All things Derek Chauvin trial

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
3,595
Points
113
Specifics would explain the training & how he failed to follow it.

Done with me, because I'm not worth your time?

Richard Vernon.

That's quite appropriate.

If I ever stoop to interact with you again, I will call you Mr Vernon.

It's perfect.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
Ides of March!

Do you know when He took the drugs?
But really, you seem to making a case that people who violate the law are disposable. Is the amount of force a police officer allowed to use different for a person with a felony in his past? Even if that data isn’t known at the time of arrest?
No, shill, YOU are making that case. Not me.
Seems you are wanting equal application under the law. Perfect.
Unfortunate that you choose one example now out of loads of examples over the past few years.
It is expected of you.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
3,161
Points
113
By the way if George said I took too many drugs, that’s the nail in the coffin, but if he said he didn’t do drugs, I’m sure we don’t find him a reliable narrator anymore.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
3,161
Points
113
No, shill, YOU are making that case. Not me.
Seems you are wanting equal application under the law. Perfect.
Unfortunate that you choose one example now out of loads of examples over the past few years.
It is expected of you.
Huh?
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
3,161
Points
113
Can you and the entity that makes you plural explain that BB?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,709
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
Ah. They played it on the news tonight.

The expert testified that he appeared to be saying “I ain’t do no drugs.”

That makes sense
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,657
Reaction score
2,082
Points
113
Only a complete moron thinks this is what caused the protests.

Its equivalent to turning on the natural gas in your house, leaving and then blaming the person who turned on the lights for blowing up your house.

There is no disparity in police shootings/deaths of Black people. That's a fallacy. One fed to Black people by White progressives. It keeps them scared, easily controlled & voting Democrat. It also divides the poor along racial lines, while the White progressive elites look down from their ivory towers.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
By the way if George said I took too many drugs, that’s the nail in the coffin, but if he said he didn’t do drugs, I’m sure we don’t find him a reliable narrator anymore.
If he said he didn’t do drugs, which he clearly did not say, that would make him a liar, no?

Working overtime on the shill/Pad narrative.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
3,161
Points
113
If he said he didn’t do drugs, which he clearly did not say, that would make him a liar, no?

Working overtime on the shill/Pad narrative.
I will walk this slowly.
1. The toxicology report says he ingested drugs.
2. What George says or does not say really can’t change item one.
3. it’s odd that the defense is trying to shoehorn in a confession, where none is necessary. Particularly one from a person they would be best to paint as unreliable.
There is no doubt George took drugs.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,770
Reaction score
1,992
Points
113
I will walk this slowly.
1. The toxicology report says he ingested drugs.
2. What George says or does not say really can’t change item one.
3. it’s odd that the defense is trying to shoehorn in a confession, where none is necessary. Particularly one from a person they would be best to paint as unreliable.
There is no doubt George took drugs.
I ate too many drugs.
Driving under the influence of meth, fentanyl, and alcohol. Not a word from shill.
 

GopherRock

GopherHole Straw Boss
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,804
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Y'all are too busy squabbling amongst yourselves to actually read the statute governing murder 2.


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE​

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;

I believe this is what the State is going for: unintentional murder while committing another felony. Aggravated assault was the other felony in this case, per the press conference last June where AG Ellison announced the murder 2 charge.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
3,595
Points
113
Public Service Announcement from me--
People should not drive impaired. It is very dangerous and against the law.
According to several of the fellas here, it's OK if you don't kill anyone.

In fact, it's a defense if you later DO kill someone: "Hey, I drove home drunk MANY times before without killing anyone!"
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,709
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
Y'all are too busy squabbling amongst yourselves to actually read the statute governing murder 2.





I believe this is what the State is going for: unintentional murder while committing another felony. Aggravated assault was the other felony in this case, per the press conference last June where AG Ellison announced the murder 2 charge.
Thanks for this post. I admit, I did not realize that our state law does allow for murder-2 without intent.

However, I have strong doubt that either of these definitions will hold up in this case.

Obviously the second (609.19.2.2) does not hold. It is very specific. It's for something like: an abusive husband has a restraining order placed against him, which he violates to approach his wife and starts beating her, even though he has no intent to kill her, but does kill her during the beating.


As you said, the first (609.19.2.1) could maybe hold. But you would have to prove that Chauvin intended to and did commit felony assault of Floyd during the incident.

I think that's going to be impossible to prove, and frankly I don't think Chauvin had any such intention or desire.



I still think murder-3 is the way to go. It has exactly the same penalties as murder-2.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,414
Reaction score
1,266
Points
113
How many times have you seen reported that Derek Chauvin is 5’9 and 140 lbs? That he was the LARGEST officer on the scene. And that Floyd was 6’4 and 230 lbs? And Floyd had 3 times the legal limit of fentanyl in his system? I found out by WATCHING THE TRIAL. Never saw it in MSM. I wonder why.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,709
Reaction score
5,673
Points
113
How many times have you seen reported that Derek Chauvin is 5’9 and 140 lbs? That he was the LARGEST officer on the scene. And that Floyd was 6’4 and 230 lbs?
Doesn't matter when you're face down on a hard surface with your hands restrained behind your back.

Any amount of weight applied to your back (let alone neck) makes it difficult to breath.

Try it sometime.
 
Top Bottom