George Floyd murderer's trial

[TomC]

I have referred to Dr Tobin and Chauvin's trainer, who were the prosecution's witnesses. Was there other evidence which addresses the issues I raised?

Yes. I’m relatively certain that there is extensive video of the trial proceedings available if you care to look.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to watch all of the evidence although I have seen quite a bit of it. But if you or anyone else has seen evidence which addresses the issues I raised, I would be interested to know what it is.

Part of the problem is that there's tons of evidence. Much of the most important evidence is open to interpretation and prioritization.

I'm just glad it's over.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I have difficulty getting my mind around it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had the relevant intent ...

The judge would have convicted him, I believe, as would any reasonable person who saw the video and heard the testimony of ALL of the experts....

There ARE some corrupt judges, but few that are so corrupt that they would not have convicted on all three counts.
The fact that some people have a hard time getting their minds around it is not exculpatory evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

During the trial, I actually became convinced he did want to kill Floyd. What made me change my mind on that was when the small crowd was pleading with him to get off and Chauvin actually lifted his foot off the ground to add even more weight and pressure to Floyd's neck. He knew what he was doing.

 

[Gospel]

I still can't believe he was found guilty on any count much less all three. A black person with any sort of record resisting arrest in any form = officer acquitted full stop.

 

[atrib]

During the trial, I actually became convinced he did want to kill Floyd. What made me change my mind on that was when the small crowd was pleading with him to get off and Chauvin actually lifted his foot off the ground to add even more weight and pressure to Floyd's neck. He knew what he was doing.

I became convinced that Chauvin wanted to kill or severely harm Floyd the first time I saw the bystander video on YouTube. No reasonable policeman who takes the lives of people in their custody seriously would have acted the way Chauvin did. Either that, or Chauvin was under the influence, which might help explain the calm detachment with which he chose to inflict pain on and ultimately kill Floyd.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think the idea of cheering on rape ... isn't exactly kosher.

It's fine as long as they are both circumcised.

 

[Toni]

I think the idea of cheering on rape ... isn't exactly kosher.

It's fine as long as they are both circumcised.

No, it's never fine.

I have a real problem with anyone being raped by anyone else while in jail or prison. Rape should not be part of the sentence.

 

[Deborah]

During the trial, I actually became convinced he did want to kill Floyd. What made me change my mind on that was when the small crowd was pleading with him to get off and Chauvin actually lifted his foot off the ground to add even more weight and pressure to Floyd's neck. He knew what he was doing.

View attachment 33074

I don't think that the foot of the ground shown in the snapshot establishes his intent beyond reasonable doubt. We don't know how his weight was distributed between left and right and if he was really trying to put as much pressure as possible I would expect his torso to be more forward leaning over the left side. I have tried the positions myself and whether the foot is on or off the ground doesn't seem to make that much difference.

 

[Deborah]

I became convinced that Chauvin wanted to kill or severely harm Floyd the first time I saw the bystander video on YouTube. No reasonable policeman who takes the lives of people in their custody seriously would have acted the way Chauvin did.

Reasonableness is one thing and intent is another.

 

[Gun Nut]

Chauvin’s Defense Team Blames Guilty Verdict on Jury’s Ability To See.

..

Well said. A jury of Mr. Chauvin's peers heard days of testimony and watched video to come to a unanimous verdict. There is no evidence that the jury was swayed by any thoughts or fears about repercussions of a verdict of innocence. Yet we have the usual suspects regurgitate the same chickenshit claim that this trial held in the legal county would be unfair.

not just a jury of his peers... any and every single interested party with access to any form of media broadcast signal had access to the entire trial.... seeing and hearing everything the jurors heard.
The threat of violence in response to acquittal was a response to seeing and hearing what obviously should be a conviction. The failure for the defense to get an acquittal is proof the "fix" was not "in" THIS time.

About fairness. What the fuck is fairness, in the context of this discussion, especially from Derec? In some situations, if you have a gun, a cop will have to shoot you. TO BE FAIR, if a cop has a gun, you might have to shoot him if you see him. Anything else would not be "FAIR".
Fairness is not always, or maybe ever, a measure of the probability of an outcome. The cop had NO CHANCE of getting acquitted. because he's obviously to all sane interested parties a total murderer. a bad-ass-i'll-do-whatever-the-fuck-I-want piece of shit that deserves to rot in jail with the rest of his kind. That does not make the system or this particular instance unfair. It makes it Just.
Derec probably has better things to do than watch the entire trial... but then, his opinion on what the jury should have done / could of done / was afraid of doing... is completely moot.
I watched 90% of it. I found it fascinating.

 

[Toni]

No reasonable policeman who takes the lives of people in their custody seriously would have acted the way Chauvin did.

Reasonableness is one thing and intent is another.

Since the charges were unintentional murder in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and unintentional manslaughter, then intent was irrelevant.

