George Floyd murderer's trial

[Deborah]

That appeal is over a completely different case with a completely different set of facts that are in no way similar to the facts in the Floyd case. The fact the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an appeal about the 3rd degree manslaughter charge in the Chauvin case strongly suggests that a successful judgment in the Noor appeal will have no effect on the Chauvin conviction.

No, the pending appeal in the Noor case will determine a legal issue, i.e. the interpretation of the third degree murder provision:
"Noor's legal team disagrees with the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision that "a conviction for third-degree murder may be sustained even if the death causing act was directed at a single person" – and argues the court broke with 100 years of precedent in doing so.

The Noor legal team is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to revisit the necessary prerequisites for third-degree murder itself, while also seeking to have the court "sufficiently differentiate murder from manslaughter."

As I previously indicated, the issue is whether the reference to others in the third degree murder provision means people other than the deceased, e.g. a drive-by-shooting situation.

 

[Deborah]

The officers did not notice whether or not Floyd was 'resisting' or breathing because they did not check on his welfare in any way at all.

I'm not certain why you want to re-litigate a case that has been decided already.

I wasn't arguing that there was no culpability. I am just questioning whether all of the convictions are appropriate. There will doubtless be appeals. I entered the discussion in relation to the issue of jury trials vs bench trials, bench trials having the benefit that judges need to issue written opinions setting out the reasoning for their decisions.

 

[Deborah]

In South Africa we don't have jury trials.

I get that jury trails can have certain benefits but in this instance I think it would have been better if a judge had made the determination - Judges have to write judgments - In the judgment the judge would have to justify why he thought that each element of each charge was present. This can to some degree provide a check against any tendency to decide a case on the basis of extra-legal considerations and can provide clarity to people who are sceptical of the result.

Hey, I like that idea, but how about applying a lesser version of it to the jury?

Prosecution and defense each make up a list of points for their position--claims only, no argument. Jury members must indicate what they think of each item on the list.

It would be impractical to force jury members to sing to the same song sheet to such an extent. For example, two jurors may think that an element of a charge has not been established but may do so for different reasons.

 

[laughing dog]

That appeal is over a completely different case with a completely different set of facts that are in no way similar to the facts in the Floyd case. The fact the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an appeal about the 3rd degree manslaughter charge in the Chauvin case strongly suggests that a successful judgment in the Noor appeal will have no effect on the Chauvin conviction.

No, the pending appeal in the Noor case will determine a legal issue, i.e. the interpretation of the third degree murder provision:
"Noor's legal team disagrees with the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision that "a conviction for third-degree murder may be sustained even if the death causing act was directed at a single person" – and argues the court broke with 100 years of precedent in doing so.

The Noor legal team is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to revisit the necessary prerequisites for third-degree murder itself, while also seeking to have the court "sufficiently differentiate murder from manslaughter."

Try to focus. The pending appeal in the Noor case is driven by a number of factors. The fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court approved the reinstatement of 3rd degree murder against Chauvin strongly suggests that there is no reason to expect them to unilaterally reinterpret the 3rd degree murder law.

 

[laughing dog]

While this conviction is important for many reasons, I think the outcomes in the upcoming trials of the other officers are much more important. I suspect that most officers do not see themselves as ever acting like Chauvin. But, I suspect they do see themselves as either acting like or having acted like the other officers (failing to intervene in misconduct or enabling misconduct).

 

[laughing dog]

In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune there is an interview with one of the alternate jurors in the Chauvin trial (https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-trial-was-life-changing-says-alternate-juror/600049142/)

We didn't want to do or say anything to jeopardize this process … so we were very careful. We were responsible. We took it seriously," said Christensen. "I felt everybody was coming from a good place, a good heart. I felt everyone was genuine. I don't think there were any ulterior motives at all.".....There were several moments during such testimony where jurors retired to a locked room guarded by a deputy and, overcome by emotion, cast their eyes downward to avoid eye contact and waited in complete silence until their return to the courtroom.

"While we were in there it was just us, you know?" Christensen said. "I feel like even though we didn't talk about it, I felt like we were supported by one another, gained strength. … It was a good group."

