Derek Chauvin juror LIED about protest: Cop's hope of appeal boosted after picture emerges of juror

No it’s really not. Millions put up the signs and go to the rally and aren’t part of any “organization”
There is no membership card or newsletter. It’s a movement.
It’s like being a libertarian. You don’t subscribe to every fringe libertarian view or actually feel responsible for the views of anyone else who calls themselves one.

 

There are Libertarians and libertarians.

Black Lives Matter is decentralized. But a decentralized structure does not necessarily mean they are not an organization.

The fact that Black Lives Matter collects large sums of money from contributors (millions of dollars) suggest they are an organization.

 

Has this guy taken any? If not I don’t see the relevance.

 

Here's a good summary of the whole issue:

 

So what! There were more white people in the jury than black People. Why would there be howling and raging in your scenario if there were more black people than white people in the jury?

 

Maybe a new jury will actually read the law this time.

 

Let me guess, you are hung up on the murder charge because you don’t understand how it applies in NM? Intent isn’t needed...

What part of the law do you hope they “read”?

 

By all evidence to support it, my opinion is Derek Chauvin is a despicable human being. That said, how could he get a fair trial any place in these United States? And how can any judge refuse the request for a new trial with an obvious tainted juror?

 

Purely subjective ideas:

1. If there's a new trial anywhere in the United States, it is very likely that the evidence would support a conviction of Chauvin for 2nd-degree manslaughter. Chauvin blew it! He should have shoved Floyd in the back seat of the patrol car and had him driven away....
2. But, it is unlikely that a charge would even seriously be put forward that Chauvin had committed 2nd-degree MURDER....
3. Where the legal 'slicing-and-dicing' would get down to the 'creative' level would be in the 3rd-degree murder charge. Remember that the prosecution added that charge against Chauvin only at the last minute! This is the most important charge which would determine how long Chauvin is sentenced to be in prison... a few years, or decades!
4. The Chauvin jury was irremediably contaminated by the lies and antics of at least one of the jurors, as we have now seen. In order to minimize the likelihood of this kind of botched mishandling of legal procedures going forward, the new trial must (MUST) be held in a different state altogether, which ideally would be located FAR from Minneapolis!
5. Another reason that a new trial must be sited FAR from Minneapolis is that the new jurors would be less likely to be subjected to intimidation, threats, and other 'persuasion' by the BLM/ANTIFA mobs which very obviously 'rule the roost' in much of today's urban, Upper-Midwest. Jurors in these high-profile cases almost always get 'outed' after they render their verdicts....

 

Deleted a duplicated post.

 

At least a fair jury would select one of the charges to be guilty and innocent on the others. Guilty of killing 3 people when only one died just does not seem right to me at all.

 

The other 11 jury members also gave the verdict of guilty of all charges. Will there be any new evidence in a second trial?

 

It takes 12 to convict. And I didn't say he was guilty or not guilty.

 

A jury trial of this kind is not some "majority-rule" situation. EVERYONE on the jury must vote to convict, and, as I understand it, they must vote for conviction on each individual charge.

As far as 'new evidence' is concerned... no, it would probably be the same evidence -- but considered by a hopefully unbiased new jury, in a courtroom FAR from Minneapolis.

Don't forget -- the city apparatchiks in Minneapolis gave the Floyd tribe $27,000,000 in order to keep the 'Black Community' there from tearing the place up again -- and they did it while making no effort to keep that information from the jury, which was not sequestered when they did it! For that reason, if for none other, there should be a new trial for Chauvin -- FAR from Minneapolis.

 

My scenario is just as germane and your avoidance noted. Had it turned out that it was a hung jury and then it was discovered a juror lied about supporting Chauvin and the Police and went to a pro-Chauvin pro police rally the left/MSM/Dems would be raising caine about it.

Why do you support prospective jurors lying on their questionnaires and during voir dire?

 

And all it would have taken was one juror who was a vocal Chauvin supporter and even attend a rally in his support wearing his FREE CHAUVIN tee shirt and Police Lives Matter hat to have hung the jury. This guy lied and Chauvin had a right to know about this bias and had a right to strike because of it and he was denied that right because the guy lied.

As I said in during the trail at the end if it does go to a second trail I would give the advantage to the defense as they know the prosecutions case which we assume used all the evidence. The defense can better refute that evidence and probably use more than one attorney and bring in more use of force experts.

The problem remains how does Chauvin get a fair trial with all the pre-trial anti-Chauvin propaganda and statements and actions by government officials declaring him guilty. And if the judicial system cannot hold a fair trial for someone what then?

 

What do you think they were trying to do? They DESPERATELY want Floyd in the back of the police vehicle for the arriving any second ambulance. That ambulance was called way back they weren't going to be taking him to the jail he was going to the hospital.

 

Screw the ambulance! Chauvin was a police officer trying to make an arrest, not a medical doctor! And he had plenty of police muscle with him needed to shove Floyd's drugged-up ass into the back seat of the patrol car and scoot him on over to the police station for booking, follow-up medical care, or any other damn thing that was needed.

But the last (LAST) thing in the world that Chauvin should have been doing was holding Floyd down on the street under his knee waiting for some damned late ambulance to show up! After a short while, Chauvin should have just told the lower-ranking officers, "OK, enough! Get his ass, in the fugging car -- NOW!"

...And then, move on to the next criminal, with which hyperliberal, Democrat-infested towns like Minneapolis are never in short supply....

 

Just as any previous person convicted of a felony, he counts on exhausting every legal channel.

 

Welcome back. Hang in there. Liberals anymore in politics are mostly rude and offensive and have plenty of names for Trump.

Just keep posting what you do. We need more people like you here.

 

My own personal gut opinion is Chauvin was maybe guilty of manslaughter, but my opinion counts for nothing. Even the judge thought and stated in court there were grounds for appeal for other reasons. A clearly tainted juror is another very big reason for a do-over, and it seems the judge will not make a political ruling as a few other judges have. Don't know anything about the appeals court. (BTW is this in state or federal court?)

 

They did the right and correct thing and called for medical assistance. It was Floyd who refused to be placed in the vehicle to await that arriving any second medical assistence.

 

He got asked questions about if he was in protests about police brutality.
He was in a gathering to commemorate MLK.
MLK is the dude on his shirt.
IS MLK about police brutality? I don't think so.

 

It matters if the guy lied or did not lie. You can't be adding new rules to the this all just because you lost.

The article also said: Mitchell told Nelson during jury selection that he had a 'very favorable' opinion of Black Lives Matter, that he knew some police officers at his gym who are 'great guys,' and that he felt neutral about Blue Lives Matter, a pro-police group.

 

A) I didn't lose anything. Chauvin did.
B) It doesn't matter to anyone on this forum because none of us can do anything about it.
C) I believe that there should be a new trial based on both the picture and a multitude of other things. However, his opinion of either of the BLM or BLM, based on what he said doesn't sway my opinion either way. You can have a favorable view of the Democrat party but hate the stuff that Maxine Waters does. You can have a favorable view of the GOP but hate the stuff that Trump does. Or visa versa.