Guilty, guilty, guilty

[Loki]

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@89th said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

The video I posted is police body cam raw footage. Thus far no one here has commented on it after watching it.

The jury got it right.

I saw the raw footage months ago, which is what I based my opinion on that I only saw evidence supporting a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, not murder. In that view, the jury got it wrong. Everyone has an opinion.

Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life.

So what do you disagree with, reckless conduct or lack of concern for human life?

That’s not the standard in Minnesota. 2nd degree requires an intent to kill the victim. I don’t know that they proved an intent to kill on Chauvin’s end.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-second-degree-murder.html

Frankly, the finding of guilt for 3rd Degree Murder was an even worse verdict.

What I don’t get and never have is the multiple charges for the same crime.

He was convicted of second degree unintentional murder. Read the Minnesota definition and I think you may change your mind.

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

[Jolly]

@axtremus said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@jolly said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

At the end of the day, the system has to be vuewed as fair and just...Or we don 't have any Justice at all...

Today, for this case, you do not view it as “fair and just.” Had the case been decided another way, it would just be some other people who would not view it as “fair and just.” In any given day, there will always be some people who do not view the system as “fair and just.”

Dear Ax,
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

         Sincerely,

                    Jolly

[89th]

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@89th said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

The video I posted is police body cam raw footage. Thus far no one here has commented on it after watching it.

The jury got it right.

I saw the raw footage months ago, which is what I based my opinion on that I only saw evidence supporting a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, not murder. In that view, the jury got it wrong. Everyone has an opinion.

Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life.

So what do you disagree with, reckless conduct or lack of concern for human life?

The key for the 2nd degree murder charge is the “while committing assault” requirement, and I simply didn’t see Chauvin’s actions as “assaulting” Floyd. If that was assault, then I dare you to to spend a day as a copy downtown and restrain resisting criminals without “assaulting” them.

[LuFins Dad]

This post is deleted!

[LuFins Dad]

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@89th said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

The video I posted is police body cam raw footage. Thus far no one here has commented on it after watching it.

The jury got it right.

I saw the raw footage months ago, which is what I based my opinion on that I only saw evidence supporting a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, not murder. In that view, the jury got it wrong. Everyone has an opinion.

Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life.

So what do you disagree with, reckless conduct or lack of concern for human life?

That’s not the standard in Minnesota. 2nd degree requires an intent to kill the victim. I don’t know that they proved an intent to kill on Chauvin’s end.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-second-degree-murder.html

Frankly, the finding of guilt for 3rd Degree Murder was an even worse verdict.

What I don’t get and never have is the multiple charges for the same crime.

He was convicted of second degree unintentional murder. Read the Minnesota definition and I think you may change your mind.

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

1. Chauvin wasn’t committing another felony.

2. There was no Restraining Order on Chauvin.

The only argument that could possibly fit Murder 2 is if you can prove that Chauvin actively wanted to kill Floyd in the heat of the moment.

[Aqua Letifer]

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

The only argument that could possibly fit Murder 2 is if you can prove that Chauvin actively wanted to kill Floyd in the heat of the moment.

Allegedly they knew each other and had prior altercations. Just putting that out there.

As for me, I'm too tired for objectivity. If I can guess to a certain degree what your opinion about the trial is based on your politics and skin color, I don't care. I'm beyond tired of tribethink and want nothing to do with it. I'll hear from some white, shaved-head, Punisher-worshipping LEO motherfucker in Minnesota who thinks there weren't enough charges brought and that more people need to stand trial. I'll also hear from a black guy with gold teeth and a bit of a record who's concerned over the impossibility of a fair trial and celebrating murder charges in the fucking streets. Other than that I'm not looking for much of a discussion.

[Loki]

Chauvin has his knee on the neck of a person for four minutes and the guy isn’t moving and is handcuffed.

It’s an eternity. You wouldn’t do that to a dog.

[George K]

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

Chauvin has his knee on the neck of a person for four minutes and the guy isn’t moving and is handcuffed.

Exactly. In my mind there's no question that Chauvin was in the wrong.

However, if his actions rise to the standard of "murder," I really don't know.

[Jolly]

@george-k said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@loki said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

Chauvin has his knee on the neck of a person for four minutes and the guy isn’t moving and is handcuffed.

Exactly. In my mind there's no question that Chauvin was in the wrong.

However, if his actions rise to the standard of "murder," I really don't know.

I go back to what Dershowitz said...We have trials to determine whether a person is guilty of a crime. For the system to work, that trial must be as fair and impartial as we can make it.

Chauvin may have been guilty, but his trial was a mockery of justice. That is just wrong.

[George K]

@jolly said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

his trial was a mockery of justice.

Based on what? The denial of the request for change of venue? Maxine Waters' comments?

What else struck you as wrong?

[LuFins Dad]

@Loki @Aqua-Letifer I don’t think you guys are quite getting where I am coming from.

1. Chauvin needs to go to prison and he needs to go for a very long time. What he did was absolutely abhorrent. I’m a firm believer that there needs to be higher standards for police and when they cross the line there needs to be a higher price.

2. In order for Chauvin to go away for a very long time, you need to absolutely make sure that you file the correct charges and that you prosecute the case in a clean and aboveboard manner. You also need to make sure that you absolutely make sure that you respect Chauvin’s rights to a fair and impartial trial.

3. Because they did not do so, Chauvin should walk free on his appeal. That pisses me off for multiple reasons.

Because of the way they conducted this trial, there is not a single good outcome left to us. There is no way to point and say “That’s how justice is supposed to work!”

[Aqua Letifer]

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

I don’t think you guys are quite getting where I am coming from.

