2021-04-21 at 12:52 PM UTC
Is this the first court case anyone has ever watched in their life? Nothing new has taken place. This is all very standard procedure, no big surprises have been unveiled. Just as laws differ from country to country, they oftentimes differ from state to state as well, including different degrees of criminal charges and the definitions behind those degrees. I assure you MN didnt just make up some new form of prosecution with new laws and rules just for this case.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-04-21 at 12:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
It's a shame though that the judicial system doesn't look the word "Murder" up in the dictionary…which clearly states it's the "intentional" taking of life.
I guess they make their own definitions up to satiate the niggerdom.
Third degree murder in Minnesota means the person was intentionally
doing something that endangered someone's life without necessarily establishing their intent to specifically kill them.
For example if a person were to shoot someone in the leg but they hit an artery and the victim bled out and died, the counsel might argue that the fact they were shot in the leg demonstrates the lack of an intent to actually kill. The charge of murder in the third degree means it doesn't matter whether they specifically intended to kill the victim, they still had intent to commit harm to the victim in such a way that was eminently dangerous to their life and as a result they died: It doesn't matter if they didn't mean to kill them, they still meant to shoot them, which could very easily kill them, and did.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
I guess it's unreasonable to expect something can't be intentional and unintentional at the same time, and here come the excuse squad to make up reasons why.
2021-04-21 at 1:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
As I said…it's a shame the judicial system doesn't look the word "murder" up in the dictionary. Manslaughter yes, murder no.
Or concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt".
You can't be guilty of something both intentionally and unintentionally, to any reasonable standard.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-04-21 at 1:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump
Or concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt".
You can't be guilty of something both intentionally and unintentionally, to any reasonable standard.
You can be guilty of someone losing their life because of you intentionally endangering it to harm them without specifically intending to kill them, while being guilty of them losing their life due to your negligent behaviour, while being guilty for them losing their life because you acted recklessly without regard for their life.
All those things are consistent and true and have been established in a court of law.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-04-21 at 1:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump
Or concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Yup.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2021-04-21 at 1:30 PM UTC
Thanking each other's posts isn't going to nake you look less retarded, it will just make you look more retarded and also gay.
2021-04-21 at 1:44 PM UTC
The court had one job, to determine what happened.
"How did Floyd die, did Chauvin kill Floyd, and if so how, why, was it intentional, unintentional, accidental, negligent. What happened?"
"Yes, guilty"
"Guilty of what"
"All the things"
