Thanks ... exactly what I was asking.
'I can't breathe:' Death of unarmed black man George Floyd leads to firing of white police officers
- Thread starter easymon1
- Start date
Thanks ... exactly what I was asking.
I would think that they can amend the charges ... as they do when a victim of assault, dies days or weeks later.
Correct. And in civil law as well "a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him" or the similar phrase.
You cannot prove what the officer decided in his head so you cannot prove premeditation. I can get the cop on the stand and ask him "Dod you know you were going to see George today?" Did you know he was going to commit an alleged crime and have the cops called on him?" "Did you make sure you were the cop called in on that specific case?" etc...
Boom..premediation defeated.
You have to think logically and as soon as you make up fiction that the premeditation could have....NO....you lose.
Sadly that is not how it works.
It is not what you think or guess, it is what you can prove and there is no way you can prove PREMEDIATION.
So anyone upset that he got Murder 3 charge does not know the law.
And criminal law the fragile victim would apply even more but can be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing or charge. That is why the defendant could use his condition to simply push it to Man2 from Murder 3 but IT IS NOT A DEFENSE AGAINST THE CRIME, just the level of the charge.
They can amend the charge up until the trial starts but I am almost positive this is not going to trial. No defense atty will want this guy on the stand with the picture of him and his knee driving George into the groud while staring smugly at the camera. They will beg to plead to Man2 but whatever happens the crowd will not be happy.
If it goes to a trial the DA will push for MAN3 hard and would be hard to find a jury that will not be swayed by the evidence and a defense atty knows this.
I'm not upset. I think he's properly charged. I'm just waxing philosophical.
To your point:
The courts never really know what's in a defendant's head. They look at actions, in-actions, and other evidence, in light of a reasonable person standard.
Here is an example of what I was talking about:
EXAMPLE: A defendant convicted of first degree murder for strangling a victim with a lamp cord premeditated the murder. The evidence showed that the defendant repositioned the cord around the victim’s neck numerous times, each time giving him the opportunity to reflect on his actions. The defendant had also had time to consider his actions during a struggle with the victim prior to the strangulation, further proving premeditation. (Berube v. State, 5 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009).)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-premeditated-deliberate-conduct.html
The victim being in distress; saying he can't breathe; and other distress signals gave the cop an opportunity to think about what he was doing, and the possible results of what he was doing.
EDIT: Also from that site:
Time Required
Time alone doesn’t determine whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated. All premeditation and deliberation require is the time it takes to form the intent, ponder the crime, and then act. Defendants can premeditate and deliberate in a matter of minutes, as long as the thought process occurs before the act.
There is no specific formula for determining whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated before acting. Courts and juries will consider the circumstances of each case.
Here's the whole thing, should have done this at first:
_______________________________________________________________
Premeditation
Someone premeditates a crime by considering it before committing it. Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon.
Deliberation
A defendant deliberates by considering the act and its consequences (but not necessarily the punishment), and deciding to follow through with it. A deliberate act isn’t provoked or carried out in the heat of passion. But that a defendant was excited or angry doesn’t mean that she didn’t deliberate.
Time Required
Time alone doesn’t determine whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated. All premeditation and deliberation require is the time it takes to form the intent, ponder the crime, and then act. Defendants can premeditate and deliberate in a matter of minutes, as long as the thought process occurs before the act.
There is no specific formula for determining whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated before acting. Courts and juries will consider the circumstances of each case.
EXAMPLE: A defendant convicted of first degree murder for strangling a victim with a lamp cord premeditated the murder. The evidence showed that the defendant repositioned the cord around the victim’s neck numerous times, each time giving him the opportunity to reflect on his actions. The defendant had also had time to consider his actions during a struggle with the victim prior to the strangulation, further proving premeditation. (Berube v. State, 5 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009).)
_______________________________________________________________
Last edited:
Sorryu was not saying you were UPSET...talking about the public in general who reacted negatiely when Murder 3 came out
As for your example, the premediatation came in the events leading up to the stranging and the events occurring while the victim was being strangled. The actions clearly show an intent to kill because you do not precisley work a chord around someone's neck while strangling them for any intent other than to kill. I am sure this was a slam dunk Murder 2 at worst.
If the defendant walked in on her sleeping with his best friend and then strangles her and she dies then Murder 1 goes away because it was more heat of the moment. If he strangles her, throws her down and then strangles her again and throws her down while she is alive and then does it four more times, then the heat of the moment dissaptes and premeditation is created and Murder 2 becomes easy to prove.,etc..
Criminal Law was always fascinating....
Yes.
And Barr expects and is okay with having the state handle the murder charge. It is a state matter and he is not looking for any more work.
Except if the officer should walk for some strange reason - not going to happen- or get off too lightly Barr will find a racial angle to the case and bring fed charges to do what the state failed to do. It has been done before. So, the officer should accept anything that looks like a good deal, find a "girlfriend" there in prison, and get on with his "new life."
I heard they were considering whether civil rights violations occurred. I'm thinking that would not be dependent on how the state charged/resulted. I suspect politics may come into play.