BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: DavidGYoung on December 08, 2023, 12:44:15 PM
-
So far, the evidence I have seen to support the idea that the murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin was an example of racism is the following:
The mob believe it is an example of racism.
Has anyone found any other evidence? Nothing was presented at the trial.
-
So far, the evidence I have seen to support the idea that the murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin was an example of racism is the following:
The mob believe it is an example of racism.
Has anyone found any other evidence? Nothing was presented at the trial.
hm, I didn't pay very close attention to the trial, did he get tried and convicted of being racist at trial?
-
As long as the media narrative requires a finding that all white people are racist, then the evidence is of no importance
-
As long as the media narrative requires a finding that all white people are racist, then the evidence is of no importance
I can think of nothing i'd rather see right now than you posting several paragraphs really explaining what you mean by this, with examples and asides culminating in some sort of summary that really digs into your views about the reality of racism in America. Alas it's pretty rare for anyone to boldly and plainly speak their minds about race in these woke times, perhaps some day.
-
Race was not considered at the trials and jurors were admonished to stay clear of the topic. The world interpreted it differently, without clear evidence that race was a factor.
Popular media, as everyone is aware, never let up on the fact that Chauvin was white and Floyd was black.
-
Race was not considered at the trials and jurors were admonished to stay clear of the topic. The world interpreted it differently, without clear evidence that race was a factor.
Popular media, as everyone is aware, never let up on the fact that Chauvin was white and Floyd was black.
What are some of the interpretations that you picked up while you were observing the world...that is if you don't mind talking about it.
-
What are some of the interpretations that you picked up while you were observing the world...that is if you don't mind talking about it.
Because of social tensions at the time, involving disproportionate numbers of black people dying from police actions, with some white officers convicted of either murder or excessive force, Chauvin's brutality along with the other officers' compliance or inaction made me sick.
My interpretations were the same as they have been for a long time, and involved the symptoms of a broken society. Even in the case where these instances are not directly caused by racism, the over-arching reality of racial pressure makes it so in the eyes of many, and certainly in the eyes many black people who have suffered racial injustice for generations.
There are many other pressures at play, of course, often involving the bold, taunting lawlessness of many young people who, right or wrong, feel they are destined to suffer unjustly because of a generally biased society.
All these things conspire to place an almost impossible burden on police officers as well, IMO.
My Christian faith does not allow me to stand in harsh judgement or repugnance of any demographic group but being a child of the 60's, I hope and strive for social healing. Which does happen, thank God.
Whether Chauvin personally acted out of racist motive we might never know. But his thuggery hurt all of us.
-
What are some of the interpretations that you picked up while you were observing the world...that is if you don't mind talking about it.
Because of social tensions at the time, involving disproportionate numbers of black people dying from police actions, with some white officers convicted of either murder or excessive force, Chauvin's brutality along with the other officers' compliance or inaction made me sick.
My interpretations were the same as they have been for a long time, and involved the symptoms of a broken society. Even in the case where these instances are not directly caused by racism, the over-arching reality of racial pressure makes it so in the eyes of many, and certainly in the eyes many black people who have suffered racial injustice for generations.
There are many other pressures at play, of course, often involving the bold, taunting lawlessness of many young people who, right or wrong, feel they are destined to suffer unjustly because of a generally biased society.
All these things conspire to place an almost impossible burden on police officers as well, IMO.
My Christian faith does not allow me to stand in harsh judgement or repugnance of any demographic group but being a child of the 60's, I hope and strive for social healing. Which does happen, thank God.
Whether Chauvin personally acted out of racist motive we might never know. But his thuggery hurt all of us.
well said. thank you.
-
So far, the evidence I have seen to support the idea that the murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin was an example of racism is the following:
The mob believe it is an example of racism.
Has anyone found any other evidence? Nothing was presented at the trial.
The deceased happened to be was black. The person responsible happened to be was white. These days nothing more is needed to prove racism.
-
The question for Derek Chauvin would be - if George Floyd was white, would you have treated him the same way?
-
I was surprised to learn that prior to the tragic incident, Chauvin and Floyd both worked as security at the same Minneapolis nightclub. Not sure what the nature of their relationship was, but they were almost certainly acquainted.
-
As long as the media narrative requires a finding that all white people are racist, then the evidence is of no importance
I can think of nothing i'd rather see right now than you posting several paragraphs really explaining what you mean by this, with examples and asides culminating in some sort of summary that really digs into your views about the reality of racism in America. Alas it's pretty rare for anyone to boldly and plainly speak their minds about race in these woke times, perhaps some day.
Most popular narratives about so-called “racism” are not actually racism… most are prejudice, and perhaps bigotry, but not racism, at least not in the USA. Very few white Americans believe that anyone is inherently evil or morally inferior because of their race. Hitler was a racist. Hamas, ISIS, and dozens of other radical Islamoterrorists are racists. Many radical Hindus in India are racists. Many of the serious elements of the KKK and other white supremacy groups are racists.
But people who don’t bow and scrape to every accusation of social injustice or accusation of “difference in outcome=racism” are not racist or “white privileged.”
The popular narrative that seeks to divide and inflame is insidious and it is driven primarily by a leftist media and people that get power and wealth off the backs of the very people they claim to want to champion.
Each race and culture has its own set of preferences, prejudices, biases, and affinities. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with cultural affirmations.
But the current race narrative in the USA is dishonest, not intellectually supportable, and driven with the intention of selling newspapers, advertisements, and political donations.
-
As long as the media narrative requires a finding that all white people are racist, then the evidence is of no importance
I can think of nothing i'd rather see right now than you posting several paragraphs really explaining what you mean by this, with examples and asides culminating in some sort of summary that really digs into your views about the reality of racism in America. Alas it's pretty rare for anyone to boldly and plainly speak their minds about race in these woke times, perhaps some day.
Most popular narratives about so-called “racism” are not actually racism… most are prejudice, and perhaps bigotry, but not racism, at least not in the USA. Very few white Americans believe that anyone is inherently evil or morally inferior because of their race. Hitler was a racist. Hamas, ISIS, and dozens of other radical Islamoterrorists are racists. Many radical Hindus in India are racists. Many of the serious elements of the KKK and other white supremacy groups are racists.
But people who don’t bow and scrape to every accusation of social injustice or accusation of “difference in outcome=racism” are not racist or “white privileged.”
The popular narrative that seeks to divide and inflame is insidious and it is driven primarily by a leftist media and people that get power and wealth off the backs of the very people they claim to want to champion.
Each race and culture has its own set of preferences, prejudices, biases, and affinities. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with cultural affirmations.
But the current race narrative in the USA is dishonest, not intellectually supportable, and driven with the intention of selling newspapers, advertisements, and political donations.
I have to admit, you surprised me by responding, thanks for your reply.
Couple of follow up questions. What is "white privilege" as you understand it? Also do you actually believe that each race has its own set of preferences, prejudices, biases, and affinities, if so what is race as you understand it?
and I guess I can't help myself but ask, please take me at my word that i'm not trying to needle you for the sake of needling I legit want to know... If, let's say the culture warriors, leftists, woke mob were to instead of racism accuse people of being prejudiced or bigots or something more semantically accurate, but they maintained the same derisive sentiment behind whatever label they chose, would you feel any differently about the tendency they have to call out these behaviors? And for the sake of being clear and honest with you, when I see folks pointing out what I consider to be a semantic distinction that changes nothing about the sentiment of the behaviors that are being repudiated, I am immediately suspicious of the actual motivating factors behind it.
-
Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.
In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:
Either
1) There was intent to kill Floyd
or
2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.
And I don't see that either was met.
-
Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.
In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:
Either
1) There was intent to kill Floyd
or
2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.
And I don't see that either was met.
Chauvin needed to be held accountable for causing Floyd's death, but I agree the charges and sentencing were over the top. At the end of the day, the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict remain a lesson learned.
-
Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.
In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:
Either
1) There was intent to kill Floyd
or
2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.
And I don't see that either was met.
Agreed
You are not responsible for the drugs in a perps system.
-
Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.
In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:
Either
1) There was intent to kill Floyd
or
2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.
And I don't see that either was met.
Agreed
You are not responsible for the drugs in a perps system.
Yes, there is that. Very troubling.
-
Chauvin needed to be held accountable for causing Floyd's death, but I agree the charges and sentencing were over the top.
If the jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter, i.e. Chauvin should have realized that his actions could cause death, I would be more onboard. Although honestly, subduing a large man who doesn't want to be held down is very difficult.
At the end of the day, the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict remain a lesson learned.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The court's job is to dispense justice, not prevent riots.
-
At the end of the day, the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict remain a lesson learned.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The court's job is to dispense justice, not prevent riots.
The LA riots were a result of outrage in the black community over the leniency shown to the cops that beat Rodney King. I'm just saying that by charging Chauvin with second-and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter, and seeking a 30-year sentence, the prosecution ensured there was no perception of leniency.
-
The LA riots were a result of outrage in the black community over the leniency shown to the cops that beat Rodney King.
Again, I am not understanding you. A court is not supposed to be "lenient" or "harsh", a court is supposed to dispense justice.
I'm just saying that by charging Chauvin with second-and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter, and seeking a 30-year sentence, the prosecution ensured there was no perception of leniency.
An acquaintance (not in law enforcement) said to me that Chauvin had to be some sort of sacrificial lamb to prevent riots. You seem to be suggesting a similar idea. But a court's job is not to prevent riots. It's to dispense justice. Finding someone guilty of a crime they did not commit in order to prevent a riot is not justice.
-
The LA riots were a result of outrage in the black community over the leniency shown to the cops that beat Rodney King.
Again, I am not understanding you. A court is not supposed to be "lenient" or "harsh", a court is supposed to dispense justice.
I'm just saying that by charging Chauvin with second-and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter, and seeking a 30-year sentence, the prosecution ensured there was no perception of leniency.
