Chauvin - Guilty or no?

[DMN]

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

I gave my answer -- Potter doesn't appear to be guilty of the felony (assault) that predicated Chauvin's felony murder charge, and I'm not commenting on Noor because I don't remember the case.

As far as I can tell using second degree manslaughter as the predicate felony for felony murder is not done, despite the lack of mention in the statute. If you manage to find an example of it being used that way or something prohibiting that use let me know. Now I'm curious.

The only reason I mentioned the manslaughter is that they were already charging it and in fact convicted on it, and in noor/potter they also charged it. This the Minnesota statue for assault in the third degree:

Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

So let's do a quick quiz: Is someone kneeling on your neck/back going to cause more bodily harm than someone shooting you in the chest with a gun?

*jeopardy music*

[Vivitron]

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

The only reason I mentioned the manslaughter is that they were already charging it and in fact convicted on it, and in noor/potter they also charged it. This the Minnesota statue for assault in the third degree:

Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

So let's do a quick quiz: Is someone kneeling on your neck/back going to cause more bodily harm than someone shooting you in the chest with a gun?

*jeopardy music*

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 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.

[Horza]

Tucker Carlson lost his shit yesterday when a former New York City deputy sheriff referred to Floyd's murder as “pure savagery” and called for increased police training on his show.

[DMN]

[Toxigen]

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

Zero surprise there.

Throw rocks at cars. Get cops called on you.

Jaywalk through an extremely busy intersection while a police officer is trying to stop you.

Immediately become aggressive, take knife out and threaten cop.

Get shot.

[Kaveh]

Yeah that’s a fucked up video

Jesus Christ

[bubur]

video..gaddamn

would think there's a few optional steps between drop the knife x3 and hand cannon

[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."

[Vivitron]

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

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."

If you think the prosecutor should argue to a judge and jury that attempting a lawful, by-the-book police action satisfies the intent element of assault, you can go ahead and write them a nice letter explaining your theory of the case and request they up the charges. Be sure to notify the Chauvin judge that his jury instructions were way too hard on the prosecution while you're at it.

[Jibartik]

man this stuff is complex, seems like the solution is to have officers attend idk 2-4 years of school instead of 2-4 weeks of it.