Ferguson, MO

[Spartanmack]

Like if I punch someone, I shouldn't be convicted of criminal battery because it's impossible to say for sure if I punched them or they ran into my fist.

If you punched someone, there better be video because there almost certainly will be no physical evidence of harm - unless you sprained your chubby wrist.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Like if I punch someone, I shouldn't be convicted of criminal battery because it's impossible to say for sure if I punched them or they ran into my fist.

Before a fist can touch a face, the distance between them has to be reduced by half. Then half again, then half again and so on to infinity. An infinite number of distances must be traveled before they can touch, so really, can a punch ever be said to land?

Matter is mostly empty space anyway. What probabilistic overlapping on electron clouds counts as contact? Seems like room for reasonable doubt.

 

[Michchamp]

harmful doesn't mean it caused his death and is murder - they're not the same and again, there's no physical evidence of harm according to the ME report. And possibly or even probably aren't proof beyond the shadow of a doubt but maybe you were absent the day they taught law in law school.

"The bullets my client fired into the victim harmed him, but it's not the same as killing him, which happened for unrelated reasons. and because of unrelated reasons, that's not meeting the shadow of proof-y."

 

[Spartanmack]

"The bullets my client fired into the victim harmed him, but it's not the same as killing him, which happened for unrelated reasons. and because of unrelated reasons, that's not meeting the shadow of proof-y."

yeah, we already covered that weak analogy. Keep trying though.

Edit: also, as has been said many times, there's no physical evidence what he did harmed Floyd.

 

[Gulo Blue]

yeah, we already covered that weak analogy. Keep trying though.

Disagreeing with something isn't covering it. What you disagree with wasn't the point of the analogy to begin with.

 

[Spartanmack]

Disagreeing with something isn't covering it. What you disagree with wasn't the point of the analogy to begin with.

maybe disagreeing isn't covering it but explaining why it's a bad analogy is, which is what was done.

 

[Gulo Blue]

maybe disagreeing isn't covering it but explaining why it's a bad analogy is, which is what was done.

No , it wasn't.

 

[Spartanmack]

No , it wasn't.

it was, twice. cool pic.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it was, twice. cool pic.

It wasn't. If the point of the analogy is not to establish intent, which it wasn't, then the fact that intent is different doesn't make it a weak analogy.

 

[Michchamp]

I think he's trying to argue that Chauvin intended to harm him, which was bad, but didn't actually harm him. No?

Chauvin has been charged with both second degree and third degree murder (link):

a Hennepin County judge reinstated a count of third-degree murder on Thursday.

Chauvin already faced charges of second-degree unintentional murder and second-degree manslaughter. He has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.​

This is the def of third degree murder in MN, which I presume has a lower burden to convict than 2nd degree charges (link):

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) 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 and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.​

part (b) is not relevant to Chauvin's case.

so the prosecution has to prove Chauvin committed an "eminently dangerous act" & that he was of a depraved mind, without regard for human life, beyond a reasonable doubt, (which is not beyond ALL doubt, and usually quantified as around a 90% standard).

I think kneeling on someone's neck until they pass out is eminently dangerous, no?

"Without regard for human life"... also seems apt here, since he kneeled on him til he passed out (and died) while he was begging for mercy and a crowd of people were screaming for him to stop. He also had his gun out almost immediately. Not sure what passed this standard in prior cases in MN. That's more research than just duck-duck-go.

 

[Michchamp]

intent is not an issue; Chauvin's lawyers either need to claim kneeling on Floyd's neck was not eminently dangerous (everyone knows people have to breath though...) OR his actions weren't evidence of a depraved mind without regard to human life.

I think the latter is his better chance, but don't agree he should get away with either. I think he's way out of line, and typical of how we enable cops to exceed their authority.

The rationale seems to be that it's better Americans die needlessly than a cop have his authority challenged, and lose the challenge.

 

[Spartanmack]

It wasn't. If the point of the analogy is not to establish intent, which it wasn't, then the fact that intent is different doesn't make it a weak analogy.

intent was only part of it, cause was also discussed. Whether you meant to establish intent or not isn't really relevant - your oversight causing you to miss why your analogy is obviously bad is on you. But again, that's just one reason it's a weak analogy.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think he's trying to argue that Chauvin intended to harm him, which was bad, but didn't actually harm him. No?

as usual, you're wrong.

 

[Gulo Blue]

intent was only part of it, cause was also discussed. Whether you meant to establish intent or not isn't really relevant - your oversight causing you to miss why your analogy is obviously bad is on you. But again, that's just one reason it's a weak analogy.

I need better discipline to not respond to the garbage that led to this garbage. Brings the board down.

 

[Spartanmack]

I need better discipline to not respond to the garbage that led to this garbage. Brings the board down.

you should focus your efforts toward better self discipline on not making bad analogies and then trying to defend them by saying you have to ignore all the reasons that make them bad analogies and if you do that, they're good analogies.

 

[Michchamp]

you should focus your efforts toward better self discipline on not making bad analogies and then trying to defend them by saying you have to ignore all the reasons that make them bad analogies and if you do that, they're good analogies.

there has to be a word in German for this

 

[Michchamp]

Summary of some parts of the trial (though the point of the article is that youtube and twitter appear to be burying most of the testimony that is most damaging to the defense here!!!! Maybe this belongs under the internet censorship thread?):

What I saw in the mere five minutes that Court TV excepted, at about 3 AM, was a discussion with several policemen of new evidence introduced on Wednesday, police body cam footage. The three cops all agreed, two more strongly than the third, that the approach and arrest of Floyd, as shown on the body cams, was botched. It?s not clear if they had a reasonable basis for arresting him based just on one suspect $20. They treated him as a physical threat when the audio sure didn?t suggest that, and what you could infer from the video was way less than dispositive. All the former policemen agreed Chavin escalated way too quickly. And his and his partner?s priority should have been to search the car for more bills?which never happened.​

I thought that too. He had his gun out immediately; Chauvin was looking to draw blood that day, not book someone for passing a counterfeit $20

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pIE-pBIzhS8&feature=emb_title

 

[Gulo Blue]

I had the trial on for a bit, but only absorbed bits and pieces. Finally saw a lot of the 9 minutes in question.

Do I have it right that the store owner was sending an employee out into the street to confront these guys about their counterfeit money? That would be pretty messed up too.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And kneeling on a person for 3 minutes after he quits moving and bystanders are yelling 'take his pulse' and your corkers say we should roll him on his side is an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, which is 3rd degree murder.

 

[Michchamp]

And kneeling on a person for 3 minutes after he quits moving and bystanders are yelling 'take his pulse' and your corkers say we should roll him on his side is an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, which is 3rd degree murder.

You're only allowed to have an opinion on this if you are a state's attorney, licensed to practice in Minnesota, you have voted Republican all your life, donate $$$ to police causes, and have a brother AND a father who are cops.