Do you want to do your own research on why this is totally wrong or do you want my ass hole version where I make fun of you for thinking you know the legal system better than the career prosecutor who changed the charges?
For a layman, I think I’ve a decent grasp.
For instance, unlike “20 year prosecutor” AG Ellison, I might have reconsidered the Murder 3 charge; under MN law the law is for reckless, dangerous actions not directed at a single person; and therefore a defective charge, a misapplication.
Ellison had already stated his logic for updating the murder charge which rests upon proving the police engaged in felonious assault, which relieves the requirement for intent to kill under the Murder 2 charge. He has retained the Manslaughter 2 charge which, unless the jury buys into felonious assault, is the most likely – and most fitting – charge. As stated prior, that assumes there’s no indication Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. It also assumes Floyd’s health and intoxication are not considered material under either charge.
How am I doing, Counselor?
Next, the other three officers face the same 40 years under the murder 2 charge. If the jury doesn’t buy the foundation assault charge, oops! Aside from that, what warrants murder aid/abet besides being there? Chauvin was the senior officer. It’s reported at least one of the officers asked or requested if they should turn Floyd over, that he appeared in mental distress, which Chauvin either rejected or replied he was fine or something to that effect. At one point two other officers were assisting securing Floyd, how long they did so I don’t know. I think they’ve also been overcharged.
Floyd was being restrained, I’ve seen no evidence he was being beaten or otherwise action indicating physical harm was intended him. I think an impartial jury should have a damned hard time coming to a felony assault conclusion. I'm not alone; some 'legal experts' are questioning the charges. Any objective prosecutor should be. Ellison admits the new charge is an uphill climb, though couching it in allusion to how hard it is to convict cops. Maybe cops are hard to convict because overcharging and that rule of law thing, eh? (while acknowledging that 'fearing for my life' is overused, but that is a police protocol problem in virtually every PD nationally)
Lastly, I've had my fill of expert "career prosecutors". Rosenstein yesterday addressed the same legion of former prosecutors who call for Barr to resign and that Trump should be removed on obstruction of justice. As if we needed more proof of their activism rather than adherence or knowledge of the law, especially regarding the executive branch.
And that can’t have been a real question; of course
I want your assholish best. Anything less would disappoint me. I figure an actual lawyer, even one who claimed (the Mueller and FBI investigations) that
"Trump and his associates got treated the way any suspected criminal would be treated anywhere in America", must eventually find a nut.