(12-24-2021, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(12-24-2021, 09:37 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: What's unique about their law that would let her off? I didn't follow this trial at all. The whole thing is a tragedy.

They have language in their 1st degree manslaughter law that considers intentionality. Have a read and tell me what you think, it's pretty concise as far as laws go:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

2nd degree manslaughter requires "consciously takes chance of causing death"

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2021/cite/609.205

This case was neither, the cop was doing her job and consciously believed she was using her non-lethal weapon. These laws are both written to consider intent and it's pretty clear she intended to taze and subdue the guy. It was a mistake yes, but it wasn't manslaughter according to their laws.

You're right.  The adverb "consciously" is a necessary part of the clause, and none of the other clauses apply.
The jury is saying they believe it's unreasonable to think she wasn't conscious that she was holding a gun, given that she always kept the gun on that side of her belt, and the gun was a totally different weight than a tazer.

---