An acquaintance (not in law enforcement) said to me that Chauvin had to be some sort of sacrificial lamb to prevent riots. You seem to be suggesting a similar idea. But a court's job is not to prevent riots. It's to dispense justice. Finding someone guilty of a crime they did not commit in order to prevent a riot is not justice.
hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?
-
An acquaintance (not in law enforcement) said to me that Chauvin had to be some sort of sacrificial lamb to prevent riots. You seem to be suggesting a similar idea.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
But a court's job is not to prevent riots. It's to dispense justice.
Finding someone guilty of a crime they did not commit in order to prevent a riot is not justice.
History attests that man's judicial system is flawed and the courts don't always do a stellar job of dispensing justice. At times the innocent have been convicted and the guilty exonerated. Circumstances can influence the outcome of a trial--be it shenanigans on the part of the prosecution or defense, or impartial jurors. I don't believe justice was served in the O.J. Simpson trial. Following that trial, one of the black jurors responded to a reporter's question about the verdict by saying, "We gotta look out for our own." Look, I could be wrong, and it was not my intent to belabor the point. I simply expressed an unsubstantiated comment in passing. Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced that the possibility of civil unrest factored in when assessing the charges against Chauvin--especially given the BLM atmosphere and George Floyd being so central to it. (You yourself questioned whether the evidence was commensurate with the charges against him).
-
The LA riots were a result of outrage in the black community over the leniency shown to the cops that beat Rodney King.
Again, I am not understanding you. A court is not supposed to be "lenient" or "harsh", a court is supposed to dispense justice.
I'm just saying that by charging Chauvin with second-and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter, and seeking a 30-year sentence, the prosecution ensured there was no perception of leniency.
An acquaintance (not in law enforcement) said to me that Chauvin had to be some sort of sacrificial lamb to prevent riots. You seem to be suggesting a similar idea. But a court's job is not to prevent riots. It's to dispense justice. Finding someone guilty of a crime they did not commit in order to prevent a riot is not justice.
hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?
Juries can be extraordinarily unreliable.
-
The LA riots were a result of outrage in the black community over the leniency shown to the cops that beat Rodney King.
Again, I am not understanding you. A court is not supposed to be "lenient" or "harsh", a court is supposed to dispense justice.
I'm just saying that by charging Chauvin with second-and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter, and seeking a 30-year sentence, the prosecution ensured there was no perception of leniency.
An acquaintance (not in law enforcement) said to me that Chauvin had to be some sort of sacrificial lamb to prevent riots. You seem to be suggesting a similar idea. But a court's job is not to prevent riots. It's to dispense justice. Finding someone guilty of a crime they did not commit in order to prevent a riot is not justice.
hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?
Juries can be extraordinarily unreliable.
I really would be interested in your answers to my questions in my response to you. I'm fascinated by your stance so far as I can suss it out and I'd really like to put together a fuller picture of your views.
-
This response is likely as useless as horns on a brass billy goat.
I don't think my previous response was ambiguous. I said what I said, and I meant what I said. It doesn't need explanation or expansion. I refuse to play the Humpty Dumpty post-modern deconstructionist or Hegelian games of word play.
But because I'm in a good mood, I will dare a short response.
What is "white privilege?" A nonsensical, leftist word game to create a straw man against which to pillory every condition known to man. Foolishness. "White privilege" has the same force of language as the phrases "military intelligence" or "school cafeteria food" or "Christian nationalism."
Absolutely. Every race, creed, culture, tribe, and language group has its own set of preferences, prejudices, biases, and affinities. What is race? Mein Gott in Himmel, what a navel gazing question. Race is genetics. DNA. Nothing more, nothing, less. We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth. Pick your family tree.
Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one, all serve essentially the same function, and many are ill maintained and should not be revealed.
I pay little attention to fools, and fools certainly do not sway my opinions, so I really have little concern for the navel gazers, the narcissists, the social justice warriors, the self-identifiers, the whiners, the parasites, the perpetual complaining, the chest thumpers, the accusers, or the self-righteous, whether left or right, marxist or conservative.
The Word of God is true. Jesus is true. Everything else is measured by that standard.
-
This response is likely as useless as horns on a brass billy goat.
I don't think my previous response was ambiguous. I said what I said, and I meant what I said. It doesn't need explanation or expansion. I refuse to play the Humpty Dumpty post-modern deconstructionist or Hegelian games of word play.
But because I'm in a good mood, I will dare a short response.
What is "white privilege?" A nonsensical, leftist word game to create a straw man against which to pillory every condition known to man. Foolishness. "White privilege" has the same force of language as the phrases "military intelligence" or "school cafeteria food" or "Christian nationalism."
Absolutely. Every race, creed, culture, tribe, and language group has its own set of preferences, prejudices, biases, and affinities. What is race? Mein Gott in Himmel, what a navel gazing question. Race is genetics. DNA. Nothing more, nothing, less. We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth. Pick your family tree.
Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one, all serve essentially the same function, and many are ill maintained and should not be revealed.
