|
Post by robeiae on Apr 19, 2021 15:27:11 GMT -5
Well, Coates has a law degree and even teaches at GWU Law School--and is a former federal prosecutor--so one would think she might not be irretrievably stupid. Alas.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 19, 2021 18:40:58 GMT -5
What do you guys think the verdict will be in the Chauvin trial?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 19, 2021 18:53:35 GMT -5
I'm hoping he's convicted on at least one of the charges (my preference would be the most serious charge or even multiple charges). But, I do somewhat share the defense's concern over the fact that the jury was not sequestered and likely has had access to biased info from media and entertainment sources (yes, I know the judge instructed them not the watch the news but, come on, that's unrealistic). Maxine Waters opening her stupid mouth again isn't helping things (god, she's about a decade past needing to retire).
I hope he's convicted but I'm not sure what's gonna happen. Whatever the outcome, I just hope we don't have another Rodney King riot type of situation.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Apr 19, 2021 20:34:08 GMT -5
Maxine Waters opening her stupid mouth again isn't helping things (god, she's about a decade past needing to retire). I think he'll be found guilty, as he should be. This was egregious and indefensible. But Waters's dumbass has gift wrapped an immediate appeal for Chauvin. She is a walking, talking advertisement for both mandatory retirement AND term limits.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Apr 19, 2021 20:36:03 GMT -5
I think there will be a retrial after a manslaughter conviction
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 20, 2021 6:34:25 GMT -5
I haven't really watched or read much about the trial, to be honest. And I haven't re-watched the video or even revisited the incident. In my mind, it's just a trial about the misconduct of a police officer. In the media, it's become the biggest trial since OJ and I personally think that's ridiculous.
That said...I can't imagine that he won't be convicted of at least manslaughter. Third degree murder seems possible, but second degree seems like a serious stretch. If he gets convicted of that, there will surely be a call for it to be set aside and appeals will follow. But then, anything less than that and the city may burn.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 20, 2021 16:15:31 GMT -5
Guilty on all 3 charges: www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/derek-chauvin-trial-verdict-george-floyd-483535Good. I feel it was the right decision. Unfortunately, dipshit Maxine Waters running her stupid mouth has opened the door wide open to a potentially successful appeal (though I hope it is unsuccessful). Aside from that, I hope convictions like this start sending a message to all the sociopathic bullies masquerading as police officers out there that this shit needs to stop and they are subject to the harshes of consequences.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 20, 2021 16:34:45 GMT -5
Since I didn't really watch the proceedings, I can't fairly say the verdict is wrong, at all. I thought 2nd degree murder might be too much, but maybe some of the evidence/testimony justified it. Regardless, I am glad it wasn't a not guilty verdict. I'm certain that would have been a miscarriage of justice.
Hopefully, protests will be minimal.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 20, 2021 19:49:18 GMT -5
In my mind, it's just a trial about the misconduct of a police officer. Putting all euphemisms aside, I think the thread title itself shows why it was never going to be treated as such. In any case, I'm glad Chauvin was found guilty. To be honest, I am not even sure how anyone could believe Chauvin hadn't intended to kill. His colleague checked Floyd's pulse and told him there was no pulse, and Chauvin just kept kneeling. What else could he have been intending to accomplish at that point? * *That's a rhetorical question. I know you weren't defending Chauvin, but I have seen this sort of "accidental killing" defense of Chauvin in other places.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 20, 2021 20:06:32 GMT -5
I hope convictions like this start sending a message to all the sociopathic bullies masquerading as police officers out there that this shit needs to stop and they are subject to the harshes of consequences. Nothing wrong with hoping for that, as it would certainly be a wonderful thing. But I suspect we still have a long way to go. In fact, I just saw there was another fatal police shooting in Ohio where a 15 year old girl was killed. (Haven't had time to look through the details yet, but will soon.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 21, 2021 7:58:00 GMT -5
In any case, I'm glad Chauvin was found guilty. To be honest, I am not even sure how anyone could believe Chauvin hadn't intended to kill. His colleague checked Floyd's pulse and told him there was no pulse, and Chauvin just kept kneeling. What else could he have been intending to accomplish at that point? On this, it seems to me that if the argument is that Chauvin had intended to kill Floyd, the proper charge would be second degree murder, not third degree. Seriously, how could it not be if he had the that intent? Third degree murder is a totally different sort of charge and I don't think it makes sense that he was convicted of both. But I don't want to relitigate the case because--as I said--I didn't follow the trial and I don't know all the specifics. But I do grok the charges and what they entail/require. Here's McCarthy--a former prosecutor--at NRO, who has been following the trial, piping in: Do you think his analysis is wrong on the law? He thinks Chaivun should certainly be found guilty of manslaughter in the second degree: On murder in the second degree, he does a lot of analysis and concludes thusly: Again, not knowing every detail, but only the general facts, that's where I am, where I've been since the beginning. Convicting him on second degree murder is certainly reasonable, and I can't say it's wrong. But I don't think that convicting him only of manslaughter would have been unreasonable, at all. And I'm now pretty certain that the third degree murder charge was unreasonable and represents strong grounds for appeal. Coupled with the stupidity of pols like Waters, it's possible this may all end up as only manslaughter down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 21, 2021 12:54:26 GMT -5
