ALM V BLM

There's no intent to prove I don't think.
The literal definition state that intent must be proved. I'm not just stating opinions here, the legal definition is clear.

I completely agree that there was no justification in the 8 minutes. But that's the difference between 3rd and 2nd degree.

3rd degree only needed the prosecution to prove that Chauvin's behaviour was criminally reckless and directly led to Floyd's death.

2nd degree needs them to prove that he did it on purpose. And whether he did ot not, proving his intent is nigh on impossible. Proving that it was disgusting and negligent would be much easier, because it mitigates the defence case that Floyd was not killed by asphyxiation.
 
The literal definition state that intent must be proved. I'm not just stating opinions here, it's fact.

I completely agree that there was no justification in the 8 minutes. But that's the difference between 3rd and 2nd degree.

3rd degree only needed the prosecution to prove that Chauvin's behaviour was criminally reckless and directly led to Floyd's death.

2nd degree needs them to prove that he did it on purpose. And whether he did ot not, proving his intent is nigh on impossible. Proving that it was disgusting and negligent would be a doddle.
He would have to prove he didn't mean to kneel on his neck for 8 minutes wouldn't he? He lost track of time? His accociates didn't tell him how long he was doing it?
 
It can't be proven that he did it to kill him. That's the issue here.
Reasonable doubt. I think we'd all agree that if someone knelt on someone's neck for 8 minutes it would be because they wanted to kill them; or they were in fear of their life and wanted to subdue them; or they didn't know that by doing so, it would kill them. I can't think of another reason?
 
He would have to prove he didn't mean to kneel on his neck for 8 minutes wouldn't he? He lost track of time? His accociates didn't tell him how long he was doing it?
The burden of proof will be on the prosecution would it not? Lost track of time could be a defense. Who knows. I'm sure a half decent legal team could come up with anything. All they have to do is sew seeds of uncertainty.
 
The burden of proof will be on the prosecution would it not? Lost track of time could be a defense. Who knows. I'm sure a half decent legal team could come up with anything. All they have to do is sew seeds of uncertainty.

No I don't think so. They've got the video. It would be up to the defense to offer an explanation. But I'm not an expert, obviously.

Enough people get convicted of first degree murder without being videoed committing the actual crime, or indeed a body being found, so there must be more to it.
 
And to twist the legal loopholes even further, even if Chauvin intended to kill him by kneeling on his neck (which I still don't think can be proven) he DIDN'T kill him by kneeling on his neck.

The medical evidence and the extra footage seems to indicate that whatever caused Floyd's death was already happening before he ended up on the ground. The original claim that it was asphyxiation due to the knee seems dead in the water.

So the only way that Chauvin killed him was by not responding to his medical needs once he lost consciousness, i.e. manslaughter.
 
No I don't think so. They've got the video. It would be up to the defense to offer an explanation. But I'm not an expert, obviously.

Enough people get convicted of first degree murder without being videoed committing the actual crime, or indeed a body being found, so there must be more to it.
I'm sure you're right. My knowledge of American trials is from TV and films so obviously no expert! Who knows what each side will come up with I just don't think it's as clear cut as we would like it to be.
 
And to twist the legal loopholes even further, even if Chauvin intended to kill him by kneeling on his neck (which I still don't think can be proven) he DIDN'T kill him by kneeling on his neck.

The medical evidence and the extra footage seems to indicate that whatever caused Floyd's death was already happening before he ended up on the ground. The original claim that it was asphyxiation due to the knee seems dead in the water.

So the only way that Chauvin killed him was by not responding to his medical needs once he lost consciousness, i.e. manslaughter.
Different country obviously, but if intent is that hard to prove, how did this guy get a murder conviction :


There was no video of this incident and no one really knows exactly what happened in that hotel room.

Even Huntley's story about the girls accidentally drowning, whilst ridiculous, is at least plausible. There are literally thousands of examples of murderers being convicted denying they'd done anything wrong and the prosecution convincing a jury the intent is there.
 
