Discussion about this post

User's avatar
O.'s avatar

Great piece and great video.

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

A generally misunderstood aspect of the Chauvin prosecution is the application of the felony murder rule. The jury did not find, and was not asked to find, that Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd. Felony murder simply means that you unintentionally cause a death while committing a separate felony offense. To prove murder in the second degree under the felony murder rule, the prosecution had to prove (paraphrasing from the jury instructions for clarity):

(1) that George Floyd died;

(2) that Chauvin's actions "were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of George Floyd"; and

(3) that at the time of committing acts that were a "substantial causal factor" in George Floyd's death, Chauvin was committing Assault in the Third Degree, a felony offense.

To prove assault in the third degree, in turn, the prosecution had to prove that (1) Chauvin intentionally inflicted bodily harm on George Floyd using unlawful force, and (2) the bodily harm inflicted was "substantial," regardless of whether Chauvin intended for the bodily harm to be "substantial."

Bodily harm includes "physical pain or injury." Substantial bodily harm includes harm that "causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ," like a heart attack.

The key elements were (1) whether Chauvin's use of force was unlawful, and (2) whether Chauvin's use of force was a "substantial causal factor" in causing George Floyd's death.

With respect to the lawfulness of the use of force, the jury was instructed that a police officer may use the kind and degree of force "a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary," in light of "the totality of the facts and circumstances..." The jury's findings on this issue were informed by expert testimony from competing "use of force experts," i.e. retired cops whoring for one side or the other.

Civil libertarian groups - before they all became communists - used to rail against the felony murder rule on the grounds that it is unjust to convict someone of murder when they had no murderous intent. See, e.g., https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment/when-state-kills-those-who-didnt-kill. Applying the felony murder rule, courts have routinely upheld convictions when a crime victim suffered a heart attack in the course of a crime.

For instance, if you break into someone's home or rob someone and the victim suffers a stress-induced heart attack, the felony murder rule makes you a murderer, even though you had no intent to kill. You just wanted their stuff. Felony murder convictions can also occur from something like an accidental discharge of a firearm during a robbery, or your accomplice to the robbery deciding to go Pulp Fiction without your foreknowledge.

The prosecution never alleged Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. They also never alleged Floyd was asphyxiated by Chauvin's knee. Instead, they argued the kind and degree of Chauvin's use of force went beyond what a "reasonable officer" would have employed under the same circumstances, and Floyd's resulting distress, in light of his weak heart and the monster dose of fentanyl coursing through his system, led to a heart attack. In other words, all the prosecution really had to prove was that Chauvin was a bit too rough under the circumstances and Floyd died of a heart attack while Chauvin was being a bit too rough.

The way the media has portrayed all this has been, of course, deeply disingenuous. Even independent media has failed to do a good job figuring out and presenting what happened. Tucker Carlson recently was shocked, shocked to learn that the prosecution did not prove intent or asphyxiation. But this was known all along for anyone who was paying attention.

In short, this was never a "murder" under the ordinary definition of that word, nor did the prosecution ever allege it to be. Yet the media intentionally misrepresented the case to perpetuate this misunderstanding, capitalizing on the public's ignorance of the felony murder rule. This was at most an officer being a bit too rough with a man already standing at death's door. It should have been a non-story. At most, it warranted a paragraph in the "crime beat" section of the neighborhood paper.

Instead, it was exploited nationally to stir up hysteria and drum up support for race communism. BLM is a PsyOp. It is not organic. It's intent is to delegitimize the American experiment and use the causes of "equity" and "systemic racism" in precisely the same way the communists used the plight of the workers to seize totalitarian control. But you all already know this.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts