U.S. Riots of April 2021 over Derek Chauvin & Riot Watch General

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Balr0g said:
Hey look. CHAZ is now going for a ethnostate

https://youtube.com/watch?v=dxChkDotAaA
But they are like DSP, they need donations to build their state. Or is it called "development funds"?
Click to expand...
Is he trying to lead a revolution or a start a community theater group? If you allow yourself to be led by a black man with that cadence and voice, you deserve whatever happens next.
 
pearlslam said:
Canadian lawyer seems to think that a new trial will be ordered. The nigger that had BLM getup is going to get blamed. Can't archive because I don't know how on videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWlS0ygLebk
Click to expand...
MuuMuu Bunnylips said:
Derek Chauvin Filed Motion for a NEW TRIAL! Lawyer Explains - Viva Frei Vlawg.mp4
Click to expand...
He won't get a new trial, granted he should since the shirt the nigger was wearing makes it abundantly clear that he thought Chauvin was guilty before going to trial which violates his sixth amendment rights, but this doesn't matter. The same amendment which should have protected him from a partisan jury was already violated once with regards to the double jeopardy clause. The constitution is nothing but ink on paper. In reality, the only thing that actually assures you'll have your will done or your rights protected is your willingness, and ability to shed blood. The niggers got what they wanted because, despite their abysmal reasoning abilities, they understand this far better than the modern white westerner does.
 
mr.moon1488 said:
He won't get a new trial, granted he should since the shirt the nigger was wearing makes it abundantly clear that he thought Chauvin was guilty before going to trial which violates his sixth amendment rights, but this doesn't matter. The same amendment which should have protected him from a partisan jury was already violated once with regards to the double jeopardy clause. The constitution is nothing but ink on paper. In reality, the only thing that actually assures you'll have your will done or your rights protected is your willingness, and ability to shed blood. The niggers got what they wanted because, despite their abysmal reasoning abilities, they understand this far better than the modern white westerner does.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to federal charges? The charges under federal law differ from state law hence it's no double jeopardy
 
mr.moon1488 said:
Nope, I'm referring to the charges being mutually exclusive. You can't both unintentionally, and intentionally murder someone.
Click to expand...
He wasn't convicted of intentionally murdering someone.

Murder 2 is an unintentional homicide, but brought out by an intentional assault.

Other than that, your overall point still stands. They all seem mutually exclusive.

Murder 2: Chauvin meant to assault Floyd, and Floyd unintentionally died as a result.

Murder 3: Chauvin was doing something dangerous, not necessarily directed at Floyd, and Floyd died as a result.

Manslaughter 2: Chauvin, through negligence, allowed the death of Floyd to occur.
 
OneHandClapping said:
He wasn't convicted of intentionally murdering someone.

Murder 2 is an unintentional homicide, but brought out by an intentional assault.

Other than that, your overall point still stands. They all seem mutually exclusive.

Murder 2: Chauvin meant to assault Floyd, and Floyd unintentionally died as a result.

Murder 3: Chauvin was doing something dangerous, not necessarily directed at Floyd, and Floyd died as a result.

Manslaughter 2: Chauvin, through negligence, allowed the death of Floyd to occur.
Click to expand...
They aren't actually mutually exclusive, at least not right now.

Murder 3 is:
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.

It used to be that 2nd and 3rd degree murder were considered mutually exclusive when only one specific person was the target of the perpetrators' use of force (i.e. the perpetrator put multiple people in eminent danger), but the Noor appeal verdict effectively overturned that precedent by reading "others" as 1 or more.

That's what fucked Chauvin. 3rd degree murder was initially thrown out by the Judge as he didn't think Noor set a precedent, but the appeals court said otherwise. Since Minnesota doesn't have merger doctrine, he can be (and was) charged with both. (i.e. he was found to have both committed a felony and put 1 or more persons in eminent danger which resulted in a death). Likewise Manslaughter 2 isn't actually mutually exclusive either for the same reason.

For clarification, Manslaughter 2:
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;

In Minnesota culpable negligence means "acts that are grossly negligent combined with recklessness".

An act can be both eminently dangerous to others and grossly negligent with recklessness and unreasonable (again, no merger doctrine. This would otherwise be a lesser included charge of murder 3).

The Noor decision is now playing out in the Supreme Court, and if they reverse the Noor decision then Chauvin will be able to successfully get the 3rd degree murder charge reversed. If it stands then he won't. It won't affect manslaughter 2.
 
Last edited:
Puff said:
What the hell is a legal observer? I remember police apologizing for arresting one and letting him off even though he was at a riot and actively obstructing police officers.
Click to expand...
its a made up term so rioters without face coverings can have there lawyers say they dindu nuffin
 
reptile101 said:
its a made up term so rioters without face coverings can have there lawyers say they dindu nuffin
Click to expand...
-Mr Antifa, did you or did you not break this old lady's skull with a bike lock?
-Yes actually, here is the liveleak link. HOWEVER with assistance of my legal observer this chimpout has been observed legally and as such you have to let me go.
-I guess there's nothing we can do then, case closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom