SectionC3
-
Posts
7,501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SectionC3
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rob's House said:
I've been thinking along these lines as well, because while the cop used excessive force that resulted in death it seems unlikely that he actually intended to kill the guy. Under Minnesota law, however, it looks like he could be found guilty of what they call Third Degree Murder without such intent. The statute reads as follows:
So they went with the Minnesota equivalent of depraved indifference murder. Note “without intent” and “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind” phrases in the statute. I’m curious to know how the Minnesota legislature and courts have defined “depraved mind.” That’s the key to the charge. In New York State, it’s very difficult to convict of depraved indifference murder in a one-on-one setting. (Read the case Peo v Barboni.) The definition of “depraved mind” there likely is different from the definition of “depraved indifference” here, so who knows.
I’m curious whether the prosecutor included a fallback manslaughter charge.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, njbuff said:
Does manslaughter mean he actually has a shot at getting off?
He always has a shot at getting off. If nothing else there’s always a hope for jury nullification. But a manslaughter charge here probably increases the likelihood of conviction for practical and legal reasons because it’s most consistent with the evidence (at least the evidence that I’ve seen).
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, njbuff said:
The video evidence shows the cop leaning on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes (give or take).
You might be more of a legal expert than me (I have no idea), but that evidence is there in plain sight to see.
It’s probably better cast as evidence of recklessness, not of intent, for the reasons that I noted earlier. You can try to argue intent . . . But I’m skeptical for the aforementioned reasons. Murder requires intent, manslaughter requires recklessness. Taking all of the videos, rioting, and histrionics out of this, this case has all the appearances of a manslaughter.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
This is an unusually reasonable take from you.
I'm pleasantly surprised. That said, the cop KNEW the victim, apparently. Makes murder more likely IMO.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s why we investigate.
Practically speaking, intentional murder is going to be tough to prove. You’re going to have to sell a jury on the idea that a cop intended to choke to death the victim in broad daylight in uniform on a somewhat crowded street and while he might have been aware he was being recorded. Maybe we get more information that would support a murder charge. I’m still skeptical not that such a charge will be levied (this officer, in addition to being in pretty deep ess, also has become a political football), but that such a charge would stick based on what we’ve seen to this point.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Correct. Warren is race baiting and dividing.
But that's the MO of progfascists everywhere. Just look in this thread.
Please leave this crap out of this thread. We’re actually getting along for once. There will be a time for politics and discussion of such things as that Warren comment and Trump’s twitter comments from last night. But that time isn’t now.
-
18 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
Agreed. That being said, it’s a bad idea to let public outrage dictate any investigation or the timeline therein.I find the fact that he knew the guy to really open layers to this- if you were investigating this and discovered that, all the sudden you go from looking at a probably police brutality/whatever form of manslaughter that is, to “wait, could this be pre-meditated?”
Im sure the reality is not as cut and dry as it’s been said, but he definitely needs to go away.
Agreed. I think you nailed it when you said “process may be more difficult.”Maybe someone can help whose served on a force before, but I imagine there is some form of review that would happen leading to his firing (which was almost immediate) and then the DA would get involved and investigate criminality?
The review here was conducted by a pissed-off mayor and lasted about as long as it took to watch one of the videos of the incident and dismissed the cops immediately. There may be PBA action under the CBA to reinstate one or more of the terminated officers. The employment status of the officers and any DA or State AG criminal investigation operate separately from one another.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Dude, it's murder.
That's indisputable. All the ancillary ***** that's happening since the killing is unjustified, but the cop's a murderer.
Murder normally is a crime based on intent to kill. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t know how easy it would be to convict of intentional murder. Manslaughter (probably the equivalent of man 2 in NYS), again based on what I’ve seen, looks like a likelier charge. But this also is exactly the type of case that could be overcharged, so we could see at least one count of murder 2, man 1, and man 2 each levied in an indictment.
I’ll add that this almost certainly is a homicide (that’s not the same as murder), and that the uncertainty with respect to whether a murder charge would stick is part of the reason why it’s important to proceed prudently and investigate before charging.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Yep. A process must be followed because the individual to potentially be charged was not a civilian. This is obvious and doesn’t mean that an arrest won’t happen.
Disagree. A process must be followed because we have due process of law in this country. In the state criminal context the “badge” doesn’t make for a different review process. It may be that the process is more difficult because of the role played by the person under investigation at the time of what apparently was a homicide here, but there’s no special or different treatment here because the “target” of the investigation acted in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident in question.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
?
Minneapolis City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins said George Floyd and fired police officer Derek Chauvin knew each other for many years because they worked security at the same night club. On Monday, Chauvin, who is white, was captured on video with a knee on Floyd’s neck. Floyd, who was black, died.
Both men worked at El Nuevo Rodeo on Lake Street before their last encounter.
“They were both bouncers at that restaurant for 17 years,” Jenkins told CNN. “So, Officer Chauvin, he knew George. They were co-workers for a really long time.”
That . . . Certainly adds another layer to the onion. How bizarre.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point.
