The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

[Commodus]

I think most defendants are advised to not testify.

That's frequently true, but some are more willing to self-incriminate than others... and I suspect Chauvin is one of them.

 

[woolfe9998]

You are stating intent isn't intent. Meaning intent to kill doesn't mean intent to kill, only intent to cause an action that you know would kill. That is literally the stupidest line of drivel and double speak. The statute for 2nd degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, or a death resulting from a felony crime with use of force where there was no intent to kill anyone nor was there an expectation for a death when force beyond rape or criminal sexual conduct is used. Why rape gets a pass in this Minnesota code is beyond me though. Let me explain this in an easy to understand example. So the idea is if PERSON A slaps PERSON B in Minnesota during a heated argument, and that slap causes the person to trip, fall, and hit the head on the ground killing them then PERSON A that slapped PERSON B would get 2nd degree murder.

This is incorrect. You are not good at reading statutes.

Like you said, the death has to result from a felony. Slapping someone in the face is a misdemeanor assault because the expected injury is minor. It isn't a felony in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Minnesota Assault and Battery

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

.

The reason the second degree statute says felony, is that an attempt to commit great bodily injury which results in unintended death is a classic common law form of second degree murder. So, a better example would be punching someone in the face with brass knuckles, an act likely to cause serious harm - not just a sting - which results in unintended death.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

The depravity aspect is that PERSON A slapping did so knowing that they were trying to inflict force or pain of some sort on the person they were slapping even if they had no idea the end result would lead to death. 2nd degree for Minnesota wraps the felony murder charge that many other places have into that one statute (minus the criminal sexual conduct again for some odd reason).

"Depravity" is not an element of 2DM in Minnesota. It's an element of 3DM. It means a reckless homicide. That, IMO, is the most plausible and appropriate charge here and the one the jury is most likely to convict on.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

It has nothing to do with another reasonable person believing the act would lead to someone death at all! In the example above no reasonable person would think a slap on the face of another would lead to the death of that person.

In "the example above," it also isn't 2DM murder.

The prosecution has to prove the following for 2nd degree.

1) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd at the scene. So far they have come no where close to that.

or

2) Prove Chauvin's actions go beyond his official capacity and immunity as an officer. That his actions are criminal assault and those actions are the major contributing factor in the death of Floyd.

For 2), per the actual 2DM statute which I linked above, they have to prove Chauvin was in the course of committing a felony, any felony except certain kinds of sexual crimes.

They also do not have to be a "major contributing factor." That is not the causation standard.

The major contributing factor is the other big part. Going back to the example I used earlier about the slap death. If the scenario was different in that say person A slapped person B, but person B didn't trip right then from the slap but instead got agitated from being slapped and walked away. As they were walking away while fuming they weren't watching their step carefully enough and tripped to fall to their death. This example wouldn't be a 2nd degree murder charge by definition of the Minnesota statute. The slap is a factor in the death, but not the major contributing factor in the second example unlike the first. Both would likely be ruled homicides (this one is the example for you @woolfe9998 ) by the coroner. That second example is an example of a human involvement in a death that isn't a causation of death but one most likely listed still a homicide.

Your first example would not be either because was there no felony which caused the death. A slap in the face is not a felony.

 

[pcgeek11]

That's frequently true, but some are more willing to self-incriminate than others... and I suspect Chauvin is one of them.

Some love to get on the stand and be crucified. Shutting up is usually the best advice for most.

 

[HumblePie]

This is incorrect. You are not good at reading statutes.

Like you said, the death has to result from a felony. Slapping someone in the face is a misdemeanor assault because the expected injury is minor. It isn't a felony in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Minnesota Assault and Battery

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

.

The reason the second degree statute says felony, is that an attempt to commit great bodily injury which results in unintended death is a classic common law form of second degree murder. So, a better example would be punching someone in the face with brass knuckles, an act likely to cause serious harm - not just a sting - which results in unintended death.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Your first example would not be either because was there no felony which caused the death. A slap in the face is not a felony.

It was a tongue in cheek example. But a slap can be considered a felony. I've seen guys open slap women so hard they knock out teeth. That is a felony assault. Those guys are intending to cause grave harm WITH A SLAP but not death. So no, I am not wrong, I just didn't nitpick into the exact context that you so seemed to want to.

Another example would be slapping a cop. The totality of the situation changes the degree of which the slap is construed criminally. Slapping a cop in the face during an arrest in most jurisdictions can be charged a felony assault and battery where the same slap against someone else wouldn't be. Another case would be slapping a young child. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/yong-hyun-kim-charged-slapped-child-movie-theater_n_1537326

Even more is if it is a continuation of assaults. Slapping someone once may be seen as misdemeanor. Slapping someone 5 times in a row may not.

Then you have other circumstances that can arise with slapping. Is the person slapping holding a gun in their other hand? Are they with friends surrounding a person with intimidation enough to make the person think a slap is a prelude to some thing worse?

