Philando Castile case. Officer charged

[sprigfan]

Heard a lawyer on Barrero's KFAN show yesterday (don't remember his name) saying the 2nd degree manslaughter charge is a joke. Basically it's a charge for negligence, but it's not possible to be negligent when you shoot someone 7 times. He thinks the prosecutor is setting it up so the officer only gets convicted of discharging a firearm in city limits.

[Randygmn]

This should've gone to a grand jury. Why would a judge start this process, which is sure to be controversial, this way?

[yukonjasper]

don't underestimate the "circle the wagons" union mentality, not to mention the civil lawsuit that can come from these cases that can really drain a cities pockets. There a limits on what the insurance company will cover on the Liability of the Officer. I wouldn't be surprised that Man2 is the upper limit of what the insurance company will still reimburse the city.

[MJY65]

There a limits on what the insurance company will cover on the Liability of the Officer.

I've often wondered if officers should be required to purchase their own liability insurance. That gets the city out of it and allows the rates to be determined by conduct. You have a whole bunch of excessive force complaints against you? Rates are going to be pretty high.

[jdege]

Heard a lawyer on Barrero's KFAN show yesterday (don't remember his name) saying the 2nd degree manslaughter charge is a joke. Basically it's a charge for negligence, but it's not possible to be negligent when you shoot someone 7 times. He thinks the prosecutor is setting it up so the officer only gets convicted of discharging a firearm in city limits.

Did the officer think Castile was a deer?

[unfitmother]

I've often wondered if officers should be required to purchase their own liability insurance.

It's been proposed before. A novel approach to increased police accountability In Mpls.

[gun_fan111v2]

It is harder for young people to afford car insurance because the rate is higher due to limited experience. I would think same would translate to the liability insurance of officers just starting their careers...

[crbutler]

Given the Barreiro show is a left wing joke, that bit of legal advice is worth what the audience paid for it.

The negligence was in choosing to shoot, at least depending on how the jury looks at it. I would not want to be charged with it.

Charging the officer with manslaughter is much more likely to result in a conviction as the jury won't see it as railroading a cop in a tough job.

Let's just see what the jury thinks of the case and then start Monday morning quarterbacking the case after the process works out...

[jdege]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(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; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

I don't see how any of those apply to the situation at hand,

[Jack's My dog]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(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; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

I don't see how any of those apply to the situation at hand,

#1 seems to be applicable. ***Edited to add*** At least in the sense that the charge fits the situation better than Murder.

[i]Definition. A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Negligence | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence[/i]

[grimbeaver]

It is harder for young people to afford car insurance because the rate is higher due to limited experience. I would think same would translate to the liability insurance of officers just starting their careers...

Doctors face the same thing when they start out. I believe most of them have to pay their own malpractice insurance and it's not cheap.

[bstrawse]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(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; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

I don't see how any of those apply to the situation at hand,

He was charged under 609.205 (1).

[tman]

It is harder for young people to afford car insurance because the rate is higher due to limited experience. I would think same would translate to the liability insurance of officers just starting their careers...

Doctors face the same thing when they start out. I believe most of them have to pay their own malpractice insurance and it's not cheap.

As it is, police officers receive qualified immunity, and are not personally liable for damages when they are acting as instruments of the state (within policy).

Are doctors acting under color of law?

[jdege]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(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; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

I don't see how any of those apply to the situation at hand,

He was charged under 609.205 (1).

I don't see how shooting someone could be seen as negligence. It's not like he left a loaded gun on a table where it might fall and discharge and hurt someone. He didn't create a situation that put someone at risk, he pulled the trigger.

[crbutler]

Not following department policy on use of force can be negligent. I.e., he had no criminal intent.

He didn't intend to kill the guy, just stop his actions. If the jury states he did not comply, within a reasonable persons understanding, with his departments policy, and he knew the policy, he was negligent.