A hero of our time: Tou Thao

[Szdfan]

What? Answer your question first? To what end?

To stop going around in circles?

Do you not know what your belief is, and so you need me to help you out? How does me answering these questions, change what you believe about the intentions of Derek C. that day?

I told you what I believe - I believe that Derek Chauvin is a convicted murderer, convicted of second degree murder in a court of law. Every member of the jury believed that every element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are asking me to answer a different question. And the question doesn't make sense to me. I am judging him by his actions. Given the following, what guidelines do you propose to judge intent?

What exactly is the difference between (1) assaulting Floyd, showing reckless disregard for his life, ignoring people who thought he was killing Floyd, ignoring appeals to let Floyd get medical assistance, not letting the EMT try to save Floyd's life and (2) murdering Floyd? That's clearly second degree murder.

How do you measure what Chauvin intended? If he didn't mean to kill Floyd, he had plenty of opportunities to reconsider what he was doing.

I can't tell for sure what was going on in his inner dialog, but if you intentionally do the things required to kill someone, ignore people who are doing what they can to tell you that's what happening, and prevent people from saving that person's life, how is that different from intentionally killing him?

I don't have a recording of Chauvin's brainwaves. We cannot observe another person's inner dialog. But we can observe his actions.

I don't think it matters what Chauvin's intentions were. I doubt he woke up in the morning with premeditated murder in his heart. But as Bootstrap point out, shooting someone because of an argument is still murder even if you didn't intend to do it. I think manslaughter is usually related to neglect.

I do think Chauvin demonstrated a disregard for Floyd's life and I think the charges and conviction were appropriate.

[Bootstrap]

Him being a convicted murderer now, is a point of fact. And yes, I am asking you a different question, a question of honest opinion, that for some reason you are extremely loath to say.
If we had ability to record his brainwaves etc., it wouldn't be so much of opinion. I'm asking for opinion. If you don't like the circles, you could answer bluntly.

Oh, let me explain.

I do not believe I have the ability to tell you someone else's inner thoughts. I am therefore reluctant to pretend that I can. In fact, I'm a little weirded out by the extent that many people confidently proclaim what other people are thinking. I think that's folly. I don't want to do that myself.

And there's evidence that you and I do not have access to, but the jurors did.

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, evidence was presented that included information about his previous use of force incidents and whether he had been warned or received training regarding the use of a knee on the neck restraint technique. Specific details about Chauvin's prior incidents, warnings, or whether he had been involved in cases where individuals died as a result of similar restraint methods were discussed during the trial.

That evidence might help answer your question. But that information was never made public.

[Bootstrap]

But as Bootstrap point out, shooting someone because of an argument is still murder even if you didn't intend to do it. I think manslaughter is usually related to neglect.

I do think Chauvin demonstrated a disregard for Floyd's life and I think the charges and conviction were appropriate.

In states that follow the Model Penal Code, there are four different kinds of intent:

• Acting purposely – The goal of the defendant was to cause the criminal conduct.
• Acting knowingly – The defendant was practically certain that the conduct would cause a particular result
• Acting recklessly – The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that the criminal conduct would occur.
• Acting negligently – The defendant was not aware of the risk criminal conduct would occur but should have been aware of the risk.

In Minnesota, here are the levels of intent associated with first, second, and third degree murder:

First Degree Murder:
- Acting purposely: The defendant's goal was to cause the death of another person.
- Acting knowingly: The defendant was practically certain that their conduct would result in the death of another person.

Second Degree Murder:
- Acting knowingly: The defendant was practically certain that their conduct would result in the death of another person.
- Acting recklessly: The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that the death of another person would occur.

Third Degree Murder:
- Acting recklessly: The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that the death of another person would occur.

[RZehr]

What? Answer your question first? To what end?

To stop going around in circles?

Do you not know what your belief is, and so you need me to help you out? How does me answering these questions, change what you believe about the intentions of Derek C. that day?

I told you what I believe - I believe that Derek Chauvin is a convicted murderer, convicted of second degree murder in a court of law. Every member of the jury believed that every element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are asking me to answer a different question. And the question doesn't make sense to me. I am judging him by his actions. Given the following, what guidelines do you propose to judge intent?

What exactly is the difference between (1) assaulting Floyd, showing reckless disregard for his life, ignoring people who thought he was killing Floyd, ignoring appeals to let Floyd get medical assistance, not letting the EMT try to save Floyd's life and (2) murdering Floyd? That's clearly second degree murder.

How do you measure what Chauvin intended? If he didn't mean to kill Floyd, he had plenty of opportunities to reconsider what he was doing.

I can't tell for sure what was going on in his inner dialog, but if you intentionally do the things required to kill someone, ignore people who are doing what they can to tell you that's what happening, and prevent people from saving that person's life, how is that different from intentionally killing him?

I don't have a recording of Chauvin's brainwaves. We cannot observe another person's inner dialog. But we can observe his actions.

I don't think it matters what Chauvin's intentions were. I doubt he woke up in the morning with premeditated murder in his heart. But as Bootstrap point out, shooting someone because of an argument is still murder even if you didn't intend to do it. I think manslaughter is usually related to neglect.

I do think Chauvin demonstrated a disregard for Floyd's life and I think the charges and conviction were appropriate.

I think intent is always important. And for a "justice" system to disregard intent, is unjust.

[RZehr]

Him being a convicted murderer now, is a point of fact. And yes, I am asking you a different question, a question of honest opinion, that for some reason you are extremely loath to say.
If we had ability to record his brainwaves etc., it wouldn't be so much of opinion. I'm asking for opinion. If you don't like the circles, you could answer bluntly.

Oh, let me explain.

I do not believe I have the ability to tell you someone else's inner thoughts. I am therefore reluctant to pretend that I can. In fact, I'm a little weirded out by the extent that many people confidently proclaim what other people are thinking. I think that's folly. I don't want to do that myself.