Still lastly with slaps, even in most places, it doesn't matter if the slap wasn't intended as gross bodily harm but the outcome of it was so. Again, slapping someone in the face that it disorients them enough that they trip, fall, hit their head on a solid object, and die in many places would indeed bump that slap from a gross misdemeanor to grave bodily harm depending on the circumstances. It also depends on how the prosecution wants to go after it. That includes Minnesota statutes on this. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.221

I didn't give an exact scenario for a reason, but you had to go there trying to nit pick thinking you were right didn't you?

"Depravity" is not an element of 2DM in Minnesota. It's an element of 3DM. It means a reckless homicide. That, IMO, is the most plausible and appropriate charge here and the one the jury is most likely to convict on.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

In "the example above," it also isn't 2DM murder.

For 2), per the actual 2DM statute which I linked above, they have to prove Chauvin was in the course of committing a felony, any felony except certain kinds of sexual crimes.

No, it bubbles up. Learn how it works. The state of mind has to be there as well. The depravity is needed to know that the action you are taking is because you know you are committing a felony assault or could be construed as one. There has to be malice to cause harm even if those words are not used in 2nd degree. 3rd degree doesn't require a felony assault if intent is not there. If the person is undertaking acts that would be considered dangerous against the person that led to their deaths. For example. a drug dealer selling dangerous drugs to someone which causes their death is another perfect example of 3rd degree. Hence why Maurice was pleading the 5th in this case. It isn't a forcible felony used but depraved mindset with actions that led to a death all the same.

 

[Viper1j]

Chauvin not going to testify.

Chauvin chooses not to testify

It's Day 14 of testimony in the trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged in George Floyd's May 2020 death. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

Almost certainly on advice of counsel. Meaning his lawyers think him testifying will hurt the case rather than help it.

More likely his lawyer just wanted to stop the bleeding.

The jury doesn't know Chauvin has had 18 complaints filed against him in 19 years. That would all come out on the cross exam.

 

[Viper1j]

1) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd at the scene. So far they have come no where close to that.

or

2) Prove Chauvin's actions go beyond his official capacity and immunity as an officer. That his actions are criminal assault and those actions are the major contributing factor in the death of Floyd.

Not only have they "come close" to proving it, they have proved it unequivocally. You can drown a person until they stop breathing, and they can still be revived. To ensure death, you have to hold them under the water for an additional 4 minutes AFTER they stop breathing.

The same principle applies to strangulation. Chauvin kept the pressure on, for over 5 minutes, right up until the paramedics had to pull him off George Floyd's neck. He wanted to make sure the job was done.

This was not an arrest, it was an execution.

 

[fskimospy]

Looks like the guy with the criminal justice degree is back to telling real lawyers they don’t know how the law works.

 

[woolfe9998]

It was a tongue in cheek example. But a slap can be considered a felony. I've seen guys open slap women so hard they knock out teeth. That is a felony assault. Those guys are intending to cause grave harm WITH A SLAP but not death. So no, I am not wrong, I just didn't nitpick into the exact context that you so seemed to want to.

Another example would be slapping a cop. The totality of the situation changes the degree of which the slap is construed criminally. Slapping a cop in the face during an arrest in most jurisdictions can be charged a felony assault and battery where the same slap against someone else wouldn't be. Another case would be slapping a young child. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/yong-hyun-kim-charged-slapped-child-movie-theater_n_1537326

Even more is if it is a continuation of assaults. Slapping someone once may be seen as misdemeanor. Slapping someone 5 times in a row may not.

Then you have other circumstances that can arise with slapping. Is the person slapping holding a gun in their other hand? Are they with friends surrounding a person with intimidation enough to make the person think a slap is a prelude to some thing worse?

Still lastly with slaps, even in most places, it doesn't matter if the slap wasn't intended as gross bodily harm but the outcome of it was so. Again, slapping someone in the face that it disorients them enough that they trip, fall, hit their head on a solid object, and die in many places would indeed bump that slap from a gross misdemeanor to grave bodily harm depending on the circumstances. It also depends on how the prosecution wants to go after it. That includes Minnesota statutes on this. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.221

I didn't give an exact scenario for a reason, but you had to go there trying to nit pick thinking you were right didn't you?

LOL what nitpicking? Of course a slap could - in rare cases - be a felony if it happens to cause great bodily injury. But if it causes death by some strange occurrence, as in your example, it isn't going to be 2DM.

I don't think you understood that a slap is rarely a felony, and also that one which causes death by unexpected or strange occurrence will not be a 2DM.

No, it bubbles up. Learn how it works.

LOL

The state of mind has to be there as well. The depravity is needed to know that the action you are taking is because you know you are committing a felony assault or could be construed as one.

No, "depravity" is not needed for 2DM in Minnesota. It is expressly an element of 3DM. It says so right there in the statute. 2DM doesn't require "depravity." It requires that you cause someone's death while intentionally committing a felony, but not necessarily intending death to result. I understand the statute perfectly well.

