What I was saying was that your quotation of the statute didn't come through when I quoted your post, so I had to copy and paste. I was explaining that problem to other readers. Our quote machine apparently thinks that material was quoted from somewhere else on this tread, so did not pick it up.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about the evincing a depraved mind thing, but that's what CNN's legal analyst said was the problem with the statute, that is not present in other 3rd degree statutes in other states that have them. I would think both "evincing" and "depraved" would be a problem. How do you evince something -- when you looked at that cop and what he was doing, he looked both calm and almost bored, even though he knew he was being recorded with a video camera. But, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, although the woman who made this claim is a former federal prosecutor in Minnesota and was apparently familiar with problems with that particular statute.
The three other cops looked bored and matter-of-factly too, like this was just another arrest like hundreds the cop did before. Why would a 19 year veteran, not looking angry, rather calm, want to kill some guy who committed a minor, non-violent offense like passing a phony twenty dollar bill? Is this the first time he arrested a black man? Suddenly he decided to snuff out a man's life because he was black? It doesn't make sense. Other things were going on that we're not being told. There seems to be a rush to judgment because of the politics of it.
