• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chauvin juror lied about BLM protest attendance

Lursa said:
I have no problem with an appeal, IMO it was a given from the start.

I'm just wondering who's paying for it. The initial defense was pretty crappy. Or maybe that's just all they had to work with.
Click to expand...
The police union paid for this defense...
 
Fishking said:
I'm not going to debate if they properly worded their question or not w/regard to "alleged" or any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that the question did not ask if the participation or protest took place in Minneapolis, but that it could be anywhere but specifically about the case in which they were to be the jury for.

This isn't really confusing. I don't know why people are struggling with it. The question was specifically designed to remove potential jurors that would have too strong of a bias against Chauvin. Political activism is a good indication of that.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too certain that attending an annually held commemoration of an historical event in the quest for civil rights necessarily constitutes "protest" or "political activism".
 
pamak said:
THis question, indeed does not put geographical limits for the protest, but if the protest was the annual MLK one, then the date itself shows that the marcch was not organized in response to any police brutality.
Click to expand...
Atomic Kid said:
I wouldn't be too certain that attending an annually held commemoration of an historical event in the quest for civil rights necessarily constitutes "protest" or "political activism".
Click to expand...

Read post 300
Read post 351
Let me know how you feel about it after that.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I wouldn't be too certain that attending an annually held commemoration of an historical event in the quest for civil rights necessarily constitutes "protest" or "political activism".
Click to expand...
When it is coopted by one, with specific references to the case in which the juror sat on, it does.
 
Lursa said:
So it's not their fault if there werent any "qualified" white male jurors.


Prove it. I call total BS.

Besides the actual video and facts which speak for themselves. The jury barely had to deliberate at all...most of their time was spent deciding on each of the charges.

How would locale change the influence on the jurors? The event was publicized all over the nation. And yes, if I was a potential juror, I would not want to be chosen for that trial.
Click to expand...
I think they spent more time arguing about what they wanted on their pizza than they had to deciding Chauvins outcome...

This was a pure slam dunk...
 
It's still on video.

Another trial will go the same. These hopeful recriminations against the character of the victim, political bent of the jurors, motives of the DA, habits of the bystanders who filmed it or the history of the news outlet that reported it won't net the white supremacists the acquittal they yearn to see.

Just roll the tape again.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I wouldn't be too certain that attending an annually held commemoration of an historical event in the quest for civil rights necessarily constitutes "protest" or "political activism".
Click to expand...
Exactly, the theme they chose does not change what tbe rally was about...
 
uptower said:
It's still on video.

Another trial will go the same. These hopeful recriminations against the character of the victim, political bent of the jurors, motives of the DA, habits of the bystanders who filmed it or the history of the news outlet that reported it won't net the white supremacists the acquittal they yearn to see.

Just roll the tape again.
Click to expand...
Just replay the original trial...
 
dcsports said:
There's a difference between being just 'favorable' - and directly joining / advocating for their cause. I doubt the 'neutral' on blue lives matter was accurate.

And he certainly can advocate for police reform - but he needs to include that in his answer. The fact he traveled to DC to participate in a rally for it - and wore a shirt directly referencing the case - should have been included. Do you disagree? I don't think there's any question this would have led to dismissal for cause.
Click to expand...
Very favorable I thought his comment was, and he knew officers from where exercised and said he was neutral.

That is the weakness of the jury system in my opinion. And kneeling on necks is something police does with a good number of the people they arrest to subdue them, I think it was more a general call for stopping the violence against arrested people, of course especially minority ones.

But if you have a jury system you will have to expect these kind of issues, no man is an island as far as I know.
 
Peter King said:
Very favorable I thought his comment was, and he knew officers from where exercised and said he was neutral.

That is the weakness of the jury system in my opinion. And kneeling on necks is something police does with a good number of the people they arrest to subdue them, I think it was more a general call for stopping the violence against arrested people, of course especially minority ones.

But if you have a jury system you will have to expect these kind of issues, no man is an island as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but didn't trump have the balls to do a photo op in front of that memorial one time???
 
GDViking said:
That is a flat out falsehood.

I grew up there, have family there, ( including a brother in law working we security at the court building).

There is no where else in tbe state they could have found a better juror pool.

Now there is no chance they ever will...

He got the fairest trial he ever could and he was convicted within three hours...
Click to expand...

