Someone explain this verdict to me ... guilty of BOTH murder and manslaughter?

Mr. Pre-Law Student, would you read the question again and try to answer it?

I’m surprised he got the same sentence that a drive-by-shooter would get, or someone that kills someone during a bank robbery.

Otherwise, I think Chauvin was negligent, created an unreasonable risk, and took a chance of causing death when restraining Floyd, all of which support the manslaughter charge. But Chauvin was in the act of trying to do his job in restraining a criminal, although Chauvin made a poor choice in a restraining method..

Why didn’t the other officers stop Chauvin if it was so obvious he was applying an illegal restraint ?

The verdict will likely prevent riots, but preventing a mob from violating the law is not a good reason to overcharge Chauvin the 2nd degree murder charge

Cancun Cruz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They are not 'either' 'or' charges or mutually exclusive. The criteria for each can fit a single act. Chauvin's actions fit the criteria for all 3 charges which is why the jury convicted him on all 3.

Yes, that much was clear when the judge accepted all three verdicts, but why aren't they mutually exclusive, specifically manslaughter vs. murder? That's what's causing confusion.

The confusion is only yours. You clearly haven't been following the trial. There have been regular explanations of each charge.

Murder and manslaughter are not mutually exclusive. They arise from the same act - a homicide - but have a different burden of proof, which relates to the degree of intent. Bear in mind as well, this case did not involve a charge of murder 1, which requires an intent to kill. The charge was murder 2, which involves death from an unlawful act. Manslaughter is based on criteria relating to gross negligence that causes death. Each charge can be established from the same act, of causing death to another. In law, the same act frequently gives rise to a variety of offence. This case was no different. The homicide allowed for several charges.

This case has been reported for months. You could have read about this long ago.

You can't have this discussion in America today. Your question makes sense. It makes no sense he would be found of both higher and lower charges.

My reading of the video evidence is manslaughter. Homicide is an enormous stretch.

But he was found guilty of murder before the trial started. He never had a chance at a fair trial. The jurors weren't even sequestered. They rightfully feared for their safety if they didn't convict on all counts. They could have changed him with witchcraft and they would have convicted.

Murder 2 is murder without premeditation

Armstronglivs wrote:

The confusion is only yours. You clearly haven't been following the trial. There have been regular explanations of each charge.

Murder and manslaughter are not mutually exclusive. They arise from the same act - a homicide - but have a different burden of proof, which relates to the degree of intent.

It's clear enough why one can be charged and convicted on multiple overlapping counts. That is, double jeopardy rules out multiple trials, so overlapping charges cover the case of one or more charges being dismissed in trial, conviction, or on appeal.

My uninformed presumption is that the sentences for overlapping convictions would be served concurrently rather than sequentially, but would be interested in an informed explanation of why that might not be the case.

CopperRunner wrote:

And yes he won’t be sentenced for each individual charge, it’ll most likely be he serves for each charge consecutively.

So you're having trouble with the terms "consecutively" and "concurrently"?

runnER/DR wrote:

My reading of the video evidence is manslaughter. Homicide is an enormous stretch.

Manslaughter is the killing of a human being. Homicide is (literally) the killing of a human being. Manslaughter is simply one kind of homicide.

If you commit manslaughter, you've committed a homicide. You may not have committed a murder.

TheOhioState wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKRF1n6SWv0

It’s sad that a person who is so articulate is wrong on all of her talking points.

mid D guy wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/chauvin-guilty-verdict-sentencing.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Unfortunately I can't read that since it is behind a paywall and I am not signing up for a "Free Account" with the NY Times. I already get enough junk email.

This is the relevant part:

"Mr. Chauvin was found guilty of:

1) causing the death of a human being, without intent, while committing or attempting to commit an assault (second-degree murder);

2) unintentionally causing a death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life (third-degree murder);

3) and creating an unreasonable risk, by consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to someone else (manslaughter).

[...]

The separate acts the jury had to find Mr. Chauvin committed [...] seem compatible with one another. To streamline the language a bit, “committing an assault” and “committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons” and “creating an unreasonable risk” can all go together.

In fact, “eminently dangerous” is a synonym for unreasonably risky. And both coexist easily with committing an assault.

An appeals court could disagree with this analysis and throw out one or more of the counts."

Engine 53 wrote:

jury member wrote:

We just voted “guilty” on everything because we really, really didn’t want our houses burned down.

Right wing Letsrun posters never disappoint.

I thought that this was amusing, with a potential kernel of truth, and certainly need not come from a "right wing" person. In fact, the kind of joke I can imagine coming from any number of probably left-leaning comics and/or writers. Lighten up.

To the OP, it seems yet other shining moment for our profound justice system - one death, three death-related verdicts. Clear as crystal for the citizenry.

jury member wrote:

We just voted “guilty” on everything because we really, really didn’t want our houses burned down.

You're lucky because Republicans were ready to riot and loot if the verdict was anything else!

See how dumb that sounds? But not as dumb as saying antifa attacked the US government when it was Chump supporters trying to overthrow the US government.

What a dou*** reply. I'll guarantee that thousands upon thousands (millions?) of well-educated folks who paid a reasonable amount of attention to the trial had the EXACT same reaction as the OP. "One death, three death-causing offenses? Hmm, don't think that I've seen that before. Seems strange." Anyone with half a brain knows that it must be POSSIBLE - or it wouldn't have happened - but they're surprised that it can. And wonder about it. And then you imply they're horribly uninformed. They're not, and get over yourself.

In the state it happened in, 2nd degree murder does not require intent. That's why he was charged/convicted with it.

He was convicted on all 3 counts likely so that if 2nd degree murder got overturned, the other two convictions would stand.

CopperRunner wrote:

pretend lawyers on lrc wrote:

Wow. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Wanna explain why instead of just saying it?

Start with 609.18. If you were really prelaw and wanted to learn something. Instead this entire thread is posters commenting on what they imagine and how they feel. Without knowing the law or caring about the actual facts of the case. Just pure emotional garbage.

areusure? wrote:

jury member wrote:

We just voted “guilty” on everything because we really, really didn’t want our houses burned down.

You're lucky because Republicans were ready to riot and loot if the verdict was anything else!

See how dumb that sounds? But not as dumb as saying antifa attacked the US government when it was Chump supporters trying to overthrow the US government.

The antifa attacking US government is the least probable. That’s a right wing action.