George Floyd murderer's trial

[DrZoidberg]

I'm 99% certain jurors were given very clear instructions as to what is required from them. And with the fuckton of publicity, everybody knows if they just phone it in they'll be called out on it. There is also a clear difference between having an opinion of the incident in question (which we all have) and the trial itself (which we really shouldn't yet). You have yet to provide any specifics in the proceedings so far that imply an unfair trial.

Exactly. If they know they will get called out on mistakes they will get overly cautious. They won't trust their own judgement and instead align with the public opinion. There's no way to instruct them to mitigate this.

The magnitude of the BLM demonstrations means it won't be a fair trial. There's no proceedings in the world that can fix that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm 99% certain jurors were given very clear instructions as to what is required from them. And with the fuckton of publicity, everybody knows if they just phone it in they'll be called out on it. There is also a clear difference between having an opinion of the incident in question (which we all have) and the trial itself (which we really shouldn't yet). You have yet to provide any specifics in the proceedings so far that imply an unfair trial.

Exactly. If they know they will get called out on mistakes they will get overly cautious. They won't trust their own judgement and instead align with the public opinion. There's no way to instruct them to mitigate this.

The magnitude of the BLM demonstrations means it won't be a fair trial. There's no proceedings in the world that can fix that.

Black Lives Matter is the default human position. There weren't enough people participating in the organization.

 

[Gospel]

Again thanks for the updates Don (saw that one while I was at work).

You're welcome, sir.

I am finding it fascinating at the moment just how many police have given expert testimony on why Chauvin was wrong. It seems like the defense's opening argument is debunked. Yet, there are still people trying to defend Chauvin over this.

Is it faith?

Self (interest) perseverance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm 99% certain jurors were given very clear instructions as to what is required from them. And with the fuckton of publicity, everybody knows if they just phone it in they'll be called out on it. There is also a clear difference between having an opinion of the incident in question (which we all have) and the trial itself (which we really shouldn't yet). You have yet to provide any specifics in the proceedings so far that imply an unfair trial.

Exactly. If they know they will get called out on mistakes they will get overly cautious. They won't trust their own judgement and instead align with the public opinion. There's no way to instruct them to mitigate this.

The magnitude of the BLM demonstrations means it won't be a fair trial. There's no proceedings in the world that can fix that.

Black Lives Matter is the default human position. There weren't enough people participating in the organization.

This attitude trouble's me. It's Maoism. I've never argued against BLM. In the big picture I suspect it was good. Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election. They might as well have called it "we who don't kick dogs"-club. Yes, of course everybody not racist thinks black lives matter. Of course it's the default human position. I think a lot of people didn't support Black Lives Matter while also thinking that black lives matter. A lot of people on the left confused these and called everybody not supporting BLM racists.

I don't like these kind of simplistic slogans. It's dangerous. Your reply to my post show that you are unable to avoid being emotionally triggered causing you to be confused about what I'm saying and make the wrong conclusion. Which is why it's dangerous. I think it's a safe bet for the the jury members as well.

Nobody is able to keep a cool head about the Floyd case. Nobody. Not me. Not you. And hardly the jury. It's too emotionally charged.

 

[Gospel]

Black Lives Matter is the default human position. There weren't enough people participating in the organization.

This attitude trouble's me. It's Maoism. I've never argued against BLM. In the big picture I suspect it was good. Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election. They might as well have called it "we who don't kick dogs"-club. Yes, of course everybody not racist thinks black lives matter. Of course it's the default human position. I think a lot of people didn't support Black Lives Matter while also thinking that black lives matter. A lot of people on the left confused these and called everybody not supporting BLM racists.

I don't like these kind of simplistic slogans. It's dangerous. Your reply to my post show that you are unable to avoid being emotionally triggered causing you to be confused about what I'm saying and make the wrong conclusion. Which is why it's dangerous. I think it's a safe bet for the the jury members as well.

Nobody is able to keep a cool head about the Floyd case. Nobody. Not me. Not you. And hardly the jury. It's too emotionally charged.

You seem non-emotional about this case, what do you think about the 4 minutes of kneeling on a handcuffed, face down on the ground & unresponsive person's neck?

a) Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
b) Manslaghter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
c) none of the above

Disclosure: My vote is b.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Black Lives Matter is the default human position. There weren't enough people participating in the organization.

This attitude trouble's me. It's Maoism. I've never argued against BLM. In the big picture I suspect it was good. Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election. They might as well have called it "we who don't kick dogs"-club. Yes, of course everybody not racist thinks black lives matter. Of course it's the default human position. I think a lot of people didn't support Black Lives Matter while also thinking that black lives matter. A lot of people on the left confused these and called everybody not supporting BLM racists.