I disagree, and sometimes a change of venue serves if anything just so the trial doesn't end up on appeal.

But let me ask you: Don't you feel the judge should have sequenstered the jury from the start? Why didn't he do that; it isn't a difficult thing to do, and it prevents outside information getting to a jury. Wasn't that a screw up?
 
dcsports said:
And?

THIS event was marketed as the "Get the knee off our neck" rally, The speakers talked about the killing of people by police - and included speakers from the families of George Floyd, Briana Taylor, and Jacob Blake. This was the central theme.

And it's fine if people want to hold a 'protest' or 'event' for this cause. They can even buy the shirt and wear the hat. But they can't pretend it didn't happen when questioned by a court.

And no one, not the juror, nor those posting on this board, can honestly say that this wasn't the type of event the court was asking about.
Click to expand...
Held every year commemorate mlk jr


Deny that
 
Court Jester said:
I disagree, and sometimes a change of venue serves if anything just so the trial doesn't end up on appeal.

But let me ask you: Don't you feel the judge should have sequenstered the jury from the start? Why didn't he do that; it isn't a difficult thing to do, and it prevents outside information getting to a jury. Wasn't that a screw up?
Click to expand...
No. Nothing new came up during the time they would have been sequestered. It would have been pointless
 
Fishking said:
I'm confused about your question that's in bold. It doesn't make any sense. Of course the trial isn't about BLM. The trial involved police brutality against a Black man that resulted in his death, which is what BLM is about. More specifically, this juror was involved in political activism that specifically related to the case he was going to sit on.
Click to expand...
A T-shirt does no more than indicate support. I asked you...who does support police brutality? How is his T-shirt alone prejudicial? If he answered the questions honestly, and meant that he hasnt been involved...who are we to question it further? DId all the other jurors lie too?

Where is it documented that he was involved in political activism?
 
GDViking said:
The police union paid for this defense...
Click to expand...
Yes I know. And as I posted earlier...after all the police experts showed how Chauvin was wrong over and over on several points of policy and procedure...he made the police in general look pretty bad.

Would the police union want to continue to back him? Or maybe they dont have a choice, I dont know 🤷
 
Lursa said:
Yes I know. And as I posted earlier...after all the police experts showed how Chauvin was wrong over and over on several points of policy and procedure...he made the police in general look pretty bad.

Would the police union want to continue to back him? Or maybe they dont have a choice, I dont know 🤷
Click to expand...
I don't believe they have choice...
 
Lursa said:
A T-shirt does no more than indicate support. I asked you...who does support police brutality? How is his T-shirt alone prejudicial? If he answered the questions honestly, and meant that he hasnt been involved...who are we to question it further? DId all the other jurors lie too?

Where is it documented that he was involved in political activism?
Click to expand...
Would you want to person that attended Trump rallies sitting on the jury for a trial involving Trump?
 
Fishking said:
Would you want to person that attended Trump rallies sitting on the jury for a trial involving Trump?
Click to expand...
No but where is the proof that he did so?

Would I want a person who supports Trump on a trial involving him...no but I'd expect it and find it fair.
 
Fishking said:
That's already been provided.
Click to expand...
That he attended protests or that march? I missed it. How far back in the posts do you think?
 
Lursa said:
That he attended protests or that march? I missed it. How far back in the posts do you think?
Click to expand...
It's linked in the OP.
 
WillyPete said:
If it looks like you're getting close to being picked, maybe volunteer that you are a proponent of jury nullification where appropriate and look forward to the opportunity to try it out, maybe.

That's my plan, especially as I would absolutely nullify just about any drug case that didn't involve violence.
Click to expand...

I do believe in jury nullification, would never believe the word of an informant in exchange for some benefit, plus would likely not believe the sole word of a cop versus a person without other evidence. Thus pro-defense? But I INTENSELY dislike anyone who abuses children or women, thieves and burglars - so pro-prosecution? I think most people outside of those offenses deserves a break too - but only one - so could go very soft or very hard on a DUI - depending on their record and the circumstance.
 
Mithros said:

Q: 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 Juror attended an event in Washington DC, not Minneapolis. It would have been a lie for the juror to answer yes to this question.
Click to expand...
Keep reading. Page 8 has a different question that is relevant and has no geographical limitations.
 
GDViking said:
Not to mention the pic on his shirt was MLK and the saying get off my neck came wayyyy before the Floyd murder...
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom