Apart from homicides involving vehicles, these are the criminal homicides in Minnesota:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609

HOMICIDE; BODILY HARM; SUICIDE

609.18 DEFINITION.
609.184 [Repealed, 1998 c 367 art 6 s 16]
609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
609.196 [Repealed, 1998 c 367 art 6 s 16]
609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Going by the definition of each of them, which one do you believe would not be "horse shit"?

ret5hd

(20,491 posts)

13. You're just kind of a "hit and run" type of guy, aintcha?

Reply to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 15, 2021, 10:34 AM

Apr 2021

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,326 posts)

8. How about making tasers not look and feel like handguns?

Reply to mobeau69 (Original post)

Wed Apr 14, 2021, 12:44 PM

Apr 2021

They have laser sights and really don’t require the same level of marksmanship. There is no need to have the taser feel like a gun.

Make it look like a Star Trek phaser (not the type with a pistol grip)

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)

10. They could be charging the wrong person

Reply to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 14, 2021, 12:57 PM

Apr 2021

For reference, this is the statute in question, with the relevant part highlighted:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

---------

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.

------------------

By "culpable negligence" you need more than a mistake.

Her defense is going to be that she mistook the gun for a TASER. In the video, she immediately exclaims that she thought she had her TASER, and that is admissible as an "excited utterance" evincing her state of mind.

What will need to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that in those brief moments, she meant to point a gun at him, and then quickly lied about her state of mind immediately after it happened.

One alternative would be to show that if he was attempting to drive the vehicle, then even if she CORRECTLY had the TASER, then she was creating an unreasonable risk that he would uncontrollably crash the vehicle had he successfully tased him as he was driving off.

But, going back to the statute, you raise an interesting point. SOMEONE decided to equip these police officers with instruments that may have a similar feel. I personally would not know. But if that is the case, then THERE is your person who created the unreasonable risk.

LetMyPeopleVote

(145,218 posts)

12. This lady has been arrested

Reply to mobeau69 (Original post)

Wed Apr 14, 2021, 01:40 PM

Apr 2021

Link to tweet

Reply to this discussion