Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve's avatar

" Chauvin was convicted by a jury on essentially undisputed evidence that he put a lethal amount of pressure on a prone Floyd’s neck and kept in there long after Floyd had stopped resisting. It hardly takes a biased or intimidated jury to conclude that that was murder in some degree. Chauvin’s actions knowingly created a risk of unjustified death. He knew or should have known better, and he has himself to blame"

Well That's pretty much nonsense. He got convicted because The Jury did not want to see the city Burn Again.

Expand full comment
Ron's avatar

I have nothing good to say about Derek Chauvin or his conduct towards George Floyd. But it’s worth noting that the most serious offense of which he was convicted, second degree murder, resulted from application of the felony-murder rule, a theory that obviated any need for the prosecution to prove that he was aware of and indifferent to any particular risk posed by his conduct, much less that he intended to kill, or even injure, Floyd. Chauvin’s predicate felony was assault.

The felon-murder rule is widely criticized, especially among legal scholars and others who consider themselves progressive and enlightened. Some states have disallowed the theory altogether, or at least limited its reach in a variety of contexts. One common limitation among those states that still recognize the felony-murder theory is achieved by application of the “merger rule,” which disallows predicating a felony murder prosecution on a felony that is—as it was in Chauvin’s case—assaultive. This might seem counterintuitive—particularly considering that a separate limitation on felony-murder requires that the underlying felony be inherently dangerous to human life. Minnesota has not adopted the merger limitation, leaving Chauvin unprotected from the felony-murder rule’s “bootstrapping” effect that many find (in most cases) unjust.

As it happens, Chauvin was also convicted of separate (lesser) charges that required proof that he was indifferent to the dangers he knew his conduct posed. That Chauvin deserves a lengthy prison sentence might not be “open to question” by Bill (and probably most people), but the fairness of the theory on which he was convicted most certainly is—and not merely, or even primarily, by “conservatives.”

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts