The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

[StevieLasVegas]

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-day-7-wrap-up-defense-slaughters-on-cross-of-states-own-witnesses/

This is a good site to check. Is not a replacement for seeing it yourself, of course.

A pity I'm working straight nights for a couple of months and miss the streams while sleeping. The Farms has been my go to source to catch up on what I missed.

 

[Rekkington]

You don't need a motive for neither 3rd degree murder nor second degree manslaughter. Not caring is kind of the whole point behind those two.

Actually, you don't need a motive to prove even worse murder charges but, Chauvin having a pre-existing gripe against Floyd that lead to him using this whole fake bill thing as an excuse to kill him would turn the thing into a first degree murder and it was never in consideration, outside of the minds of schizos on reddit and twitter, to begin with.

You do need to prove motive for second degree murder, it just doesn't need to be carefully planned beforehand.

 

[Plank]

If he was really that bad, and considering they had prior contact and even worked together, surely there would be stories of animosity or something if it existed. Those would be very easy points which leads me to believe they don't exist. The fact that Chauvin even appeared to hold Floyd's hand might even mean he was a good guy so of course they don't even wanna go near there.

I assume that the fact that they haven't been leaked by the prosecution is a strong indication that they don't exist.

And I remember pages and pages ago someone wondering about what Chauvin was thinking. I was hesitant to say this because much of what I got the general impression from the known evidence could have been just cherry picking on my own part, but seeing this absolute garbage case by the prosecution makes me strongly believe Chauvin honestly and unreservedly wanted to see Floyd safely transported to the hospital.

I believe that is the worst part of this ordeal for him. I haven't really looked into his background since whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be anything bad enough to be making it into the prosecution's case. But I don't doubt that Chauvin probably thinks Floyd was a junkie and a violent criminal, but he believed his training was the best senior police staff could come up with to safely get the suspect the medical care he needed and that the arresting officers, medical team, and bystanders were all likewise made as safe as possible.

You do need to prove motive for second degree murder, it just doesn't need to be carefully planned beforehand.

Yes. I keep seeing people make the mistake of thinking the difference between the charges is how much planning or intentionality they feel needs to be proved by the prosecution, That isn't the case. The three charges are different in kind and very specific:

https://kiwifarms.pl/threads/the-trial-of-derek-chauvin.87600/page-29#post-8648844

 

[7he47r0n]

A pity I'm working straight nights for a couple of months and miss the streams while sleeping. The Farms has been my go to source to catch up on what I missed.

Blessed be the Farms, who sustain me with knowledge, laughter, and corn. Blessed by Joshua, the guard dog of the corn field. May his slober be ever moist.

 

[wagglyplacebo]

Is it very different from his blogging on Legal Insurrection?

Seems like the same blog basically, he may have more on one or the other but law of self defense seems to be his own website while the other seems like a news site he posts his blog to.

 

[Rekkington]

I assume that the fact that they haven't been leaked by the prosecution is a strong indication that they don't exist.

And I remember pages and pages ago someone wondering about what Chauvin was thinking. I was hesitant to say this because much of what I got the general impression from the known evidence could have been just cherry picking on my own part, but seeing this absolute garbage case by the prosecution makes me strongly believe Chauvin honestly and unreservedly wanted to see Floyd safely transported to the hospital.

I believe that is the worst part of this ordeal for him. I haven't really looked into his background since whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be anything bad enough to be making it into the prosecution's case. But I don't doubt that Chauvin probably thinks Floyd was a junkie and a violent criminal, but he believed his training was the best senior police staff could come up with to safely get the suspect the medical care he needed and that the arresting officers, medical team, and bystanders were all likewise made as safe as possible.

That's the wildest part to me, since popular concensus appears to be Chauvin went out with plans to murder an innocent pathetic black man because it's just in his DNA. That's what you actually need to believe to connect these preposterous dots. He's a man sustained by negroid suffering.

 

[Lil Weed Lova]

You do need to prove motive for second degree murder, it just doesn't need to be carefully planned beforehand.

You are talking out of your ass. You never need to prove motive for anything. Yes, it definitely helps your case but it is not mandatory even for first-degree murder. What you need to prove is intent. Those are two different things.


Here's an example:
Person A kills person B with an illegally acquired gun. The act itself is filmed by multiple street cameras. During the investigation, the state discovers the recording of a conversation between the arms dealer and A. It goes as such:

Dealer: What do you need this illegal gun you are currently purchasing from me for?
A: I need it to kill B.
Dealer: Why?
A: None of your business.

In fact, the investigation completely fails to find any connection between A and B. Furthermore, A is perfectly sane and did not even steal anything from B. He just killed him and left. A also completely refuses to testify on the matter.
In other words: the murder clearly happened, is clearly premeditated but the motive is unknown.
Does it magically absolve A from the first-degree murder? No. Don't be a retard.

 

[Ethan Ralphs Micro Penis]

Hahahaaha that's nothing.
Remember when, under 'Nobel Peace Prize' Obama, an AC-130 'Spooky' gunship made multiple airstrikes on a Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital and killed at least 42 people?
And remember when the dozens of injured were offered $3000 and the families of those killed were offered $6000 each as compensation?
And remember when the NYT and CNN tried to stifle reporting on it?
And remember when nobody got dishonorably discharged or impeached?

