SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
Yes, I agree on the coverage... I read/watch Fox and CNN... they are covering wildly different trials, lol... then go to National Review to read Andrew McCarthy, who is as close to an impartial POV as I've found.I’m just not seeing the other 2 charges sticking if it’s an honest jury. The defense has had some key wins. But regardless I think that the media on both sides is not covering this trial fairly.
If you’re watching national mainstream media sources you’d think it’s only been devastating losses for the defense, and that it would be impossible for honest people to acquit. And if you’re watching conservative sources you’d think the opposite.
I heard someone more right leaning say something to the effect that it’s like hearing a boxing match where one guy is actually winning but the announcers are only talking about the blows the other side is landing, so that the listener would think that the wrong guy is winning. But the right is doing that too. If I only listened to rightwing sites and never actually watched hours and ours of trial video myself, I’d be sure that Chauvin is completely innocent of all charges. You just can’t be pulling for a team here.
In my own estimation so far, I think the force Chauvin used was appropriate for the totality of the encounter up to the point where it was obvious that resistance stopped. Floyd was a big powerful dude. Chauvin is short and 140 lbs. we saw what even a big drunk guy could do to two less in shape officers in the other case last year. Given all the circumstances brought out in the trial, and thinking through all the reasons a cop might do what Chauvin did, “depravity” falls lower on Occam’s Razor rankings. But, I think Chauvin really misjudged the situation. The defense offered a reasonable doubt about the cause if death. So even if Chauvin’s actions were inappropriate, a not guilty would be reasonable. Or, I think it would also be reasonable if the jury thought Chauvin’s actions were at meast partly responsible for Floyd’s death. The the 2nd degree manslaughter would be appropriate.
And, I agree that Chauvin was within the book, if not by the book, up until somewhere between when Floyd stopped resisting and obviously lost consciousness. After that, the question is whether continuing the neck/back/shoulder restraint was "reasonable", "negligent" or "with depraved indifference" but not intent.
I do think at this point a reasonable jury could find it depraved indifference rather than simply negligent. But, like I said, we've only heard from the prosecution... the defense gets it's chance.
One local news story about the murder 3 charge:
Minnesota's 3rd degree murder charge, explained
Minnesota's third-degree murder statute reads: "Whoever, without intent…causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life…" But two high-profile cases are challenging the definiton and application of the law.
www.fox9.com
I do think the judge did a good job initially throwing out murder 3 as it seemingly applies to actions against the "general public" and not towards a single individual or group. In the Noor case, it's close-run since his gunshot could have struck anyone. I do think if Chauvin is convicted on murder 3, it should be overturned on appeal for that reason... it's simply not what the law, as written, is about... but Minnesota today is a place were "should" and "is" are often strangers to one another.(FOX 9) - Minnesota's third-degree murder statute reads: "Whoever, without intent…causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life…" But two high-profile cases are challenging the definiton and application of the law.