Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWife of Murder Pig Derek Chauvin files for divorce.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wife-of-george-floyds-accused-killer-derek-chauvin-demands-divorce-from-ex-cop
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1253 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wife of Murder Pig Derek Chauvin files for divorce. (Original Post)
Progressive Jones
May 2020
OP
It will always be Murder Pig to me. Unfortunately, it IS too hard to convict a bad cop.
Progressive Jones
May 2020
#2
PJMcK
(22,035 posts)1. "Alleged" Murder Pig
This article, also from The Daily Beast by the brilliant Barbara McQuade, illustrates the uphill climb the prosecutors will have to convict Chauvin.
Although it's behind their paywall, here's an important excerpt:
The answer is that the law deliberately stacks the deck in favor of police officers. All criminal defendants have a right to a unanimous finding by a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But because we entrust officers to use force, even deadly force, to protect the public, we make them guilty of a crime only when they clearly exceed their public authority. How much legal protection is too much?
To convict Chauvin of third-degree murder, the prosecution will have to prove that he acted with a depraved mind, without regard for human life. For second-degree manslaughter, the prosecutor will have to prove that Chauvin acted with gross negligence. These are the same standards that apply in every case of third-degree murder or manslaughter under Minnesota law.
Whats different when the defendant is a police officer is that he may use a public authority defense. That means the state has the burden of proving that the force used was not justified. A jury would be instructed that to conclude that the force was not justified, it must find that Chauvin created an unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.
Under Supreme Court case law of Graham v. Connor, the jury would further be told that reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of an officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Further, the jury would be told that their reasonableness inquiry extends only to those facts known to the officer at the precise moment that the officer acted with force. The jury would be reminded that to determine reasonableness, it must consider that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of force that is necessary under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. This standard can be very difficult to meet.
To convict Chauvin of third-degree murder, the prosecution will have to prove that he acted with a depraved mind, without regard for human life. For second-degree manslaughter, the prosecutor will have to prove that Chauvin acted with gross negligence. These are the same standards that apply in every case of third-degree murder or manslaughter under Minnesota law.
Whats different when the defendant is a police officer is that he may use a public authority defense. That means the state has the burden of proving that the force used was not justified. A jury would be instructed that to conclude that the force was not justified, it must find that Chauvin created an unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.
Under Supreme Court case law of Graham v. Connor, the jury would further be told that reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of an officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Further, the jury would be told that their reasonableness inquiry extends only to those facts known to the officer at the precise moment that the officer acted with force. The jury would be reminded that to determine reasonableness, it must consider that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of force that is necessary under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. This standard can be very difficult to meet.
The rest is here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-why-its-so-tough-to-charge-let-alone-convict-a-killer-cop?ref=home
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)2. It will always be Murder Pig to me. Unfortunately, it IS too hard to convict a bad cop.
State Legislatures are going to have to correct that.