't the guy doesn't know that, and will take risks.

Point being he's obviously got a rear view mirror right? He takes off, doesn't see police in persuit is he going to drive around like an idiot to get attention?
 
Point being he's obviously got a rear view mirror right? He takes off, doesn't see police in persuit is he going to drive around like an idiot to get attention?
People fleeing the police often behave irrationally.
 
We're talking about a specific case where deadly force came into play.
Obviously. But your citation of Graham factors appears to indicate that you think that they only apply to such cases. They don't.

I've been trying to have a conversation. Participate, or not. You were not listening when I made the comment, and now you seem to be really hung up on it.
If you think I'm misunderstanding something you said, feel free to clarify.
 
Back
Top Bottom