Now imagine it it'd happened under Trump's watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

That's funny Trumptard, but the only scandal under Obama's watch was the time he decided to wear a tan suit, and that was only because racists thought it was an issue.

 

[Plank]

The Murder Two relevant section

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;

The prosecution needs to prove Chauvin committed some underlying crime against Floyd in addition to Floyd's death. Nothing to do with motive or intent.

The Murder Three relevant section

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

The prosecution needs to prove Chauvin's actions 'eminently dangerous' and from a 'depraved mind.'

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another

The prosecution needs to prove Chauvin acted unreasonably and gambled with Floyd's life.

Nothing else matters in this case. Every single thought or comment about the trial itself should be directly based off of the question as to whether the prosecution has met the burden of proof for one of more of the above highlighted text.

With those three relevant highlighted sections of the charges it should be obvious why the summary of today's testimony was described as a disaster for the prosecution:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-day-7-wrap-up-defense-slaughters-on-cross-of-states-own-witnesses/

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

USA Today & CNN both popped up on my feed when opening a new tab.
In this case its USA Today that has the more "here's what to think" headline, but the CNN ticker is also loaded with prosecution talking points.

 

[Rekkington]

You are talking out of your ass. You never need to prove motive for anything.

Yes you do, you need to prove that he intended to cause harm but the death was accidental. It is different than third degree murder. It is detailed up there, the difference between a use of force and carelessness. That's why they have a different name for it and it has different sentencing. The use of force is the motive, you took an action that caused harm, as opposed to driving drunk and killing someone. Your gun purchasing example is autistic.

 

[soy_king]

That's funny Trumptard, but the only scandal under Obama's watch was the time he decided to wear a tan suit, and that was only because racists thought it was an issue.

Are you being serious? Because I can think of like 3 scandals off the top of my head

 

[Lil Weed Lova]

Yes you do, you need to prove that he intended to cause harm but the death was accidental.

Yes. Intended. As in: had an intent. Intent and motive are two different things. You can have a motive to kill but never attempt to do so because you lack intent. You can prove that a person intended to kill another one without ever figuring out the motive. Those words are not interchangeable. Stop using them like that unless you want everyone with the bare minimum knowledge on this topic to disregard you as a dumbtard.

 

[ogmudbone]

I'm going against the current and giving you a 'like' because I think it's Stunning And Brave that you're coming out of the 'dumbass nigger' closet. Either that or you’re a fantastic troll.

Ill rate this troll one knee out of two.

 

[artilleryfroth]

Yes you do, you need to prove that he intended to cause harm but the death was accidental. It is different than third degree murder. It is detailed up there, the difference between a use of force and carelessness. That's why they have a different name for it and it has different sentencing. The use of force is the motive, you took an action that caused harm, as opposed to driving drunk and killing someone. Your gun purchasing example is autistic.

You are mixing up the words “motive” and “intent”. Sit down.

 

[Shrekking Crew]

Now you lot quit pecking at each other or it's knees for all of you.

 

[Schmeckel]

The main thing was the prosecution's police medical trainer witness did such a good job, the defence asked her to come back for their side of the case.
Wyświetl załącznik 2066295

Other than that it was more or less a repeat of the previous days.

Is it me, or does Nelson seem to Wololo most of the DA's witnesses? And he does it with that sort of confused-sounding voice, to boot. Phoenix Wright, without fucking his questioning into the ground before pulling a horseshoe covered in 4 leaf clovers out of his ass.

 

[Gas the News]

Every time I stumble accross Wikipedia users blundering their way through "accurately" "reporting" current political events "without bias" I understand more why it can't be used as a source in high school essays. It's just random people writing down whatever is most PC (although most fringe topics not to do with social-political events are still decent).

If you want to quickly and concisely explain to someone how Wikipedia is biased, have them search 3 things:

• Proud Boys
• Antifa
• Black Lives Matter

The bias is clearly evident within the first few sentences of the Proud Boys article vs. the other two. Any rational, open-minded person would agree that the description of the Proud Boys is unfavorable and negative when compared to the description of Antifa and BLM, but Antifa and BLM have been engaged in far more violence and destruction than the Proud Boys.

I don’t care for any of these groups, but this is a perfect example of why I don’t trust Wikipedia. This is why I especially don’t trust their take on something as high profile as this trial.

 

[Rekkington]

Yes. Intended. As in: had an intent. Intent and motive are two different things. You can have a motive to kill but never attempt to do so because you lack intent. You can prove that a person intended to kill another one without ever figuring out the motive. Those words are not interchangeable. Stop using them like that unless you want everyone with the bare minimum knowledge on this topic to disregard you as a dumbtard.

I miss it when @AnOminous was the only legal mind here, this new crop are angry spergs.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

I miss it when @AnOminous was the only legal mind here, this new crop are angry spergs.

Same as the weeb wars shit.