Political Discussion

[Teeeee]

First is premeditated murder. That would be fairly hard to prove. Second degree is still with malice and forethought that you are killing someone, Third degrees murder IS manslaughter the difference here I believe is Voluntary Manslaughter vs Involuntary Manslaughter. These are probably the right charges. the cop is a piece of shit but I doubt we thought his actions would result in this poor souls death.

Each state has differing burdens and classifications of murder/killing. I have not looked into Minnesota's. But I believe you when you say 3rd degree is manslaughter in Minnesota.

I would NEVER prosecute (I've interned at a large city's DA office and left within weeks because of how corrupt it was) but I actually could make an exception in this case. Malice and forethought can be seconds. One could argue, that at that last 2.5 minute mark that George was unconscious and every person there was telling that evil SOB that he was unconscious, his malice and aforethought kicked in right then and there and remained for the final 2 mins of the video. Easily. At any point in those last 2 minutes, he could have merely lifted his knee. He was continually deciding to leave his knee on George's neck. One could also argue that the moment he put his knee on George's neck in what is known as an unsafe maneuver, and then left it on his neck for 9 minutes, anything after say the first 30 seconds was with malice and forethought. One could also argue that his history of 18 complaints and his involvement in other officer shootings shows malice and forethought.

I'm not saying those are airtight arguments. But start there and allow the jury to then tell you didn't meet the burden of proof for 1st or 2nd degree and then and only then settle for 3rd.

3rd is a slap on the wrist.

 

[dhodo]

First is premeditated murder. That would be fairly hard to prove. Second degree is still with malice and forethought that you are killing someone, Third degrees murder IS manslaughter the difference here I believe is Voluntary Manslaughter vs Involuntary Manslaughter. These are probably the right charges. the cop is a piece of shit but I doubt we thought his actions would result in this poor souls death.

I don't know man. Continuing to smash someone's neck into the ground while they are begging and pleading and telling you they can't breathe, then continuing to do it after they fall unconscious makes it pretty hard to say he didn't mean for him to die.

I'm not sure what you mean by forethought, but my understanding is second degree means intent but no premeditation. It seemed intentional to me.

I thought third meant you meant to hurt the person (or do whatever you did), but you didn't mean for them to die.

I'm no lawyer though, so someone please educate me if I don't have it straight.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Each state has differing burdens and classifications of murder/killing. I have not looked into Minnesota's. But I believe you when you say 3rd degree is manslaughter in Minnesota.

I would NEVER prosecute (I've interned at a large city's DA office and left within weeks because of how corrupt it was) but I actually could make an exception in this case. Malice and forethought can be seconds. One could argue, that at that last 2.5 minute mark that George was unconscious and every person there was telling that evil SOB that he was unconscious, his malice and aforethought kicked in right then and there and remained for the final 2 mins of the video. Easily. At any point in those last 2 minutes, he could have merely lifted his knee. He was continually deciding to leave his knee on George's neck. One could also argue that the moment he put his knee on George's neck in what is known as an unsafe maneuver, and then left it on his neck for 9 minutes, anything after say the first 30 seconds was with malice and forethought. One could also argue that his history of 18 complaints and his involvement in other officer shootings shows malice and forethought.

I'm not saying those are airtight arguments. But start there and allow the jury to then tell you didn't meet the burden of proof for 1st or 2nd degree and then and only then settle for 3rd.

3rd is a slap on the wrist.

I would agree with all of this, I think second would be a slam dunk if he weren’t a cop. Even still your point still hold that tape is SUPER damning. I think I heard he had his knee on dudes neck for damn near 9 (NINE!..WTF!!!) minutes. Also, everyone around him is voicing their concern about the mans well being. The recording definitely work against the cop.

 

[Teeeee]

I don't know man. Continuing to smash someone's neck into the ground while they are begging and pleading and telling you they can't breathe, then continuing to do it after they fall unconscious makes it pretty hard to say he didn't mean for him to die.

I'm not sure what you mean by forethought, but my understanding is second degree means intent but no premeditation. It seemed intentional to me.

I thought third meant you meant to hurt the person (or do whatever you did), but you didn't mean for them to die.

I'm no lawyer though, so someone please educate me if I don't have it straight.

You got it. It's the continuing part. Well, also that that maneuver is known to be dangerous. But also, George saying he can't breath. George no longer moving. People saying there is blood coming from his nose. People saying he is unconscious. And that SOB continuing to kneel on his neck. That is intent. That is malice. That is forethought.

Would a reasonable person, in the same situation, with their knee on a man's neck, that has lost consciousness, with people telling you he's unconscious, would a reasonable person think this would result in death? Yes.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I understand that first and second degree would be harder to convict, and the worst thing would be this guy and the others getting off for murder, but let's not act surprised when a knee on the neck for nearly 10 minutes results in death.

I am not defending the cops actions I am just trying to look at it based on what the law allows. If it were up to me I would let his kin have at em with a pair of pliers and a Louisville Slugger while he lay handcuffed.

 

[Teeeee]

I am not defending the cops actions I am just trying to look at it based on what the law allows. It it were up to me I would let his kin have at em with a pair of pliers and a Louisville Slugger while he lay handcuffed.

I didn't think for a moment that you were defending the cops. Not at all.

I love the law. Criminal law especially. I get excited talking about it (I EARNED this nerd badge, y'all). I apologize if my enthusiasm came across as implying in any way that you were on these cops side.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I didn't think for a moment that you were defending the cops. Not at all.

I love the law. Criminal law especially. I get excited talking about it (I EARNED this nerd badge, y'all). I apologize if my enthusiasm came across as implying in any way that you were on these cops side.

Not at all. I am a bit of a law nerd myself but definitely not a lawyer. Just attempting to try to understand why they went the way they did.

 

[Teeeee]

Not at all. I am a bit of a law nerd myself but definitely not a lawyer. Just attempting to try to understand why they went the way they did.

I imagine they went low for now because this is such a fast turnaround on a case like this. They still have months of investigation and depositions and motions and etc. They might not know where the evidence is going to take them. But they wanted to get the cop arrested so that they could perhaps stop the riots (I'm not supporting this, just thinking like them for a moment). And they wanted to get that cop in custody because his life is not safe (he made that bed though....).

 

[Joe Mac]

I didn't think for a moment that you were defending the cops. Not at all.

I love the law. Criminal law especially. I get excited talking about it (I EARNED this nerd badge, y'all). I apologize if my enthusiasm came across as implying in any way that you were on these cops side.

Me too, and criminal law is really interesting, in another life where I had financial backing I’d have loved to have given practicing as a criminal barrister a go. I must say though that your degrees of murder confuses me, we just have murder or manslaughter!

I think though as a prosecutor on this you absolutely cannot go too high and miss the conviction on such a high profile case. Also it’s still really close to the incident, surely as the picture widens and we get a bit of distance from the event the prosecutor can add to the indictment if the evidence points towards it.

 

[Jonathan Y]

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

ya, what that guy said... Fuck CNN

there’s a really crazy from inside the building thats worth tracking down

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Tech companies thank and pay security researchers for finding and reporting flaws/vulnerabilities so they can fix them.

But when it comes to government systems, such as unemployment, the researchers are accused of breaking the law and ignore the issue leaving peoples data vulnerable.

Riding the State Unemployment Fraud ‘Wave’ – Krebs on Security

krebsonsecurity.com

A number of states have suffered security issues with the PUA websites that exposed personal details of citizens filing unemployment insurance claims. Perhaps the most galling example comes from Arkansas, whose site exposed the SSNs, bank account and routing numbers for some 30,000 applicants.

In that instance, The Arkansas Times alerted the state after hearing from a computer programmer who was filing for unemployment on the site and found he could see other applicants’ data simply by changing the site’s URL slightly. State officials reportedly ignored the programmer’s repeated attempts to get them to fix the issue, and when it was covered by the newspaper the state governor accused the person who found it of breaking the law.

