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

[Tonawanda]

In this particular case, I think it's much less about color, and more about her awareness, emotional state and skills required to carry a taser and a handgun.
It also could be a huge training issue regardless of how much experience she has, and the fact she was a field training officer. Being a training officer could actually hurt her civil or criminal case.

I was referring to the basic definition of negligent in my post.

Looking very briefly at criminal negligence and manslaughter charges in Minnesota, I didn't see anything that seemed to fit. That doesn't mean there are no charges that would apply.

I don't think that there was any criminal intent in this situation, but her actions were so egregious that they could rise to the level of a criminal charge. I'll let the attorneys and prosecutors figure that out.

Very unfortunately, she will judged much more harshly because of being a police officer in a particular bad environment in our country.

 

[dcsports]

In this particular case, I think it's much less about color, and more about her awareness, emotional state and skills required to carry a taser and a handgun.
It also could be a huge training issue regardless of how much experience she has, and the fact she was a field training officer. Being a training officer could actually hurt her civil or criminal case.

I was referring to the basic definition of negligent in my post.

Looking very briefly at criminal negligence and manslaughter charges in Minnesota, I didn't see anything that seemed to fit. That doesn't mean there are no charges that would apply.

I don't think that there was any criminal intent in this situation, but her actions were so egregious that they could rise to the level of a criminal charge. I'll let the attorneys and prosecutors figure that out.

Very unfortunately, she will judged much more harshly because of being a police officer in a particular bad environment in our country.

I agree. The issue with this particular charge is that it requires culpable negligence - she had to be consciously doing something that she knew was inherently dangerous. Not sure that this applies - since she was trying to use a taser. This charge is normally used when someone is being reckless, and accidentally causes a death.

Robert Grueler (a defense attorney who does a really good legal analysis on his youtube channel) went through the statue that covers use of force by the police. I'd encourage you to watch what he had to say, but the gist is that under Minnesota law, a police officer isn't held liable if they were performing actions that are within the scope of standard police practice for use of force. So the question is whether an officer would be justified in using deadly force in that situation. The wording specifically doesn't take into account motive - intent isn't a factor. Using the test provided by the Supreme Court in Graham vs. Connor (quote below) - the same case cited repeatedly in the Chauvin trial.

It would be easy to make an argument that the officer would have been justified in the use of deadly force. The suspect was wanted for serious crimes involving weapons, was attempting to flee, and clearly was putting the lives of others in danger. Her defense would be that she could have legally used deadly force if she had chosen to do so.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

the following four factors, which it identified as "[t]he factors to be considered in determining when the excessive use of force gives rise to a cause of action under 1983": (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; and (4) "[w]hether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."[/

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't suspect it was more than a horrible mistake. Granted, attitudes about black people are unique in a racist society and no one escapes all personal prejudice ingrained in language and culture over thousands of years, but I'm not seeing other than a horrible mistake.

Negligence? Okay. Sufficient to bring personal charges against an on-duty act? I don't think so. It's certainly not "depraved indifference", right? I think negligence worthy of charges needs to include the opportunity, however brief, to change one's choice of action. There was not time for the officer to reconsider their action; it was a mistake and not malevolent.

So, apparently, you would apply the same standard to driving while intoxicated? It wasn't malevolent....

Fortunately, that's not the standard. When we imbue an officer with the authority to use force, we also charge them with the responsibility to use that force reasonably. Follow the Spider Man standard.

Was it a mistake? Probably. But that's not the question. The question, legally and morally, is, "was that level of force justified?" I maintain, it was not. It was convenient. It was lazy. It was bad policing. And, as a result a human being is dead. Over a MISDEMEANOR. In fact, over a civil citation.

