Riots in Minneapolis

police knowingly not protecting folks is the best 2nd amendment argument persuasion wise.

 

Well ****, Coach. Why didn't I think to read the statute? What a great idea. I read the damn thing and know the legal machinations that resulted in the verdict. I used to do this stuff for a living. I know it like you know cheating at football.

 

Maybe you can explain how you interpret the statute or @OUBubba 's logic is flawed?

 

You're welcome...

 

Coach Switzer is just trying to help, man. LOL!

 

Well he hasn't really stated a logic. My issue is that the evidence doesn't support a murder finding under those statues.

 

I'll give you that on the most serious one. On the second one, I disagree, as to why I stated in the post where I was helping you out. 20+ times of "I can't breathe" followed by 3 minutes of silence before removing his knee from his neck/shoulder/person.

Intent (,malice, forethought, etc.) is not required. All that need be proven is that he committed an act that was dangerous and he was evincing a depraved mind. I'm not an attorney but the google tells me that means this: conduct demonstrating an indifference to the life of others, that is not only disregard for the safety of another but a lack of regard for the life of another."

 

Barry, I know it's tough for a Sooner, but carefully read the statute.

"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree"

Two points on this. First, the evidence you've mentioned is far more indicative of culpable negligence than it is of eminent danger and evincing a depraved mind. The act just isn't eminently dangerous. There's a reason why police are generally allowed to do it.

Second, I'm going to get into the statutory weeds a little, and it requires a degree of literacy skills rarely seen in OU fans, but try to follow.

You'll notice the word "others." It's plural. Who exactly were the "others?" There were no "others." Floyd was the only one even arguably in danger here. And you'll notice that the plural "others" is used in the context of killings made with "without intent to effect the death of any person" (singular)?

Why word the statute that way? Is it poor draftsmanship? No. Legislatures pass laws like this to fill a gap that would otherwise exist in the murder laws when people do extremely dangerous things that are truly likely to kill (like firing a gun into a crowd or dropping bricks off of bridges onto cars - unlike putting your knee on their shoulder blade, which can be done thousands of times and harm no one) but don't direct them at anyone in particular. They didn't want "I didn't even fire the gun at him" to be able to beat a murder charge.

This is why Judge Cahill (who was otherwise wildly pro-prosecution) initially left the charge out. Why care about this distinction? For starters, if you've been reading my posts over the years, I'm a textualist. Words matter, and courts' deference to the words used by legislatures is a fundamental and essential concept to the rule of law. A court that doesn't do that is tyrannical.

Here's another problem. By ignoring the language in the statute, we're basically making third degree murder redundant with manslaughter.

Consider the definition of manslaughter, as it was used in the jury charge. "Under Minnesota law, whoever, by culpable negligence, whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person, causes
the death of another is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree."

I know what you're thinking. "Negligence" just means doing something unreasonable like running a red light or rear-ending someone. That's too low of a standard for what Chauvin did. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "culpable negligence."

“Culpable negligence” is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others. Culpable negligence is more than ordinary negligence or gross negligence. It is gross negligence coupled with recklessness. “Recklessness” is a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or great bodily harm to others. The defendant, however, need not have intended to cause harm."

That sounds a lot like what you and the Minnesota courts are trying to pass off as third degree murder - basically something dangerous but not intending to kill. It might fly when angry mobs are threatening to burn cities and kill people. It doesn't fly in a state governed by the rule of law.

 

This guy represents black America? Then the heroes are are George Floyd, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.

 

To the wokerista demographic, that is irrelevant.

 

And to other reasonable people, who understand history involving felons under arrest, it is an officer who knows that such claims have falsely been made literally hundreds (if not thousands) of times AND that, given the claim that Chauvin and FentanylFloyd working together, he may ALSO have been aware of Floyd's history of claiming illness to get taken away in an ambulance rather than a squad car.

 

Ok. I see your point. Then, I can revisit 2nd degree. Does staying on top of a handcuffed individual who is groaning “I can’t breathe” for three minutes after he stops making noise and moving grow to felony assault? The jury thought so.

