Police Brutality (fka Derek Chauvin convicted of murder thread)

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:They just need one right-wing moron on the jury for an acquittal. The prosecution evidence has been overwhelming though and anyone with a brain in their skull would vote guilty on all charges.

Did they not say they'd take a majority decision on this case.

nope - unanimous required.

And that's why he's getting off.

You'd think they'd have an 75-80% threshold or something.

Prototype wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:They just need one right-wing moron on the jury for an acquittal. The prosecution evidence has been overwhelming though and anyone with a brain in their skull would vote guilty on all charges.

Did they not say they'd take a majority decision on this case.

nope - unanimous required.

And that's why he's getting off.

You'd think they'd have an 75-80% threshold or something.

Part of me thinks that for something as serious as murder, unanimous is fair. But the chance of just one dickhead letting a murderer go free is insane.

75% would be a fair enough compromise.

England and Wales courts require 10-2 minimum don't they? That sounds okay to me.

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:They just need one right-wing moron on the jury for an acquittal. The prosecution evidence has been overwhelming though and anyone with a brain in their skull would vote guilty on all charges.

Did they not say they'd take a majority decision on this case.

nope - unanimous required.

And that's why he's getting off.

You'd think they'd have an 75-80% threshold or something.

Part of me thinks that for something as serious as murder, unanimous is fair. But the chance of just one dickhead letting a murderer go free is insane.

75% would be a fair enough compromise.

I'm not completely au fait with the legal system over there, but if they haven't reached a unanimous decsion, do they not get sent away to reach one? I.e if 11 jurors consider him guilty and 1 doesn't, they go back until they reach it?

Though yeah, one person saying innocent and being dead set on it would result in a mistrial I think.

Prototype wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:They just need one right-wing moron on the jury for an acquittal. The prosecution evidence has been overwhelming though and anyone with a brain in their skull would vote guilty on all charges.

Did they not say they'd take a majority decision on this case.

nope - unanimous required.

And that's why he's getting off.

You'd think they'd have an 75-80% threshold or something.

Part of me thinks that for something as serious as murder, unanimous is fair. But the chance of just one dickhead letting a murderer go free is insane.

75% would be a fair enough compromise.

I'm not completely au fait with the legal system over there, but if they haven't reached a unanimous decsion, do they not get sent away to reach one? I.e if 11 jurors consider him guilty and 1 doesn't, they go back until they reach it?

Though yeah, one person saying innocent and being dead set on it would result in a mistrial I think.

I still remember on the old GR when I made a joke about Gandalf being the Juror #10 of GamesRadar. He absolutely erupted at me.

I've been looking at the State sentancing guidelines and for each charge:

Second degree unintentional murder = 10-15 years. (As someone with a degree in law, I do not remotely understand the concept of "unintentional murder")

Third degree murder = 10-15 years

Second degree manslaughter = 3-6 years and I genuinely think this is where they will land even though it is my personal opinion that he knew what he was doing could potentially kill the man.

Prototype wrote::lol:

I've been looking at the State sentancing guidelines and for each charge:

Second degree unintentional murder = 10-15 years. (As someone with a degree in law, I do not remotely understand the concept of "unintentional murder")

Third degree murder = 10-15 years

Second degree manslaughter = 3-6 years and I genuinely think this is where they will land even though it is my personal opinion that he knew what he was doing could potentially kill the man.

It just means he didn't go out looking to kill, he just decided to in the moment.

Yeah I get that, but there’s nothing unintentional about that.

Murder is murder. In Scotland you establish the intention to kill someone and combine that with establishing that their actions resulted in the death of that same person.

If he decided to just do it in the moment, it may not be pre-meditated with any length of time, but he still decided to kill and for me that’s intentional.

Prototype wrote:Yeah I get that, but there’s nothing unintentional about that.

Murder is murder. In Scotland you establish the intention to kill someone and combine that with establishing that their actions resulted in the death of that same person.

If he decided to just do it in the moment, it may not be pre-meditated with any length of time, but he still decided to kill and for me that’s intentional.

See I don't think they established that he intended to kill. I guess that's why they have gone for second degree murder, to prove he intended to kill in this case is an extremely difficult threshold to prove. For me, that charge seems appropriate and I think they have done a good job of demonstrating that.

I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

I'm also concerned a lot of the politicians speaking out have just sewn the seeds for an appeal.

captain red dog wrote:I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

If an autopsy is not enough to prove that, then there is no evidence that would convince anyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... f-america/

I think a police officer is trained sufficiently enough to realise that kneeling on someone's neck for 8-9 minutes would result in death. For me, that's clear intention to end someone's life.