I pay little attention to fools, and fools certainly do not sway my opinions, so I really have little concern for the navel gazers, the narcissists, the social justice warriors, the self-identifiers, the whiners, the parasites, the perpetual complaining, the chest thumpers, the accusers, or the self-righteous, whether left or right, marxist or conservative.
The Word of God is true. Jesus is true. Everything else is measured by that standard.
oh, I didn't mean to imply that your previous post was ambiguous or that you lacked conviction, its just that terms like "white privilege" and "race" are in my expirience defined very differently by different folks. I think this is very clearly exemplified by your response as I wouldnt define either word in the way that you did and I suspect that i'm not alone even in this thread. I hope it helps that I actually am truly surprised by your definition of race, or specifically that you believe that all "racial" lineages can be traced back to either Ham, Shem, or Japheth, that in itself feels like it was worth the push for elaboration. Anyway I appreciate you embellishing this brass billy goat, and I for one look forward to your future good moods when you might similarly elaborate on other beliefs and stances you hold because I could hardly be more pleased with what you've written here.
-
hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?
Yes, and the jury's decision remains inexplicable to me. But other posters here are implying that it was necessary to prevent riots, which is not the purpose of a trial.
-
Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced that the possibility of civil unrest factored in when assessing the charges against Chauvin--especially given the BLM atmosphere and George Floyd being so central to it. (You yourself questioned whether the evidence was commensurate with the charges against him).
And this should worry us. Again, a trial is supposed to determine guilt by the weight of the evidence, not come to a politically expedient decision.
-
We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth. Pick your family tree.
Shem here.
-
O.J. would disagree
-
We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth. Pick your family tree.
Shem here.
I’m from the tribe of Curly…. Nuuk nyuck nyuck nyuck. Whooob whhoob whooob whoob
-
We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth. Pick your family tree.
Shem here.
Where would that place Europeans, with Ham?
-
hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?
Yes, and the jury's decision remains inexplicable to me. But other posters here are implying that it was necessary to prevent riots, which is not the purpose of a trial.
Okay, I had to reread some of your posts lets see:
"posters" are saying Chauvin was only charged with Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder in order to avoid the appearance of leniency and/or riots and upheaval. Are you saying that the belief that the charges were as such in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong, or are you saying the former and that the belief is true?
"posters" are saying Chauvin was found guilty by a jury of his peers of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder because the Jury wanted to avoid the appearance of leniency and/or riots and upheaval. Are you saying that the belief that the jury found Chauvin guilty on those charges in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong, or are you saying the former and that the belief is true?
You are saying that the Jury finding Chauvin guilty of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder is inexplicable to you through mere preponderance of the evidence, but you are not asserting any reasons for why this is so...yes?
-
Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced that the possibility of civil unrest factored in when assessing the charges against Chauvin--especially given the BLM atmosphere and George Floyd being so central to it. (You yourself questioned whether the evidence was commensurate with the charges against him).
And this should worry us. Again, a trial is supposed to determine guilt by the weight of the evidence, not come to a politically expedient decision.
Like the current Trump trial. Nothing political about going after the GOP's front-runner, right? It's all about justice.
I believe if Chauvin had been exonerated, the black community would have erupted in anger just as they did when the Rodney King cops got off light. And stacking the charges the way the prosecutors did, went a long way toward ensuring Chauvin did time--which is my whole point. With that I'm done beating this dead horse.
-
Okay. So I feel like what you are saying and some other posters are saying are a few different things.
"posters" are saying Chauvin was only charged with Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder
There is no such thing as " Unintentional second degree murder". There is murder 2, "intentional", and murder 2, "depraved indifference".
Are you saying that the belief that the charges were as such in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong
Yes. That's wrong. You charge the crime that was committed, not some other crime because outside circumstances warrant it. Additionally, the fact that the jury found guilt where it was not supported by the evidence is another injustice.
You are saying that the Jury finding Chauvin guilty of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder is inexplicable to you through mere preponderance of the evidence
"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies for a civil trial. In a criminal trial, the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a higher level of proof.
but you are not asserting any reasons for why this is so
It's not my job to disprove things, it's the DA's office job to prove it. Should Chauvin have known that his actions had a good chance of causing a death? I'm an EMT and a retired cop, and it's not obvious to me.
-
I’m from the tribe of Curly…. Nuuk nyuck nyuck nyuck. Whooob whhoob whooob whoob
"Curly" AKA Jerome Lester Horwitz was also from Shem.
-
Where would that place Europeans, with Ham?
Yapeth.
Noah blesses his sons (Gen 9) (or has a the furthest reaching prophecy ever) and says "may Japheth live in the tents of Shem". It seems to me that he's describing western civ: the melding of Greek thought and Jewish values, creating the world's most productive cultural system.
-
Like the current Trump trial. Nothing political about going after the GOP's front-runner, right?
No argument from me.
I believe if Chauvin had been exonerated, the black community would have erupted in anger just as they did when the Rodney King cops got off light.