 

Here is my main problem. The whole issue is framed as racial. That allows the government to both cast shade at policemen as racist but also get a large portion of the people to support police authority. Instead of focusing on police brutality itself. Think of Duncan Lemp and Daniel Shaver. Two white guys killed in why more felonius ways than Floyd without any fanfare. Even Breona Taylor's and Castille's killing was way worse.

The goal is to keep white fighting black and R voting base fighting D voting base. It is the same thing the slavers of the 19th Century D party did in the South. They made it a racial thing and not a normal people versus the oppressor thing.

We will all be oppressed by them until we figure out the issue isn't white/black or D/R. It's DC power system vs America.

 

Yes, when the alternative was having their homes burned down, their families threatened, and being labeled racists (which is now a bigger career destroyer than being a child rapist), the jury thought so.

Honestly, I thought felony assault would be easier to prove, but take a look at the jury charge on that.

"There are two elements of Assault in the Third Degree:

(1) 'Assault' is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person's consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm.

(2) Defenandant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the Dfendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the Defendant intended to commit the assault and that George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault."

Obviously, Chauvin didn't have to intend to inflict substantial bodily harm, but was there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict any bodily harm or that he intentionally applied unlawful force? Let's recall. He was there to make an arrest. Not only was that his right, it was his duty. It was his job. He had to do it. This isn't like a private citizen who would have had no right to even touch Floyd, which would make this more clear cut. He also was doing a maneuver that police often use without incident or harm. It wasn't out of the ordinary.

Let's also recall two other things. First, Floyd requested to lay on the ground. That wasn't Chauvin's idea. They actually did what he asked them to do. Second, he was saying he couldn't breathe long before he was actually on the ground, when he obviously could breathe. In fact, he was acting like a crazy person the entire time - not suprising given the fact that he was high as a kite. I'm not bringing those facts up to rip on Floyd. I'm bringing them up to try to paint a picture of what Chauvin's mental state and likely intentions were. For Chauvin to know he was going to inflict bodily harm on Floyd, he would have to have known that while the "I can't breathes" of several minutes before were fake, the "I can't breathes" while on the ground were real. He also would have had to know that after the countless times that police officers had done this maneuver, it would likely cause harm this time. Do we really know that beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, how?

Again, manslaughter? Maybe. Murder? No.

 

Did they get him Arby's on the way to the police station? No. So, not treated like a white guy.

 

I don't know how much of the case that you saw but the defense had a scientific study by Canada that showed the maneuver was safe to use.

 

The prosecution provided the chief of police who said that this technique was not appropriate. Kind of trumps anything related to the technique.

 

Yet, their own police manual said it was a move that was okay. The manual even approved of neck restraints, which he didn't use.
Also, on the prosecution's side were medical experts who said having over 3 times the lethal amount of fentanyl, an enlarged heart, hypertension, 2 severe blockages going to the heart and a healthy dose of meth was no big deal. LOL! On top of that Floyd was complaining about breathing even before the physical altercation started and the witness in the car had problems waking him up. Both are signs of an overdose.

Sorry, that's way too much reasonable doubt for me.

A popular conservative reenacted the event with him being the one on the ground. The person portraying Chauvin was 40-50 heavier than Chauvin and they did the act for 9 minutes plus on the pavement. He said it was uncomfortable as hell but that he could breathe.

 

My sister has been arrested four or five times and has never gotten Arby's. She's white. Is it because she's a woman?

 

That's because the cops obviously respect your sister. Having to eat Arby's may be worse than the punishment handed down by the court.

 

Bubba story was mostly correct. It was actually Burger King, however.

 

Real disrespect is taking the arrestee to McDonald's.

 

My brother earned him some beatdowns like in the Chris Rock video.

 

Those were not beatdowns. Those were tune-ups...the attitude was in need of adjustment.

 

That may be the case, but it's a dumb anecdote and even dumber to use it as a reference point for how cops generally treat white people. How often are white arrestees actually taken for a meal?

But this kind of crap is how the issue is discussed in the media. Stupidity reigns.

 

Back when comedians were still mostly allowed to be funny . . .

 

Sooner gonna sooner.

 

Especially when you see what African-Americans have gotten away with during riots.

 

Just wait until Bubba and Husker tell you what white people got away with. It will astound you.

 

And if it doesn't astound you, they will make something else up which WILL be astounding.