Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

[SiriusBlunder]

Slightly off topic as I know you guys are discussing double jeopardy in the US, and as AFAIK new evidence doesn't make a difference here as long as you are accounting for separate sovereigns, but I remember when this made news and the UK had their first "double jeopardy" conviction:

Double jeopardy law ushered out

The ban on "double jeopardy", which has existed for around 800 years, took effect from Monday.

The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced.

[Borderland]

Hmmm, I guess my computer has special privileges. Here's the gist:

I like both justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, even if Trump appointed them.

[Borderland]

Hmmm, I guess my computer has special privileges. Here's the gist:

I'm maxed out on the freebees. NYT is a sub I would like but I'm too damn cheap. My wife has one and sends me stuff to read which, of course, I can't.

I do Forbes so that probably tells you a lot about my reading.

[blues]

I like both justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, even if Trump appointed them.

I'm maxed out on the freebees. NYT is a sub I would like but I'm too damn cheap. My wife has one and sends me stuff to read which, of course, I can't.

I do Forbes so that probably tells you a lot about my reading.

Not that I asked...

[RevolverRob]

When is new evidence an exception to double jeopardy?

For some reason, I thought certain kinds of evidence could be an exception. Upon review, I think I was confusing evidence that might be admitted in a retrial of a conviction or previous mistrial. As opposed to evidence that would allow retrial of an acquittal.

[Totem Polar]

Ultimately, the use of lethal means by those the state empowers to do so is what the enforcement of all law is predicated upon. From not paying your taxes to robbing banks at gunpoint, persisting in virtually any behavior that's against the law will eventually mean a bunch of people with guns will show up and take you to jail, and refusing to comply means those guns get used on you.

Unless we're willing to make the law an entirely optional course of action that has minimally annoying consequences (if any) instead of 'dudes with guns' sorts of consequences, this will not change.
In areas just like this MN situation, that attitude is already prevalent, and those communities are seeing that once the law is basically optional, a whole lot less people are following it and shit is worse for it. Strange..

Basic Civics 1- to be effective, every law must be backed up with lethal force, otherwise that law may as well not exist. This goes back millennia, in pretty much every nation throughout history. The law enforcement people are tasked to making sure that one way or the other, a lawbreaker stops breaking the law right then and there, even up to using lethal force is the situation calls for it.

My two brothers from another set of mothers have given me the opportunity to post this classic, again. I do not believe that we’ve re-read this for 2021 yet, so may as well take the opportunity to tangent:

https://www.jack-donovan.com/sowilo/...nce-is-golden/

Your post was spot on but it's worth noting this ^^^^ is basically what the various Soros funded Socialist DA's are doing by perpetually re-investigating closed Officer involved shooting cases without any new evidence.

QFT. Absofuckinglutely.

[Gadfly]

Wow... I just read the entire thread... a lot to unpack.

The officer screwed up. Period. It was it criminal? That is really iffy....

This incident reminds me of traffic accidents were “pedal misapplication” comes into play. You are driving along, something pops out on the road in front of you, you go to stomp on the brake... BUT, your foot misses the brake and stomps on the gas. You just hit someone. You were not drunk. You are not impaired. You are licensed to drive that vehicle. You have been driving for 26 years... it is a natural ingrained reaction to stomp on the brake when startled. Everyone does it. But you stomped 1.5” to the wrong side...

What crime are you charged with? You hit someone with your car. But it was clearly not intentional... would going to prison make society safer? Obviously the family of the person hit wants justice. But is it a criminal matter or civil?

Same exact thing happened in MN, just replace driver hit wrong pedal with officer gabbed wrong tool.
She is still in the wrong. The driver should still be alive. But is it an accident or a crime....

————————-
@Mystery in matters like this you need to understand “culpable mental state”. What was the intent of the person committing the act.
Since I am in Texas, I will refer to Texas law... but EVERY state has their own version of this. The prosecution has to prove some level of intent for a conviction. What was her intent in that event? Was her intent to kill or injure him?

REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

————
Mystery, you keep wanting to compare the officers actions to that of a civilian. The difference is the officer is acting on behalf of the state, and is expected to use force as a normal part of her duties. She is expected to stop bad guys from escaping. She is paid to prevent him from starting a car chase that could cause multiple deaths... so her use of force is judged by a different set of standards than yours would be. Because she is required to use force sometimes in the course of her duty, you are not.

So, Mystery, ask these questions:
Was she a lawfully employed officer, on duty, acting in accordance with her states laws?
Does she have lawful authority to use force to effect an arrest?
Dose she have lawful authority to carry her lethal and less lethal tools with her?
Does she have probable cause to stop the vehicle?
Does she have the legal authority to remove the driver of the vehicle under Pennsylvania V Mimms?
Does she have the legal authority to arrest the drive after confirmation of the warrant?
Does she have the legal authority to use reasonable force to overcome the resistance to arrest under Graham v Connor?
Would it be reasonable to use a taser giver the circumstances know to the officer at the time the trigger was pulled?
Would it be a great danger to the community at large to allow the suspect to flee in a 3000lb projectile as he attempt to evade arrest?

The answer to all those questions are the same.

The issue goes back to the top of the post. Pedal misapplication under stress. Were her actions so reckless and negligent as to rise to “criminal” levels, beyond a reasonable doubt? That is the $27 million dollar (civil suit) question.

Lose of her job could be seen as reasonable. Loss of her freedom? Are we that worried she will roam the streets shooting other fleeing felons on accident? She is acting on behalf of the state of MN, using training/tools/policy dictated by the state. This is why these cases usually end with a cash payout. It’s hard to put the state of MN into a jail cell.

She screwed up. Driver should be alive.

I am not a lawyer. These are just random thoughts. If new info comes forward I could change my analysis.

[ssb]

Right, but that's not to do with discovering new evidence.

If you’ve already put them in a position where jeopardy has attached, they were found not guilty, and you subsequently find that slam dunk evidence well... your defendant ought to buy a lottery ticket or two.

[olstyn]

Were her actions so reckless and negligent as to rise to “criminal” levels, beyond a reasonable doubt? That is the $27 million dollar (civil suit) question.

^
The nail has been hit on the head here.

I doubt there is any adult on the planet who has not made some type of error under stress. She unequivocally caused the death of another human by her actions, but were those actions criminally negligent?

As illustrated by posts from several officers earlier in the thread, this type of error is something all officers should be aware is possible, set up their gear to minimize the chance of happening, and train to prevent. Based on that, I think it's at least within the realm of reason to file a manslaughter charge here, BUT the outcome is for a jury to decide after [hopefully carefully] reviewing all of the evidence.

One possibly interesting comment I heard elsewhere is that it's possible to construct a [probably less than rock solid, but at least plausible] justification for use of deadly force in this scenario based on the fact that the decedent had a known history of illegal weapons possession and was diving back into a car while resisting arrest. Had she simply shot him without first yelling that she was going to tase him, we'd still have protests/riots, probably claiming that she should have just tased him, didn't have to shoot him, etc., but would there be a manslaughter charge if shooting him with a gun had been her clear intent?

[DDTSGM]

Yes you are right.
As I replied just now to another post, someone like me who reads a lot of replies from LEO's have so many things going on when some incident like this happens.
Now think of general public who never reads anything.
They see the results, they don't see how it happened.
That's how this whole protests and other issues are coming up.
It's not good for both police and public and I don't know the solution.

Maybe a high school education? I know that sounds snarky, but, trust me, it ain't. You should learn how our court system works in high school.

A major trouble is that the media try these cases before the trial by seeking out expert witnesses who see the facts their way. Anything for ratings.