Over years, over many nations, I have seen cold blooded butchery rewarded with a manslaughter verdict.
In the UK, manslaughter - until the reality saw an expansion of such verdicts turning murder into some sort of lesser crime - had meant unintentional homicide. (That pretty much echoes Bible teaching on the matter.)
In the US - very little seems different to our current usage.
I am aware of the principle of 'reckless endangerment' in the States but maybe I have not watched the case as closely as I might have - but I have not heard this concept uttered.
However I view this case, the idea that it could be second degree murder without reckless endangerment seems odd. To achieve a murder conviction for obvious manslaughter reverses decades of global sentencing.
If he is awarded the standard sentence here, Chauvin will have been adequately punished for crass criminal stupidity.
I am concerned that there will be capitulation to the baying voices of revenge to increase this perfectly acceptable sentence where 'intent to murder' really has not been proven.
