U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Also, that the 3rd degree murder charge was a mistake, said the prosecutors. Perhaps it was used as a placeholder while they nailed down the facts. But as one prosecutor said, Minnesota is different from other states because of the idea a depraved act has to be shown to convict, something so recklessly done it meets that standard. There were two examples given, someone shooting a gun into a crowd without caring the shot could kill someone, or driving a car down the wrong side of the highway. Kneeling on Floyd's neck was not that kind of reckless and he would not be convicted of 3rd degree murder.

Well I think putting somebody in an unauthorized hold for 9 minutes shows reckless indifference.  And typically intent is considered to be a higher degree of scienter, and thus harder to prove, than the depraved heart standard. So honestly, I don't understand the prosecutor's point. 

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 You know that if there's a bank robbery and one of the robbers shoots and kills a teller or anyone else, all the robbers will face the same sentence, even the driver of the getaway car who was waiting outside and had nothing to do with the killing. Nothing, that is, except that he was a participant in the robbery and therefore just as guilty.

I don't think it is that simple. I think you only get that result by either showing a conspiracy or by showing complicity or application of the felony murder rule as to the underlying crime , which in this case was a bank robbery.

[Fragile Bird]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well I think putting somebody in an unauthorized hold for 9 minutes shows reckless indifference.  And typically intent is considered to be a higher degree of scienter, and thus harder to prove, than the depraved heart standard. So honestly, I don't understand the prosecutor's point. 

I don't think it is that simple. I think you only get that result by either showing a conspiracy or by showing complicity or application of the felony murder rule as to the underlying crime , which in this case was a bank robbery.

You think it's a depraved act because you are a normal civilian who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Chauvin is a police officer with the right to use force dealing with criminals. Time and time and time again police officers are not convicted for things they do because the jury is willing to give them the benefit of believing what they did came within the definition of their job.

As for the three officers, I don't think a jury will have any difficulty thinking they were part of what Chauvin did, especially when two of them were also holding Floyd down for at least part of the time and the third stood and watched. They weren't charged with conspiracy, they were charged with aiding and abetting. All of them should have known what Chauvin was doing was causing harm.

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

You think it's a depraved act because you are a normal civilian who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Chauvin is a police officer with the right to use force dealing with criminals. Time and time and time again police officers are not convicted for things they do because the jury is willing to give them the benefit of believing what they did came within the definition of their job.

Well not exactly. I'm pretty sure that 3rd degree murder is a lesser included offense to second degree murder. So by definition if you can prove 2nd degree murder you should be able to prove 3rd degree murder. And because normally the "depraved heart" standard is usually thought to be less stringent then the intent requirement. The depraved heart standard was created for those situations where somebody fired a gun into a crowd, without necessarily having the intent to kill somebody.

Also, Chauvin didn't just use force. He used a particular hold that was banned by the police department because it was known to be dangerous. And then he did it for 9 minutes. If that doesn't meet reckless indifference, I don't know what does.

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Chauvin did, especially when two of them were also holding Floyd down for at least part of the time and the third stood and watched. They weren't charged with conspiracy, they were charged with aiding and abetting. All of them should have known what Chauvin was doing was causing harm.

Yes, they should have known that Chauvin was causing harm. But, in order to prove complicity, the state has to prove that they aided and abetted with the intent that Chauvin commit some type of crime. And a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of that crime was murder. So in other words the state will have to allege that the other police officers had the intent to help Chauvin commit some kind of crime. I guess that even proving that they had the intent to aid Chauvin in a  simple assault would suffice. But, a problem here is whether a police procedure banning a particular kind of hold has any legal force.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I agree that all four should go to jail. Those other officers should have put a stop to it. Once Chauvin used an unauthorized hold, that should have been a signal for the other officers to do something. But, I'm afraid given how the  complicity statue is written Minnesota they might get off the hook, which you know stinks. And if they do, the people in Minnesota and everywhere need to push for laws that will officers accountable in these situations. If police officers can't be persuaded to act for moral/ethical reasons, maybe a law which makes them clearly liable will.

That's why the charges were upgraded, as I understand at the moment. There's no accountability for the other officers for third degree, but there is for second. I need to read the fine print, but that's a tomorrow problem. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

As for the other three officers, if Chauvin is convicted they'll be convicted with him, and they'll face the same sentence. You know that if there's a bank robbery and one of the robbers shoots and kills a teller or anyone else, all the robbers will face the same sentence, even the driver of the getaway car who was waiting outside and had nothing to do with the killing. Nothing, that is, except that he was a participant in the robbery and therefore just as guilty.

Legal Eagle, do cops get treated the same way as bank robbers? 