Depravity as in 3DM means a reckless homicide. It's like a high degree of criminal negligence, more than with manslaughter. Criminal negligence is taking your eyes off the road to check your radio, and running someone over. Recklessness (aka "depravity") is getting loaded and driving at 80MPH on a residential street at midnight, then running someone over. It may also mean applying unnecessary pressure to someone for almost 10 minutes, and not bothering to check their pulse or perform CPR after they go limp.

That is what depravity means in the law.

There has to be malice to cause harm even if those words are not used in 2nd degree. 3rd degree doesn't require a felony assault if intent is not there. If the person is undertaking acts that would be considered dangerous against the person that led to their deaths. For example. a drug dealer selling dangerous drugs to someone which causes their death is another perfect example of 3rd degree. Hence why Maurice was pleading the 5th in this case. It isn't a forcible felony used but depraved mindset with actions that led to a death all the same.

Yes, yes, at common law, "malice" was the mental state which distinguished murder from manslaughter. But it's not in any of the statutes, IIRC in any states. Because the statutes themselves define with specificity the mental state requirements for various degrees of murder. These days, discussing malice is just not that meaningful.

Keep trying to school me. This is highly amusing.

 

[woolfe9998]

More likely his lawyer just wanted to stop the bleeding.

The jury doesn't know Chauvin has had 18 complaints filed against him in 19 years. That would all come out on the cross exam.

Yes, it isn't all that surprising under the circumstances. But it's going to hinder the defense with him not being able to explain his conduct. Particularly since there appeared to be no reason for the pressure they applied to Floyd.

The fact they are willing to suffer that disadvantage indicates just how vulnerable he would have been on cross, as you say above.

 

[Torn Mind]

You are full of shit still.

YOU literally wrote this.



You are stating intent isn't intent. Meaning intent to kill doesn't mean intent to kill, only intent to cause an action that you know would kill. That is literally the stupidest line of drivel and double speak. The statute for 2nd degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, or a death resulting from a felony crime with use of force where there was no intent to kill anyone nor was there an expectation for a death when force beyond rape or criminal sexual conduct is used. Why rape gets a pass in this Minnesota code is beyond me though. Let me explain this in an easy to understand example. So the idea is if PERSON A slaps PERSON B in Minnesota during a heated argument, and that slap causes the person to trip, fall, and hit the head on the ground killing them then PERSON A that slapped PERSON B would get 2nd degree murder. The depravity aspect is that PERSON A slapping did so knowing that they were trying to inflict force or pain of some sort on the person they were slapping even if they had no idea the end result would lead to death. 2nd degree for Minnesota wraps the felony murder charge that many other places have into that one statute (minus the criminal sexual conduct again for some odd reason).

It has nothing to do with another reasonable person believing the act would lead to someone death at all! In the example above no reasonable person would think a slap on the face of another would lead to the death of that person.

The prosecution has to prove the following for 2nd degree.

1) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd at the scene. So far they have come no where close to that.

or

2) Prove Chauvin's actions go beyond his official capacity and immunity as an officer. That his actions are criminal assault and those actions are the major contributing factor in the death of Floyd.

The major contributing factor is the other big part. Going back to the example I used earlier about the slap death. If the scenario was different in that say person A slapped person B, but person B didn't trip right then from the slap but instead got agitated from being slapped and walked away. As they were walking away while fuming they weren't watching their step carefully enough and tripped to fall to their death. This example wouldn't be a 2nd degree murder charge by definition of the Minnesota statute. The slap is a factor in the death, but not the major contributing factor in the second example unlike the first. Both would likely be ruled homicides (this one is the example for you @woolfe9998 ) by the coroner. That second example is an example of a human involvement in a death that isn't a causation of death but one most likely listed still a homicide.

Proving to a jury requires a bit of persuasion of the heart to go along with the generation of facts and potent opinons. Those 12 will negotiate their way to a final conclusion regarding the criminality of Chauvin's actions.

Unlike you, I did hear plenty to indicate Chavuin's defense is sloppy and has a weak foundation. The defense regarding the state of the crowd was clearly made in bad faith and only the biggest cop huggers would believe it was a danger to him. That will not go over very well in the hearts of the jury members; as deceit can trigger extremely virulent responses. All causes of agitation in the crowd was due to Chauvin not ceasing the knee restraint, especially when Floyd's life was really starting to slip. That is escalation on the part of Chauvin attempting to cause a retaliation, which he would have used to his benefit had it actually happened.

The failure to cease the hold after on cop told him Floyd had no more pulse. Utilizing extreme corner cases of fearing Floyd coming to and immediate becoming violent are simply part of the distorted fantasy world of an irrational-at-best cop.

Even is someone holds that Floyd was overdosing....the failure to cease the knee at some point and instructing someone to get the Narcan kit; they had started being outfitted with them in 2018, is another proof of intent.

Intent is indeed a matter of a thought. But the bad faith characterization of the crowd in his defense will do much to harm Chauvin's standing with the jury. Failure to cease the restraint after being told by a fellow officer is another damning action.

Probably the best defense work was the carbon monoxide matter, and that's about it. It's doubt, but whether it's reasonable doubt is another matter.