So what if he walked away? So what if he drove away? He was not a threat to anyone. Anyone. No. I can't excuse it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

View attachment 67329244​

Order doesn't make sense. Journalists are people, no different from anyone else. If they aren't committing a crime, they shouldn't be arrested. If they are committing a crime, they shouldn't be exempt from arrest.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So what if he walked away? So what if he drove away? He was not a threat to anyone. Anyone. No. I can't excuse it.

He didn't have the right to walk away. There was a valid warrant for his arrest. The cops had every right to take him into custody and no obligation at all to let him leave.

How many times does he get to walk away from a lawful arrest pursuant to a valid warrant?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It would be easy to make an argument that the officer would have been justified in the use of deadly force. The suspect was wanted for serious crimes involving weapons, was attempting to flee, and clearly was putting the lives of others in danger. Her defense would be that she could have legally used deadly force if she had chosen to do so.

Strongly disagree. What is the basis for the reasonable belief that Wright's escape posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person?

 

[ecofarm]

So, apparently, you would apply the same standard to driving while intoxicated? It wasn't malevolent....

We're talking about mistakes in the line of duty, not private actions.

 

[Tonawanda]

This response is intended to summarize my opinion and position to several previous posts.

The question, legally and morally, is, "was that level of force justified?" I maintain, it was not.

I would be my opinion that deadly physical force should not been used in this case. However the warrant, resisting arrest, and the potential for the subject fleeing the scene driving the vehicle are factors that would have to be considered in the defense of that use of force. The officer in this case also apparently tried to use less lethal force.
I believe the use of the taser was justified, and if used, the end result of this attempted arrest would have been very different.

It was convenient. It was lazy. It was bad policing. And, as a result a human being is dead. Over a MISDEMEANOR. In fact, over a civil citation.

I don't know about lazy or convenient, but certainly bad policing. I also think the attempt to handcuff the individual could be called lazy. If that was done correctly, the end result would have been different. Misdemeanor? I think the original charges were a crime, and a warrant is not a civil situation.

Resisting arrest in Minnesota is also called obstructing legal process, arrest, or firefighting. A person is guilty of obstructing legal process if they intentionally obstruct, resist, or interfere with a police officer in the performance of legal duties, or obstruct, hinder, or prevent a person’s apprehension on a criminal charge.
The Minnesota legislature intentionally wrote the law in very broad terms. Under the law, resisting arrest means:
Refusing to be handcuffed; Refusing to surrender; Struggling with the police; Wrestling or fighting with the police; or Somehow preventing the police from making an arrest.
That could be a misdemeanor or a felony.

So what if he walked away? So what if he drove away? He was not a threat to anyone. Anyone. No. I can't excuse it.

When the police arrest someone, and attempt to take them into custody, the police are responsible for the safety of occupants of the vehicle, other motorists on the road and yes, the subject of the arrest too.

This case is like many, or even most of the deadly force events today. If everyone, (not directed at anyone in this discussion), the citizens, police, media and the courts would look at these events fairly and without prejudice, we wouldn't have the horrific climate and division we have now in this country.

Is Resisting Arrest a Felony or Misdemeanor in MN? - Arechigo & Stokka

If you were arrested for resisting arrest or obstructing arrest in Minnesota, contact Arechigo & Stokka today to speak with our experienced attorneys.

arechigo-stokka.com

 

[dcsports]

So, apparently, you would apply the same standard to driving while intoxicated? It wasn't malevolent....

Fortunately, that's not the standard. When we imbue an officer with the authority to use force, we also charge them with the responsibility to use that force reasonably. Follow the Spider Man standard.

Was it a mistake? Probably. But that's not the question. The question, legally and morally, is, "was that level of force justified?" I maintain, it was not. It was convenient. It was lazy. It was bad policing. And, as a result a human being is dead. Over a MISDEMEANOR. In fact, over a civil citation.

So what if he walked away? So what if he drove away? He was not a threat to anyone. Anyone. No. I can't excuse it.

The difference is that when someone drives while intoxicated, they are consciously committing a dangerous act. That person chooses to do something which could cause death or great bodily harm.