2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers.
3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching.
I agree. Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about. This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law.
4 minutes ago, njbuff said:
I don’t know ONE person who is defending what those cops did, but why let this crisis go to waste to ramp up racial tensions, AGAIN.I’d like to leave politics out of this one. It’s nice to find an issue that transcends politics and focuses on our (supposedly but not always) neutral justice and law enforcement systems. There will be a political discussion later, and it’s going to cut both ways, just as it did in 1968. But the focus now should rest on process and the prompt and fair administration of justice.
-
32 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though.
Sort of. I suspect the “color of law” issue probably arises in the context of 42 USC 1983. But that’s out of my lane. With respect to the most culpable officer, the state criminal case most likely is going to be about culpable mental state (intent to cause death, intent to cause physical injury that resulted in death, recklessly causing death, etc.) and whether the exertion of what in this case was deadly physical force was justified (that is, privileged under the circumstances and therefore lawful). The other officers might have issues with respect to accomplice liability, and depending on what the evidences shows the review might be a lot more complicated with respect to them.
-
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?
What crime should the officer have been charged with if he was arrested? Intentional murder? Depraved indifference murder (assuming there is such a crime in Minnesota)? Man 1? Man 2? Criminally negligent homicide? And do you want the other cops at the scene to roll on the guy? Maybe you do, depending on what the evidence says. If you jump the gun on the primary target the less culpable guys might completely clam up (I realize they’re unlikely to talk without some sort of cooperation agreement) because they fear a rush to judgment against them, too. (This, of course, also assumes that the prosecutor is willing to accept cooperation from the potentially less culpable officers in exchange for potential leniency.)
This case might not be as clear-cut as you think, and for that reason it makes sense to look at everything you can (within a reasonable amount of time) before proceeding against the most culpable officers and potentially the other officers. There are a lot of calculations to be made here. Justice isn’t always an immediate or fast-moving thing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh
We’re clear on the basic vocabulary. Frankly the only reason to arrest the most culpable officer now would be to prevent absconder (unlikely here; there’s probably eyes on the guy) or to quell the riots. But to arrest now also kick-starts a process involving indictment, disclosure, and speedy trial considerations. Sometimes it takes a little time to administer justice the right way.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:
Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.
The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.
I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law.
If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.
Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble. The other ones I’m not entirely sure about. I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes. None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:
I think it is human nature to stand with someone you know and like when they do something wrong, no matter the profession. But there are distinctions and limits. There is no general pressure, as a law enforcement officer, to stand by and allow a fellow officer to cause the death of somebody. None. If it occurs in a specific situation, it is driven by the dynamics of that situation and those involved.
I really cannot tell you why the other officers did not intervene. I could only see two officers in the video. My guess, if you are interested, is that, as it was transpiring, the gravity of the situation really didn't register with them. It is easier to see in hindsight.
As for officers lives being ruined for testifying against fellow officers, if it happens, it is a rarity - particularly in a situation where an officer's actions were reckless or intentional and resulted in someone's death.
I’m not at all defending any of the officers. From what the video shows, this was egregious, despicable, and utterly inexcusable. My guess is that crowd control probably was part of the calculus. I’m sure we’ll learn more in the days and weeks to come.
-
On 5/27/2020 at 8:16 AM, Tiberius said:
Biden is getting traction on the contrast between his mask and Trump not wearing it. Good
Biden’s condolences to COVID victims was outstanding. I suspect it’s why Trump finally addressed the issue (on Twitter, naturally).
I wonder if Biden is finding his groove on how to campaign in a pandemic. Weekly “fireside chats” might work really, really well for him.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
Provide your services elsewhere. Seems like it's been quite a while since you've expressed an interest to get going on my front but rest assured I'll not rise to the occasion.
Oh boy. Now it’s ED. It just gets worse and worse with you. The fragile detente holds, sir. For now.
-
15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Yes to the bolded.
Btw--I did zing my friend a bit about laws for us v laws for them. I've mentioned him previously, he worked for Spitzer and supported his candidacy, thought he would do a good job as gov. I reminded him how wrong he was about the guy, and how as a non-attoney it seemed to me that a guy hitting up call girls online, on the phone, potentially across state lines, maybe using campaign fund or public dollars, and not paying sales tax for services rendered might well kinda shoulda been charged with...something. He doesn't disagree.
Spitzer is a scumbag. Whether he should have been prosecuted I can’t say. But you’ll get no argument from me that he is exactly the type of personality we don’t want in public office.
-
12 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
Correct, they are all wrong. I don't believe anyone is equating the taking of a human life with arson or theft. You can condemn all those behaviors in the same sentence without it being some sort of statement on the equivalency of the acts.
I don't believe it is murder either. Probably 2nd degree manslaughter in Minnesota - although not sure about their specific homicide laws.
I don’t know the Minn laws either, but I share your suspicion that man 2 would be in order if the crime occurred in NYS. An aggressive prosecutor might hit him with murder 2 under intentional and depraved indifference theories in NYS and use man 2 as a backup if neither of the top counts sticks. This is the type of case that has the potential to be overcharged, so who knows.