I don't have a dispute regarding your explanation about statutes or the slap example. Just letting you know so you don't mix people up.

I have personal experiences that lead me to hold that Chauvin is fully guilty. i know an elderly who died in the prone position without any assistance. I know what it is like to want an animal dead and the waiting for it to fully expire. I also have come across the writing of Marc McYoung's opinions regarding self-defense, the enlightening thing being that running is the first option for self-preservation a.

 

[HumblePie]

LOL what nitpicking? Of course a slap could - in rare cases - be a felony if it happens to cause great bodily injury. But if it causes death by some strange occurrence, as in your example, it isn't going to be 2DM.

I don't think you understood that a slap is rarely a felony, and also that one which causes death by unexpected or strange occurrence will not be a 2DM.

you literally wrote

Slapping someone in the face is a misdemeanor assault because the expected injury is minor. It isn't a felony in Minnesota or anywhere else.

You are putting the onus of the slap being a light slap to the face to shock someone or get their attention. A slap does not need to be that. If a big man slaps with the full force of a punch, but an open handed slap, with the intention of breaking a jaw, dislocating it, or knocking teeth out then that is a forcible felony in any jurisdiction that I know of. In that instance, someone slapping that hard isn't trying to kill the person but still cause great harm to them. I was giving an example with the slap because the "slap" aka an open handed hit is never intended to cause death by the person slapping. If death does result, and it has in the past, the manner of which the death happens afterwards could determine the difference between 2nd and 3rd degree in Minnesota based on the totality of the circumstances. I never said slaps are felonies every time. You are the one using that logic.

No, "depravity" is not needed for 2DM in Minnesota. It is expressly an element of 3DM. It says so right there in the statute. 2DM doesn't require "depravity." It requires that you cause someone's death while intentionally committing a felony, but not necessarily intending death to result. I understand the statute perfectly well.

You are completely wrong. It is needed. Depraved means you know the actions you are taking that if they hurt someone will come back as legal ramification. A person driving very aggressively and angrily on the road and swerving around to force people away from them is committing those acts with a depraved mind. The depravity aspect is the part needed to make something a forcible felony in the first place in Minnesota. In Minnesota you can't have a forcible felony if the person isn't intending that their actions will cause harm to others. That is why the prosecution was trying in their case to show that Chauvin was not authorized with his use of force and knew it. The knew it part is what makes it depraved. It is an aspect that has to be there. Otherwise if Derek is doing what he thinks is the proper authorized use of force in that situation then the whole case falls apart.

 

[HumblePie]

Proving to a jury requires a bit of persuasion of the heart to go along with the generation of facts and potent opinons. Those 12 will negotiate their way to a final conclusion regarding the criminality of Chauvin's actions.

Unlike you, I did hear plenty to indicate Chavuin's defense is sloppy and has a weak foundation. The defense regarding the state of the crowd was clearly made in bad faith and only the biggest cop huggers would believe it was a danger to him. That will not go over very well in the hearts of the jury members; as deceit can trigger extremely virulent responses. All causes of agitation in the crowd was due to Chauvin not ceasing the knee restraint, especially when Floyd's life was really starting to slip. That is escalation on the part of Chauvin attempting to cause a retaliation, which he would have used to his benefit had it actually happened.

The failure to cease the hold after on cop told him Floyd had no more pulse. Utilizing extreme corner cases of fearing Floyd coming to and immediate becoming violent are simply part of the distorted fantasy world of an irrational-at-best cop.

Even is someone holds that Floyd was overdosing....the failure to cease the knee at some point and instructing someone to get the Narcan kit; they had started being outfitted with them in 2018, is another proof of intent.

Intent is indeed a matter of a thought. But the bad faith characterization of the crowd in his defense will do much to harm Chauvin's standing with the jury. Failure to cease the restraint after being told by a fellow officer is another damning action.

Probably the best defense work was the carbon monoxide matter, and that's about it. It's doubt, but whether it's reasonable doubt is another matter.

I don't have a dispute regarding your explanation about statutes or the slap example. Just letting you know so you don't mix people up.

I have personal experiences that lead me to hold that Chauvin is fully guilty. i know an elderly who died in the prone position without any assistance. I know what it is like to want an animal dead and the waiting for it to fully expire. I also have come across the writing of Marc McYoung's opinions regarding self-defense, the enlightening thing being that running is the first option for self-preservation a.

You are correct in that juries are people and people are easily swayed by emotion over logic. Many of the people on these forums are great examples of that. The jury though is going to have to step through their reasoning for a guilty judgement otherwise there is going to be concerns of jury nullification. For the jury to come back with a guilty verdict they are going to have to believe that the prosecution proved the following beyond a reasonable doubt (and reasonable doubt is any logical doubt a jury member has on the case presented by the prosecution really)

1) That the force Chauvin used was not authorized
2) That Chauvin knew the use of force was criminal in nature.
3) That the force used was the major cause of death for George.

This is also explained the same way by Nate Broady a previous criminal prosecution attorney and police officer in this video.

