Nope. Just think there is a chance that 1 juror might believe there was no intent(which will be hard to prove IMO) and he might walk unless Minn is a lesser charge state.
If he walks the current riots will look like child's play.
GYERO ARCHIVE
- Thread starter anthonys735
- Start date
- Status
If he walks the current riots will look like child's play.
Nail on the head here. The prosecution better make damn sure they can 100% prove the case against the statutory elements of the offense. An acquittal would make several cities look like nuclear war zones.
I'm not really sure what else you need to show his intent to kill him. 10 minute video of the life slowly draining out the guy. Never removes his knee. Ignores all warnings and pleas that he can't breathe and that he's killing him. Guy is lying completely still for minutes and he still has his knee to his neck. Hell he checked his pulse and then kept his knee on his neck.
What else is required here? A signed affidavit from him stating he intended to kill him? Maybe as he was killing him he should have stated in slow, loud, clear words "I intend to kill this man and am doing so now."
What else is required here? A signed affidavit from him stating he intended to kill him? Maybe as he was killing him he should have stated in slow, loud, clear words "I intend to kill this man and am doing so now."
What's the argument? I'm honestly curious. Just having fentanyl and alcohol in your system obviously isn't enough when both autopsies stated the cause of death as homicide.
There is video from when they cuffed him to when they walked him over to the car, then 10 minutes of his knee on his neck. I haven't seen video of why he was on the ground rather than in the back of the car, so that would be interesting to see; but, even if he resisted and they had to put him on the ground and secure him, that's still not a defense to keeping his knee on his neck for an additional 10 minutes. Once he's secured put his *** in the car.
What that cop did is absolutely indefensible from any rational perspective.
Do you think Chauvin really intended to kill him, knowing he was being filmed? I think it's a wanton-type murder all day long, but I would not want to be in a position of arguing premeditation.
Thanks Brady James Miller. Term was wrong, but I can load and fire just fine. Is load and fire the right terms ?
Yes I think he intended to kill him. Was it a rational way to behave? Absolutely not. But inferring his stupidity is going to be a weak *** defense, IMO. He looked a hell of a lot more like a guy that felt he can do whatever the F he wanted rather than a guy that was too stupid to know what he was doing.
From a reasonable person's standard, I believe one would absolutely consider putting your knee on someone's neck until they slowly died over a period of minutes as a clear intent to kill. What else could he have reasonably believed he was doing? Singing him a lullaby and putting him down for a nap?
From a reasonable person's standard, I believe one would absolutely consider putting your knee on someone's neck until they slowly died over a period of minutes as a clear intent to kill. What else could he have reasonably believed he was doing? Singing him a lullaby and putting him down for a nap?
My guess is that POS is so practiced in that kneeling choke move, that he thought he had it “dialed-in” to make a detainee slowly pass out around 7 minutes. But, the POS didn’t know that Floyd wasn’t just drunk, but also had fentanyl in his system which kills people by itself anyway.
Since they worked together as bouncers for 17 years, does that help the case for premeditation (or whatever)?
Since they worked together as bouncers for 17 years, does that help the case for premeditation (or whatever)?
That's a lay-up.* Why upgrade where the chances of a miss go up? Either way it is a death sentence once he steps foot in a prison.
*Unless you are Trashton.
Last edited:
The defense will be introducing evidence of "neck restraint" as having been taught in some circles as a permissible way to subdue a suspect. Once that's in, proving intent is going to be damn near impossible. It's like shooting into a crowd of people you don't know. You don't have intent to kill any particular person and may shoot around the knees thinking and hoping that no one will be killed, but that act is so wanton it still amounts to a wanton-type murder.
Yeah, some of that, and also quite a bit of people showing support and solidarity toward a group of folks in pain- many of whom are friends, family, etc. That’s been my personal experience, anyway.
Took a break from the world for a day, highly recommend it.
