Cop who killed George Floyd stabbed in prison

[Dutch Oven]

Third-degree assault, if I remember correctly.



The prosecutors argued that Chauvin assaulted Floyd. The jury didn't have to make up or misapply anything.
You may not think that Chauvin assaulted Floyd, but the jury did.
Proving he did was part of the trial or they couldn't get second degree unintentional murder.
Of course, they also found him guilty of third degree murder and second degree manslaughter - so even with your argument he would still be in jail.




SCOTUS doesn't need to of course.
But also there doesn't seem to be much reason to.
I don't see why the jury finding for the assault would be questioned. It isn't like they had to guess what the assault was or made it up.

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.

 

[Not getting younger]

Dutch I agree with a lot, except the notion it occurs when someone has a pre existing condition ( which can be hard to recognize). So whether that exist or not. Police are trained how to handle people they prone out, “what not to do, what to do”.The existence of medical conditions or the use of narcotics just increase the risk.

“prone restraint, in‐custody deaths, arrest‐related deaths (ARDs), police‐involved deaths, restraint asphyxia, positional asphyxia, excited delirium, sudden cardiac death, metabolic acidosis, George Floyd, forensic pathology, autopsy”

Prone restraint cardiac arrest in in‐custody and arrest‐related deaths - PMC

We postulate that most atraumatic deaths during police restraint of subjects in the prone position are due to prone restraint cardiac arrest (PRCA), rather than from restraint asphyxia or a stress‐induced cardiac condition, such as excited delirium. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Valcazar]

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.

Considering he was also convicted of manslaughter, you may have a point.
But if someone qualifies for two charges, you are allowed to convict them for both.

Manslaughter, of course, results in much lighter sentences. That's a problem that the appeal courts should have looked at.

What is a problem?
That he was convicted for manslaughter, which you agree he should have been convicted for?

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.

Can you even appeal that?
If you are convicted of something because they proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I am dubious of your ability to appeal on the basis they had to charge you on something else.
After all, they proved what they had to prove.
I think it would probably be even harder to make that argument when the jury had the option to convict on manslaughter or murder and chose both.
The option for just the lower charge was there and they didn't take it. It wasn't like it wasn't offered.

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.

That is a much larger discussion about whether or not jury trials are a good thing.
If you are opposed to all jury verdicts on principle, fine. That's a specific ideological/philosophical position and, of course, has nothing to do with what actually happened at the trial.

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.

Sure it would.
You are proposing that the narrative should have been "Cops are never really to blame, and we have covered up and minimized as much as possible another murder by a cop."
You may not think that is what you are arguing for, but that is what many people would have interpreted it as.
Given that most people thought the trial reached the right conclusion, your position is very likely to have resulted in far worse rioting, since it would have only reinforced even deeper distrust of the system.

 

[Leimonis]

Considering he was also convicted of manslaughter, you may have a point.
But if someone qualifies for two charges, you are allowed to convict them for both.



What is a problem?
That he was convicted for manslaughter, which you agree he should have been convicted for?



Can you even appeal that?
If you are convicted of something because they proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I am dubious of your ability to appeal on the basis they had to charge you on something else.
After all, they proved what they had to prove.
I think it would probably be even harder to make that argument when the jury had the option to convict on manslaughter or murder and chose both.
The option for just the lower charge was there and they didn't take it. It wasn't like it wasn't offered.



That is a much larger discussion about whether or not jury trials are a good thing.
If you are opposed to all jury verdicts on principle, fine. That's a specific ideological/philosophical position and, of course, has nothing to do with what actually happened at the trial.



Sure it would.
You are proposing that the narrative should have been "Cops are never really to blame, and we have covered up and minimized as much as possible another murder by a cop."
You may not think that is what you are arguing for, but that is what many people would have interpreted it as.
Given that most people thought the trial reached the right conclusion, your position is very likely to have resulted in far worse rioting, since it would have only reinforced even deeper distrust of the system.

