Wednesday, April 21, 2021

"Murder" Requires Intent

As Horowitz points out, Chauvin did not commit "murder."  There was no proven intent and Chauvin is not that stupid, although he is a jerk.

Manslaugter?  Yup.

So the whole damn thing will be reversed, there will be another trial and more insults from Biden*, his junta, and other morons-in-office.  

And riots, looting, and real murders.


Anonymous said...

You don't understand the law, nor even Minnesota law.

The second-degree manslaughter charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm."

The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.

Central to all of the charges is the element of causation, or that Chauvin was a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death.

Dad29 said...

So both the second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder charges are not applicable here. We wind up with second-degree UN-intentional murder--exactly what I proposed above.

Murder requires INTENT, not merely "cause."

Thanks for your help!

Anonymous said...

In an adversarial system the most extreme statements by either side need not be accepted by jurors for them to come to a verdict. The jury was instructed by the judge that if they concluded that Chauvin’s actions had made a “substantial contribution” to Floyd’s death, then that was sufficient to find Chauvin guilty of second degree murder without intent while committing a felony.

There was evidence given by serving police officers and tested on oath in cross-examination that in regard to the treatment meted out to Floyd, Chauvin was ignoring his department’s procedure and policy as set out in course manuals and his own 40 hours of training in how to handle crisis situations; the video showed he did this over a sustained period of time. If Chauvin had used his crisis training and de-escalated (“slow things down and re-evaluate and reassess”), checked for a pulse, given CPR9 he was certified to) or expressed regret to bystanders in the aftermath, his defense would have had something to work with.

Floyd was handcuffed but not cooperating so they took him out and put him flat out on his chest–a position police are trained to avoid as much as possible, where he was held immobile with a non trivial amount of weight on him. This was not precedure at all. When Lane asked if (actually suggested that) Floyd should be turned on his side, Chauvin said “No, he’s staying put where we got him.” Not “No, he’s staying put where we got him for another minute.” It was completely open ended, and I am afraid the evidence increasing points to Chauvin having seriously malevolent intentions toward Floyd. Or maybe Chauvin wanted to make the news. Either way, he is not right in the head.

Failing to get off of the handcuffed man after being told he had no pulse went beyond mere lack of assistance. Chauvin was certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and timely action could quite possibly have saved Floyd’s life. All he had to do was be seen to try and save Floyd, but Chauvin spurned that golden opportunity.

Dad29 said...

"Quite possibly" is not sufficient. It's quite possible that an earthquake will separate California from CONUS today, too.

So what?

I'm happy to grant that Chauvin is an asshole, but your wall of words is insufficient to prove INTENT to KILL. The deceased--to all appearances--was a very healthy not-old, well-muscled male who insisted on disobeying lawful orders. The cop could not know that he ingested enough fentanyl to kill a horse. Testimony indicated that Chauvin's actions had nothing to do with the death; in fact, procedure or not, the criminal was a walking dead man.

Criminal negligence, sure. MURDER? Nope.

Anonymous said...

It's not a "wall of words", it's a legal explanation that you are too dense to understand or too obtuse to consider.