George Floyd murderer's trial

[Deborah]

So what’s your point, if any?

If the felony referred to in the 2nd degree felony murder provision is the same act as the act that caused death then it seems that all unlawful homicides involving any conscious act (regardless of intention because it seems that assault is a general intention crime not a specific intention crime) will be second degree felony murders and will never only be manslaughter. This seems like an implausible interpretation of the 2nd degree felony murder provision and Prof Dershowitz's point seems good.

"Although the definition of assault-harm requires the State to prove that the defendant intended to do the physical act, nothing in the definition requires proof that the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result."
State v Fleck
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1594803.html#:~:text=The%20State%20claims%20an%20assault,is%20a%20specific%2Dintent%20crime.

 

[Elixir]

So what’s your point, if any?

If the felony referred to in the 2nd degree felony murder provision is the same act as the act that caused death then it seems that all unlawful homicides involving any conscious act (regardless of intention because assault is a general intention crime not a specific intention crime) will be second degree felony murders and will never only be manslaughter. This seems like an implausible interpretation of the 2nd degree felony murder provision and Dershowitz's point seems good.

Read the descriptions and the applied statutes linked in this thread.
No, manslaughter is not necessarily murder 2. But murder 2 could be considered manslaughter.
Yawn.
People more versed in both the law and the facts of the case than you or I, have concluded that the eyes of the witnesses weren't lying.

Dershowitz is a right wing extremist-pandering trumpapologist clown. I wouldn't trust him in a jaywalking case.

 

[TomC]

Dershowitz is a right wing extremist-pandering trumpapologist clown. I wouldn't trust him in a jaywalking case.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dershowitz. But nowadays, he sure seems to have drunk the Tea.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Dershowitz is a right wing extremist-pandering trumpapologist clown. I wouldn't trust him in a jaywalking case.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dershowitz. But nowadays, he sure seems to have drunk the Tea.
Tom

Yup. He is no dummy. Just a self-interested sellout, specializing in specious apologetics.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Rudy Lite, which is still dangerous to the body politic.

 

[Deborah]

So what’s your point, if any?

If the felony referred to in the 2nd degree felony murder provision is the same act as the act that caused death then it seems that all unlawful homicides involving any conscious act (regardless of intention because assault is a general intention crime not a specific intention crime) will be second degree felony murders and will never only be manslaughter. This seems like an implausible interpretation of the 2nd degree felony murder provision and Dershowitz's point seems good.

Read the descriptions and the applied statutes linked in this thread.

Frankly, I don't see the point. State v Fleck says what it says.

 

[Elixir]

Read the descriptions and the applied statutes linked in this thread.

Frankly, I don't see the point. State v Fleck says what it says.

I understand. Threats to your preconceptions are not to be indulged.

 

[Swammerdami]

Dershowitz is a right wing extremist-pandering trumpapologist clown. I wouldn't trust him in a jaywalking case.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dershowitz. But nowadays, he sure seems to have drunk the Tea.
Tom

Dershowitz sated way back in the 1980's that the age of consent should be 15 or puberty. He also believes that hookers should be prosecuted but not johns.

If a middle-aged man pays for sex with a 15 year-old girl, in Dershowitz's view only the 15 year-old girl should be prosecuted.

 

[TomC]

Dershowitz is a right wing extremist-pandering trumpapologist clown. I wouldn't trust him in a jaywalking case.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dershowitz. But nowadays, he sure seems to have drunk the Tea.
Tom

Dershowitz sated way back in the 1980's that the age of consent should be 15 or puberty. He also believes that hookers should be prosecuted but not johns.

If a middle-aged man pays for sex with a 15 year-old girl, in Dershowitz's view only the 15 year-old girl should be prosecuted.

I'm not defending Dershowitz here. I have no idea what he thinks about this subject, although I doubt you're accurately representing him.

But making a vague assertion, without context or citation, about what you think he thought 40 years ago, doesn't much impress me.
Tom

 

[fromderinside]

But making a vague assertion, without context or citation, about what you think he thought 40 years ago, doesn't much impress me.
Tom

Time sensitive information. Shouldn't that be classified. blah, blah, blah ....

 

[TomC]

But making a vague assertion, without context or citation, about what you think he thought 40 years ago, doesn't much impress me.
Tom

Time sensitive information. Shouldn't that be classified. blah, blah, blah ....

