Derek Chauvin trial

#2,527
#2,527
Weezer said:
Did assuming that somewhat meant exactly what they said also apply to Trump? Or does it just depend on what you specifically want to believe? Just curious what the standard is?
Click to expand...
The standard in this case is knowing that what he said isn’t accurate unless “May” is doing a whoooole lot of work (which I’ve allowed for in the evidentiary miracle scenario), then looking for other reasons why he might have said it, and finding that they aren’t particularly hard to come up with.
 
#2,531
#2,531
K-town Vol Fan said:
Sure, to an extent. But at the same time you are fooling yourself if you don't think cops pull people over just by profiling them. Racially or otherwise. Case in point: when I was 18 I was headed down to Myrtle Beach with my friends. I was pulled over in Greenville, SC because my license plate had a small dealership-installed frame. Wasn't obstructing anything, could still see the county name. Apparently these frames are illegal in SC, although I spotted multiple ones on vehicles with SC plates. Long story short, the cop said my friend in the back seat looked high. He wasn't. He was just tired and wearing a Pink Floyd shirt. But yes I had weed. Locked up in the suitcase in the trunk. I gave it to the cop because he was going to use the dog, and got a $600 ticket and went on my way.

If a cop thinks you might be suspicious, he/she can and will find a reason to pull you over.

Edit: Yes I'm white and my friend and GF at the time are too.
Click to expand...
What a shocker.
 
#2,532
#2,532
RockyTop85 said:
You’re assuming the judge meant what he said and didn’t say it to shut waters up or say it to mollify the defendant after losing the motion.

The law is meant to be predictable. It’s not an assumption to say that’s a bad issue for appeal, barring some evidentiary miracle at the motion for new trial.

This woman’s statements to the media don’t satisfy that evidentiary miracle requirement.
Click to expand...
The law is meant to be predictable. It’s that way so that people know the rules and, in general, what happens when you break those laws. That’s why I don’t get MN blurring the lines between manslaughter and murder the way they are in this case. They’re distinct charges for a reason yet MN seems to want to make something that falls under manslaughter extend to murder. I’ll be curious to see if this case causes any subsequent assault charges stemming from police restraint. One thing is for sure. The prosecution was about 10 steps ahead of the defense while the defense was off in la la land arguing about exhaust from a tail pipe and other nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#2,534
#2,534
RockyTop85 said:
You’re assuming the judge meant what he said and didn’t say it to shut waters up or say it to mollify the defendant after losing the motion.

The law is meant to be predictable. It’s not an assumption to say that’s a bad issue for appeal, barring some evidentiary miracle at the motion for new trial.

This woman’s statements to the media don’t satisfy that evidentiary miracle requirement.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is find the right judge on appeal.
 
#2,535
#2,535
hUTch2002 said:
The law is meant to be predictable. It’s that way so that people know the rules and, in general, what happens when you break those laws. That’s why I don’t get MN blurring the lines between manslaughter and murder the way they are in this case. They’re distinct charges for a reason yet MN seems to want to make something that falls under manslaughter extend to murder. I’ll be curious to see if this case causes any subsequent assault charges stemming from police restraint. One thing is for sure. The prosecution was about 10 steps ahead of the defense while the defense was off in la la land arguing about exhaust from a tail pipe and other nonsense.
Click to expand...
The felony murder theory of criminal liability isn’t really there to blur the lines with manslaughter it’s to discourage risky or dangerous criminal conduct. If you want to rob a bank or chase some guy running down your street while threatening him with a shotgun, and the end result is somebody dies then your criminal intent is enough to satisfy the culpability for murder.

Relying on a general intent assault statute to satisfy that intent is going to result in some messed up outcomes, so I think I agree with some of your conclusion and it’s why I think the argument about the jury instruction is better than following the right wing culture war victimhood narrative and pointing the finger Maxine Waters or Biden.

As for its effect on other officers, this was a pretty extreme case. The trial doesn’t set any precedent and I don’t think departments are going to change a whole lot of policy unless the kneeling on the neck is policy somewhere. There’s still going to be a qualified immunity doctrine, for now, that shields police from liability and there’s still a pretty cozy relationship between police and all of the cogs in any mechanism that might punish them criminally.