But that's not the point of the criminal justice system. Besides, I didn't say that he committed no crime. Just not murder. If he was convicted for manslaughter it would be more legally reasonable.
-
There is no such thing as " Unintentional second degree murder". There is murder 2, "intentional", and murder 2, "depraved indifference".
Okay I think you should tell that to Minnesota state law, they've been doing it wrong. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
Yes. That's wrong. You charge the crime that was committed, not some other crime because outside circumstances warrant it. Additionally, the fact that the jury found guilt where it was not supported by the evidence is another injustice.
Well, seeing as how you didn't even know that Minnesota law has unintentional murder, i'd wonder if new information would change your position at all.
"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies for a civil trial. In a criminal trial, the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a higher level of proof.
Well you got me there, well sort of, I was talking about your preponderance of the evidence, as you've made a conclusion about what was explicable by the evidence and the charges you pondered...no?
It's not my job to disprove things, it's the DA's office job to prove it. Should Chauvin have known that his actions had a good chance of causing a death? I'm an EMT and a retired cop, and it's not obvious to me.
It's not your job, I didn't mean to imply that it was. Really I was just attempting to clarify whether or not you were actually asserting anything about why the jury came to the conclusion that they did or not. Were you a cop in Minnesota?
-
Okay I think you should tell that to Minnesota state law, they've been doing it wrong. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
What they call "unintentional" is commonly known as "felony murder". There is intent, just not for the murder itself.
Well, seeing as how you didn't even know that Minnesota law has unintentional murder, i'd wonder if new information would change your position at all.
Nope, because there's no underlying felony.
Well you got me there, well sort of, I was talking about your preponderance of the evidence, as you've made a conclusion about what was explicable by the evidence and the charges you pondered...no?
Nope, those words have specific meaning, and they don't apply to criminal law.
It's not your job, I didn't mean to imply that it was. Really I was just attempting to clarify whether or not you were actually asserting anything about why the jury came to the conclusion that they did or not. Were you a cop in Minnesota?
No, and it doesn't matter.
-
What they call "unintentional" is commonly known as "felony murder". There is intent, just not for the murder itself.
Uh huh, So what was he charged with exactly?
Nope, because there's no underlying felony.
Actually, the underlying felony was third-degree assault.
Nope, those words have specific meaning, and they don't apply to criminal law.
They have a specific meaning in the justice system, but not in a thread on an internet forum unless you want to suggest that that the way words are used in the justice system are the only way those words can be meaningfully used in any context....though it wouldn't surprise me if that is exactly what you did.
-
Uh huh, So what was he charged with exactly?
Great question.
Actually, the underlying felony was third-degree assault.
Which requires "substantial bodily harm". Which was what?
They have a specific meaning in the justice system, but not in a thread on an internet forum unless you want to suggest blah blah blah
Oh for goodness sake. Give it a rest. You don't have to argue every single thing that I say.
-
Great question.
Not really, It's no big mystery, I found the charging documents in 5 seconds here:
Charge: Second Degree Murder - Unintentional - While Committing A Felony
Minnesota Statute: 609.19.2(1)
Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment of not more than 40 years.
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 05/25/2020
Control #(ICR#): 20200338
Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Derek Michael
Chauvin, caused the death of a human being, George Floyd, 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, namely assault in the third degree.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/AmendedComplaint06032020.pdf
Which requires "substantial bodily harm". Which was what?
wait, what is this? are you asking me to justify the third degree assault charge or are you attempting to insinuate that that was not the basis felony for the unintentional second degree murder charge? if the first one, that's not my job, it's the DA's or if the second then see the charging document linked above.
Oh for goodness sake. Give it a rest. You don't have to argue every single thing that I say.
You're right, rest granted.
-
Not really, It's no big mystery, I found the charging documents in 5 seconds here:
Awesome!
wait, what is this? are you asking me to justify the third degree assault charge
Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.
-
Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.
In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:
Either
1) There was intent to kill Floyd
or
2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.
And I don't see that either was met.
So i'd like to go back to this, which was appearently the basis for your opinion. It is clear that you didn't know that what Chauvin was charged with and you were not aware of the relevant minnesota statutes.
Awesome!
I guess, I'd call it doing the basic amount of work to inform my opinion, which you obviously did not do.
Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.
Is that weird? is it unusual at all or is it bog standard? What are you basing this weird characterization on, if its like your initial opinion i'd say it's based on your misguided belief that you know what you are talking about without doing the bare minimum verification work.
You have received new information and appearently instead of considering it, all you want to do is find a way to not admit that you formed an opinion without reviewing or even being aware of the basic facts of the case. You made no effort to check your assumptions and even though you are objectively wrong on essentially every point that you've asserted regarding this case you want to find some life line in the fact that third degree assault isn't a separate charge in the charging documents, I guess because you feel that it's weird apropos of nothing. Whether you admit it or not this puts the fact that you found the verdict inexplicable in a wholly different light, considering that you didn't even know what the charges were.