On this, it seems to me that if the argument is that Chauvin had intended to kill Floyd, the proper charge would be second degree murder, not third degree. Seriously, how could it not be if he had the that intent? Third degree murder is a totally different sort of charge and I don't think it makes sense that he was convicted of both. He was convicted of second-degree murder (unintentional). However, according to Minnesota law, murder does not always require intent (which differs from some other states) and such is the case in third-degree murder. Obviously I'm no lawyer or legal expert but I think it's reasonable to conclude based on Chauvin's actions that he displayed a wanton disregard for human life, which is really all that's required for the 3rd-degree charge under MN law. I will admit, though, that I'm always confused at how prosecutors get away with multiple different charges for the same crime (and I mean this generally and not specifically to the Chauvin case). Seems odd to me, from a logical standpoint, that some charges are not subsumed under the others. I just get an uneasy feeling about whether a "throw as much spaghetti as possible against the way and see what sticks" approach is a fair representation of justice. Imagine what the world would be like if they did that for every crime to every person? Would a simple parking ticket lead to multiple charges/tickets? But, again, law isn't my area so maybe there's a perfectly good reason for this practice that I'm just not aware of. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but McCarthy isn't a MN lawyer and seems to be unaware of why the 3rd-degree was reinstated and affirmed by recent MN case law: Makes sense to me so, again while I'm not a lawyer, I'd say that McCarthy's wrong on this point. No law degree required for this conclusion. I imagine it's pretty obvious to most people with even a casual familiarity with the law. Based on the recent case law, I doubt it's very strong grounds for appeal at all (given that the case law was established by the Appellate Court in the first place). I think he has a stronger appeal claim based on the affirmation Judge Cahill gave that Waters' idiotic statements created a risk and were grounds for an appeal. But, I think Chauvin's chances of winning on appeal are slim.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 21, 2021 13:14:25 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I read the third degree murder statute, it doesn't make sense to charge Chauvin. It particularly doesn't make sense if one agrees with Michael: And that is the assumption I was responding to. If the jury found that Chauvin had intent to kill Floyd, third degree murder doesn't fit. The unintentional second degree murder charge that would apply seems to be this: The felony offense would be the manslaughter charge.
But again, if one argues that he had intent, then second degree murder--straight up--would be the correct charge.
And I'm with you, in general, on the piling on of charges. Really, I think he should have been convicted of second degree manslaughter OR second degree intentional murder. He could be tried for both, with the latter requiring that the jury find he acted with intent.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 21, 2021 19:03:38 GMT -5
McCarthy's a smart guy, but I think this bit...
is pretty questionable, at least IMHO.
The testimony at trial overwhelmingly favored the notion that Floyd died from lack of oxygen. But everyone would die from a lack of oxygen, both healthy and unhealthy.
And this part...
while in theory seems fair enough, it falls apart when looking at the totality of what happened. Because I would argue that Chauvin would need to have believed he wasn't going to seriously harm Floyd through the entire time he had his knee on his neck, not just at the beginning. And that's just very difficult to swallow, IMO, given that they checked his pulse partway through and found that he'd stopped breathing.
That said, you might be right about the third-degree murder charge. But I don't know, maybe the jury took a different view of the intent question. Certainly if Chauvin appeals, I don't think he's going to argue that the charge doesn't fit on the grounds that he intended to kill Floyd.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 21, 2021 21:27:22 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I read the third degree murder statute, it doesn't make sense to charge Chauvin. It particularly doesn't make sense if one agrees with Michael: And that is the assumption I was responding to. If the jury found that Chauvin had intent to kill Floyd, third degree murder doesn't fit. Yes, and neither would the 2nd degree unintentional charge. The 3rd degree charge does not require intent: I'm a fairly reasonable person and I don't think Chauvin had any intent to kill the guy. Hurt, maim, brutally incapacitate, "teach him a lesson," were likely all in his head at the time, but I doubt that "kill" was. I think he was just being a reckless, sociopathic bully (the kind quite prevalent in police and prison gaurds) trying to be an authoritative badass, took it way too far, and showed a callous disregard for the harm he was causing and/or could cause by his actions. In my view, it was pretty textbook "without regard for human life."
|
|