And there's evidence that you and I do not have access to, but the jurors did.

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, evidence was presented that included information about his previous use of force incidents and whether he had been warned or received training regarding the use of a knee on the neck restraint technique. Specific details about Chauvin's prior incidents, warnings, or whether he had been involved in cases where individuals died as a result of similar restraint methods were discussed during the trial.

That evidence might help answer your question. But that information was never made public.

Okay, whatever. But I don't believe that you don't have any opinion on whether Derek C. intended for Floyd to die that day.

[Ken]

Him being a convicted murderer now, is a point of fact. And yes, I am asking you a different question, a question of honest opinion, that for some reason you are extremely loath to say.
If we had ability to record his brainwaves etc., it wouldn't be so much of opinion. I'm asking for opinion. If you don't like the circles, you could answer bluntly.

Oh, let me explain.

I do not believe I have the ability to tell you someone else's inner thoughts. I am therefore reluctant to pretend that I can. In fact, I'm a little weirded out by the extent that many people confidently proclaim what other people are thinking. I think that's folly. I don't want to do that myself.

And there's evidence that you and I do not have access to, but the jurors did.

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, evidence was presented that included information about his previous use of force incidents and whether he had been warned or received training regarding the use of a knee on the neck restraint technique. Specific details about Chauvin's prior incidents, warnings, or whether he had been involved in cases where individuals died as a result of similar restraint methods were discussed during the trial.

That evidence might help answer your question. But that information was never made public.

Okay, whatever. But I don't believe that you don't have any opinion on whether Derek C. intended for Floyd to die that day.

What he intended isn’t really relevant. He was convicted of second degree murder for which intent isn’t really relevant.

[RZehr]

Oh, let me explain.

I do not believe I have the ability to tell you someone else's inner thoughts. I am therefore reluctant to pretend that I can. In fact, I'm a little weirded out by the extent that many people confidently proclaim what other people are thinking. I think that's folly. I don't want to do that myself.

And there's evidence that you and I do not have access to, but the jurors did.

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, evidence was presented that included information about his previous use of force incidents and whether he had been warned or received training regarding the use of a knee on the neck restraint technique. Specific details about Chauvin's prior incidents, warnings, or whether he had been involved in cases where individuals died as a result of similar restraint methods were discussed during the trial.

That evidence might help answer your question. But that information was never made public.

Okay, whatever. But I don't believe that you don't have any opinion on whether Derek C. intended for Floyd to die that day.

What he intended isn’t really relevant. He was convicted of second degree murder for which intent isn’t really relevant.

In terms of the law, I agree. And that isn't what I'm asking either. You probably don't have any opinion either on whether he intended to kill George Floyd that day, I suppose?

[Szdfan]

To stop going around in circles?



I told you what I believe - I believe that Derek Chauvin is a convicted murderer, convicted of second degree murder in a court of law. Every member of the jury believed that every element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are asking me to answer a different question. And the question doesn't make sense to me. I am judging him by his actions. Given the following, what guidelines do you propose to judge intent?



I can't tell for sure what was going on in his inner dialog, but if you intentionally do the things required to kill someone, ignore people who are doing what they can to tell you that's what happening, and prevent people from saving that person's life, how is that different from intentionally killing him?

I don't have a recording of Chauvin's brainwaves. We cannot observe another person's inner dialog. But we can observe his actions.

I don't think it matters what Chauvin's intentions were. I doubt he woke up in the morning with premeditated murder in his heart. But as Bootstrap point out, shooting someone because of an argument is still murder even if you didn't intend to do it. I think manslaughter is usually related to neglect.

I do think Chauvin demonstrated a disregard for Floyd's life and I think the charges and conviction were appropriate.

I think intent is always important. And for a "justice" system to disregard intent, is unjust.

How do you objectively prove intent in a court of law? Is it enough for Chauvin to say, “Oops, I didn’t mean to do it?”

[Ken]

Okay, whatever. But I don't believe that you don't have any opinion on whether Derek C. intended for Floyd to die that day.

What he intended isn’t really relevant. He was convicted of second degree murder for which intent isn’t really relevant.

In terms of the law, I agree. And that isn't what I'm asking either. You probably don't have any opinion either on whether he intended to kill George Floyd that day, I suppose?

I don't know what was in his mind. None of us do.

I do think there was sufficient evidence presented in the case to demonstrate that he acted knowingly and recklessly and was part of a police culture that seemed to dehumanize a sector of the public that it was his job to interact with. Which made his actions more egregious.

There were a bunch of police there. They could have just cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of a squad car. That is what they are trained to do.
Instead he seemed intent on torturing and exerting physical punishment on George Floyd. Perhaps some sort of street justice and "teach him a lesson" knowing that he maybe didn't have a case against George Floyd that was really going to stick. And the fact that George Floyd died was probably accidental

[RZehr]

What he intended isn’t really relevant. He was convicted of second degree murder for which intent isn’t really relevant.

In terms of the law, I agree. And that isn't what I'm asking either. You probably don't have any opinion either on whether he intended to kill George Floyd that day, I suppose?

I don't know what was in his mind. None of us do.

I do think there was sufficient evidence presented in the case to demonstrate that he acted knowingly and recklessly and was part of a police culture that seemed to dehumanize a sector of the public that it was his job to interact with. Which made his actions more egregious.

There were a bunch of police there. They could have just cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of a squad car. That is what they are trained to do.
Instead he seemed intent on torturing and exerting physical punishment on George Floyd. Perhaps some sort of street justice and "teach him a lesson" knowing that he maybe didn't have a case against George Floyd that was really going to stick. And the fact that George Floyd died was probably accidental

I agree 100% with this.