That's totally different. The judge ruled that there can't be multiple punishments for the same crime, not that there can't be multiple punishments for no crime at all.
Are you arguing they treated Chauvin fairly? 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are mutually exclusive. If the law was fair and blind, he couldn't have been charged and convicted of both at the same time. He also shouldn't have been charged at all, given Floyd died of an overdose.
Well, on Chauvin, they're at least concurrent sentences.
That's not what happened to Chauvin. He was charged and convicted of both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Murder implies intent to kill. Manslaughter implies there is NO intent to kill. They both can't be true at the same time.
Just for literally all the other elements of the case. I think my "favorite" is how the AG refused to accept a guilty plea to 2nd degree murder, and forced him to go through the trial. It wasn't about justice, it was about corpse-standing for political gain.
They literally just gave the Arbery Three multiple life sentences from two different convictions stemming from two different trials for same offense.
They also charged and convicted Chauvin with both second degree murder and manslaughter for the same offense.
That's totally different. The judge ruled that there can't be multiple punishments for the same crime, not that there can't be multiple punishments for no crime at all.
There is no justice. The only thing the law cares about now is your identity and politics.
Well, on Chauvin, they're at least concurrent sentences. Idea being if a more severe one gets overturned on appeal, the less severe one still sticks.
Doesn't mean he didn't get railroaded. Just that they weren't being overly unfair on that aspect.
Are you arguing they treated Chauvin fairly? 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are mutually exclusive. If the law was fair and blind, he couldn't have been charged and convicted of both at the same time. He also shouldn't have been charged at all, given Floyd died of an overdose.
I am not arguing he was treated fairly. I'm just describing how concurrent sentences work and why they're used.
Except in your previous comment you said:
That's not what happened to Chauvin. He was charged and convicted of both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Murder implies intent to kill. Manslaughter implies there is NO intent to kill. They both can't be true at the same time.
Am I misconstruing what you're trying to argue?
Just whatever happened to his case since, and with the other cops for that matter?
Just for literally all the other elements of the case. I think my "favorite" is how the AG refused to accept a guilty plea to 2nd degree murder, and forced him to go through the trial. It wasn't about justice, it was about corpse-standing for political gain.
There was a second trial?