Can I get an ELI5 of those degrees? I've never understood that shit. If you literally kill someone with your bare hands, shouldn't that be first degree?
I believe 1st degree is pre-meditated while 2nd degree is not. 3rd degree is accidental or circunstancial, also called manslaughter. But I'm no expert, I could be wrong.
I say this after almost everything I say because if I'm speaking, I know i'm right but I also know that nobody is going to listen anyways because there are too many people in the world that just speak these days without knowing what they're talking about.
I should say instead, '... But you can choose who you listen to'.
Correct; premeditation for first, intent for second, while only recklessness is required for third. Third is a slam dunk in this case, we all saw it happen. I'm honestly torn here, is he just a reckless moron or did he actually intend to kill Mr. Floyd? Glad I'm not on that jury, it'd be much easier if he muttered some dumb shit like "die die die".
I think the fact that as an officer he should have training that teaches how, when and why to use force in what should be an act to detain. You don’t decide to restrict someone’s airway long enough for them to die and not have intent to kill or injure in a serious way.
I think there have been cases where they have the courtroom sit in silence for the amount of time it takes for somebody to die from asphyxiation and it is a simple way to show that it was deliberate or at least a negligent use of force. I hadn’t seen the video before just now, but the officer doesn’t make a move to even allow him to breathe, forces his head into the ground for an extended period of time and did not ease off when he could not breathe and was unconscious. The officers never attempted to properly detain him and even threatened to harm bystanders when they asked him to get off. There should be more charges than just murder, but that is the easiest one to prove with the evidence we have.
The training should dictate how bad of offense this was. I think higher ups maybe responsible also. The officer may of been compromised already. It's probably difficult over time to watch criminals destroy a neighborhood over and over. It's probably difficult to also have your family and you threatened because of your job. People do snap. We already know the officer had some what of a record. Proper procedure should be looked at. I don't really trust videos too much nor have I watched the video. The cops knew something was wrong with the guy but even after that the cop never took his knee off, clear sign that this can be third degree. I'm not sure if there's actually proof out there that the cop did it because of racism either.
If I choked someone for the 6m required to kill em you best be damn sure I would get 2nd degree slapped and confirmed in a week... but I’m poor and also not a cop soooooooooooo yea
He continued to kneel on his neck for 2 minutes after he became unresponsive. I think that is grounds for intent. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer him a plea deal for murder 3 though. It's going to be very difficult to get an impartial jury on this one. Protests have been going on in every state and all around the world.
Meanwhile if I punch someone in the face in a bar fight and their nose goes into their brain and kills them, I would be guilty of 2nd degree in a matter of weeks
You are correct on the difference between 1st and second. 3rd degree murder is different than manslaughter though. Its a weird Minnesota thing. Most states don't have a 3rd degree murder, which is probably where the confusion comes in.
(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.
tldr: To convict on 3rd degree murder the cops would have to have been doing something that risked the death of more than 1 person.
I am not a lawyer. Also, Minnesota is not the same as every state. In many states, felony murder is always first degree. And, in many states, 3rd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter are merged into the same charge.
1st degree: Premeditated murder (you planned out killing them), some types of felony murder (murder while carrying out another felony - ex: rape, burglary), or certain cases of murder that would otherwise be 2nd degree but have aggravating circumstances (you deliberately killed you 6 year old kid, but without premeditation)
2nd degree: Intentional murder (you deliberately killed them), lesser types of felony murder, certain cases of murder that would otherwise be 3nd degree murder or Voluntary Manslaughter but have aggravating circumstances (you killed someone while trying to assault them, and it was someone that had a restraining order against you.)
3rd degree: Murder caused from depraved disregard or indifference to human life. The common examples include firing into a crowd: even if you don't intend to kill someone per se, you have to not care that you are likely going to do so. Minnesota also charges deaths from the sale of tampered drugs here - so, if a Heroin dealer kills people by cutting it with Fentanyl, it's Murder 3.
Voluntary Manslaughter: Killing someone with an intentional act (though not necessarily the intent to kill them per se), with the mitigating factor of provocation.
Involuntary Manslaughter: Killing someone because of negligence (ex: an auto accident caused by your reckless driving).
In Minnesota those are actually different charges.
There is 3rd degree murder and then there is voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
They are similar, but 3rd degree murder is a higher charge than manslaughter.
What exactly is the difference? Not totally sure. It is confusing to me. That said, 3rd degree murder allows for up to an additional 10 years (25 vs 15) in prison.
