• 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

Sorry but the way the question reads it pertains to demonstrations that took place "in Minneapolis". Not anywhere else. "In" being the keyword there.
Irrelevant. Page 8 of the questionnaire includes another question that is broader than just the Floyd protests/riots and is unlimited by geography.
 
Not to mention the pic on his shirt was MLK and the saying get off my neck came wayyyy before the Floyd murder...
In other words, if it's a "Save our Confederate Status" rally with Confederate flags waving everywhere, it's not a Klan rally despite the fact that people in white robes and white pointy hats are everywhere.

Got it. (y)

You do realize this argument won't fly, right? Just because an event billed as a tribute to MLK sponsored by BLM segued in support for George Floyd (assuming that was the case) or made mention of him doesn't mean it was a protest in support of George Floyd. Figure out the difference and get back to the world when you get smarter about things such as this.

The two are not the same.
 

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.
This question wouldn't apply to the MLK event as it was not a protest event.

Furthermore, from a quick review of the questionnaire, question 13 and 14 on page 8 pertaining to BLM may be the only questions that would impact this juror based on what we now know about his participation at the MLK event and his attired at same. Nonetheless, it would depend greatly on how he answered those questions. Right now, based on the fact that this juror attended an MLK event and not a BLM protest or any protest march in support of George Floyd, I don't think this will have an impact going forward. But again, it could hinge on how he answered questions 13 and 14.
 
Off topic, but didn't trump have the balls to do a photo op in front of that memorial one time???
I would not know but he is arrogant and oblivious to reality enough to have done so.
 
Read post 300
Read post 351
Let me know how you feel about it after that.

Based on the info you provided, I think you are correct. And I did not see regular annual commemoration of this Washighton march, so it is not comparable to the MLK one. It is one of the few times where I agree with the interpretation of a conservative in this forum.
 
Titles mean NOTHING...

This was an annual event, not anything spawned by recent events...
lol. Titles do mean something - as does the content of the speeches. Call it whatever you want - the rally was about police reform/abuse/shootings, with a theme tied directly to the George Floyd rally. And you don't think that was relevant for him to disclose?
 
Based on the info you provided, I think you are correct. And I did not see regular annual commemoration of this Washighton march, so it is not comparable to the MLK one. It is one of the few times where I agree with the interpretation of a conservative in this forum.
Opinions based on facts are wonderful things.
 
This question wouldn't apply to the MLK event as it was not a protest event.

....... Right now, based on the fact that this juror attended an MLK event and not a BLM protest or any protest march in support of George Floyd, I don't think this will have an impact going forward.
Once again:

Read post 300
Read post 351
Let me know how you feel about it after that.
 
View attachment 67331990

Newflash: MLK never said "Get your knee off our necks." This is a political shirt directly related to Chauvin's behavior in relation to this case that he was protesting. But, you already knew that so let's stop playing games and get to the real conversation.

We have been: conservatives think George Floyd had it comin’ and Derek Chauvin waz robbed.
 
Opinions based on facts are wonderful things.

I will "bring" you as a witness next time a conservative tries to argue that I am a partisan hack who puts ideology over facts. Heck, it may happen if there is an appeal and we hear the same suspects arguing (again) about Chauvin's innocence.
 
I will "bring" you as a witness next time a conservative tries to argue that I am a partisan hack who puts ideology over facts. Heck, it may happen if there is an appeal and we hear the same suspects arguing (again) about Chauvin's innocence.
Thank you for listening to facts and being willing to change your first impression and having the candor to say so. There are many here who can't.

Chauvin's guilt or innocence is a topic for another thread. The point of this thread is whether or not the juror lied during jury selection. Given the true nature of the DC rally, it's pretty clear that he did.
 
Umm hmmm....and wearing BLM paraphernalia and a shirt about getting the knee of the neck. Any other realities you want to reject? What color is the sky in your world.
I'm guessing blue. The shirt sounds like free speech to me. Jurors are asked whether they can put aside their bias and decide fairly based on what happens in the courtroom. Why does this instance get your panties in a bunch?
 
I'm guessing blue. The shirt sounds like free speech to me.
You're right, it IS free speech. He has every right to voice his approval of BLM by wearing the T-shirt and the hat. However, there is a question on the questionnaire that specifically asks:
1620261297364.png
Clearly in his case the correct answer would be "Very Favorable". However had he answered truthfully, he would have been excused from the jury for cause. Since he was on the jury, he almost certainly lied about it.

Jurors are asked whether they can put aside their bias and decide fairly based on what happens in the courtroom. Why does this instance get your panties in a bunch?
Because given his political leanings and track record of lying about them, it's virtually certain he lied about that too.

In an appearance on the “Get Up! Mornings” show with host Erica Campbell, Mitchell suggested that jury duty was an avenue to fight for social change, similar to voting.

“I mean, it’s important. If we want to see some change and we want to see some things going different, we got to get out there and get into these avenues and get into these rooms to try to spark some change,” Mitchell told Campbell in an April 27 interview. “Jury duty is one of the things. Jury duty, voting, all those little things, the things we got to do.”

Voting IS an avenue to promote your political agenda. Jury duty most emphatically is NOT. And lying in order to get on a jury for any reason is a felony.

Do the courts take lying under oath seriously? You bet they do. In Minnesota, the max penalty for perjury is 5 years in prison and / or a $10,000 fine. Unless it's committed in association with a felony trial (like this one), in which case it's a 7 year sentence and a $14,000 fine.
 
