Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Couple of questions:
1) What if your friend said that he thought he was guilty of manslaughter but not murder - how would you have reacted?
2) What if your friend said that based on the overall fairness of the trial (including some really questionable public comments leading up to the jury deliberating, which I'm sure that that's what he was referencing) he expects that the outcome to get overturn during the appeal process - how would you react?
I don’t deal in hypotheticals?
I think those are just legal interpretations and don’t have a major problem with it. The manslaughter/murder one might be a little tricky. It implies, to me, that you don’t think a cop can ever murder someone in that situation. I mean the video is really bad and if that’s not enough for you to go all the way, how bad would it have be to get there?
The Trumpers positions on this are monstrous. Nothing that you said here approaches that.
What I'd point to on murder is that it all depends on how the law is written. The higher the degree the more proof typically that is tied to premeditation and/or intent ... basically having to prove motive.
It's not that I don't think that a cop can murder someone ... they certainly can. I think the question comes back to what the charge/degree is, what the law states to be required for a guilty verdict to be reached, and whether there is reasonable doubt regarding the facts and circumstances in the case satisfy the charge/degree. I'll readily admit that I probably have a high threshold for reasonable doubt and probably more than the average person. Also why I'd have been a bad District Attorney because I would always be looking through the lens of reasonable doubt and probably not charging enough for most crimes.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
Oof. It's hard to watch morons couple their dumbfuckery with completely unearned arrogance. I have no fucking idea what you're quoting, nor do I give a shit. Chauvin was literally convicted of second degree unintentional murder under Minnesota state law.
This isn't hard. In fact it's almost comically easy to verify this low hanging fruit of information. All you had to do was read a single article from any source. And you couldn't do it.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
He was charged with second degree unintentional murder, you stupid fucking faggot. Explain how that requires intent, being how it's UNINTENTIONAL. Tell it to the state of Minnesota if you don't like it, idiot - it isn't my fucking law.
Get the fuck outta here, teacher's kid. Go eat your own ass, retard.
I can only assume he's quoting a law that Chauvin wasn't charged with. I didn't think anybody could be that fucking stupid, but @TurdBomber is blazing new trails.
The only solution here is for @TurdBomber to go full @NorthwestFresh fag out, and either kill himself or retire his shitty handle and pick a new one.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Good luck
Great point. The system is racist and discriminates against black people! Lets give more power and money to the system!!!!
It's really mind boggling ...
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
I really don’t want to do 10000 words on this so I’m going to try and hit some highlights.
1. We don’t think there’s going to be a tangible difference between the rich accumulating too much power and the government doing it.
2. It’s not simply “different leaders” it’s leaders who want a functioning democracy. Ones that want to uncross the line between the capitalists and our government. Ones that want everyone to vote. Democracy limits the power of government. It’s baked in. We want leaders who are looking to strengthen our democracy.
3. Moderates have been running this country for decades. If you’re looking at a country with a bunch of problems and blaming the least effective senator and least effective congresswoman, you’re insane. This is your mess.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Good luck
Great point. The system is racist and discriminates against black people! Lets give more power and money to the system!!!!
It's really mind boggling ...
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
They wanted to give the govt more power while trump was the pres
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Good luck
Great point. The system is racist and discriminates against black people! Lets give more power and money to the system!!!!
It's really mind boggling ...
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
They wanted to give the govt more power while trump was the pres
Like...what?
Say what?
Both sides have done a good job for decades of bloating the government larger than it needs to be
Trump got rid of a lot of red tape and bureaucracy ...
But it's more than just the Federal Government ... there's overreach also at the State and Local levels as well
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Good luck
Great point. The system is racist and discriminates against black people! Lets give more power and money to the system!!!!
It's really mind boggling ...
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
They wanted to give the govt more power while trump was the pres
Like...what?
Say what?
Both sides have done a good job for decades of bloating the government larger than it needs to be
Trump got rid of a lot of red tape and bureaucracy ...
But it's more than just the Federal Government ... there's overreach also at the State and Local levels as well
I just think it's crazy that libs wanted to give the govt more power while the supposed antichrist is the head of it. Made no sense.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
He was charged with second degree unintentional murder, you stupid fucking faggot. Explain how that requires intent, being how it's UNINTENTIONAL. Tell it to the state of Minnesota if you don't like it, idiot - it isn't my fucking law.
Get the fuck outta here, teacher's kid. Go eat your own ass, retard.
There's no such thing as "2nd Degree Unintentional Murder" in MN.
But don't let that stop you and your fanboys @dflea.
That's what I'd expect of your frantic 40 minute circle-jerk with your boys.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Looks like one of the Trump Dick Suckers gang got triggered.
LOL
If you don't understand why 2nd degree murder is still murder maybe you can go Ask Jeeves?
Um, "intent" was the issue. Try to keep up. Or not.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Foster Law School graduate heard from claiming other people are doing what he just fucking did.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Looks like one of the Trump Dick Suckers gang got triggered.
LOL
If you don't understand why 2nd degree murder is still murder maybe you can go Ask Jeeves?
Um, "intent" was the issue. Try to keep up. Or not.
That was your issue, because you had fallen behind. Better luck next time.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Foster Law School graduate heard from claiming other people are doing what he just fucking did.
Foster is the Business School.
But, of course, how would you know that?
lmao
What a fucking clown you are. I know what Foster is, you fucking retard. I',m mocking you for thinking you're a lawyer.
Pull your head out of your ass, pay attention to Subdivision 2, retard. And then go fuck yourself:
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Foster Law School graduate heard from claiming other people are doing what he just fucking did.
Foster is the Business School.
But, of course, how would you know that?
lmao
What a fucking clown you are. I know what Foster is, you fucking retard. I',m mocking you for thinking you're a lawyer.
Pull your head out of your ass, pay attention to Subdivision 2, retard. And then go fuck yourself:
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
So clearly the bolded is what Chauvin was being tried for under this provision
This again is where I really do wonder about the concept of reasonable doubt and whether the order was satisfied.
To convict on this, I think you'd have to show that Chauvin was acting in a manner inconsistent with his training. My understanding from listening to the news today prior to the verdict was that the defense made a fairly significant attempt to tie his actions with his training. If the actions were consistent with his training, then I think it's hard to say he "intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm" part of the provision. Maybe you argue the duration and the words of Floyd as crossing the line. I could see it going either way on that one.
I do find it interesting that the penalty of up to 40 years is the same whether intentional or unintentional ... that just seems strange to me. Unintentional to me just screams manslaughter. And while I'm sure that there are reasons for it, getting multiple murder degree convictions AND a manslaughter conviction on the same singular event seems like piling on.
Comments
It's not that I don't think that a cop can murder someone ... they certainly can. I think the question comes back to what the charge/degree is, what the law states to be required for a guilty verdict to be reached, and whether there is reasonable doubt regarding the facts and circumstances in the case satisfy the charge/degree. I'll readily admit that I probably have a high threshold for reasonable doubt and probably more than the average person. Also why I'd have been a bad District Attorney because I would always be looking through the lens of reasonable doubt and probably not charging enough for most crimes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/04/19/derek-chauvin-murder-manslaughter-charges-sentencing-breakdown/7286597002/
This isn't hard. In fact it's almost comically easy to verify this low hanging fruit of information. All you had to do was read a single article from any source. And you couldn't do it.
The only solution here is for @TurdBomber to go full @NorthwestFresh fag out, and either kill himself or retire his shitty handle and pick a new one.
Not sure why you worship it. Maybe you're racist
Life is bias.
1. We don’t think there’s going to be a tangible difference between the rich accumulating too much power and the government doing it.
2. It’s not simply “different leaders” it’s leaders who want a functioning democracy. Ones that want to uncross the line between the capitalists and our government. Ones that want everyone to vote. Democracy limits the power of government. It’s baked in. We want leaders who are looking to strengthen our democracy.
3. Moderates have been running this country for decades. If you’re looking at a country with a bunch of problems and blaming the least effective senator and least effective congresswoman, you’re insane. This is your mess.
Like...what?
Both sides have done a good job for decades of bloating the government larger than it needs to be
Trump got rid of a lot of red tape and bureaucracy ...
But it's more than just the Federal Government ... there's overreach also at the State and Local levels as well
But don't let that stop you and your fanboys @dflea.
That's what I'd expect of your frantic 40 minute circle-jerk with your boys.
But, of course, how would you know that?
What a fucking clown you are. I know what Foster is, you fucking retard. I',m mocking you for thinking you're a lawyer.
Pull your head out of your ass, pay attention to Subdivision 2, retard. And then go fuck yourself:
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
This again is where I really do wonder about the concept of reasonable doubt and whether the order was satisfied.
To convict on this, I think you'd have to show that Chauvin was acting in a manner inconsistent with his training. My understanding from listening to the news today prior to the verdict was that the defense made a fairly significant attempt to tie his actions with his training. If the actions were consistent with his training, then I think it's hard to say he "intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm" part of the provision. Maybe you argue the duration and the words of Floyd as crossing the line. I could see it going either way on that one.
I do find it interesting that the penalty of up to 40 years is the same whether intentional or unintentional ... that just seems strange to me. Unintentional to me just screams manslaughter. And while I'm sure that there are reasons for it, getting multiple murder degree convictions AND a manslaughter conviction on the same singular event seems like piling on.