These prosecutors always seem to go for too much. They would get her on manslaughter. No way they prove this was premeditated.
Good question. Let's see if the elements that must be proven for manslaughter 1 or present here:
- When a death occurs during the commission of a misdemeanor.
- When a person unintentionally kills in a another “in the heat of passion,” either in a “cruel or unusual manner” or by using a dangerous weapon (excluding justifiable homicide in self-defense)
- When a person uses unnecessary lethal force in an attempt to resist a crime or after the attempt to commit a crime has failed.
- When a physician is intoxicated and commits an act resulting in the death of a patient, including administering the wrong medication or dose.
Did the officer commit a crime? Other than the unlawful killing, the answer is no, as far as we know.
Was the crime in the "heat of passion" -- maybe here. Heat of passion in Oklahoma has a specific meaning. You have to be so enraged that you no longer are able to act reasonably under the circumstances. If there is evidence she was so angry that she squeezed the trigger, this MIGHT fit. The prosecutors will likely argue that the degree of emotional distress necessary to convict was there based on the stress of the situation. If so, god help us because every high risk police encounter becomes the foundation of a crime. You might be able to argue that it was an unintentional killing with a dangerous weapon, but again, the statute isn't to regulate or prohibit the actions of police while in the scope of their duties. Unless they are saying that her state of mind was such that she intended to act unlawfully and therefore outside the scope of her employment, and then unintentionally killed somebody, this is a stretch.
Three, this applies only to justifiable use of force by a citizen resisting a violent crime. It does not apply to an officer's unjustified use of a weapon in the score of their employment.
Four, she is not a physician and she presumably wasn't drunk.
So we have some trouble here folks. Not a lot of evidence so far to back up manslaughter charges.
The DA is reading the statute to mean that an officer can't unreasonably escalate the situation then escape criminal liability if a death occurs.
Two problems with that:
1. The statute doesnt say that, and we don't put people in prison for breaking unwritten laws.
2. So we are back to the standard of what a reasonable officer would have done under the circumstances. That's the standard regarding whether she escalated the situation while he was "surrendering" (Im not sure where we have evidence of that btw). There is no effing way they can prove this unless she made a confession. No way. At all. Its her word versus a dead guy's plus grainy inconclusive video (so far) and some physical evidence. This is a show trial.
Which is what we need. South Africa needed show trials called the Truth and Reconciliation tribunals to start the process of moving beyond apartheid. People were not imprisoned, but it was a public forum for people to express their experiences under a racist government and shame those involved. It let white folks admit fault and pledge to make amends. That is what is happening here. People that think this guy was unlawfully killed are projecting their own anger at what is going on this country in terms of racism in general, but also perceived racist policing. Their anger is focused on this case and others, but it has very little to do with the actual facts. Its an emblem of greater problems. We can tackle those without putting her in prison.
