Derek Chauvin trial

[Richard]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I think most people wouldn't really know what right or wrong actually is in this case, and are more politically motivated than interested in Jurisprudence or evidence.

I think anyone publicly claiming the 'man has done nothing wrong are f**king dangerous'. Its pretty clear from just an overview of the case that the entire trial will hinge on legal definitions of reasonable force and the degree to which the police are culpable for those detained and the methods of detention.

I can't see how anyone can even be remotely familiar with even the most facile elements of the case and not consider that it should be down to a jury to determine whether his actions were reasonable or not.

Well said - er, I mean, written.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

There is no way he is going to be found not guilty. The only question is to what degree of murder will he be found guilty of.

This is not like the OJ Simpson case where it was all forensics and reasonable doubt. This case is there for all to see and it comes down to what was going through Chauvin's head at the time.

Hope you are right Bob.

[Johnybegood]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

There is no way he is going to be found not guilty. The only question is to what degree of murder will he be found guilty of.

This is not like the OJ Simpson case where it was all forensics and reasonable doubt. This case is there for all to see and it comes down to what was going through Chauvin's head at the time.

I am not sure about the law in the US, but I always thought the law for murder was that the act had to be pre-meditated I.e. they set out with the intention to kill and the only viable explanation not to sentence to a full term was diminished responsibility. E.g. the killer had been abused and was not in their right mind.

However, if the killing is not pre-meditated then it's manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and, (nb although i am not following the trial), when I saw the footage and as terrible as it was, i thought it would be v. difficult to prove it was pre-meditated murder and even difficult to prove it wasn't accidental manslaughter.

Chauvins lawyers will likely go for this and say inadequate training, a perceived threat and the levels of intoxication will prove that Chauvin may have contributed inadvertently but it was not intentional nor the main cause of death.

I hope I am wrong too

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by Johnybegood

I am not sure about the law in the US, but I always thought the law for murder was that the act had to be pre-meditated I.e. they set out with the intention to kill and the only viable explanation not to sentence to a full term was diminished responsibility. E.g. the killer had been abused and was not in their right mind.

However, if the killing is not pre-meditated then it's manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and, (nb although i am not following the trial), when I saw the footage and as terrible as it was, i thought it would be v. difficult to prove it was pre-meditated murder and even difficult to prove it wasn't accidental manslaughter.

Chauvins lawyers will likely go for this and say inadequate training, a perceived threat and the levels of intoxication will prove that Chauvin may have contributed inadvertently but it was not intentional nor the main cause of death.

I hope I am wrong too

‘Murder’ in the states includes manslaughter (sort of what second degree murder is, second degree murder has no pre-meditation) and in Minnesota the have third degree murder (god only knows what that is)

[Johnybegood]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

‘Murder’ in the states includes manslaughter (sort of what second degree murder is, second degree murder has no pre-meditation) and in Minnesota the have third degree murder (god only knows what that is)

In which case: murder 1 will be really difficult, murder 2 is not easy to prove either. Murder 3; if thats equivalent to involuntary manslaughter then probable but that won't be enough to quell the outrage
Riots look likely

[Maz]

Murder two is not so an unrealistic verdict if they can prove that through recklessness he showed an extreme indifference to human life. I think that's well possible.

[hulkster]

Don’t suppose it matters what he gets sentenced with really. I imagine he will be got at when he is properly behind bars anyway.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

‘Murder’ in the states includes manslaughter (sort of what second degree murder is, second degree murder has no pre-meditation) and in Minnesota the have third degree murder (god only knows what that is)

Yes.

[Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Johnybegood

I am not sure about the law in the US, but I always thought the law for murder was that the act had to be pre-meditated I.e. they set out with the intention to kill and the only viable explanation not to sentence to a full term was diminished responsibility. E.g. the killer had been abused and was not in their right mind.

However, if the killing is not pre-meditated then it's manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and, (nb although i am not following the trial), when I saw the footage and as terrible as it was, i thought it would be v. difficult to prove it was pre-meditated murder and even difficult to prove it wasn't accidental manslaughter.

Chauvins lawyers will likely go for this and say inadequate training, a perceived threat and the levels of intoxication will prove that Chauvin may have contributed inadvertently but it was not intentional nor the main cause of death.

I hope I am wrong too

Take a look at the link in this post. It has a pretty good explanation of the options available to the jury.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Maz

Murder two is not so an unrealistic verdict if they can prove that through recklessness he showed an extreme indifference to human life. I think that's well possible.

Yes.

[big bad John]

Originally Posted by hong_kong_hg

A most apt description of Southgate's garbage far right shilling dressed up as faux intellectualism.

Reality is America was founded explicitly on the notions that only wealthy, white men were to be trusted with power whilst people of colour were intrinsically violent and possessions to be controlled and exploited. A sizeable minority of mostly white Americans still consider this to be true and hence see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong.

Wasn't that what Hong kong was founded on? I have yet to meet a white American who has said that Chauvin has done nothing wrong. Every single person has condemned him. You really should try and leave your pathetic, self loathing, prejudices to yourself.

[Hedgehog]

Personally as it stands now I would go with second-degree manslaughter if I was on the jury.