I don't like these kind of simplistic slogans. It's dangerous. Your reply to my post show that you are unable to avoid being emotionally triggered causing you to be confused about what I'm saying and make the wrong conclusion. Which is why it's dangerous. I think it's a safe bet for the the jury members as well.

Nobody is able to keep a cool head about the Floyd case. Nobody. Not me. Not you. And hardly the jury. It's too emotionally charged.

My head is cool and not triggered. Nothing I wrote is troubling. On the one hand, you wrote that there was too much BLM activity which means Chauvin can't get a fair trial. I am implicitly countering that this is subjective and one could have as well said, "there was not enough intensity of BLM activity." Of course, two people will also disagree with which activities were BLM, which were false flags, which were anecdotal and not representative of BLM...also highly opinionated jibberjabber. What it comes down to is that Chauvin is getting a fair trial. Day after day, there are experts testifying and other evidence being presented in this thread--i.e. the purpose of this thread. We can easily observe just how fair and reproducible the conclusion is. If you have any disagreement as to the conclusion, then please go back and review the links presented in this thread Day1, Day2, Day3, Day4, Day5, and Day6 thus far and make your commentary. Make your case with logic and evidence.

 

[blastula]

Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election.

What are you talking about?

 

[TomC]

Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election.

What are you talking about?

I'd also like to hear an explanation of this. That is so different from my understanding of BLM it's hard to fathom.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election.

What are you talking about?

I'd also like to hear an explanation of this. That is so different from my understanding of BLM it's hard to fathom.
Tom

It's part of Qonservative propaganda: antifa and BLM were arms of and funded by the Democrat Communist Party of China and Nancy Pelosi (tm). All their protesting was to make Trump Christ look bad so the Satanic Pedophile who eats little girls (I saw it on facebook) Joe Biden could take over as President. But Joe Biden isn't really even in charge since his brain is addled with Alzheimer's. He is being mind-controlled by Kamala Harris and Bill Gates who want the Great Reset that will kill half the planet with the vaccine, 5G, and the infinity stones.

 

[Elixir]

He is being mind-controlled by Kamala Harris and Bill Gates who want the Great Reset that will kill half the planet with the vaccine, 5G, and the infinity stones.

That's what they want you to think. It's really George Soros and Hugo Chavez. But Trump is still President and running things in secret.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Black Lives Matter is the default human position. There weren't enough people participating in the organization.

This attitude trouble's me. It's Maoism. I've never argued against BLM. In the big picture I suspect it was good. Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election. They might as well have called it "we who don't kick dogs"-club. Yes, of course everybody not racist thinks black lives matter. Of course it's the default human position. I think a lot of people didn't support Black Lives Matter while also thinking that black lives matter. A lot of people on the left confused these and called everybody not supporting BLM racists.

I don't like these kind of simplistic slogans. It's dangerous. Your reply to my post show that you are unable to avoid being emotionally triggered causing you to be confused about what I'm saying and make the wrong conclusion. Which is why it's dangerous. I think it's a safe bet for the the jury members as well.

Nobody is able to keep a cool head about the Floyd case. Nobody. Not me. Not you. And hardly the jury. It's too emotionally charged.

You seem non-emotional about this case, what do you think about the 4 minutes of kneeling on a handcuffed, face down on the ground & unresponsive person's neck?

a) Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
b) Manslaghter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
c) none of the above

Disclosure: My vote is b.

I'm not non-emotional about it. I get as emotional as anyone else gets about this. That's my point. I'm triggered to the point where I can't trust my own judgement. I don't think I could look at the available evidence and make a good ruling. I don't think anyone can.

Whatever the ruling it'll be a show trial

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even though I'm aware of the fact that The Black Lives Matter organization was primarily a fund raising project for the Democrat party presidential election.

What are you talking about?

I was wrong. Last time I checked it hadn't been debunked yet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.statesman.com/amp/42498563

ActBlue does have a clause that money not used by the target organisation goes to the Democratic party. But it doesn't seem that it was used in the election.

Sorry about that

 

[Toni]

Here is an article describing the charges brought against Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd as well as a summary of the legal definitions of the charges and the reasoning behind each charge:
https://www.startribune.com/derek-c...ghter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

When former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin goes on trial Monday for the May 25 killing of George Floyd, he will face three charges: second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Here's what you need to know about the charges and what prosecutors must prove in order to convict Chauvin.

What is second-degree unintentional murder?
For a conviction of second-degree unintentional murder, the state's prosecutors will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while assaulting him. This is the most serious charge and carries a presumed sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

The cause of Floyd's death is likely to be a major focus of the trial. Expect the defense to question Floyd's overall health and try to claim that he was already compromised before Chauvin put his knee on his neck. Prosecutors are likely to assert that Floyd would still be alive if the former officer hadn't pinned his neck to the ground for about nine minutes. There will almost certainly be much discussion about Floyd's drug use and underlying health conditions.

