[molson]

The two from last week are tough cases too. The Louisiana case, let's assume that the officers' defense is what has been speculated here - one officer said "he's got a gun" or "he's going for a gun", and the other officer sincerely interpreted that to mean that the suspect was grabbing his gun. Let's all agree it's a fuck-up. But unless the state could disprove the officer's theory, it wouldn't be even involuntary manslaughter in my state, because involuntary manslaughter requires the intentional commission of a lesser crime that accidentally results in death. I don't think that would fit there. It would be more similar to negligent fuck-up by a doctor or construction worker. Maybe Louisiana law is different.

The Minnesota case looks like a panic-based fuck-up. In my state's law, it couldn't be involuntary manslaughter. If the state couldn't prove it was something besides a panic-based fuck-up, it couldn't be second-degree murder because I don't think we could prove malice aforethought. Voluntary manslaughter might fit, because maybe it's a "sudden quarrel or heat of passion" kind of thing, but it's still different than the traditional "heat of passion" case. And will the state be able to disprove the officer's inevitable defense that the guy was reaching for his gun?

I wish there was officer-based criminal statutes to more specificity define the parameters of when use-of-force becomes criminal. It's very difficult to pin general-application statutes on officers when they have lawful authority to use force in so many of their interactions with citizens. But I think there would be resistance on all sides to that. People would be against it either because it restricts' officers' authority and makes them more liable for crimes based upon mistakes, or because it creates a "different set of rules for officers".