Minnesota Prosecutors fuck it up, Chauvin probably going to get off

Author: Imabench

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#1
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Short Version: Im like 80% sure Chauvin is going to get off and be found not guilty of the main charge against him for killing Floyd

Long Version: Prosecutors in Minnesota recently decided to press charges against the 3 officers that stood by as the main incident happened. Thats fine. They also upgraded the main charge against Chauvin from 3rd Degree Murder to Second Degree Murder. THATS a problem.

1st Degree Murder is premeditated, planned, intentional murder. Imagine a wife killing her spouse after planning to do it for a long time

2nd Degree Murder is an intentional murder that does not require planning or pre-meditation. Imagine a wife killing her spouse because she walked in on him cheating. 

3rd Degree Murder in Minnesota is causing the death of another because of an inherently dangerous act. This is the one that applied to Chauvin the most. 

Of these 3, 3rd Degree murder is the easiest one to convict him on. Chauvin knelt down on Floyd's neck for a lengthy period of time which can easily be argued to be an inherently dangerous action that directly resulted in Floyd's death. If this was the charge prosecutors stuck with, there would be a 70% to 80% chance they would win a conviction, and then the issue would be how long Chauvin actually goes to jail.......... 2nd Degree Murder though, the new charge that the Minnesota Prosecutor is levying against Chauvin, requires the prosecution to prove that Chauvin intended to murder Floyd, and thats going to be fucking difficult to prove. Chauvin can easily testify that he never intended to kill Floyd, he just wanted to keep him pinned to the ground until he stopped resisting, that he did not realize the danger he was putting Floyd in by keeping his knee on him, and that if he could take it all back he would, all while getting nice and weepy for the jury that in Minnesota is probably going to be 90% white at minimum...... The odds that the prosecution will be able to successfully argue that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd is very low, I think theres now a 20% chance at best that they can pull off a conviction compared to 70/80% if they stuck with a charge of Third Degree Murder. 

Chauvin also faces a charge of Second Degree manslaughter, where a person's negligence causes death or great bodily harm to another. That charge will almost surely stick to Chauvin UNLESS he testifies that he was following officer protocol he received from his training by the Minnesota PD. Minnesota PD has claimed they do not train or permit Chauvin's tactic of restraint, so this charge has a pretty good chance of sticking.

The problem is that the MAX sentence for 2nd degree manslaughter is 10 years, TOPS.

If the 2nd Degree Murder charge fails because the prosecution cant prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, then even if the 2nd Degree Manslaughter charge is upheld, Floyd is looking at 10 years in prison at a maximum.... Chances are though that a judge may decide 8 years is good enough due to the inherently difficult line of work being a police officer is and the circumstances of the incident. Chauvin starts out in prison with 2 years of good behavior, sentence is reduced later to 5 years instead of 8 when he first started out, and then 1 more year in jail later with 2 years left on his sentence, Chauvin gets out on probation for the remaining 2 years, effectively amounting to 3 years in jail for killing Floyd.

I dont like this at all, I think the 3rd Degree Murder was a better charge more likely to lead to a guilty verdict, which combined with the Manslaughter Charge could have put Chauvin in jail for at most 35 years. Now though by going for the higher charge, prosecutors are betting hard they can prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd and risk him doing maybe 5 years in jail total. This is going to completely fuck up the protests and riots taking place in the country, it will probably reignite 1-3 months from now when the trial will have finished. 

#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
Minnesota is probably going to be 90% white at minimum

It will be 90% libtard white. Chauvin is toast.

There is no greater hatred toward white-skinned people than the indoctrinated hatred from white-skinned liberals. 

All the prosecutor needs to do is toss some catchy buzzword triggers like "systemic" and "privilege", and the jury will comply with no hesitation.
#3
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
I agree with your thoughtful analysis which begs the question....why?  why would they do this?  incompetence or alterior/ulterior motive?
Topic's author
#4
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
If I want to hear the opinion of someone I consider to be a known retard then ill go out and actually tag you in a post next time. 

Until then dont feel the need to comment on any post that required actual effort to make. 
Topic's author
#5
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It has to be gross incompetence because there isn't any sort of plausible conspiracy that itself isnt stupider then the actual move in the first place. 

