The Verdict

[Bicycle Bill]

Now, if one of you legal scholars out there could tell me how one person can be responsible for the death of one person, but still be found guilty of THREE different murder charges (2nd-degree murder, 3rd-degree murder, and 3rd-degree manslaughter), I would much appreciate it.  Or is it like in football — throw multiple penalty flags and then decide which one you want to enforce?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

My guess is that the facts fit each of the offences of which he was convicted. Second-degree murder requires commission of a felony (third-degree assault in this case) that resulted in death. Third-degree murder requires death caused by an act that was eminently dangerous and showing a depraved disregard for life. Second-degree manslaughter requires negligence creating unreasonable risk and consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm.

[TPFKA@W]

Someone posted on the faces book that there is finally justice. I disagree. No matter the sentence there is never justice. Lives remain ruined and the victim remains dead.

[Joe Guy]

Someone posted on the faces book that there is finally justice. I disagree. No matter the sentence there is never justice. Lives remain ruined and the victim remains dead.

I think it all depends on how you define Justice. In my mind, justice has been served because Chauvin was tried in court and a just verdict resulted. From what I've seen and heard since the verdict, to many people it seems that true justice would only happen if Floyd were brought back to life. That's not justice. That's dreaming.

[Scooter]

Justice would mean that nothing like it ever happens again to anyone else.

[Scooter]

Let's remember how this case was originally reported:



Were it not for the fact that everyone is carrying around a portable video camera nowadays, that is the narrative that would have won the day.

[Scooter]

Justice would mean that nothing like it ever happens again to anyone else.

Oh look, already too late.

[dales]

Time for this old gal to retire.

Nancy Pelosi speech after Derek Chauvin murder verdict panned as offensive

Alex Shultz

SFGATE

April 20, 2021

Shortly after former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty in the murder of George Floyd, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., delivered a bizarre speech that immediately angered and disturbed people following along on social media.

"Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice," Pelosi said. "For being there to call out to your mom — how heartbreaking was that?" she interjected. "Call out to your mom, 'I can't breathe.' But because of you, thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice. And now we have to make sure justice prevails in the sentencing. But, you know, that's its own procedure."

Pelosi's offering of thanks, her equivocation of Floyd's murder with a sacrifice, implying that he was in any way willing to die by police violence, was met with condemnation. A short sampling of tweets are below.

Others wondered aloud how Pelosi, 81, who's been a powerful politician for more than three decades and has a net worth of roughly $114 million, could issue such a tone-deaf statement during a moment when quite literally anything else would've sufficed.

Pelosi and/or her communications team have since attempted a nonapology redo of her speech on Twitter. "George Floyd should be alive today," her account tweeted. "His family’s calls for justice for his murder were heard around the world. He did not die in vain. We must make sure other families don't suffer the same racism, violence & pain, and we must enact the George Floyd #JusticeInPolicing Act."

[Joe Guy]

"Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice," Pelosi said.

That's just plain weird. That's like a brain fart.

[Jarlaxle]

Dementia, maybe.

[Gob]

There could have only been one verdict, you wouldn't want more riots.

A US congresswoman is under fire after urging demonstrators to "get more confrontational" if a not-guilty verdict comes in the George Floyd case.

At a protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Maxine Waters told protesters to "stay on the streets" if ex-officer Derek Chauvin is acquitted in the case.

The trial judge said the Democrat's comments were "abhorrent".

Republicans called for a congressional censure of Ms Waters, but Democrats said she had no reason to apologise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56810245

[Scooter]

There could have only been one verdict, unless the jury had decided to ignore the evidence.

[ex-khobar Andy]

There could have only been one verdict, you wouldn't want more riots.

I think the jury just looked at the evidence. This was not one of those 'He made a terrible mistake in the microsecond he had to decide' trials.

[Crackpot]

I wonder about the other 3 trials. I think the other veteran officer deserves some blame. The two rookies I am not so sure.

[Burning Petard]

I was in a discussion this morning about the verdict--how much will it influence the acton of police else where in the USofA?

I think, as to this verdict changing behavior of police and prosecutors else where--the civil suit the city settled with the family for a payoff of 27 million dollars will have far more influence. In America it is always informative to follow the money.

snailgate

[Big RR]

I'm not sure; the fact that the "blue wall of silence" was broken and that a number of police officers testified against the defendant is a bit of a chipping away at the closed ranks. I recall when most physicians and surgeons would not testify in a malpractice action against a "brother doctor", but eventually that wall collapsed and the practice of medicine became much more opened to scrutiny; if this happens a few more times, perhaps law enforcement will progress the same way. It only takes a few people with sufficient ethic and morals to start the change.

[Burning Petard]

I think another incident elsewhere during this trial will have serious unintended consequences.