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

If an autopsy is not enough to prove that, then there is no evidence that would convince anyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... f-america/

Yes, but what I'm saying is I don't think the prosecution did a sufficient job of getting that across. They should really have pushed the forensics more. But then I'm not convinced the prosecution is independent enough to really push for conviction. But let's see, the jury may see it differently and they tailor their case to the jury.

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

If an autopsy is not enough to prove that, then there is no evidence that would convince anyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... f-america/

Yes, but what I'm saying is I don't think the prosecution did a sufficient job of getting that across. They should really have pushed the forensics more. But then I'm not convinced the prosecution is independent enough to really push for conviction. But let's see, the jury may see it differently and they tailor their case to the jury.

Yes, but what else would they need? They've seen the video, they've seen the autopsy. What else could they possibly need to be convinced that the injuries were the cause of death?

They might think that the knee on the neck was somehow justified, but there's no way they can believe the right wing nonsense about it being drugs that killed him.

Prototype wrote::lol:

I've been looking at the State sentancing guidelines and for each charge:

Second degree unintentional murder = 10-15 years. (As someone with a degree in law, I do not remotely understand the concept of "unintentional murder")

Third degree murder = 10-15 years

Second degree manslaughter = 3-6 years and I genuinely think this is where they will land even though it is my personal opinion that he knew what he was doing could potentially kill the man.

The are only going with Murder in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, all three murder charges can be downgraded from 1st to third as part of this trial but they can't be downgraded to Manslaughter AFAIK.

Photek wrote:

Prototype wrote::lol:

I've been looking at the State sentancing guidelines and for each charge:

Second degree unintentional murder = 10-15 years. (As someone with a degree in law, I do not remotely understand the concept of "unintentional murder")

Third degree murder = 10-15 years

Second degree manslaughter = 3-6 years and I genuinely think this is where they will land even though it is my personal opinion that he knew what he was doing could potentially kill the man.

The are only going with Murder in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, all three murder charges can be downgraded from 1st to third as part of this trial but they can't be downgraded to Manslaughter AFAIK.

Chauvin isn't charged with first degree murder.

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

If an autopsy is not enough to prove that, then there is no evidence that would convince anyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... f-america/

Yes, but what I'm saying is I don't think the prosecution did a sufficient job of getting that across. They should really have pushed the forensics more. But then I'm not convinced the prosecution is independent enough to really push for conviction. But let's see, the jury may see it differently and they tailor their case to the jury.

Yes, but what else would they need? They've seen the video, they've seen the autopsy. What else could they possibly need to be convinced that the injuries were the cause of death?

They might think that the knee on the neck was somehow justified, but there's no way they can believe the right wing nonsense about it being drugs that killed him.

They don't necessarily need to believe it, just a reasonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I have my opinion that this should be a guilty verdict for second degree, but it's all about if the jury were convinced by the prosecution, and I've not been impressed by the way they set out their case. That could be tactical, that they have tried to convince this particular jury, or it could be a lack of real will to get a prosecution. Hopefully it's the former.

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm guessing it's all going to come down to the forensics, as they would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was the knee on the neck that caused death, rather than the drugs. That's the area that concerns me for the prosecution side, I'm not sure they definitively proved that point.

If an autopsy is not enough to prove that, then there is no evidence that would convince anyone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... f-america/

Yes, but what I'm saying is I don't think the prosecution did a sufficient job of getting that across. They should really have pushed the forensics more. But then I'm not convinced the prosecution is independent enough to really push for conviction. But let's see, the jury may see it differently and they tailor their case to the jury.

Yes, but what else would they need? They've seen the video, they've seen the autopsy. What else could they possibly need to be convinced that the injuries were the cause of death?

They might think that the knee on the neck was somehow justified, but there's no way they can believe the right wing nonsense about it being drugs that killed him.

They don't necessarily need to believe it, just a reasonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I have my opinion that this should be a guilty verdict for second degree, but it's all about if the jury were convinced by the prosecution, and I've not been impressed by the way they set out their case. That could be tactical, that they have tried to convince this particular jury, or it could be a lack of real will to get a prosecution. Hopefully it's the former.

I know it's not your opinion.

But if people on that jury can watch the video, read the autopsy and still think "I have my doubts", then there's literally nothing that would convince them.

For 1st degree you'd have to prove that Derek Chauvin was planning to murder before he arrived on the scene. So if you had texts talking about going to kill Floyd the day before then you could get 1st degree. In practice it's almost impossible to get a 1st degree conviction though so the evidence requirement is probably too high.

Prototype wrote:Chauvin isn't charged with first degree murder.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that in MN you he can be charged with 1st Degree Murder and then be convicted of Third Degree, as in all 3 Murder classes are more or less the same charge but differ in sentencing if found guilty.

He is currently charged with 2nd Degree but that might get downgraded to Third Degree, but it can't be downgraded further to Manslaughter.