For reference, Nate is pretty far left and is from NYC. Still, he does tend to be more fair in his analysis than others even if he glosses of some details he doesn't like. In the video above, he only sticks to the prosecutions arguments for the first 10 days and doesn't address the defense cross exam much. Still it is a highlight and he has different things to say on the daily basis show he does. The video I am using to illustrate the above is to point out what I've been saying what is required for 2dm in this case.

 

[HumblePie]

Looks like the guy with the criminal justice degree is back to telling real lawyers they don’t know how the law works.

What real lawyer are you referring to around here? It certainly isn't you.

 

[woolfe9998]

you literally wrote



You are putting the onus of the slap being a light slap to the face to shock someone or get their attention. A slap does not need to be that. If a big man slaps with the full force of a punch, but an open handed slap, with the intention of breaking a jaw, dislocating it, or knocking teeth out then that is a forcible felony in any jurisdiction that I know of. In that instance, someone slapping that hard isn't trying to kill the person but still cause great harm to them. I was giving an example with the slap because the "slap" aka an open handed hit is never intended to cause death by the person slapping. If death does result, and it has in the past, the manner of which the death happens afterwards could determine the difference between 2nd and 3rd degree in Minnesota based on the totality of the circumstances. I never said slaps are felonies every time. You are the one using that logic.

A "slap" by definition is an open hand strike. It's not a punch. The cases of injury severe enough to qualify as felony assault are therefore rare. No matter what edge cases you want to imagine.

You are completely wrong. It is needed. Depraved means you know the actions you are taking that if they hurt someone will come back as legal ramification. A person driving very aggressively and angrily on the road and swerving around to force people away from them is committing those acts with a depraved mind. The depravity aspect is the part needed to make something a forcible felony in the first place in Minnesota. In Minnesota you can't have a forcible felony if the person isn't intending that their actions will cause harm to others. That is why the prosecution was trying in their case to show that Chauvin was not authorized with his use of force and knew it. The knew it part is what makes it depraved. It is an aspect that has to be there. Otherwise if Derek is doing what he thinks is the proper authorized use of force in that situation then the whole case falls apart.

I'll say this one more time with feeling. Neither the word "depravity" nor the word "depraved" appears in the 2DM statute. It does, however, appear in the 3DM statute.

No, "depravity" is not required for a "forcible felony." Cite me the statute which says as much. You understand that "depravity" is required where it appears in the statute, and not when it doesn't? Or are you unclear on that point?

2DM - requires a felony. No mention of depravity.
3DM - requires a "depraved" mind. Does not require a felony.

OK, I'm winding down with this. You are a particularly exhausting victim of the Dunning-Krueger effect and I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with your ignorant BS.

 

[HumblePie]

A "slap" by definition is an open hand strike. It's not a punch. The cases of injury severe enough to qualify as felony assault are therefore rare. No matter what edge cases you want to imagine.

A) I wasn't citing a specific case. I was using an EXAMPLE. The example relates because NO ONE believe an open hand hit is going to result in a death. It is not as rare as you think when it comes to slaps being charged as felonies and even receiving convictions for. Slaps are rarely brought though to court in the first place. The ones that tend to be brought are using the ones where the person slapping is doing it with enough force to make the other person to lose teeth. Those types of slaps are usually felony assaults. The point of my random fictional example was to demonstrate a point. You literally nitpicked it trying to somehow invalidate what I said and didn't do that.

I'll say this one more time with feeling. Neither the word "depravity" nor the word "depraved" appears in the 2DM statute. It does, however, appear in the 3DM statute.

No, "depravity" is not required for a "forcible felony." Cite me the statute which says as much. You understand that "depravity" is required where it appears in the statute, and not when it doesn't? Or are you unclear on that point?

2DM - requires a felony. No mention of depravity.
3DM - requires a "depraved" mind. Does not require a felony.

OK, I'm winding down with this. You are a particularly exhausting victim of the Dunning-Krueger effect and I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with your ignorant BS.

You literally do not know how criminal statues stack and bubble up by building on each other. Look it up. A felony requires a depraved mind. The fact that 2nd degree requires the FELONY or the INTENT part for murder means it requires the DEPRAVED part in the first place to meet the felony part. It is mentioned as depraved only in 3rd because felony force is not required. That is why it is specifically mentioned. You are literally the Dunning-Krueger on this as shown by your whole nitpicking on the example of the slap in the first place. You obviously didn't even watch the video I posted above with Nate Broady as a criminal prosecutor ALSO STATED depraved mind or malice is still required.

 

[HumblePie]

To put my opinion forward of where I think the prosecution went wrong with the case and what may have proven their case was the time length. If the prosecution focused on the moment George went unresponsive and a pulse was taken and not found but Chauvin still did not relinquish his restraint then that would have been the massive win for them. THAT is where I say Chauvin is guilty and the onus is on the defense at that point to prove the climate was still too hostile at that point 4 minutes in into the restraint that he couldn't get up because somehow it would have made the crowd more hostile. Which I don't think the have a chance in hell of showing. The crowd was certainly hostile and creating a hostile environment. To me the restraint was fine, and everything leading up to the unresponsive part was fine. Then once George was unresponsive and they knew by taking a pulse they should have started the process of resuscitating George. THAT is where Chauvin is guilty and where he should be in prison for. I stated that already previously in this thread. Most of the lawyers I am getting their opinions on pretty much say the same thing.