10 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:This is definitely sobering. Hard to believe this is happening in America
No kidding. 2020 is on fire. Just when you think it can’t get any crazier, it does.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
So, my intent is to be an honest broker looking for dialogue. True, I like to have a bit of fun with the discourse, but my fundamental rule is I try really hard not to say something online I wouldn't say to someone in person.
I reached out to a friend who is an attorney of some renown in NYS govt. Disclosure, he defines himself as a liberal, he believes COVID is a big &^%$ing deal and thinks Cuomo is doing a good job at the helm of it all. He is not a Trump fan, obviously, keeps his commentary to a respectable level and imo is pretty smart guy.
I asked him to share his thoughts on the technical side of the Flynn case, the issues you and I have discussed and where the case stands. I acknowledged taking a kitchen table discussion approach to it all...in other words, yeah, he plead guilty, but with everything else still pending, is he guilty?
My friend's take is as you have suggested with respect to 'conviction'. When Flynn plead guilty, he was convicted. Good for you on that--though it seems from your reply above that you felt that I misrepresented what you said and didn't say that. I was pretty sure you did, so I want you to be acknowledged for that.
That said, my friend's read on it was that a guilty plea reflects guilty, though a timely plea to withdraw was submitted to have the plea reconsidered. In his opinion, the case is not yet resolved, pending motions etc etc etc.
Finally--from his reply, my friend feels that Flynn is guilty, should be guilty, that Judge Sullivan is non-partisan, and believes the 4 us attornies resigned in protest due to the unusual nature of the case. We disagreed on much of that, and chatted a bit more on the multiple set of rules that seem to apply to reg folks v the elite, and agreed to disagree,
Good call on conviction (assuming I understood you on that before you said I misrepresented).
I’ll start with the resignation of the attorneys. It’s weird.
I agree with your friend on Sullivan. No experience or background with the judge, but the procedure here is eminently fair and cautious. It’s a very, very smart approach to a politically-charged case. And it’s especially appropriate from what little of the backstory I know here - Flynn moves to vacate, and the government (again, from what I understand and could be wrong) doesn’t support the motion with a substantive submission and instead simply doesn’t oppose it. In this context, that’s odd. So Sullivan is doing due diligence and having an amicus stand in the shoes of the government to make sure that the government’s approach is above-board. Perfectly reasonable and apolitical.
Your friend is right about the finality point. The question of guilt has been resolved, but we don’t have a judgment yet (which typically signifies the end of a case at the trial level) because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced and the judgment is rendered only after sentence is imposed. So while the question is guilt at this point is closed/answered, the case is still live because there is an untaken step with respect to the guilty plea (namely, the sentence, and I suppose the motion to withdraw the plea).
You and I are both sort of right about the guilty issue. My point is a technical one. Flynn is guilty because he pleaded guilty and the guilty plea has not been withdrawn or otherwise disturbed. Until something disturbs the plea, he is guilty, like it or lump it. Your point is a practical one; because Flynn has moved to withdraw the plea, there’s good reason to believe that the final word on the question of his guilt has not been spoken. It may be that down the road you’re right about that. Time will tell.
Finally, that was a nice post you made. We may disagree on the issues, but I very much respect your honesty. I try to live my life and work my job that way, and I very, very much respect you taking the time to reason through this interesting legal issue. Well done.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Reality Check said:
Hoax. Try agin.
Copying the libs to own the libs. Nice!
-
4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
Having second thoughts regarding your unconditional surrender? Sorry, you asked to bury the hatchet and I did.
Hmmmn. I don’t know where you came up with this unconditional surrender thing. If you want to end the detente, just let me know. I feel like you’re the only one who benefits from the service I provide in reminding you of certain problems that require deeper reflection on your part, and I’m happy to get going on that front again if you would like.
-
5 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
His post was"Tongue in cheek" no doubt. However, he does have a point.
Can you condemn the actions of the officer(s) and condemn criminal behavior on the part of those committing arson, assault, theft, vandalism, etc.?
It would seem to me to be a very reasonble stance. If you disagree, why?
The officers and the looters, etc., all are wrong here. The issue is the attempt to identify an equivalency between the acts.
Based on what I’ve seen, George Floyd’s death isn’t a murder. But it could well be a manslaughter. The wrongful taking of a life is infinitely worse than the inexcusable acts of thievery, destruction of property, looting, etc. that have occurred. They don’t belong in the same conversation. The looters absolutely are disgraceful and wrong. But that’s a conversation to be had separate from the police brutality issue that we unfortunately have to again grapple with as a society.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:
Gee, I wonder who was coming out against reusable grocery bags and such months before the Wuhan Virus was a sparkle in the democrats eye?
Wuhan virus. Nice. Had a little homophobia from you this morning, now it’s time to bring a bit of racism into the mix.
Our detente grows more fragile by the minute, sir.
Liberal Protests
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Anything re: any of the other officers?