Current Events > Law of Premeditation says Derek Chauvin deserves 1st Degree Murder

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you develop the intent to murder someone then its first degree murder.

Derek Chauvin clearly had developed the intent to kill Floyd in the 10 minutes he was murdering Floyd. The Attorney General is still soft shoeing this case. And Amy Kloubuchar is no ally either.

https://twitter.com/ProfBlacktruth/status/1268273333965148162?s=19

---

I'm not sure which one of those words you don't understand but you should try again.

specialkid8 posted...

I'm not sure which one of those words you don't understand but you should try again.

strong username to post ratio

also club 37 post
---

Developing the intent to murder while the incident is in progress doesn't count as premeditation, and it would be nearly impossible to prove he wanted to kill Floyd even before he saw him that day and the incident started.

2nd degree murder is the best thing to go for in this case.
---

specialkid8 posted...

I'm not sure which one of those words you don't understand but you should try again.

There is a low threshold and does not require showing the defendant created an extensive plan before committing the act

You should read it again. It's clear he had developed the conscious intent to kill on that video.

It does not require showing he created an extensive plan before the act

---

You gotta be real and know that that definition doesnt help. Thats a lot harder than I think you think it is.

---

Keith Ellison: temper your expectations, it's hard to secure convictions. We have a court process and the prosecution needs to convince each and every juror.
TC: that's fucking bullshit look at this article I found

---

Whose lameass alt is this

---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Keith Ellison: temper your expectations, it's hard to secure convictions. We have a court process and the prosecution needs to convince each and every juror.
TC: that's fucking bullshit look at this article I found

Keith Ellison has been shown to be a sell out. We're not fooled by this gesture putting him on the case. The tape is evidence enough

Also this is the law. Not some article.

---

https://twitter.com/ProfBlacktruth/status/1268273333965148162?s=19

---

The Killer had 10 minutes of time to consider and reflect on what he was doing. The man was crying out for his mother not to kill him and Derek Derek Chauvin decided to murder him anyway. Any other person would receive 1st degree murder if this happened

---

GallisOTK posted...

Developing the intent to murder while the incident is in progress doesn't count as premeditation, and it would be nearly impossible to prove he wanted to kill Floyd even before he saw him that day and the incident started.

2nd degree murder is the best thing to go for in this case.

It does count but all he has to do is be like "I didn't think he'd die" and now what do you do?

According to police elsewhere, saying "I can't breathe" means you actually can breathe.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It does count but all he has to do is be like "I didn't think he'd die" and now what do you do?

According to police elsewhere, saying "I can't breathe" means you actually can breathe.

He can say that, but that's not a valid defense since we clearly see the man pleading for his life as well as the spectators pleading as well saying that he's dying. And Chauvin did not stop and he continued even when Floyd's body was lifeless

It's clear cut first degree murder and that's why people are still upset now

---

GallisOTK posted...

Developing the intent to murder while the incident is in progress doesn't count as premeditation, and it would be nearly impossible to prove he wanted to kill Floyd even before he saw him that day and the incident started.

Thats not really true. Theres a great clip explaining this somewhere in this forum. The length of time is actually irrelevant. It counts as premeditated if the cop decided right there on his neck that he was going to kill him.

---

I dont know how to create a gif or whatever, but I need something of Tom Cruise saying, "You and Dawson live in this same fantasy world. It doesnt matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove!"

Look....as despicable as the crime was, and no matter what YOU believe, it doesnt matter. Prosecutor has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people and proving what he was thinking in that video to 12 jurors to get 1st degree murder isnt going to happen.

The simple defense of, "During the incident I didnt like the guy, i felt he disrespected me and I wanted to show him who The Man was.....but at no point did i mean to kill him."

Would that be a lie? Probably!!!! But it only takes one juror to believe it, and then its not 1st degree murder.

It's not about what I feel it's about what the law is. And the law shows that this is clear cut premeditation. If they're going to do it they need to do it right. I don't see why they're still trying to protect him so much anyway. Anyone else would be charged with murder in the first degree

---

2Pacavelli posted...

It's not about what I feel it's about what the law is. And the law shows that this is clear cut premeditation. If they're going to do it they need to do it right. I don't see why they're still trying to protect him so much anyway. Anyone else would be charged with murder in the first degree

you need to find instances where situations happened similar to this and cite them and the court rulings.

this might be a rare case but Im sure there is something that can be found to show precedent.

otherwise its going to be hard to get him with 1st. You cant let him get off by over charging him when you cant prove it.


---

He's a racist piece of crap and deserves what he gets, but 1st degree this is pretty clearly not.

---

Xatrion posted...

He's a racist piece of crap and deserves what he gets, but 1st degree this is pretty clearly not.

Now the fucking shit head mother fucker who killed Scurlock should get hit with 1st degree.

---

So, pointing out something here.

A. these general statements of law you find on Justia, Cornell, FindLaw, etc, are just that: general statements of what's typical. Not always applicable to every jurisdiction. Individual state statutes and case law provide that.