I think he also pleaded guilty to wrongful death or something? What more do you all need to figure out that he was guilty as fuck? And how would he appeal that?

Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Violating George Floyd’s Rights (Published 2021)

A federal prosecutor said he would ask a judge to sentence Mr. Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, to 25 years in prison, extending his state prison term by two and a half years.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Chauvin was stabbed by a Mexican mobster

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM6Ryd83t/

 

[y2kmark]

Chauvin was stabbed by a Mexican mobster

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM6Ryd83t/

Turscak is such a common Mexican name ...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Turscak is such a common Mexican name ...

Thats what I thought too, but its being reported by credible news outlets.
Maybe he's half Mexican and half European??

Inmate who stabbed Derek Chauvin 22 times is charged with attempted murder, prosecutors say

Derek Chauvin was stabbed in prison 22 times by John Turscak who told investigators he targeted the ex-Minneapolis police officer.

apnews.com

Ex-gang member charged with stabbing Derek Chauvin 22 times

The prisoner allegedly said he attacked Chauvin on Black Friday as a symbolic link to Black Lives Matter.

www.bbc.com

Who is John Turscak, man accused of stabbing Derek Chauvin 22 times?

The inmate who allegedly stabbed Derek Chauvin in federal prison last week was identified as John Turscak, according to new charges filed on Friday.

www.cbsnews.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/12/01/derek-chauvin-stabbed-john-turscak-prison/

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Prison has him listed as a white guy

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730718716805926955

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Last name Turscak is of Croatian origin

FamilySearch.org

Discover your family history. Explore the world’s largest collection of free family trees, genealogy records and resources.

www.familysearch.org

 

[silentkisser]

So you are not arguing that neck restraints were contrary to the police use of force policy that Chauvin had been trained in at the time. The evidence at trial included that officers received training in the application of neck restraints. I have to assume that this was not the first time that Chauvin or other officers in his police force used this restraint. This was, however, the first time anyone died in connection with its use. As stated by me in any earlier post, ANY restraint CAN be deadly, depending on the medical condition of the suspect. Whether Chauvin is as "evil" as some try to paint him to be depends on whether he had any reasonable belief that what he was doing would lead to serious injury or death. In the end, he's certainly responsible for his error of judgement. He should have checked on Floyd when his pleading became persistent. Whether murder was the right charge is debatable to me. I believe his murder conviction appeal is still pending. The fact that no other officers intervened just tells me that NONE of the cops at the scene believed that Floyd was about to die. I don't believe that any of these cops were seeking Floyd's death. I think this was a case of bad judgement, possibly tainted by irritation at Floyd's poor behaviour, not a case of cops deciding to publicly execute a relatively low level criminal.


There are no stats that prove that in the US a higher percentage of black crime suspects who resist, threaten the police or others, or flee are killed than white crime suspects who resist, threaten the police or others, or flee. All the stats prove is that black Americans have more encounters per capita with police, are charged more often per capita, and are jailed more often per capita. All that means is that there is a problem with crime in black communities (mostly black on black crime). There will be no solution until the real problem is recognized, and that problem is NOT that the police are looking to shoot black suspects.

Time and time again there are sensational stories. And time and time again they prove to be something else entirely.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of bad policing. We ask some pretty dumb people to make some pretty difficult decisions. However, EVERYONE encounters this, not just black people.

Of course, the best way not to be shot and killed by police continues to be to ensure that you don't commit any crimes.

I guess the question to ask here is, was putting George Floyd in a neck restraint of any type appropriate for NINE FUCKING MINUTES? He was handcuffed. Do I think the cop wanted to kill him? No. But he did. And the evidence in court showed that. And his neglect (and the other three officers who just watched) should be punished. It could be argued that cops don't intervene because they don't want to piss off other cops. Like when a sergeant hit and threatened to pepper spray another officer who tried to intervene when the sergeant was abusing a suspect...(https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/us/florida-police-sergeant-charged-grabbed-female-officer/index.html). As I said, I don't think anyone expected Floyd to die. But it happened.