And to twist the legal loopholes even further, even if Chauvin intended to kill him by kneeling on his neck (which I still don't think can be proven) he DIDN'T kill him by kneeling on his neck.

The medical evidence and the extra footage seems to indicate that whatever caused Floyd's death was already happening before he ended up on the ground. The original claim that it was asphyxiation due to the knee seems dead in the water.

So the only way that Chauvin killed him was by not responding to his medical needs once he lost consciousness, i.e. manslaughter.
Are you sure?

 
Different country obviously, but if intent is that hard to prove, how did this guy get a murder conviction :


There was no video of this incident and no one really knows exactly what happened in that hotel room.

Even Huntley's story about the girls accidentally drowning, whilst ridiculous, is at least plausible. There are literally thousands of examples of murderers being convicted denying they'd done anything wrong and the prosecution convincing a jury the intent is there.
You've just reminded me of my biggest insight into American justice: The Staircase
That was a small town trial and
he got convicted with basically zero evidence other than the whole thing was dodgy as fudge. So you're right in fact.
 
You've just reminded me of my biggest insight into American justice: The Staircase
That was a small town trial and
he got convicted with basically zero evidence other than the whole thing was dodgy as fudge. So you're right in fact.
That documentary was horrific. And a terrifying insight into the corruption in the modern American legal system.
 
That documentary was horrific. And a terrifying insight into the corruption in the modern American legal system.
We could do a whole thread on that show! I found it riveting. And I guess being a small town trial it's perhaps not comparable. I agree, it was horribly corrupt. That Duane guy, the blood splatter 'expert'. I couldn't believe what I was watching. And the defenses blood splatter expert was basically laughed out of town because he was Asian and they didn't like his accent. It was pretty shocking.
 
They can be and are already considered insignificant by the media, because they clearly undermine the case for second degree murder. The media will do nothing to highlight this fact, because they will revel in the uproar and rioting that will inevitably happen if Chauvin is aquitted.

The other simple fact is he also said he couldn't breathe BEFORE they restrained him. Which essentially confirms that his breathing difficulty was not (at least initially) caused by Chauvin's actions. Now obviously Chauvin's brutality certainly didn't help him, but it craps all over the prosecution case that he was intentially murdered.

Except it does. Which is exactly why manslaughter would have been open and shut, and 3rd degree murder would probably have also stuck.

Second degree murder doesn't always require intent. Which is why it can and is being applied here.

You need to go check this for yourself. As it's undermining your argument as you're making points based on incorrect information.

Also the bodycam footage is going to be released. I expected it would be at some point. And let's not bother getting into conjecture about rioting etc at this point.


There's also the fact that because he told them beforehand that he couldn't breathe, it strengthens the prosecution's case. You don't place someone in restraints who can't breath in a prone position and kneel on their neck. For 8 minutes. This is going to need to be justified, and it won't be in the police handbook.

I also see that Rusty has posted about the autopsy. Not sure where you've got your information from with regards to the asphyxiation claim being dead in the water. Please share that.

Wasn't that Kneeling tactic in their handbook or something? If so it's just one more thing that throws uncertainty. And that's all that's needed. Beyond reasonable doubt is going to be a stretch.

As above, no handbook on earth would advise you to kneel on someone in a prone position for 8 minutes when they say they can't breathe.

So there's no uncertainty with that. It's reckless.
 
Reckless, definitely. Murder? Well yes also. But can it be proven? I just don't think it's clear cut. Yes it should be. But the insanity of this year just leaves me expecting the worst.

That's why it's 2nd degree. There's no insanity about it.

This is the line that everyone needs to acknowledge for this case -

"Second-degree murder also encompasses “depraved heart murder,” which is a killing caused by a reckless disregard for human life."

The prosecution should be able to prove that comfortably. Why? Because a man pleading for his life was ignored for 8 minutes all whilst having a knee pushed into his neck. 3 minutes of which he was unconscious, yet the knee remained.

It's open and shut really.
 
That's why it's 2nd degree. There's no insanity about it.

This is the line that everyone needs to acknowledge for this case -

"Second-degree murder also encompasses “depraved heart murder,” which is a killing caused by a reckless disregard for human life."

