A hero of our time: Tou Thao

[RZehr]

To me, that doesn't sound outrageous. He was not convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

Assuming GPT is right, do you consider any of the descriptions in that list outrageous insults to common sense? If so, which ones and why? I consider myself somewhat sane on a good day, so there's at least one sane person who thinks that list accurately described what happened.

(Though I realize on any Internet forum, people may have various views about my sanity ... )

I think that in general, people need to be careful not to declare that something is true or not based on "common sense." What we call "common sense" is extremely subjective and especially dicey when we wander into territory that we don't understand, like legal definitions of homicide vs. manslaughter.

As Einstein reportedly said "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before age eighteen." Again, while it is true that common sense is subjective, we cannot disregard it in this case. Because who, in what neighborhood in Minneapolis, did not grow up with an understanding that accidental manslaughter is a different thing than intentional/premeditated murder? I stand by my position that in this case it is indeed an insult to common sense, (even common in Minneapolis specifically) to pretend that this was an intentional murder.
Even in Boots GTP charges - which I'm assuming is accurate - there is not charge of premeditation or intentionality.

[RZehr]

...On one hand, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to convict him. On the other hand, it was a miscarriage of justice that he did nothing to stop Derek C. All in all, I suppose though, that it doesn't hurt to toss him in the clink for a year or two over the matter. He probably did meet the definition of 'aiding and abetting'.

Don't forget he was a sworn office of the law with specify duty to serve and protect. That duty comes with real power, ie they carry guns and are authorized to kill, but it also comes with responsibility. He can't stand back and watch like a civilian.

Well, that entails identifying the threat properly. And I would think that in a case like this, Floyd was already identified as the threat. And the bystanders were the ones who were in need of protection. Tragic event to be sure. But I can see how threat identification is a key factor in these cases.
What if Floyd had a weapon, and a bystander got injured? Not the case here, but if we are saying that police must protect, then this matter needs decided. Whos safety of the public should be prioritized? The random bystanders, the gawkers, or the suspect? Who is generally the biggest threat, the random bystanders and gawkers to the suspect, or the suspect to the bystanders and gawkers?

[RZehr]

Well, before we howl too much here, let's take a look at what Derek was actually convicted of. According to GPT, he was convicted of:

• Second-Degree Unintentional Murder: Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, which means that he caused George Floyd's death without intent while committing a felony, in this case, assault.
• Third-Degree Murder: He was also convicted of third-degree murder, indicating that his actions were reckless and without regard for human life.
• Second-Degree Manslaughter: Chauvin was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, signifying that he acted with culpable negligence and created an unreasonable risk of causing death or great bodily harm.

To me, that doesn't sound outrageous. He was not convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

And I think that these convictions are strong evidence that what happened that day was not, in fact, premeditated murder. Even in spite the legal charges having the word murder in them, the actual described legal definitions of these charges are not compatible with the colloquial and dictionary definition of murder.
- "Unintentional Murder" is a legal thing that exists. There is no such thing in common definitions of murder. How can someone be guilty of both unintentional murder (second degree), and just murder (third degree), in the same event with the same victim?
Of course in the legal sense it must be possible, but in common sense, no.

[Szdfan]

To me, that doesn't sound outrageous. He was not convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

Assuming GPT is right, do you consider any of the descriptions in that list outrageous insults to common sense? If so, which ones and why? I consider myself somewhat sane on a good day, so there's at least one sane person who thinks that list accurately described what happened.

(Though I realize on any Internet forum, people may have various views about my sanity ... )

I think that in general, people need to be careful not to declare that something is true or not based on "common sense." What we call "common sense" is extremely subjective and especially dicey when we wander into territory that we don't understand, like legal definitions of homicide vs. manslaughter.

As Einstein reportedly said "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before age eighteen." Again, while it is true that common sense is subjective, we cannot disregard it in this case. Because who, in what neighborhood in Minneapolis, did not grow up with an understanding that accidental manslaughter is a different thing than intentional/premeditated murder? I stand by my position that in this case it is indeed an insult to common sense, (even common in Minneapolis specifically) to pretend that this was an intentional murder.
Even in Boots GTP charges - which I'm assuming is accurate - there is not charge of premeditation or intentionality.

I don't think you understand the differences between 1st Degree and 2nd Degree murder charges.

Again, as I posted from the Wikipedia article about Chauvin, 2nd and 3rd-degree murder charges do not require premediation. Only first-degree murder charges require premediation. So according to the law, you can murder someone without the intention of killing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in ... aw#Degrees

Second-degree murder
Any intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned. A situation in which the killer intends only to inflict serious bodily harm, knowing this could result in death but with no specific intent to kill, constitutes depraved-heart murder, which can be considered as second-degree murder.

Minnesota is one of the only states that separates 2nd Degree murder into 2nd and 3rd degree.

[RZehr]

I don't think you understand the differences between 1st Degree and 2nd Degree murder charges.

I do now. I'm not a legal expert. But murder, outside of the justice system, does have a certain defined meaning which is inseparable from intent. And that intent is important. And when the justice system co-opts the word "murder" and then convicts someone of "murder" for some action that is in direct conflict with the colloquial meaning of the word? That doesn't seem very transparent.
How would you like to be convicted of "attempted murder", just for merely driving 10 miles over the speed limit? And then to find out in the fine print, the legal definition of "attempted murder" has been expanded to include speeding on a public road? It's dumb.