 

[Deborah]

Since the charges were unintentional murder in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and unintentional manslaughter, then intent was irrelevant.

Surely for second degree murder (the felony murder) one would need to show an intent to commit serious bodily harm (required to establish the felony)? At least, that is how I understood the prosecution to interpret felony murder provision.

I got the impression that for the third degree murder one would have to establish a sort of Russian roulette/drive-by-shooting mentality - in particular, that Chauvin caused Floyd's death by committing an act that was eminently dangerous to others (in this case to Floyd) while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. At least, that is how I understood the prosecution to interpret the third degree murder provision.

 

[ZiprHead]

Since the charges were unintentional murder in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and unintentional manslaughter, then intent was irrelevant.

Surely for second degree murder (the felony murder) one would need to to show an intent to commit serious bodily harm (required to establish the felony)?

I got the impression that for the third degree murder one would have to establish a sort of Russian roulette mentality, i.e. that Chauvin foresaw the possibility that he would kill Floyd and reconciled himself to that possibility.

The charge details have been posted several times in this thread. I suggest you read them because you are wrong.

 

[Elixir]

Since the charges were unintentional murder in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and unintentional manslaughter, then intent was irrelevant.

Surely for second degree murder (the felony murder) one would need to to show an intent to commit serious bodily harm (required to establish the felony)?

I got the impression that for the third degree murder one would have to establish a sort of Russian roulette mentality, i.e. that Chauvin foresaw the possibility that he would kill Floyd and reconciled himself to that possibility.

The charge details have been posted several times in this thread. I suggest you read them because you are wrong.

Maybe it's different in S.A.

 

[TomC]

Surely for second degree murder (the felony murder) one would need to to show an intent to commit serious bodily harm (required to establish the felony)? At least, that is how I understood the prosecution to interpret felony murder provision.

I also thought this. And I live in this country.

I really thought that a charge of murder required something of intent. But legally it doesn't, here.


Homicide, yes, I can see some form of homicide charge for professional malfeasance. Not murder. But that's not the legal definition here in the USA.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I also thought this. And I live in this country.

Do you live in Minnesota?

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 March 5 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 March 11. It also carries a presumptive sentence in this case of 12 1⁄2 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.

Read all about it.

 

[Deborah]

I really thought that a charge of murder required something of intent. But legally it doesn't, here.

The charge details have been posted several times in this thread. I suggest you read them because you are wrong.

CNN's website states the following:
"The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.

The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html

So I don't think I am wrong ZiprHead unless you were objecting to "serious bodily harm" instead of "substantial bodily harm", in which case, point taken. The above quote also accords with my recollection of what the prosecution argued in the proceedings.

I don't think the mindsets relevant to either of the above charges of the prosecution were established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, Prof Alan Dershowitz has expressed the opinion that the prosecution's interpretation of the relevant provisions is wrong. In particular, that for the second degree murder provision the felony cannot be the same act as the act that resulted in the death and that for the third degree murder provision the reference to others refers to people other than the deceased. I believe that the interpretation of the third degree murder provision is to be considered shortly by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

 

[TomC]

Do you live in Minnesota?

No.
Tom

 

[J842P]

Since the charges were unintentional murder in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and unintentional manslaughter, then intent was irrelevant.

Surely for second degree murder (the felony murder) one would need to show an intent to commit serious bodily harm (required to establish the felony)? At least, that is how I understood the prosecution to interpret felony murder provision.

I got the impression that for the third degree murder one would have to establish a sort of Russian roulette/drive-by-shooting mentality - in particular, that Chauvin caused Floyd's death by committing an act that was eminently dangerous to others (in this case to Floyd) while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. At least, that is how I understood the prosecution to interpret the third degree murder provision.

The state of Minnesota has a charge, "2nd degree murder, unintentional". Does it really matter what the charge is called? I mean, if it makes you more comfortable call it aggravated manslaughter (which might be the charge in some other state).

I would argue, what Chauvin did was morally similar to murder.

 

[J842P]

I really thought that a charge of murder required something of intent. But legally it doesn't, here.

The charge details have been posted several times in this thread. I suggest you read them because you are wrong.

CNN's website states the following:
"The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.

The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html

So I don't think I am wrong ZiprHead unless you were objecting to "serious bodily harm" instead of "substantial bodily harm", in which case, point taken. The above quote also accords with my recollection of what the prosecution argued in the proceedings.

I don't think the mindsets relevant to either of the above charges of the prosecution were established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, Prof Alan Dershowitz has expressed the opinion that the prosecution's interpretation of the relevant provisions is wrong. In particular, that for the second degree murder provision the felony cannot be the same act as the act that resulted in the death and that for the third degree murder provision the reference to others refers to people other than the deceased. I believe that the interpretation of the third degree murder provision is to be considered shortly by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Perhaps. That would be a colossal fuck-up by the prosecution if it turns out to be the case.