Lets play conspiracy theory just to see why it wouldnt be the case: If the prosecution decided to they couldnt win the case, but wanted to try to earn goodwill from the public and feign that they tried, then why not jack up the charge to First Degree Murder? By going for Second Degree, the prosecution is shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to actually winning the case by making it more difficult to actually get a conviction, while still falling short of what the public wanted Chauvin to be charged with to begin with, so its a lose-lose situation if this is the route theyre secretly taking....... 

If the prosecution just doesnt want to win the case, again, First Degree Murder would have made it that much tougher to actually pull off a conviction. Again though, they still went for Second Degree Murder, which would be easier to tie Chauvin to compared to First Degree Murder, which defeats the entire idea that they may be self sabotaging themselves since theyre not going all the way in actually sabotaging themselves. 

if the prosecution is facing some type of blackmail or pressure to throw the case, again, First Degree Murder would have ensured they didnt win, while Second Degree Murder leaves the door a bit more open and leaves them at risk of winning the case if they were intending to lose it. 

The only way this move makes sense is if the Prosecution actually believes they have the evidence to prove that Chauvin intended to murder Floyd, and that is a belief that only someone who is grossly incompetent would hold since any idiot could figure out the way Chauvin can get out of a conviction by arguing that what he did was accidental, not on purpose. 
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
Until then dont feel the need to comment on any post that required actual effort to make. 

That fact that you would suggest a white-skinned MALE police officer, (probably straight) has an advantage with a jury composed of leftist mouth breathers shows you put zero effort into at least that part of your analysis.
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
I'm not an expert on legal proceedings, but I went and did a search of the state laws for Minnesota. Here is a link.

Here is the text for 2nd degree murder:

Minnesota law prohibits intentional and unintentional killings under most circumstances. Those killings prohibited as second-degree murder include:
  • Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before)
  • Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting
  • Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
  • Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order


I believe the 3rd point might be what they are going for. That Chauvin didn't intent to cause his death. But if he killed him while committing a felony, then it is 2nd degree murder. 
#8
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
what felony did he commit?
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Imabench
Short Version: Im like 80% sure Chauvin is going to get off and be found not guilty of the main charge against him for killing Floyd

Then the good people of the USA are in for more of the shite that is being thrown at them at this moment in time. And that will include more dead black people killed by other black people. But I am sure CNN will cover those future riots fairly and balanced just as they have the riots and murders of present.
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what felony did he commit?
i'm not certain. Like I said, i'm not a legal expert. I'm sure it could be argued that using that much force on a man who wasn't resisting was assault.

I looked a bit further and found this. They could argue he was trying to cause bodily harm, which chauvin knew could lead to death. kneeling on someone's neck for like 10 minutes could meet that threshold. It could also be considered extreme indifference to life. He was choking a man begging for air and continued doing it for several minutes after he was already dead. 

Intent to Cause Only Serious Bodily Harm
A second situation that constitutes second-degree murder is where the perpetrator intends only to cause serious bodily harm but knows that death could result from the act. For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and whacks Bill in the head with all his strength. While Adam didn't specifically intend to kill Bill when he hit him, he did intend to strike him with the shovel knowing that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adam killing Bill in this way would be classified as murder in the second degree.
Extreme Indifference to Human Life
The third main type of second-degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrator's extreme indifference to the value of human life. Generally speaking, extreme indifference means an utter disregard of the possibility that an act will kill someone.
Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that instead of hitting Bill over the head with a shovel, Adam grabs his gun and wildly fires toward a crowd of neighbors that have gathered to observe the argument between Adam and Bill. Adam didn't necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didn't give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause to people in the crowd. This demonstrates Adam's extreme indifference to human life. If one of Adam's bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed a murder in the second degree.

Topic's author
#11
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct
^ Thats the issue for why this doesnt really work...... A charge of 3rd Degree Murder would apply to death caused by anything that could be considered a dangerous act, but 2nd Degree Murder requires that act to qualify as some sort of felony. 

