jedsaysnomorebull:theindependentconservative: nunyabizni:capitalism-and-analytics:fuckyeahmarxismlen

jedsaysnomorebull:theindependentconservative: nunyabizni:capitalism-and-analytics:fuckyeahmarxismleninism:GUILTY! Derek Chauvin was convicted for the murder of George Floyd because the people of Minneapolis rose up and burned down the 3rd Precinct, because workers everywhere took to the streets and fought back against the racist cops. Never forget it’s because the people fought the system, not because the system “works.” Not in any way, shape, or fashion trying to support Derek Chauvin, but it’s naïve and foolish takes like this that undermine the already broken legal system.What’s even worse is that you can tell @fuckyeahmarxismleninism most likely didn’t even watch the court case because outside influences like the one they describe are precisely why this trial is expected to be successfully appealed for retrial. There were just a multitude of fuck ups all around.  Like it or not there is now evidence that the man didn’t get a fair trial. Even though Chauvin’s not a good cop, he should’ve walked. First, he was not charged correctly; this creates a reasonable doubt. He was charged with both murder and manslaughter. This cannot be done due to the two crimes requiring different intents. The worst possible charge should’ve been manslaughter, not 2nd-degree murder.Second, the toxicology report shows that Floyd had ingested a lethal dose of meth and/or fentanyl that day. Couple that with a pre-existing heart condition, he was having trouble breathing before the cops even got there; this too creates a reasonable doubt.Point is, the evidence wasn’t enough to convict. This is partially wrong and partially a bad legal take. TL;DR: Charging in the alternative exists (and is common), the intent standards really aren’t actually all that different between second and third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter in Minnesota, and your point about trial evidence are either completely mistaken or at the very least disputable and therefore cannot be stated like facts that lead to the invalidity of a conviction. First, pretty much every single state in the United States allows for charging in the alternative when it comes to criminal offenses. This is actually one of the larger problems with the plea bargaining system and the system of overcharging as it currently exists. Prosecutors can and frequently do charge in the alternative. Chauvin is a good example. The charges for murder and manslaughter are not saying that Chauvin committed both murder and manslaughter at the same time (though Minnesota, hilariously, is one of the few states in the United States that allows for that). They are saying “Well, if you don’t think he committed second degree murder, then he committed third degree murder. And If you don’t think he committed third degree murder then he committed manslaughter.” The jury can then determine that he did all of the above, some of the above, or none of the above. The first two result in a conviction where Chauvin will be sentenced for the most significant offense (with any other sentences to run concurrently or at the same time unless the sentencing trial is really weird). The last option is an acquittal. The jury chose to convict Chauvin of all charges. There is nothing wrong with them doing that. They are saying that he meets the elements for second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. Oh, and just as a special little treat, the intent standards really aren’t all that different in the various crimes that Chauvin was tried for. Yes, they are certainly different. Second degree manslaughter gets you down to “negligence” whereas both second and third degree murder require the intentional perpetration of another act but not an intentional murder. Effectively, if the jury found that Chauvin intentionally assaulted Floyd (a requisite felony in MN for second degree murder), or intentionally committed an act which was “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind” then Chauvin is guilty of second and third degree murder. So, as you can see it’s a little bit of a different standard than what you might be expecting, and the actual murder part doesn’t necessarily need to be intentional. Your point about the Fentanyl/ other drugs is wrong in that you are stating something as a fact when the other side had conflicting and contrasting evidence. For example, here is a toxicologist testifying about the exact amount of Fentanyl that was observed in Floyd’s bloodstream and how a whopping ¼ of 2345 DUI offenders sampled had an equal or higher amount of Fentanyl in their bloodstream and lived to tell the tale. Here is another article talking about how the Fentanyl was not fatal and referencing more testimony. You can’t just state one side of a trial as factual and the other as non-factual unless you have evidence that the other side is lying or incorrect about the data. Otherwise, you have to allow the jury to believe whichever side it finds the most credible. That’s… kind of the point of a jury. Regardless, based on the above evidence I just provided as well as more evidence provided by the prosecution, I think it’s safe to say that at the very least the importance of the amount of Fentanyl Floyd ingested was disputed at trial, and that there’s no “smoking gun” that automatically points toward the invalidity of the conviction here. As for the evidence not being enough to convict, I’m not so sure about that. I encourage you to read this post in its entirety. It’s a longer post I made referencing some (not all) of the evidence against Chauvin at the trial (link to post). Remember, the jury has the ability to believe whatever evidence it wants to believe in order to convict. If you’re going to make a sufficiency of the evidence claim (e.g. the evidence is not enough to convict), then you probably should know what you’re arguing against. However, I do think it’s safe to say that your conclusion is disputable as well. So 0 for 3. Not great. Care to try again? -- source link

More pics about