How so? In service training is very much a thing and she clearly wasn't keeping up on it. There shouldn't be anything to be divided on but BLM is claiming that she's lying about it being an accident and murdered him on purpose anyway.
In this particular case, premeditation isn't an element of second- and third-degree murder.
Ah I see, maybe a legal difference between countries. Where I am there is no 3rd degree murder (its called manslaughter) and 2nd degree is still a deliberate killing, just one which is not premeditated.
"If convicted of this charge, Potter could face a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $20,000, reports CNN."
I don't know. "Imma bag myself a negro today" sounds like premeditation, in that you've made the decision to go kill someone. Which would be first degree.
You can read the actual statutes for Second and Third, specifically for Minnesota. Laws can vary state to state. In California, far as I can tell, 2nd degree murder is similar to what you have, the deliberate killing or someone but without premeditation. California also doesn't have third degree murder.
I'm not saying people should defend her because she clearly fucked up, I'm saying that Crump and his ilk are going to try and divide people over it anyway by trying to make it out to be another case of some heinously racist murder instead of just a case of staggering incompetence. Whether people bite and run with that narrative is yet to be seen.
Designed by lawyers to make lawyers indispensable because most everyone else can't fucking hope to make heads or tails of most of this bullshit
On the bright side, if we didn't have confusing laws we wouldn't have entertaining Pro Se loltigants like Russel Greer and Smelly Melly Melinda Scott.
Not in this case, in this case it's because America is basically 50 countries banded together to make 1. So comparing California Law to Texas Law is like comparing British Law to French Law.
Not strictly speaking, but you have to prove intent and premeditation for first degree. It's pretty hard to convince a jury of that without proving motive, although in some senseless crimes, intent can be inferred from the circumstances, e.g. you laid in wait for the person and then shot them in the back.
Third degree murder doesn't exist most places in the U.S. either and is usually called manslaughter. Minnesota has third degree murder and there is also a manslaughter statute. Only three states have a crime specifically called third degree murder. Minnesota is one and Pennsylvania and Florida are the others.
Isn't it hypothetically possible (but difficult) to prove premeditation in even the few moments leading up to the killing, though?
mm so I guess if Chauvin is to be charged with unintentional murder in the second degree, the prosecution has to prove he was assaulting Floyd (a felony) and in the course of the commitment of that felony Floyd was killed. Superficially it feels weird to refer to cops restraining someone as an assault. I guess you have to prove that it goes beyond necessity or something.
You'll notice they absolutely abandoned defending the depraved mind bit. Not a single one of their witnesses was saying he had any form of a depraved mind.
Yeah its so strange that they felt strongly about including that charge. Like isnt it enough to get him on the manslaughter and 2nd degree?
And you have to be remember, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's even a chance that Chauvin wasn't acting with a depraved mind, or whatever, that should be an acquittal.
I remember there was also an argument (dunno if it was in the trial proper or just on the internet), that the language says "dangerous to others" as in others, plural, and since Chauvin was only dangerous to Floyd, singular, 3rd degree shouldn't be valid. Dunno if I'd buy that argument, but a defense is a defense.
Damn. If only.
Shut the fuck up, Pelosi.