 

[dcsports]

Strongly disagree. What is the basis for the reasonable belief that Wright's escape posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person?

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.

 

[vegas giants]

So, apparently, you would apply the same standard to driving while intoxicated? It wasn't malevolent....

Fortunately, that's not the standard. When we imbue an officer with the authority to use force, we also charge them with the responsibility to use that force reasonably. Follow the Spider Man standard.

Was it a mistake? Probably. But that's not the question. The question, legally and morally, is, "was that level of force justified?" I maintain, it was not. It was convenient. It was lazy. It was bad policing. And, as a result a human being is dead. Over a MISDEMEANOR. In fact, over a civil citation.

So what if he walked away? So what if he drove away? He was not a threat to anyone. Anyone. No. I can't excuse it.

They should have let him leave and picked him up the next day

 

[vegas giants]

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.

Then dont chase him

 

[sjmay]

They should have let him leave and picked him up the next day

And what happens if he resists the next day....they just....come back?

 

[Loulit01]

I don't believe police negligent discharges should be criminally prosecuted. Unless it can be proven this was more than a horrible mistake.

Horrible mistakes aka second degree manslaughter.

Stop charging police for horrible mistakes and their horrible mistakes will multiply.

No one is above the law except officers of the law?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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.

There are any number of things he could have done, from escaping to commit mass murder or save his grandma from having a heart attack. A use of deadly force must be based on reasonable, objective, articulable facts. Mere speculation is not enough.

 

[vegas giants]

And what happens if he resists the next day....they just....come back?

It's not that hard to arrest someone at home.

 

[sjmay]

It's not that hard to arrest someone at home.

It's MUCH harder to arrest someone at home, but you didn't answer the question.

What do you do if he resists there....do you just walk away?

 

[vegas giants]

It's MUCH harder to arrest someone at home, but you didn't answer the question.

What do you do if he resists there....do you just walk away?

No you arrest him....with a team of guys who are prepared for this and no one is in a vehicle. Much easier

 

[sjmay]

No you arrest him....with a team of guys who are prepared for this and no one is in a vehicle. Much easier

Ah, got it, and what if he decides to barricade himself in the house....with unknown weapons etc? Refuses to be arrested...then what?

 

[vegas giants]

Ah, got it, and what if he decides to barricade himself in the house....with unknown weapons etc? Refuses to be arrested...then what?

Generally a swat team is called out.


Or we could just fight one on one with suspects and then go on a wild car chase thru the streets over a minor warrant

 

[sjmay]

Generally a swat team is called out.


Or we could just fight one on one with suspects and then go on a wild car chase thru the streets over a minor warrant

So you think the guy has a better chance to survive a SWAT team?

Shit, I thought all cops were out to kill them? So you would advocate killing them at their house rather than....in the car....

Interesting....

 

[vegas giants]

So you think the guy has a better chance to survive a SWAT team?

Shit, I thought all cops were out to kill them? So you would advocate killing them at their house rather than....in the car....

Interesting....

Swat teams take suspects everyday without killing them


You would prefer a car chase thru school zones over a traffic warrant

 

[sjmay]

Swat teams take suspects everyday without killing them


You would prefer a car chase thru school zones over a traffic warrant

Nope...I would prefer dumbshits don't run.....

so if SWAT teams take suspects every day without killing them....why the **** is the uproar over police brutality?

 

[vegas giants]

Nope...I would prefer dumbshits don't run.....

so if SWAT teams take suspects every day without killing them....why the **** is the uproar over police brutality?

Maybe if everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya everything would be better


Police brutality is rarely done by swat teams. They are highly trained experts.


Deny that

 

[sjmay]

Maybe if everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya everything would be better


Police brutality is rarely done by swat teams. They are highly trained experts.


Deny that

Deny what? You just said SWAT teams rarely kill people.....are not SWAT teams part of the police?