I have not commented on the Derek Chauvin trial, because in general, I feel people should wait until facts are presented before casting judgment. In modern day America, there seems to be a theory of riot, destroy and burn things, harm other people, and divide the population first, then learn the truth. Concerning the case with Derek Chauvin, I have a comment before the trial is complete because I did a little study of the law. One of my reasons for writing this is that it seems to me the prosecutor in the case put forth a set of “witnesses” who presented little more than emotional testimony. That alone indicates to me that there is something wrong with the prosecutor’s arguments, perhaps they are not based on established law. Another, I watched a Saturday Night Live (SNL) skit that clearly made the assumption that Derek Chauvin is guilty of murder. Therefore, I did a little study of the law. I found a summation of what is required to prove murder:
“For a prosecutor to prove murder, certain facts must be made clear. First and foremost, a defendant must have acted in a way that caused the death of another person. Secondly, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with “malice.” Lastly, a prosecutor must prove that a defendant acted without a justifiable reason.”
The first part seems to be a determination that would be based on the factual findings of the coroner and other experts who would have performed autopsies. Video documentation shows the interaction(s) between Derek Chauvin and the deceased party. Hopefully, these things combined will produce facts to indicate whether the defendant acted in a manner that caused the death. However, I do not see how any prosecutor can prove malice or lack of justifiable reasons.
Derek Chauvin was a law enforcement officer who was directed to the scene of a crime. At the scene he was attempting to detain a criminal, who resisted arrest. One could make an argument for an excessive use of force, “the term excessive force specifically refers to situations where law enforcement officers exceed the amount of force necessary against another person in an attempt to defuse a situation or to protect others or themselves from danger or harm.” That is different than the term, “murder.”
The prosecutor must prove Derek Chauvin acted with “malice.” Again, I looked for a legal definition: “with the intention of doing harm to the victim.” Perhaps the prosecutor has some video or other recorded evidence that shows officer Chauvin wished to cause harm to the deceased party, but I would have thought such things would have been made public with the manner in which this case has been mishandled by the state of Minnesota and those acting on the state’s behalf.
I researched one more legal term, manslaughter: “the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.” From what I have been able to learn, I believe manslaughter will be the crime for which Derek Chauvin will be convicted. What is really troubling to me is that the staff at SNL and other organizations who have mass public followings could have done similar research. Their presentation of the Derek Chauvin trial demonstrates to me that they have a callous disposition toward the American population in this very turbulent time period. They might claim what they do is in “humor”, but it is harmful; and it shows a total lack of concern for what will result if the emotional masses do not have their way with this trial. The world could be a much better place if SNL and others would put their efforts and energies toward bringing about understanding rather than adding fuel to the fires of hatred.
