Derek Chauvin Murder Trial is on

Completely falsifiable information and none sequitur !

If there is no intent to murder , logically it was an accident .

The truth is that in realism terms , there is only one type of murder and murder does not have sub categories .

Murder in the 2nd degree or murder in the 3rd degree is not really the correct terminology to describe deaths that were not intended .

The word murder means to intentionally take another persons life .

Additionally although I mentioned accident, the defense may prove natural cause of death as prior mentioned .

You also said my wrestling example was irrelevant when it was relevant in demonstrating what an accident was compared to murder .

Tell me sir , what is your real ''boggle'' ?

 

I don't know what that is. Second degree murder means different things in different states. What I posted was the actual Minnesota statute he is charged with violating. It contemplates intent to effect death.

 

How so because they did not let her approach?

Your claim about it sustaining a manslaughter charge, until the scene was secured medical has to stand back, and that is why the paramedics did not begin immediate resuscitation and instead did the load and go. She was a horrible witness, she even admitted she was screaming and coursing along with everyone else standing there adding to the scene.

 

I don't think he had a reasonable expectation that permanent harm would result.

He must have known there could be a very small possibility his actions might result in death, but then again officers routinely have to do those sort of things. (And yes, situations do exist where chokeholds are appropriate)

I don't think the meaning of the words that you quoted were meant to apply to a situation like this.

 

I think he is possibly confusing the term "homicide" with the term "murder", as he does in other posts. But he can't admit error, even when he is caught contradicting himself, so good luck getting straight answers.

But to disagree with you slightly, there is such a thing as "felony murder", where a getaway driver, for example, doesn't enter the bank where a guard was shot and killed, but who, in the opinion of the jury should have foreseen that the accomplice would shoot a guard because he saw the accomplice enter the bank with a gun.

46 states have this felony murder law, including Minnesota. I do not say that it has any application in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

 

Just my personal opinion, but I think the appropriate punishment would be 6 months in prison and 3 years suspended from the job.

But I know very few people (on either side) would agree with me.

There were just too many other factors that very probably led to this death. It wasn't just the knee.
These factors combined together.
He couldn't have known it would be likely to kill him.
The victim has some responsibility for taking drugs that made him act crazy.

 

We'll soon find out!

 

You may be right. Unless this applies.

• Killing someone unintentionally while using violence or force to commit a felony (other than first or second-degree criminal sexual conduct)

 

I wonder if a prosecutor drastically overcharging someone will make the jury any more likely to acquit the person of all charges, even if they otherwise might have voted guilty on one of the less serious charges.

 

That's the felony murder doctrine which can be a really slippery slope.

I doubt a jury would buy that logic here, although that doesn't stop a prosecutor from trying.

Yes, theoretically such a law could apply to all sorts of situations, which it was not intended.

 

I think the have a strong enough case to get a conviction, but we'll see what Chauvin presents as a defense. Maybe he can counter effectively.

 

Third degree or manslaughter seem to be the most likely.

 

The problem is it just doesn't seem to fit into any one category clearly. It's like some in between categories. Or maybe something to a very low degree.

The chance of death in that situation, given the information available to the officer at the time, had to be something like less than 1%.

It was a bad decision, but to say death was an expected result is a stretch.

And again, the actions were not entirely unprovoked. That has to be a huge mitigating factor. (It would be sort of analogous to if you used excessive force against someone after they punched you, probably not the best example though)

 

Homicide is a ''lesser'' word than murder to use .

I've never approved of the notion of felony murder as often defendants are independent of the event . A getaway driver for example who doesn't enter the bank is independent of any actions inside the bank by accomplices .

The choice to pull the trigger is an individual choice and often these individuals are the initiative of a crew .

The subject of felony murder can be diverse if one considers bullying for example and all other possible anomalies .

 

No, because they didn't act to protect the life and health of a prisoner. Asking for help from a EMT without identification may not have been the best course of action.

I wouldn't try to sell that to a jury who know this was the threatening crowd, so threatening the other cops started standing around.

Relevance?

 

Did you deliberately miss this part?:

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

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

The felony offense being using excessive force and failing to provide aid in accordance with the requirements of his training.

It's not about what you think is your "logic", it's about the Minnesota statutes. Logically it wasn't an accident either. Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck more than 3 minutes after he passed out, about 3 minutes after he died and KNEW he had no pulse. He also intentionally refused to provide and have anyone provide any medical attention until after the EMT asked him to get off Floyd. In your world that may not be murder but in my world it absolutely is murder.

 

That's felony murder, which I cited above.

 

Not sure that failing to provide aid with the requirements of one's training is a felony in Minnesota. Is it?

 

Hmm no!

Murder is intentionally taking another's life .

There is no such thing as an unintentional murder that would be insanely contradicting to what murder is .

Statutes are not meant to be contradictory with incorrect word use .

The word murder , neurological influences the reader to associate a more vicious act .

However , I think I now know what you are saying .

Are you saying that the incompetence and poorly executed restraint by the defendant may have unintentionally contributed towards the death of Mr Floyd ?

 

It would not be much of a thread if no one gave an opinion until after all evidence is presented. As for evidence, any and all evidence had already been shown before this case even started other than a few new video clips that have not added any significant information. All there is left are opinions of doctors on cause of death. The defense won't have anything other than their doctors contradicting defense doctors

 

No because you did not just commit a crime and are not resisting lawful arrest. Putting a pillow over someone's face is murder, using a recommended restraint technique to detain a prisoner is not. We've only heard the prosecution's witnesses, let's wait for the defence. Chauvin keeping the knee on probably aids him, he can argue he had no idea of Floyd's distress, otherwise why would he have done that?

 

You should watch Viva Frei/Robert Barnes and Nate Brody.

 

The prosecutions expert witnesses, we have still to hear from the defence. I did listen to the pulmonologist's testimony but if this technique would have killed a healthy person why would the MPD be using it for years without anyone else dying? No one is apologising for Chauvin, he has nothing to apologise for, he is on trial to appease the rioting mob. It's not Chauvin's fault that Floyd chose to take a lethal amount of drugs knowing of his underlying health problems and that it had almost killed him a few months earlier.

 

Manslaughter, gets the maximum sentence but out in 5 with good behaviour and disappears into the big blue safety net.

There is no felony offence, this was a lawful arrest using a legitimate technique so therefore these conditions do not apply. If Chauvin intended to kill Floyd why would he have called the EMT in the first place? The idea that him easing the restraint presumes that it was the restraint that caused Floyd's death in the first place but that isn't the case here.

But that is all the defence needs, remember it is up the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, all the defence needs to do is muddy the waters (think back to OJ and the forensics).

 

Isn’t the intent to kill established by the cry for help by Mr Floyd and the sustained exhortation of bystanders over a period of time?
Pretty big clues to a police officer I would’ve thought.