B. As a demonstration, the example cited in the screen shots is from Florida. Florida is not Minnesota. Further, it's an appellate decision. The case stands for the proposition that a rational finder of fact could determine those facts to be indicative of premeditation and that the fact finder's determination was not reversible error. Keyword there is "could." Not that the finder of fact "must" find those facts to indicate premeditation.

Juries are not predictable. They are fickle as fuck. I would not bet a cent on any kind of wager re: jury outcome.

Edit: For the record, have a JD and am currently studying for the bar. I was involved with 4 murder cases during my clerkship with a local law firm.

---

chrono625 posted...

you need to find instances where situations happened similar to this and cite them and the court rulings.

this might be a rare case but Im sure there is something that can be found to show precedent.

otherwise its going to be hard to get him with 1st. You cant let him get off by over charging him when you cant prove it.

Prior Minnesotan precedent is exactly why the charges were upgraded from 3rd to 2nd degree.

---

Let the prosecutors do their jobs, TC. You don't understand how this works.
---

all the armchair lawyers coming out of the woodwork

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Prior Minnesotan precedent is exactly why the charges were upgraded from 3rd to 2nd degree.

yes. From 3rd to 2nd. Not 1st. Thats what I was saying.

---

chrono625 posted...

yes. From 3rd to 2nd. Not 1st. Thats what I was saying.

Yeah. I agree.

If precedent suggested it be made 1st it would have been.

---

This is going to be the trial of the century. I really hope they throw the book at him and justice is served.

---

lilORANG posted...

Let the prosecutors do their jobs, TC. You don't understand how this works.

Prosecutors not doing their job is how we got here in the first place. You don't know this works

---

Leave armchair lawyering to the adults

---

2Pacavelli posted...

Prosecutors not doing their job is how we got here in the first place. You don't know this works

Charging a dude with murder within 72 hours of the event is incredibly fast turnaround.
---

2Pacavelli posted...

Derek Chauvin clearly had developed the intent to kill Floyd in the 10 minutes he was murdering Floyd.

Short of Chauvin confessing to murderous intention or some new evidence coming to light, I cant figure out how you would prove first degree. Youre just speculating.

---

lilORANG posted...

Charging a dude with murder within 72 hours of the event is incredibly fast turnaround.

All it took was 100+ cites going up in flames and 9300+ arrests, police Precincts and cop cars being destroyed. No problems to see here according to you though

https://youtu.be/vPCPbPwsTkE

---

It was unquestionably first degree, the legal definition of "premeditation" obviously applies.

But I do think this is a lot more likely to stick

---

Would a 1st degree charge stick, or would he walk?

---

Court cases aren't about proving what happened.
Court cases are about presenting what most likely happened, and between the Defense and Prosecution, whomever had the best case wins.
It's gonna be real fucking hard to prove that it was premeditated.

---

2Pacavelli posted...

All it took was 100+ cites going up in flames and 9300+ arrests, police Precincts and cop cars being destroyed. No problems to see here according to you though

https://youtu.be/vPCPbPwsTkE

You don't make a charging decision based on how other people react. That's moronic.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

So, pointing out something here.

A. these general statements of law you find on Justia, Cornell, FindLaw, etc, are just that: general statements of what's typical. Not always applicable to every jurisdiction. Individual state statutes and case law provide that.

B. As a demonstration, the example cited in the screen shots is from Florida. Florida is not Minnesota. Further, it's an appellate decision. The case stands for the proposition that a rational finder of fact could determine those facts to be indicative of premeditation and that the fact finder's determination was not reversible error. Keyword there is "could." Not that the finder of fact "must" find those facts to indicate premeditation.

Juries are not predictable. They are fickle as fuck. I would not bet a cent on any kind of wager re: jury outcome.

Edit: For the record, have a JD and am currently studying for the bar. I was involved with 4 murder cases during my clerkship with a local law firm.

+1 from a lawyer with 7 years of practice.

This isn't as straight forward as TC thinks or as anyone on twitter is going to pretend it is. The state is trying to manage public expectations to get a conviction. You start with what is reasonable in a case like this. If I cared enough I would find a case from that state that shows how unclear the legal standard is but I don't care that much.

I bet the conviction they end up with will be manslaughter. I don't know specifics about the state crim code so maybe there is something more to the murder charge but it looks like manslaughter.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

According to police elsewhere, saying "I can't breathe" means you actually can breathe.

According to police and everyone with a brain. How else do you get the air to push out of your lungs to activate your vocal chords?

But he stops talking for several minutes shortly thereafter so the point is moot.

---

The problem with precedence is that the precedence shows that if a Police officer kills a Black person they get off Scott free.

So if we're making convictions and judgments based off precedence instead of the law then you're basically saying that if you let enough cops get off the hook enough, it is defacto law that they are able to kill with impunity. This is the main problem that people are protesting about

If the system is going to be fixed it must be fixed all the way

lilORANG posted...

You don't make a charging decision based on how other people react. That's moronic.

That's what the prosecution is doing right now. They went from no charges, to 3rd degree on 1 officer. To 2nd degree and charges on all 4. So as we speak they are making decisions based on how the country reacts because of how hard the country pushed them

Why they wait now to do what they could of done before having widespread destruction all across the country is beyond me (Actually it's not beyond me, it's the system of white supremacy and police brutality trying to keep itself intact. They need application of the laws to be unequal)

---

No.

---

2Pacavelli posted...

The problem with precedence is that the precedence shows that if a Police officer kills a Black person they get off Scott free.

The fact that all the officers involved in this case are now facing charges, and did not get off scott free, shows that you are wrong. I'm not defending the police or what they did in this case and I'm not trying to downplay the inherent racism in the judicial system that does exist. But your statement is objectively false.

---

2Pacavelli posted...

The problem with precedence is that the precedence shows that if a Police officer kills a Black person they get off Scott free.

So if we're making convictions and judgments based off precedence instead of the law then you're basically saying that if you let enough cops get off the hook enough, it is defacto law that they are able to kill with impunity. This is the main problem that people are protesting about

If the system is going to be fixed it must be fixed all the way

That's what the prosecution is doing right now. They went from no charges, to 3rd degree on 1 officer. To 2nd degree and charges on all 4. So as we speak they agree making decisions based on how the country reacts because of how hard the country pushed them

Why they wait now to do what they could of done before having widespread destruction all across the country is beyond me (Actually it's not beyond me, it's the system of white supremacy and police brutality trying to keep itself intact. They need application of the laws to be unequal)

They're assessing their decision as new information becomes available. This had nothing to do with public outcry. They'd be stupid to over-charge to appease the public if they wouldn't be able to make the case later. Murder investigations take time to complete. New witnesses come forward. We need a medical examiner's report. Detectives have to interview witnesses and suspects. Rushing to judgment on the front end is only going to backfire if the case is actually set for trial and the prosecution simply doesn't have the evidence they need to meet the charge.
---

whitelytning posted...

The fact that all the officers involved in this case are now facing charges, and did not get off scott free, shows that you are wrong.

That's a false statement. Breonna Taylor's murders are still free. Tamir Rices murderers are still free. Eric Garner, Sean Bell and the list goes on you can look it up.

The precedence has shown they don't get punished. The officers here finally being charged, after a week of nationwide riots doesnt change what I said it actually confirms it

---

DevsBro posted...

According to police and everyone with a brain. How else do you get the air to push out of your lungs to activate your vocal chords?

How many threads you gonna post this dumbass bullshit lie? You're on your stomach with someone's weight on top of you. Just because you can exhale doesn't mean you could breath jfc everyone on the planet learns this simply by existing

---

Overcharging to appease the public is the kinda shit that allowed Zimmerman to go free. Gather evidence and charge based on what you can prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Gheb posted...

Overcharging to appease the public is the kinda shit that allowed Zimmerman to go free. Gather evidence and charge based on what you can prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah, you mean like a video of the man being murdered? We have that.

---

Diogeknees posted...

Ah, you mean like a video of the man being murdered? We have that.

We do and I absolutely believe that he should be convicted and put in jail. But the video just shows that he killed someone it doesn't provide a ton of evidence as to intent or premeditation.

If it was solely up to me, he'd get the maximum conviction for first degree murder (besides capital punishment). But it's not. It's up to 12 random people. So they need to make sure they can argue for what they are convicting.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no0qB8CVspY

---

whitelytning posted...

+1 from a lawyer with 7 years of practice.

This isn't as straight forward as TC thinks or as anyone on twitter is going to pretend it is. The state is trying to manage public expectations to get a conviction. You start with what is reasonable in a case like this. If I cared enough I would find a case from that state that shows how unclear the legal standard is but I don't care that much.

I bet the conviction they end up with will be manslaughter. I don't know specifics about the state crim code so maybe there is something more to the murder charge but it looks like manslaughter.

Minnesota has a "related crimes" statute allowing them to charge on 2nd but convict on 3rd if the jury isn't convinced. (Can't go the other direction however)

This is fairly common apparently but not everywhere. Minnesota is one of them, though.

---

Tc is Lionel hutz

hed end up with a bad court thingy If he was the prosecutor

---

Diogeknees posted...

Ah, you mean like a video of the man being murdered? We have that.

Sigh....its like you've never even seen an episode of Law and Order, let alone understanding real world law.

People should ask themselves what theyd be willing to risk to get the conviction they desire.

1st degree murder- Skilled prosecutor has SMALL chance to get it....or hes found not guilty and ONLY gets 2nd degree manslaughter which is like 5-10 years. LOTS of risk.

2nd degree murder- Not a slam dunk but probable. Max sentence is 40 years (Chauvin would be 84). Effectively a life sentence.

3rd degree- Should be a slam dunk. Max sentence 25 years.

Personally, theres no way I'm risking him walking on 1st degree when I could effectively end his life with 2nd or 3rd degree. Itd be a minor miracle if he survives 25 years in prison anyway.