Derek Chauvin trial

#2,251
#2,251
RockyTop85 said:
The risk of a police officer being unlawfully killed during a traffic stop is something like 1 in 6.5 million yet fear is routinely used by police to justify use of force up to and including deadly force.
Click to expand...
There are other assaults that could escalate to deadly force if the officers hadn’t intervened with use of force. Sure of a hell more dangerous than being a paralegal for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,252
#2,252
Weezer said:
Like when he started saying he couldn't breathe and started screaming for his momma. I get that criminals will say anything to get away, but better to side with caution than not.
Click to expand...
I agree better to be cautious but he was saying he couldn’t breathe before ever going to the ground and he was on his side when he was first saying something about his momma. It’s just a bad situation in every way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Rickyvol77
#2,253
#2,253
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t have the experience or expertise needed to second guess what’s necessary for an effective prosecution under the laws of some other state. It would be pointless to go around making up the laws to suit my feelings about what they should be, and it would be arrogant to assume that I know them better than the career prosecutor who just won this case.

As for the weight of the other evidence, it clearly didn’t convince everyone (see: this thread).
Click to expand...
Being an attorney yourself is there some kind of unwritten rule about such things? I could see that. Like, it’s not a formal rule but kind of the “golden rule” situation? I’m just curious. LG pretty much punted on providing his opinion of the outcome even though he was pretty outspoken prior to the outcome.
 
#2,254
#2,254
hUTch2002 said:
No. That’s not at all what he was convicted for. To convict of murder is way beyond negligence and gross misconduct. That 2nd degree murder charge required intent.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with the intent. I'm more saying that police as a whole do not get prosecuted for negligence and gross misconduct. Plenty of officers are doing their job but react in a poor/unjustified way only get a slap on the wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hUTch2002
#2,255
#2,255
hUTch2002 said:
Right. It comes back to the intent to harm and I don’t see how they proved beyond reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to harm Floyd. I didn’t see every second of the trial and the jury clearly saw it otherwise so it is what it is. I’ll be curious to see if that one gets dropped on appeal. If you go by the letter of the law I think there’s some chance that even 3rd degree murder could be dropped on appeal. Manslaughter will stick no matter what.
Click to expand...
If you follow that thread, I posted some MN cases about how the intent to do the harm wasn’t required, it’s the intent to do the prohibited conduct, which in this case would be the kneeling on him.

If it were my case, I’d probably argue that the “intent to commit a felony” in the second degree murder statute is similar to the assault-fear language and makes the assault a specific intent rather than general intent. I’d probably dovetail that with complaining about a strict liability murder statute.

I wouldn’t expect to win. In most places, felony murder adopts the intent requirement for the predicate offense, but I think it’s probably an argument worth trying.

I haven’t looked hard for a case that looks at that issue, but if there were one from the Minn. Sup. Ct. it should cite to the Fleck case I cited earlier and it wasn’t apparent from the citation history that any such case existed. I don’t use Google scholar for work and I don’t subscribe to Minnesota cases on Westlaw so idk if I’m reading it right.
 
#2,256
#2,256
hUTch2002 said:
Being an attorney yourself is there some kind of unwritten rule about such things? I could see that. Like, it’s not a formal rule but kind of the “golden rule” situation? I’m just curious. LG pretty much punted on providing his opinion of the outcome even though he was pretty outspoken prior to the outcome.
Click to expand...
About calling kids as witnesses?
 
#2,258
#2,258
Rickyvol77 said:
There are other assaults that could escalate to deadly force if the officers hadn’t intervened with use of force. Sure of a hell more dangerous than being a paralegal for sure
Click to expand...
Or a hospital greeter.

If a 1 in 6.5 million chance justifies fear of a 50 something year old man running in the other direction, then just stop doing traffic stops altogether. It’s clearly too dangerous for the police and the public.
 
#2,259
#2,259
RockyTop85 said:
Or a hospital greeter.

If a 1 in 6.5 million chance justifies fear of a 50 something year old man running in the other direction, then just stop doing traffic stops altogether. It’s clearly too dangerous for the police and the public.
Click to expand...
LOL what’s a hospital greeter? Like an elderly volunteer? And i just told you it’s NOT 1 in 6.5 million for an officer to be assaulted in the course of his duties. In fact no other profession gets assaulted more by a pretty large margin.

Maybe you shouldn’t be trying to bail out pedos and drug dealers and criminals and you could actually contribute to fixing the issues instead of creating more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Ttucke11
#2,260
#2,260
dcm3w said:
I'm not disagreeing with the intent. I'm more saying that police as a whole do not get prosecuted for negligence and gross misconduct. Plenty of officers are doing their job but react in a poor/unjustified way only get a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...
No doubt there.
 
