Poll: Did the Chauvin jury render a verdict based on the evidence or were they were just afraid of riotous mobs?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Was the verdict based on the evidence or was an innocent man found guilty just to satisfy "the mob"?


  • Total voters
    82

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,732
28,908
136
Its more of a technicality than anything. He was charged with the wrong crime,

The third degree murder charge does not meet the required criteria of "evincing a depraved mind".
The second degree murder charge does not meet "while committing or attempting to commit a felony" In this case a separate felony must committed and must be something other than the death itself, such as a theft, etc.
While the above second degree manslaughter charge applies correctly, first degree would have been more appropriate.

The most appropriate charge is:


609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;
There was plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence Chauvin acted with a depraved mind. Seems everyone on the scene layman and professionals knew Chauvin was killing Floyd. Chauvin didn't give a shit.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Restraining (beyond what would otherwise be normal) a drug-addled criminal who was resisting arrest.


From the autopsy:



He was way fucked up based on those numbers. Yes, if he was a regular opioid user, those fentanyl/norfentanyl/morphine readings might not be as severe a threat as to a "normal" person...but they're still substantial.
Drug addled, nice touch.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
There was plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence Chauvin acted with a depraved mind. Seems everyone on the scene layman and professionals knew Chauvin was killing Floyd. Chauvin didn't give a shit.
And I think it's worth emphasizing that in this context, "depraved mind" is "not giving a shit" and not "bwhahaha, imma kill you". It seems like some people assume it means the latter.
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,040
2,652
136
Its more of a technicality than anything. He was charged with the wrong crime,

The third degree murder charge does not meet the required criteria of "evincing a depraved mind".
The second degree murder charge does not meet "while committing or attempting to commit a felony" In this case a separate felony must committed and must be something other than the death itself, such as a theft, etc.
While the above second degree manslaughter charge applies correctly, first degree would have been more appropriate.

The most appropriate charge is:


609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;
You aren't to bright are you? Was he not committing assault (felony) on George Floyd.? If George Floyd did not die, does that mean he did not assault George Floyd? NOPE! He still assaulted George Floyd. Assault (Felony) is a separate crime than the actual murder/manslaughter/death of George Floyd. It more than satisfices the "wile committing or attempting to commit a felony" which lead to the death. The law does not specify that it has to be a separate felony than what lead to the death..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,040
2,652
136
Restraining (beyond what would otherwise be normal) a drug-addled criminal who was resisting arrest.


From the autopsy:



He was way fucked up based on those numbers. Yes, if he was a regular opioid user, those fentanyl/norfentanyl/morphine readings might not be as severe a threat as to a "normal" person...but they're still substantial.
This is all horseshit! If I have heart problems, and someone assaults me and kills me, it was not my bad heart that caused the death, it was the direct actions of that assault as I would still be alive if I wasn't assaulted. If what you say is a legitimate argument, than it means that only 100% healthy, non substance users can be murdered even when the assault is what lead to the death. That's like saying a person with a bad heart, or high on drugs that was crushed by a falling tree, died from a heart attack or from the drugs and not the tree that crushed them. It's a panthodic horseshit argument. specially when it was already determined that the substances in Floyd's system did not contribute to his death.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
You aren't to bright are you? Was he not committing assault (felony) on George Floyd.? If George Floyd did not die, does that mean he did not assault George Floyd? NOPE! He still assaulted George Floyd. Assault (Felony) is a separate crime than the actual murder/manslaughter/death of George Floyd. It more than satisfices the "wile committing or attempting to commit a felony" which lead to the death. The law does not specify that it has to be a separate felony than what lead to the death..


Except there was no assault charge - as far as the law is concerned it doesn't exist, because it was not filed.
Again a legal technicality but a correct one.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Come off it. It doesn't have to be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive. It's impossible to not be influenced by the obvious fact that the country was primed to blow up with innocent verdicts. At the same time the evidence was pretty overwhelming for conviction.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
What law school did you attend? When did you pass the Minnesota bar?
Was it really necessary to be so snarky? Can one not read and express an opinion without attending law school and passing the bar?
I will admit that I have no legal training, but from reading (and rereading) the statute, the same question occurred to me. (I do have a college degree in Chemistry, so I do think I have some ability in logical reasoning, if you want to be that way about it.)

I did not watch much of the trial, but I would hope this was addressed by the judge in explaining the charges and the legal ramifications.
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,040
2,652
136
Except there was no assault charge - as far as the law is concerned it doesn't exist, because it was not filed.
Again a legal technicality but a correct one.

You obviously don't understand how the law works. All they had to do is prove that felony assault took place, which they did. No where does it state that he has to be charged for that crime, only proven that it happened. Normally, lower lever crimes below manslaughter/murder, specially assault, are generally proven during the murder/manslaughter trials, but they never actually get charged because the manslaughter/murder charge supersedes those crimes. Just as in this case, they proved that he committed felony assault, which lead to the death of George Floyd.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
Can one not read and express an opinion without attending law school and passing the bar?
To me there is a difference between expressing an opinion about circumstances that are debatable and essentially suggesting that a jury verdict was wrong because EVERY professional involved misapplied a legal standard that is so clear to the layman. That just leads me to believe the layman is in fact loony.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
When you think about it, all the negative news comes from only one source.... Fox News. Fox is the source for claiming the fear of riots. Fox is the source for suggesting manipulation of the process. Fox News is the source and always the source when it comes to casting doubt on the obvious. SO when it comes to jury's and riots and lies and deceit, just consider the source.... Fox News. And then you ca say OH, I GET IT. THIS IS FOX NEWS. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,650
26,749
136
Was it really necessary to be so snarky? Can one not read and express an opinion without attending law school and passing the bar?
I will admit that I have no legal training, but from reading (and rereading) the statute, the same question occurred to me. (I do have a college degree in Chemistry, so I do think I have some ability in logical reasoning, if you want to be that way about it.)

