Derek Chauvin Trial

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

It's supposed to be a random selection of impartial people.

That is fair, but you only have to go back one page on this thread to see people saying this trial wasn’t directly a racial issue.

[Stigproducts]

MrMan001 said:

AJL308 said:

It's supposed to be a random selection of impartial people.

That is fair, but you only have to go back one page on this thread to see people saying this trial wasn’t directly a racial issue.

Well, it might be argued that strong opinions about race related matters with a direct relationship to the case were of relevance. The court certainly think so with these two juror questions that he lied in response to

Daily Mail said:

"Mitchell said he answered 'no' to two questions about demonstrations.

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?'

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'"

[anonymous-user]

Stigproducts said:

MrMan001 said:

AJL308 said:

It's supposed to be a random selection of impartial people.

That is fair, but you only have to go back one page on this thread to see people saying this trial wasn’t directly a racial issue.

Well, it might be argued that strong opinions about race related matters with a direct relationship to the case were of relevance. The court certainly think so with these two juror questions that he lied in response to

Daily Mail said:

"Mitchell said he answered 'no' to two questions about demonstrations.

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?'

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'"

That is interesting. I do notice though there isn’t actually evidence that he’s lied about either of those questions, unless I’m misreading the Daily Mail article. The protest wasn’t in Minneapolis (1st question), nor was the protest explicitly about police brutality (2nd question).

[Stigproducts]

MrMan001 said:

Stigproducts said:

MrMan001 said:

AJL308 said:

It's supposed to be a random selection of impartial people.

That is fair, but you only have to go back one page on this thread to see people saying this trial wasn’t directly a racial issue.

Well, it might be argued that strong opinions about race related matters with a direct relationship to the case were of relevance. The court certainly think so with these two juror questions that he lied in response to

Daily Mail said:

"Mitchell said he answered 'no' to two questions about demonstrations.

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?'

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'"

That is interesting. I do notice though there isn’t actually evidence that he’s lied about either of those questions, unless I’m misreading the Daily Mail article. The protest wasn’t in Minneapolis (1st question), nor was the protest explicitly about police brutality (2nd question).

Going to an interesting discussion. You can dissect that statement two ways
-Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations....or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death
-Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality.......... that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death


I disagree with you about the second statement. In my opinion that protest was about that exactly.

[g4ry13]

He didn't protest in Minneapolis but it's pretty obvious the BLM marches were against police brutality.

It's perjury plain and simple and nothing's going to happen because the game was always rigged.

It's the modern woke USA era.

[Stigproducts]

Any one who goes against the narrative, judge, juror, journalist, politician even in the name of justice and the justice system, will have their, and their families, life destroyed and a protest outside their house within hours. I can't imagine any of the jurors having the motivation to go against the "right" decision. Would Maxine Walters, Kalama Harris, Joe Biden defend them and their right to call the evidence how they see it? No chance, they would be front and center at the mostly peaceful protest. The behavior of the politicians is a disgrace

It's mob rule, allowed and actively encouraged by the national government.

[Not-The-Messiah]

MrMan001 said:

Does it matter if 1/12th (8.3%) of the Jury was made up of BLM supporters? If it’s supposed to be a jury of your peers, 8-9% probably underrepresents the popular support of BLM.

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/constitutional...

You might have a point if each of the jurors voted anonymously at the end. They don't, they go into a room and all need to discuss and agree.

If you have one person who is somewhat charismatic and as an influential character they will make a significant difference.
This guy as been on TV confidently talking about the trial, He's not a quiet wall flower.

The idea of having all intensive purposes a activist in the deliberation room at the end of the trial is not exactly a good way to have a fair trial.

[Slaav]

Stigproducts said:

Any one who goes against the narrative, judge, juror, journalist, politician even in the name of justice and the justice system, will have their, and their families, life destroyed and a protest outside their house within hours. I can't imagine any of the jurors having the motivation to go against the "right" decision. Would Maxine Walters, Kalama Harris, Joe Biden defend them and their right to call the evidence how they see it? No chance, they would be front and center at the mostly peaceful protest. The behavior of the politicians is a disgrace

It's mob rule, allowed and actively encouraged by the national government.