[Fragile Bird]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Legal Eagle, do cops get treated the same way as bank robbers? 

You need to ask an American lawyer....

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's why the charges were upgraded, as I understand at the moment. There's no accountability for the other officers for third degree, but there is for second. I need to read the fine print, but that's a tomorrow problem. 

Here are the first two section of Minnesota's complicity statue:

Quote

Subdivision 1.Aiding, abetting; liability. A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.

Subd. 2.Expansive liability. A person liable under subdivision 1 is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.

So if the state can prove that 1) that the other 3 had the intent to aid in a crime, and 2) as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that crime Floyd died, then they are on the hook. I think that prong 2 will be easy to prove. Its prong 1 that has me concerned. As the state can't merely just prove that others intentionally aided in causing harm. It has to prove they had the intent to aid in a commission of a crime as defined by Minnesota law. I suppose a simple misdemeanor assault would suffice. The question then I have is when do police lose the right to commit minor assaults, under Minnesota law. Does a police regulation suffice? And the word "intentionally" has as specific meaning which is "has the purpose to do the thing".

[OldGimletEye]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Legal Eagle, do cops get treated the same way as bank robbers? 

All the bank robbers are complicit in the crime of bank robbery. They all have the intent (they have the purpose that a bank robbery be completed) that the crime of bank robbery be carried out. A foreseeable consequence of the bank robbery is somebody would die. One of the bank robbers shoots the bank manager and he dies. All the bank robbers are on the hook.

[ThinkerX]

Facebook's (Zuckerberg's) apparent subservience to Trump gets mentioned here fairly frequently.  Long (Seriously long) article and overview of a massive internal Facebook conference call that addressed these issues, where Zuckerberg explains his reasoning while assorted unnamed employees raise relevant questions.  If Zuckerberg is being truthful (who knows?) it looks like Facebook might follow in Twitters footsteps and start slapping warning labels on the more offensive posts.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/inside-mark-zuckerbergs-tense-meeting-with-facebook-employees-transcript/ar-BB14Zqha?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Here are the first two section of Minnesota's complicity statue:

So if the state can prove that 1) that the other 3 had the intent to aid in a crime, and 2) as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that crime Floyd died, then they are on the hook. I think that prong 2 will be easy to prove. Its prong 1 that has me concerned. As the state can't merely just prove that others intentionally aided in causing harm. It has to prove they had the intent to aid in a commission of a crime as defined by Minnesota law. I suppose a simple misdemeanor assault would suffice. The question then I have is when do police lose the right to commit minor assaults, under Minnesota law. Does a police regulation suffice? And the word "intentionally" has as specific meaning which is "has the purpose to do the thing".

I think you can pretty easily prove that two of the four knew exactly what they were doing. The other two will probably skate on lesser charges. But all four are murderers. 

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

All the bank robbers are complicit in the crime of bank robbery. They all have the intent (they have the purpose that a bank robbery be completed) that the crime of bank robbery be carried out. A foreseeable consequence of the bank robbery is somebody would die. One of the bank robbers shoots the bank manager and he dies. All the bank robbers are on the hook.

But they're bank robbers, not cops. The rules do not apply the same. That's why even though a cop car was driving through the park as I jogged, not for a moment was I worried. Because I'm a white dude in a nice area.

[OldGimletEye]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you can pretty easily prove that two of the four knew exactly what they were doing. The other two will probably skate on lesser charges. But all four are murderers. 

The state needs the prove they had intent to commit an underlying crime, not just that they knew what they were doing, even if they knew they were doing something morally and ethically wrong, which they were.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But they're bank robbers, not cops. The rules do not apply the same. That's why even though a cop car was driving through the park as I jogged, not for a moment was I worried. Because I'm a white dude in a nice area.

1. The Bank robbers had the intent that a bank robbery be carried out, a crime under Minnesota law.

2. A reasonable and foreesable consequence of a bank robbery is that somebody will die.

So again,

1. You need to prove there was the intent to commit a crime, as defined by statue, and not merely the intent to do a bad act.

2.  And a reasonable and foreesable consequence of attempting to carry out the crime, in prong 1, was another crime.

 

As I said before, the current scheme in Minnesota, and probably every other state, isn't really good right now in dealing with these kinds of cases and the law needs to be changed with respect to police. At minimum, police should be required to enforce their own safety regulations, when they see other police violating them, which the other 3 failed to do.

[Darth Richard II]

Just think this will all start again when the officers are found not guilty.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The state needs the prove they had intent to commit an underlying crime, not just that they knew what they were doing, even if they knew they were doing something morally and ethically wrong, which they were.

