Muldoon wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Firstly, in your ineffable ignorance you don't grasp that common law legal systems include both statute and case law - as the American system does - and they are not a system of Roman or code law, as many Continental systems are. The legal principles in common law systems are similar in all jurisdictions, regardless of statutory variations.
Claiming to be an expert in another country's law, just because you allege to be a legal expert in some unidentified country that is also founded on common law is a joke. It's like saying a podiatrist saying he's also an expert in cardiology, because he learned about the human body in biology class.
Statutes are not common law. Whoever told you that was lying to you. Black's Law Dictionary defines common law as "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions." First year law students in US law schools are taught the differences between common law and statutory law. You have no clue what you are talking about. And more to the point, you don't know anything about Minnesota law, just because you claim to practice law in a foreign country. That much is evident from the continuous errors you keep posting (see below).
Your deflection lecture regarding the difference between common law and civil law (which you called "code law") is (1) irrelevant and (2) an indication that you are probably a non-practicing academic blowhard.
There isn't a court in the US that would admit you as a legal expert because of your alleged knowledge of another country's common law. It's hard to imagine what kind of presumptuous jackass practicing in, e.g., Malta, would hold themselves out as an expert in American law, just because of the shared common law roots.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Secondly, you show you are merely a pompous layman pretending to legal knowledge in your failure to grasp my point about the cause of Floyd's death. The evidence which resulted in the charges against Chauvin show that the police officers' actions were the most likely cause of Floyd's death. The defence can only refute that - or, legally speaking, produce a "reasonable doubt" - if it produces evidence strongly suggestive of death from other causes. It can't. What it is more likely to argue is that Floyd's death was an unintended consequence of Chauvin exercising his law enforcement duty appropriately in the circumstances. But that is a subtle distinction beyond you. But keep breaking wind. That you can do.
As pointed out previously, THIS statement by you - "if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide" - is a glaring legal error; a misstatement and misapplication of applicable law. If the judge in the Chauvin case issues jury instructions with anything resembling your legal error, he's made the case reversible on appeal. If the prosecution argues anything resembling your legal error to the jury, they get sanctioned, corrected in open court and possibly a mistrial. You've done nothing in your response to defend or even explain your erroneous legal statement.
In fact, incredibly, instead of defending it, you doubled down on your legal errors. This statement by you - "The defence can only refute that - or, legally speaking, produce a "reasonable doubt" - if it produces evidence strongly suggestive of death from other causes" - is yet ANOTHER glaring legal error; a misstatement and misapplication of applicable law. The standard is wrong and the burden is wrong. You are a very confused person. You will NEVER see anything like either of the two legal errors (or the other errors in your other posts, that others point out to you ) that you have posted in a jury instruction in a criminal case anywhere in the U.S.
I do find it amusing being lectured to by a legal illiterate. I did not say case law is statute law. You are slow. What you continue to fail to grasp is that common law legal systems include statutes, because case law is typically interpretative of and built on decisions surrounding statutes. It thereby also builds a body of law built on those decisions.
But the key point is that the legal principles that govern common law systems are much the same, with regard to men's rea (intent) and actus reus (the act that is the commission of the offence). Regardless of statutory or case law variation, those principles remain the same. Hence, the law in different jurisdictions can be analysed and understood according to those principles - whether in Minnesota or anywhere. But you won't know that since you have no formal legal training.
The rest of your comments bores me. I am not interested in debating law with someone so clearly out of his depth and motivated solely by his own prejudices.