Anonymous wrote:Is Court TV basically a Fox outlet? That's the impression I'm getting. It may be because I am, indeed, not a lawyer. So I can understand the state wanting to show multiple experts stating that this is not an appropriate use of force. Apparently, "cumulative" evidence is multiple people saying the same thing without adding to the discussion? So hence the defense objects to repeat experts all stating this is not an appropriate use of force. But, surely the multitudes of experts willing to testify to that, is itself evidence. It's not one person says this, but another person says that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, knee to the neck was never protocol. That’s been testified to by numerous people.

Not true. This suppression tactic was allowed by the Minneapolis police dept.

+1. Knee to neck restraint was allowed. Don’t know why that PP is spreading false information.

Anonymous wrote:I had a terrible premonition that this was going to be a hung jury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, knee to the neck was never protocol. That’s been testified to by numerous people.

Not true. This suppression tactic was allowed by the Minneapolis police dept.

Anonymous wrote:No, knee to the neck was never protocol. That’s been testified to by numerous people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no felony in this case. Are you saying the felony is assault? ALL murder is assault.

I am saying there are the elements of second degree unintentional murder, which Derek Chauvin is charged with, that the state must prove. Here is language directly from the state’s proposed jury instructions (judge will decide but this section doesn’t spark much controversy).

MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE—WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY—ELEMENTS

The elements of murder in the second degree while committing a felony, as alleged here, are:

First, the death of George Floyd must be proven.

Second, the defendant, acting alone or aided by others, caused the death of George Floyd.

“To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes that were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.

However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and produces a result that would not otherwise have occurred. An action that occurs before the defendant’s conduct and is not the sole cause of the death does
not constitute a superseding cause.

Third, the defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree. It is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit third-degree assault.

They could have charged him with murder that is not “unintentional,” in which case they would have to prove intent (this is considerably more difficult to do and would most likely not be met beyond a reasonable doubt). By charging him with second degree unintentional murder, they are arguing they can meet the burden of proof for intent to commit a felony, which in this case is third degree assault.

Second degree unintentional murder is technically the “highest charge” that Chauvin is charged with, but it carries the same penalties in the MN sentencing guidelines as third degree murder, which he is also charged with. So in that respect they are similar charges. The difference is third degree murder doesn’t require a specific assault, but an intentional reckless act that is committed without regard for human life. It has been more typically applied to reckless firearm use that kills someone or something of that nature, because of some of the statutory language. A conviction on just third degree is probably the best chance of an overturn on appeal.

The original action of the knee to the neck was considered reasonable action based on police protocol. The issue is at what point did that action turn into assault? This is hard to prove.

Also, didn't the coroner say that there was no bruising on the neck?

Anonymous wrote:No, knee to the neck was never protocol. That’s been testified to by numerous people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no felony in this case. Are you saying the felony is assault? ALL murder is assault.

I am saying there are the elements of second degree unintentional murder, which Derek Chauvin is charged with, that the state must prove. Here is language directly from the state’s proposed jury instructions (judge will decide but this section doesn’t spark much controversy).

MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE—WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY—ELEMENTS

The elements of murder in the second degree while committing a felony, as alleged here, are:

First, the death of George Floyd must be proven.

Second, the defendant, acting alone or aided by others, caused the death of George Floyd.

“To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes that were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.

However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and produces a result that would not otherwise have occurred. An action that occurs before the defendant’s conduct and is not the sole cause of the death does
not constitute a superseding cause.

Third, the defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree. It is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit third-degree assault.

They could have charged him with murder that is not “unintentional,” in which case they would have to prove intent (this is considerably more difficult to do and would most likely not be met beyond a reasonable doubt). By charging him with second degree unintentional murder, they are arguing they can meet the burden of proof for intent to commit a felony, which in this case is third degree assault.

Second degree unintentional murder is technically the “highest charge” that Chauvin is charged with, but it carries the same penalties in the MN sentencing guidelines as third degree murder, which he is also charged with. So in that respect they are similar charges. The difference is third degree murder doesn’t require a specific assault, but an intentional reckless act that is committed without regard for human life. It has been more typically applied to reckless firearm use that kills someone or something of that nature, because of some of the statutory language. A conviction on just third degree is probably the best chance of an overturn on appeal.