Chauvin - Guilty or no?

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Vivitron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point I wanted to make was to correct your misconception that intent to kill was an element of the charges against Chauvin. I'm confused as to why you're quizzing me on Potter.

The two points I was making was that the murder 3 charge would require Chauvin to know and not care that his action had a very high likelihood of killing Floyd. You can argue the semantics all day about "intent to kill" versus "very likely to kill". Someone with an intent to kill another person will employ a method that is "very likely to kill" their victim, no?

The other point is, that the "unintentional" murderer 2 charge is just a compete bullshit charge, as I 've been trying to get through to you. See below for more on that.

Originally Posted by Vivitron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The statutes define assault as "(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another". The jury instruction for Chauvin states that in part as "intentionally applied unlawful force". I don't think that fits Potter; she intended to lawfully taser the victim.

yet, your quote of the statute doesn't say anything about "lawfully" or "unlawfully", does it? Even if it did, that "lawfulness" could only be truly adjudicated in court. She certainly intended to cause bodily harm, which is all that the statute requires. Even if she had grabbed her taser she still would have delivered "bodily harm" to Wright, defined in Minnesota as : "physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition."