How is the prosecution going to show the amount of "force" that the officer put on Floyd's body?

Though written prior to the latest decision to re-introduce the 3rd degree charge, here's a less biased primer from a Univ of Minnesota law professor:

Quote:

---

Chauvin's liability

To establish Chauvin's liability for each charged offense, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the elements of the offense are proven; and 2) that there is no applicable affirmative defense that Chauvin could have reasonably believed to apply, justifying or excusing what would otherwise be a crime. The elements of the charged crimes will be discussed first, followed by possible affirmative defenses.

Chauvin was charged with second-degree unintentional murder (Felony Murder); third-degree murder (extreme recklessness as to the risk of death); and second-degree manslaughter (ordinary recklessness). (Intentional murder wasn't charged, apparently for lack of evidence suggesting that any of the officers wanted Floyd to die or believed he would.)

Causation

Each of the three homicide charges requires proof that Chauvin's actions were the factual and proximate cause of Floyd's death. Factual causation is shown if Chauvin's actions, of kneeling on Floyd's neck for over nine minutes, were a "substantial causal factor" contributing to Floyd's death. This standard can be met even if other factors (e.g., Floyd's alleged drug use and pre-existing heart condition) were also contributing factors in his death. The state must also prove that Chauvin's actions were the proximate cause of Floyd's death that his death was not the direct result of some independent, intervening person's act or other factor that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen. No such intervening cause seems to have been operating here (only the additional, contributing causes noted above).

Second-degree unintentional (felony) murder

This crime is defined broadly in Minnesota, so it will not be hard for the state to prove. The state need only show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while Chauvin was committing a felony that posed a "special danger" to human life. The applicable dangerous felony here is third-degree assault. (In many states, felony assault is not deemed to be a crime sufficiently independent of the victim's death to qualify for felony murder, but Minnesota does not apply that rule.) Third-degree assault is defined as any assault causing substantial bodily harm. At some point while being held down Floyd lost consciousness; prior cases have held that this constitutes substantial bodily harm and poses sufficient danger to permit felony murder liability. The state does not have to prove that Chauvin intended substantial harm (although that might be provable here police use of an "unconscious neck restraint," cutting off blood flow to the suspect's brain, is designed to cause loss of consciousness). Instead, under Minnesota's unusually broad felony assault rules, the state need only show that Chauvin intentionally did an act that constituted fifth-degree (i.e., misdemeanor) assault, and that substantial bodily harm occurred as a result. Fifth-degree assault consists of intentionally doing an act that causes some degree of bodily harm (including pain, such as to Floyd's neck or to his face against the rough pavement) or that is intended to cause fear of immediate bodily harm.

Third-degree unintentional murder

This crime consists of "caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." The essence of the crime is doing an act (e.g., driving into a crowd of people) that is extremely reckless as to the risk of causing death. The trial judge dismissed this charge against Chauvin on the ground that the crime cannot be committed when only one person's life was endangered, citing two reasons: 1) the statutory text, "eminently dangerous to others" [plural]; and 2) prior cases suggesting that the crime cannot be committed where the defendant's "animus" or "design" was directed specifically at one person. As to the first point, however, a Minnesota statute states that, absent clearly contrary legislative intent, when interpreting a statute "the singular includes the plural; and the plural, the singular." As to the second point, the cited cases mostly involved defendants convicted of first- or second-degree intentional murder based on strong evidence of intent to kill, who appealed the trial court's refusal to also charge the jury on third-degree murder; judges have considerable discretion to not charge on lesser offenses, especially when the evidence supporting a greater offense is strong. Moreover, several cases have upheld third-degree murder convictions where only one person's life was endangered.

Nevertheless, the third-degree murder charge was rightly dismissed, for a different reason: when the scope of a criminal statute is unclear (as it was, given the court's two reasons, above), the traditional "rule of lenity" requires courts to opt for a narrower rather than a broader scope.

