- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
MN doesn’t require intent for Chauvin murder 2
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:00 pm
Just FYI. The eggshell skull doctrine is allowed to be used in criminal trials in the state, and it does not allow how vulnerable or fragile the victim is from other impairments to be used as a valid defense. The prosecution had to prove Chauvin committed assault and this assault resulted in Floyd’s death. Even if kneeling on the airways was a 0.000001% cause of death, it being greater than 0 is enough.
Intent to kill isn’t a requirement for the murder 2 (different than most states). The defense would need to essentially prove Floyd would have died without any physical interaction with Chauvin, and no medical professional testified to that effect during the trial.
Just saying why “he was on Fentanyl” or “he didn’t mean to kill him and wasn’t racist” aren’t good talking points
Intent to kill isn’t a requirement for the murder 2 (different than most states). The defense would need to essentially prove Floyd would have died without any physical interaction with Chauvin, and no medical professional testified to that effect during the trial.
Just saying why “he was on Fentanyl” or “he didn’t mean to kill him and wasn’t racist” aren’t good talking points
18
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:05 pm to DeAndre_Way
Then every cop needs to quit as any altercation in which force is used could be ruled murder by that standard.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:06 pm to DeAndre_Way
So when are they arresting and charging George Floyd’s drug dealer with murder?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:10 pm to DeAndre_Way
Wherever you are, hope your city burns tonight. And I hope all your cops call in sick. Defend yourself.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:10 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:
The prosecution had to prove Chauvin committed assault and this assault
BUT, he would need the intent to commit the assault.
He had 10 video cameras all around taping the whole event. How can anyone with anything more than half a functioning brain think that he thought he was committing assault and not following police procedure with all those video cameras filming the whole scene?
This was a 6'5", 250 lb. man high on drugs who resisted arrest from the very beginning even after he was handcuffed and in the police SUV. What did you want the cops to do?
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:10 pm to DeAndre_Way
To prove assault don’t you also have to have intent?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:11 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:
Just saying why “he was on Fentanyl” or “he didn’t mean to kill him and wasn’t racist” aren’t good talking points
What about a lethal dose of fentanyl?
Is that a good talking point?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:17 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
To prove assault don’t you also have to have intent?
609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
§Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Yes but doesn’t it read that it builds off the primary definition of assault which is an intent to harm?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:20 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:
The defense would need to essentially prove Floyd would have died without any physical interaction with Chauvin, and no medical professional testified to that effect during the trial.
Anytime you think the defense has to prove innocence, you should know that you are wrong.
However, you are also wrong anyway. It was never shown that Chauvin contributed to Floyd's death.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:22 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:why even bring race into this when it had nothing to do with it?
or “he didn’t mean to kill him and wasn’t racist”
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:23 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:
The defense would need to essentially prove Floyd would have died without any physical interaction with Chauvin,
The defense has to prove nothing.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:29 pm to DeAndre_Way
quote:
The defense would need to essentially prove Floyd would have died without any physical interaction with Chauvin
The defense now needs to prove something? What fricking country are we living in?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:56 pm to DeAndre_Way
Hmmmmm, didn’t realize the MN law was so different......another good reason never to live in the shite hole state!
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:57 pm to Colonel Flagg
No sir. As long as the act is committed, intentional or not it is assault
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:59 pm to IslandBuckeye
quote:
Wherever you are, hope your city burns tonight. And I hope all your cops call in sick. Defend yourself.
Why?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:02 pm to blueboxer1119
quote:
What about a lethal dose of fentanyl?
Is that a good talking point?
Whats a "lethal" dose of fentanyl for a chronic user?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:02 pm to blueboxer1119
Again, any other factors do not matter due to the eggshell skull doctrine
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:10 pm to DeAndre_Way
Floyd decided to put his date in the hands of cops when he decided to break the law. Why does this keep happening. Why keep breaking laws of cops are so hell bent on killing blacks?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:14 pm to DeAndre_Way
As noted above, it is not the defense's burden to prove anything. That's the prosecution's job.
I think it is a stretch to argue employing a department-approved submission technique would qualify as an assault. I admit I did not watch any of the trial, but I did hear the prosecution witness via podcast testify that the action was an approved technique that he, himself, had employed.
I am confused about the comment on intent. I have not read the Minnesota statute, but isn't intent the difference between murder and manslaughter? (thanks in advance for correcting me if this is wrong).
I think it is a stretch to argue employing a department-approved submission technique would qualify as an assault. I admit I did not watch any of the trial, but I did hear the prosecution witness via podcast testify that the action was an approved technique that he, himself, had employed.
I am confused about the comment on intent. I have not read the Minnesota statute, but isn't intent the difference between murder and manslaughter? (thanks in advance for correcting me if this is wrong).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News