Crime

A Quick And Easy Guide To The Charges Against The Cops In George Floyd Case

In case you were wondering what these statutes say, we've got you covered.

By  
on

(Image via Getty)

Earlier today, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison — the sort of attorney general who actually does important work, unlike some people — announced that Derek Chauvin will face a second-degree murder charge over the killing of George Floyd. Additionally, the three other officers standing around doing what appears to be absolutely nothing while Floyd was killed will face aiding and abetting charges.

But what does this shift in charges mean in Minnesota? Well, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes website is currently swamped and intermittently down, so we’ll save you the trouble of looking things up and offer a quick rundown.

First, Chauvin is no longer facing the third degree murder charge he was initially tagged with. Third degree murder is laid out in Minnesota Statute 609.195:

Not that this matters anymore, but legal lexicon guru Bryan Garner took issue with this statute:

Sponsored

Except… why would that be? It would seem as if the point of the statute was to punish those who kill people while performing inherently dangerous acts, not necessarily those who perform acts that present imminent harm.

In any event, the operative statute is now 609.19, which says in pertinent part:

In this instance, the felony offense is some degree of criminal assault. First degree assault is defined by the sparse definition, “Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm,” and carries a 20-year maximum. Minnesota has a bias-motivated crime booster that can up the statutory maximum penalty of an assault motivated by race. Obviously that still pales in comparison to the 40 years under the second degree murder statute, in case you’re keeping a tally of years.

In cases like these, prosecutors always have to worry about the perils of overcharging a defendant, but in this case it seems as though it’s hard to argue that kneeling on someone’s neck until they’re killed isn’t an intentional infliction of great bodily harm. It would seem that the crux of a case for either second- or third-degree murder would be overcoming qualified immunity — the get out of jail free card that routinely allows law enforcement abuses to be swept aside as unfortunate side effects of officers “just doing their job.” Or more accurately “just trying to do their job” since the doctrine allows officers to actually screw up and still avoid punishment based on the argument that they need “breathing room” — the actual horrifyingly ironic language — to perform the job.

Sponsored

Assuming prosecutors can prove that what Chauvin did so exceeded the rules of the job and rendered his actions beyond the authority of a cop performing official duties, then it would seem as though proving that Chauvin was trying to cause bodily harm vs. doing something inherently dangerous is hardly a challenge. If the stumbling block is qualified immunity and that looms over either statute, there wouldn’t seem to be much added downside in opting for the more serious charge.

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

, , ,