Sorry.
How about "true" or "relevant"?

I suppose that will interfere with your narrative, so you wouldn't really understand anyway.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'll quibble with your definition, although we are saying the same thing.

To me "indifferent" means that he didn't care whether it happened or not. The person running a roulette table is indifferent to what number comes up, but the gambler is not.

Not even thinking of the possibility isn't "indifferent" to me. Going back something like 20 years, I wrote a Y2k38 bug in the order tracking system. A fat-fingered salesman triggered it when I was over in China--and back then the only communication we had was e-mail and China is 15 hours ahead of where the plant was. I most certainly cared about the outcome (I was not "indifferent") but I didn't have the slightest idea the bug was lurking there. (And what's really aggravating about it is that other than the pesky range checking the system could have handled it, although I think the offending job would have gone to the top of the list rather than the bottom.)

 

[Treedbear]

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.

I'll quibble with your definition, although we are saying the same thing.

To me "indifferent" means that he didn't care whether it happened or not. The person running a roulette table is indifferent to what number comes up, but the gambler is not.
...

You make it seem like his only fault was not being more attentive to the situation. If an anesthesiologist in an operating room is inattentive and the patient dies they get penalized or are barred from the practice. If they are intently involved in a procedure and too much anesthesia is administered to the point that it endangered the patient's life it can reasonably be presumed that it was intentional. If they also didn't care then they are not just a murderer but a sociopath who lacks a conscience. But Chauvin didn't plead insanity.

Anyone wanting a very rational assessment of the policing situation regarding racial bias and police reform efforts should watch the recent interview on C-Span: Charles P. Wilson, National Association of Law Enforcement Officers, National Chair.

After listening to him I think the only solution given the current state of things (although he didn't specifically suggest this) is that police should be assigned to areas based on their race and the proportion of races in that area. If practically all one race or another then they need to hire enough officers of that race so that all officers going into that area are of the same race. It's gotten to the point where people just assume there's a bias. Being of the same race means it's more likely they live there or were raised, got married there, go to the same churches, and send their kids to the same schools. Eventually this will lead to calmer community relations and better crime control. As trust in law enforcement improves then officers of other races having outstanding integrity can gradually be introduced. The problem isn't so much how individual officers react but the dynamic when they operate in teams. Suddenly there's a "Blue Wall" that leans towards the lowest common denominator.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'll quibble with your definition, although we are saying the same thing.

To me "indifferent" means that he didn't care whether it happened or not. The person running a roulette table is indifferent to what number comes up, but the gambler is not.
...

You make it seem like his only fault was not being more attentive to the situation. If an anesthesiologist in an operating room is inattentive and the patient dies they get penalized or are barred from the practice. If they are intently involved in a procedure and too much anesthesia is administered to the point that it endangered the patient's life it can reasonably be presumed that it was intentional. If they also didn't care then they are not just a murderer but a sociopath who lacks a conscience. But Chauvin didn't plead insanity.

Anyone wanting a very rational assessment of the policing situation regarding racial bias and police reform efforts should watch the recent interview on C-Span: Charles P. Wilson, National Association of Law Enforcement Officers, National Chair.

After listening to him I think the only solution given the current state of things (although he didn't specifically suggest this) is that police should be assigned to areas based on their race and the proportion of races in that area. If practically all one race or another then they need to hire enough officers of that race so that all officers going into that area are of the same race. It's gotten to the point where people just assume there's a bias. Being of the same race means it's more likely they live there or were raised, got married there, go to the same churches, and send their kids to the same schools. Eventually this will lead to calmer community relations and better crime control. As trust in law enforcement improves then officers of other races having outstanding integrity can gradually be introduced. The problem isn't so much how individual officers react but the dynamic when they operate in teams. Suddenly there's a "Blue Wall" that leans towards the lowest common denominator.

I think it wasn’t that Chauvin didn’t pay attention—although the defense tried that explanation—that he was so ‘distracted by the ‘unruly’ crowd that it pulled his attention away from Floyd. Which was a ridiculous assertion on its face but no, what I meant is that Chauvin just plain did not give a fuck if Floyd was injured or killed.