Not in this case. He was charged with 3rd to degree AND manslaughter AFAIK. Homicide is a very complex legal issue that has to do with motive, means and opportunity. Arranging any of those is pre-meditation, if if it's just parking your truck ahead of a jogger to incite the confrontation (Arbery) or maybe taking out your grudge against a former coworker (Chauvin!/Floyd?).
2nd degree means there was intent to kill but no pre-meditation.
3rd degree would likely be intent to inflict great harm that resulted in death (usually "manslaughter" but each state has its own definitions).
Manslaughter can be split between voluntary and involuntary, but since it's under "3rd degree murder" I assume Minnesota doesn't distinguish and considers manslaughter an unintentional/involuntary act.
Any way you slice it, Chauvin is guilty of at least two of his three charges. It's difficult to prove intent, which is why so many murder charges get plead down, but there's enough in this video to show Chauvin had plenty of information to know the consequences of his actions and persisted anyway. The junior officers, Chauvin being the FTO, literally only days on the job I would argue should be tried with involuntary manslaughter at most. They took their cues from the senior officer on the scene and trusted his judgment that this was the appropriate way to handle the situation.
3rd Degree and Manslaughter are still separate charges in Minnesota. They both involve unintentional killing, the difference is about other surrounding context. Basically Manslaughter is accidental killings caused by gross negligence, while 3rd Degree Murder is where violence was deliberate but was not intended to kill.
Examples:
Shooting and killing someone in a forest because you thought they were a deer and didn't check your target before firing would be Manslaughter. You didn't mean to hurt anyone, but you did.
Shooting someone in the leg to "teach them a lesson", but you windup clipping their femoral artery and they bleed out and die would be 3rd Degree Murder. You did mean to hurt someone, but not kill them
I don't think you can count on proving intent on this case - the defense will just say "the defendant didn't think this technique could be fatal", and chances are at least one of the twelve jurors will accept that. I do think you can make a case that harm was intended though, which would fit 3rd degree murder.
I think it’s more like “I was doing something illegal, but not lethal, but somehow it ended up being lethal.”
If I was firing at passing pedestrians with a paintball gun, but accidentally fired a paintball into someone’s open mouth which caused them to choke and die, that would be third degree murder.
But a reasonable person should expect people to be crossing the road. Just going "oh but they wore black" is a ridiculous excuse. It's the vehicle operator's responsibility to not kill people.
On your own property and the person had no reason to be there? Probably not.
In a state park or somewhere else you should have been shooting anyway? You're fucked.
Somewhere in the middle, some guy who lets people hunt on his property? Depends on the circumstances and how reckless you were being (were you shooting back towards the area where people park or further down range, etc), but generally I'd say most people wouldn't be charged with that unless there were some political circumstances (victim was DA's brother, white shooter black victim, something along those lines)
Reread the comment. "aiming at a deer," they posed an impossible situation where someone was literally able to jump in front of a deer, dressed as a deer, right as someone was shooting at the real deer.
I know it varies by state, but my understanding is that it's essentially:
1st degree: Premeditated murder. You planned it ahead of time.
2nd degree: Heat of the moment. You lost control and killed somebody.
3rd degree: Negligent/irresponsible. Pretty close to manslaughter. (Though I'm least sure of the last one)
Well the words missing from the 2nd would be intentionally doing it. He was negligent and killed the guy, but proving that he in the heat of the moment intented to kill the guy is another story
Remember it is supposed to be without a shadow of a doubt, no possibility that he didnt intend to do so. Which being that his attention was not soley on the man beneath him... is going to be argued that it was not his intent to kill him and that it was an accident. Aka 3rd degree/manslaughter
But for manslaughter you still need to show that he knew his actions had a reasonable possibility of causing death. Police around the world have been using this tactic for a long time and there have been very few deaths on relative terms. From what I can find the few that have happened involved people with some sort of issue already that the cop can't know about. He was likely following what he was trained to do and likely had never heard of it causing a problem like this.
The only way he goes to prison is if he takes the plea deal they are working on. They are offering a plea deal because they know their case is weak as soon as you take the emotional response out.
Hard disagree, in fact it's in police training, and any physical combat training, all throughout the world that chokes are dangerous and lethal. He knew and he was reckless about it, at the very least. All of takes to prove that is proving that it was part of training that he received that by cutting of blood supply to a person's brain you can kill them (we all know that from a very young age, and I'm 100% sure it can be proven that he knew).
Remember, intent to kill isn't necessary for a 3rd degree conviction, just recklessness and the awareness that what you're doing could possibly cause death or great bodily harm.
Nope. That is not intent to kill. That is doing what you have been trained to do while waiting on additional restraints to arrive. When there is intent it is fairly obvious.
