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

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?

That bold text is the only part that should matter EVEN if some still think he did not kill him and believe that they are somehow smarter than the professionals that actually have worked with the evidence from the case. The dude is not innocent and now he can do his time.

The professional who did his autopsy testified that Floyd died of cardiac arrest from the stress of being arrested, the drugs in his system and pre-existing heart conditions. It's almost like people here are talking out of their ass and didn't watch the case at all (I know, people talking out of their ass on LRC, very unheard of).

fasciz wrote:

Muldoon wrote:

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?

Not entirely sure yet (hence the prominent use of the word "If"), and I don't have access to the voir dire transcript. But one voir dire question on the jury selection questionnaire was whether the juror had attended any protests regarding police use of force. The juror answered No, but this photo of him in Washington D.C. last August at an event called "Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks," suggests otherwise.

The fact that he felt the need to get out in front of this and do a second round of media interviews just on this specific topic also suggests its a concern of his how he answered the questionnaire.

So there is some evidence for you. You may get more evidence in the coming days, and will likely get more when the appeal brief gets filed (or maybe a post-trial motion in the district court to overturn the verdict, or a post-trial motion for discovery on this juror's impartiality).

oh good wrote:

Pretty clear by your response that the only interest you have in this case is that of race. So thanks for proving my insinuations for me.

You could have at least done me the courtesy of quoting my response that you are characterizing. It's a customary thing to do amongst rational adults on message boards.

But anyway, it's an internal Catch-22 thing with you. Make an unsupported accusation of racism (with the usual lame rhetorical question technique so common here on LRC), and then anyone who responds in disagreement "proves your insinuation." You really are that creepy nutjob's protege, and any response you give will prove my already correct insinuation!

That is not true at all, because here's the thing, you didn't even need to respond to my comment. But you did because you were emotionally triggered by it. Hence proven.

Bart Max, you are one of Johnson brothers, am I correct?

1) Feds were at Hennepin County Government Center the day of Chauvin Murder Trial verdict. If Chauvin would have been found Not Guilty in Judge Peter Cahill's courtroom, Feds would have immediately arrested Chauvin on federal charges.

2) If Chauvin were to be found Not Guilty, MN will immediately arrest Chauvin for Felony Tax Evasion.

3) Chauvin is doing at a minimum of three years in prison even if he beats MN 2nd & 3rd Degree Murder convictions.

oh good wrote:

That is not true at all, because here's the thing, you didn't even need to respond to my comment. But you did because you were emotionally triggered by it. Hence proven.

That's not true at all, because here's the thing, no one needs to respond to anyone's comment on a message board.

But since you just did respond to my comment, by your own childish, goofball logic, you were emotionally triggered by my correct accusation that you are indeed AmstrongBiff's protege in training. Hence proven.

Muldoon wrote:

oh good wrote:

That is not true at all, because here's the thing, you didn't even need to respond to my comment. But you did because you were emotionally triggered by it. Hence proven.

That's not true at all, because here's the thing, no one needs to respond to anyone's comment on a message board.

But since you just did respond to my comment, by your own childish, goofball logic, you were emotionally triggered by my correct accusation that you are indeed AmstrongBiff's protege in training. Hence proven.

There is a fair chance it’s just armstronglivs using another handle.

Idk how people don’t see the lie. He was asked under oath if he was at a protest. He said no. He was photographed at a protest. Pretty clear.

Weird, I didn't respond to you about any accusations. But ok.

Let it Rupp is really spinning in this thread.

One of my favorite moron posters here on LRC!

Stay mad.

2600 bro wrote:

Let it Rupp is really spinning in this thread.

One of my favorite moron posters here on LRC!

Stay mad.

I delight in his daily anger, hissy fits and meltdowns.

He leads the tears for Trump and Chauvin charge 😭😭😭

BigYawn wrote:

I was about to create a thread on this myself. I had a previous thread about this juror’s comments a couple days ago.

Anyone who said this jury was fair is absolutely kidding themselves.

You gotta be quick on the trigger. If a news soundbite can be turned racist, you can guarantee Bart will spam the boards with it. He loooooves racism.

Let it Rupp wrote:

westsouthrunner wrote:

That bold text is the only part that should matter EVEN if some still think he did not kill him and believe that they are somehow smarter than the professionals that actually have worked with the evidence from the case. The dude is not innocent and now he can do his time.

The professional who did his autopsy testified that Floyd died of cardiac arrest from the stress of being arrested, the drugs in his system and pre-existing heart conditions. It's almost like people here are talking out of their ass and didn't watch the case at all (I know, people talking out of their ass on LRC, very unheard of).

A few other people spoke also, but I guess doesn’t matter since you didn’t watch the case. Just grabbing a sound bite that supports your beliefs.

He got an OJ jury....Dumb, hyper emotional and dishonest.

That Juror should be charged and I think there should also be a law against using you verdict after the trial for personal gain. This guy obviously wanted to be a celebrity and to soak in the appreciation of others.

It's very easy not to break the law (so I am told).

It's very easy to avoid situations where your fate is put in the hands of a jury (so I am told).

Play stupid games... win stupid prizes?

Get it?

runnerboy70 wrote:

He got an OJ jury....Dumb, hyper emotional and dishonest.

O.J. Jury?

It would have taken 12 M.A G.A. jurors to get an acquital.

You keep saying Trump supporters are dumb, don't you?

fasciz wrote:

Muldoon wrote:

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?

Question 2: "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?"

Was one of the questions asked during jury selection, which he answered "no" to.

He is pictured at the "Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" (an obvious reference to George Floyd), a march regarding police reform as advertised by the march's organizers and had George Floyd's family as speakers.

He did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner by lying in order to infiltrate a jury. He lied under oath, prepare for a retrial. Any denial of this is admittance that you do not care for a fair trial and are willing to have a corrupt legal system if it means you get the verdicts you want. This whole woke groupthink you are a part of is starting to reach actual witch-hunt status.