There’s no question about Derek Chauvin being the one who did the thing though. We don’t know for certain Luigi Mangione was the one there that day. Extremely different circumstances.
We know floyd was killed, there is a video of it happening, he was alive then he was not, as a direct result of what was happening when he died on video.
The trial was to determine whether or not it was intentional and/or malicious.
You’re proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.
He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn’t killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert’s interpretation which called it a homicide.
If you punch someone with an undiscovered delicate brain tumor and they die as a result of that tumor rupturing you killed them.
If you scare someone with a heart condition and they drop dead, you killed them.
If you give peanuts to someone with a severe allergy and they die, you killed them.
If you restrict the breathing of someone with severe respiratory problems and they suffocate as a result, you killed them.
If you lay a bunch of physical stress on a body already under stress and they die because of it, you killed them.
Intentional or not, the action causes the event, even if the event likely to happen of it’s own accord.
Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.
I’m not saying this to assign blame, i’m citing cause and effect.
As i previously stated, it was a killing, intentional or not.
^ this is above
as everyone had seen it reported as a killing.
because it was, see above.
What i think you mean is that it was reported as an intentional killing, which is different and yes, bias until properly explored.
Millions protested for justice against his killer.
Because they thought he did it on purpose, if he was administering CPR to someone, cracked a rib and punctured a lung, the publicity would no doubt have been different.
It wasn’t the killing, it was the perceived intention.
He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs.
See above.
Someone dying does not mean they were killed.
Sure, drop dead on the street of an aneurysm , death but no killing.
If outside actions led to the death (intentional or not) then they were killed. See above.
Some people still believe he wasn’t killed.
Those people are incorrect (see above) unless what they mean is that they think he wasn’t killed intentionally.
Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.
I don’t disagree with that. But you’d be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer’s pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.
Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.
No, usually they have a new trial. If there is prosecutorial misconduct, it could be dismissed with prejudice. It’s pretty rare
The mayor called him a murderer lol how the fuck are they supposed to have a fair trial
They managed to with Derek Chauvin, and the public prejudice was much worse, even from public officials. Their mayor also called him a killer.
There’s no question about Derek Chauvin being the one who did the thing though. We don’t know for certain Luigi Mangione was the one there that day. Extremely different circumstances.
We didn’t know if Floyd was killed though until autopsies, whereas we know Thompson was shot intentionally on camera.
We know floyd was killed, there is a video of it happening, he was alive then he was not, as a direct result of what was happening when he died on video.
The trial was to determine whether or not it was intentional and/or malicious.
No?
You’re proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.
He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn’t killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert’s interpretation which called it a homicide.
If you punch someone with an undiscovered delicate brain tumor and they die as a result of that tumor rupturing you killed them.
If you scare someone with a heart condition and they drop dead, you killed them.
If you give peanuts to someone with a severe allergy and they die, you killed them.
If you restrict the breathing of someone with severe respiratory problems and they suffocate as a result, you killed them.
If you lay a bunch of physical stress on a body already under stress and they die because of it, you killed them.
Intentional or not, the action causes the event, even if the event likely to happen of it’s own accord.
Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.
I’m not saying this to assign blame, i’m citing cause and effect.
As i previously stated, it was a killing, intentional or not.
^ this is above
because it was, see above.
What i think you mean is that it was reported as an intentional killing, which is different and yes, bias until properly explored.
Because they thought he did it on purpose, if he was administering CPR to someone, cracked a rib and punctured a lung, the publicity would no doubt have been different.
It wasn’t the killing, it was the perceived intention.
See above.
Sure, drop dead on the street of an aneurysm , death but no killing.
If outside actions led to the death (intentional or not) then they were killed. See above.
Those people are incorrect (see above) unless what they mean is that they think he wasn’t killed intentionally.
I don’t disagree with that. But you’d be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer’s pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.
Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.