Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[Expat]

Tuttle Crossing Blvd at Britton Pkwy, just west of exit 15 from I270. Fair warning, its the suburbs and the cops are empowered to keep order not wokeness

Well that doesn't sound fair.

 

[jamil]

I’ve certainly played Devil’s Advocate. It’s what thinking people do; consider the other side. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings so much that you need to repeat it so often.

Well. I mean, c'mon. Let's be honest. Your "devils advocacy" often involves saying things you know will tend to meet with, let's say, resistance. I'm saying that the kindest way I know, which does diminish the message.

 

[DadSmith]

This is what gets the ball rolling to nationalize the police in this country.

Nationalization of police is a conspiracy theory don't you know.

 

[jamil]

If juries are infallible arbiters of justice, then Nicole Simpson's killer is still out there.

How likely is that?

Well. I think I have something relevant. Some lawyer somewhere said something like, jurors are never at fault. If the defense loses a case for an innocent man, it's the defense's fault. Jury selection. Strategy. Mistakes. Whatever. If the Prosecution fails to convict a guilty person, it's his fault. For the same reasons. Jurors are what they are. The exceptions would be if one side had an unfair advantage, like national, organizational, and community leaders promising violence if the "right" verdict wasn't reached. And that's why there are mistrials.

Not sure I agree with all of that but I think it's often true.

 

[KG1]

Well. I think I have something relevant. Some lawyer somewhere said something like, jurors are never at fault. If the defense loses a case for an innocent man, it's the defense's fault. Jury selection. Strategy. Mistakes. Whatever. If the Prosecution fails to convict a guilty person, it's his fault. For the same reasons. Jurors are what they are. The exceptions would be if one side had an unfair advantage, like national, organizational, and community leaders promising violence if the "right" verdict wasn't reached. And that's why there are mistrials.

Not sure I agree with all of that but I think it's often true.

Potential jury pools are constantly being tainted in today's current climate.

 

[jamil]

Lots of mud slinging and hard words going around here. Bias is showing on all sides.

while I have my own opinions on the 3 charges, I don’t see how anyone can defend him from the manslaughter 2 charge. Let’s lay out some legal speak to clarify my point.
From the code

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.​

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.

culpable negligence-
Culpable negligence means recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences).

It is the omission to do something which a reasonable, prudent and honest man would do, or the doing something which such a man would not do under all the circumstances surrounding each particular case.

From the Minneapolis Police policy manual page 235

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

MedicalTreatmentandUseofForce
1. Any sworn MPD employee who uses force shall, as soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training and request Emergency Medical Service (EMS) if necessary (in accordance with P&P 7-350). Some force control options involve or require additional medical attention. This includes subjects who have visible injuries, lose consciousness, complain of injury or request medical attention


now in regard to manslaughter charge. Chauvin got comfy on his neck/back, even put his hands in his pockets. Floyd went limp/unconscious. At that point he was required to render aid as soon as “reasonably practical”. He failed to do this, it’s plain to see from the videos that he spends several minutes comfortably resting on Floyd’s neck/ back after he goes limp/unconscious and stops fighting. His failure to provide aid as required per MPD policy resulted in death.

this makes him legally guilty of manslaughter 2, regardless of your feelings about BLM, Maxine waters or anyone else. About the other charges I don’t know but I don’t see how anyone can read the legal definitions, watch the videos and say they have a reasonable doubt that had chauvin rendered aid when he went limp that Floyd would have still died.

I am right there with you on the 2nd degree manslaughter. I think the defense's expert witness actually did the most damage to Chuavin on the charge of manslaughter. I think he helped raise reasonable doubt on the murder charges. But one minor nit, There is indeed a reasonable doubt whether Floyd would have lived or died even with the medical help. The defense's expert medical witness said that there was a point where Floyd was not beyond help, and that if he'd have gotten the help he could have lived. Treatment isn't always 100%. Maybe they revive him. Maybe not. Maybe the officers could do the best they know how, and still that's not good enough. But that part isn't necessary, at least to me, to prove 2nd degree manslaughter. Chauvin didn't even try.

 

[DadSmith]

If juries are infallible arbiters of justice, then Nicole Simpson's killer is still out there.

How likely is that?

A lot has to do with juries not being our peers but a bunch of randomly picked people that will give the prosecutor what he wants. A good defense lawyer will try to put in a jury that would be sympathetic towards you. Jury of your actual peers is a joke now days.

 

[printcraft]

I’ve certainly played Devil’s Advocate. It’s what thinking people do; consider the other side. I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings so much that you need to repeat it so often.

 

[jamil]

A lot has to do with juries not being our peers but a bunch of randomly picked people that will give the prosecutor what he wants. A good defense lawyer will try to put in a jury that would be sympathetic towards you. Jury of your actual peers is a joke now days.

The demographic makeup of the jury:
3 Black men
1 Black woman
2 women who identified themselves as multiracial
4 white women
2 white men
No cops.

Which of those were actually peers?

On a related note, I heard on a podcast with Robert Barnes shortly after the trial started, the preconceptions of the jurors before the trial. I think I recall that he said 8 leaned guilty, 4 leaned innocent. And that this is never good for the side that has the minority. For what it's worth, I think Barnes also said that 2 of the 3 Black men leaned neutral to innocent. Maybe the lawyers on both sides have that information? I don't have much faith that Barnes actually knew. But it's interesting if true.

 

[Expat]

If I wanted on the jury to hang Chauvin's white ass, I would probably admit to leaning innocent.

 

[jamil]

If I wanted on the jury to hang Chauvin's white ass, I would probably admit to leaning innocent.

I'm certainly not precluding the possibility that some jurors saw that as their duty.

 

[printcraft]

If I wanted on the jury to hang Chauvin's white ass, I would probably admit to leaning innocent.

It’s not a secret that I’ve cited jury nullification of laws that I feel are unjust and have stated here “juror printcraft votes to acquit” when I think someone is being railroaded by the system... WHY are we supposed to believe and think that personal biases WOULDN’T have any impact in this case?

 

[nonobaddog]

The facts have been argued.

That was in the trial, duh. This isn't the trial. We certainly are allowed to discuss the facts here without your permission.

 

[nonobaddog]

The demographic makeup of the jury:
3 Black men
1 Black woman
2 women who identified themselves as multiracial
4 white women
2 white men
No cops.

Which of those were actually peers?

If they were all citizens and not terminally biased by race, wokeness, hatred, etc., they would all be peers.

 

[DadSmith]

The facts have been argued.

They will soon be refuted in his appeal.

 

[DadSmith]

If they were all citizens and not terminally biased by race, wokeness, hatred, etc., they would all be peers.

Not according to historical reference. If you go back to the original Magna Carta. Then bring it slowly forward. At one time in the United States peers meant people that actually knew you would be on the jury.

Now it's whomever they seat.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The demographic makeup of the jury:
3 Black men
1 Black woman
2 women who identified themselves as multiracial
4 white women
2 white men
No cops.

Which of those were actually peers?

On a related note, I heard on a podcast with Robert Barnes shortly after the trial started, the preconceptions of the jurors before the trial. I think I recall that he said 8 leaned guilty, 4 leaned innocent. And that this is never good for the side that has the minority. For what it's worth, I think Barnes also said that 2 of the 3 Black men leaned neutral to innocent. Maybe the lawyers on both sides have that information? I don't have much faith that Barnes actually knew. But it's interesting if true.

Not we have an interesting discussion. Who would you consider his “peers.”

 

[nonobaddog]

Not according to historical reference. If you go back to the original Magna Carta. Then bring it slowly forward. At one time in the United States peers meant people that actually knew you would be on the jury.

Now it's whomever they seat.

OK, cool, never knew that. But since that is not relevant today, is it really any more than interesting trivia?

 

[nonobaddog]

Pelosi actually thanked George Floyd for sacrificing his life for 'justice'.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-life-for-justice/ar-BB1fU48i?ocid=uxbndlbing

 

[DadSmith]

OK, cool, never knew that. But since that is not relevant today, is it really any more than interesting trivia?

I believe it's just part of the justice system being changed to what it is now. Basically worthless.