I'm guessing blue. The shirt sounds like free speech to me. Jurors are asked whether they can put aside their bias and decide fairly based on what happens in the courtroom. Why does this instance get your panties in a bunch?
Yes....free speech, and both the prosecution and defense can remove people from the jury pool for their free speech. This guy lied about it.
 
I've seen better efforts at trolling, but this was pretty good. Feel free to try again with a real argument.

Yup, got it. Floyd had it comin, Chuavin wuz robbed. That’s the argument that has been on the table from day one of this thing. No new info pro or can was ever gonna change that.
 
Yup, got it. Floyd had it comin, Chuavin wuz robbed. That’s the argument that has been on the table from day one of this thing. No new info pro or can was ever gonna change that.
This thread is about the juror, not Chauvin. Troll elsewhere.
 
This thread is about the juror, not Chauvin. Troll elsewhere.

Sorry: Chauvin was railroaded cause Floyd had it comin.
 
Read post 300
Read post 351
Let me know how you feel about it after that.
Well you asked so I'm going to let you know how I feel about it. Your posts #300 and #351 prove nothing except your ignorance of history and the English language. Rallies or demonstrations is generally an event that is scheduled to coincide with the anniversary of an event or several weeks or months down the road. 'Protests' are generally spontaneous events that occur in very close proximity to the events that inspired them. Which is what question #12 referenced. ". 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?" The "March on Washington" is an annual event commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King's " I have a dream speech. In which he highlighted police brutality against black people. See my post #406 that explains how a photograph of Birmingham police wrestling to the ground a black woman who refuse their commands to leave a sidewalk with one of officers placing his knee directly upon her neck, ala Derek Chauvin. It is an image among others, such as defenseless blacks being set upon by baton wielding police men and snarling dogs and being blown across the pavement by fire hoses that galvanized Reverend King's movement in the public's eye and which ultimately led to the March upon Washington in 1963. What happened to George Floyd was a direct parallel to it. That's why Sharpton called for his people to rally at MLK commemorative event. And it wasn't just for George Floyd. It was for Treyvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, etc. as well.

Even you yourself characterized it as being a "rally", not a protest, in your post #300. So right there you just undermined your own argument that the juror had lied when asked if he participated in any "protests" surrounding police brutality. So the title of the rally/commemorative event had a direct reference to an historical event that served to propel the March Upon Washington in 1963. You know it just might be that Black Americans understand and know the history of their civil rights struggle just a little bit better than you. kneeling on necks.jpg
 
Yes....free speech, and both the prosecution and defense can remove people from the jury pool for their free speech. This guy lied about it.
Yes...but they didn't and you have no proof to offer that he did lie at any point in his answers to the questionnaire. So?
 
Irrelevant. Page 8 of the questionnaire includes another question that is broader than just the Floyd protests/riots and is unlimited by geography.
Irrelevant. Page 8 of the questionnaire includes another question that is broader than just the Floyd protests/riots and is unlimited by geography.
Actually it's page 7. But who's counting? Evidently not you anyways. Nor does the word "riot" appear anywhere in there. Only the word "protests", Which is what this was not. This was an annually scheduled historical commemorative event that also became rally due to current events that echoed the very premise and subject matter that inspired the March on Washington in the first place. 57 years later. Think about that. 57 years later we still have white cops kneeling on the necks of Black Americans. That's pretty sad.

The MLK March on Washington was a commemoration. It's even listed as being such.

2020[edit]​

 
A jury of your peers with impartiality, not lacking in politics. Remember folks, even presidents get jury duty notices.

Good luck to the goofies.
 
Actually it's page 7. But who's counting?
I would assume the person who typed up the questionnaire did. I didn't count each page; I just went by the page number at the bottom of each page. Not that this bit of trivia really matters anyway...

This was an annually scheduled historical commemorative event that also became rally due to current events that echoed the very premise and subject matter that inspired the March on Washington in the first place. 57 years later. Think about that. 57 years later we still have white cops kneeling on the necks of Black Americans. That's pretty sad.

The MLK March on Washington was a commemoration. It's even listed as being such.
I don't really care what some yahoo says on Wikipedia. I care about what the person who put it all together says:
WE ARE MARCHING. On August 28th, 2020, on the Mall in Washington D.C., we are recommitting to the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr. left unaddressed. This is a Commitment March, not a commemoration march, and we are marching for policing and criminal justice reform.

Today is a chance for people around the nation to gather together to confront racial injustices in our police precincts and courthouses. We’ve been here before, but this time we know that it is necessary to redefine public safety in order to save black lives.
 
A racist justice system doesn't invalidate black convictions but this invalidates an obvious murder? It's nazi trolling.
 
In other words, if it's a "Save our Confederate Status" rally with Confederate flags waving everywhere, it's not a Klan rally despite the fact that people in white robes and white pointy hats are everywhere.

Got it. (y)

You do realize this argument won't fly, right? Just because an event billed as a tribute to MLK sponsored by BLM segued in support for George Floyd (assuming that was the case) or made mention of him doesn't mean it was a protest in support of George Floyd. Figure out the difference and get back to the world when you get smarter about things such as this.

The two are not the same.
Did the juror vote to convict Chauvin of suffocating a man because they were into BLM or because they watched a 9 minute video of him suffocating a man?
 
Back
Top Bottom