Again, I think Chauvin was guilty of a crime in the death of George Floyd. 2nd degree is the wrong charge as I've always said. Manslaughter is more appropriate.

 

[brycejones]

Thank goodness the jury will have it’s say soon.

 

[Torn Mind]

You are correct in that juries are people and people are easily swayed by emotion over logic. Many of the people on these forums are great examples of that. The jury though is going to have to step through their reasoning for a guilty judgement otherwise there is going to be concerns of jury nullification. For the jury to come back with a guilty verdict they are going to have to believe that the prosecution proved the following beyond a reasonable doubt (and reasonable doubt is any logical doubt a jury member has on the case presented by the prosecution really)

1) That the force Chauvin used was not authorized
2) That Chauvin knew the use of force was criminal in nature.
3) That the force used was the major cause of death for George.

This is also explained the same way by Nate Broady a previous criminal prosecution attorney and police officer in this video.

For reference, Nate is pretty far left and is from NYC. Still, he does tend to be more fair in his analysis than others even if he glosses of some details he doesn't like. In the video above, he only sticks to the prosecutions arguments for the first 10 days and doesn't address the defense cross exam much. Still it is a highlight and he has different things to say on the daily basis show he does. The video I am using to illustrate the above is to point out what I've been saying what is required for 2dm in this case.

I stumbled across that guy regarding the US women's soccer team deceptively characterization of unequal pay compared to the men's team.

I listened to many hours of testimony. The state did a fairly good job keeping perspective on re-direct examination.
The defense is the one fishing for a juror with a "distorted perspective" moreso than the prosecution. Someone with preconceived notions. who are suggestible upon hearing certain elements of the defense's generated facts. I've seen numbers of them on youtube, with some of the hottest takes I've seen. One even thought Narcan could only be injected and not administered nasally or that police do not have an obligation to do such rudimentary medical measures.

The crowd Chavuin feared was harmless and only grew agitated regarding the living state of Floyd. As Floyd's condition worsened, their frustration grew.

George Floyd was passively resistant. He willingly got cuffed, and walked to the car, but stubborn did not just go in the vehicle. I consider him quite morally deficient, what he did to the clerk was the equivalent of social engineering. But that doesn't absolve Chavuin of murder or over using the level of appropriate force, and then trying to blame the crowd and other extraneous factors for his near-complete loss of reason.

Being told Floyd has no pulse but still continuing? That alone verifies the actual intent of Chauvin regarding his action on Floyd. I would not be surprised if Floyd was a known name in the department and due to Floyd's own immorality and willingness to game the system, the cops knew exactly what weaknesses they could exploit should they encounter him again.

If there was an analogy, the lifeguard and the drowning individual would apply well to the case. At the very best, the lifeguard sat in his chair and let the guy drown(Chauvin failing to begin administration of Narcan) and at worst, the lifeguard goes out there and makes sure the drowning person is submerged even further.

 

[K1052]

wrong thread

 

[Torn Mind]

You literally do not know how criminal statues stack and bubble up by building on each other. Look it up. A felony requires a depraved mind. The fact that 2nd degree requires the FELONY or the INTENT part for murder means it requires the DEPRAVED part in the first place to meet the felony part. It is mentioned as depraved only in 3rd because felony force is not required. That is why it is specifically mentioned. You are literally the Dunning-Krueger on this as shown by your whole nitpicking on the example of the slap in the first place. You obviously didn't even watch the video I posted above with Nate Broady as a criminal prosecutor ALSO STATED depraved mind or malice is still required.

I cannot say that is correct in any sense. That statute is independent of other statutes unless otherwise specifically noted. The conditions for 3rd degree murder in Minny would be often called reckless homicide elsewhere. In layman's terms, it's "I don't give a damn if people die but I didn't intentionally mean to kill any one".

Whereas the 2nd degree charge requires a condition of "I wanted someone dead, possibly a specific someone, but in the heat of the moment".

DEPRAVITY OF MIND
An aggravating circumstance of murder in the first degree is where the murder involved depravity of mind.

The condition of mind described as depravity of mind is characterized by an inherent deficiency of moral sense and integrity. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously horrible or inhuman.

Legal Definition of Depravity Of Mind

The Legal Term * Depravity Of Mind * Defined & Explained

www.lectlaw.com

 

[fskimospy]

A) I wasn't citing a specific case. I was using an EXAMPLE. The example relates because NO ONE believe an open hand hit is going to result in a death. It is not as rare as you think when it comes to slaps being charged as felonies and even receiving convictions for. Slaps are rarely brought though to court in the first place. The ones that tend to be brought are using the ones where the person slapping is doing it with enough force to make the other person to lose teeth. Those types of slaps are usually felony assaults. The point of my random fictional example was to demonstrate a point. You literally nitpicked it trying to somehow invalidate what I said and didn't do that.



