🇳🇱
Derek Chauvin (The murderer of #GeorgeFloyd) has just officially been convicted of murder by the grand jury, finally justice!
@ChristiJunior LAWL, ok buddy.. i mean the dude was literally caught red handed murdering someone.. The guy was dead (or at least unconscious) and the man continued to strangle him for another 4 minutes and physically stopped other cops from checking on his safety... There is no sane reason anyone could side witht he cop on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d2-iK5Dcy0
@coolboymew
Who said anything about relaxing. Once he was immobile you cuff his feet and hands, no relaxing needed. There is no excuse for strangling a man for 4 minutes after he is unconscious.
@ChristiJunior
@coolboymew
They were, but they were also completely docile until he literally died then one dude started creeping up but immediately backed down. Either way its not a free ticket to kill someone or denying other cops the right ti check on his safety. Once he was unconscious him continuing to strangle him was obvious intent to murder.
@ChristiJunior
>They were, but they were also completely docile
Irrelevant. The fact remains that it adds to the difficulty that you got someone that is completely out of his mind, the dude was completely far gone and could not even understand a single fucking word they told him and could not even comply with orders
Drugged individuals can go from 0 to 100 real fucking quick and having idiots congregating around increased the pressure ten fold
@coolboymew
I never denied that. Does t change the fact the Chauvin continued to sit on his neck even after he was told he had no pulse... No other evidence of any kind makes hi. I. Ocent when thst fact is true.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior
There was no professional on the scene to give a confirmation, the passerbys are NOT professionals and the retards in the crowd were being quite belligerent really making the situation worse
@Nudhul
It makes sense because they are served simultaneously so they dont actually represent additional penalties. It is common practice to do this incase the stronger charge doesnt stick.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew
@Nudhul
They arent contradictory. One is second degree murser the other is 3rd degree. Literally a lesser form of the other.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew
@Nudhul
Not what i said, nor is it what 3rd degree means in context. 3rd degree is not exclusionary of second degree. 3rd degree only suggests the action was negligent, it does not require that negligence to be unintentional.
Anyone convinced guilty of second degree is always automatically guilty of third degree, though you cant always try someone for both at the same time, that depends on the state, but guilt of one always implies guilt in a lesser degree.
Incorrect, the legal definition of negligence makes no assumptions about i tent. This is the legal definition:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
@Nudhul
I doubt you would thing anything disproves your point honestly.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew
@Nudhul
I mean the legal definition is rather clear. I just cant make you not stupid so you can understand.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew
The legal definition is clear, and courts have for a very long time interpreted it exactly as I stated. You have offered no counter evidence from a legal standpoint, just a constant stream of childish insults. So yes i have the right.
I could have swore your first comments on the thread were personal attacks, but now I cant find it. So I may have mistaken you for someone else. If that is the case then your right, and I apologize the personal attack was not deserved
mn.gov/law-library/
Poast case law, faggot.
@Godcast @freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Nudhul @coolboymew
Already posted the **legal** definition of neglegance and i will repeat it here:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
As you can clear see negligence does not imply in the definition that it is unintentional.
You can find the legal definition here with direct links citing official resources to back up the definition:
If someone driving a car failed to look before making a turn and ran over a mother and child crossing the street, then the driver would be guilty of negligent driving.
If we were to use your reasoning of negligence not having to be unintentional, then you could say the driver being lazy or absent minded had intended to grind some people under their vehicle through their failure to look before turning.
You are trying to apply a common definition of negligence as the technical legal one, they are not the same. There are very specific legal tests for negligence and none of them have anything to do with intent. Legal words do not follow the same rules as common english.
You can see the legal definition I gave earlier along with a great deal more detail in this link which explains the legal tests one uses to determine if something is negligence. You can clearly see the legal definition and legal tests in no way care about intent:
What what about the legal definition requires the **consequence** of the action to be unintended... no where in the legal definition does it state that must be the case.
The test for negligance as stated at the link I shared is the following:
1) the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff
2) defendant's breach of that duty
3) plaintiff's sufferance of an injury
4) proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)
Can you do those things if you intend for the consequence of your actions? If I intend to kill someone, can i do something that kills someone and satisfy those 4 rules? Obviously the answer is yes.
LOL yea ok bud.. lets just kill people who are doing illegal but non violent things.. totally justified ::eye roll::
do you understand why that doesn't make sense?