They way I read the difference between 3rd degree murder and manslaughter (and I am no lawyer) is the level of risk to life and the, I guess, attitude towards the potential for death.
I have a hard time seeing how you can be guilty of that 3rd degree murder and not manslaughter. I need an example, I think.
That might make the confessing to a different crime thought experiment more clear…
Well said. And, there is a world of difference between being on the jury and hearing every word of testimony and the full jury instructions vs. parts of those.
It’s already gotten more ugly in a lot of places way before this verdict. One of the biggest issues here is the narrative that cops are a bigger threat to people of color than the criminals that live within their own communities. BLM and other politicians who profit from that type of fear mongering are all too eager to push that story line.
On the other hand there are politicians who are all too eager stoke the fears of others about immigrants, entire cities burning, crime waves, etc. Unless you lived in an area that was a high crime area before the GF died you’d be as safe now as you were before the verdict yesterday. I don’t see this changing. The vast majority of injuries and deaths that will occur due to less police work will be suffered by those who live amongst the criminals.
Oh it’s axiomatic that if you’re guilty of unintentional murder that you’d also be guilty of manslaughter. I was talking more of a case where you were charged with manslaughter and were guilty of intentional murder with the requisite intent.
We enforce such rules strictly. Politicians who potentially scuppered a murder trial would be run out of town on a rail.
I friend of mine is an LAPD officer. He is very hard core. He loves being out on patrol, hates desk work, because he likes “mixing it up.” He has shot two people while on patrol (both were ruled within policy and no protests occured).
He was a Marine, but not just any Marine, but Force Recon. He is bad ass.
He has very right wing political views, he has harsh views on Antifa, etc.
I was sure he would be outraged on Chauvin, a fellow cop, being prosecuted.
Instead he said, immediately after Floyd’s death, that what Chauvin did was wrong and that Floyd should never have been held down like that, that possible death was predictable.
He said that what Chauvin did violated widely agreed on procedures, that Chauvin should not have held Floyd down in that manner, but should have sat him up.
I’d be in favor of that happening here.
I have an example of how careful our media has to be here:
Note: this case is regarding a woman who was abducted and murdered by a policeman, and listen to how careful they have to be when they talk about it. The commentary has to be extremely vague for fears it could cause issues at trial.
Edit: I had posted the wrong segment.
As a neutral observer living in another country, it’s an interesting trial for me. Not so much because of the legal facts/arguments, but because of this new potential for jury intimidation through doxxing. In high profile trials like this, there would be a very real fear of being doxxed as a juror, especially with the tech that we have nowadays. I mean if random people on 4chan can find a flagpole in the middle of nowhere just by looking at a livestream of the flag with nothing but the sky behind it*, then I’m sure it’s not that hard for individuals/large organisations to figure out the identities of a dozen people who all live in a large city and have to all commute to one location. Even if the actual risk of it is minimal, the potential of it happening would still influence a juror’s decision-making process.
Macron has taken some heat for commenting on a decision in a murder case. A Muslim man tossed an elderly Jewish woman off a balcony but the court ruled that since he had just smoked pot he could not be held responsible for his actions.
In December 2019, President Emmanuel Macron made a rare intervention by criticizing the Paris appeals court for saying that Traore was unfit for trial.
“Even if, in the end, the judge decided that there was no criminal responsibility, there is a need for a trial,” Macron said in 2020.
The country’s top magistrates then criticized Macron for impacting the “independence of the justice system,” The Times of Israel reported.
And note, that’s a comment on a decision. The heat would have been an order of magnitude greater had made preferential comments on an ongoing case’s outcome.
If the US implemented a rule that says being high on MJ excludes one from being fit for trial, we would go from one of the highest in percent incarnation to lowest.
What a terrible move by France. Macron is correct here.
As it should be. I have no earthly idea why you blokes can so strictly enforce that but we can’t over here.
My understanding is that UK and US definitions differ in terms of the details for manslaughter, but not sure.
I thought murder was always a far reach and frankly just not supportable, but can’t say I’m one of the ones that feel he is innocent of any wrong doing. I never felt murder was provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough on this, at least regarding details. But he IMHO violated duty to render aid, was in the way of the medic for no real reason. But again, I have no idea exactly how that statute should be interpreted practically with policing.
My concern is more for how absolutely asinine the commentary was and interference with a trial.
I’m not sure about how predictable death would be, but this is basically my understanding as well, which is why my only concerns with the trial are with the extraneous commentary and interference. But I’m not in enforcement so I have to be aware I could be wrong.
Legal penalties and shame. The constitution prevents yourselves from undertaking the first, and shame is in short supply among your politicians.
They do. You guys have multiple ‘degrees’ of murder and manslaughter. We don’t have such a taxonomy.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
For those interested.
That’s what it came down to for me. It seems to that he had to be held responsible for not rendering aid.
I think he refused to render aid to a man who may have died from an overdose, cardiac issues, and the stress of being arrested.
That this sentiment was captured during the trial – cops, police chief actually testifying against one of their own – is what stands out most to me; our status quo typically has cops closing ranks in the face of investigation/discipline/accountability
Imagine teachers unions closing ranks to protect “one of their own” accused of sex with student. Ok, that’s prob a poor analogy… but maybe not
That struck me too. However, I didn’t know how to interpret it based on the fact that the issue is so touchy politically, both there locally and obviously nationally. Chiefs of police of major metro areas tend to be at least half politician so I was not sure how to wait his statements, considering his department is under fire from all angles.
Shame and a politician… Who would have thought? Sadly, this seems to be one area the boys are superior to us. Well, that and your ability to curse creatively while simultaneously being highbrow.
But I’ll still take the Constitution all day long over your system lol.
This is fascinating. I remember reading a breakdown similar to this years ago but from a different website. So similar and yet so different to us.
.
Thanks for posting and wow what a different world where even the press needs to be careful what they say about an active case.