It was a bad charge.
âŚand just like that turd illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle, because the prosecutor levied the wrong charge, the defendant goes free, even though they were guilty of murder? It makes me wonder if that isnât the intent?
The law and justice are two different things.
That could be but that doesnât excuse that because the prosecutor is incompetent, the murderer should walk. In both cases, it isnât even a question and thatâs the point.
makes one wonder what the mn sc will do with chauvinâs 2nd degree conviction. he was guilty of 3rd degree murder, not 2nd. he was convicted of 2nd only because 3rd degree carries only 10 years. a case of a jury believing the law that applies did not go far enough
I have no problem with the ruling. Here is a quote from the Australian link:
The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Lorie Gildea found that the language in the third-degree murder statute states that it applies when a defendant kills someone âby perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind.â
The word âothersâ was ruled to mean when more than one personâs life is threatened.
What happens when a court throws out Officer Chauvinâs third-degree murder conviction based on similar logic? Chauvin actions were likewise arguably dangerous to only one person.
In both cases, the cops were convicted on multiple charges; this ruling only affects third-degree murder convictions.
the court previously found âothersâ merely meant âother than himselfâ, re: chauvin. i would agree with that. what chauvin appears to most be not guilty of is the 2nd degree conviction.
Yes, I was thinking about the Chauvin case, but there are also parallels to the Babbitt homicide.
In the Babbitt case, the officer who shot her claimed that the pipe bomb found the night before made him fear that she was a bomber. Logically the pipe bomber could be face charges for Babbittâs death, but the Minnesota case does not affect federal law.
Good discussion and some solid points made for both interpretations.
Could it be the intent of a prosecutor, to overcharge a crime, with the purpose of knowing that an appellate court will overturn the conviction? I suspected that in the Kate Steinle case and now here it is happening again, in a lib controlled area, where itâs a person of color being set free and the person murdered is white? Is this another flavor of wokeism?
The same rule has to apply to both Chauvin and Nor. I see no way to justify Chauvinâs third-degree murder conviction based on the new ruling.
People were calling for violent protests if Chauvin was found not guilty on any of the charges.
It would not surprise me if the Chauvin convictions are overturned because of threats and intimidation during the trial, which would mean a retrial on the other charges. Ironically throwing out the conviction because of the earlier violence is likely to result in more violence.
at a minimum he was guilty of manslaughter. i do agree with the previous ruling that âothersâ merely means âother than himselfâ. so, in my opinion, 3rd degree seems appropriate. the max penalty on either is 10 years, therein lies the problem and why the jury convicted him of 2nd degree. 20 years
i will add that imo convicting chauvin of all three is akin to trying him 3 times for the same crime. charging him with all 3 and giving the jury a choice doesnât bother me, but i fail to see how he could be guilty of all three at the same time.
No, and is not enough for any murder imo.
Chauvin is facing federal charges as well.
There are legal ways to get around the double-jeopardy clause in the constitution.
âgetting around the constitutionâ is a problem in itself.
3 Likes
In Chauvinâs case, depraved indifference is not in question.
Yeah, unconstitutional ones.
This is a regular pattern at this point. Cop shoots someone, public outrage followed by prosecutorial overreach resulting in case being overturned. So maybe letâs stop with the overreaching.
This is what happens when charges come with emotional claptrap.
1 Like
