Exactly! It is one thing for political pundits to start gobbing off about what happened, but for the president, vice-president, and all the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security to do this without any investigation is insane.
Asked and answered—not necessarily.
Before or after she was shot in the face?
Asked and answered—false.
Asked and answered—obviated by his disobedience to regulation.
Mens rea is absolutely essential to determining such things as forcibility.
You don't know the law.
It's the easiest to prove given the evidence. But under Minnesota statute, 3rd degree murder might fit. But as I've said many times, I'm told by lawyers that the various shades of homicide are the hardest for lay people to get. So I won't stake a firm claim on any particular charge. However, 1st degree murder requiring premeditation really doesn't fit the facts. Yes, I have listened to the arguments about how the officer freed up his gun hand, but that's kind of shaky. All that said, Minnesota (like most states) follows the lesser-included offense doctrine that allows a jury to convict on a lesser degree of the charged offense.
Agreed, my initial reaction to this after viewing all the videos was "classic manslaughter" The analogy given to all first year law students (at least in my ancient days) is a husband walking in on his wife who is cheating with another man, so he kills her in rage. Given his previous incident in being dragged by a vehicle, it seems likely that the immediate trigger for him was being struck (incidentally or not) by the vehicle. That triggered the reaction, and it was a quick emotional one. As you pointed out, a prosecutor could point out he had his gun already in hand when the wife was goading him, so that implies a bit more premeditation, but given all the other factors, like her already being in the middle of the road and defying their commands, as you said a lesser charge would be easier for people to accept.
Thanks.
How would double jeopardy work? Does bringing a case through federal courts prevent being tried for the same acts in a state court?
To be fair you don't have much choice. It's not like the Democrats are offering anything to fight for.
I see, so you admit there is no evidence, only allegations used to justify their interactions with her, after the fact.
I have many choices other than resist or not resist. But I'm not sure what you are expecting Democrats to offer? Or are you trying to turn this into a both sides discussion?
As far as ICE's current shenanigans are concerned, the Democrats are offering...not that. If you don't think that's worth fighting for, I don't know what to say.
