US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[The Huskar Social Union]

You do realise that's not how homicide law works, right?

yes but i think there is a strong case for pronouncing him NOT GUILTY

Nah he is guilty as fuck, he did nothing to de-escalate the situation and was completely disproportionate with his use of force

[Gig em Aggies]

yes but i think there is a strong case for pronouncing him NOT GUILTY

It's at minimum 3rd degree murder. He's definitely guilty of murder. Or are you telling me the cop didn't do anything to hasten the demise of George Floyd.

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

[Vassenor]

It's at minimum 3rd degree murder. He's definitely guilty of murder. Or are you telling me the cop didn't do anything to hasten the demise of George Floyd.

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

So how does choking someone lack intent to kill?

[Gig em Aggies]

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

So how does choking someone lack intent to kill?

The decision to charge Chauvin with third-degree murder, and not a more serious crime, likely stems from the fact that it would be difficult for prosecutors to prove that Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd.

In the criminal law, a great deal often hinges upon a criminal defendant’s state of mind. Someone who meticulously plots to kill their spouse, and someone whose careless driving causes a fatal accident, have both committed homicides. But the law treats someone who acts with murderous intent far more seriously than someone who is merely negligent or reckless.

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.”

In Minnesota, the maximum sentence for someone convicted of third-degree murder is 25 years, plus a fine of up to $40,000.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/th ... r-BB14TeDv

[Loben III]

So how does choking someone lack intent to kill?

The decision to charge Chauvin with third-degree murder, and not a more serious crime, likely stems from the fact that it would be difficult for prosecutors to prove that Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd.

In the criminal law, a great deal often hinges upon a criminal defendant’s state of mind. Someone who meticulously plots to kill their spouse, and someone whose careless driving causes a fatal accident, have both committed homicides. But the law treats someone who acts with murderous intent far more seriously than someone who is merely negligent or reckless.

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.”

In Minnesota, the maximum sentence for someone convicted of third-degree murder is 25 years, plus a fine of up to $40,000.

and what is he charged with?

[Telconi]

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

So how does choking someone lack intent to kill?

How does it necessarily include it?

[Kowani]

You do realise that's not how homicide law works, right?

yes but i think there is a strong case for pronouncing him NOT GUILTY

The DA would’ve had access to the video already, so this is legally immaterial.

[Andsed]

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

So how does choking someone lack intent to kill?

The simple fact we don´t know his intent. It could have just as easily been simple recklessness and negligence. With what we know about the case trying to prove intent to kill is difficult, proving recklessness and negligence is far easier and more feasible from a legal standpoint.

[Gig em Aggies]

and what is he charged with?

he's charged with both 3rd degree murder and Manslaughter, like mentioned here 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.” but in reality it all depends on if they have a bench or jury trial and if the prosecutor(s) can convince the jury or judge to find guilty on the first charge.

[Loben III]

and what is he charged with?

he's charged with both 3rd degree murder and Manslaughter, like mentioned here 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.” but in reality it all depends on if they have a bench or jury trial and if the prosecutor(s) can convince the jury or judge to find guilty on the first charge.

will depend on a number of factors.

[Fahran]

The simple fact we don´t know his intent. It could have just as easily been simple recklessness and negligence. With what we know about the case trying to prove intent to kill is difficult, proving recklessness and negligence is far easier and more feasible from a legal standpoint.

^ This. They picked the right charge against Chauvin and are much more likely to get a conviction as a result. It's probably a good thing that the process wasn't rushed because it's likely that he would have walked on a first-degree or second-degree murder charge.

[Telconi]

The simple fact we don´t know his intent. It could have just as easily been simple recklessness and negligence. With what we know about the case trying to prove intent to kill is difficult, proving recklessness and negligence is far easier and more feasible from a legal standpoint.

^ This. They picked the right charge against Chauvin and are much more likely to get a conviction as a result. It's probably a good thing that the process wasn't rushed because it's likely that he would have walked on a first-degree or second-degree murder charge.

1st degree would absolutely be a walk. It's be hard enough to prove murderous intent, but trying to prove he premeditated the death of George Floyd before ever encountering him is absurd.

[Nejii]

^ This. They picked the right charge against Chauvin and are much more likely to get a conviction as a result. It's probably a good thing that the process wasn't rushed because it's likely that he would have walked on a first-degree or second-degree murder charge.

1st degree would absolutely be a walk. It's be hard enough to prove murderous intent, but trying to prove he premeditated the death of George Floyd before ever encountering him is absurd.

The extreme leftist response to that is that Chauvin saw Floyd as a black male and decided to kill him on sight. Then again that’s the response to every single incident involving a Caucasian officer and an African American civilian. That whole “no absolutes” attitude from the left goes down the drain instantly in that scenario.

[Vassenor]

1st degree would absolutely be a walk. It's be hard enough to prove murderous intent, but trying to prove he premeditated the death of George Floyd before ever encountering him is absurd.

The extreme leftist response to that is that Chauvin saw Floyd as a black male and decided to kill him on sight. Then again that’s the response to every single incident involving a Caucasian officer and an African American civilian. That whole “no absolutes” attitude from the left goes down the drain instantly in that scenario.

You're getting straw on the carpet.

[Fartsniffage]

1st degree would absolutely be a walk. It's be hard enough to prove murderous intent, but trying to prove he premeditated the death of George Floyd before ever encountering him is absurd.

