Just wait until election season. AI spam will be everywhere.

I'm not sure because I don't understand the criteria nor am familiar enough with DC law.

In my jurisdiction, you could argue 2nd degree murder but only if the death were caused by while committing another felony. Otherwise you would have to prove criminal intent to commit murder.

Ex. Derek Chauvin is guilty of 2nd degree murder because George Floyd died while Chauvin was committing 3rd degree assault. The intent is derived from the assault.

2nd Degree murder seems like an overcharge given the facts of the case. That's why I'm asking for an explanation of the charges.

In a similar case near me, I believe the officer was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter and criminal vehicular homicide. That trial is still pending.

I never said they shouldn't be held accountable, rather I'm questioning the criteria under which they were charged and whether or not a different charge would be more appropriate.

Charges need to be appropriate. If they are not, convictions can be thrown out and the convicted walk free. Where's the justice in that?

Except what you're saying is completely wrong. You only break a law when you break a law.

Department policy isn't some legal shield PD admin gets to set. Department policy has no effect on what statutory violations may or may not have been committed. If that was the case, PD's would have no incentive to limit any officer action.

It should apply to police, but how does that elevate a charge to 2nd degree murder when it doesn't to normal people?

Name one police officer convicted of murder who was able to keep his job.

It's kind of a dumb comment, but it does stumble on an interesting question. If a DC police officer initiates an inappropriate traffic stop and the subject of the stop is injured by hitting his head in this manner, are police officers then vulnerable to 2nd degree murder charges?

How does lying about policy violations escalate a charge to 2nd degree murder?

What law says they are not allowed to pursuit in this context? I'm not saying there isn't one, I am just curious what legal criteria was used to get the conviction since violating policy isn't technically against the law.

I can certainly see blatant disregard for safety, but I'm not sure how that gets to be 2nd degree murder.

When I worked at my local PD (not an officer) it was against policy to have soda at my work station. If I had accidentally damaged equipment I wouldn't have been charged with a crime.

I'm not saying the conviction is wrong, rather there is something I'm not understanding here.

What sub am I in?