There does seem to be some grey area around this particular juror but I’m happy to say I haven’t clicked through all relevant links and stories.

As an aside Stig, do you think DC is guilty and did you follow the trial? As another aside, I think the most severe charge/conviction may be shaky - with the caveat that I did NOT sit through all the evidence and arguments.....

[Stigproducts]

Slaav said:

There does seem to be some grey area around this particular juror but I’m happy to say I haven’t clicked through all relevant links and stories.

As an aside Stig, do you think DC is guilty and did you follow the trial? As another aside, I think the most severe charge/conviction may be shaky - with the caveat that I did NOT sit through all the evidence and arguments.....

My opinion having followed the trial, but not watched it online, is that the 2 murder charges were a clear "not guilty" and the manslaughter one presented a clear case for acquittal should the jury so be inclined. I saw plenty of reasonable doubts that could tipped the balance.
That judge was scared or corrupt and very keen to push things in one direction.
Chauvin should have taken the stand and put his side of the story; we still don't know what the rationale for his actions was.In his mind they must have been reasonable - he knew he was being filmed.
However, it should never have begun as it did. Any trial where the jurors know their names and addresses will be published at the end, and have to walk through a howling and violent mob (encouraged by senior politicians) on their way in, is never going to be fair. That's one reasons of many while the whole thing was a charade.

[mybrainhurts]

[N7GTX]

Derek Chauvin moves for a new trial, two weeks after being convicted of George Floyd's murder

Sky News 11.30pm tonight (UK) https://news.sky.com/story/derek-chauvin-moves-for...

and

The juror (defends his position)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/04/juror-...

Edited by N7GTX on Wednesday 5th May 00:06

[anonymous-user]

Stigproducts said:

That judge was scared or corrupt and very keen to push things in one direction.

I hear he's quite hot on the law of defamation and plans to bankrupt any "Internet Experts" who make reckless accusations of impropriety.

[mybrainhurts]

rockin said:

Stigproducts said:

That judge was scared or corrupt and very keen to push things in one direction.

I hear he's quite hot on the law of defamation and plans to bankrupt any "Internet Experts" who make reckless accusations of impropriety.

You don't deny he had grounds to abandon the trial, though, do you? Could that have been pressure from Biden's handlers to avoid a civil war? I don't envy his job.

[Stigproducts]

rockin said:

Stigproducts said:

That judge was scared or corrupt and very keen to push things in one direction.

I hear he's quite hot on the law of defamation and plans to bankrupt any "Internet Experts" who make reckless accusations of impropriety.

Hopefully he knows more about the us constitution and its defmation laws than you

[anonymous-user]

Stigproducts said:

However, it should never have begun as it did. Any trial where the jurors know their names and addresses will be published at the end, and have to walk through a howling and violent mob (encouraged by senior politicians) on their way in, is never going to be fair. That's one reasons of many while the whole thing was a charade.

This is so true.

[XCP]

I suspect that anything other than Chauvin going to jail for a considerable period will result in riots and more deaths. This will no doubt be borne in mind by the appellant courts.

[andymadmak]

XCP said:

I suspect that anything other than Chauvin going to jail for a considerable period will result in riots and more deaths. This will no doubt be borne in mind by the appellant courts.

Is this how justice is supposed to work in the civilised world?

[XCP]

andymadmak said:

XCP said:

I suspect that anything other than Chauvin going to jail for a considerable period will result in riots and more deaths. This will no doubt be borne in mind by the appellant courts.

Is this how justice is supposed to work in the civilised world?

I don't consider mob rule as particularly civilised. Then again it's their country, their problem.

[Vickers_VC10]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5698975...

Anyone know why BBC chose to word that opening paragraph as such?

[JuniorD]

Vickers_VC10 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5698975...

Anyone know why BBC chose to word that opening paragraph as such?

Which paragraph?

“George Floyd killer Derek Chauvin asks for new trial“

Or

“ The white former Minneapolis police officer convicted last month of the murder of the black man George Floyd has requested a new trial.” ?

Both seem accurate enough?