We do not need more segregation but less. We need to do a much better job selecting candidates for police training and a much, much, much better job training officers. We also need to stop outfitting them like an occupying force. Most of all we need to symbiotic training police with the same mindset as we do military in combat situations, viewing people as somehow not quite humans, hostile and dangerous, to be feared and subdued.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I think it wasn’t that Chauvin didn’t pay attention—although the defense tried that explanation—that he was so ‘distracted by the ‘unruly’ crowd that it pulled his attention away from Floyd. Which was a ridiculous assertion on its face but no, what I meant is that Chauvin just plain did not give a fuck if Floyd was injured or killed.

That would be willful or Deliberate Indifference:

Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. In law, the courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if a professional has violated an inmate’s civil rights. Deliberate indifference occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Even though it is difficult to identify what does and does not constitute deliberate indifference, courts have recognized several factual scenarios where deliberate indifference exists. For example, intentionally refusing to respond to an inmate’s complaints has been acknowledged as constituting deliberate indifference. [Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1366 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997)]; Intentionally delaying medical care for a known injury (i.e. a broken wrist) has been held to constitute deliberate indifference. [Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994).]

The following are examples of case law discussing deliberate indifference ...

We do not need more segregation but less. We need to do a much better job selecting candidates for police training and a much, much, much better job training officers. We also need to stop outfitting them like an occupying force. Most of all we need to symbiotic training police with the same mindset as we do military in combat situations, viewing people as somehow not quite humans, hostile and dangerous, to be feared and subdued.

That's a nice goal but the times have changed. There's distrust coming from both sides. You can reform and re-train the police but that's not an option with the general public.

 

[Swammerdami]

Dershowitz sated way back in the 1980's that the age of consent should be 15 or puberty. He also believes that hookers should be prosecuted but not johns.

If a middle-aged man pays for sex with a 15 year-old girl, in Dershowitz's view only the 15 year-old girl should be prosecuted.

I'm not defending Dershowitz here. I have no idea what he thinks about this subject, although I doubt you're accurately representing him.

But making a vague assertion, without context or citation, about what you think he thought 40 years ago, doesn't much impress me.
Tom

Sorry for your doubts. Thoughts and prayers for your loved ones.

"40 years ago"? Below is mention of a 1997 op-ed. I recall — no citation — similar sentiments in more recent YouTube interviews.

This magazine article is mostly about Dershowitz's pal Jeffrey Epstein but it does show this:

In a 1997 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, [Dershowitz] argued against statutory-rape laws, writing, “There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group.” He suggested that fifteen was a reasonable age of consent, no matter how old the partner was. He has also argued against punishing men who hire prostitutes. In a 1985 article, in the Gainesville Sun, Dershowitz proposed that a john “who occasionally seeks to taste the forbidden fruit of sex for hire” should not be arrested. The nonprofit executive recalled his discussing the idea in class: “He said, ‘Prostitutes know what they’re doing—they should be prosecuted. But you shouldn’t ruin the john’s life over that.’ If I had raised my hand to challenge that, I would have been singling myself out as—God forbid—a feminist.”

 

[Elixir]

Dershowitz stated way back in the 1980's that the age of consent should be 15 or puberty. He also believes that hookers should be prosecuted but not johns.

If a middle-aged man pays for sex with a 15 year-old girl, in Dershowitz's view only the 15 year-old girl should be prosecuted.

That was back when he was hanging around with Jeffrey E, preparing for his future as a rape-apologist and getting fat on the bounty.

I'm not defending Dershowitz here. I have no idea what he thinks

Neither do I. But I'm very sure that what he thinks and what he says are two completely independent things. What he says is geared 100% toward his own welfare, which in turn hinges on arguments that are exculpatory for his clients like Trump, Epstein and the GOP.
What he thinks might be the same things, but not likely IMHO since he's not really a blithering idiot who would actually believe the nonsense he spouts.

 

[Gospel]

I'd like to openly thank Mr. George Floyd for future officers stepping up to prevent dumbasses like Chauvin from getting them fucked. May not encourage all of them, but any is enough, and I'm sure they appreciate it too. They now have a reason that should have been there long ago.

 

[ZiprHead]

Someone didn't think this one through.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone didn't think this one through.

View attachment 33152

Quite an admission from the Chicago Police.