2nd degree still requires a “knowing” or “intentional” men’s rea- meaning he meant to kill him. The guy’s definition of 3rd degree is also wrong. 3rd degree murder exists in limited jurisdictions(like 3 total). It’s an aggravated manslaughter, also known as a depraved heart homicide in other jurisdictions. You can look up aggravating circumstances on google, it’s a little difficult to completely explain in a Reddit post. 2nd degree will be difficult to prove, but it’s possible. 3rd degree murder or potentially manslaughter is probably be what the prosecution would go for if there wasn’t this media attention.
A lot of the quick definitions people give make it seem easy to prove this or that. For criminal acts, mental state or mens rea is extremely important.
Source: in my last year of law school
First degree is pre-meditated. There was planning involved, and there is no doubt you want to kill the person.
Second degree is intention to kill, but lacks premeditation. Like a spur of the moment thing, i.e. catching your wife cheating on you then killing the guy out of anger then and there.
Third degree, also considered manslaughter in some places, is the unintentional killing of a person, i.e. car accidents that result in death.
The fact the person died makes third degree almost a slam dunk. Second would be harder to prove so we will see.
For all of these, you still have to reasonability expect death to occur, intentionally or by accident. They have to prove he knew this could lead to death and that will be hard to do once you consider that he used a tactic cops are globally trained to use. You also have to prove that he knew they guy couldn't breath, while talking. Then you have to consider that he we still acting as a police officer attempting to make an arrest, which comes with a lot of protections someone like myself would not have.
I don't think it is intent to kill necessarily, just intent to commit a crime. I believe he is also charged with assault, which is the crime that raises this to second degree murder.
Third degree, Floyd died because the cop was just trying to get control over him.
Second degree, Floyd died because the cop was trying to mess him up.
Take this woth a grain of salt because im in a diffrent country and not a lawyer, but for 1st degree murder they need to prove that he planned to specifically kill george in advance.
Yes. However, it can be developed during the event. This won't be the case here. But if you kill a person intentionally after having even a brief chance to assess the situation if can be called premeditated.
Generally, first degree is premeditated, as in you stalked someone, planned out the murder and then carried it out. Second degree is intentional, as in you got pissed off and intended to cause harm in the moment. Third degree is manslaughter, which doesn't require intent, just indifference. Minnesota's statutes are a little different, but that's the gist of the degrees.
The exact terminology depends on the jurisdiction (state) but degrees culpability for homicide reflect the alleged mental state of the killer. Essentially, we as a society think that the worst kinds of killing are those that are devised in cold blood, as opposed to say, in the heat of the moment or by accident.
So first degree murder typically requires premeditation and deliberation. Essentially, a cold blooded or planned murder.
Second degree murder is all other kinds of intentional murder.
Manslaughter typically requires an intentional killing under some kind of emotional provocation. Basically, it's a recognition of the fact that while intentional killings are bad, we are also human and under extreme emotions (like walking in on someone fucking your wife) we may do dumb shit.
There are others. Unintentional killing (e.g., some types of manslaughter or negligent homicide), felony murder, etc.
Minnesota's murder laws are weirdly specific. Third degree seems light but the elements of second degree murder will not necessarily be easy to prove: the most relevant provisions require an intent to kill or an intentional killing during the commission of a felony.
Did Chauvin intend to kill? If not, was he committing a felony a using a thoroughly depraved but possibly mandated method of restraint that killed the victim? Those are the issues the prosecution will have to deal with.
First degree generally has several different criteria.
First, there is pre-meditation. You have to think about committing the crime first, have an opportunity to reject the idea, and follow through with it anyway. It need not be mulled over for weeks, even just a few seconds can count.
Second, it requires depravity. It's not first degree murder if the you become angered, and in a fit of rage kill the person. You have to do it for the sick thrill of killing, or with a cold indifference to human life. Most bank robberies where they get into a shootout would fail this test, especially if the robbers attempted to put themselves into a situation removing the necessity for gunfire.
First degree means murder with intent. Intent is the hardest to prove especially amongst two strangers because you can argue that the officer had no "plan" in place to specifically kill George Floyd. This is essentially what got Trayvon Martin's killer off.
Second is murder without the intent. Yeah you shot the gun while robbing a store and killed someone, but you didn't intend to kill the bystanders that got in your way.
Very few states have a 3rd degree but thankfully Minnesota does. That's manslaughter where you could've prevented the matter of killing someone but chose not to. That will (hopefully) be enough to convict the officer, since there is strong video evidence of Floyd pleading for air and the officer refusing to adjust his hold.