 

[AnthonyI]

I'll never understand certain things, the "laws" in our country being one of them. Every time something like this happens we cast a spotlight on who we really are and move the tragedy of what happened to almost a secondary state. The Officer is going to find a lawyer who's only job is going to be to find a loop hole or make a deal to reduce his sentence, which is bullshit, but well within our "laws".

So the focus starts to shift to the riots and looting, because nothing will make you feel better or bring justice to George Floyd than you grabbing a new big screen TV, which, casts that spotlight on who we really are. This country continues to show how selfish we are and how much we really don't care about anyone but ourselves.

This may not sit well with many, but the minute that officer took, and that's what he did, he took George Floyd's life, he lost his rights.........along with George.

 

[Joe Mac]

I'll never understand certain things, the "laws" in our country being one of them. Every time something like this happens we cast a spotlight on who we really are and move the tragedy of what happened to almost a secondary state. The Officer is going to find a lawyer who's only job is going to be to find a loop hole or make a deal to reduce his sentence, which is bullshit, but well within our "laws".

So the focus starts to shift to the riots and looting, because nothing will make you feel better or bring justice to George Floyd than you grabbing a new big screen TV, which, casts that spotlight on who we really are. This country continues to show how selfish we are and how much we really don't care about anyone but ourselves.

This may not sit well with many, but the minute that officer took, and that's what he did, he took George Floyd's life, he lost his rights.........along with George.

This is a highly politicised and covered case so I get the tensions and emotions and the desire for swift and retributive justice.

However, I think sometimes it is important to take a step back and look at the wider picture when it comes to justice and I think that you are absolately wrong on the second point in your first paragraph. Two reasons. One deprivation of liberty is the single largest impingement on personal rights and liberties that most civilised countries allow. For murder that is for an extended period of time. Then add in the fact that you guys still have a death penalty and that there are large parts of the country that are not shy in using it. Do you not think that any defendent, regardless of the case or the charges, deserves a full and robust defence that throughly tests all elements of the prosecutions case before they are faced with either penalty. Second the onus isn't on the defence to prove their client as not guilty, its the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, for the courts to work correctly the defence attorney has a duty to not just thier client, but the system, to test their case to ensure that it reaches that standard.

 

[AnthonyI]

This is a highly politicised and covered case so I get the tensions and emotions and the desire for swift and retributive justice.

However, I think sometimes it is important to take a step back and look at the wider picture when it comes to justice and I think that you are absolately wrong on the second point in your first paragraph. Two reasons. One deprivation of liberty is the single largest impingement on personal rights and liberties that most civilised countries allow. For murder that is for an extended period of time. Then add in the fact that you guys still have a death penalty and that there are large parts of the country that are not shy in using it. Do you not think that any defendent, regardless of the case or the charges, deserves a full and robust defence that throughly tests all elements of the prosecutions case before they are faced with either penalty. Second the onus isn't on the defence to prove their client as not guilty, its the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, for the courts to work correctly the defence attorney has a duty to not just thier client, but the system, to test their case to ensure that it reaches that standard.

Agreed, unfortunately I don't dabble in law, but speak from my heart and gut. We'll see if justice is served.

 

[Joe Mac]

Agreed, unfortunately I don't dabble in law, but speak from my heart and gut. We'll see if justice is served.

I understand that but there are a lot of misrepresentations of the criminal justice system and lawyers which lead to misdiagnosis of issues. The big issue is systemic prejudice on the one hand and money and a lack of equality of arms on the other. It allows the rich to appoint ridiculous and well funded lawyers with the resources to run rings around the public prosecution systems. But then on the other hand it’s damns poor people to largely weak Or inexperience representation that is relyinng on meagre legal aid payments because they aren’t yet, or aren’t able to get, in a firm or to be hired by the public prosecution system. Money is sadly once more the cause of all these issues. I don’t think there is so much of an issue with the foundational principles of common law justice or an adversarial court system.