You can easily argue that Chauvin kneeling down on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes was a dangerous act, because it fucking is, but it is quite a stretch to argue that that qualifies as a felony, especially since what qualifies as a felony is very specific in most state and federal laws. If the trial gets moved to somewhere outside of Minneapolis like it probably will (under the guise of making things fair for Chauvin) I could easily see a jury thinking that his actions dont go that far, and thus conclude that Second Degree Murder doesnt qualify 
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
again, I don't pretend to be a legal expert so I am legitimately asking. Did you see the info I posted on Intent to Cause Only Serious Bodily Harm and Extreme Indifference to Human Life? Do you think those apply in this case?
#13
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 Intent to Cause Only Serious Bodily Harm
intent is very difficult to prove, he would say I intended to hold him down, that's all, if I used too much force that was accidental.  you get the gist of it
Extreme Indifference to Human Life?
extreme being to opperitive word,  Imabench is correct I think, I'm not a lawyer either, it's just very interesting to me to talk about legal issues.


#14
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
It's possible the prosecution has evidence we don't - something in the body cam footage or elsewhere that further supports intent to harm.

#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
intent is very difficult to prove, he would say I intended to hold him down, that's all, if I used too much force that was accidental.  you get the gist of it
i honestly don't know. I think the average person would say if you put your knee and your body weight on someone's neck, the obvious effect is that they can't breathe. He told chauvin he couldn't breathe and begged him. Chauvin ignored him and kept choking him. To me that seems like intent to injure. 


Extreme Indifference to Human Life?
extreme being to opperitive word,  Imabench is correct I think, I'm not a lawyer either, it's just very interesting to me to talk about legal issues.
I think the critical conditions here would be the guy begging chauvin and telling him he couldn't breathe. he then stopped moving entirely (because he was unconscious) and chauvin continued for several minutes until long after he was dead. That seems extreme to not watch the guy you are pinning and see that he stopped begging, stopped moving, and stopped breathing. He obviously didn't care at all about the guy's well being because he didn't even notice he was dead. 
#16
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
do you remember that guy in NYC a bunch of cops piled on for selling cigarettes, he died, but I seem to recall he said the same thing and in the investigation or court proceedings, I forget the exact details but the gist of it is, if you can talk, you are breathing, I believe that is just a biological fact, if it's true this guy was saying that as soon as they pulled him out of the car then that could be a pretty powerful defense for him, hopefully we'll find out the truth one way or another.

after he stopped moving.....ignorance of medical stuff will be a defense I think, also he will probably claim he thought the guy had finally calmed down which is plausible from other videos I've seen, eventually they stop fighting in most cases.  I personally wouldn't believe the excuses they come up with but that is part of how our legal system works, but we'll see.
as a side note, the cop remained unemotional, calm if  you will, that does not mean he didn't care, that alone can't prove that.
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The prosecution of this case is doing their best. I completely agree with them going for a sentence based on 2nd degree murder here, as that's exactly what it was. In fact, depending on many factors it even could be first degree, we don't know how far ahead this very specific encounter was planned or the history between the guys. Details are no doubt going to emerge and I am not going to hop onto any bandwagon saying that this is just systemic racism (nor that it's not). The cop who did this could indeed be a severe racist, regardless of that he's a violent individual and seems to have had a history of violence as a bouncer, based on some articles and rumours.
#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
as a side note, the cop remained unemotional, calm if  you will, that does not mean he didn't care, that alone can't prove that.
the fact that he was unemotional makes it weirder. I read somewhere that he and the victim knew each other. They both worked at the same club as security. Being that unattached as you choke the life out someone, but especially someone you know is kinda weird. 

#19
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
they worked at the same place that's true, but they don't know if they knew each other, funny part is the owner of the club said he thought this cop was tougher on the blacks than the Hispanics (place sounded pretty rough), yet the cop worked there for 17 years.  It may come out this cop has some serious mental problems, maybe some ptsd from something, lots we don't know and can only speculate about.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Castin
It's possible the prosecution has evidence we don't - something in the body cam footage or elsewhere that further supports intent to harm.

It's more than possible. It is probable.
#21
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
It's possible the prosecution has evidence we don't - something in the body cam footage or elsewhere that further supports intent to harm.

It's more than possible. It is probable.
Fine, it's possiprobable.
#22
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
do you remember that guy in NYC a bunch of cops piled on for selling cigarettes, he died, but I seem to recall he said the same thing and in the investigation or court proceedings, I forget the exact details but the gist of it is, if you can talk, you are breathing, I believe that is just a biological fact, if it's true this guy was saying that as soon as they pulled him out of the car then that could be a pretty powerful defense for him, hopefully we'll find out the truth one way or another.

after he stopped moving.....ignorance of medical stuff will be a defense I think, also he will probably claim he thought the guy had finally calmed down which is plausible from other videos I've seen, eventually they stop fighting in most cases.  I personally wouldn't believe the excuses they come up with but that is part of how our legal system works, but we'll see.
as a side note, the cop remained unemotional, calm if  you will, that does not mean he didn't care, that alone can't prove that.
Still doesn't explain why they got him into the police car but Chauvin dragged him out again.