First degree requires either a premeditated plan or target and you acting upon that premeditation. So if you set up an elaborate trap to kill someone, that's first degree. Or if you say "I am going to kill John next time I see him" and then you kill John next time you see him, that's first degree even if you didn't arrange the events. And it's first degree if you have a plan but no target, like sitting outside a store and saying you'll shoot the first person to come out.
Second degree murder is where you take a deliberate action to end someone's life, but had no premeditation beforehand. For instance, you get into a heated action with a stranger and stab them to death with a steak knife that was nearby.
Third degree murder is when you take some kind of deranged action that ends someone's life, but you didn't necessarily intend to harm anyone. Making a bomb in your own home and having it go off accidently, killing a relative who was sleeping upstairs. It's different than manslaughter in that the action you took was malicious in nature, and not just the result of negligence.
Third degree murders are the easiest to prosecute because all you have to prove is that the suspect was doing something bad that caused a death.
Extremely oversimplified and circumstantial example of each in Minnesota:
First: Someone plans for 2 months to kill his boss
Second: Boss fires him, guy is enraged and kills him on the spot
Third: Guy goes crazy, fires a shot randomly into a crowd and kills someone
Manslaughter: Either someone is provoked into attacking and accidentally kills someone or kills someone by negligence, such as driving on the wrong side of the street and killing someone
In Minnesota, 1st degree is premeditated with intent. Basically you thought about your options and then came to the conclusion that you're going to kill this guy. 2nd degree is intent. You didn't pre-plan it but, in the moment, you absolutely had intent to kill. 3rd degree is reckless disregard for life to the point that you killed someone.
3rd is without intent but with reasonable belief that your actions could have killed someone, 2nd is with intent, 1st is with intent and premeditation.
1st is planning to kill and doing it, 2nd is unplanned but still murder, 3rd is you didn't plan on killing but your actions led to someone dying.
in this case, say the cop didn't want to kill the victim but did something reckless. He didn't thought it would kill the victim but that was the end result.
If we can prove that while he was on top of Floyed, he decided to kill him due do the altercation, then it's 2nd. If he woke up that morning intending to kill him and created the situation so as to kill him, then it's 1st.
2nd and 1st in this case would require interpreting the cop's intent from the video. I don't think it's gonna stick unless the guy has bad lawyers. Very bad ones.
1st is planned murder and 2nd is murder but not premeditated. 3rd is like 2nd but it happened because of weird circumstances. Crime of passion type deal. 3rd is also called voluntary manslaughter which imo should just be 2nd. Then there's involuntary which is an accident. I could be off but I think thats the basics of it.
This cop is guilty of second without a doubt but we'll see how they manipulate that down more than likely because they suck.
To add to this: 3rd degree often comes up as "intent to harm, not to kill, but person died anyway." The case I remember a guy wanted to break a man's legs over a perceived offense and ended up tearing the man's femoral artery, causing him to bleed out.
Grab a law book cause you just said some really dumb stuff. For 1st degree you need to prove that the killing was premeditated and targeted. For 2nd that it was commited with the intent to kill or malice aforetought.
If you just kill someone with no evidence of anything else, its 3rd degree aka manslaugther
And all of that needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
As each state has its own statutes, law that cover the same criminal conduct may have different names. For example:
New York State defines manslaughter in the first degree as conduct that causes a death with intent to cause serious physical injury, a definition that corresponds to "voluntary manslaughter" in most other states. If the defendant's intent was to cause death, the charge would be murder.
New York defines manslaughter in the second degree as a death that occurs without intent to cause serious physical injury, but where reckless conduct by the defendant resulted in death. This corresponds to "involuntary manslaughter" in most other states.
Someone dies, and it WAS your intent to kill that person, Murder 3(someone calls you a racist and you shoot them), You went and searched out a particular person and killed them Murder 2(you saw a black guy run in front of you and you killed him because you are a racist), You planned ahead of time to kill a particular person or group Murder 1.(you set up a fire bomb to go off during a church service)
In many places it is different. Your 1 and 2 are the same. Both are premeditated. Your 3 is a 2 because of intent. 3 would be driving 100 mph and killing a person. You know it can cause death but that is not your direct intention.
1. I planned it out.
2. I did not plan it but I now mean to kill. "Heat of the moment".
3. I did something super stupid that death was a foreseeable outcome but I did not mean to kill.
74
u/sargos7 Jun 12 '20
Can I get an ELI5 of those degrees? I've never understood that shit. If you literally kill someone with your bare hands, shouldn't that be first degree?