The ofcs involved in #GeorgeFloyd's death have been fired. Will they be prosecuted & if so, for what?
It depends.

First, we should resist the urge to view conviction or acquittal as *the* standard for determining whether society broadly approves or disapproves of their actions.

Second, we need to remember that prosecutors need to have both probable cause to believe that the defendants--here the officer(s)--committed a particular offense *AND* they need to have a good faith belief that they can establish proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, so will the ofcs be prosecuted for a homicide crime? That will depend on the medical examiner's findings. The question is whether the ofc's *caused* Mr. Floyd's death.
If the ME concludes Mr. Floyd died by asphyxia or a cardiac event created by ofc actions, than yes.

If the ME concludes that Mr. Floyd died of a drug overdose, though, and that ofcs did not contribute to his death, then there is no basis for a homicide charge.

Note that I'm *not* saying that Mr. Floyd actually used or died from drugs--this is an example, not an argument.

Assuming the ME concludes that the ofcs caused or contributed to Mr. Floyd's death, with what might they be charged?

Like most states, Minnesota has multiple homicide offenses.

Murder in the First Degree, MN Statutes 609.185

This would require the prosecutor to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the ofcs premeditated (that is, planned beforehand) and intended to kill Mr. Floyd. *Very* tough to prove here, IMO.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185

Muder in the Second Degree, MN Statutes 609.19

This would apply if ofcs intended to kill Mr. Floyd but had not premeditated, or if they did not intend to kill him but caused his death while committing a felony.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Murder in the Third Degree, MN Statutes 609.195

This would apply is ofcs did NOT intend to kill Mr. Floyd, but caused his death while performing a dangerous act and exhibiting a "depraved mind without regard for human life."
This seems plausible.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

Manslaughter in the First Degree, MN Statutes 609.20

This would apply to ab intentional killing "in the heat of passion" or unintentionally causing death while forcefully committing a misdemeanor where death was reasonably foreseeable.
Seems plausible.

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

Manslaughter in the Second Degree, MN Statutes 609.205

Causing a death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another."
Also seems plausible.

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

Importantly, all of the homicide crimes are based on causing a death. So assuming that ofc actions contributed, *who* caused Mr. Floyd's death? The ofc kneeling across his neck, sure, but the ofc standing in front of the bystanders? The third ofc (barely seen behind the vehicle)?

If the ofcs who weren't kneeling on Mr. Floyd *had* gone hands on, there may be a basis for for finding they actively caused or contributed to his death.

If they hadn't, they *might* be liable for failing to intervene under so-called "omission liability."

Typically, someone is only criminally liable for an omission if they fail to do something they were under a *legal duty* to do.

I simply don't know enough about MN law to say whether ofcs are under a legal duty to stop another ofc from using force.

A moral duty, sure. I understand there was an agency policy that required ofcs to intervene, but agency policies do not establish legal duties.

I think there's a strong argument for ofcs legal duty to protect community members from another ofc here, but it's not certain.

In addition to the homicide offenses, there are also assault crimes. In the interest of brevity, I'm going to omit discussion of these.

Does the fact that the potential defendants in any criminal prosecution were officers?
Yes.
Expect the (former) ofcs to argue that their actions were legally authorized, and thus that they were not committing any crimes.

MN Statute 609.06 authorizes ofcs to use "reasonable force" when they "reasonable believe" that they are "effecting a lawful arrest."

The statute does not define "reasonable force," but what I saw on the video didn't look reasonable.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.06

MN Statute 609.066 authorizes the use of deadly force, defined as force used "with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm."

There's a strong argument this fits.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

Deadly force is justified "only when necessary" for three specific circumstances. Rather than attempt to summarize them, I've included a snip of the relevant statutory text.

Based on the (limited) information I have now, none seem to apply.

So *if* the ME determines that the ofcs caused Mr. Floyd's death, I think it's highly likely that at least one, and maybe more, of the ofcs will be prosecuted. They can be convicted only if a jury concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions were unauthorized.

And while that part of the country does have some precedent for prosecuting ofcs for duty-related uses of force, overcoming the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold in such cases is an uphill battle.

Regardless of whether the ofcs are prosecuted or convicted, though, their actions were horrifically wrong.

Don't fixate on criminal prosecutions as a way to prevent similar misconduct in the future: agencies need good people, good training, and good supervision.