 

[AnthonyI]

I understand that but there are a lot of misrepresentations of the criminal justice system and lawyers which lead to misdiagnosis of issues. The big issue is systemic prejudice on the one hand and money and a lack of equality of arms on the other. It allows the rich to appoint ridiculous and well funded lawyers with the resources to run rings around the public prosecution systems. But then on the other hand it’s damns poor people to largely weak Or inexperience representation that is relyinng on meagre legal aid payments because they aren’t yet, or aren’t able to get, in a firm or to be hired by the public prosecution system. Money is sadly once more the cause of all these issues. I don’t think there is so much of an issue with the foundational principles of common law justice or an adversarial court system.

I agree with you, but this, along with many things regarding lawyers, police officers etc... reminds me of a Chris Rock bit, it went something along the lines of.....

"The problem isn't ALL (insert whatever), it's just a few bad apples.........but some jobs shouldn't have bad apples" So I understand, but as long as the human factor is involved there is no equality in anything, to your point of course. All things end up being bent and turned to fit a narrative, like it or not, I mean there are people looking at George Floyd's incident and asking "Why didn't anyone jump in and help", "The officer was just doing his job", "The officer was within his guidelines and training" ............all technically correct comments, but any of those people would be whistling a different tune if they, or one of their family were under that officers knee.

@Joe Mac , this is an "adult" conversation, I know you know that, I'm not trying to argue your point, but "Justice" is an illusion more times than not when it's left to interpretation and not right and wrong.

 

[Joe Mac]

I agree with you, but this, along with many things regarding lawyers, police officers etc... reminds me of a Chris Rock bit, it went something along the lines of.....

"The problem isn't ALL (insert whatever), it's just a few bad apples.........but some jobs shouldn't have bad apples" So I understand, but as long as the human factor is involved there is no equality in anything, to your point of course. All things end up being bent and turned to fit a narrative, like it or not, I mean there are people looking at George Floyd's incident and asking "Why didn't anyone jump in and help", "The officer was just doing his job", "The officer was within his guidelines and training" ............all technically correct comments, but any of those people would be whistling a different tune if they, or one of their family were under that officers knee.

@Joe Mac , this is an "adult" conversation, I know you know that, I'm not trying to argue your point, but "Justice" is an illusion more times than not when it's left to interpretation and not right and wrong.

I didn’t address the case at hand for a very real reason, the evidence at this stage seems overwhelming against him, it would take the emergence of some truly shock new evidence or a prosecution cock up of huge proportions to avoid some kind of prosecution of him, the whole case seems so damning.

I was more addressing your points about the trial system and attack on defence lawyers. The system quite frankly doesn’t work without the prosecutions case being robustly challenged in court. Our whole criminal justice system is built around innocent until proven guilty and adversarial court proceedings. I dont think that’s wrong. I think there are unfairnesses in access to advise and representation that make it seem so but that is a seriously multifaceted complex argument that me and you are not going to tease out on a music forum.

 

[dhodo]

I understand that but there are a lot of misrepresentations of the criminal justice system and lawyers which lead to misdiagnosis of issues. The big issue is systemic prejudice on the one hand and money and a lack of equality of arms on the other. It allows the rich to appoint ridiculous and well funded lawyers with the resources to run rings around the public prosecution systems. But then on the other hand it’s damns poor people to largely weak Or inexperience representation that is relyinng on meagre legal aid payments because they aren’t yet, or aren’t able to get, in a firm or to be hired by the public prosecution system. Money is sadly once more the cause of all these issues. I don’t think there is so much of an issue with the foundational principles of common law justice or an adversarial court system.

Yeah, my limited experience behind the scenes in the courts is working for an expert witness reconstructing automobile accidents. Especially with criminal cases, the scales of justice being tipped to favor the rich was starkly apparent.

When you have a defendant who can afford to pay an expert witness over $500 per hour (for hundreds of hours), who can charge that much because he is great at convincing juries, vs a cop making $40k a year who works for the state, it isn't fair.

 

[Teeeee]

Oh my goodness, the stories I have working for public defense. Wealth should not equal a get out of jail free card. But it does. It really absolutely does.