Yes, I agree on the coverage... I read/watch Fox and CNN... they are covering wildly different trials, lol... then go to National Review to read Andrew McCarthy, who is as close to an impartial POV as I've found.
And, I agree that Chauvin was within the book, if not by the book, up until somewhere between when Floyd stopped resisting and obviously lost consciousness. After that, the question is whether continuing the neck/back/shoulder restraint was "reasonable", "negligent" or "with depraved indifference" but not intent.
I do think at this point a reasonable jury could find it depraved indifference rather than simply negligent. But, like I said, we've only heard from the prosecution... the defense gets it's chance.
One local news story about the murder 3 charge:
Minnesota's 3rd degree murder charge, explained
Minnesota's third-degree murder statute reads: "Whoever, without intent…causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life…" But two high-profile cases are challenging the definiton and application of the law.
I do think the judge did a good job initially throwing out murder 3 as it seemingly applies to actions against the "general public" and not towards a single individual or group. In the Noor case, it's close-run since his gunshot could have struck anyone. I do think if Chauvin is convicted on murder 3, it should be overturned on appeal for that reason... it's simply not what the law, as written, is about... but Minnesota today is a place were "should" and "is" are often strangers to one another.