Fun little fishing trip to the lake with Harris and Huber. Got in a nice evening cruise, saw a bald eagle, crushed some monster cowboy ribeyes (which were perfectly cooked), had a little brown water and cigars and caught up.
5am came quick, but we caught striper and some nice smallies. Oil is heating up now.
WWDT.
Fun little fishing trip to the lake with Harris and Huber. Got in a nice evening cruise, saw a bald eagle, crushed some monster cowboy ribeyes (which were perfectly cooked), had a little brown water and cigars and caught up.
5am came quick, but we caught striper and some nice smallies. Oil is heating up now.
WWDT.
Didn’t Chauvin and Floyd work security at the same club? Maybe they had beef and Chauvin was getting back at him when the opportunity presented itself.
I would agree they could get that argument to fly if there was no video and no witnesses.
I think they negate the training argument by showing that (a) Floyd was lying motionless for minutes while he kept his knee on his neck, (b) several people were yelling at him that he was killing Floyd, and (c) he himself was looking down at his limp body, and that continuing far beyond the point of subduing him for arrest shows an intent to kill him. I don't think propping him up as a moron that didn't understand his training or arguing that no rational person would've killed him on purpose in front of cameras holds a lot of water. The guy apparently has a pretty long history of being a dick bag, which isn't going to help him.
Look, I fully respect your opinion (not Chief's, to be clear), and I understand it's a higher risk than 3rd, but I think you're sending a **** sandwich of a message if you go for a layup here and don't come out guns blazing. Higher risk, yes. But I don't think a 3rd degree charge is enough given the evidence.
Seeing that sometimes depraved indifference(which is what this is) = intent. Maybe they get him on that.
Possible reasoning behind the upgrade??:
Certainly, Chauvin’s actions were dangerous to Floyd and showed a disregard for his life. But that’s actually the problem here—Chauvin’s actions were specifically directed at a particular person. And according to the Minnesota Supreme Court, that’s not “depraved mind murder.”
As the state’s highest court stated in State v. Barnes(2006), unlike other forms of murder, “[d]epraved mind murder … cannot occur where the defendant’s actions were focused on a specific person.”
This is based on an earlier holding in State v. Wahlberg (1980), where the court explained that the statute for third-degree murder “was intended to cover cases where the reckless or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons; the act must be committed without a special design upon the particular person or persons with whose murder the accused is charged.”
In fact, in Wahlberg, the court held that a jury instruction on third-degree murder was inappropriate where the evidence suggested “that all of the [accused’s] blows were directed toward the victim.”
In other words, third-degree murder is for acts such as drunk driving that causes the death of another motorist. The person did not direct his wantonly dangerous acts toward a particular motorist, but his or her acts were nonetheless without regard to the lives of other motorists generally.
This is what makes the charge of third-degree murder so inexplicable in Chauvin’s case. The video evidence clearly shows that Chauvin directed all of his dangerous actions toward a particular person—Floyd. His indifference was not with regard to human life generally, but to the life of Floyd specifically.
It’s very concerning that the most serious charge against Chauvin is one that seems clearly incapable of surviving judicial review.
Possible reasoning behind the upgrade??:
Certainly, Chauvin’s actions were dangerous to Floyd and showed a disregard for his life. But that’s actually the problem here—Chauvin’s actions were specifically directed at a particular person. And according to the Minnesota Supreme Court, that’s not “depraved mind murder.”
As the state’s highest court stated in State v. Barnes(2006), unlike other forms of murder, “[d]epraved mind murder … cannot occur where the defendant’s actions were focused on a specific person.”
This is based on an earlier holding in State v. Wahlberg (1980), where the court explained that the statute for third-degree murder “was intended to cover cases where the reckless or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons; the act must be committed without a special design upon the particular person or persons with whose murder the accused is charged.”
In fact, in Wahlberg, the court held that a jury instruction on third-degree murder was inappropriate where the evidence suggested “that all of the [accused’s] blows were directed toward the victim.”