[Bootstrap]

Well, before we howl too much here, let's take a look at what Derek was actually convicted of. According to GPT, he was convicted of:

• Second-Degree Unintentional Murder: Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, which means that he caused George Floyd's death without intent while committing a felony, in this case, assault.
• Third-Degree Murder: He was also convicted of third-degree murder, indicating that his actions were reckless and without regard for human life.
• Second-Degree Manslaughter: Chauvin was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, signifying that he acted with culpable negligence and created an unreasonable risk of causing death or great bodily harm.

To me, that doesn't sound outrageous. He was not convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

And I think that these convictions are strong evidence that what happened that day was not, in fact, premeditated murder. Even in spite the legal charges having the word murder in them, the actual described legal definitions of these charges are not compatible with the colloquial and dictionary definition of murder.
- "Unintentional Murder" is a legal thing that exists. There is no such thing in common definitions of murder. How can someone be guilty of both unintentional murder (second degree), and just murder (third degree), in the same event with the same victim?
Of course in the legal sense it must be possible, but in common sense, no.

You seem to be saying that if it is not premeditated, intentional murder, planned ahead of time, then it doesn't count as murder. And you seem to be saying that is "the common" definition of murder and there is no other.

I disagree. If you got mad at me and shot me, that would not be premeditated, but I would still consider it murder. If it's intentional but not premeditated, then it's second degree murder. Wikipedia:

• First degree murder: The premeditated, unlawful, intentional killing of another person.
• Second degree murder: The intentional, unlawful killing of another person, but without any premeditation.

Webster's dictionary is widely used. Its definition does not require premeditation or even intention.

1
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person
an attempted murder
specifically, law : such a crime committed under circumstances defined by statute
Under Minnesota law, third-degree murder is defined as causing the death of a person "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind" without regard for life or intent to kill. A conviction on this count carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years. Second-degree murder, according to Minnesota law, is charged when the defendant intentionally kills someone, albeit without preparing to do so ahead of time. (Premeditation would warrant a first-degree murder charge). —
Kaylee McGhee

dictionary.com also disagrees with you:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, or murder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ).

American Heritage:

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder

The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

[RZehr]

Well, before we howl too much here, let's take a look at what Derek was actually convicted of. According to GPT, he was convicted of:



To me, that doesn't sound outrageous. He was not convicted of first degree premeditated murder.

And I think that these convictions are strong evidence that what happened that day was not, in fact, premeditated murder. Even in spite the legal charges having the word murder in them, the actual described legal definitions of these charges are not compatible with the colloquial and dictionary definition of murder.
- "Unintentional Murder" is a legal thing that exists. There is no such thing in common definitions of murder. How can someone be guilty of both unintentional murder (second degree), and just murder (third degree), in the same event with the same victim?
Of course in the legal sense it must be possible, but in common sense, no.

You seem to be saying that if it is not premeditated, intentional murder, planned ahead of time, then it doesn't count as murder. And you seem to be saying that is "the common" definition of murder and there is no other.

I disagree. If you got mad at me and shot me, that would not be premeditated, but I would still consider it murder. If it's intentional but not premeditated, then it's second degree murder. Wikipedia:

• First degree murder: The premeditated, unlawful, intentional killing of another person.
• Second degree murder: The intentional, unlawful killing of another person, but without any premeditation.

Webster's dictionary is widely used. Its definition does not require premeditation or even intention.

1
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person
an attempted murder
specifically, law : such a crime committed under circumstances defined by statute
Under Minnesota law, third-degree murder is defined as causing the death of a person "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind" without regard for life or intent to kill. A conviction on this count carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years. Second-degree murder, according to Minnesota law, is charged when the defendant intentionally kills someone, albeit without preparing to do so ahead of time. (Premeditation would warrant a first-degree murder charge). —
Kaylee McGhee

dictionary.com also disagrees with you:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, or murder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ).

American Heritage:

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder

The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Those are legal definitions. Nice to see Minnesota being held up as the new definition. And they aren't disagreeing with just me, they are disagreeing with Oxford, to the extent that there is in fact a disagreement at all, beyond judicial definitions.

[RZehr]

Boot & Szdfan:

Do either of you believe that Derek intended to kill George that day by cutting off his air? Do you think that was his intended outcome that day?

[Bootstrap]

I'm not a legal expert. But murder, outside of the justice system, does have a certain defined meaning which is inseparable from intent.

In Minnesota, if you kill someone while trying to commit another felony, that can be considered murder. In this case, the other felony was assault. Clearly, Chauvin intentionally assaulted Floyd, and that resulted in Floyd's death. I think a lot of people would consider that murder, even in colloquial usage.

Here are the elements of second degree murder, taken from the jury instructions:

The elements of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree while committing a felony are:

• First Element: The death of George Floyd must be proven.
• Second Element: The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
• Third Element: The Defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of Assault in the Third Degree.

It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the Defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of Assault in the Third Degree.

If you have 8 minutes, you can watch the judge explain this to the jury, together with the entire set of instructions he gave them. All 12 jurors had to agree in order to convict him on this charge.

[RZehr]

I don't want to watch the video, and it is blocked anyway. I do believe that Derek was due prison time for his actions. I don't believe that he intended to kill George by cutting of his air that day. Do you?