It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Riots after the trial?

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Glad you appreciated it, triggered one. Whining about how unimportant it is would mean more if you didn’t bother to respond to begin with, though. Evidently it was important enough to you to respond to.




posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Gotta love the mud pit....lol

The courtroom and the real world are vastly different arenas..
Courtrooms aren't always about the whole truth just the parts you can prove .



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Gotta love the mud pit....lol


Totally. You get it, which is good in and of itself. Others, not so much.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I may have missed it but has it been explained how in order to get a murder 2 conviction the state has to prove intent even though he was charged with 2nd degree unintentional?



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I think I missed it too.

Damn squirrel.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Court is innocent until proven guilty...supposedly.

It will be up to the state to prove that the officer went beyond what is the recommended restraining method intentionally.
That will all come down to his state of mind or intent.

I've been involved in to many trials to believe anything is as simple as black and white.
There's a reason some juries take so long to deliberate.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I know how court is supposed to work, thanks. What you said was that they have to prove intent to kill.

The charge is unintentional homicide. They don’t have to prove intent to do anything. Read the actual charge he caught and it explains what the elements of the crime are.

Intent is not one of the elements, in any way, shape, or form.
edit on 4-6-2020 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Here's the rub on that one.

The prosecution is calling this 2nd degree without intent to kill.
What that means is that the cop unintentionally killed a man "while committing a felony"

""Second-degree felony murder does not require proof of intent to kill," she said by email. "What the prosecutor would need to establish is that the officer caused death while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense, which has been charged in this case as assault in the third degree."

They will need to prove that the police officer was in the act of committing a felony against Mr Floyd when his death occurred.

His defense will be that he was using the recommended method of restraint on Floyd.
The prosecution will attempt to prove that the cop was intentionally assaulting Floyd.

Intent to harm/assault will indeed play a role in this trial.


It's a terrible idea to go for murder 2.
They should have stuck to the lower and easier to prove charge.

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   
You have to prove 2 things. That he wanted to kill him and that he did for these charges. Inflated charges look great but are harder to convict. Should have charged straight manslaughter and asked for the max. Anytime in prison for any of these cops will be a nightmare for them.

There is no proof the officer in this case killed him. This was not a shooting. There is nothing. If I was a jury member I might not like the fact the cops put their knee to his neck but did that kill him? No.

Did the drugs? Maybe. Did the heart disease? Maybe. Did the police? Not directly.

Fact not emotion is how you have to look at it.

When any of them are acquitted the Rodney KIng riots will look like a cakewalk....



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yea. I said all that about a week ago, but thanks. I also said murder 2 would require an exceptional prosecutor with a bulletproof case, and because that was unlikely murder 3 was a vastly more winnable charge.

I’m not the one that brought up needing to prove intent to kill here, though, which is what started this bit of discussion.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


That he wanted to kill him and that he did for these charges.


Try reading the actual charges. “Wanted to kill him” isn’t one of the elements.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: matafuchs


That he wanted to kill him and that he did for these charges.


Try reading the actual charges. “Wanted to kill him” isn’t one of the elements.



I think that's going to bite the prosecutor right in the butt.
He should have stuck with the original charge.
When he fails at proving the cop committed a felony the murder charge will be dropped...

But then again, maybe that's the idea.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Whoa there cowboy....pull in the reins..I understand it is "unintentional" that he was charged with I was speaking in broad terms of a murder charge vs manslaughter.

Because the charges he has right now do not fit the 'crime' he is charged with. He should have been charged with intentional....




609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of 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 with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

§Subd. 2.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; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Correct. The only way someone isnt liable for your death in custody is if it can be reasonably shown to have been unavoidable such as massive stroke or pulmonary embolism.

Every impetus possible should be placed on authority in your interactions. Police contact needs to be necessary, and it currently is not, prior to initiation



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

This isnt us vs them. This is about me, you, and everyone else. Stay focused.

Cops causing undue death is bad.

Protesting that is not bad.

Rioting for any reason beyond overthrowing caste oppression (America isnt a caste society quite yet so rule that out) or slavery is wrong.

Each of these statements are exclusive of each other, and absolute unto themselves. Quit trying to smear them together. Focus.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

So.....your argument is that he should have been charged with manslaughter but he also should have been charged with intentional....something?
edit on 4-6-2020 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

A failed prosecution for murder 2 can still result in a conviction for murder 3. A failed prosecution for murder 3 leaves only manslaughter. I don’t think murder 2 is winnable. I do think it’s arguable enough to take a shot at and even if it fails, murder 3 is still on the table.



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
And now they've retained Trayons Martins lawyer that put up fake witness's against Zimmerman.

Expect a civil trial to sue the MPD.



Wasn't Zimmerman the white Hispanic guy?



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: panoz77

White Mexican....



posted on Jun, 4 2020 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

No. What I am saying is charge the person with what you feel is the correct charge. In this case I believe they are creating a situation where he is found not guilty. What would benefit those who want this to continue more? Guilty or Not Guilty?

Even if he decides to plea to lesser charges it will still cause more rioting and chaos which is what Floyd is being used for.




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join