Black Lives Matter
-
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@majorrage said in Black Lives Matter:
Rightly, or wrongly, there is no way that Chauvin can be found not guilty. The chain of events that will kick off will be horrific. It has simply gone too far for people to be rational.
The public has already decided that he's guilty & if he's not, then the Rodney King riots will be tiny in comparison.
That is not a (or the) reason to convict him.
I’m not saying that as a reflection of my own opinion. But he will be found guilty.
-
@majorrage said in Black Lives Matter:
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@majorrage said in Black Lives Matter:
Rightly, or wrongly, there is no way that Chauvin can be found not guilty. The chain of events that will kick off will be horrific. It has simply gone too far for people to be rational.
The public has already decided that he's guilty & if he's not, then the Rodney King riots will be tiny in comparison.
That is not a (or the) reason to convict him.
I’m not saying that as a reflection of my own opinion. But he will be found guilty.
Yeah, realise that Major. It's a tragedy (was going to say travisty) from pretty much all angles.
-
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial I hinted at that earlier when I said he failed to assist a dying man.
Does that make him responsible for his death? Does that meet the threshold for First Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt? Or somewhere else on the spectrum of illegality?
I suspect the latter, but I'm not a legal expert, on the jury (thank goodness), or across the evidence much beyond @Siam 's summaries
Yeah, comes down to the law.
Here's an example. A prisoner in NZ is under the care of Corrections. Let's say that a prisoner dies due to an interaction/lack of action attributable to an officer.If the officer acted within the guidelines (or it is succesfully argued that the guidelines provided were not clear) then they have no personal responsibility for what happened but instead the department is accountable.
On the flip side if they acted outside of guidelines or deliberately ignored them they are open to personal prosecution.
The reason I say that is that whether the prisoner kicked off or took drugs etc is irrelevant to the duty of care.. They may be mitigating factors after the fact when it comes to sentencing decisions. -
@crucial said in Black Lives Matter:
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial I hinted at that earlier when I said he failed to assist a dying man.
Does that make him responsible for his death? Does that meet the threshold for First Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt? Or somewhere else on the spectrum of illegality?
I suspect the latter, but I'm not a legal expert, on the jury (thank goodness), or across the evidence much beyond @Siam 's summaries
Yeah, comes down to the law.
Here's an example. A prisoner in NZ is under the care of Corrections. Let's say that a prisoner dies due to an interaction/lack of action attributable to an officer.If the officer acted within the guidelines (or it is succesfully argued that the guidelines provided were not clear) then they have no personal responsibility for what happened but instead the department is accountable.
On the flip side if they acted outside of guidelines or deliberately ignored them they are open to personal prosecution.
The reason I say that is that whether the prisoner kicked off or took drugs etc is irrelevant to the duty of care.. They may be mitigating factors after the fact when it comes to sentencing decisions.I get that too? But to ehat degree is said officer guilty? Would he guilty of Murder, or manslaughter or something else?
-
@crucial said in Black Lives Matter:
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial I hinted at that earlier when I said he failed to assist a dying man.
Does that make him responsible for his death? Does that meet the threshold for First Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt? Or somewhere else on the spectrum of illegality?
I suspect the latter, but I'm not a legal expert, on the jury (thank goodness), or across the evidence much beyond @Siam 's summaries
Yeah, comes down to the law.
Here's an example. A prisoner in NZ is under the care of Corrections. Let's say that a prisoner dies due to an interaction/lack of action attributable to an officer.If the officer acted within the guidelines (or it is succesfully argued that the guidelines provided were not clear) then they have no personal responsibility for what happened but instead the department is accountable.
On the flip side if they acted outside of guidelines or deliberately ignored them they are open to personal prosecution.
The reason I say that is that whether the prisoner kicked off or took drugs etc is irrelevant to the duty of care.. They may be mitigating factors after the fact when it comes to sentencing decisions........and all that responsibility whilst being paid fuck all. Who would actually work in corrections ?
-
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial said in Black Lives Matter:
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial I hinted at that earlier when I said he failed to assist a dying man.
Does that make him responsible for his death? Does that meet the threshold for First Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt? Or somewhere else on the spectrum of illegality?
I suspect the latter, but I'm not a legal expert, on the jury (thank goodness), or across the evidence much beyond @Siam 's summaries
Yeah, comes down to the law.
Here's an example. A prisoner in NZ is under the care of Corrections. Let's say that a prisoner dies due to an interaction/lack of action attributable to an officer.If the officer acted within the guidelines (or it is succesfully argued that the guidelines provided were not clear) then they have no personal responsibility for what happened but instead the department is accountable.
On the flip side if they acted outside of guidelines or deliberately ignored them they are open to personal prosecution.
The reason I say that is that whether the prisoner kicked off or took drugs etc is irrelevant to the duty of care.. They may be mitigating factors after the fact when it comes to sentencing decisions.I get that too? But to ehat degree is said officer guilty? Would he guilty of Murder, or manslaughter or something else?
That's up to prosecutors to work out and then charge. The US has 'degrees' of murder that add different delineation. There'sobviously legal definitions and they have to find the highest provable one.
Maybe in the Floyd case they have over-reached a little, I don't know. -
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
I don't know if the prosecution laid the murder charge to make a political statement, or because they were under pressure to do so. But it isn't murder,
Semantically / legally it is murder even if "only" 3rd degree.
"Under Minnesota law, charges of first- or second-degree murder typically require prosecutors to prove that a defendant intended to kill their victim. First-degree murder also typically requires “premeditation,” while second-degree murder more often applies to crimes of passion where the perpetrator suddenly develops a murderous intent.
Third-degree murder, by contrast, applies to anyone who “causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.
So, to convict Chauvin of third-degree murder, prosecutors do not need to show that he wanted George Floyd to die — an inherently difficult thing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to show that kneeling on someone’s neck for nearly nine minutes, as that person begs for their life, is “eminently dangerous” and shows a “depraved mind."
The depraved mind bit might be a bit tough to prove, and his character is going to be dragged though the mud because of it. Probably not much doubt on the lesser charges of manslaughter although "consciously" could be an interesting word in this:
"Under state law, someone may be convicted of second-degree manslaughter if their “culpable negligence ... creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”
There was no way that they could prove intent so they gave up on first or second degree, even third might be a stretch but I agree with others that the shit will hit the fan if it isn't "classified" as murder. Even if the legal definition isn't fully understood.
-
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
I don't know if the prosecution laid the murder charge to make a political statement, or because they were under pressure to do so. But it isn't murder,
Semantically / legally it is murder even if "only" 3rd degree.
"Under Minnesota law, charges of first- or second-degree murder typically require prosecutors to prove that a defendant intended to kill their victim. First-degree murder also typically requires “premeditation,” while second-degree murder more often applies to crimes of passion where the perpetrator suddenly develops a murderous intent.
Third-degree murder, by contrast, applies to anyone who “causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.
So, to convict Chauvin of third-degree murder, prosecutors do not need to show that he wanted George Floyd to die — an inherently difficult thing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to show that kneeling on someone’s neck for nearly nine minutes, as that person begs for their life, is “eminently dangerous” and shows a “depraved mind."
The depraved mind bit might be a bit tough to prove, and his character is going to be dragged though the mud because of it. Probably not much doubt on the lesser charges of manslaughter although "consciously" could be an interesting word in this:
"Under state law, someone may be convicted of second-degree manslaughter if their “culpable negligence ... creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”
There was no way that they could prove intent so they gave up on first or second degree, even third might be a stretch but I agree with others that the shit will hit the fan if it isn't "classified" as murder. Even if the legal definition isn't fully understood.
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
-
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
I don't know if the prosecution laid the murder charge to make a political statement, or because they were under pressure to do so. But it isn't murder,
Semantically / legally it is murder even if "only" 3rd degree.
"Under Minnesota law, charges of first- or second-degree murder typically require prosecutors to prove that a defendant intended to kill their victim. First-degree murder also typically requires “premeditation,” while second-degree murder more often applies to crimes of passion where the perpetrator suddenly develops a murderous intent.
