Chauvin Juror Lied about BLM Activism. Could Help Chauvin's Appeal

Oh yes, because watching a video of a guy being killed equates to 'person who watches youtube and think they know everything'. You are certainly a deep thinker.

If by care you mean I think that a person deserves death, then yes you are correct, I don't 'care'.

douglas burke wrote:

Jurors are under Oath to be impartial, if he lied to get on the jury he could be charged with Perjury and the case would likely be a Mistrial meaning another Trial and another conviction is almost a certainty as he is guilty, cops can't be judge, jury and executioner, Chauvin should have just put him in the car, drive him to where they take the mug pictures and let the process work.

He wouldn't get in the car.

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""""""" wrote:

Well nothing has seemed to help Chauvin regarding his trial. I think he should rot in prison but I can acknowledge the biases of the jury in his case because I think people are very scared to render anything less than the harshest penalty he is legally eligible for. They fear the historical mob that will hunt them and their families down and threaten to destroy their lives and property if they show any mercy to Chauvin.

When has a juror been atacted for a verdict? There was no backlash against the jury that acquitted the Rodney King officers.

The historical mob has nothing to gain from going after jurors and will face prosecution for any property damage or assaults.

From the article the OP linked:

WCCO spoke with law professor Rachel Moran from the University of St. Thomas about what this photo could mean for the case.

“Did the juror speak the truth? Or alternatively, did the juror say something untrue during questioning?” Moran said. “But the other thing to keep in mind is did the lawyers do their job in investigating the juror?” Moran said.

Before being selected, Mitchell filled out this questionnaire. On it, he said he never attended protests over police brutality in Minnesota or beyond. He also answered a question on Black Lives Matter, saying, “Black lives just want to be treated as equals and not killed or treated in an aggressive manner simply because they are Black.”

“If he had been asked about it and he tried to hide it, that could be an issue,” Moran said. “But at this point, I don’t see anything, any evidence that he tried to hide it.”

The defense does now have the right to ask Judge Peter Cahill to go back and question Mitchell, then Cahill can decide if the verdict will stand.

“I think it’s really important for the viewers at home to know it’s really hard to overturn a conviction, and courts are especially reluctant to interfere with the jury deliberation process,” Moran said.

oh good wrote:

But I have to wonder, if this white cop were on trial for murdering a white man, would people even care? And by that I mean would you who have so much emotional investment in seeing this guy go free, care at all if he went away for murdering a white man?

By the tone of those weak and exaggerated attempts at rhetorical questions/accusation of racism, we have to wonder if you trying to be ArmstrongBivs' protege? Do you really want to be another one of those?

If Floyd was white, we wouldn't even know about his death because it wouldn't even have made the local news, and it's very unlikely Chauvin would have ever been tried for murder. We certainly wouldn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and businesses destroyed, destroyed police stations, boarded up court houses, racial entrepreneurs like Sharpton, Crump and Khan-Cullors cashing in, and the City of Minneapolis handing over $27 million in tax payer money.

fasciz wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

The same exact case was brought up on this board - a suspect on drugs dies with a cops knee on his back and neck - except the guy who died was white, yet nobody cares.

I care.

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

The picture OP linked proves he never should have been on the jury in the first place. It would be no different than if a juror was pictured at a Back The Blue rally in a thin blue line shirt.

ummmmmmmm wrote:

I don't understand the motivations of the people who are all in for this Chauvin guy. Did you see the video? Not a good guy, not a good cop... not the kind of guy worth standing up for. Seriously, he continued to kneel on Floyd for like 5 minutes after he was total passed out (and as it turns out lifeless). Floyd was on the ground in handcuffs and obviously not a threat at that point (if he ever was)... no way this was following department policy.... way over the line of common sense or human decency. Not the kind of decision making you want from anyone with the power and authority of a policeman... seriously, why would you waste your efforts standing up for this scumbag?

The same reason that you cared so much to respond in favor for the other scum. It's out of political tribalism.

OP does not get credit for White Grievance Thread if the Day since that does not seem to have been his intent, but he has indirectly given voice to so much white grievance that he earns himself an assist of the day award.

Of the hundreds of incidents in which white cops have killed an unarmed black person, one cop is held accountable, and people are up in arms. I wonder why. Oh yeah, it so hard being white in America!

fasciz wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

The same exact case was brought up on this board - a suspect on drugs dies with a cops knee on his back and neck - except the guy who died was white, yet nobody cares.

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

If the juror lied under oath during the voir dire process, he did not fulfill his duties. I doubt there is any amount of proof at this stage that would satisfy you of anything you didn't feel like believing, but the issue is there and it appears this juror was at least less than candid. That should concern you, although I doubt it does at all.

There is no end to the whining about this verdict. So many staunch defenders of a cop who abuses his power to kill another human being. Like so many seeing this from the outside, we are witnessing the ugly underbelly of American culture - and their voices are clamoring here in defence of their "hero".

surveysays wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

if he was does department policy.

You must be a terrible programmer.

Anyway, what was the lie?

Still waiting. What was the lie?

Seems like the title to this thread is misleading if not outright dishonest.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is no end to the whining about this verdict. So many staunch defenders of a cop who abuses his power to kill another human being. Like so many seeing this from the outside, we are witnessing the ugly underbelly of American culture - and their voices are clamoring here in defence of their "hero".

Someone alerted me to a thread about your awful country, which is basically an apartheid state as it turns out. I suppose your obsession with America and endless race-baiting here on LRC makes some sense as kind of weird avoidance/denial mechanism of yours. You are one creepy person, that's for sure.

Let it Rupp wrote:

fasciz wrote:

I care.

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

The picture OP linked proves he never should have been on the jury in the first place. It would be no different than if a juror was pictured at a Back The Blue rally in a thin blue line shirt.

Sorry, that picture does not prove to me that he didn't fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

oh good wrote:

Oh yes, because watching a video of a guy being killed equates to 'person who watches youtube and think they know everything'. You are certainly a deep thinker.

Yes. You saw a video, the talking heads told you it was racism, and you used the two brain cells you have and decided to accept their opinion as fact. You wouldn’t know what evidence was if it came to your house like a BLM mob and smacked you in the face.

Muldoon wrote:

fasciz wrote:

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

If the juror lied under oath during the voir dire process, he did not fulfill his duties. I doubt there is any amount of proof at this stage that would satisfy you of anything you didn't feel like believing, but the issue is there and it appears this juror was at least less than candid. That should concern you, although I doubt it does at all.

What was the lie under oath?

Why so desperate to free a murderer? I thought you guys were anti-statist.

What talking heads? I watched the video and saw a man being killed. Who's opinion did I need to hear or read? The video is clear.

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^"""""""" wrote:

Well nothing has seemed to help Chauvin regarding his trial. I think he should rot in prison but I can acknowledge the biases of the jury in his case because I think people are very scared to render anything less than the harshest penalty he is legally eligible for. They fear the historical mob that will hunt them and their families down and threaten to destroy their lives and property if they show any mercy to Chauvin.

I think what is difficult for many to understand is that Chauvin realistically was guilty but his trial was not fair. There was tons of implied witness intimidation and pretrial bias.