A 13 year old out very late at nite and carrying a pistol, was stopped by police and ordered to drop the gun and show his hands. He was fully illuminated by lights from the patrol car. Police video show the person of interest complied--throwing the gun to the other side of the alley and raising his empty hands over his head. He was killed with one shot

The lesson here is that if I am a black man with a gun and stopped by police, I might as well begin shooting immediately, trying for head shots, because even if I drop the gun and raise my hands, they will still kill me.

snailgate

[Bicycle Bill]

from the 2020 Minnesota statutes

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
     Subdivision 1.   Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

    Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
     (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

     (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

     Subd. 2.   Unintentional murders.

     Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
     (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

     (2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
     (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

     (b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

I'm still wondering why Derek Chauvin was even charged for second-degree murder.  This wasn't a drive-by shooting — so clause 2 of subdivision 1 of § 609.19 does not apply here.  And does anyone seriously believe that when he rolled up on the scene, his intent and purpose was to kill George Floyd — or anyone else, for that matter?  So bye-bye, culpability under clause 1 as well.

Now, as for subdivision 2, which deals with unintended murder — and which I believe this was — it still states that this must occur "while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting."  Again, this wasn't a drive-by shooting.  About the only possible explanation is that the court and jury considered placement of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck to be "...a felony offense" under subdivision 1, or determined that he was "..intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim" under subdivision 2 by kneeling on his neck.

But has Chauvin ever been tried and found guilty — or even CHARGED with a felony offense — for kneeling on Floyd?

As for third-degree murder, § 609.195(a) calls for unintentional death to result "...by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." (emphasis mine)   So now we are expecting a jury of twelve ordinary citizens to put themselves into the police officer's mind to determine if he was "depraved" or not??

Lastly, third-degree murder under § 609.195(b) requires unintentional death occur "... by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II." — so that's a non-starter and of no consideration whatsoever.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now I'll be the first person to say that I'm not a lawyer.  I'm just an ordinary citizen who, conceivably, could find myself empaneled on a jury in a similar case and presented with similar evidence.  But as an ordinary citizen, my take on the matter is that neither of these two charges would even be valid based on the evidence presented — specifically, the video of the incident.

I'm not saying Chauvin didn't do something wrong.  I'm not even saying he shouldn't face some repercussions.  But in this case, given this information and the pure letter of the law(s), I think either of the murder charges are more than just a little over the top and that the manslaughter charge would be the appropriate charge.

And, just for reference, here is the text of the statute (§ 609.205) that details what constitutes second-degree manslaughter:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
     A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

     (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

     (2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

     (3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

     (4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

      (5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

      If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

You clearly didn't read anything that I posted the first time around, so I'm not sure if I'm wasting my time:

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense...

The argument was that the knee on the neck constituted felony assault in the third degree, defined in the same statutes as follows:

609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

§Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

Chauvin's actions clearly fit this.

As for third-degree murder, § 609.195(a) calls for unintentional death to result "...by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." (emphasis mine) So now we are expecting a jury of twelve ordinary citizens to put themselves into the police officer's mind to determine if he was "depraved" or not??

Depraved mind (called depraved heart or depraved indifference in other jurisdictions) has been defined as follows:

It ["depraved heart" murder] is the form [of murder] that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence... It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence... It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm.

Again, Chauvin's actions clearly fit this definition.

[Bicycle Bill]

You clearly didn't read anything that I posted the first time around, so I'm not sure if I'm wasting my time:

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense...

The argument was that the knee on the neck constituted felony assault in the third degree, defined in the same statutes as follows:

609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

§Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

Chauvin's actions clearly fit this.

The issue I was trying to raise is — at what point was it decided that the knee in the neck was a felony assault?  Again, was he ever charged or tried, or did the two sides even agree to stipulate that this was a felony assault?  Or did someone just say, "yep, that's a felony, all right," and everybody else nodded their heads in agreement?

As for third-degree murder, § 609.195(a) calls for unintentional death to result "...by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." (emphasis mine) So now we are expecting a jury of twelve ordinary citizens to put themselves into the police officer's mind to determine if he was "depraved" or not??

Depraved mind (called depraved heart or depraved indifference in other jurisdictions) has been defined as follows:

It ["depraved heart" murder] is the form [of murder] that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence... It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence... It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm.

Again, Chauvin's actions clearly fit this definition.

OK. I'll maybe give you this one.  But by your own citation, 'It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not'.

Chauvin and the three other officers were in a situation where they were becoming involved with an ever-increasing group of potentially hostile persons, making them more and more vulnerable to violence against themselves from said crowd.  Because of that, I think that the welfare of Mr. Floyd was no longer their primary focus, and they were more concerned with whether or not THEY were going to be the ones leaving the scene in body bags.

But why just let it end there with murder and manslaughter charges?  Why not add a couple of 'hate-crime' enhancers, since Floyd was black and Chauvin wasn't?  Or maybe someone will claim the whole Minneapolis police department is a corrupt organization and bring in some RICO charges as well; or a terrorist group like Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, or the 'Boogaloo Bois'.

Good God, man, where would you stop?  

-"BB"-