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.
Yes. I'm am describing how he is serving the sentence for both convictions at the same time, not one after the other. This does not contradict the fact that the elements of manslaughter and Murder 2 are mutually exclusive; that fact just points out that juries are stupid and politically motivated.
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.
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?
Yes. I'm am describing how he is serving the sentence for both convictions at the same time, not one after the other. This does not contradict the fact that the elements of manslaughter and Murder 2 are mutually exclusive; that fact just points out that juries are stupid and politically motivated.
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.