I dont know about that....they interpret law individually and come to a collective decision.
Regardless of their political leanings they are really really smart people and i dont think that it would take them more than a couple hours to rule that ordering military action against US citizens is an over reach no matter how its presented.
I just dont see it getting that far though....the GOP is very much taking notice right now, how can they not? He is looking to cost a whole lot of them their careers by militarizing the streets....rats off a sinking ship responses would follow.
The courts are highly partisan (Mitch McConnell's lasting legacy). I don't have confidence that the SCOTUS would stand in Trump's way.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
Arrest them for negligence and if the charges need to be amended up afterwards, then do that then.
Mind you people are pissed off that chauvin is "only" charged with 3rd degree murder when from what I understand that is very much the charge that the evidence can support and result in conviction.
So maybe they want to be sure that whatever charge they bring against the other 3 will without question be supported by evidence and make sure they cant walk by over reaching on the charges.
Pure guess.
You know, I originally was of the mindset that third degree was the most likely with which they could succeed, due to the challenge of establishing the intent
But when you have the guy down, knee on his neck, there is a crowd of bystanders saying you are going to kill him, he is saying he can’t breathe and is begging you not to kill him, and you keep your knee there not only until he is unresponsive, but for a long time after... well, at some point you made a go/no go decision that was lethal.
I definitely understand those that are disappointed and want to see a higher charge
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
Denver officer who posted Instagram photo with the caption 'let's start a riot' is fired
Quote:
An Internal Affairs investigation found that officer Thomas McClay violated the police department's social media policy and "posted content inconsistent with the values of the Department," the police department said in a news release.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to united For This Useful Post:
If Trump orders the military into states and they go (I’d hope they’d refuse) and someone dies, I’d think they can add that to the long list of Trump crimes as I’m sure he’d be criminally culpable.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
You know, I originally was of the mindset that third degree was the most likely with which they could succeed, due to the challenge of establishing the intent
But when you have the guy down, knee on his neck, there is a crowd of bystanders saying you are going to kill him, he is saying he can’t breathe and is begging you not to kill him, and you keep your knee there not only until he is unresponsive, but for a long time after... well, at some point you made a go/no go decision that was lethal.
I definitely understand those that are disappointed and want to see a higher charge
Agree with all of it...100%
To the hi-lited though...I too would like 2nd degree but is it not better to have a slam dunk charge rather than one that he could possibly skate on?
Being they have already successfully convicted a cop on 3rd....and its harder to convict police than an ordinary citizen, I get what they are doing.
I watched Seth Meyers last night and he talked about the "bad apple" argument and has a good point. Paraphrasing...
If you went to an orchard to pick apples and the farmer told you that there were a few bad apples in there that might kill you, then that is not "just a few bad apples", that is a bad orchard.
Unfortunately this is the exact same argument the odious Trump Jr made when he argued against taking in Syrian refugees. If you have a bowl of skittles and one or two are poisonous, then you shouldn't take the risk. It's a ####ty argument no matter who it's applying to, to be honest, even if I am angry at some of the brutal cop videos we're seeing.
The Following User Says Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
To the hi-lited though...I too would like 2nd degree but is it not better to have a slam dunk charge rather than one that he could possibly skate on?
Being they have already successfully convicted a cop on 3rd....and its harder to convict police than an ordinary citizen, I get what they are doing.
Yes, I think so, but not being any sort of expert on the Amercian trial process, couldn't he be charged with second degree murder, then if the judge or jury decide that he is not guilty of that and still convict him of third degree? Or have I just watched too much American television?
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by schteve_d
Yes, I think so, but not being any sort of expert on the Amercian trial process, couldn't he be charged with second degree murder, then if the judge or jury decide that he is not guilty of that but still convict him of third degree? Or have I just watched too much American television?
Im not sure but my guess is there can only be onedegree of a murder charge and then a lesser charge such as manslaughter.
Which is why the manslaughter was added on to the 3rd degree as it was...just in case.
Like i said they have experience in getting the 3rd degree against a cop already so im sure they are positive they can get there again. Go any higher and the burden on the prosecution goes up exponentially and they must think there could be enough reasonable doubt among a jury to see him acquitted.
Unfortunately this is the exact same argument the odious Trump Jr made when he argued against taking in Syrian refugees. If you have a bowl of skittles and one or two are poisonous, then you shouldn't take the risk. It's a ####ty argument no matter who it's applying to, to be honest, even if I am angry at some of the brutal cop videos we're seeing.
Except for two things.
With refugees, we are literally talking about people running for their lives.
And more importantly, I can't find any sources that indicate Americans are beaten and or killed by Syrian refugees. That fear was completely fabricated.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
If Trump orders the military into states and they go (I’d hope they’d refuse) and someone dies, I’d think they can add that to the long list of Trump crimes as I’m sure he’d be criminally culpable.
This simply isn't how criminal law works. Not in America. Nor should it be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
You know, I originally was of the mindset that third degree was the most likely with which they could succeed, due to the challenge of establishing the intent
But when you have the guy down, knee on his neck, there is a crowd of bystanders saying you are going to kill him, he is saying he can’t breathe and is begging you not to kill him, and you keep your knee there not only until he is unresponsive, but for a long time after... well, at some point you made a go/no go decision that was lethal.
I definitely understand those that are disappointed and want to see a higher charge
Based on the language of Minnesota's Criminal Code, I don't think the prosecution would have succeeded arguing a case for second degree murder. It would be near-impossible to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the prosecution has the power to change/amend the charges, all the way up to trial (and even during trial in some circumstances).
It's possible they were being conservative in their charges because the entire process was expedited. But with Keith Maurice Ellison leading the case, I don't think it would be difficult to add the second degree charge. If the right facts came up, it could be done (with the judge's approval).
With that said, I guarantee that this case will already have tons of conflict in evidence and rule 105 will be used extensively. There will likely be many instances where the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by prejudice. Hearsay is likely to be an issue as well.
The irony is thick; you couldn't have a more useless approach to actually helping.
Yeah totally, like remember that time that I participated in a flooding the #blacklivesmatter hashtag with a bunch of black squares thereby pushing actual related content down?
The refusing to obey orders isn't a blanket thing that can be evoked out of convenience.
Right now the Insurrection Act is a legal law, there's nothing illegal about invoking it if Trump chooses to. Congress can't say anything about its use nor can the State Government. The law is specifically designed to allow quick action by the president to "Restore Order"
The Supreme Court probably wouldn't be able to strike it down in today's conditions.
If an officer refuses a lawful order such as this his career is over and he's probably at best facing a loss of his career and pension etc, at worse he faces serious jail time. Even the whole moral disqualification wouldn't work.
The only real way I could see an effective resistance to it is if for example the Joint Chiefs and every senior officer involved and their deputies resign enmasse.
Now if Trump invokes the act and includes an order for the troops to roll in and machine gun unarmed citizen, then you would have an illegal act because that's in effect murder and a war crime and soldiers would be able to refuse those orders on the grounds that they are illegal and immoral orders.
But merely saying nope to the Insurrection act isn't by legal definition allowed under the narrow interpretation of refusing an illegal order.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
