Confused
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed that’s why I guess I’m so confused. Many folks say that Chauvin should burn in hell for his negligence. Others say he was negligent in the course of his duty and unfortunately a person died but he should be exonerated. The reason I’m confused is because we’ve seen this before and the process was completely different. On July 18, 1969 in a small town in MA a young girl was in a car driven by a person that was allegedly drunk. The driver went off the road into a pond. The girl was submerged in water and therefore denied access to air for a lot longer than 9 minutes. The driver never attempted to rescue the girl, he simply got out of the car and left the scene. He never called for an ambulance as Chauvin did. The driver allegedly went home to sober up and met with others to formulate a plan to mitigate the damages. The driver did not return to the scene of the accident until the next morning. The girl was dead due to his negligence. Floyd was dead due to Chauvin’s negligence. Chauvin lost his job and has been charged with murder. The driver never lost his job and was never charged with murder. The driver was, however, punished by losing the possibility of a promotion. Maybe losing the possibility of a promotion for one person equated to a murder charge for another person. Again, I’m not the sharpest tool, so could someone explain why Chauvin is so guilty of a crime by many, yet that driver was so not guilty of a crime by many. Maybe I just don’t understand the meaning of negligence. Maybe the girl resisted the driver more violently than Floyd resisted Chauvin.
|