That does seem logically inconsistent. The only thing I have to add is that one of the articles linked earlier in the thread gave an explanation that if convicted on all 3, his sentencing would only reflect the most severe one.Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus
I don't have any knowledge base at MN law, but did find this statute:
(emphasis added)609.04 CONVICTION OF LESSER OFFENSE.
Subdivision 1.Lesser offense prosecution. Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both. An included offense may be any of the following:
(1) a lesser degree of the same crime; or
(2) an attempt to commit the crime charged; or
(3) an attempt to commit a lesser degree of the same crime; or
(4) a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved; or
(5) a petty misdemeanor necessarily proved if the misdemeanor charge were proved.
Subd. 2.Conviction; bar to prosecution. A conviction or acquittal of a crime is a bar to further prosecution of any included offense, or other degree of the same crime.
So, I would assume the jury gives their decision for each charge, but then the court only enters the highest charge found, but that is just an assumption on my part.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
yep, ultimately everyone, even Robespierre, is found to be insufficiently dedicated to the cause. the Jacobins eventually consume themselves
and you'd know this how? LOL
Thank you for reply @TGS.
I see your point. Suspects' actions caused the outcome in some part.
Of course if someone attacks you whether high or not, you have to defend and whatever happens is on the suspect.
I have no sympathy for suspects who try to attack or hurt officers.
Should resisting arrest also be treated same as being attacked?
I get that suspects need to be restrained but when someone is drunk, scared, mentally unstable/disable etc., they don't have the capacity to think how it'll end.
Just few days ago in someone is suing Loveland police because a 73 year old woman with dementia was slammed down on the ground and suffered broken bones, dislocated shoulder etc... because she didn't stop walking when officers asked her to stop.
Yes she didn't obey but hoping for better outcomes in non violent situations.
I hope most officers will agree in that sentiment.
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/04/1...investigation/
Specific to this case, excessive force was used and I also was expecting guilty on lesser charges.
Maybe that'll how it'll end after appeal/re-trial.
Sorry if I offended you.
I'll try to be more thoughtful when replying.
Not so much offended as frustrated. You seem to have a tendency to argue from a position of reducing situations to the point where they have no nuances rather than evaluating them as they are, and that makes it feel like you're not having a conversation in good faith. From your most recent reply, that appears not to be your true intent, and as such, I will try to evaluate future posts from you starting from a clean slate in my own mind.
And that post does a lot to clean things up, in general. Solid.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
That doesn't mean the police should be blamed for the unfortunate outcome that was, ultimately, predicated on the subject's actions.
The caveat to consider is whether the police acted within the "reasonable officer" standard. Specific to Chauvin, it was determined by the jury he did not act within the scope of a reasonable officer; a feeling shared by most police officers across the nation, including this forum.
Being drunk, mentally unstable, or scared is not an excuse to threatening the safety of others where the police must now allow you to do what you will and hopefully just come about your senses. The police have a duty to act. The police have a duty to....police. Use of force, bruises, broken bones, etc are all normal and natural outcomes to policing. For the purposes of making a point, I'd even say that it's a good thing; every time a cop cuffs you alive and all you got was bruises and broken bones, that means he effectively used force and didn't have to result to shooting you. If you talk to a lot of older cops, you'll find the sentiment that in current day we're shooting a lot of people that 20 years ago wouldn't need to be shot, because the police were actually allowed to fight you with effective tools and groundfighting techniques. Black jacks too effective? Cops get heavy batons instead. Heavy batons too effective? Cops get weak collapsible batons instead that don't do anything. Lateral vascular neck restraint too effective? Cops get restricted to only using very limited, approved fighting techniques taught in the academy (which usually don't work in actual use).
Literally everything we're doing to cops these days is to make them hurt people less...to make them less effective at fighting. So why are we surprised when the fights get out of the cops' control and they end up having to shoot people?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Exactly.
Sadly many in leadership positions on the left dont appear to be well versed in history. Attempting to harness marxist tactics for political gain usually ends badly.
“Archer not arrow. No such thing as a perfect pistol. Until you commit to being a better archer, you’ll keep hunting for a better arrow.”
-JCN
Sadly many in leadership positions on the left dont appear to be well versed in history, law, the Constitution, reality, human nature, science, honesty, integrity, duty, honor, etc.
I Fixed it for you.
Reply With Quote