I had drafted a fairly long post detailing why I disagree on a number of these points, when I read the news that the prosecutor has moved to a charge of Murder2. This troubles me greatly and does somewhat undercut the point I was making about independence.
Here is the link to the Minnesota statute on Murder 2. It's a little long-winded and has clearly been added to over time:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
You'll see from parsing through, that unless there's some significant evidence that we don't know about regarding the officer committing a felony during the process, it's impossible to make that stick.
609.19 1(1) is the closest fit, but it states:
Now intent is invariably difficult to prove, that's why prosecutors always go for Manslaughter (or in Minnesota, Murder3) as it doesn't require proving intent. It would require something like the officer being recorded on his dash clam saying "I'm gonna kill him" as he gets out of his car.
The clue here will be if the officer requests a bench trial. If he does, no judge will ever be convinced of intent based on the evidence we've all seen, and he'll walk.
It's also a little concerning that he's gone for aiding and abetting on the other officers. Again, based on how that law has always been interpreted, that cannot stick either.
Here's the relevant statute:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.05
The relevant part is 609.15 1
This bit isn't my opinion, it's that of a US lawyer, but notice how each verb in the above is something actively done by someone. "Just standing by and not stopping someone" is not covered under the statute. In his opinion, the law is always interpreted in that way - a person must actively contribute to a murder to be covered under the statute.
As I said further up, there may be new evidence that we don't know of making either or both crimes fit, but based on what's been released, the prosecution cannot possibly win - especially not at a bench trial.