 

[Mrboobs]

Perhaps he was in some ways… But Chauvin’s such an idiot that he can annoy anyone…

Because you know personally

 

[Dutch Oven]

I guess the question to ask here is, was putting George Floyd in a neck restraint of any type appropriate for NINE FUCKING MINUTES? He was handcuffed. Do I think the cop wanted to kill him? No. But he did. And the evidence in court showed that. And his neglect (and the other three officers who just watched) should be punished. It could be argued that cops don't intervene because they don't want to piss off other cops. Like when a sergeant hit and threatened to pepper spray another officer who tried to intervene when the sergeant was abusing a suspect...(https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/us/florida-police-sergeant-charged-grabbed-female-officer/index.html). As I said, I don't think anyone expected Floyd to die. But it happened.

We're all evaluating this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, MANY suspects have been held in restraint positions for MUCH longer than 9 minutes, and they did not die and weren't even seriously injured. I believe that had Floyd not been in such distress BEFORE he was ever restrained he might not have resisted arrest so strenuously and would not have continued to struggle with police once they restrained him. It's only common sense that the stronger a suspect is, the more they struggle, and the longer they struggle for, all dictate the type of restraint used and how long it is applied. And why did he resist so strenuously? Likely a combination of the fentanyl in his system and fear over the consequences of arrest, given his criminal record, in my opinion.

Chauvin made the wrong call. I'm comfortable calling it negligent (because he would have received training requiring him to be alert to the medical distress of suspects), and yes, he should be punished for that. The significant power we give police officers needs to be paired with significant accountability. However, in my opinion the right charge was manslaughter, and that means the right narrative was/is negligence - not that cops systemically look for opportunties to murder black suspects (and that is the narrative that drove the riots). You may think this is splitting hairs, but I don't. I think it would have made all the difference to what happened that summer (and following). Getting the narrative right always matters. It would certainly matter as to whether people would be trying to kill him in prison now.

 

[silentkisser]

We're all evaluating this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, MANY suspects have been held in restraint positions for MUCH longer than 9 minutes, and they did not die and weren't even seriously injured. I believe that had Floyd not been in such distress BEFORE he was ever restrained he might not have resisted arrest so strenuously and would not have continued to struggle with police once they restrained him. It's only common sense that the stronger a suspect is, the more they struggle, and the longer they struggle for, all dictate the type of restraint used and how long it is applied. And why did he resist so strenuously? Likely a combination of the fentanyl in his system and fear over the consequences of arrest, given his criminal record, in my opinion.

Chauvin made the wrong call. I'm comfortable calling it negligent (because he would have received training requiring him to be alert to the medical distress of suspects), and yes, he should be punished for that. The significant power we give police officers needs to be paired with significant accountability. However, in my opinion the right charge was manslaughter, and that means the right narrative was/is negligence - not that cops systemically look for opportunties to murder black suspects (and that is the narrative that drove the riots). You may think this is splitting hairs, but I don't. I think it would have made all the difference to what happened that summer (and following). Getting the narrative right always matters. It would certainly matter as to whether people would be trying to kill him in prison now.

I, too, agree that the likely correct charge should have been manslaughter. As I said, I do not think he wanted to kill Floyd, but was negligent. I do not think cops are actively trying to murder POC, just that they tend to go the use of deadly force significantly faster than they do with other suspects. Now, is that all cops? Of course not. But I think we can probably agree that cops, especially in the US, do not get enough training. They are not trained adequately to deescalate situations, some are just on power trips, and then there are the bad ones that make up their own goon squads (including black officers who go and beat suspects or both colours).

As for why the people don't trust cops....its because you cannot trust cops. Read a police report following an incident, then see what is actually presented in court or shown on body cam footage. It's frequently different, where the cops either lied or exaggerated in order to make them look better/suspect look worse (or to give cover for whatever bad things the cop did). Again, not saying that all cops do this, but it tends to happen in situations where black suspects are hurt or killed.

