MamaMermaid
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
It’s been an emotional day - very happy with the decision. I hope it brings some peace to his family.
One legal question I have for any experts out there concerns the charges. For some reason I thought prosecutors would charge someone with what they expected to be able to prove and used to select say murder over manslaughter if they thought that is what they could prove. Now here there was murder 2, murder 3 and manslaughter 2.
So could prosecutors always choose to file multiple charges like that if they felt the jury would convict on all? They just usually do not?
I'd like to bring your question back up before the thread gets locked. I'm not surprised there were three counts, but I don't understand how he could be convicted of all three. He only killed GF once. If they had assault (or other physical charge), I could understand.
I'm simply asking about the legalities. I am not surprised he was found guilty (I thought he deserved at least murder 3). I just don't understand how one death = two murder charges and a manslaughter.
It depends on where you are, how the laws are applied, and possibly on the rules of criminal procedure.One legal question I have for any experts out there concerns the charges. For some reason I thought prosecutors would charge someone with what they expected to be able to prove and used to select say murder over manslaughter if they thought that is what they could prove. Now here there was murder 2, murder 3 and manslaughter 2.
So could prosecutors always choose to file multiple charges like that if they felt the jury would convict on all? They just usually do not?
What I hope comes out of this is better police training. The police work for the citizens and are there to protect us, not kill us.
That's incorrect in almost every respect. He will be sentenced on each of the three charges he was convicted of.To answer this question, what I’m reading is he only will get sentenced on one (the 2nd degree murder charge). So they charge all 3 in hopes at least one is guilty. So my understanding is that the jury found enough evidence for the most serious charge, which means by default the lesser two were also met.
What I hope comes out of this is better police training. The police work for the citizens and are there to protect us, not kill us.
Nope. Good cops are very much in favor of positive changes, and also in favor of getting rid of bad cops.I think the host thought that the detective would be very against any changes to the police department. But it’s not what the detective said.
Was that the teen girl with the knife?
My goodness... at least I have some entertainment tonight.
Sad that some people would think that riots are considered entertainment by them, not being satisfied with reading a thread on a Disney fan site.That’ll come later on tonight, riots are almost guaranteed and available to live-stream.
My point was that I was trying to answer a question with information I found from a news article.Twitter wisdom is often incorrect.
I corrected my post. You are probably correct.My point was that I was trying to answer a question with information I found from a news article.
Maybe try to be less condescending in some of your responses if you’re actually interested in having a conversation.
You’re a little off there - according to the statica approximately 1000 people are killed each year by police. According to the fbi less than 100 officers were killed each year and that includes accidents, medical conditions etc I would provide fbi stats for number of police shootings but I couldn’t find them and it looks like they didn’t count until just a few years ago.This is why there cannot actually be good conversation about a complicated issue. Disrespect. Many more police die in the line of duty than "kill us".
Yes, there does need to be additional police training. There also needs to be public training - such as, when you are directed by the police to do something, do it. Actions have consequences. They do not need to lead to death but so many of these cases in the news began because of trying to flea, fighting back, etc. I raised my three sons to stay alive. If they were ever pulled over, got a ticket, anything, do what's asked and we can sort out the rest later. What we cannot do is bring them back to life if they're killed.
To answer this question, what I’m reading is he only will get sentenced on one (the 2nd degree murder charge). So they charge all 3 in hopes at least one is guilty. So my understanding is that the jury found enough evidence for the most serious charge, which means by default the lesser two were also met.
Thank you for thatI corrected my post. You are probably correct.
That's incorrect. Chauvin waived his right to jury trial of those issues and Judge Cahill will decide whether or not to exceed the standard sentencing guidelines.There are sentencing guidelines, but the jury is going back to decide on enhancements, such as committing a criminal act in the presence of a child.
It may not effectively matter. I'm guessing the judge will hand out concurrent sentences.The trial judge, Judge Cahill, granted a defense motion to remove Murder 3 from the charges because he didn't think the facts met the elements of that crime. The prosecution appealed and the MN Supreme Court reinstated the charge. That is one obvious issue that will be appealed.