Gaston, I assume you have played darts before. You can throw a 100 of them to get one or two bullseyes... and no I don't play that shit anymore because it was pretty much a drunk game when I was young and dumb. My point is that they only need one or two counts to stick and that guy is fucked.
Originally Posted by Lucas McCain
yes and no. To begin - they only have 2 darts: a
2nd degree murder charge, and a
2nd degree manslaughter charge. The
3rd degree murder charge has been ruled out.
Here's what they have to prove:
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
The 1st subsection is completely shot, I don't think they can reasonably prove he intended to kill Mr. Floyd.
The 2nd subsection doesn't look well either, because Mr. Chauvin wasn't committing a felony at the time of Mr. Floyd's passing for clause 1, and Mr. Floyd wasn't under a protection order from Mr. Chauvin or MPD at the time.
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.
Clause #1 is the one to aim for here. The problem is that the defense can perhaps argue that knee-to-neck was allowed in Minnesota at the time and could constitute as part of his then training. There of course are the Police Chief's words, but he's a politician, and doesn't train the officers.
Clause 2 is for shootings, 3 for traps, 4 for animals, and 5 for children.
Now the one they dropped:
09.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
Section b is for drugs, so that's out. So Section a - the thing that trips is up is the "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" part. To define that better:
defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.
So for Section a to stick, they'd have to prove that Mr. Chauvin knew he could kill or maim Mr. Floyd doing what he was doing, and elected to do it anyways. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem like an easy thing to prove. Doesn't matter anyways, because currently the charge isn't present.
If they can't pin these exactly, Chauvin walks. They don't get to ding him for a couple years or a fine for checking only a couple boxes. It's binary. Either he fits the code and is guilty of it, or he doesn't and is innocent.
Originally Posted by Alyssa XOXO