Now, as for Chauvin being targeted in prison....do you think ANY cop has an easy time there? I won't say his murder conviction over Floyd wouldn't make him a bigger target, but I would say it isn't the only reason.

 

[Leimonis]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730789434151284901

Yeah because fbi gives a fuck about chauvin.

 

[RZG]

I, too, agree that the likely correct charge should have been manslaughter. As I said, I do not think he wanted to kill Floyd, but was negligent. I do not think cops are actively trying to murder POC, just that they tend to go the use of deadly force significantly faster than they do with other suspects. Now, is that all cops? Of course not. But I think we can probably agree that cops, especially in the US, do not get enough training. They are not trained adequately to deescalate situations, some are just on power trips, and then there are the bad ones that make up their own goon squads (including black officers who go and beat suspects or both colours).

As for why the people don't trust cops....its because you cannot trust cops. Read a police report following an incident, then see what is actually presented in court or shown on body cam footage. It's frequently different, where the cops either lied or exaggerated in order to make them look better/suspect look worse (or to give cover for whatever bad things the cop did). Again, not saying that all cops do this, but it tends to happen in situations where black suspects are hurt or killed.

Now, as for Chauvin being targeted in prison....do you think ANY cop has an easy time there? I won't say his murder conviction over Floyd wouldn't make him a bigger target, but I would say it isn't the only reason.

Maybe Chauvin knows the Epstein client list

 

[Valcazar]

We're all evaluating this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, MANY suspects have been held in restraint positions for MUCH longer than 9 minutes, and they did not die and weren't even seriously injured.

Presumably such evidence was presented at trial and was found to be unconvincing.

I believe that had Floyd not been in such distress BEFORE he was ever restrained he might not have resisted arrest so strenuously and would not have continued to struggle with police once they restrained him.

You are allowed to believe whatever you like.

Chauvin made the wrong call. I'm comfortable calling it negligent (because he would have received training requiring him to be alert to the medical distress of suspects), and yes, he should be punished for that.

Which he was.
He was found guilty of manslaughter.

The significant power we give police officers needs to be paired with significant accountability.

Not something I believe you actually believe, though.
Most of the people on this board believe quite explicitly that the cops should not be held accountable.

However, in my opinion the right charge was manslaughter, and that means the right narrative was/is negligence - not that cops systemically look for opportunties to murder black suspects (and that is the narrative that drove the riots).

That isn't the narrative that drove the riots. Not exactly.
I've never seen a narrative that says cops are going around systematically looking for opportunities to murder black folks.

And again, he was tried and convicted for negligence and manslaughter.

You may think this is splitting hairs, but I don't. I think it would have made all the difference to what happened that summer (and following). Getting the narrative right always matters. It would certainly matter as to whether people would be trying to kill him in prison now.

And again, the problem you have is that you are framing the protests as what happened in response to his guilty verdict.
They happened in response to him killing Floyd and then lying about it.

Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction

May 25, 2020 (MINNEAPOLIS) On Monday evening, shortly after 8:00 pm, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department responded to the 3700 block of Chicago Avenue South on a report of a forgery in progress. Officers were advised that the suspect was sitting on top of a blue car and appeared to be under the influence.

Two officers arrived and located the suspect, a male believed to be in his 40s, in his car. He was ordered to step from his car. After he got out, he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later.

At no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been called in to investigate this incident at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.

No officers were injured in the incident.

Body worn cameras were on and activated during this incident.

The GO number associated with this case is 20-140629.

What you are saying is that after claiming nothing happened, then being caught out because of the video, the entire state apparatus should have insisted that it was manslaughter and murder not even considered by a court of law.
You believe that this would have made protests less likely.

I am skeptical of your assumptions here.

 

[Valcazar]

I, too, agree that the likely correct charge should have been manslaughter. As I said, I do not think he wanted to kill Floyd, but was negligent.

The jury agreed with you that he wasn't trying to kill floyd.
That's why the murder charge was for unintentional murder.

I do not think cops are actively trying to murder POC, just that they tend to go the use of deadly force significantly faster than they do with other suspects.

This was the narrative driving the protests.

Now, is that all cops? Of course not. But I think we can probably agree that cops, especially in the US, do not get enough training. They are not trained adequately to deescalate situations, some are just on power trips, and then there are the bad ones that make up their own goon squads (including black officers who go and beat suspects or both colours).

As for why the people don't trust cops....its because you cannot trust cops. Read a police report following an incident, then see what is actually presented in court or shown on body cam footage. It's frequently different, where the cops either lied or exaggerated in order to make them look better/suspect look worse (or to give cover for whatever bad things the cop did). Again, not saying that all cops do this, but it tends to happen in situations where black suspects are hurt or killed.

Of which the Floyd arrest was a classic example.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Presumably such evidence was presented at trial and was found to be unconvincing.

Yes, it was. But I don't have any confidence that the jury could apply the sophisticated analysis required by Minnesota's Murder 2 statute on the facts of the case. Don't you live in the real world? Don't you understand the limits of the average person when it comes to complex problem solving, and the influence that everything following Floyd's death would have on the ability of an average person to dispassionately analyze the evidence and apply the law?

I take no comfort in the idea that whatever a jury decides must be correct and rational.

You are allowed to believe whatever you like.

Childish. More on this below.

Which he was.
He was found guilty of manslaughter.

He was not JUST found guilty of manslaughter, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making. That manslaughter conviction was used as a predicate for conviction on Murder 2. That's very troubling analysis, considering that both charges relied on the exact same actions of the officer. My comments are abundantly clear that I can understand the conviction for manslaughter, but not manslaughter PLUS murder 2 on the same predicate facts.

Not something I believe you actually believe, though.
Most of the people on this board believe quite explicitly that the cops should not be held accountable.

Childish, part 2. I post what I believe. If you don't accept that, then don't read my posts. Go ahead and disagree with my posts if you like, but don't make yourself look like a fool by claiming to know that some other thought is what's really in my head. Obviously, what I write really bothers you, since you take so much of your time responding to, but don't let your emotions cause you to post such childish things.

As to "most people", that's one of the most puerile arguments anyone ever presents on this board. One, you have no way of making any data driven analysis of what most people on this board think. Two, logically, how does your quip even make any sense? You seem to be arguing that if "most people" don't think cops should be held accountable, then I must think the same? In what universe is that a rational thought? Unhinged.

And again, he was tried and convicted for negligence and manslaughter.

Wrong. Even Wikipedia manages to get the real convictions right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin

The convictions were: a) 2nd degree murder, b) 3rd degree murder, and c) 2nd degree manslaughter.

And again, the problem you have is that you are framing the protests as what happened in response to his guilty verdict.
They happened in response to him killing Floyd and then lying about it.

The riots didn't happen because a cop tried to defend himself by attempting to minimize or avoid his responsibility for the death of a suspect. The riots happened to pressure the legal system into seeking maximum responsibility, and to advance the wider narrative that cops have open contempt for black suspects and wouldn't hesitate to kill them if given the opportunity.

People don't riot because someone lies. Lying happens all the time. They riot over the narrative around what someone did or didn't do.

What you are saying is that after claiming nothing happened, then being caught out because of the video, the entire state apparatus should have insisted that it was manslaughter and murder not even considered by a court of law.
You believe that this would have made protests less likely.

I am skeptical of your assumptions here.

I'm not sure what you've even said here. What I am saying is that manslaughter cases should be treated as manslaughter cases, not murder 2, regardless of who was killed, who did the killing and regardless about what public narrative is generated and what civil unrest arises from it.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, it was. But I don't have any confidence that the jury could apply the sophisticated analysis required by Minnesota's Murder 2 statute on the facts of the case. Don't you live in the real world? Don't you understand the limits of the average person when it comes to complex problem solving, and the influence that everything following Floyd's death would have on the ability of an average person to dispassionately analyze the evidence and apply the law?

Of course I do.
But "I don't agree with them" doesn't mean they were wrong.
Between a group of uninformed citizens and you analyzing the subtleties of the law, I clearly would side on the uninformed citizens, but that's neither here nor there.

There isn't really a lot of sophisticated analysis to apply for unintentional Murder 2, though, is there?
Did he commit an assault and accidentally kill him while doing so?

That said, while I don't object to the Murder 2 finding, I would have been ok with them finding Chauvin not guilty of unintentional murder 2. Not having sat in the trial, I can't say which way I would have decided if presented with all the evidence.

I take no comfort in the idea that whatever a jury decides must be correct and rational.

That's fine.
But as long as the US is a common law tradition, that's what you are stuck with.
Would Chauvin have gotten a different result if this was France or Romania or some other civil law country? Possibly.
Hard to say.

He was not JUST found guilty of manslaughter, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making. That manslaughter conviction was used as a predicate for conviction on Murder 2. That's very troubling analysis, considering that both charges relied on the exact same actions of the officer. My comments are abundantly clear that I can understand the conviction for manslaughter, but not manslaughter PLUS murder 2 on the same predicate facts.

Are you trying to argue that the manslaughter charge was the felony the prosecution used to allow murder 2 to be charged?
Or are you trying to argue that the same set of facts can't be charged as multiple crimes?

Go ahead and disagree with my posts if you like, but don't make yourself look like a fool by claiming to know that some other thought is what's really in my head.

I am disagreeing with your posts.
Since you insist on claiming you know better than the people in the trial and they weren't sophisticated enough to get the right result, I will continue to disagree with you because I think you're wrong.

Obviously, what I write really bothers you, since you take so much of your time responding to, but don't let your emotions cause you to post such childish things.

LOL.

No.
What you write is a good template to work through the reasoning of the trial.

As to "most people", that's one of the most puerile arguments anyone ever presents on this board. One, you have no way of making any data driven analysis of what most people on this board think. Two, logically, how does your quip even make any sense? You seem to be arguing that if "most people" don't think cops should be held accountable, then I must think the same? In what universe is that a rational thought? Unhinged.

I am basing that on the many, many cop threads we have seen on this board.
You can disagree with my analysis.
I stand by it, though.

Wrong. Even Wikipedia manages to get the real convictions right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin

The convictions were: a) 2nd degree murder, b) 3rd degree murder, and c) 2nd degree manslaughter.

Second degree manslaughter requires negligence.
Read the damn statute.

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:


(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;

"culpable negligence" is required.

The riots didn't happen because a cop tried to defend himself by attempting to minimize or avoid his responsibility for the death of a suspect. The riots happened to pressure the legal system into seeking maximum responsibility, and to advance the wider narrative that cops have open contempt for black suspects and wouldn't hesitate to kill them if given the opportunity.

No.
The riots started because the cops attacked the protesters in most cases.
The protests did start to highlight that cops have open contempt for black suspects and wouldn't hesitate to kill them. (Not "if given the opportunity". The argument isn't that cops are going around hunting black folk to kill for sport.)

People don't riot because someone lies. Lying happens all the time. They riot over the narrative around what someone did or didn't do.

And those narratives can be powered by lies, I am sure you agree.
But again, given the protests happened before the arrest, and the original arrest didn't include the second-degree murder charge, I find the argument that if they had just only charged him with manslaughter it would have defused everything unpersuasive.

I'm not sure what you've even said here. What I am saying is that manslaughter cases should be treated as manslaughter cases, not murder 2, regardless of who was killed, who did the killing and regardless about what public narrative is generated and what civil unrest arises from it.

You are the one who said that if they had kept the charges to manslaughter, it would have defused the riots.
Given they had the evidence for higher charges and got convictions on them, it really does seem that you think they should have deliberately downplayed the charges to create a narrative that the cops did nothing wrong.