What is second-degree manslaughter?

In order to convict Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "culpably negligent" and took an "unreasonable risk" with Floyd's life when he restrained him and that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great harm. Prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin's actions intended to cause Floyd's death, only that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great bodily harm. This charge carries a presumptive sentence of 41-57 months.

So with time served he would be out in about 2 years.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by big bad John

Wasn't that what Hong kong was founded on?

Whatabout whatabout, welll done.

Originally Posted by big bad John

I have yet to meet a white American who has said that Chauvin has done nothing wrong. Every single person has condemned him.

There are literally thousands of white Americans desperate for Chauvin to be found innocent. You are not looking very hard.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

To view the link you have to Register or Login

Originally Posted by big bad John

You really should try and leave your pathetic, self loathing, prejudices to yourself.

Maybe you should look at yourself first before making dumb ad hominem attacks.

[Johnybegood]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

Personally as it stands now I would go with second-degree manslaughter if I was on the jury.

What is second-degree manslaughter?

In order to convict Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "culpably negligent" and took an "unreasonable risk" with Floyd's life when he restrained him and that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great harm. Prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin's actions intended to cause Floyd's death, only that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great bodily harm. This charge carries a presumptive sentence of 41-57 months.

So with time served he would be out in about 2 years.

Yep this sounds achievable but only 2 years ffs!
I predict a riot

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Johnybegood

I am not sure about the law in the US, but I always thought the law for murder was that the act had to be pre-meditated I.e. they set out with the intention to kill and the only viable explanation not to sentence to a full term was diminished responsibility. E.g. the killer had been abused and was not in their right mind.

However, if the killing is not pre-meditated then it's manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and, (nb although i am not following the trial), when I saw the footage and as terrible as it was, i thought it would be v. difficult to prove it was pre-meditated murder and even difficult to prove it wasn't accidental manslaughter.

Chauvins lawyers will likely go for this and say inadequate training, a perceived threat and the levels of intoxication will prove that Chauvin may have contributed inadvertently but it was not intentional nor the main cause of death.

I hope I am wrong too

I'm the US that's the difference between 1st degree murder and second degree murder. I'm the UK murder doesn't require pre meditionation, just a deliberate act that results in a homicide. Something like kneeling on someone's throat is murder, even if your intention is not to kill them, because you know it could kill them and any reasonable person would draw that conclusion. The only viable defences would be that you used reasonable force, were suffering from a psychotic break or acted in self defence of others (I doubt you could claim personal self defence in the circumstances. However if you could demonstrate you were trained to do this, and as such were only enacting police training, you could probably get away with it, though it would leave the police facing serious charges

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by big bad John

Wasn't that what Hong kong was founded on? I have yet to meet a white American who has said that Chauvin has done nothing wrong. Every single person has condemned him. You really should try and leave your pathetic, self loathing, prejudices to yourself.

I repeat, the USA was founded on the very notion of white supremacism. Sorry if this fact makes you uncomfortable. Maybe give Jack a follow, eh?

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

Personally as it stands now I would go with second-degree manslaughter if I was on the jury.

What is second-degree manslaughter?

In order to convict Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "culpably negligent" and took an "unreasonable risk" with Floyd's life when he restrained him and that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great harm. Prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin's actions intended to cause Floyd's death, only that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great bodily harm. This charge carries a presumptive sentence of 41-57 months.

So with time served he would be out in about 2 years.

In reality they don't have to prove much more to get a second degree murder conviction, only that any reasonable person would know that kneeling on someone's neck would inhibit breathing, and that a prolonged period of asphyxiation leads to death. In terms of getting a conviction that should in theory be very easy.

You don't even have to prove the actions directly resulted in death, only that it's a reasonable conclusion that they did. People get convicted of second degree murder in much flimsier grounds all the time.

[Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

... However if you could demonstrate you were trained to do this, and as such were only enacting police training, you could probably get away with it, though it would leave the police facing serious charges

Well the use-of-force trainer who trained Chauvin in 2018 certainly dispelled that theory this morning.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[Vince Hilaire's Afro]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I'm the US that's the difference between 1st degree murder and second degree murder. I'm the UK murder doesn't require pre meditionation, just a deliberate act that results in a homicide. Something like kneeling on someone's throat is murder, even if your intention is not to kill them, because you know it could kill them and any reasonable person would draw that conclusion. The only viable defences would be that you used reasonable force, were suffering from a psychotic break or acted in self defence of others (I doubt you could claim personal self defence in the circumstances. However if you could demonstrate you were trained to do this, and as such were only enacting police training, you could probably get away with it, though it would leave the police facing serious charges

Your last point is the one I've found to be very important, and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, a previous complaint filed against Chauvin did involve improper neck restraint using a knee. This article gives some background on police policy (which was changed shortly after Floyd's death)

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[hong_kong_hg]

It does not take much effort to find people in real time desperate for Chauvin to be found innocent. But yeah, self-loathing LOL, whataboutism LOL.

To view the link you have to Register or Login]

To view the link you have to Register or Login

To view the link you have to Register or Login

To view the link you have to Register or Login