• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Tweak155 said:
So for someone who knows pretty much nothing about law, I am curious how being guilty of all 3 charges makes sense? How can you commit 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at the same time? Not that I disagree with the verdicts, just curious how that is logically possible.
Click to expand...


They are not acts exclusive of each other; read how the laws are written/paraphrased and you will see how this works.
 
kage69 said:
Finally an outcome that makes sense, good riddance to a horrible cop. lmportant also to give massive kudos the LEOs who didn't lie for Chauvin. May this give others resolve.

I'm sure it will be appealed, but I don't care. All three. Good.
Click to expand...

As for the appeal. There are only 2 avenues I see an appeal getting recognized here really.

1) Prosecutorial misconduct. their closing arguments and statements were not kosher to be said in court. They also had some evidence mishandling issues. The statements themselves aren't enough for an appeal to happen, but it lends credence to the issues Nelson is complaining about with dumping 500 pages of evidence on him every night during the trial supposedly. The later could be problematic.

2) Legislative issue on the wording of 2DM in Minnesota basically matching what manslaughter is. If that appeal goes through and is found correct, that wipes out the 2DM charge but the other remain.


While there is no doubt Chauvin and his attorney will file for appeal, seriously who wouldn't, I doubt at this juncture he is going to get anything more than maybe the second option. He is going to prison for his crime.
 
HumblePie said:
I think you got too much baggage going on here. This case here in no way had any basis in racial issues except for the race baiters and those that want it to be. The case highlights that cops continuing to use force past when a person has gone unresponsive is going to be found guilty under the law of a crime.
Click to expand...

Just let it go.
 
HomerJS said:
My question, why did it take so much effort to get what should been a simple case? Millions of white people had to march along with black people around the world just to force the right thing.
Click to expand...
I really do not know. I was born in the last year of the Boomers, so I've got some of that sub-conscious tinge of racism bit even though I was born in the North East (well, plus some influence from the Neo Nazi father of my first serious girl friend, sorry, but she was really hot 😉 ). Anyway, I'm aware of it now so if I notice I'm feeling that way I turn it off easily. I don't know why some people can't turn it off. My dad wouldn't put up with any racist noise, so maybe that's the difference? I just hope that we are turning a corner with the younger generations - especially millennials and younger. Change in deeply entrenched social conditions like racism seem exasperatingly resistant to change. This is a great day - we just need hundreds more like it for real change to start to stick.
 
Anyone got a link to the look on his face when the verdict came in? Should have taken a plea deal instead of putting the nation through all this but I expect nothing less from someone who clearly enjoyed his power trip.
 
HumblePie said:
Yes and no. The 2DM statute in Minnesota is a bit strange. The issue is that Chauvin's continued use of force past when Floyd passed out was excessive force. That makes is an assault and one he was intentionally doing. I think the prosecution did a poor job of highlighting it, but the jury got it regardless. Chauvin's continued use of restraint, even if Floyd is dead at that point, is felony assault or attempted felony assault (attempted in the case Floyd died at that point when going unresponsive). 2DM in Minnesota is basically felony murder anywhere else and thus the outcome.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's being called "felony murder" by some commentators but it differs considerably from felony murder in other states. That is because Minnesota doesn't apply the merger doctrine, whereby an assault cannot be the predicate felony under the rule. That is because the elements of assault are also elements of murder, so every killing would be "felony murder." In other states, If the underlying crime is an assault, then the prosecution either has to prove intent to kill, which is 1DM, or else a reckless or negligent homicide.

MN's 2DM statute is really just a general intent version of 1DM, whereby you meant to do harm but not to kill, and you killed anyway. It's really more analogous to that than it is to felony murder, though I understand why some people are making the comparison.
 
Tweak155 said:
So for someone who knows pretty much nothing about law, I am curious how being guilty of all 3 charges makes sense? How can you commit 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at the same time? Not that I disagree with the verdict, just curious how that is logically possible.
Click to expand...

Usually there is a bubble up, as I mentioned earlier, but there still has to be a clear delineation. The issue is that manslaughter and 2DM in Minnesota are basically the same statute. That is where there is a grounds for a legislative appeal to the 2DM being valid. By SCOTUS rulings in the past, if two statutes are exactly (or functionally) the same, then only the one with the lesser penalty applies. Chauvin and his attorney I believe have a case challenging the legislative legitimacy of the 2DM here.
 
Tweak155 said:
So for someone who knows pretty much nothing about law, I am curious how being guilty of all 3 charges makes sense? How can you commit 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at the same time? Not that I disagree with the verdict, just curious how that is logically possible.
Click to expand...
Because the conditions that need to be met are different for each defined transgression, simple as that.
 
HumblePie said:
I think you got too much baggage going on here. This case here in no way had any basis in racial issues except for the race baiters and those that want it to be. The case highlights that cops continuing to use force past when a person has gone unresponsive is going to be found guilty under the law of a crime.
Click to expand...

