Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

[CWM11B]

Doesn't that let the charged officer get away free if it's not proved?
I mean, I see officers charged with 1st, 2nd degree etc... and they are not convicted for anything.
I find that a big loop hole if that's true. Not only for officers charged but any civilian that's charged with higher crime and freed.

If they are not convicted of higher crimes, shouldn't they get lesser punishment?
For example, if I kill someone and I get charged with 1st degree murder and jury acquits me for whatever reason (technicalities, wrong trial...), I shouldn't go free instead I should be in trial for whatever is next in the line and put in jail, not free.
I don't know if that's the process but a suspect charged with a crime shouldn't go free just because prosecuting team decided to over charge.
Shouldn't they have something like, this person is charged with 1st degree murder and all other lesser murder charges like 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter... and let jury decide where they convict instead of either convict this person of 1st degree or let this criminal go free.
Jury gets no other option other than either convict as charged or let the criminal go free. Enlighten me.

No. Neither you nor anyone else should be re-charged or charged with a lesser crime for a "do over" after an acquittal because the state didn't make their case and secure a conviction. Its called double jeopardy and we have it for or a reason. It prevents the state, with its unlimited resources from grinding you to a finacial pulp by endless trials. Presumption of innocence is a good thing and I don't want to live in a country where it doesn't exist. Neither should any sane person.

[WobblyPossum]

Maybe, maybe not, if this is the statute...

I looked up the manslaughter 1 and the murder 3 statutes and don’t think either of these apply. This manslaughter 2 one is the closest I’ve found. The prosecution could argue the first portion of the statute: “(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.” It could be argued that Officer Potter consciously pressed the trigger of the handgun she held and pulling the handgun out instead of the Taser was the creation of the unreasonable risk. Even though she didn’t know the object in her hand was a handgun because she thought it was a taser, she purposely activated it. I would need to learn about the jury instructions and case law regarding manslaughter charges in Minnesota before I could make a more informed guess. I’m not motivated to do that. This is just my guess from reading the verbiage of the statute. I am not a lawyer.

[blues]

I'm not trying to be mean here, really, but the ignorance of basic principles of American Criminal Justice procedures in this post is actually one of our biggest problems. People don't even really understand what the "Law" is as a concept, and are therefore surprised by predictable legal outcomes.

You seem to unwittingly be calling for an Inspector Joubert "I'll find something he's guilty of" type of criminal justice system, without actually knowing that's what you're asking for.

Thanks for saving me from the scorched earth reply I was preparing...

[Mystery]

I'm not trying to be mean here, really, but the ignorance of basic principles of American Criminal Justice procedures in this post is actually one of our biggest problems. People don't even really understand what the "Law" is as a concept, and are therefore surprised by predictable legal outcomes.

You seem to unwittingly be calling for an Inspector Joubert "I'll find something he's guilty of" type of criminal justice system, without actually knowing that's what you're asking for.

Maybe.
Let's say I robbed you strong hand and got caught.
Prosecutor charged me with attempted murder instead as I hit you during the robbery.
Jury didn't convict me of attempted murder as they decided I just wanted to get money or whatever.
I shouldn't go free. That's all I'm saying.
I committed a crime and at least I should get punishment for robbery or stealing or assault whatever but not free.
Instead of what I did, my future depends upon what they charge me with.

I've seen news about many charges for something specific and the person is acquitted even though he committed a crime, just not convicted of what's charged.
That maybe how the law works.

[blues]

Maybe.
Let's say I robbed you strong hand and got caught.
Prosecutor charged me with attempted murder instead as I hit you during the robbery.
Jury didn't convict me of attempted murder.
I shouldn't go free. That's all I'm saying. I committed a crime and at least I should get punishment for robbery or stealing or assault whatever but not free.
Instead of what I did, my future depends upon what they charge me with.

I've seen news about many charges for something specific and the person is acquitted even though he committed a crime, just not convicted of what's charged.

Just because you weren't convicted of attempted murder doesn't mean you can't be charged, indicted and tried for the robbery. You need to read up on the American system of jurisprudence a bit. A little effort on your part should hopefully clarify much of what you misunderstand about the legal system.

What you can't be is tried twice for the same specific offense...simplistically, if you were acquitted of murdering your mother, you couldn't be retried for her murder...(without going into all the machinations and possible workarounds). That doesn't mean you couldn't be charged and tried for a separate offense.

[Mystery]

Just because you weren't convicted of attempted murder doesn't mean you can't be charged, indicted and tried for the robbery. You need to read up on the American system of jurisprudence a bit. A little effort on your part should hopefully clarify much of what you misunderstand about the legal system.

What you can't be is tried twice for the same specific offense...simplistically, if you were acquitted of murdering your mother, you couldn't be retried for her murder...(without going into all the machinations and possible workarounds). That doesn't mean you couldn't be charged and tried for a separate offense.

Will do. Any good links?

Also, is that "lesser crime" charge applicable in any case or it depends upon the prosecuting team whether to include or not?
Is it included in all charges by default or up to prosecuting team?
If the latter, then the issue will still be there.

As for your example, if I was acquitted of murder, does it matter whether it was for 1st degree or 2nd or whatever?
If I was acquitted of 1st degree, shouldn't I be tried for 2nd or other lesser charges or I couldn't be charged of murder at any degree once I'm acquitted at any charged degree?
That goes back to the original question again.

[blues]

Will do. Any good links?

Do they have google in your part of the country?

[Mystery]

Do they have google in your part of the country?

What's that???

I'll see what comes up with search.

[WobblyPossum]

Will do. Any good links?

Also, is that "lesser crime" charge applicable in any case or it depends upon the prosecuting team whether to include or not?
Is it included in all charges by default or up to prosecuting team?
If the latter, then the issue will still be there.

It’s up to the prosecution what they want to charge you with. Generally they’ll only charge you with what they believe they can meet the burden of proof for. That’s actually a core tenet of our legal system: a prosecutor isn’t supposed to bring charges they don’t believe could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At least that’s what prosecutors I’ve worked closely with have explained to me. If the prosecution failed to include lesser offenses that fit your criminal actions and you’re acquitted, that’s on them. They generally don’t get to try you again for the same crime once you’ve been acquitted. There are certain exceptions such as “dual sovereigns” where you may have violated both state and federal laws with the same actions and could be charged separately in state court and federal court for the same actions without violating the double jeopardy clause of the bill of rights.

The system you’re proposing is exactly what the double jeopardy clause was meant to prevent. Exactly as someone mentioned above, with a system like you’re proposing the government could constantly retry you with its unlimited resources and eventually you’d go bankrupt and be unable to afford the legal representation you’d like to have.

[AMC]

Will do. Any good links?

Also, is that "lesser crime" charge applicable in any case or it depends upon the prosecuting team whether to include or not?
Is it included in all charges by default or up to prosecuting team?
If the latter, then the issue will still be there.

As for your example, if I was acquitted of murder, does it matter whether it was for 1st degree or 2nd or whatever?
If I was acquitted of 1st degree, shouldn't I be tried for 2nd or other lesser charges or I couldn't be charged of murder at any degree once I'm acquitted at any charged degree?
That goes back to the original question again.

The "issue" that you seem concerned with is that sometimes the guilty are not punished, that sometimes the law doesn't apply as written to objectionable actions, and that you don't feel justice has been done. Is that about right?

Welcome to reality. I mean, really......there's not much else to say. Maybe a lawsuit against your High School Civics teacher for fraud?