My post wasn't a reaction to anything or anyone specifically, it's what I thought before I even read the thread.

I agree with your last comment, though; pretty much how I feel about it.

[Mik]

I wasn't there and did not really follow the testimony. I'm surprised with the guilty on all three, but, as I have been throughout, content to let it play out in the courts. We're only at the bottom of the 5th inning.

My biggest concern is the jury. Did they feel compelled to deliver the verdicts they did due to public pressure and fear for their families and the consequences for the nation?

[LuFins Dad]

@kluurs said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

Chauvin was guilty of something.

The other two big cases out there - I'm more sympathetic to the officers. Kimberly Potter who mistook her sidearm for a taser - as was clearly evidenced by 1) her use of "taser, taser, taser" to warn her partner and 2) the "shit, I shot him" which suggests that was not her intent. Even prosecutors have acknowledged that. It would be difficult under Minnesota law to even find her guilty of manslaughter.

I also feel for the officer in Chicago who shot the teen who had dropped a gun before turning around and being shot.

I really think that part of adulting classes in schools is how to react to police interactions -

1. Acknowledge that you are cooperating.
2. Move slowly while saying what you are doing.

Needless to say, we might want better trained law personnel and perhaps better screening of who becomes an officer - but imagine how challenging that will be now with the abuse that is being put upon a whole profession.

I’ve seen elsewhere on the forum where people have tried to relate these to other workplace accidental deaths. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t fly with me. Pulling a gun when you think it’s a taser and shooting a kid does not equate with a bus driver accidentally running a pedestrian over. She is supposed to be better. Being a police officer carries a heavy burden. She failed that day. Incompetence in a police officer is as bad as malice in the general public. I understand that she was highly decorated and regarded, and that was one moment in an otherwise sterling career. It doesn’t matter. I think involuntary manslaughter would be appropriate.

[Copper]

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

there is not a single good outcome left to us

The mob (and at least one congressperson) now knows how to influence the verdict.

This is a valuable lesson.

[Horace]

@lufins-dad said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@kluurs said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

Chauvin was guilty of something.

The other two big cases out there - I'm more sympathetic to the officers. Kimberly Potter who mistook her sidearm for a taser - as was clearly evidenced by 1) her use of "taser, taser, taser" to warn her partner and 2) the "shit, I shot him" which suggests that was not her intent. Even prosecutors have acknowledged that. It would be difficult under Minnesota law to even find her guilty of manslaughter.

I also feel for the officer in Chicago who shot the teen who had dropped a gun before turning around and being shot.

I really think that part of adulting classes in schools is how to react to police interactions -

1. Acknowledge that you are cooperating.
2. Move slowly while saying what you are doing.

Needless to say, we might want better trained law personnel and perhaps better screening of who becomes an officer - but imagine how challenging that will be now with the abuse that is being put upon a whole profession.

I’ve seen elsewhere on the forum where people have tried to relate these to other workplace accidental deaths. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t fly with me. Pulling a gun when you think it’s a taser and shooting a kid does not equate with a bus driver accidentally running a pedestrian over. She is supposed to be better. Being a police officer carries a heavy burden. She failed that day. Incompetence in a police officer is as bad as malice in the general public. I understand that she was highly decorated and regarded, and that was one moment in an otherwise sterling career. It doesn’t matter. I think involuntary manslaughter would be appropriate.

if you accept all of that, then the question becomes whether a sane person would ever want to become a police officer.

[kluurs]

@horace said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

if you accept all of that, then the question becomes whether a sane person would ever want to become a police officer.

Or a physician. There are certain professions where an "honest mistake" causes death. Discipline is appropriate - but is it manslaughter if a physician fails to provide appropriate care or if a police officer shoots someone holding a toy gun, should that individual be held to same standard as a civilian in similar circumstances? I think we have to give police some latitude; however, there still should be limits. Beating a manacled person or shooting an unarmed individual fleeing should still rise to a criminal offense.

[Horace]

@kluurs said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@horace said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

if you accept all of that, then the question becomes whether a sane person would ever want to become a police officer.

Or a physician.

But I was responding to the notion that physicians shouldn't be held criminally responsible for mistakes, while police officers should.

Lurking behind all this somewhere is how much they're paid. Police officers have their pensions, but lots of government workers have that same deal. Nobody else is asked to both enforce the law through violence, and accept that if you do it wrong in the heat of some moment, your life will be over.

Even when I was young I thought being a cop would be the worst job ever. Now, I think being a cop would be the worst job ever ever ever.

[Copper]

@horace said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

if you do it wrong in the heat of some moment, your life will be over.

Flight instructors

Contortionists

Trapeze artists

[LuFins Dad]

@kluurs said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

@horace said in Guilty, guilty, guilty:

if you accept all of that, then the question becomes whether a sane person would ever want to become a police officer.

Or a physician. There are certain professions where an "honest mistake" causes death. Discipline is appropriate - but is it manslaughter if a physician fails to provide appropriate care or if a police officer shoots someone holding a toy gun, should that individual be held to same standard as a civilian in similar circumstances? I think we have to give police some latitude; however, there still should be limits. Beating a manacled person or shooting an unarmed individual fleeing should still rise to a criminal offense.

1. Define appropriate care... If a doctor performs an appendectomy on somebody that was there for a pacemaker and dies as a result, then yes, that rises to criminal negligence in my mind.

2. Should an officer be held to the same standards? Absolutely not. They need to be held to higher standards. They're the thin blue line? Fine. Show it. When I have a bad day, I lose a sale. When a police officer has a bad day, somebody dies. The fact that she pulled a gun instead of a taser shows bad training, and a really bad design for the taser...