2-5 clearly won’t apply. The only hope the prosecution has is with subsection (1). Even there, they have a significant problem with the elements:
Culpable negligence is “gross negligence coupled with the element of recklessness. It is intentional conduct which the actor may not intend to be harmful but which an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others.”
“[T]he statute requires proof of an objective element and a subjective element, the objective element being gross negligence and the subjective element being recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.”
To establish the subjective element of recklessness, the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.” Id. at 320. In this context, the risk is one of death or great bodily harm. An individual is reckless if he “is aware of the risk and disregards it.”
“Recklessness” and “negligence” may be defined in the following manner:
A person acts “recklessly” when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. A person acts “negligently” when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. The difference between the terms “recklessly” and “negligently,” as thus defined, is one of kind rather than of degree. Each actor creates a risk of harm. The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.
State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317 (1983).
Given the public pressure, unless the defense is very, very effective, I suspect that the jury will accept fuzzy meanings for the words “negligent” and “reckless”, regardless of their precise legal definitions.
I haven’t seen an image of the taser that these officers are issued, but if they don’t both look completely different and *feel* completely different from their firearms, they are an accident waiting to happen.
Agree the only applicable subsection is (1). If the jury believes that she intended to taze the victim (as most agree from the bodycam video), then they could find that she did not consciously take the action that caused Wright's death. Excerpt of manslaughter 2 below.
(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