MovieChat Forums > Derek Chauvin Discussion > I have to admit....surprised not heard b...

I have to admit....surprised not heard by US Sup Ct....

posted a year ago by [deleted]
5 replies | jump to latest

While I have always thought Chauvin was more than culpable for the death of George Floyd, statute-wise, I did not believe murder was the appropriate charge and did not meet the elements of the offense of murder. I also would have predicted murder charges would have been overturned because there were, to me, more appropriate criminal charges than "murder" (though, it is not uncommon for lesser degrees of "murder" charges to include elements that would sustain an offense of "murder").

Don't get me wrong - I believe Chauvin is in the place he deserves to be. Still, for basic definitions of "murder," I also believe there are more appropriate criminal offenses to have been charged (and often, these more appropriate offenses still possess criminal penalties similar to that of "murder").

My point is, I'm very surprised the current conservative leaning court flat out rejected this case.

[–] strntz (12224) a year ago

That was my as thought as well, but apparently there's a thing in Minnesota called "unintentional" murder as contradictory as that sounds to the ear.

I don't know why they have to complicate things - charge him with murder if you think it was his intention to kill Floyd and charge him with manslaughter if you think he killed him but didn't intend to.

Regarding the court (personal opinion follows), a conservative court is likely to interpret the law as the lawmakers intended and not look for a way to reinterpret it.

I don't see this as a Constitutional issue at all if he was charged and according to Minnesota's laws.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Thank you for the additional information.

Well, I think we all wish a US Supreme Ct would do such a thing, but (my own opinion), I don't think this current court is as interested in that as it once may have been.

I recall years ago when the one transit police officer shot and killed a man at a train station in Seattle when he mistook his firearm for a Taser. They charged him with first-degree murder and he was acquitted - I can't really if another issue they had was that they didn't also charge lesser degrees of offenses associated with death (oddly, I was correct in my prediction in that case because for Washington, the murder charged did not meet the elements of the offense. It came down to intent if I recall correctly).

And I agree with your last sentence about Minnesota's laws. What really baffles me is why don't legislatures construct better laws that clearly deal with such things. Not only that, if need be, create an additional charge with an appropriate criminal penalty to remove the possibility of an overturned conviction.

[–] stickman38 (3346) a year ago

>>> I'm very surprised the current conservative leaning court flat out rejected this case<<<

Contrary to popular belief, a conservative court is not going to consider their own opinion on certain cases. Conservative justices don't sit there and say to themselves "ohh look, a white man is in prison, let's get him out by changing what the framers of the constitution had in mind".

It's just liberal justices that do things like this... they base everything on race, political climate of the time and...well... their own political opinions. In other words, libs are activists, cons are not and that's the difference.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Stickman, I dispute about everything you claim in these current times when it comes to judicial philosophy. What you describe may have been more true some time ago, but it is not in today's climate. Over the last decade or more, conservative justices have tossed out their past philosophy time and time again. The most recent glaring example I can think of is their ruling on a case that never existed about the woman who planned to create a wedding business that included a non-existent customer. If that is not a clear example of judicial activism, I don't know what is.

And nowhere did I throw race into this at this time - I typed nothing that you implied. My entire surprise over this is that in my opinion, Chauvin did not meet the more traditional elements for the offense of murder (especially that of intent), however, as strntz pointed out, Minnesota has additional elements in their murder statute.

[–] stickman38 (3346) a year ago

>>>And nowhere did I throw race into this at this time <<<

Fair enough, I just figured that's what you meant by saying "conservative leaning court".

Every case should be looked at on a case by case basis and I think liberal justices have more of a tendency to base their decisions on activism, rather than what the constitution says.

And yes, Chauvin was convicted of unintentional murder, which I think is probably right, manslaughter might been okay too. Manslaughter might have been better because for example... if a man walks into a bar, has few drinks, then gets into an argument with some guy and punches him and the guy falls down and breaks his head open and bleeds to death, should the man get charged with murder or manslaughter?

I see Chauvin's case as somewhat similar to this, in fact, it's not as bad as what the guy did in the bar, the guy at the bar was half-drunk and didn't really need to punch someone over a simple disagreement. Whereas, Chauvin was simply detaining someone while in uniform, which was lawful according to Minneapolis law. What Chauvin did is probably more comparable to a traffic accident.