Author Topic: The US policing crisis thread  (Read 77230 times)

J70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14456
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1110 on: April 24, 2021, 03:36:51 PM »
Iíve seen Smerconish a few times flicking around on Saturday mornings while waiting for football. Canít remember if he was CNN or MSNBC.

Will check out his podcast.

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1111 on: April 24, 2021, 04:36:16 PM »
Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes werenít enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. Thatís not to say I think heís not guilty just that I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

I assumed (and Iím open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.
Having just looked at the statute books in Minnesota I am now more confused than ever.  It seems you cant commit manslaughter in the 1st degree if you are convicted of Murder 1,2 or 3 but the same prohibition doesn't exist for 2nd degree manslaughter.  How strange

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1112 on: April 25, 2021, 07:45:10 AM »
Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes werenít enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. Thatís not to say I think heís not guilty just that I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.


I assumed (and Iím open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.
Having just looked at the statute books in Minnesota I am now more confused than ever.  It seems you cant commit manslaughter in the 1st degree if you are convicted of Murder 1,2 or 3 but the same prohibition doesn't exist for 2nd degree manslaughter.  How strange

No. Not even slightly strange. First degree manslaughter requires an intent to kill. It differs from 1st degree murder in that itís diminished responsibility from a temporary rage - think battered wife syndrome.

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1113 on: April 25, 2021, 07:48:20 AM »
Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes werenít enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. Thatís not to say I think heís not guilty just that I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

The best political commentator is a guy called Michael Smerconish.  Definitely listen to his podcasts

On his show a couple of weeks ago he brought up that very point and iirc had an expert discuss it with him.

His argument was that it could end up like the George Zimmerman trial-prosecutor overreached and went for the bigger charge, when the lesser one would have brought almost identical jail time

This is also very easy to explain.

Itís a simple question of misinformation.

You are misinformed on the meaning of the following words; ďbestĒ and ďexpertĒ.

I wouldnít be terribly enamoured by your understanding of a political commentator or the law and its practice.

Prosecutors in the Chauvin case didnít drop the lesser charge and just go for the higher one they left all 3 on the charge sheet and delivered all 3. If Chauvinís team want to find a technicality they need to find one on all 3 charges. His appeal prospects are not nil but they are very, very low. He has to find some way of getting round the fact that a kid recorded his crime. Itís a poor enough starting point

This could very easily be thrown out on appeal due to Maxine Waters and Joe Bidenís public comments in the days leading up to the verdict.......the JUDGE in the case said that.

Is he enough of an expert for you?

Donít be surprised to see this go to a retrial

)Also the decision not to move the case could be called into question as would the decision not to sequester the jury)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/derek-chauvin-verdict-overturned-appeal/story%3fid=77213609

I wasnít referring to Bidenís comments. Nor was David McKeown when he referred to the charge sheet and nor was your ďexpertĒ when he ďmade that very pointĒ. Specific enough for you?

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1114 on: April 25, 2021, 09:10:41 AM »
Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes werenít enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. Thatís not to say I think heís not guilty just that I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.


I assumed (and Iím open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.
Having just looked at the statute books in Minnesota I am now more confused than ever.  It seems you cant commit manslaughter in the 1st degree if you are convicted of Murder 1,2 or 3 but the same prohibition doesn't exist for 2nd degree manslaughter.  How strange

No. Not even slightly strange. First degree manslaughter requires an intent to kill. It differs from 1st degree murder in that itís diminished responsibility from a temporary rage - think battered wife syndrome.

Thereís a number of different ways you can commit Manslaughter under Minnesota law including what might be termed battered wiveís syndrome. In some of those ways including that one you must have an intention to kill but not for all of them. For example if you sell dodgy drugs to someone and kill them thatís first degree manslaughter as well. As is committing a misdemeanour with such force as to be reckless with regard to human life. Itís very strange where they draw their distinctions. I much prefer ours.


smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1115 on: April 25, 2021, 09:55:31 PM »
Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes werenít enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. Thatís not to say I think heís not guilty just that I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.


I assumed (and Iím open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.
Having just looked at the statute books in Minnesota I am now more confused than ever.  It seems you cant commit manslaughter in the 1st degree if you are convicted of Murder 1,2 or 3 but the same prohibition doesn't exist for 2nd degree manslaughter.  How strange

No. Not even slightly strange. First degree manslaughter requires an intent to kill. It differs from 1st degree murder in that itís diminished responsibility from a temporary rage - think battered wife syndrome.

Thereís a number of different ways you can commit Manslaughter under Minnesota law including what might be termed battered wiveís syndrome. In some of those ways including that one you must have an intention to kill but not for all of them. For example if you sell dodgy drugs to someone and kill them thatís first degree manslaughter as well. As is committing a misdemeanour with such force as to be reckless with regard to human life. Itís very strange where they draw their distinctions. I much prefer ours.