1. The Bank robbers had the intent that a bank robbery be carried out, a crime under Minnesota law.

2. A reasonable and foreesable consequence of a bank robber is that somebody died.

So again,

1. You need to prove there was the intent to commit a crime, as defined by statue, and not merely the intent to do a bad act.

2.  And a reasonable and foreesable consequence of attempting to carry out the crime, in prong 1, was another crime.

As I said before, the current scheme in Minnesota, and probably every other state, isn't really good right now in dealing with these kinds of cases and the law needs to be changed with respect to police. At minimum, police should be required to enforce their own safety regulations, when they see other police violating them, which the other 3 failed to do.

But is intent not established when you mock a healthcare worker pleading for the life of someone by, intentionally going even farther. 

That cop wanted to kill that man, and being on camera didn't matter one bit. And the other cop wanted to let him do it. The kinder side of me would want to give him some degree of a pass at some level, but he did exactly what I hate about cops. He lunged at someone for no reason and screamed some form of don't touch me, even though he was the aggressor. 

Both are murderers. You can debate the other two, but they need to spend years in prison too. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Just think this will all start again when the officers are found not guilty.

They won't be, but the top end charges, who knows. All four are fucking murderers though. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But is intent not established when you mock a healthcare worker pleading for the life of someone by, intentionally going even farther. 

That cop wanted to kill that man, and being on camera didn't matter one bit. And the other cop wanted to let him do it. The kinder side of me would want to give him some degree of a pass at some level, but he did exactly what I hate about cops. He lunged at someone for no reason and screamed some form of don't touch me, even though he was the aggressor. 

Both are murderers. You can debate the other two, but they need to spend years in prison too. 

If the state tries to argue they intended (as that word is defined by Minnestota law) to commit a murder in broad daylight it is going to run into  problems.

And no mocking a healthcare worker is not enough to establish intent to commit murder. You can call it reckless indifference to human life and that is what it was. But that is not enough to prove intent. Take a look at the Model Penal Code. You can find it online. There is a difference between acting with purpose and acting recklessly. Callous indifference is not purpose.

I think Chauvin gets clearly convicted of 3rd degree murder. Maybe 2nd, but I'm skeptical. I'm pretty sure the state will plead both. Chauvin will and should definitely go down. The others I'm not so certain about. Should they receive jail time. Yes, they should. But, how I feel about it doesn't matter. Its what the statues of Minnesota say about it that counts. And I wish they were more clear about these kinds of cases.

[Castellan]

I can't believe, given the focus on the case,  they thought they'd get away with that deceptive autopsy report. I would like to see an enquiry into that report. The independent report showed how it should be done. At the very least it can be said the first one was not up to professional standards, even if it could not be proven they were trying to do the police a favour. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If the state tries to argue they intended (as that word is defined by Minnestota law) to commit a murder in broad daylight it is going to run into  problems.

And no mocking a healthcare worker is not enough to establish intent to commit murder. You can call it reckless indifference to human life and that is what it was. But that is not enough to prove intent. Take a look at the Model Penal Code. You can find it online. There is a difference between acting with purpose and acting recklessly. Callous indifference is not purpose.

I think Chauvin gets clearly convicted of 3rd degree murder. Maybe 2nd, but I'm skeptical. I'm pretty sure the state will plead both. Chauvin will and should definitely go down. The others I'm not so certain about. Should they receive jail time. Yes, they should. But, how I feel about it doesn't matter. Its what the statues of Minnesota say about it that counts. And I wish they were more clear about these kinds of cases.

I do not believe, in the most technical of senses, that you're wrong.

But that just means the technical part is flawed.

I think you have a hard time trying to argue that the police were not taking joy in their behavior. They knew what they were doing. It's one thing to like choke out a violent person. But Floyd was not resisting, was cuffed, was begging them to stop, said he would comply with any order, and bystanders with some level of believable credentials were begging for his life. And then he leaned in, even after the man was clearly broken, and again, he wasn't fighting.

He knew he was taking an action that could kill a man, and took joy in doing so. 

If our laws allow that, then fuck everyone who approved of them.

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I do not believe, in the most technical of senses, that you're wrong.

But that just means the technical part is flawed.

The problem is that a good defense lawyer will argue these technical points. And I'd be prepared to be disappointed in the verdict. I think Chauvin will go down, probably with 3rd degree murder, but the other 3 may get off or get light penalties.

In so far as the technical points being flawed, I don't disagree, at least with respect to this class of cases. The law should be amended so that there should be heighten penalties for anyone acting under of the color of law that flagrantly uses excessive force. And the law should be more clear about the responsibilities of officers when one of their own acts out of line.

[Bonnot OG]

 

[Darth Richard II]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They won't be, but the top end charges, who knows. All four are fucking murderers though. 

I do not share your optimism.