It is highly unlikely that the officers INTENDED to kill Floyd in the act of subduing him. Intent plays crucially into any criminal charge.
I know. Just ask Comey about Hillary, right?
I do not know the laws in MN. But-you do not necessarily need INTENT to be charged. That is false. There are a whole host of charges that can be filed without intent-such as manslaughter. In Texas, for the manslaughter charge, there is no requirement for intent if you can prove recklessness (DUI, for example). Intoxication manslaughter has zero intent required, but you sure as heck can be charged.
Criminal intent does not apply whatsoever in a reckless, or negligeny second degree homicide case. They are general intent crimes. You can take that to the bank.
t is highly unlikely that the officers INTENDED to kill Floyd in the act of subduing him. Intent plays crucially into any criminal charge.
———————————————————————
I don’t think the district attorneys’s comment was about the intent of the officers. I could be wrong, but my antennas went off when I saw that the autopsy was inconclusive and the medical examiner had ordered further testing. Obviously, to prove someone guilty of murder or manslaughter, you must prove that that individual caused the death of the victim. My gut says that the initial autopsy did not show that the officers caused his death. The statement made by the prosecutor was not made lightly. He clearly was trying to lower expectations for an indictment. Or perhaps the other evidence pertains to the 3 officers who did not knee the victim. We shall see.
“It is highly unlikely that the officers INTENDED to kill Floyd in the act of subduing him. Intent plays crucially into any criminal charge.”
************************************************************
You’re quite right which, assuming they can’t find intent and premeditation, the maximum charge is MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE. That’s good for 25 years.
talk today is he worked with his victim at a nightclub.
Not the way you mean it. In this case it doesn't matter if they intended to kill him. The officer with a knee on his neck intended to put his knee on his neck. It wasn't an accident. The question is whether that act was legally justified.
People are charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide every day With no intent
This is a fallacy promoted here there has to be intent for criminal charges
Bunk
Your Rottweiler kills a neighbor
You didn’t intend it but you’re gonna get charged
Here is the San Francisco cane corso case
Lovely woman killed by their two dogs ...Diane Whipple
One Of the two dog owners was actually convicted of second degree murder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple
Intent plays crucially into any criminal charge.
In Minnesota third degree murder does not require intent. Only "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life..." It's not hard making that case in this incident.