Preferences as to how manslaughter laws should be framed is all very interesting. But getting back to your original point i.e.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case.
as
I donít understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.
That simply isn't true

You  continue to refer to inconsistencies in the verdict referencing what these inconsistencies are,

The inconsistency of verdicts is not necessarily grounds for an automatic retrial but may form part of an appeal.

So what are these inconsistencies??

Hound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6327
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1116 on: April 26, 2021, 09:29:28 AM »
I think David made his initial comments before heíd researched the issue and he didnít watch much of the trial. The closing arguments by the prosecution explained it all very clearly.

There are no inconsistencies in the three verdicts. Murder in the 2nd requires an intention to commit a felony. Not necessarily an intention to kill. The prosecution never tried to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1117 on: April 26, 2021, 10:16:19 AM »
I think David made his initial comments before heíd researched the issue and he didnít watch much of the trial. The closing arguments by the prosecution explained it all very clearly.

There are no inconsistencies in the three verdicts. Murder in the 2nd requires an intention to commit a felony. Not necessarily an intention to kill. The prosecution never tried to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.

Very good. Fully agree.

There are posters on this forum who will malignly pretend that there is an inconsistency in the verdicts. Donít for one moment think David is malign but we all have to be careful not to give grist to the malignant mill

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1118 on: April 27, 2021, 12:00:58 PM »
......

Very good. Fully agree.

There are posters on this forum who will malignly pretend that there is an inconsistency in the verdicts. Donít for one moment think David is malign but we all have to be careful not to give grist to the malignant mill

Yeah my original post was somewhat confused which didnt help.  Murder 2 requires an intention to either kill or commit a felony or commit bodily harm. Manslaughter 2 can be committed in a number of ways.  Having read those I dont understand how you can be guilty in any of those scenarios if you have an intention to kill or commit a felony or commit bodily harm as that would automatically come under Murder 2.  That said I note that the manslaughter statute specifically excludes a conviction for murder and manslaughter 2 in only one specific scenario which implies there's no prohibition in the other scenarios.  Its very unusual when compared to the legal systems I am more used to.

In summation I remain concerned over the safety of all the verdicts which I wouldn't have had they not been tried together but I fully accept its not clear cut and certainly not as clear cut as I had thought it was on first hearing of the verdict.  I think I would need to know more about Minnesota law to comment further.

In respect of your other points that you have quoted but I can't add in here again I obviously wasn't clear enough but my references that you have quoted to inconsistencies where not a reference to the Chauvin case per se but more generally to how inconsistencies in verdicts can and invariably do result in successful appeals in this jurisdiction 

« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 12:12:40 PM by David McKeown »

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1119 on: April 27, 2021, 02:12:50 PM »
I will attempt to help.

The entry level charge here is 2nd degree manslaughter. That requires proof of consciously embarking on an action that runs the risk of death or ABH.

Once you have proof of that you donít have to dismiss that charge to consider a higher charge.

The next one up is 3rd degree murder. That requires a dangerous act, no regard for human life and ďa depraved mindĒ.

The final one is 2nd degree murder. Again no need to prove intent here. None of the offences require proof of intent to kill. Murder 2 requires proof of intent to commit a felony in this case assault.

The additional proof required for each higher charge does not undermine each of the lower charges. The manslaughter charge looks pretty clear to me. The added requirements of intent to do harm all the way up to an assault all looks provable and indeed proven

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1120 on: April 27, 2021, 03:50:20 PM »
I will attempt to help.

The entry level charge here is 2nd degree manslaughter. That requires proof of consciously embarking on an action that runs the risk of death or ABH.

Once you have proof of that you donít have to dismiss that charge to consider a higher charge.

The next one up is 3rd degree murder. That requires a dangerous act, no regard for human life and ďa depraved mindĒ.

The final one is 2nd degree murder. Again no need to prove intent here. None of the offences require proof of intent to kill. Murder 2 requires proof of intent to commit a felony in this case assault.

The additional proof required for each higher charge does not undermine each of the lower charges. The manslaughter charge looks pretty clear to me. The added requirements of intent to do harm all the way up to an assault all looks provable and indeed proven

It doesn't help but thanks.

Murder 2 can only be committed in one of three ways it seems (given the first involves drive by shootings its not particularly relevant here)

So the two relevant ways are if someone

(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; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

In either of those scenarios you must have had an intent to commit a felony (other than the two specified) or an intent to inflict bodily harm

If we compare that to the position under Manslaughter 2 a conviction for Manslaughter 2 requires one of the following to have occurred:

A death brought about by

(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; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

Of those only (1) is relevant.  In order to be culpably negligent you have to have acted recklessly, an individual can not intend to be culpability negligence or reckless therefore in order to meet the criteria for Manslaughter 2 you can not also meet the requirement for Murder 2 so I don't see how it could be interpreted as a building blocks approach.  I dont see any other way to properly read the statutes   

I do accept your point that an intention to kill is not necessary for murder 2, although given that an intention to kill is not necessary for murder in this jurisdiction and given my previous comments i think its obvious that I hadnt properly explained my point in the first instance.