The extreme leftist response to that is that Chauvin saw Floyd as a black male and decided to kill him on sight. Then again that’s the response to every single incident involving a Caucasian officer and an African American civilian. That whole “no absolutes” attitude from the left goes down the drain instantly in that scenario.

Didn't they work at the same bar prior to the murder?

[Riverpost]

The extreme leftist response to that is that Chauvin saw Floyd as a black male and decided to kill him on sight. Then again that’s the response to every single incident involving a Caucasian officer and an African American civilian. That whole “no absolutes” attitude from the left goes down the drain instantly in that scenario.

Didn't they work at the same bar prior to the murder?

Seems like they didn't.

[Vassenor]

Didn't they work at the same bar prior to the murder?

Seems like they didn't.

That just says that one person who described an altercation between the two now believes he was mistaken, not that they didn't work in the same place.

[Des-Bal]

You're getting straw on the carpet.

No, absolutely not. That's why there are a billion "X while black threads" disregarding context. People love attributing police killings to homicidal racists without any reason to do so.

Didn't they work at the same bar prior to the murder?

A brick is not a wall but when you're going for potatoes that small I'm not even sure it would survive a 401.

[Fartsniffage]

A brick is not a wall but when you're going for potatoes that small I'm not even sure it would survive a 401.

Eh?

[Des-Bal]

Eh?

I forgot where I was.

Even small pieces of evidence are traditionally allowed to build to a larger element. However, at a certain point evidence fails to make a fact in controversy more or less likely and is deemed irrelevant and cannot even be brought up at trial.

You are absolutely not going to prove premeditation based on the fact that people worked at the same business even if you can also prove they know each other.

[Nejii]

The extreme leftist response to that is that Chauvin saw Floyd as a black male and decided to kill him on sight. Then again that’s the response to every single incident involving a Caucasian officer and an African American civilian. That whole “no absolutes” attitude from the left goes down the drain instantly in that scenario.

You're getting straw on the carpet.

Not exactly. I’m just stating a fact. That’s the go-to response from the far left as well as the predatory American and European media channels. Every incident relatable to this George Floyd tragedy is immediately labeled as a hate crime fueled from racism and “white supremacy agenda”. Immediate assumption every time.

Let me clarify; a favorite point that comes to mind of far leftists is when right wingers attack Islam and label “all Muslims terrorists” (which is wrong) and they (the far left and the media) say “Do not judge all Muslims by the actions of misguided zealouts.” Yet this same element labels all police as oppressive thugs and near nazis. Hence their whole “no generalizations” philosophy becomes null.

Circling back to my original statement; I was simply quipping a common hypocrisy of the far left. I wasn’t attacking any strawmen. Even if I were, my statement is true and relatable here. Now relax, drink your starbucks, light your incense, and let us continue.

[Fartsniffage]

Eh?

I forgot where I was.

Even small pieces of evidence are traditionally allowed to build to a larger element. However, at a certain point evidence fails to make a fact in controversy more or less likely and is deemed irrelevant and cannot even be brought up at trial.

You are absolutely not going to prove premeditation based on the fact that people worked at the same business even if you can also prove they know each other.

Oh, of course not. I was just arguing against the point that it was the first time the cop had encountered the dead guy.

[Vassenor]

You're getting straw on the carpet.

Not exactly. I’m just stating a fact. That’s the go-to response from the far left as well as the predatory American and European media channels. Every incident relatable to this George Floyd tragedy is immediately labeled as a hate crime fueled from racism and “white supremacy agenda”. Immediate assumption every time.

Let me clarify; a favorite point that comes to mind of far leftists is when right wingers attack Islam and label “all Muslims terrorists” (which is wrong) and they (the far left and the media) say “Do not judge all Muslims by the actions of misguided zealouts.” Yet this same element labels all police as oppressive thugs and near nazis. Hence their whole “no generalizations” philosophy becomes null.

Circling back to my original statement; I was simply quipping a common hypocrisy of the far left. I wasn’t attacking any strawmen. Even if I were, my statement is true and relatable here. Now relax, drink your starbucks, light your incense, and let us continue.

Such a go-to response that I've never actually seen it.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

It's at minimum 3rd degree murder. He's definitely guilty of murder. Or are you telling me the cop didn't do anything to hasten the demise of George Floyd.

not really maybe in the court of Public opinion but as said from this msn article "Only about 100 officers have faced such charges for their on-duty conduct since 2005, and only 35 of those were convicted as of 2019. None of the officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death were convicted". if anything he might be hit with involuntary manslaughter instead.

Just because the court miscarries justice doesn't mean a cop isn't guilty.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You're getting straw on the carpet.

Not exactly. I’m just stating a fact. That’s the go-to response from the far left as well as the predatory American and European media channels. Every incident relatable to this George Floyd tragedy is immediately labeled as a hate crime fueled from racism and “white supremacy agenda”. Immediate assumption every time.

Let me clarify; a favorite point that comes to mind of far leftists is when right wingers attack Islam and label “all Muslims terrorists” (which is wrong) and they (the far left and the media) say “Do not judge all Muslims by the actions of misguided zealouts.” Yet this same element labels all police as oppressive thugs and near nazis. Hence their whole “no generalizations” philosophy becomes null.

Circling back to my original statement; I was simply quipping a common hypocrisy of the far left. I wasn’t attacking any strawmen. Even if I were, my statement is true and relatable here. Now relax, drink your starbucks, light your incense, and let us continue.

Islam isn't an organization. The MPD is and it has a long history of violence.