In other words, third-degree murder is for acts such as drunk driving that causes the death of another motorist. The person did not direct his wantonly dangerous acts toward a particular motorist, but his or her acts were nonetheless without regard to the lives of other motorists generally.
This is what makes the charge of third-degree murder so inexplicable in Chauvin’s case. The video evidence clearly shows that Chauvin directed all of his dangerous actions toward a particular person—Floyd. His indifference was not with regard to human life generally, but to the life of Floyd specifically.
It’s very concerning that the most serious charge against Chauvin is one that seems clearly incapable of surviving judicial review.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Every piece of evidence suggests the cop was being a scum bag for little to no reason.
However, I've seen it written that given the drugs and alcohol in his system, he could have been acting very irrationally and had to continue to be held down. It seems to me once a guy is cuffed that shouldn't be a problem.
Their PM is fantastic. We need someone like that here.
Honestly the best move is to pull a Jeffrey Epstein. Leave a letter that he's sorry and just kill him and avoid the spectacle and baggage a trial will entail
Charge him with the easiest charge to win in court. Then put him in general population.
Fentanyl also decreases respiratory function so double whammy.
If the initial reports about the medical examiner results are to be believed (that Floyd died from a heart attack with there being multiple complicating factors including hard drugs and police brutality), proving causation may have as many problems as proving intent, as stupid as that sounds.
The consequences of overcharging and Chauvin getting an acquittal will be about as huge as any case ever. That's an absolute ***** for a prosecutor. Usually Chauvin would have access to high quality defense lawyers through whatever benefits the police union provides. Not sure if him being fired before being charged was a step towards preventing that.
What looks like a braindead simple case from the outside is probably a whole lot harder when it gets down to details.
The consequences of overcharging and Chauvin getting an acquittal will be about as huge as any case ever. That's an absolute ***** for a prosecutor. Usually Chauvin would have access to high quality defense lawyers through whatever benefits the police union provides. Not sure if him being fired before being charged was a step towards preventing that.
What looks like a braindead simple case from the outside is probably a whole lot harder when it gets down to details.
I don't live in a big city, I don't see anything like Mr. Floyd's arrest.
I would like to believe, had I been there videoing for several minutes, hearing his pleas for mercy, I might put my phone in my pocket and intervene. Physically, if necessary. Get my *** whooped, highly likely. Arrested, certainly. I hope and pray I wouldn't stand there and watch that. Awful.
I would like to believe, had I been there videoing for several minutes, hearing his pleas for mercy, I might put my phone in my pocket and intervene. Physically, if necessary. Get my *** whooped, highly likely. Arrested, certainly. I hope and pray I wouldn't stand there and watch that. Awful.
I’m old enough to remember OJ beating an even more slam dunk case.
Dude gets off, America burns for the umpteenth time, THIS IS DONALD TRUMPS AMERICA.
Probably what will happen.
Probably what will happen.
Chief browsing lawyer boards, dropping tort knowledge, citing past cases and evidentiary ruling...
...I mean, he’s basically Will Hunting holding a mop and solving Professor Lambeau’s impossible equation at this point.
...I mean, he’s basically Will Hunting holding a mop and solving Professor Lambeau’s impossible equation at this point.
Well.....in the summer of 99 it was either law school or NYC. I chose NYC.
Autopsy report - possible nuclear wasteland coming:
It’s glaringly obvious that you made the wrong choice then, not sure how that helps your argument.
This may be the one covid-19 patient that wont have that listed as his cause of death
Didn't realize it was an argument.
Is it glaringly obvious? You really don't know the first thing about me other than what you read on here. Suffice it to say that I've lived in 6 states other than KY(TX, NY, NJ, CA, GA, TN) and have many experiences and friends that I will cherish forever. Something you will never be able to say.
As far as I know you've never been out of the state.
And there is always time for law school. Just a matter if I want to dedicate 3+ years to it.
- Status