Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Reply to "MN Police Shoot and Kill Daunte Wright"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The rush to charge the officer with manslaughter when there hasn’t even been time for a thorough investigation was a performative joke. No sane jury will convict her and then every yahoo will be out in the street burning and looting over what was clearly a tragic accident. I guess facts and reason don’t matter anymore. [/quote]Second degree manslaughter is a charge used in the case of "negligent killing," according to a former judge from Minnesota in the news article link below. It is a perfectly appropriate charge in this case. We can all see on the video that Potter killed Wright thinking she was using a taser - so, there you go, a killing which was *negligent*. Yeah, facts and reason *do* matter and in this case they support a second-degree manslaughter charge. Anyway, if anyone wants to see this legal expert's discussion of the criteria for different possible charges, it's worth your while to check out this link: https://kstp.com/news/former-judge-explains-reasoning-behind-manslaughter-charge-for-officer-who-shot-daunte-wright/6075504/[/quote] Richard Frase, a professor of criminal law at the University of Minnesota, said the second-degree manslaughter statute is worded narrowly enough that the case might prove difficult for prosecutors to prove, noting that it requires them to show that Ms. Potter consciously took a chance of “causing death or great bodily harm.” “She thinks she’s firing a Taser,” he said of the former officer. “How can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she consciously took chances of at least causing great bodily harm?” In other words they have to prove she intended to cause him great harm. She intended to use non-lethal force. What she used is not relevant to the elements of the crime. Her intent is the element. Her intent is pretty clear.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics