Given that this is a protest about cops getting away with brutality even when there's clear evidence I think "gather evidence against both sides equally" is unlikely to be convincing argument to protesters.
I doubt any criminal really wants to be captured on video. Having just watched a couple of videos this morning of "protesters" viciously kicking their unconscious victims in the head, I'm very much against the idea of anonymizing any of this.
Depends on how it's used. For example it could be useful for people protesting authoritarian governments, such as in Hong Kong. For blurring rioters during a crime spree, I don't think there's anything moral to be gained from protecting criminals.
Though I'm on the side of the Hong Kong citizens, I doubt this would help much, since the government is going to have extensive videos of their own. Not to mention a likely capability to capture immediately or almost immediately off of people's phones.
On a somewhat related note, I wonder if the thousands of people being recorded committing various crimes in the US right now realize that their faces are almost certainly being compiled in various government and private databases, to be matched via facial recognition for the rest of their lives. Yeah, not necessarily a good thing, but am I wrong?
First-degree is premeditated. Third-degree is depraved-heart ("murder as a result of callous disregard for the value of life"). What evidence supports a first-degree charge? If you want him to walk, charge him with first-degree. Good luck proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. The depraved-heart charge is a slam dunk, and is clearly the right one if you actually want justice.
First degree does require prior intent, but it can be in a very short period of time (minutes, or even seconds). Basically, if you can stop and think about what you're doing at any point and prevent the murder, you can be convicted of 1st degree murder for having carried it through.
I think there could be a pretty compelling 1st degree case there, since the officer had Floyd's neck under his knee for so long. He could have stopped the assault at any point.
I understand that, but the prosecutor would have to prove that Chauvin decided he was going to kill Floyd, rather than that he was heartless and ignored the pleas of a man in distress. The latter is in the bag, done, slam dunk. The former is much harder to prove. If the AG thinks he can prove first, he can always add the charge, but it's just good sense to do the initial charge on the slam dunk offense, especially when they needed to get an arrest and charge on the books to calm the rioters.
First degree is harder to convict, better to send him to jail for a crime he clearly committed than for one we hope we can make a strong enough case for.
If he was charged with first degree murder, he would walk if the high bar was not met.
For the record I agree with you, I'm just saying strategically it is a smarter move to ensure he is convicted for his crimes
To clear up a minor confusion judging from replies, I wasn't describing my own views. I was summarising some facts, in response to the person who said they are already under arrest and asked what else did people want.