What will not be an issue: whether Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. None of the charges require prosecutors to prove the former officer was trying to kill him.

What is third-degree murder?
Initially, Chauvin faced an additional charge of third-degree murder, but Cahill dismissed that charge and denied a request from the prosecution to reinstate it. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the judge was wrong to refuse reinstating the third-degree murder charge and sent the case back to Cahill for consideration. After the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from the defense, Cahill reinstated the charge Thursday. It also carries a presumptive sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

Third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Legal experts note that the definition of "depraved mind" is murky— as is the legal line between "depraved mind" and the "culpable negligence" standard for manslaughter.

Historically, third-degree murder has been used to prosecute drug dealers who sold deadly products but weren't planning to kill specific individuals. But in 2019, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in progress in the alley near her house. Noor fatally shot Damond from the passenger seat of a squad car, firing across his partner, who had been driving. The state Court of Appeals narrowly upheld his conviction, and the state Supreme Court will hear the case in June. Noor is currently serving a 10½-year sentence. He is the only police officer ever to be convicted of murder for an on-duty incident in Minnesota.

Explaining his decision to reinstate the third-degree murder charge Thursday, Cahill noted that the Noor ruling established a legal precedent that "murder in the third degree applies even if the person's intent and acts are directed at a single person," and therefore the charge could be applicable to the Chauvin case.

The trial is anything but a 'show' trial and is indeed taken very seriously by the city, and the state and its citizens.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The trial is anything but a 'show' trial and is indeed taken very seriously by the city, and the state and its citizens.

Indeed. I have provided links for each day of the trial. One can see expert testimony and other evidence. The participants in the trial have been very professional.

 

[Wiploc]

a) Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
b) Manslaghter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
c) none of the above

Disclosure: My vote is b.

My legal knowledge is way out of date, but those aren't the categories I'm familiar with.

I think of murder as being distinguished by intent to kill.

Premeditation is what distinguished first degree murder from other forms of murder.

Then there's felony murder. That doesn't require intent to kill, but instead requires
that somebody die as a result of a dangerous crime.

-

Example of felony murder:
Sam and Jake rob a gas station at gunpoint.
Police chase them. They catch Sam, put him
in handcuffs. Then, with Sam captive in the
back seat, they proceed to chase and kill Jake.

This is a true story (except I made up the
names). Sam was convicted of felony murder.
Because he did an armed robbery in which Jake died.

-

Example of premeditation:

A law school professor was explaining felony murder
to me. I put to him this hypothetical:

Suppose you rob a bank, and you're running away
down the sidewalk with the bag of money. The bank
guard comes out of the bank behind you, and he shoots
at you. He misses. His bullet hits a pedestrian
a few steps in front of you.

You see arterial blood spurting from the pedestrian's neck,
so you know he'll be dead in a matter of seconds.

If you let that happen, if you let him die accidentally as
a result of your bank robbery, then you will be guilty of
felony murder, which is murder in the first degree.

Therefore, you should shoot him in the forehead to kill
him immediately, without premeditation, so as to
be guilty second degree murder instead of felony murder.

The professor disagreed with me. He said you'd still be
premeditating. "You can premeditate in an instant."
I think he was just wrong. I think that, because he didn't
like my pointing out the absurdity of the felony murder
law, he conflated premeditation and intent to kill.

-

Okay, back to your categories:

a) ... premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The cop could have premeditated the killing. As in,
"I hate George Floyd. If the opportunity ever comes up,
I'm sure gonna off him." And then the opportunity came up.

The cop's behavior is consistent with this hypothetical.
And also consistent with the cop just being a malevolent idiot,
a high school bully who went into law enforcement because
he likes throwing his weight around, or resting it on people's
necks.

Presumably the cop says he neither premeditated nor had
intent to kill; but, in my experience, cops lie all the time.
(Note the figure of speech: hyperbole.)

Note also the law professor's opinion that the cop could have
premeditated while kneeling on Floyd's neck.

Note further that the cop was arguably engaged in a dangerous
crime when he knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes. He may
be guilty of felony murder. But that's not relevant to the
category you describe. And we'd know if the cop were charged
with felony murder; that would have caused huge headlines.


b) Manslaughter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

It is hardly possible to kneel on a helpless person's neck without
malice. So we could consider whether the malice was
"aforethought," premeditated.

I find I want to be discursive; I thought I was going to
write about manslaughter as you defined it, but I'm just
going to wander.

Manslaughter is, or at least was in my era, a lesser included
offense. Just as (according to some definitions) all men are
apes and all apes are monkeys, so all murder is manslaughter.