The prosecution should be able to prove that comfortably. Why? Because a man pleading for his life was ignored for 8 minutes all whilst having a knee pushed into his neck. 3 minutes of which he was unconscious, yet the knee remained.

It's open and shut really.
OK. Hope you're right. Guess we'll see.
 
OK. Hope you're right. Guess we'll see.

Personally I would be very surprised if Chauvin gets off with it. The total ignorance to Floyd's condition suggests nothing but reckless disregard. And the man is now sadly dead. I'm not even sure how the defence will present anything to the contrary to deny that it's murder (in the 2nd degree).

But yes we'll see in about 8 months time!
 
Not sure there was anyone saying that there was any evidence of overt racism in the situation that had been “covered up” .

Racism doesn’t mean you have to say something racist
I'm intrigued as you still maintain this line, even with these graphic video accounts. So please do elaborate, what was racist about this terrible event?

Reasonable doubt. I think we'd all agree that if someone knelt on someone's neck for 8 minutes it would be because they wanted to kill them; or they were in fear of their life and wanted to subdue them; or they didn't know that by doing so, it would kill them. I can't think of another reason?
No, we don't. How about simply to restrain him.
 
What did he do that made that level of restraint appropriate?
 
No, we don't. How about simply to restrain him.

Unless he was trained to restrain someone until they're dead, I can't even see his lawyers trying to use that as an excuse.

Handcuffs? Guns? He was a big guy, but 3 other big armed guys would have been able to restrain him.
 
I'm intrigued as you still maintain this line, even with these graphic video accounts. So please do elaborate, what was racist about this terrible event?


No, we don't. How about simply to restrain him.

Do you really need him to elaborate? It is perfectly clear. The Police Officer was white, and the victim black. Open and shut case.
 
No, we don't. How about simply to restrain him.

You might find this interesting. His lawyers would be insane to try to use your excuse as an excuse.

Minneapolis police chief: George Floyd's death was 'MURDER'

Specifically:

Mr. George Floyd’s tragic death was not due to a lack of training — the training was there,’ Arradondo wrote. ‘Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck for over seven minutes, and for those last minutes he knew that Floyd was non-responsive.

‘This was murder — it wasn’t a lack of training. This is why I took swift action regarding the involved officers’ employment with MPD,’ he continued.

Chauvin and Tou Thao – another officer involved in the fatal arrest - both had previously taken department training to prevent suffocation in people being restrained face down years earlier, the police chief said.
 
What did he do that made that level of restraint appropriate?
That doesn't matter in the context of us all agreeing with rustybin that he did that because he wanted to kill him.
Unless he was trained to restrain someone until they're dead, I can't even see his lawyers trying to use that as an excuse.

Handcuffs? Guns? He was a big guy, but 3 other big armed guys would have been able to restrain him.
You are missing the point, it isn't a technique that is used to kill someone. You suggested that we all agree that he did that because they wanted to kill him. I'm saying no we do not all agree, not at all.

Sure it is a controversial technique, it is banned in a few cities, but it is allowed and applied in many more around the world. And yes, it is a fair question why the other officers didn't help out, got him cuffed, on his feet and out of there. Absolutely fair. But again that doesn't mean I agree with you that they didn't do that and that he used the method he did because they wanted to kill him.
 
That doesn't matter in the context of us all agreeing with rustybin that he did that because he wanted to kill him.

You are missing the point, it isn't a technique that is used to kill someone. You suggested that we all agree that he did that because they wanted to kill him. I'm saying no we do not all agree, not at all.

Sure it is a controversial technique, it is banned in a few cities, but it is allowed and applied in many more around the world. And yes, it is a fair question why the other officers didn't help out, got him cuffed, on his feet and out of there. Absolutely fair. But again that doesn't mean I agree with you that they didn't do that and that he used the method he did because they wanted to kill him.
No. You're wrong. Read my post above. He'd been specifically trained not to do it. So in fact had been trained that TO DO IT might kill someone. And he did it anyway.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom