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

CopperRunner wrote:

Hammering Hank wrote:

As someone intending to become a criminal justice lawyer you are off to a rough start. You need to learn the difference between assault and battery. Pretty elementary and you failed pretty badly. Assault is threatening someone and battery is when you actually hit that person. First lesson

My bad. I often refer to assault and battery plainly as assault. I don’t necessarily feel the need to use perfect legal terminology on a running message board when the end goal is just to get a meaning across. I honestly appreciate the point out nonetheless cause it’s honestly more productive to have someone that actually knows what they are saying call you out instead of someone that doesn’t.

My pleasure. Wish you the best on your future law career!

CopperRunner wrote:

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

I’m not familiar with the state laws so I’m pulling these years out of my butt, but

8 years for manslaughter

10 years for 3rd degree

15 years for 2nd degree

= 15 years jail time (usually)

Concurrently?

CopperRunner wrote:

The problem is that if you are kneeling on someone, and they can still talk, you probably aren’t assuming there is a good chance they are going to die.

He died six minutes in.

Then kneeled on him for three more minutes while he laid there, dead.

If you wrap your hands around someone’s throat, they can talk initially.

If you keep your hands there long enough, they will die.

And it’s safe to assume you know they will die if you keep strangling them.

NativeSon wrote:

CopperRunner wrote:

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

I’m not familiar with the state laws so I’m pulling these years out of my butt, but

8 years for manslaughter

10 years for 3rd degree

15 years for 2nd degree

= 15 years jail time (usually)

Concurrently?

Yeah, that is not what serving consecutive sentences means...

NativeSon wrote:

CopperRunner wrote:

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

I’m not familiar with the state laws so I’m pulling these years out of my butt, but

8 years for manslaughter

10 years for 3rd degree

15 years for 2nd degree

= 15 years jail time (usually)

Concurrently?

Yes. Mix up of words there and why it’s gonna be another 4 or so years before I can get my law degree haha.

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.

How can you honestly say with a straight face that this jury wasn’t pressured by outside forces (ie a democratic CONGRESSWOMAN and the POTUS?) I’m an entirely Democratic voter, but those comments from both, before the jury had returned a verdict, were absolute BS.

And to “jury members” point, I’d argue that Waters’ comments were borderline threatening to the jury.

hootenanny wrote:

Engine 53 wrote:

Right wing Letsrun posters never disappoint.

How can you honestly say with a straight face that this jury wasn’t pressured by outside forces (ie a democratic CONGRESSWOMAN and the POTUS?) I’m an entirely Democratic voter, but those comments from both, before the jury had returned a verdict, were absolute BS.

And to “jury members” point, I’d argue that Waters’ comments were borderline threatening to the jury.

Her comments were not borderline anything. She demanded a guilty verdict and if not encouraged people to get confrontational, i.e., to riot.

CopperRunner wrote:

gernu wrote:

No. Chauvin will only be sentenced for the 2nd degree murder conviction.

That’s essentially what I said.

When he is sentenced they will read all guilty charges and the corresponding sentences. Judge will then say something along the lines of “each sentence is to be served consecutively” meaning Chauvin is only serving the sentence of the biggest charge (second degree murder)

They is not at all what you said. I wouldn’t have replied if you had said what I replied with.

Again that’s my mistake. I used the word consecutively instead of concurrently which definitely makes what I wrote confusing. My bad.

hootenanny wrote:

Engine 53 wrote:

Right wing Letsrun posters never disappoint.

How can you honestly say with a straight face that this jury wasn’t pressured by outside forces (ie a democratic CONGRESSWOMAN and the POTUS?) I’m an entirely Democratic voter, but those comments from both, before the jury had returned a verdict, were absolute BS.

And to “jury members” point, I’d argue that Waters’ comments were borderline threatening to the jury.

Biden's comments don't matter, as the jury was sequestered at that point. They weren't when Waters was trying to incite a riot though, and that will probably come up as grounds for an appeal.

hootenanny wrote:

Engine 53 wrote:

Right wing Letsrun posters never disappoint.

How can you honestly say with a straight face that this jury wasn’t pressured by outside forces (ie a democratic CONGRESSWOMAN and the POTUS?) I’m an entirely Democratic voter, but those comments from both, before the jury had returned a verdict, were absolute BS.

And to “jury members” point, I’d argue that Waters’ comments were borderline threatening to the jury.

I don't think I've ever commented on this case here (yes I have with my friends and within my social circles) but if there was one case that was clear cut, it is this.

The man had his hand in his pocket and stood there (or knelt) nonchalant as George Floyd was dying.

To this man, Floyd's life was meaningless and worthless. At least that is the inference by an ordinary thinking person watchign that video.

Then there were by standers and witnesses who kept pleading with him to 'let go' or 'ease up' but the policeman was unmoved.

I don't buy the 'Minneapolis would have burnt down' reasoning. This case wasn't complicated in my opinion. Justice prevailed.

Now, without the video, i don't know what could have happened but we are lucky that there were several. I have no idea what was going through former officer Chauvin's mind at the time. He was just heartless!

Thank you for the clarification.

It just seems strange to be convicted of different crimes. If they are only going to sentence him on the highest level conviction then it seems like this is the only conviction necessary. The act (killing a man) was exactly the same regardless of how you define it. They are not separate acts, such as breaking and entering, holding a woman hostage, raping her, killing her, and then robbing the place and finally burning it to the ground to hide evidence. Those are all very different acts; the officer performed only one act - killing a man.

Even though the multiple convictions will not result in a longer sentence since he is only being sentenced for one, could they make it harder for him to be paroled early? Or have other effects on his time incarcerated?

This seems similar to charging someone with both assault and aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a higher level charge that usually results from the use of a weapon. If I threaten to punch you, that is assault. If I am holding a knife and threaten to stab you, that would be aggravated assault. The act (assault) is the same; the difference is the manner in which it is carried out. But the prosecutor will not charge him with both; he will simply get charged with aggravated assault. He will not be convicted of both assault and aggravated assault.

CopperRunner wrote:

I’m not familiar with the state laws so I’m pulling these years out of my butt, but

8 years for manslaughter

10 years for 3rd degree

15 years for 2nd degree

= 15 years jail time (usually)

Could this have to do with the inevitable appeal? Let's assume these are correct for the sake of argument. He will get 15 years for the highest charge. But when he appeals his conviction, the appeals court decides to overturn his 2nd degree conviction. If this is the only conviction then he goes free that very day. But if the appeals court overturns the 2nd degree but decides to not overturn the 3rd degree, then he remains in prison for 10 years. Does this sound correct?

Sorry if I'm being a bit of an a$$. I hate to bombard you with so many scenarios/questions but I am just trying to understand this verdict.

Sergeant Manslaughter wrote:

Thank you for the clarification.

It just seems strange to be convicted of different crimes. If they are only going to sentence him on the highest level conviction then it seems like this is the only conviction necessary. The act (killing a man) was exactly the same regardless of how you define it.

No one seems to be able to answer the original question about how he could be guilty of all 3. I always viewed murder and manslaughter as mutually exclusive, but that's admittedly based upon watching a lot of crime shows on TV. How can you be guilty of both? I'm not as familiar with the 2nd vs 3rd degree murder differences. I'm assuming there are also nuances to each of the charges that may vary by state too.

That’s what I was thinking.

Convict him on all three charges.

If he wins an appeal on the highest charge, the conviction stays on the next one and so on.

If he is only convicted on second degree murder and wins an appeal on that, he’s free.

No double jeopardy. Can’t be tried on this instance again.

Cancun Cruz wrote:

Sergeant Manslaughter wrote:

Thank you for the clarification.

It just seems strange to be convicted of different crimes. If they are only going to sentence him on the highest level conviction then it seems like this is the only conviction necessary. The act (killing a man) was exactly the same regardless of how you define it.

No one seems to be able to answer the original question about how he could be guilty of all 3. I always viewed murder and manslaughter as mutually exclusive, but that's admittedly based upon watching a lot of crime shows on TV. How can you be guilty of both? I'm not as familiar with the 2nd vs 3rd degree murder differences. I'm assuming there are also nuances to each of the charges that may vary by state too.

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. He will be sentenced in respect of all 3 and my understanding is that the sentences will be served concurrently, which means he will be inside for a period determined by the most serious charge (which is 2nd degree murder, which doesn't require an intent to kill but is death caused through an unlawful act). He will however have 3 criminal convictions against him.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Cancun Cruz wrote:

No one seems to be able to answer the original question about how he could be guilty of all 3. I always viewed murder and manslaughter as mutually exclusive, but that's admittedly based upon watching a lot of crime shows on TV. How can you be guilty of both? I'm not as familiar with the 2nd vs 3rd degree murder differences. I'm assuming there are also nuances to each of the charges that may vary by state too.

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.

Why should they be mutually exclusive? It doesn’t confuse me at alll that the charges are adjudicated independently.