First, let me be very clear about what is going on in Minneapolis - what follows is not a defense of that officer's or other officer's actions at all (I have not watched the video, but today I saw a photo image that I had not seen before that really depicted the location of the one officer's knee on the man's throat and it was sickening to see because of not only the location of his knee but mainly because of the angle of the man's neck).

I was hired as a police officer in 1993 and after returning to my department after our police academy period, I can't recall a time in our own in-house training when we were not told to avoid the neck in any sort of hands-on training.  It was emphasized to mess about the neck with force was considered the use of lethal force.  In other words, this is not to say messing about the neck was not allowed, but only that if you were to do so, it better be under a circumstance of articulable deadly force usage.

The neck was not a spot to use in ANY handcuffing technique.

Now on to definitions of criminal offenses. 

When it comes to criminal offenses, one aspect that is often misunderstood is the area of definitions when it comes to the application of the proper offense or offenses. In each offense, there are what is called "elements of an offense" that must be present to meet the legal definition of an offense. So for that offense to be applicable to an act, these elements must be present.  If certain elements are not there, then usually there is a more appropriately defined offense available (mostly in murder charges intent or aforethought has to be proven or shown to prove "murder"). So legal definitions in court are important.

For example, If you want to see a prosecutor or cop cringe when talking about criminal offenses and their definitions, at the most reductionist level, call a burglary (home or structure) a robbery (theft of a person or business by force) or a battery (physical act) an assault (oral threat). 

I bring this up because right now in the media, the land of punditry and by an angered public, the demand for these officers is being made for a charge of murder, when most likely, in Minnesota like many other places, what happened does not meet the legal definition of "murder."

Why is this important?  Because when a trial occurs, if an improper offense is charged, then the charge may not be sustained when it comes to legal arguments and deliberation. 

And believe it or not, it is very important to charge the properly defined criminal offense for mostly a couple of main reasons.

The first one is to be able to obtain a verdict and sustain any appeals.  For example, years ago out in the Northwest, a young man was shot in the back while being detained by an officer that thought he had unholstered his taser.  He was charged with murder and then acquitted of the murder charge.  And that is my point - if there is a conviction, there will certainly be appeals.  And that leads to the next point: is it wise for a prosecutor to inappropriately charge an offense that does not meet the proper legal definitions with the possibility only to later again anger the public if a guilty verdict is not achieved or the conviction overturned on appeal? 

(One way around all of this would be to create legal definitions that allow for aggravating factors increasing penalties and why so often other offenses contain penalties as strong as murder charges).