The Minnesota Supreme Court has explained “culpable negligence” as similar to “recklessness” or “intentional conduct which the actor may not intend to be harmful but which an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others.”
In another case, the state’s highest court said the statute required prosecutors to prove “an element of awareness of the risk by the defendant.”
To do so, case law indicates prosecutors must prove an “object element” and a “subjective element.” The “objective element” requires prosecutors to argue that an average person looking at the facts from the position of a neutral observer would believe that “gross negligence” occurred. The “subjective element” requires prosecutors to argue that the facts viewed from the defendant’s position alone added up to “recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created” by the defendant’s own conduct.
Or, in other words, “[c]ulpable negligence is more than ordinary negligence and more than gross negligence,” the Minnesota Supreme Court elsewhere explained. “It is gross negligence coupled with the element of recklessness.”
Okay, I have watched this a few times now, and from different angles. To me, it looks like he was trying to turn away from the officer if anything. I can’t from the video come to the conclusion that he was aiming his vehicle at the officer.
I see what you are talking about. I don’t view it the same as you though. I don’t think Brown’s actions indicate he was trying to harm officers.
I think whether or not he tried to avoid hitting officers makes a difference.
Agree here. I can’t see it any other way after watching all the angles. IMO that completely changes if the shooting is justified or not.
Maybe there is something we are not seeing, but if they don’t want to look shady AF, they need to bring in a special prosecutor to have a second set of eyes on this.
I’m sure your view is better than the officers’ who were right there having to decide whether their coworker was about to get run over. I’m also sure that if the driver was a skinhead Trump supporter he’d be just as dead today. The bottom line is he brought it on himself. The sooner people quit second guessing these kind of cases and focus on actual police abuse, the better.
Maybe the talk encourages posturing as aggressively as possible, resisting, hiding your hands, and fleeing in a way that makes it clear you’re no bitch and can scare those armed crackers.
What’s the time period in which those shots were fired? Did they know the guy had passed everyone? At what point did they realize the guy was not going to drive towards them again and was no longer a threat?
Fortunately the feelings of well-meaning liberals don’t often factor in to lethal force law, not without a lot of rioting at least. The basic test for justification explained in the Lethal Force Thread remains the same here.
Lethal force is justified in defense of self or others to prevent the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The conditions of ability, opportunity and intent must be present.
Ability? Check. He was behind the wheel of a car. Anyone driving a car has the ability to inflict death or great bodily harm.
Opportunity? Check. He was very close to every officer, not across the lawn. The opportunity was there, as a car is an impact weapon.
Intent? Check. He drove his vehicle at the officers, demonstrating his clear intention to cause death or great bodily harm.
If you don’t think a car vs person collision has the opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm, you probably lack the basic level of awareness one should have before operating a vehicle. If you don’t think pointing your car at another person and hitting the gas is escalating violence to lethal levels, please keep your uninformed thoughts on this subject to yourself, and please just stick to the bus.
Can you argue that the cops should have just gotten out of the way and let him drive off? Sure. You’d be wrong, but you can argue something like that and the same kind of people who think cops should aim for the leg or other fantasy notions of violence will probably nod along in agreement.
In that moment the cops had to decide if they wanted to play dodge the car and hope for the best or end the threat that met all three conditions. They didn’t know if he had a gun in there either. He’s already demonstrated… Ability. Opportunity. Intent. All present. The shooting stopped when the threat ended. That’s how shooting is done. You don’t fire one shot and wait to see if he throws it in reverse, whips out a gun or speeds off to run a pedestrian over.
If you think that’s how it should be done, I suggest joining a major metro police force and showing everyone the right way to handle violence.
If it is justified, then you wouldn’t be opposed to a special prosecutor looking at it, right? The expert can come to the same conclusion, and people’s doubts should be less.
Sure, as long as it doesn’t involve more special trials with special media coverage featuring special mobs outside and special politicians flying in to put their thumbs on the scales. Special prosecutor, why not?
Imagine a world where multiple offense violent felons need only drive away while ostensibly trying to steer away from the cops.
“I’m sorry about the sexual assault and robbery, ma’am. We tried to catch him, but he drove around us. Luckily Officer Ramirez only got his foot crushed, but he’ll regain partial mobility eventually.”
“There was simply nothing we could have done. Well catch him next time he comes to terrorize you and your children.”
You might be a Wokeneck if…you believe shooting an unarmed woman posing no immediate threat is justifiable, but shooting a man driving a car towards humans is not.
Yeah, leg shots are crazy talk. These guys should have just disabled the vehicle by shooting out vital components of it.
This a quote from someone from the aclu:
Marlow said it’s clear Brown was “not someone trying to assault officers. That’s someone trying to get away” – someone who knows what can happen to a Black man stopped by police.
This bs narrative that we are being fed is one big reason why I don’t care when a criminal is killed. At least be honest and say he was a lifelong criminal who was trying to avoid arrest. Instead it’s a racial issue and he was just a normal black man who was hunted down by the cops on his way to church.
The idea that these liberal morons, who are racists in spite of what they believe, are giving criminals who happen to be black a justifiable reason for resisting arrest is ridiculous. It will only get more of them killed.
How did the car not explode? Isn’t that what happens in movies once a bullet hits the gas tank? The footage is so unrealistic. I’m calling bullshit on all of it.
I think I’d better write a disclaimer in case any nutcases are lurking around here thinking we’re being serious.
No, gas tanks DO NOT EXPLODE when bullets hit them.
The footage is REAL.
I was being SARCASTIC.
Fuck, I can’t believe I even felt the need to do that. I need to stay off my local forums. They’re like 10x dumber than the dumbest things you can find here. That includes all the “socialist” crap we’ve had in the past.