Derek Chauvin Murder Trial is on

Thank you.

 

I am not part of the jury and I'm under no obligation of any kind. As such I have no power to reach an official verdict. So as Bob, if someone murders another person as seen on multiple videos and at multiple angles and all eyewitnesses, expert witnesses and the evidence point to the murder of Floyd by Chauvin ... so far, that would be a slam dunk that Chauvin murdered Floyd. The defense would have to challenge the overwhelming evidence with evidence that can successfully dispute it all. And that's nearly unrealistic. For the jury, they only need to raise doubt in 1 juror's mind. So the defense doesn't even have to dispute all the evidence, the bar is set much lower than reality.

Yes they are and you're either contradicting what I've posted or inventing crap about me. Furthermore, this case is not about me as I've amply stated.

I thought I made that clear numerous times, and it refers to all 3 charges, who are you trying to educate, me or you?

 

I don't say you have an obligation. Not an obligation the breach of which exposes you to any kind of sanction.

But people whose minds are made up before hearing all the evidence, from both sides, are worrisome. ("Better to let 10 guilty persons escape than ..." (presumably you know the rest of Blackstone's ratio.)

 

I hate to break it to you, but I don't stalk you on the internet and have not read all your posts, here or elsewhere. My loss, I'm sure, but if they are all as prickly as the last two have been, I'm not interested in reading more.

 

I thought you said prior that you knew the difference between murder and accidents ?

Two wrestlers in the ring wrestling and one dies , accident or murder ?

There is no evidence to suggest murder , which semantically needs intent to be even considered murder , lawfully .

There isn't even a premise for argument to consider murder , so how can you keep stating murder ?

Please provide objective evidence of intent ?

 

Good luck waiting on that ....

 

Your posts indicate otherwise.

 

Fortunately for Chauvin.

 

You mean not "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

 

Did you, now? So you DO know his intent at the time, correct?

 

Well, it looks like a pretty diverse group. We may get a hung jury. (Ruh roh!)

https://apnews.com/article/race-and...al-injustice-ee60a3ba6b6f028ba8fc37723e2f9078

 

Murder does not require intent

 

This will be interesting in the civil case against Chauvin and the city, assuming he is acquitted. There is a principle in tort law that says you take your victim as you find him, so that if I push a guy with a thin skull, and he falls and cracks his head, that's on me, even if I had no idea or even no reason to suspect it.

If he's convicted, I don't see any way to win the civil case.

 

He's not charged with first degree murder so intent is not an issue.

 

He already lost the civil case. The city settled for 28 million.

 

Well there is the part where he stays on his neck for an additional 3 minutes after his partner tells him he has no pulse.
Or maybe when his partner suggests they turn him over and Chavan says no.

 

If a deaf person is shouted at to halt by the police, from behind, fails to do so and is shot dead, does it mean he died because he had a pre-existing condition, deafness, so that makes the shooting all right.

 

The city has already settled for $27 million. A reprehensible act on their part doing so right before the trial. Floyd died because of his severe heart condition, the lethal dose of drugs and his resisting arrest and struggling with the police.

 

Only if they are part of a jury or a lynch mob. I'm not either of these and the known overwhelming evidence is insurmountable to me. Are you worried about me?

Yep.

Irrelevant.

That's 100% false (LAWFULLY) and that's the reality, it's not about semantics.

Because that's what it was. One of the charges is Second-Degree Murder as in murder so that's also 100% false.

Why?

I mean exactly what I posted.

Irrelevant. I don't need to know what Chauvin's intent was at the time he committed murder. He committed murder regardless of intent.

 

The defense doesn't have to acquit, the prosecution has to convict and do so beyond any reasonable doubt based solely on the evidence presented.

 

Yes he also had meth in him and it was his heart that was giving out an unable to pump the blood through his highly block arteries. And obviously if he is breathing air in and out at the rate of 22 breaths per minute he is not being suffocated or asphyxiated.

 

I don't think that's completely correct:

Contrast the manslaughter charge with murder 2:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. 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

 

If I was a juror I might convict him if there were such a thing as "fourth degree murder", but there's not.

The way I see it, this falls somewhere between reckless endangerment and manslaughter, but with numerous huge mitigating factors.

 

The one I looked at included this:

Reckless Disregard
In addition to a killing that is intentional, but not premeditated, second-degree murder can also result from a defendant who acts to cause serious bodily harm. In such circumstances, although the defendant does not necessarily intend to kill, he or she acts to cause harm with the full knowledge that death might result. For instance, a wife who hits her husband in the head with a large rock, killing him, may be charged with second-degree murder even if she did not intend to kill him, as she would have known that such a blow to the head could kill him.

 

Yes. I wonder if the Chauvin detractors are as interested in the length of his sentence, which mitigating factors will tend to reduce, as they are with the question of a guilty verdict.