Frazier's video was integral to the state's case, she said, adding that the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Martin Tobin was crucial to establishing that Floyd died of asphyxia while Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.....Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, was unable to raise doubts about the state's case or show that Floyd died of a cardiac arrest affected by drug use, or that Chauvin's actions were reasonable, Christensen said.

 

[Deborah]

That appeal is over a completely different case with a completely different set of facts that are in no way similar to the facts in the Floyd case. The fact the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an appeal about the 3rd degree manslaughter charge in the Chauvin case strongly suggests that a successful judgment in the Noor appeal will have no effect on the Chauvin conviction.

No, the pending appeal in the Noor case will determine a legal issue, i.e. the interpretation of the third degree murder provision:
"Noor's legal team disagrees with the Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision that "a conviction for third-degree murder may be sustained even if the death causing act was directed at a single person" – and argues the court broke with 100 years of precedent in doing so.

The Noor legal team is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to revisit the necessary prerequisites for third-degree murder itself, while also seeking to have the court "sufficiently differentiate murder from manslaughter."

Try to focus. The pending appeal in the Noor case is driven by a number of factors. The fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court approved the reinstatement of 3rd degree murder against Chauvin strongly suggests that there is no reason to expect them to unilaterally reinterpret the 3rd degree murder law.

The Minnesota Supreme Court simply declined to intervene in the proceedings after the Minnesota's Appeal Court decision and thus the trial went ahead. Unlike you, I don't read too much into that.

 

[blastula]

Chauvin continued his assault for over 3 minutes after he was made aware that Floyd had stopped breathing and had become non-responsive. Death is a predictable outcome of continuing to asphyxiate someone who has stopped breathing and lost consciousness. Chauvin was a professional with many hours of training in first aid and use of force, not that you need extensive EMT training to recognize this fact. Therefore, Chauvin must have been aware of the potential consequences of his actions, but he continued and even increased the level of force he was using to "restrain" the unresponsive body of Mr. Floyd. His intent to seriously harm or kill Floyd can easily and reasonably be inferred from his actions.

From the dialogue between the officers it appears that it was believed that Floyd was breathing at least to timestamp 20:25:13 of Kueng's BWC footage and that's how it also appears to me looking at the footage.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-the-big-lie-of-the-3-minute-plus-restraint-while-pulseless/. I didn't see any footage of Chauvin increasing the amount of force after 20:25:13. The paramedic appears in Lane's BWC footage at 25:27:40. I didn't see any footage of any of the officers saying that they had determined that Floyd was not breathing.

Um, Chauvin didn't get off him when the EMTs got there, for over a minute. Depraved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 believe there was any intent to kill. Rather, I think there was an intent to inflict pain. He wanted Floyd to suffer.

I think he wanted to inflict pain, enjoyed Floyd's suffering and was indifferent to the chance of Floyd's death.

I don't think it was so much indifferent as he didn't even think about the possibility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In South Africa we don't have jury trials.

I get that jury trails can have certain benefits but in this instance I think it would have been better if a judge had made the determination - Judges have to write judgments - In the judgment the judge would have to justify why he thought that each element of each charge was present. This can to some degree provide a check against any tendency to decide a case on the basis of extra-legal considerations and can provide clarity to people who are sceptical of the result.

Hey, I like that idea, but how about applying a lesser version of it to the jury?

Prosecution and defense each make up a list of points for their position--claims only, no argument. Jury members must indicate what they think of each item on the list.

It would be impractical to force jury members to sing to the same song sheet to such an extent. For example, two jurors may think that an element of a charge has not been established but may do so for different reasons.

So? I'm saying it would be something each juror fills out, not something filled out by the jury as a whole.

 

[Deborah]

Um, Chauvin didn't get off him when the EMTs got there, for over a minute.

I would guess Chauvin didn't think Floyd was dead.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Um, Chauvin didn't get off him when the EMTs got there, for over a minute.

I would guess Chauvin didn't think Floyd was dead.

Chauvin's authority to apply violence rests on his reasonable belief in significant resistance by Floyd. A lifeless body was not resisting at all for minutes and prior to that Floyd was not significantly resisting for minutes as well as he went through a brain seizure...all the while medical experts and rational observers telling Chauvin his actions exceeded his authority and medical intervention was necessary to save Floyd's life from Chauvin's actions.