You literally do not know how criminal statues stack and bubble up by building on each other. Look it up. A felony requires a depraved mind. The fact that 2nd degree requires the FELONY or the INTENT part for murder means it requires the DEPRAVED part in the first place to meet the felony part. It is mentioned as depraved only in 3rd because felony force is not required. That is why it is specifically mentioned. You are literally the Dunning-Krueger on this as shown by your whole nitpicking on the example of the slap in the first place. You obviously didn't even watch the video I posted above with Nate Broady as a criminal prosecutor ALSO STATED depraved mind or malice is still required.

Maybe you should ask woolfe about his education and experience and then decide which one of you is more likely to not understand how criminal statutes work.

 

[HumblePie]

I cannot say that is correct in any sense. That statute is independent of other statutes unless otherwise specifically noted. The conditions for 3rd degree murder in Minny would be often called reckless homicide elsewhere. In layman's terms, it's "I don't give a damn if people die but I didn't intentionally mean to kill any one".

Whereas the 2nd degree charge requires a condition of "I wanted someone dead, possibly a specific someone, but in the heat of the moment".

Legal Definition of Depravity Of Mind

The Legal Term * Depravity Of Mind * Defined & Explained

www.lectlaw.com

Depravity of mind is a mindset where the well being of others is not part of the decision making process. Your link about "devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life " is correct and is needed for someone to commit a felony assault. I already posted the statute for felony assault in for Minnesota which includes intent to cause harm. You cannot have intent to cause harm and not have a depraved mindset. I don't think you guys get how subsets work. You can't have intent with depravity, but you can have depravity without intent. 3rd degree is depravity only while 2nd is intent for a felony. I can't believe I am having to explain how something so simple works still.

 

[HumblePie]

The crowd Chavuin feared was harmless and only grew agitated regarding the living state of Floyd. As Floyd's condition worsened, their frustration grew.

The crowd was openly hostile from the videos the moment the police showed up. This was before George was put on the road. That has already been shown in the case evidence through photos, videos, and testimony.

George Floyd was passively resistant. He willingly got cuffed, and walked to the car, but stubborn did not just go in the vehicle.

Incorrect again. George actively kicked the officers. He actively trashed. He was actively resisting arrest and was not passive at all. Passive resistance would be words only and no physical resistance at all. He didn't willing get cuffed. He didn't willing move when officers moved him. He didn't willing stay restrained. None of the video or testimony backs up your claim to that passive statement. By making that statement I can see you are seriously only listening to the media koolaid on this or some of the other bad opinion expressed here and not the facts.

Being told Floyd has no pulse but still continuing? That alone verifies the actual intent of Chauvin regarding his action on Floyd. I would not be surprised if Floyd was a known name in the department and due to Floyd's own immorality and willingness to game the system, the cops knew exactly what weaknesses they could exploit should they encounter him again.

No. Even the paramedics at the time feared intervening at that point from the crowd. That doesn't automatically equal intent at all. I do consider it very bad judgement though by those involved to think of not rendering aid at that point instead of following what they thought was safety training. Safety for themselves at least. I am not saying that line of reasoning though is justified, but that was their defense in court. I never once said Chauvin wasn't guilty of a crime in this thread. My nuance is over WHAT the crime is. 2nd degree isn't it. The prosecution never proved it IMO and to the opinions of many many many legal scholars, and lawyers that I know of. It is a good thing the manslaughter charge is still on the list of charges and not just 2nd. Otherwise I seriously think he would be completely acquitted.

 

[HurleyBird]

The crowd was openly hostile from the videos the moment the police showed up. This was before George was put on the road. That has already been shown in the case evidence through photos, videos, and testimony.

I've watched the videos a few times and that doesn't sound right. I remember at least one bystander (the old man) who repeatedly told Floyd to stop resisting. I don't remember any significant negative interactions between the officers and the bystanders until some time after he was restrained on the ground.

George actively kicked the officers. He actively trashed. He was actively resisting arrest and was not passive at all.

I'm mostly with you on this one. Floyd was anything but passive, although I don't know I would go so far as to call Floyd a danger to the officers once he was handcuffed. He wasn't attacking the officers or threatening them. More just extremely non-complaint.

No. Even the paramedics at the time feared intervening at that point from the crowd.

I'm mostly with with Torn Mind on this one. There's a bit of a difference between "Being told Floyd has no pulse" and "being told 'I can't find one'" (after a truly half-assed attempt at finding it), but there's an enormous gulf between officers not rendering aid (or at the least, putting in more effort to find a pulse) at that point and the EMTs acting the way they did.

First, beginning to render aid would potentially have gone some way into defusing the crowd. The crowd is agitated by the police officers, and the police officers have some agency to disarm that agitation, which the EMTs as a third party did not.