Two other things confuse me about the case.

Firstly what is the correct charge if you intend to kill someone but there was no pre-meditation?

Secondly if you adopt a building blocks approach, why is assault and all other lesser charges not left on the indictment.

To me the manslaughter charge only looks fine provided he didnt intend to commit a felony or bodily harm which I felt he did (the felony being an unlawful assault).  If however it was established he did intend to commit either a felony or bodily harm then Murder 2 was the appropriate charge.

What gives me pause with my reasoning is that the normal rules of statutory interpretation require you to give meaning to every word.  With that in mind the fact that (5) specifies its not Manslaughter if Murder 1 2 or 3 is satisfied implies that Manslaughter (under clause 1) and Murder may be justifiable for the same incident

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1121 on: April 27, 2021, 10:08:22 PM »
I have trimmed your quote down to the substantive points.

The murder 2 charge here required. 
an intent to commit a felony ...... or an intent to inflict bodily harm

The Manslaughter 2 charge here required
A death brought about 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

There is no inconsistency here. The inconsistency that you seem to be reaching for is the intent versus reckless one

In order to be culpably negligent you have to have acted recklessly, an individual can not intend to be culpability negligence or reckless therefore in order to meet the criteria for Manslaughter 2 you can not also meet the requirement for Murder 2 so I don't see how it could be interpreted as a building blocks approach.  I dont see any other way to properly read the statutes   
Its clear to me that you are wrong on this and have been since the outset, The intent in the murder charge is an intent to commit a felony and the recklessness in the Manslaughter charge is recklessness towards the outcome. As I have said all along there is no inconsistency here and its not that complex.

if you adopt a building blocks approach, why is assault and all other lesser charges not left on the indictment.

Because there was a death. So the charges come from the murder and manslaughter suites.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 10:18:49 PM by smelmoth »

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1122 on: April 27, 2021, 10:26:47 PM »
I have trimmed your quote down to the substantive points.

The murder 2 charge here required. 
an intent to commit a felony ...... or an intent to inflict bodily harm

The Manslaughter 2 charge here required
A death brought about 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

There is no inconsistency here. The inconsistency that you seem to be reaching for is the intent versus reckless one





In order to be culpably negligent you have to have acted recklessly, an individual can not intend to be culpability negligence or reckless therefore in order to meet the criteria for Manslaughter 2 you can not also meet the requirement for Murder 2 so I don't see how it could be interpreted as a building blocks approach.  I dont see any other way to properly read the statutes   
Its clear to me that you are wrong on this and have been since the outset, The intent in the murder charge is an intent to commit a felony and the recklessness in the Manslaughter charge is recklessness towards the outcome. As I have said all along there is no inconsistency here and its not that complex.

if you adopt a building blocks approach, why is assault and all other lesser charges not left on the indictment.

Because there was a death. So the charges come from the murder and manslaughter suites.

Your use of the quote system is far superior to my own so thanks for that. The point I make is the use of the term culpable negligence in the statute. If you intend what transpires to be the consequences of your actions then by definition you have acted deliberately and not culpably negligently. If you intended to commit a felony or were attempting to commit a felony or bodily harm and you so did and in doing a death resulted then you are guilty of Murder 2 but you are not culpably negligent. If you were culpably negligent and a death results then you are guilty of Manslaughter 2.

Iím struggling to see how you can be guilty of both.

Also you are quite right. I certainly could be wrong. I have been in the past and will be again in the future so me being wrong would hardly be surprising


J70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14456
    • View Profile
Re: The US policing crisis thread
« Reply #1124 on: May 04, 2021, 01:29:14 PM »
Uh oh!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/03/derek-chauvin-juror-brandon-mitchells-participation-in-d-c-march-could-help-appeal-legal-experts-say/amp/

It will be interesting to see what comes of it now.

That said, demands for fair treatment of black people and for police accountability are not, and should not, be outside of the mainstream of decent society.

Personally, I didnít attend any marches (if I was young and single I might have), but I wholeheartedly support the broad movement (obviously not violence or property destruction before someone starts). Does that mean that I couldnít be a fair juror and parse the evidence and legal technical issues at hand?

Chauvin has a hell of lot more going against him than one jury member being an enthusiastic supporter of BLM and opponent of police brutality.

How long did it take the jury to convict? Was it even half a day?

Even if he gets a retrial, it is not going to change anything. Unfortunately for him, a cop with a long history of complaints against him, a good citizen was around this time to film him literally squeezing the life out of a man for almost ten minutes. Heís not making that go away. All it will do is drain the funds of the police union or whatever organization has to back him of another half a million or so.