"Your Honor, he wouldn't get in the car, so we decided to pull him out of the car and sit on him until he got in the car."    ??
#23
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
oh I don't know anything about that
so I found this video https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/video-does-not-appear-to-show-george-floyd-resisting-arrest/    there's no sound but I'm pretty sure you can read his lips and he's saying he can't breathe, you can see at the end it looks like he put himself on the ground, even them walking him over, he wasn't cooperative, notice the Hispanic cop walks quickly from the passenger side of the car to the driver's side and it looks like he is struggling with him to some extent.

a bit longer video
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Imabench

Im like 80% sure Chauvin is going to get off and be found not guilty of the main charge against him for killing Floyd
You may have a case

1998 theft with a fire arm. 10 months.
2002 cocaine offence. 8 months.
2004 another cocaine offence. 10 months.
2005 another cocaine offence. 10 months.
2007 George  (& co) went up a few gears and gravitated to Floyd and five accomplices crashing into a pregnant woman's home armed with a gun threatening to shoot the unborn baby for which he serves a paltry five years. 


  ` and just when George was getting his life together and had become and exemplary character in the community ` (CNN) , a white police officer murdered George  when  caught attempting to pass a fake bill and while high as albatross.

#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
stop typing while you're ahead. You are justifying killing someone in cold blood. What you are saying is irrelevant to what happened. 
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Exactly. It is irrelevant to this murder. Cops may have justifiable reasons for the millions of cases of police encounters yearly with blacks, but it's not a justification for murder.
#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ RationalMadman,


stop typing while you're ahead.

You'er not making sense. And it is extremely rude to respond  comments  that  are not even in response to you but made to someone else when you have me on block. Not to mention how cowardly. Why didn't you answer my questions to YOU on your OWN thread before responding to me on a thread that is not even your own?  >>>>>#38





You are justifying killing someone in cold blood.

How am I?






What you are saying is irrelevant to what happened. 

It is  relevant to the claim above . But you, -  like most things, -  you have missed it.   Here it is again just for you in bold and underlined

 OP states :

Im like 80% sure  Chauvin is going to get off and be found not guilty of the main charge against him for killing Floyd  #1  Imabench Added06.03.20 11:29PM


I have simply stated that the OP " may have a case"  & why. What's your problem?

I personally believe the OP is wrong and that he will be - rightly - found guilty very quickly and serve some serious time. Or do you not agree?


#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You are justifying killing someone in cold blood.
How am I?
You are attempting to try to blame the victim of the crime by bringing up their past. It is a common tactic for rapists. EX. "she was a slut". In this case trying to paint him as thug to make murdering him ok. 

I have simply stated that the OP " may have a case"  & why. What's your problem?
the info about george's past has absolutely nothing to do with his murder. It doesn't matter what he has done in the past. It matter what was done to him now. 

Topic's author
#29
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
 It doesn't matter what he has done in the past
To the defense attorneys it will though since that helps their case. Even if the Prosecution can convince 80% of the 12 man jury that the past doesnt matter, that still leaves 2-3 jurors that think it does matter, which can help Chauvin get off. 

There are many ways this can go wrong for the Prosecution in terms of getting a conviction, upping the charge from Murder 3 to Murder 2 may be their biggest roadblock of all, and the fact that it was self-imposed just adds to the irony of it all
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
To the defense attorneys it will though since that helps their case. Even if the Prosecution can convince 80% of the 12 man jury that the past doesnt matter, that still leaves 2-3 jurors that think it does matter, which can help Chauvin get off. 
fair enough. however it is just as despicable a defense when rapists use it as it is in this case. 

There are many ways this can go wrong for the Prosecution in terms of getting a conviction, upping the charge from Murder 3 to Murder 2 may be their biggest roadblock of all, and the fact that it was self-imposed just adds to the irony of it all
we will need to see the details of their case before we know that. they have more evidence than the public does and may have evidence which speaks to chauvin's intent.