#2,261
#2,261
Rickyvol77 said:
LOL what’s a hospital greeter? Like an elderly volunteer? And i just told you it’s NOT 1 in 6.5 million for an officer to be assaulted in the course of his duties. In fact no other profession gets assaulted more by a pretty large margin.

Maybe you shouldn’t be trying to bail out pedos and drug dealers and criminals and you could actually contribute to fixing the issues instead of creating more?
Click to expand...
Sure, I’ve seen what qualifies as an assault on an officer. I’m sure they do report being assaulted way more than any other profession. All the more reason to remove them from the terrifying investigatory stops.

Kind of like the hospital did after that incident with the little old lady who was there for her hip replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PNW Huskie
#2,262
#2,262
RockyTop85 said:
If you follow that thread, I posted some MN cases about how the intent to do the harm wasn’t required, it’s the intent to do the prohibited conduct, which in this case would be the kneeling on him.

If it were my case, I’d probably argue that the “intent to commit a felony” in the second degree murder statute is similar to the assault-fear language and makes the assault a specific intent rather than general intent. I’d probably dovetail that with complaining about a strict liability murder statute.

I wouldn’t expect to win. In most places, felony murder adopts the intent requirement for the predicate offense, but I think it’s probably an argument worth trying.

I haven’t looked hard for a case that looks at that issue, but if there were one from the Minn. Sup. Ct. it should cite to the Fleck case I cited earlier and it wasn’t apparent from the citation history that any such case existed. I don’t use Google scholar for work and I don’t subscribe to Minnesota cases on Westlaw so idk if I’m reading it right.
Click to expand...
Good stuff though. Thanks for the insight. From what I saw the law clearly said intent to inflict bodily harm but it sounds like courts have interpreted that language in different ways from what you’re saying. When I have more time I’ll go read what you linked. What you’re talking about with intent to do prohibited conduct sounds closer to how 3rd degree murder is defined under MN law but you’re the attorney, not me, and neither of us know MN law well nor applicable precedents.
 
#2,263
#2,263
RockyTop85 said:
About calling kids as witnesses?
Click to expand...
No, sorry. That was a poorly constructed question. I was talking about questioning the results and/or tactics in a case that is put to bed. I didn’t know if it is considered bad form to speak ill of the jury’s decision, the judge, either attorney’s strategy, and so on, especially in a state where you don’t know all the ins and outs.
 
#2,264
#2,264
RockyTop85 said:
Pretty sure assault is a general intent crime in Minnesota.

State v. Fleck, 810 NW 2d 303 - Minn: Supreme Court 2012 - Google Scholar

“The forbidden conduct is a physical act, which results in bodily harm upon another. Although the definition of assault-harm requires the State to prove that the defendant intended to do the physical act, nothing in the definition requires proof that the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result.”

State v. Dorn, 875 NW 2d 357 - Minn: Court of Appeals 2016 - Google Scholar

“The state charged appellant Alie Christine Dorn with first-degree assault, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.221, subd. 1 (2012), after Dorn pushed another person, causing him to fall backwards into a bonfire... At about 1:30 a.m., the complainant was standing with his back to a bonfire. One of his friends drew his attention to Dorn, who was standing nearby, and asked if he thought she looked like a drug dealer. Attempting to joke, he replied to his friend that, yes, she looked like a drug dealer. Dorn, who appeared intoxicated, overheard him, said, "What?," and then pushed him with two hands. He lost his balance, and she pushed him again with two hands, causing him to land on the embers of the fire, where he remained for several seconds before a witness pulled him out. He sustained third-degree burns, which required skin grafting surgery on his arm and hand.”

She goes on to argue that she didn’t mean for him to fall in the fire. The court says it doesn’t matter because pushing him was intentional.

“To support a conviction of assault-harm, Minnesota law does not require proof that the appellant intended to inflict bodily harm. The evidence is sufficient to sustain Dorn's conviction of first-degree assault because some degree of physical force was intentionally used against another and was a substantial cause of great bodily harm.”

Here, the assault is the act of kneeling on Floyd’s neck after it became unreasonable to do so. So, are you saying the jury should have found that kneeling on Floyd’s neck for 9.5 minutes while people were telling him that he was dying was an accident?*

Also, jury verdicts don’t have that sort of precedent value and officers will still have qualified immunity, for now.

*- whether a general intent crime can/should be able to sustain a felony murder conviction is probably a legitimate question of law, but as it’s written right now, that seems to be the way it works.
Click to expand...
I just came across this so I went ahead and read it. It sure sounds like they’re trying to blur the line between murder and manslaughter. Both exist for a reason. Generally speaking, intent equals murder while negligence equals manslaughter. Granted, that’s a gross oversimplification but MN is really trying to blur the line between the charges in my opinion. Adding 3rd degree murder would seem to fit that motive as well.
 
#2,271
#2,271
Maxine Waters stirring up rioters has given Derek Chauvin's lawyers perfect grounds to push for a mistrial
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top