Third-degree murder, by contrast, applies to anyone who “causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.
So, to convict Chauvin of third-degree murder, prosecutors do not need to show that he wanted George Floyd to die — an inherently difficult thing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to show that kneeling on someone’s neck for nearly nine minutes, as that person begs for their life, is “eminently dangerous” and shows a “depraved mind."
The depraved mind bit might be a bit tough to prove, and his character is going to be dragged though the mud because of it. Probably not much doubt on the lesser charges of manslaughter although "consciously" could be an interesting word in this:
"Under state law, someone may be convicted of second-degree manslaughter if their “culpable negligence ... creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”
There was no way that they could prove intent so they gave up on first or second degree, even third might be a stretch but I agree with others that the shit will hit the fan if it isn't "classified" as murder. Even if the legal definition isn't fully understood.
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
Doesn't that depend on the depraved mind part?
We haven't heard evidence in that regard but I seem to recall some stuff coming out a while ago about character, previous warnings and witnesses stating a racist outlook. How much of that was true I guess we will find out.
-
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
Minnesota law and the wording will be different to NZ.
Some states had 5 degrees of "murder" apparently. They seem to have changed it a bit, so that "manslaughter" is more prevalent wording than using so many degrees of murder.I mentioned the "depraved mind" bit because I think as @Crucial says that is going to be hard to prove. Didn't know that he supposedly had issues in the past. His whole life will be brought under the spotlight due to that depraved mind stipulation though.
I now know far more about Minnesota law than I really need to.
-
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
Minnesota law and the wording will be different to NZ.
Some states had 5 degrees of "murder" apparently. They seem to have changed it a bit, so that "manslaughter" is more prevalent wording than using so many degrees of murder.I mentioned the "depraved mind" bit because I think as @Crucial says that is going to be hard to prove. Didn't know that he supposedly had issues in the past. His whole life will be brought under the spotlight due to that depraved mind stipulation though.
I now know far more about Minnesota law than I really need to.
IIRC he had previous form. But I don't know if being a sadistic bastard who likes to abuse his position to cause physical harm to people will qualify him as guilty of murder
-
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
Minnesota law and the wording will be different to NZ.
Some states had 5 degrees of "murder" apparently. They seem to have changed it a bit, so that "manslaughter" is more prevalent wording than using so many degrees of murder.I mentioned the "depraved mind" bit because I think as @Crucial says that is going to be hard to prove. Didn't know that he supposedly had issues in the past. His whole life will be brought under the spotlight due to that depraved mind stipulation though.
I now know far more about Minnesota law than I really need to.
IIRC he had previous form. But I don't know if being a sadistic bastard who likes to abuse his position to cause physical harm to people will qualify him as guilty of murder
I have been googling and yes, there are instances of ignoring procedure and excessive force but nothing really strong. The worst character thing really was from the nightclub where he moonlighted as a bouncer. They claim that he was overly aggressive and defensive especially on nights with 'lots of blacks'. He would get on edge quickly at those times and disperse people with pepper spray .
I don't think that any of this was entered as evidence and the prosecution is about to wrap up anyway. The court expects that closing arguments will start on Monday. -
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
So third degree is manslaughter in NZ? IMHO his actions fit 3rd degree best
Minnesota law and the wording will be different to NZ.
Some states had 5 degrees of "murder" apparently. They seem to have changed it a bit, so that "manslaughter" is more prevalent wording than using so many degrees of murder.I mentioned the "depraved mind" bit because I think as @Crucial says that is going to be hard to prove. Didn't know that he supposedly had issues in the past. His whole life will be brought under the spotlight due to that depraved mind stipulation though.
I now know far more about Minnesota law than I really need to.
IIRC he had previous form. But I don't know if being a sadistic bastard who likes to abuse his position to cause physical harm to people will qualify him as guilty of murder
Probably need to get away from common usage of the word murder and think in terms of the legal definition.