Secondly, the situation after Floyd is placed in the ambulance is fluid and various things are happening in parallel. It's not "We can continue restraining Floyd or decide to start administrating aid," like with the cops, and it's not even "we can get to a safe location or start administrating aid." The guy in the back is still starting his assessment, hooking up ECG leads, etc. And they're probably driving in the direction of a hospital, talking to dispatch, and so on. Maybe they could have rendered better aid if they weren't wary of the crowd, but they're still rendering aid. It's not a binary either/or like it is with the cops.

Rather, what would be analogous is if the cops had rendered aid, but if much of their focus was on the crowd instead of helping Floyd and that was the criticism. If that were the case I'd be right there with you, but it wasn't.

 

[Torn Mind]

The crowd was openly hostile from the videos the moment the police showed up. This was before George was put on the road. That has already been shown in the case evidence through photos, videos, and testimony.



Incorrect again. George actively kicked the officers. He actively trashed. He was actively resisting arrest and was not passive at all. Passive resistance would be words only and no physical resistance at all. He didn't willing get cuffed. He didn't willing move when officers moved him. He didn't willing stay restrained. None of the video or testimony backs up your claim to that passive statement. By making that statement I can see you are seriously only listening to the media koolaid on this or some of the other bad opinion expressed here and not the facts.



No. Even the paramedics at the time feared intervening at that point from the crowd. That doesn't automatically equal intent at all. I do consider it very bad judgement though by those involved to think of not rendering aid at that point instead of following what they thought was safety training. Safety for themselves at least. I never once said Chauvin wasn't guilty of a crime in this thread. My nuance is over WHAT the crime is. 2nd degree isn't it. The prosecution never proved it IMO and to the opinions of many many many legal scholars, and lawyers that I know of. It is a good thing the manslaughter charge is still on the list of charges and not just 2nd. Otherwise I seriously think he would be completely acquitted.

I'm the last guy to ever drink media kool-aid. If you hadn't been following, I managed to tick off an emotionally sensitive pro-Floyd guy in this thread. But I have dealt with both drug dealers and cops and they could exchange jobs and no one could tell the difference since they both can cook up sob stories for the biased to absorb.

No. The crowd began with one guy. Charles Mcmillian. During the whole episode of trying to put in him the car, he was the one telling Floyd to comply with the the police. Therefore, by his words, it is best interpreted as assisting the police (and throwing Floyd under the bus). That cannot be termed hostility. The affair must be looked at the standard of objective reasonableness, not whatever subjective distortions or interpretations are there. Thus, a qualitative analysis of each individual must be done, both after the fact and "in the moment". Even the use of "bum" as an insult is not cause for the level of irrationality by Chauvin. One of the definitions of "bum" is "one who performs a function poorly"(Merriam-Webster) or " A bum is also someone who treats other people badly: "(Cambridge English, this is informal).

My mistake regarding resistance, Regardless, he was actively resistant, but not aggressively so. Getting scuffed and the like is not a convincingly cause for fear sufficient to do deadly force. Floyd was a obstinate bitch, but that doesn't mean the unconscious neck restraint was appropriate according to policy. The only opening and exploit Chauvin had was using a conscious neck restraint. That Floyd fell unconscious already crossed a line.

Use of Force Policy in Minneapolis

The Minneapolis police department’s use of force policies are receiving national scrutiny after the death of George Floyd. The agency patrol guide is available online here. Their policy begi…

sites.law.duke.edu

He got cuffed with a little pressure; meaning he was initially passively resistant but with some threats, he complied. . That is still compliance. He sat down at the Dragon Wok. They walked him to the car. The active resistance began at the point of attempting to put him in the squad car

By the time the paramedics arrived, the frustration had rightfully boiled to great heights because Floyd sure looked dead. When someone wrongfully dies, a natural response was anger, especially when the exhortations involved checking the pulse and getting off of Floyd. You attack the character of the crowd while ignoring the cause of their anger. Chauvin didn't want an angry crowd? Then he could have gotten off Floyd is cease their anger. Simple as that. Chauvin is about as guilty of escalation as that dumbass couple who got themselves shot by their neighbor over snow. That couple couldn't stop issuing the stimuli angering the neighbor even after being shot at.

It's a wickedly bad faith but effective psychological tactic.
First, commit a an act and violates people in some way due to morality, ethics or principle. trigger people who have some sense of morality in anger and possibly
Then went and hope the victims cross the line from actions with legitimate grounds to retaliation of foul.
Finally, if some line is crossed, the perp then cries foul.

And anyone, not just Chauvin could do it, even Floyd. If Floyd gave ME the check, I'd want to do many things to him. At first, I'd simply ask back what is legitimately mine and I did not cross into any unlawful extracirrculars. He refuses twice He still refuses. Then Floyd calls me a harasser. My actions would have had legitimate grounds and thus it is not harassment. Floyd would have slandered me. That's what Chauvin's defense did to the "crowd".

I would not surprsied if Chauvin got only 3rd degree or if they convict him all the way. He'll have trouble escaping the 2nd degree murder charge in either the intentional or unintentional form barring a "cop hugger" juror stalling and drawing things out.