508mikey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,395
- Likes
- 48,812
Simple, Chauvin wasn’t intentionally harming Floyd. Did his action result in Floyd’s death? The jury said yes obviously but they’re saying Chauvin intended to at least harm Floyd based on that conviction. Ridiculous.I see no reason why second degree murder doesn't fit based on Minnesota's definition.
Ok, yeah I guess that makes sense even though I don’t like it. It’s certainly smart by the prosecution. But I certainly wouldn’t want my child to go through that again unless there were no other choice.For what it's worth, i just read that the prosecution is arguing that the presence of children at the scene is an aggravating factor that should be applied at sentencing, so the 9 year old's testimony could also be relevant for that purpose.
I find it hard to believe he wasn't intentionally harming Floyd. Clearly, the jury did, too.Simple, Chauvin wasn’t intentionally harming Floyd. Did his action result in Floyd’s death? The jury said yes obviously but they’re saying Chauvin intended to at least harm Floyd based on that conviction. Ridiculous.
Well I don’t see that at all. If that’s true then why not go for murder 1 too? It sure seems like none of the facts mattered anyway. Drugs, heart conditions, resisting, none of that mattered. It will be appealed and hopefully that will be done with the out the cameras and media attention so there is no undue influence from idiots like Waters and Biden.I find it hard to believe he wasn't intentionally harming Floyd. Clearly, the jury did, too.
And they shouldn't have. Those were pathetic attempts to cover for a cop who killed someone on camera.Well I don’t see that at all. If that’s true then why not go for murder 1 too? It sure seems like none of the facts mattered anyway. Drugs, heart conditions, resisting, none of that mattered. It will be appealed and hopefully that will be done with the out the cameras and media attention so there is no undue influence from idiots like Waters and Biden.
He wasn’t intending to harm him. There’s a HUGE difference between intentionally restraining someone and intentionally harming someone. Surely you know this.So keeping a handcuffed man prone on the ground and holding a knee with half of your body weight on his neck for 9 minutes as he is pleading for his life and saying he couldn't breathe...thats not intentional harm?
Exactly why I hate the 2nd degree part. Now anytime an officer puts hands on someone you can scream assault and get away with it. This is a very dangerous and stupid precedent to set.I take issue with the assault part of the equation as I have thought about this.
I would not have put what Chauvin did in the assault category because otherwise anyone can claim assault against the police when you put them on the ground. That is a tricky one. That is why I came to an opinion of 3rd degree.