THREAD 1/Quick thread on why third degree was selected instead of first. For first degree murder there has to be intention to kill, most often with pre-meditation. It can be argued that this officer did not attend the scene originally with the intent to kill George Floyd.

2/ Nor was there any pre-meditation. He didn’t attend the scene thinking I’m going to murder this man. Now, I can understand why second degree would be argued in this case, the officer intentionally murdered Floyd without pre-meditation.

3/ This theory works when considering multiple factors.

1. He knelt on an area he knew of could’ve reasonably known to have restricted breathing thus resulting in unconsciousness or potential death.

2. He knew holding his knee there for a period of 8 minutes could cause death.

3. He heard Floyd saying he couldn’t breathe and that he was going to die.

4. He saw Floyd fall unconscious yet continued to hold his knee to his neck.

All valid and coherent arguments for a charge of second degree murder.

4/ However, can we be sure that firstly, the officer heard Floyd’s pleas, can we be sure that he knew Floyd has lost consciousness, can we be sure that this technique hasn’t been used in police training to subdue a suspect?

5/ Moreover, intent is an extremely difficult concept to prove. We are essentially asking you to determine what an individual was thinking at the time the death took place. Not only is it a difficult concept to prove but it comes with an extremely high threshold.

6/ A jury must be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill Floyd. There must be NO doubt in any jurors mind that he intended to murder. It doesn’t matter at what point he intended to kill him during those 8 minutes, the intent simply needed to form.

7/ This is tricky, in the UK we aim for a unanimous verdict, all 12 jurors agreeing to a guilty or not guilty plea, although a Judge may allow a majority verdict of at the least 10-2. Now, can the prosecution in this case be convicted all 12 or even 10 will find intent?

8/ Arguably, no. Asking 12 people to decide what was going on in someone’s head at a certain time is extremely difficult. And murder trials are lost and won on the concept of intent. However, with the third degree murder & manslaughter, intent is absent.

9/ What we rely on here is a negligent act or omission. For example the officer could reasonably be expected to know that sitting on a persons neck for 8 minutes could foreseeably cause someone to die, yet he did so anyway. This is what the defence will argue.

10/ His defence would suggest that the officer lacked intent and that whilst he did bring about his death, it was due to his negligence rather than his intention to kill Floyd. Perhaps suggesting this was a police tactic gone wrong or lack of awareness from the officer.

11/ So the prosecution has to make a decision. Do we ask a jury to find an officer guilty of first or second degree murder where intent is required and they must be sure of this beyond reasonable doubt, or do we ask them to find him guilty of 3rd degree without intent.

12/ The latter in this case is highly likely to secure a conviction whereas the former is less so. Does the prosecution risk this man walking free from a first or second degree murder charge or do they drop the charge to secure a third degree conviction with minimum 25 years?

13/ The answer here is simple, you drop the charge. That way you secure the conviction, you secure a term of imprisonment and some form of justice is served. To do anything else would be a game of Russian roulette, and imagine the outrage if this man was set free.

14/ I may add, whilst lawyers are good, we aren’t miracle workers. It takes just one or two to decide they don’t quite believe there was intent for a case to completely collapse, and in this case it is not worth the risk. Whilst it may seem unfair; this is the law as we know it.

15/ #GeorgeFloydMurder