Even "depraved mind" isn't quite what it seems in legal terms and came up in the Noor case. He got both 3rd murder and 2nd manslaughter and was also in Minnesota. There do seem to be some issues in the police dept there.
Anyway - from the Noor appeal:
"Defense attorneys have various avenues to appeal the verdict, but immediate post-trial speculation is on that third-degree charge and the requirement of a “depraved mind,” which in legal parlance doesn’t mean what it does in common usage. It’s a fuzzy area of Minnesota law that left experienced criminal litigators puzzling after the verdicts this week.""In the analysis of Brad Colbert, a criminal law expert and professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, a key factor would be the instructions the judge gave the jury before they went back to deliberate. The finest of legal lines lies between the “depraved mind” required for a murder conviction and “culpable negligence” of a manslaughter conviction, he said."
“Can we say it’s murder to unreasonably defend yourself?” University of Minnesota criminal law professor Richard Frase asked.
A depraved mind is “more than unreasonable behavior,” he said.
Frase said Noor’s physical defense of himself would have to be “reasonable” behavior, otherwise “any time someone panics, they can kill you.”
So who really knows what it is supposed to mean?
-
@canefan said in Black Lives Matter:
evincing a depraved mind
From here.
In Minnesota, if a person dies while you are committing a crime as minor as fist fighting or drunk driving, you can be convicted of murder. There is a general presumption in the law that a person must have evil intent to be charged for a serious crime. The idea is that if a person does not intend to commit the crime, they don’t have the mental state necessary to be held responsible for a serious crime like murder. However, Minnesota disagrees.
Depraved Mind Murder
Depraved mind murder (or depraved heart murder as it is sometimes referred to) is a type of third-degree murder in Minnesota. Minnesota’s statute for depraved mind murder reads, “whoever, without intent…causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life…” is guilty of depraved mind murder. ¹ Charging a person with depraved mind murder relies on the assumption that there are reckless acts so dangerous that a person should be charged with murder if another person dies while you are engaging in them.
Examples of depraved mind murder include violently driving an automobile ², the accidental discharge of a gun during a fight³, and Mohammed Noor’s widely publicized charge of shooting a woman while on duty as a police officer.
[NB: Noor has appealed, which was rejected, and it is at their Supreme Court now or soon I think]
-
@gt12 said in Black Lives Matter:
Examples of depraved mind murder include violently driving an automobile ²
Woman who tried to commit suicide and killed someone else driving got done for 3rd degree IIRC.
@gt12 said in Black Lives Matter:
the assumption that there are reckless acts so dangerous that a person should be charged with murder if another person dies while you are engaging in them.
That wouldn't look good for Chauvin. The "so dangerous" comes into play though. Define that. His actions likely to cause injury or harm - yep, likely to cause death - possibly. In this case yes.
I used to define my employment contract as a tribute to the lawyer that wrote it. Not a single phrase was black or white (probably shouldn't use that expression here).
-
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
I used to define my employment contract as a tribute to the lawyer that wrote it. Not a single phrase was black or white (probably shouldn't use that expression here).
He was simply future proofing his profession.
I'm certain that at some law firms they sit at Friday drinks laughing at how one of them is billing hours to interpret and argue something one of the others billed hours to write in the first place.
-
@booboo said in Black Lives Matter:
@crucial I hinted at that earlier when I said he failed to assist a dying man.
Does that make him responsible for his death? Does that meet the threshold for First Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt? Or somewhere else on the spectrum of illegality?
I suspect the latter, but I'm not a legal expert, on the jury (thank goodness), or across the evidence much beyond @Siam 's summaries
That's not remotely true. Fern membership confers great wisdom in all areas.
-
Interesting summary of the Chauvin trial here (via Kiwiblog):
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/04/the-chauvin-trial-so-far.php
-
@snowy said in Black Lives Matter:
@jc Know it all's unite.
Unfortunately the motto is:
"Awful analysis, incorrect conclusions, zero insight
Wrong about pretty much everything"That is likely to include Minnesota law.
Don't turn our motto back on us!