I did not watch much of the trial, but I would hope this was addressed by the judge in explaining the charges and the legal ramifications.

Yes, its appropriate. Sao123 has repeatedly in this forum attacked education above the high school level as unnecessary while holding profoundly ignorant and wrong opinions not supported by actual facts. See: everyone in Philadelphia rides the bus and therefore he subsidizes their roads.

So yes I call out repeated posters of bullshit to prove why their latest post isn't bullshit. For extra credit look into if the murderer's legal team made that argument in attempting to get charges dismissed and if there was a ruling on it. If they didn't make that argument that tells you how valid sao123's opinion is. If they made the argument and lost then you and sao123 will find the reason why its legally bull shit in MN.

I hate to break it to you neither YOU or sao123 have stumbled across a get out of jail free card that would not have been addressed by his legal team if it existed.

Personally since I don't have a law degree I will defer to those who are actually educated and have experience in the subject.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
Yes, its appropriate. Sao123 has repeatedly in this forum attacked education above the high school level as unnecessary while holding profoundly ignorant and wrong opinions not supported by actual facts. See: everyone in Philadelphia rides the bus and therefore he subsidizes their roads.

So yes I call out repeated posters of bullshit to prove why their latest post isn't bullshit. For extra credit look into if the murderer's legal team made that argument in attempting to get charges dismissed and if there was a ruling on it. If they didn't make that argument that tells you how valid sao123's opinion is. If they made the argument and lost then you and sao123 will find the reason why its legally bull shit in MN.

I hate to break it to you neither YOU or sao123 have stumbled across a get out of jail free card that would not have been addressed by his legal team if it existed.

Personally since I don't have a law degree I will defer to those who are actually educated and have experience in the subject.
To be clear, I never said Chauvin should have a "get out of jail free card", or that he should have been found not guilty on any of the three charges. (I hate it when people infer what I am thinking (or try to anyway) and put words in my mouth.) In fact I did say in an earlier post that one has to assume the prosecution established assault without actually charging Chauvin with it.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
Holy hell that topic poll.

Was someone supposed to think he was innocent?

I would have thought it would be more along the lines of this:

Verdict based on the evidence - 100%

Innocent man found guilty just to satisfy "the mob" - 0%

I have no idea what @sao123 was thinking.


 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,650
26,749
136
To be clear, I never said Chauvin should have a "get out of jail free card", or that he should have been found not guilty on any of the three charges. (I hate it when people infer what I am thinking (or try to anyway) and put words in my mouth.) In fact I did say in an earlier post that one has to assume the prosecution established assault without actually charging Chauvin with it.
Cool, now fuck off
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Yes, its appropriate. Sao123 has repeatedly in this forum attacked education above the high school level as unnecessary while holding profoundly ignorant and wrong opinions not supported by actual facts. See: everyone in Philadelphia rides the bus and therefore he subsidizes their roads.

So yes I call out repeated posters of bullshit to prove why their latest post isn't bullshit. For extra credit look into if the murderer's legal team made that argument in attempting to get charges dismissed and if there was a ruling on it. If they didn't make that argument that tells you how valid sao123's opinion is. If they made the argument and lost then you and sao123 will find the reason why its legally bull shit in MN.

I hate to break it to you neither YOU or sao123 have stumbled across a get out of jail free card that would not have been addressed by his legal team if it existed.

Personally since I don't have a law degree I will defer to those who are actually educated and have experience in the subject.

Utter Crap. I don't attack higher education. I encourage it.
The difference between you and I is I do not consider elitist leftist propaganda as proper education, its not even pseudo education.

Laws are such that they should be written & read, utilizing the most narrow and literal interpretation of the text. Its called being a strict constructionist, and it is the only proper methodology to prevent judicial activism overreach by those who make believe laws mean things which they don't say.

And yes, I got my law degree through the mail-in catalog, the same place you must have got your award winning personality.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,650
26,749
136
Utter Crap. I don't attack higher education. I encourage it.
The difference between you and I is I do not consider elitist leftist propaganda as proper education, its not even pseudo education.

Laws are such that they should be written & read, utilizing the most narrow and literal interpretation of the text. Its called being a strict constructionist, and it is the only proper methodology to prevent judicial activism overreach by those who make believe laws mean things which they don't say.

And yes, I got my law degree through the mail-in catalog, the same place you must have got your award winning personality.
1. We can add liar to your list of sins I see.

2. Then you need to show how every lawyer involved in this case got it wrong. Can you do this?

3. My personality is award winning. You're just to ignorant to appreciate it.
 
Last edited: