Red Mosquito

Interesting, I was under the impression that Hansen had been notified/dispatched to the scene... but it was happenstance and thus she was not in uniform or bearing id. The cops' response makes more sense now.

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:When I pass out I too have a tendency to die.

3rd degree murder is still too much of stretch. Unless the jury gets intimidated into voting guilty for the sake of themselves / the community, he's getting off on that charge.

Also, did Jesus have like a 0.4 BAC? That would be a more equivalent scenario.

What's the BAC number for murder of a handcuffed man laying on the ground? I haven't reviewed that statute in a while.

Does it meet the elements of a murder? Prosecution has not made that case, unless by murder you mean it ourages you. Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

simple schoolboy wrote:Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

This is a crucial point. There has been a large volume of media talking heads (not to mention the activist class) that used/use the word "murder", but the distinction between murder, homicide, and manslaughter is not well known nor elucidated in most articles on what is happening in the trial. When looking at the video it appears that Chauvin on-purpose "accidentally" killed him, but what appears vs what evidentiary threshold for conviction can be met here is TBD.

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

This is a crucial point. There has been a large volume of media talking heads (not to mention the activist class) that used/use the word "murder", but the distinction between murder, homicide, and manslaughter is not well known nor elucidated in most articles on what is happening in the trial. When looking at the video it appears that Chauvin on-purpose "accidentally" killed him, but what appears vs what evidentiary threshold for conviction can be met here is TBD.

couldnt that be construed as premeditated then?

Second-degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin but there was no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor needed to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.

simple schoolboy wrote:Prosecution has not made that case, unless by murder you mean it ourages you. Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

I haven't watched the trial, but if I didn't watch Chauvin murder George Floyd, then "murder" has little meaning anymore.

*if

Let's just hope they convict him. We don't need more riots and he's obviously a piece of shit.

verb_to_trust wrote:Let's just hope they convict him. We don't need more riots and he's obviously a piece of shit.

We'll get riots despite a conviction, just because everything sucks and everyone is terrible.

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

This is a crucial point. There has been a large volume of media talking heads (not to mention the activist class) that used/use the word "murder", but the distinction between murder, homicide, and manslaughter is not well known nor elucidated in most articles on what is happening in the trial. When looking at the video it appears that Chauvin on-purpose "accidentally" killed him, but what appears vs what evidentiary threshold for conviction can be met here is TBD.

couldnt that be construed as premeditated then?

Second-degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin but there was no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor needed to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.

Beyond my understanding on murder one vs murder two. Maybe Chris_H2 can jump in here?

I think Trayvon was different, not just because Zimmerman was not legally allowed to use force to subdue/detain like Chauvin and Martin was not whacked-out on fentanyl, but because Zimmerman armed himself then pursued and confronted Martin before killing him during the fight. He put himself into a situation where his violent use of the lethal weapon was likely. That appears to meet the "malice aforethought" bar and I've always felt (from my admittedly ignorant perspective) that what Zimmerman did was a murder... it's not as clear with Floyd.

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Thats not the statutory definition of murder, yet.

This is a crucial point. There has been a large volume of media talking heads (not to mention the activist class) that used/use the word "murder", but the distinction between murder, homicide, and manslaughter is not well known nor elucidated in most articles on what is happening in the trial. When looking at the video it appears that Chauvin on-purpose "accidentally" killed him, but what appears vs what evidentiary threshold for conviction can be met here is TBD.

couldnt that be construed as premeditated then?

Second-degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin but there was no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor needed to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.

Beyond my understanding on murder one vs murder two. Maybe Chris_H2 can jump in here?

I think Trayvon was different, not just because Zimmerman was not legally allowed to use force to subdue/detain like Chauvin and Martin was not whacked-out on fentanyl, but because Zimmerman armed himself then pursued and confronted Martin before killing him during the fight. He put himself into a situation where his violent use of the lethal weapon was likely. That appears to meet the "malice aforethought" bar and I've always felt (from my admittedly ignorant perspective) that what Zimmerman did was a murder... it's not as clear with Floyd.

Oh no, we're not relitigating Trayvon, are we?

when i see simple schoolboy and bi quoting each other's posts

Norris wrote:when i see simple schoolboy and bi quoting each other's posts

Does this make spiderman a piece of shit?

Bi_3 wrote:Interesting, I was under the impression that Hansen had been notified/dispatched to the scene... but it was happenstance and thus she was not in uniform or bearing id. The cops' response makes more sense now.

I agree that it would have been inappropriate for officers to permit access to Floyd without some form of provable identification from Hansen.

Her testimony's purpose has more to do with demonstrating that Floyd was recognizably in medical distress for a significant length of time during the incident, and that officers on duty both neglected that distress and recklessly risked contributing to it with behaviors that were not dictated by their profession.

Which is why prosecutors have had the officer who trained Chauvin, the head of the Minneapolis homicide department, a police force consultant, and even the chief of police on stand to testify that the method of restraint he applied was against department policy and was inappropriate. They're demonstrating that Chauvin engaged in an act of forcible restraint that was without justification, against an individual who was recognizably endangered by it.

Norris wrote:when i see simple schoolboy and bi quoting each other's posts

lol you got me

I'm not the one going out my way to harass strangers on the board, buddy.

calm down snowflake all i said was y'all are similar, but if that's harassment ok

harassment was yesterday when i called you a piece of shit human being and noted that it's a complete waste of time to engage you in conversation

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Interesting, I was under the impression that Hansen had been notified/dispatched to the scene... but it was happenstance and thus she was not in uniform or bearing id. The cops' response makes more sense now.

I agree that it would have been inappropriate for officers to permit access to Floyd without some form of provable identification from Hansen.

Her testimony's purpose has more to do with demonstrating that Floyd was recognizably in medical distress for a significant length of time during the incident, and that officers on duty both neglected that distress and recklessly risked contributing to it with behaviors that were not dictated by their profession.

Which is why prosecutors have had the officer who trained Chauvin, the head of the Minneapolis homicide department, a police force consultant, and even the chief of police on stand to testify that the method of restraint he applied was against department policy and was inappropriate. They're demonstrating that Chauvin engaged in an act of forcible restraint that was without justification, against an individual who was recognizably endangered by it.

Yeah, agree his actions caused Floyd's death, but is that murder?