-
Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced that the possibility of civil unrest factored in when assessing the charges against Chauvin--especially given the BLM atmosphere and George Floyd being so central to it. (You yourself questioned whether the evidence was commensurate with the charges against him).
And this should worry us. Again, a trial is supposed to determine guilt by the weight of the evidence, not come to a politically expedient decision.
Like the current Trump trial. Nothing political about going after the GOP's front-runner, right? It's all about justice.
Except in 2016 it seems the decision was made not to pursue Hillary in order to avoid influencing the election.
-
So i'd like to go back to this, which was appearently the basis for your opinion. It is clear that you didn't know that what Chauvin was charged with and you were not aware of the relevant minnesota statutes.
and
I guess, I'd call it doing the basic amount of work to inform my opinion, which you obviously did not do.
I am once again baffled by your inability to disagree without being disagreeable. If you're interesting in having a discussion withe me, please at least make an attempt to be civil. Thank you.
Now as to the specifics, I wasn't aware that he was charged with felony murder. This is connected to your next comment, below-
Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.
Is that weird?
Yes, it's weird. Because he's being charged with murder in the commission of another crime, in this case an assault. But he's not charged with the assault itself.
What are you basing this weird characterization on, if its like your initial opinion i'd say it's based on your misguided belief that you know what you are talking about without doing the bare minimum verification work.
I have 20 years of relevant experience in the field. Again, please stop with the insults if you want to continue this discussion.
-
So i'd like to go back to this, which was appearently the basis for your opinion. It is clear that you didn't know that what Chauvin was charged with and you were not aware of the relevant minnesota statutes.
and
I guess, I'd call it doing the basic amount of work to inform my opinion, which you obviously did not do.
I am once again baffled by your inability to disagree without being disagreeable. If you're interesting in having a discussion withe me, please at least make an attempt to be civil. Thank you.
Now as to the specifics, I wasn't aware that he was charged with felony murder. This is connected to your next comment, below-
Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.
Is that weird?
Yes, it's weird. Because he's being charged with murder in the commission of another crime, in this case an assault. But he's not charged with the assault itself.
What are you basing this weird characterization on, if its like your initial opinion i'd say it's based on your misguided belief that you know what you are talking about without doing the bare minimum verification work.
I have 20 years of relevant experience in the field. Again, please stop with the insults if you want to continue this discussion.
I regret that you felt insulted, I was just expressing my observations regarding the apparent efforts or lack thereof that you took to inform your opinions, conclusions and arguments. I believe that you do have 20 years of expirience in the field, and I have no wish to diminish that fact, however based on the actual content of our discussion it is evident that your expirience did not impart you with knowledge of basic and critical facts regarding the subjects that we were discussing, and imo only served to provide you with an unjustified sense of confidence in an awareness of facts that you did not actually have. Perhaps it was unfair of me to hold you to a standard of fact checking that I would expect from myself because my expectation that information of the kind that we were discussing will be trivially easy to access is not necessarily something that is second nature to you.
Having said that, it could also be the case that I was unconsciously harsher than I needed to be because just as some of my arguments in the Antisemitism thread were provocative to you because they were reminiscent enough of the arguments that racists make in order to denigrate, marginalize, demonize and/or damage the credibility of jewish people, your argument regarding this case shares some aspects with arguments used by racists to similarly damage the black community. To be honest it is hard for me to tell if I was particularly harsh due to the emotional load of the subject matter or not, but I do not doubt that it is possible..
Anyway, back to the meat and potatoes. On a cursory search I found only 2 other cases and neither had the underlying felony as an additional charge, so I took that to mean that there was nothing unlikely about this manner of charging. Regardless, it isn't super important to me that we find common ground on the weirdness of how minnesota charges the underlying felony in second degree unintentional murder as I think it's ancillary really. As I understand it, you felt that the charges were unwarranted and that the jury's verdict was an inexplicable injustice based on your understanding of the evidence. Please pardon my incredulity regarding the thoroughness of your review of the evidence given the trajectory of our conversation, but even so upon considering the charges and relevant statutes that you are now aware of do you still hold to this conclusion?
Finally, whether or not your opinion has evolved with this new information, I am curious about how this all looks to you internally. Quite a few years ago I was out at the reservoir with some friends flying my new drones, my friend ended up crashing my (really cool and expensive) drone into the water because she saw a snake and was reasonably distracted from the controls by the shock of it. To calm her, I told her that there were no venomous snakes in the state that we were currently in. My other friend looked at me like I was insane and said "That doesn't sound true at all"...nevertheless I persisted because I was certain that I had read that fact and that I too was initially incredulous of it so I double checked with other sources. Seconds later we all had our phones out, and as it turns out I was completely and spectacularly wrong even though I had the memory of not only reading this fact, but not believing it initially and checking other sources, obviously I hadn't...I was sad about my lost drone for a few days, but i'm still devastated about my venomous snake assertion to this day (you may think i'm exaggerating, but the shame and embarrassment is as fresh as it ever was right now upon just remembering it), it changed me. Anyway all that to ask, have you thought about why you believed that you knew things about the case that you did not actually know, and how has this affected you if at all?
-
I regret that you felt insulted
You regret my reaction to your words but not what you said?
Yup, another conversation with you I'll be bowing out of.
Have a great day.
-
I regret that you felt insulted
You regret my reaction to your words but not what you said?
Yup, another conversation with you I'll be bowing out of.
Have a great day.
I was wagering that you were actually okay with regretting that circumstances caused someone pain without regretting the actions that caused the pain, as it turns out, not really. Anyway that's a shame, I really do wish that you were not too insulted to continue, because I really was curious about how learning that the basis of your opinion was erroneous had affected your opinion. I guess I'll just have to wait to see if your behavior or opinions seem to have evolved based on future interactions...which I suppose is what I was going to do anyway, but man it's so rare to actually get first hand commentary from a person confronted with their ignorance essentially in real time, I would have really liked that. I hope you have a good day too.
-
Oh, surprise surprise!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67722479
For the first time, we now know that this story is of a black child shooting a white teacher.
Can you imagine how this story would have been reported if the colours had been swapped?
-
Oh, surprise surprise!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67722479
For the first time, we now know that this story is of a black child shooting a white teacher.
Can you imagine how this story would have been reported if the colours had been swapped?
The howling would have been far louder than this, and you can be sure race would have been a dominant factor in all of the howlings.
-
Sadly, race is often a factor in mainstream news reporting, almost always mentioned in reports of white-on-black crimes, but frequently omitted in black-on-white crime. Another example: in South Carolina in 2007, a young white couple--Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom--was kidnapped, raped and tortured before being murdered by a group of blacks. The ordeal endured by the female was particularly horrific. News agencies at the time were sharply criticized for downplaying the story due to potential backlash from the black community for "perpetuating a stereotype." Had the roles been reversed, there would have been a media frenzy, and Revs. Jesse and Al would have called a press conference to express their outrage.
Everyone's familiar with the Trayvon Martin incident, which quickly became international news. But I bet you never heard of Bob and Nancy Strait. Less than two weeks after Trayvon Martin instantly became a household name, 20 year-old Tyrone Woodfork broke into the home of the elderly white couple from Tulsa, and not only robbed them but beat and sexually assaulted the 85 year-old Nancy, who died 2 days later, and savagely beat 90 year-old Bob, shooting him in the face with his own pellet gun. The D-Day veteran was hospitalized due to his injuries, and died a few months later. So, why was Trayvon sensational world news, yet coverage of the Straits' ordeal (outside of Fox news), was limited to local Tulsa news stations?
The news media generally deems race more relevant in white-on-black crime than when the roles are reversed, and it's unfortunate that such a distinction is a even a factor when choosing which stories are newsworthy. But I suppose that speaks to the era of political correctness we live in.
-
Floyd chose to use drugs , his body his choice, . The title of this thread assumes Floyd was murdered. Was he? Or did he die of his drug use. Nothing about the whole case is/was justus. USA is now a nation of mob rule.
-
Floyd was killed by Chauvin's illegal
placing of his knee on the victim's neck and refusing to move it after pleas for mercy.
Drugs: irrelevant. Race: irrelevant.
A jury convicted Chauvin of murder.
-
I agree that race is irrelevant in the Chauvin conviction
Drug status in Floyd is certainly relevant to the charges and conviction
-
The due process of the courts found that drug use played no significant role in the death of George Floyd.
That is one of the few noteworthy differences between his death and that of Tony Timpa, although the similarities were more significant.
-
The criminal justice system is not just, but it is certainly criminal.
Unfortunately, it's the best we've got.
-
I agree that race is irrelevant in the Chauvin conviction
Drug status in Floyd is certainly relevant to the charges and conviction
Race was not irrelevant Chauvin was convicted because of Floyd' race.
-
No
He was convicted because he’s stupid and the justice system is broken
-
No
He was convicted because he’s stupid and the justice system is broken
Guess you believe OJ is innocent also.
-
Where is the popcorn emoji when you really need it !?!?!
-
Floyd was killed by Chauvin's illegal
placing of his knee on the victim's neck and refusing to move it after pleas for mercy.
In what way was it illegal to pin him down like that? In what way did it cause his death? These are not abstract questions, but material to the case.
A jury convicted Chauvin of murder.
Juries are composed of flawed human beings who can make mistakes.
-
He was convicted because he’s stupid
I can't tell you how many cops are thinking "There but for the grace of God go I".
-
He was convicted because he’s stupid
I can't tell you how many cops are thinking "There but for the grace of God go I".
Fully agreed. I've got a lot of those friends here on the local PD, and I represent a number of them as clients in civil matters.
The totality of the crap storm that was that arrest is monumental in size, and the atmosphere generated by the media and local government was a pot waiting to boil.
Chauvin's stupidity was in not recognizing that he was in a war zone of someone's making until it was too late. I personally don't have a problem with the take down, but when you are in Oz, you shouldn't pee on the Wizard's leg. The totality of the situational awareness outside of his procedure escaped him, and it cost him dearly. Said another way, the societal shifts had removed normal police procedure from his power. Chauvin was a victim of societal degeneration.