Oh fuck off
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yeah, it's being called "felony murder" by some commentators but it differs considerably from felony murder in other states. That is because Minnesota doesn't apply the merger doctrine, whereby an assault cannot be the predicate felony under the rule. That is because the elements of assault are also elements of murder, so every killing would be "felony murder." In other states, If the underlying crime is an assault, then the prosecution either has to prove intent to kill, which is 1DM, or else a reckless or negligent homicide.

MN's 2DM statute is really just a general intent version of 1DM, whereby you meant to do harm but not to kill, and you killed anyway. It's really more analogous to that than it is to felony murder, though I understand why some people are making the comparison.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is correct. It is also a wonder it hasn't been challenged to being legit legislatively either. Maybe Chauvin and his attorney attempt to challenge that if they don't get an appeal on the prosecutorial misconduct grounds. The jury appeal grounds I think are not going to fly.
 
dank69 said:
Anyone got a link to the look on his face when the verdict came in? Should have taken a plea deal instead of putting the nation through all this but I expect nothing less from someone who clearly enjoyed his power trip.
Click to expand...

He was wearing a mask. Kind of hard to see his face.
 
HumblePie said:
Usually there is a bubble up, as I mentioned earlier, but there still has to be a clear delineation. The issue is that manslaughter and 2DM in Minnesota are basically the same statute. That is where there is a grounds for a legislative appeal to the 2DM being valid. By SCOTUS rulings in the past, if two statutes are exactly (or functionally) the same, then only the one with the lesser penalty applies. Chauvin and his attorney I believe have a case challenging the legislative legitimacy of the 2DM here.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, they're not. 2DM requires an underlying felony. Manslaughter requires no such thing. Drive drunk and run someone over, your underlying offense is misdemeanor DUI. That will get you manslaughter. Might even get you 3DM. 2DM is an intentional act which is also a felony, with an unintended death. Big difference.
 
dank69 said:
Anyone got a link to the look on his face when the verdict came in? Should have taken a plea deal instead of putting the nation through all this but I expect nothing less from someone who clearly enjoyed his power trip.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm glad he didn't. I think that we, as a country, needed this to happen. We needed a new precedent that was very public, IMHO.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Uh, no, they're not. 2DM requires an underlying felony. Manslaughter requires no such thing. Drive drunk and run someone over, your underlying offense is misdemeanor DUI. That will get you manslaughter. Might even get you 3DM. 2DM is an intentional act which is also a felony, with an unintended death. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Not in Minnesota...manslaughter is still based upon the assault. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20
 
dank69 said:
Anyone got a link to the look on his face when the verdict came in? Should have taken a plea deal instead of putting the nation through all this but I expect nothing less from someone who clearly enjoyed his power trip.
Click to expand...

I don’t have the link anymore but wanted to say that I too really wanted to see it. Think I rewinded the live feed from CNN. You can really see the “oh fuck” kick in when the judge has the jurors affirm their verdicts one by one. Good shit and almost enough for empathy to kick in and feel bad for watching the guy realize his life is over. Then you remember he’s a colossal prick and got what he deserves.
 
HumblePie said:
Yep, that is correct. It is also a wonder it hasn't been challenged to being legit legislatively either. Maybe Chauvin and his attorney attempt to challenge that if they don't get an appeal on the prosecutorial misconduct grounds. The jury appeal grounds I think are not going to fly.
Click to expand...

You'll need to explain why, specifically, such a "legislative challenge" makes sense here. It certainly isn't because 2DM is functionally the same as manslaughter, as you argue above. 2DM requires more than what manslaughter requires.

There does appear to be a possible appeal on the 3DM conviction, however. I just read that a case came down last year which said the recklessness required for 3DM has to be toward the general public, and not specifically directed at the individual victim. So if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone was drunk driving, that could be 3DM. But if the recklessness was intentionally directed toward a specific person, like it was with Floyd, the MN Supreme Court says 3DM does not apply. So there may be grounds for throwing that one out.
 
Tweak155 said:
So for someone who knows pretty much nothing about law, I am curious how being guilty of all 3 charges makes sense? How can you commit 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at the same time? Not that I disagree with the verdict, just curious how that is logically possible.
Click to expand...
manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder 3 (that is, if the requirements of murder 3 are X and Y, you've also met all the requirements for manslaughter which is just X) and murder 3 is a lesser included offense of murder 2 (which would be X and Y and Z here).

so, this goes up on appeal, and chauvin says that the evidence doesn't actually meet the requirements for any of it. the appellate court says the evidence is enough for the jury to have found on X and Y, but not Z. so they don't have to hold a whole new trial on whether you did X and Y, and then the punishment is for Y.

chauvin can only be punished for one of them.
 
HomerJS said:
Look at what it took just to get this far. The bar to get justice for black people is too high but maybe has gotten a little a lower
Click to expand...

I mean he killed an unconscious handcuffed man on camera. And it absolutely wasn't definite that he'd be convicted!
That is crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top