The reasoning it would take to characterize a lawful arrest and restraint as a separate felony that led to accidental death for the purpose of murder 2 would result in an analysis indistinguishable from manslaughter (in Minnesota) in my opinion. Manslaughter, of course, results in much lighter sentences. That's a problem that the appeal courts should have looked at. However, Chauvin's counsel chose to try and hit a home run on appeal and only advanced grounds that would result in acquittal or a mistrial, rather than advance arguments as to the correct charges.
The jury system was created as an attempt to avoid tyranny from the judiciary (who were viewed as the flunkies of the powerful). However it is proving to have just as many, and perhaps more, pitfalls of its own. Juries are too often composed of individuals who are not capable of applying fine legal distinctions, or distilling evidence in a disciplined way (especially if there are real world consequences for them if they reach a certain verdict). In fact, most often juries are composed of those who don't have much else going on in their lives and are excited to have the authority to decide something of importance, probably for the first time in their lives. There is nothing comforting about the findings having been made by jury.
Chauvin should be serving time, just not for murder, and the narrative around Floyd's death should simply be that Floyd was lawfully arrested and restrained, but had an unexpected medical vulnerability that Chauvin negligently failed to recognize which resulted in his death. And that is not a narrative that should have resulted in cities burning.
Last edited:
...