And sadly.
-
Floyd was killed by Chauvin's illegal
placing of his knee on the victim's neck and refusing to move it after pleas for mercy.
In what way was it illegal to pin him down like that? In what way did it cause his death? These are not abstract questions, but material to the case.
That particular hold is forbidden in Chauvin's jurisdiction.
A jury convicted Chauvin of murder.
Juries are composed of flawed human beings who can make mistakes.
That is the system we have and appeals are part of that process. I heard the medical testimony but cannot retrieve it at this time (driving.
-
Chauvin's stupidity was in not recognizing that he was in a war zone of someone's making until it was too late. I personally don't have a problem with the take down, but when you are in Oz, you shouldn't pee on the Wizard's leg. The totality of the situational awareness outside of his procedure escaped him, and it cost him dearly. Said another way, the societal shifts had removed normal police procedure from his power. Chauvin was a victim of societal degeneration.
I love your use of the term "societal shifts". Yes, it has happened. Yes, it has changed policing. I myself was aware of it ongoing and became very careful during my interaction with the public. Perhaps it was more visible and more obvious because I worked in a very Democrat city. But if I was in a protracted struggle with a powerful perpetrator, as Chauvin was, I might have forgotten also. Anyway...
-
That particular hold is forbidden in Chauvin's jurisdiction.
Is it against police procedure? Or illegal? Those are two different things.
That is the system we have and appeals are part of that process
Which are also decided by flawed human being.
I heard the medical testimony but cannot retrieve it at this time
The medical facts are conflicting.
-
Chauvin's stupidity was in not recognizing that he was in a war zone of someone's making until it was too late. I personally don't have a problem with the take down, but when you are in Oz, you shouldn't pee on the Wizard's leg. The totality of the situational awareness outside of his procedure escaped him, and it cost him dearly. Said another way, the societal shifts had removed normal police procedure from his power. Chauvin was a victim of societal degeneration.
I love your use of the term "societal shifts". Yes, it has happened. Yes, it has changed policing. I myself was aware of it ongoing and became very careful during my interaction with the public. Perhaps it was more visible and more obvious because I worked in a very Democrat city. But if I was in a protracted struggle with a powerful perpetrator, as Chauvin was, I might have forgotten also. Anyway...
All of my local police friends that they would have stepped back, cleared leather, and upon Floyd’s first step in their direction they would have Swiss cheesed him.
But then, law and order had broken down long before the police showed up in the scene
For one, my friend, I’m glad you are off the streets enjoying a well earned pension
-
Chauvin's stupidity was in not recognizing that he was in a war zone of someone's making until it was too late. I personally don't have a problem with the take down, but when you are in Oz, you shouldn't pee on the Wizard's leg. The totality of the situational awareness outside of his procedure escaped him, and it cost him dearly. Said another way, the societal shifts had removed normal police procedure from his power. Chauvin was a victim of societal degeneration.
I love your use of the term "societal shifts". Yes, it has happened. Yes, it has changed policing. I myself was aware of it ongoing and became very careful during my interaction with the public. Perhaps it was more visible and more obvious because I worked in a very Democrat city. But if I was in a protracted struggle with a powerful perpetrator, as Chauvin was, I might have forgotten also. Anyway...
All of my local police friends that they would have stepped back, cleared leather, and upon Floyd’s first step in their direction they would have Swiss cheesed him.
But then, law and order had broken down long before the police showed up in the scene
For one, my friend, I’m glad you are off the streets enjoying a well earned pension
I'm glad he's off the streets too...and I for one would encourage your local police friends to perhaps get off the streets as well and move into the exciting field of fromagery as it seems a fun, safe and fulfilling way to make swiss and many other cheeses.
-
For one, my friend, I’m glad you are off the streets enjoying a well earned pension
Thank you for your kind words. God bless you, my friend.
-
Many social commentators, when asked about the circumstances leading to violence in urban centers invariably call for Government infusions, called investments, of billions of dollars in programs aimed at target communites.
This is basically a crock, if not an outright protection racket, IMO.
Non profit or private funding of remedial social outreaches is fine, but progressive, tax funded programs amount to social engineering at the taxpayers' expense. And they rarely work.
IMO.
-
Amen
-
Many social commentators, when asked about the circumstances leading to violence in urban centers invariably call for Government infusions, called investments, of billions of dollars in programs aimed at target communites.
This is basically a crock, if not an outright protection racket, IMO.
Non profit or private funding of remedial social outreaches is fine, but progressive, tax funded programs amount to social engineering at the taxpayers' expense. And they rarely work.
IMO.
If they didn't work they wouldn't be done. The question is what does "working" actually mean - if the intention is to lift people out of poverty they clearly don't work. If the intention is to keep people poor enough they keep coming back for the freebies while giving them just enough they won't vote for anything that might take away the freebies, then they work very well. As a means of buying votes they are probably very effective.
-
D’Toqueville was a prophet.