General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChauvin Trial: Will the Prosecution need to show motive?
If so, what will they claim? Maybe this was covered in the opening statements, but I missed that.
I've seen mention of an earlier encounter at bouncing/security jobs and of course racism...what else? Showing off to the street "crowd"?
lark
(23,003 posts)I have to wonder if that didn't play a part in the murderousness.
jaxexpat
(6,703 posts)Either Floyd died or Chauvin lived looking over his shoulder. At least that is the most logical motive I see. But then, I fail to see the logic behind white supremacy or racism.
Sure did seem damn personal to me, but tough to prove.
lark
(23,003 posts)I was hoping somone from back in the day would report bad blood between the 2, but unfortunately that didn't happen.
Rustynaerduwell
(646 posts)he wasn't going to let a group of black people tell him what to do to the black man under his knee.
WHITT
(2,868 posts)with the given charges. One is like negligence, the other is something like you knew there could be a bad outcome, but did it anyway. The nomenclature tends to be state-specific.
rgbecker
(4,806 posts)Beringia
(4,314 posts)Plus I would think the owner of the bar could say if there was a relationship.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)These are the charges against Chauvin:
Second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
In Minnesota, these are the definitions of those crimes:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609
609.19 Unintentional murders.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting
Section (2) involves protective orders and is not relevant.
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
Section (2) involves drugs and is not relevant.
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
None of these offense requires a "motive", nor do they require a specific intent to kill anyone.
In general, criminal laws are directed to behavior, coupled with varying sorts of intent to effect an outcome. For example, if you threaten someone with an intent to induce them to give you money, you commit extortion. "Why" you want the money or "why" you chose that victim are not relevant. If you have some particular animus, that might be circumstantial evidence that you committed the act in question, but we don't lock people up for what they think, we lock people up for what they do.
rgbecker
(4,806 posts)If they charged that, the state would have to show the felony being committed wouldn't they?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)This should answer your questions:
https://www.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-charges-trial-george-floyd-murder-manslaughter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)This is the idea that makes me sick to my stomach. He was on top of him, and felt the life leave his body with that look on his murdering face. And he did not move, even after he felt him die. Only when the paramedics told him to get off, did he finally move.
RobinA
(9,878 posts)I don't think a stated motive is ever required legally for a specific charge. With me as a juror there are some situations where you will need a motive to get a vote to convict of murder from me. This is not one of them, as I don't believe there was intent. To me this is some kind of extreme callous disregard, which I don't think is a charge, but something like that would allow me to vote to convict. No motive necessary. I can't remember what he ended up charged with. I think some level of murder got thrown back in, so I'm thinking the verdict is not going to make people happy. I find it unlikely that a jury is going to get to murder, although I don't know Minnesotans, so their mileage may vary.