There is some thought that social perceptions regarding what is a reasonable use of force is changing but I’m hesitant to draw any conclusions from this result because the facts were so clearly over the line. That said, the cop who shot the guy in the back and planted a taser on him in SC got a hung jury a few years ago and that was pretty damn extreme, so maybe there has been some progress. But I think we have a long long way to go before we get to the point where police are being unjustly punished for using reasonable force.
 
#2,537
#2,537
RockyTop85 said:
The felony murder theory of criminal liability isn’t really there to blur the lines with manslaughter it’s to discourage risky or dangerous criminal conduct. If you want to rob a bank or chase some guy running down your street while threatening him with a shotgun, and the end result is somebody dies then your criminal intent is enough to satisfy the culpability for murder.

Relying on a general intent assault statute to satisfy that intent is going to result in some messed up outcomes, so I think I agree with some of your conclusion and it’s why I think the argument about the jury instruction is better than following the right wing culture war victimhood narrative and pointing the finger Maxine Waters or Biden.

As for its effect on other officers, this was a pretty extreme case. The trial doesn’t set any precedent and I don’t think departments are going to change a whole lot of policy unless the kneeling on the neck is policy somewhere. There’s still going to be a qualified immunity doctrine, for now, that shields police from liability and there’s still a pretty cozy relationship between police and all of the cogs in any mechanism that might punish them criminally.

There is some thought that social perceptions regarding what is a reasonable use of force is changing but I’m hesitant to draw any conclusions from this result because the facts were so clearly over the line. That said, the cop who shot the guy in the back and planted a taser on him in SC got a hung jury a few years ago and that was pretty damn extreme, so maybe there has been some progress. But I think we have a long long way to go before we get to the point where police are being unjustly punished for using reasonable force.
Click to expand...
I believe that second paragraph will ultimately result in the 2nd degree murder charge being overturned on appeal. I know it’s rare and agree, in general, people are throwing out illegitimate reasons for appeal and overturning the results. You make good points overall though. I appreciate your perspective on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,539
#2,539
hUTch2002 said:
The law is meant to be predictable. It’s that way so that people know the rules and, in general, what happens when you break those laws. That’s why I don’t get MN blurring the lines between manslaughter and murder the way they are in this case. They’re distinct charges for a reason yet MN seems to want to make something that falls under manslaughter extend to murder. I’ll be curious to see if this case causes any subsequent assault charges stemming from police restraint. One thing is for sure. The prosecution was about 10 steps ahead of the defense while the defense was off in la la land arguing about exhaust from a tail pipe and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Also there's the issue of charging with multiple degrees of murder and manslaughter - which seems all wrong. If prosecutors use this case as precedence, then they would seemingly never have to narrow down their case to a viable charge. They would be free to charge the whole book of errors and see if something would stick. Like option football; get started and evaluate the defense's weakness and exploit that. Shotgun charging is a game changer if allowed to stick. I still don't know why they didn't just include first degree murder, and claim Chauvin got up in a mood to kill somebody that day, and Floyd looked like who he wanted to kill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#2,540
#2,540
hUTch2002 said:
I believe that second paragraph will ultimately result in the 2nd degree murder charge being overturned on appeal. I know it’s rare and agree, in general, people are throwing out illegitimate reasons for appeal and overturning the results. You make good points overall though. I appreciate your perspective on it.
Click to expand...

When RockyTop wants, he does great analysis from the legal perspective. You and I and a lot of other people are probably more often than not perplexed by what the legal profession considers rational judgement. It's based a lot like fact checkers do their work. False - because although so and so did in fact shoot and kill the dead guy on that particular date, it was cloudy and not a sunny day as you stated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#2,541
#2,541
AM64 said:
When RockyTop wants, he does great analysis from the legal perspective. You and I and a lot of other people are probably more often than not perplexed by what the legal profession considers rational judgement. It's based a lot like fact checkers do their work. False - because although so and so did in fact shoot and kill the dead guy on that particular date, it was cloudy and not a sunny day as you stated.
Click to expand...
These days if you go to a jury trial you are flat out rolling the dice, especially if you don’t have public opinion on your side. That’s why the average cost of a fatality accident involving a trucking company has gone from like $2M to $22M in a decade or so. I might be slightly off of the numbers as I’m going off memory but that’s pretty close. Some of the decisions being made in these cases are ludicrous and now you have litigation financing and reptile theory coming into play. Court rooms have become big business. Turn your wreck into a check!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,543
#2,543
  • Like
Reactions: Boca Vol, AM64, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top