 

[Deborah]

Chauvin's authority to apply violence rests on his reasonable belief in significant resistance by Floyd. A lifeless body was not resisting at all for minutes and prior to that Floyd was not significantly resisting for minutes as well as he went through a brain seizure...all the while medical experts and rational observers telling Chauvin his actions exceeded his authority and medical intervention was necessary to save Floyd's life from Chauvin's actions.

Reasonableness is one thing. Intent/depraved mindset is another.

 

[Elixir]

Reasonableness is one thing. Intent/depraved mindset is another.

Quite so. In this case we have a prime, almost stereotypical example of the latter.
That fact is agreed to by all the eyewitnesses, virtually everyone who viewed the videos and (not that it matters, right?) the jury.
But not "Deborah on the internet", so ...

I would guess Chauvin didn't think Floyd was dead.

Yeah, he was only informed of the absence of any vital signs (breath, pulse) for a few minutes before he stopped doing what killed his victim.
I surmise that you would guess something similar about the previous 18 times complaints for excessive force that were filed against the poor innocent peacekeeper.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Chauvin's authority to apply violence rests on his reasonable belief in significant resistance by Floyd. A lifeless body was not resisting at all for minutes and prior to that Floyd was not significantly resisting for minutes as well as he went through a brain seizure...all the while medical experts and rational observers telling Chauvin his actions exceeded his authority and medical intervention was necessary to save Floyd's life from Chauvin's actions.

Reasonableness is one thing. Intent/depraved mindset is another.

You seem very confused. Chauvin knew he had no legal authority after a point but continued anyway. It is UNREASONABLE to suggest otherwise because Floyd wasn't even moving. Therefore, he INTENDED to continue his illegitimate assault. PRECISELY why he intended to do so is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was intended, which it was.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As per the prosecution's conclusion: Chauvin's heart was too small. He didn't care what shape his victim was in. George Floyd meant nothing to him. George Floyd was going to 'pay the price'.

 

[Toni]

I think he wanted to inflict pain, enjoyed Floyd's suffering and was indifferent to the chance of Floyd's death.

I don't think it was so much indifferent as he didn't even think about the possibility.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but by indifferent I meant both that Floyd's potential death was not a concern for Chauvin and that it frankly didn't even cross his mind that he should care or notice whether Floyd was in any sort of peril. He just plain did not care or think to care.

 

[untermensche]

Damn right.

Pass on a fake $20 bill in my town and that's a hanging offense.

 

[Deborah]

Reasonableness is one thing. Intent/depraved mindset is another.

You seem very confused. Chauvin knew he had no legal authority after a point but continued anyway. It is UNREASONABLE to suggest otherwise because Floyd wasn't even moving. Therefore, he INTENDED to continue his illegitimate assault. PRECISELY why he intended to do so is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was intended, which it was.

On the prosecution's interpretation of the second degree murder provision, Chauvin would have had to have committed 3rd degree felony assault. You may be right in the sense that it seems that assault in Minnesota may be a general intent crime and not a specific intent crime if the links below reflects current Minnesota law:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1594803.html#:~:text=The%20State%20claims%20an%20assault,is%20a%20specific%2Dintent%20crime.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=wmlr

If so, it would seem that one would not need to show that Chauvin intended to commit bodily harm, let alone intended to commit substantial bodily harm.

This to me tends to highlight why the felony referred to in the 2nd degree felony murder provision should not be the same act as the act that caused death.

 

[Elixir]

Reasonableness is one thing. Intent/depraved mindset is another.

You seem very confused. Chauvin knew he had no legal authority after a point but continued anyway. It is UNREASONABLE to suggest otherwise because Floyd wasn't even moving. Therefore, he INTENDED to continue his illegitimate assault. PRECISELY why he intended to do so is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was intended, which it was.

On the prosecution's interpretation of the second degree murder provision, Chauvin would have had to have committed 3rd degree felony assault. If this characterisation of 3rd degree assault is correct:
"third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm"
https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/43702939/the-charges-against-derek-chauvin-in-the-death-of-george-floyd-explained
an intention merely to restrain a victim (whether or not there was knowledge of unlawfulness) would not be sufficient.

Yawn.
The conditions were met.
So what’s your point, if any?