So we don't need the language, "or otherwise in circumstances
not amounting to murder."

Murder is a subset of manslaughter, as manslaughter is a subset
of homicide. (Any killing of one human by another is homicide,
even if not illegal. Capital punishment is homicide.)

Because manslaughter is a lesser included offense, we don't
need a separate charge. You can charge someone with murder
and get a conviction of manslaughter if the jury doesn't find
premeditation.

Well, I have meandered around the topic long enough.
I will now go wander around something else.

 

[Gospel]

Relax, it's just another case of someone projecting (DrZoidberg).

 

[Gospel]

a) Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
b) Manslaghter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
c) none of the above

Disclosure: My vote is b.

My legal knowledge is way out of date, but those aren't the categories I'm familiar with.

I think of murder and manslaughter as being distinguished by intent to kill.

Premeditation is what distinguished first degree murder from other forms.

Then there's felony murder. That doesn't require intent to kill, but instead requires
that somebody die as a result of a dangerous crime.

-

Example of felony murder:
Sam and Jake rob a gas station at gunpoint.
Police chase them. They catch Sam, put him
in handcuffs in their back seat. Then, with
Sam captive in the back seat, they proceed to
chase and kill Jake.

This is a true story (except that I made up the
names). Sam was convicted of felony murder.
Because he did an armed robbery in which Jake died.

-

Example of premeditation:

A law school professor was explaining felony murder
to me. I put to him this hypothetical:

Suppose you rob a bank, and you're running away
down the sidewalk with the bag of money. The bank
guard comes out of the bank behind you, and he shoots
at you. He misses. His bullet hits a pedestrian
a few steps in front of you.

You see arterial blood spurting from the pedestrian's neck,
so you know he'll be dead in a matter of seconds.

If you let that happen, if you let him die accidentally as
a result of your bank robbery, then you will be guilty of
felony murder, which is murder in the first degree.

Therefore, you should shoot him in the forehead to kill
him immediately, and without premeditation, so as to
be guilty second degree murder instead.

The professor disagreed with me. He said you'd still be
premeditating. "You can premeditate in an instant."
I think he was just wrong. I think that, because he didn't
like the implication of my hypothetical, he conflated
premeditation and intent to kill.

-

Okay, back to your categories:

a) ... premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The cop could have premeditated the killing. As in,
"I hate George Floyd. If the opportunity ever comes up,
I'm sure gonna off him." And then the opportunity came up.

The cop's behavior is consistent with this hypothetical.
And also consistent with the cop just being a malevolent idiot,
a high school bully who went into law enforcement because
he likes throwing his weight around, or resting it on people's
necks.

Presumably the cop says he neither premeditated or had
intent to kill, but, in my experience, cops lie all the time.
(Note the figure of speech: hyperbole.)

Note also the law professor's opinion that the cop could have
premeditated while kneeling on Floyd's neck.

Note further that the cop was arguably engaged in a dangerous
crime when he knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes. He may
be guilty of felony murder. But that's not relevant to the
category you describe. And we'd know if the cop were charged
with felony murder; that would have caused huge headlines.


b) Manslaughter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

It is not possible to kneel on a helpless person's neck without
malice. So we could consider whether the malice was
"aforethought," premeditated.

I find I want to be discursive; I thought I was going to
write about manslaughter as you defined it, but I'm just
going to wander.

Manslaughter is, or at least was in my era, a lesser included
offense. Just as (according to some definitions) all men are
apes and all apes are monkeys, so all murder is manslaughter.

So we don't need the language, "or otherwise in circumstances
not amounting to murder."

Murder is a subset of manslaughter, as manslaughter is a subset
of homicide. (Any killing of one human by another is homicide,
even if not illegal. Capital punishment is homicide.)

Because manslaughter is a lesser included offense, we don't
need a separate charge. You can charge someone with murder
and get a conviction of manslaughter if the jury doesn't find
premeditation.

Well, I have meandered around the topic long enough.
I will now go wander around something else.

Thanks for going into detail. I deliberately avoided doing so because I was too lazy to go into detail and was only interested in a quick sample of DrZoidberg's lean on the case.

 

[blastula]

ActBlue does have a clause that money not used by the target organisation goes to the Democratic party.

What clause?

 

[Toni]

The trial is anything but a 'show' trial and is indeed taken very seriously by the city, and the state and its citizens.

Indeed. I have provided links for each day of the trial. One can see expert testimony and other evidence. The participants in the trial have been very professional.

Yes, you have. My thanks.

I just posted so that people were reminded of the actual charges and what they mean under Minnesota law, which is what is applicable in this case.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ActBlue does have a clause that money not used by the target organisation goes to the Democratic party.

What clause?

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.