Second-degree manslaughter

This crime is committed when a person "causes the death of anotherby 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." The essence of this crime is (ordinary) recklessness -- awareness and disregard of a substantial risk of serious injury. A 1979 Minnesota case provides an example: defendant, with no intent to hurt anyone, fired his rifle toward a spot across a river where he had recently seen people standing, killing one of those people. At least in retrospect, it seems clear that Chauvin's actions "create[d] an unreasonable risk" of great bodily harm to Floyd. The main difficulty for the state will be to prove that Chauvin was actually aware of that risk.

The assessment of Chauvin's acts and beliefs depends in part on the timing of Floyd's death. Although he was not pronounced dead until over an hour after the officers stopped holding him down, it's possible that he died shortly after he seemed to stop breathing, six minutes after first being held down (which was 30 seconds after Lane said "I think he's passed out," and 30 seconds before the first of two unsuccessful attempts to detect Floyd's pulse). Anything the officers did or learned after Floyd died is of limited relevance a person's reckless acts cannot "cause" death if the victim is already dead. On the other hand, the final minutes when Floyd was still alive and being held down are critically important; the longer the officers held Floyd down and the weaker his voice and movements became, the greater and more obvious the risks to his life became, and the less justification the officers could reasonably believe they had to keep forcibly holding him down. Moreover, when Floyd seemed to have stopped breathing the officers arguably violated their legal duty to administer CPR to save his life and thereby became liable for "causing" his death by omission.

---

In my view, the issue of cause of death (as opposed to manner of death) will be the battle of the experts. Next will use of excessive force will also be a battle of the experts but one that pits the actual MPD training against some outside experts.

Now the defense can say some ex post facto application of these outside experts and in fact, shortly after this incident, the MPD revised their manual regarding MRT and revised it again last September. So is it fair to judge Chauvin by procedures that were not in effect at the time? Where that comes into play is whether Chauvin was in the act of aggravated assault (a felony) when Floyd died thus the felony murder rule applies?

Chauvin never laid a finger on Floyd until he asked if Floyd was under arrest and was informed he was.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bregxit said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I too would be upset if someone already had their gun out on me in fewer than 15 seconds. He was in cuffs and under arrest in like 2 mins. Not much of a resistance.

---

Are you actually arguing that a suspect in cuffs can't resist arrest?

---

I don't know what qualifies as resistance but he does have a right to protest his arrest. If they thought he was resisting arrest then please add the charge.

---

Good grief! You want to charge and try a dead guy for resisting arrest? You should really read your post a few times before you hit that button.

---

Obviously they're not going to charge a dead man. Are you saying anyone protesting their arrest deserves to die?

---

You know the only constitutional right one has upon being arrested is the right to remain silent. Period.

---

Objection: Fair and speedy trial.

---

That comes after arraignment, counselor.

---

#boom

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view, the issue of cause of death (as opposed to manner of death) will be the battle of the experts. Next will use of excessive force will also be a battle of the experts but one that pits the actual MPD training against some outside experts.

Now the defense can say some ex post facto application of these outside experts and in fact, shortly after this incident, the MPD revised their manual regarding MRT and revised it again last September. So is it fair to judge Chauvin by procedures that were not in effect at the time? Where that comes into play is whether Chauvin was in the act of aggravated assault (a felony) when Floyd died thus the felony murder rule applies?

Chauvin never laid a finger on Floyd until he asked if Floyd was under arrest and was informed he was.

---

Correct here and this, for our board amateurs, is the real crux of the trial.

This sounds like just an emotional term but is a long standing legal term of art. It requires intent to do bodily harm, which given his position, situation he arrived upon, the MPD manual guidelines for MRT, elevated state of stress with the crowd around them, and his repeated attempt to get medical unit on site seems to not be present, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It depends on the jury determination of the mental state, or mens rea, of the accused.

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

Just ban/ignore him/her for a few months and it is simpler. They don't respond to facts at all, and are impervious to other opinions.

nortex97 said:

---

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

Just ban/ignore him/her for a few months and it is simpler. They don't respond to facts at all, and are impervious to other opinions.

---

see Marvin's post like 2 above your

Just used 'ignore user' for the first time in my decades on Texags.....so liberating.

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

My recollection is that during the trial itself, I didn't post much at all about it. I had already made my opinion on the matter abundantly clear.

Can someone repost link to the courtroom?

Nelson starting X now.

ETA: X means cross examination.

Finn said:

---

Can someone repost link to the courtroom?

---

https://www.courttv.com/title/court-tv-live-stream-web/

Maroon Dawn said:

---

A is A said:

---

it just feels like the only hope the State has is to get Manslaughter 2...right?

All that intent language in Murder just seems like a massive stretch.

edit: not even close to a lawyer

---

Except that the police handbook lists this hold as a safe alternative that doesn't restrict an airway

So he chose a hold designed not to grievously injure the guy

The state has nothing but emotion on its side

---

I wouldn't say "nothing but emotion." There's a strong argument to be made that Chauvin used excessive force to subdue Floyd when he did not have to do so to keep him detained. 8 minutes is a long time. And the fact that it was all on video. Now, that doesn't mean that was the cause of death. I agree with aggiehawg that that issue will be a battle of the experts. That's pretty much all I care about at this point.

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

Lived in FL prior to moving to MN and knowing how broad Stand Your Ground was written (and also abused), I wouldn't even pretend to predict how that case would unfold.

I haven't seen any evidence or nuance presented that has changed my mind. Even the restraint used by Chauvin was incorrectly applied and he denied the resting position, also described in the police manual so Chauvin wasn't "playing it by the book".

nortex97 said:

---

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

Just ban/ignore him/her for a few months and it is simpler. They don't respond to facts at all, and are impervious to other opinions.

---

Dude, don't be hurt but I haven't replied to any of your posts because they don't add anything.

2PacShakur said:

---

Icecream_Ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

We get it

You don't care about facts and evidence and have already decided he's guilty and the jury must convict

---

reading these threads is easier when you realize 2pac is doing the exact same thing Eric did during the Zimmerman trial.

Evidence doesn't matter, only the narrative reported by the "completely unbiased news" matters

---

Lived in FL prior to moving to MN and knowing how broad Stand Your Ground was written (and also abused), I wouldn't even pretend to predict how that case would unfold.

I haven't seen any evidence or nuance presented that has changed my mind. Even the restraint used by Chauvin was incorrectly applied and he denied the resting position, also described in the police manual so Chauvin wasn't "playing it by the book".

---

Chauvin's actions were pretty much universally condemned back in May/June, including by the right. Pretty much everyone I heard talk about it thought his actions were inappropriate. That obviously doesn't mean he's guilty of murder, and there are fact issues regarding this, but let's not act like he's some good guy who's a victim here.

Nelson is going back the state's 151 to walk her through the process of this 911 call again. He will be pointing out the exculpatory evidence. That the initial 911 call stated that Floyd was intoxicated, that came from the people in the store. Officers were advised of same before they responded.

$200 it's a hung jury.

She sent two back-ups, park police (Squad 830) first and then 330's Chauvin's squad car. She heard a loud noise and she called the sergeant to send the backup from 330.

Squad 330 called into for a Code three, lights and sirens from EMS.

I was wondering how they would handle the exhibits that you would normally hand to the witness for identification purposes to lay the foundation for admissibility. They are using computers to send document to the witness chairs.

Sidebar.

Hawg, Is it odd that she has to agree with time stamps that she cannot see?

twitter is nasty & ridiculous. Everyone absolutely convinced he's guilty and promising riots if not.

GeorgiAg said:

---

twitter is nasty & ridiculous. Everyone absolutely convinced he's guilty and promising riots if not.

---

its twitter. just stay off it

Technical problems with the computer screen approach has caused Cahill to allow using paper to to hand to witnesses. Old school. Prosecution was having the same problem.

MaroonSpirit said:

---

Sorry if this has already been discussed but why is the defense presenting first?

---

They are not. This is cross examination of the prosecution's first witness.

MaroonSpirit said:

---

Sorry if this has already been discussed but why is the defense presenting first?

---

isnt the attorney just cross examining a prosecution witness?

Going over the confusion between fire and EMS as to location which she was monitoring. Her attention to her duties caused her to split her attention.

A is A said:

---

Hawg, Is it odd that she has to agree with time stamps that she cannot see?

---

Problem with using the digital records instead of the print out. So Cahiil okayed use of the print-outs.