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

Blanco. wrote:

JURY OF YOUR PEERS.

There is no way he got a fair trial. Half of the jury was Black. These days, if you are White, your jury needs to be too - and for obvious reasons. Should the definition of "peer" entail skin color? Typically, no. But these aren't typical times, and despite what he appeared to have done, there was no justice in his trial. It was a lynch mob. Guilty of multiple counts of murder? Pick one and find him guilty. When you start finding people guilty of multiple counts of the same charge, it makes it obvious you were out for blood. Obviously the jury pool was tainted, as we have now seen; Time for a retrial. Wouldn't beak my heart to see the conviction tossed out on appeal. Do it the right way, or don't do it at all.

So a bunch of white cops would be the appropriate jury. Should they have the same first name also? Maybe he should provide his own jurors since he best knows who is his peer.

Amazing amount of constitutional scholars in this thread!

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.

They did put him in the car. He asked to get out and lay down because he was on drugs and likely having a heart attack. It's this much later and you never watched the video of what actually happened? Are you some kind of idiot?

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

oh good wrote:

I was worried that white cop was not going to get away with murdering a black man. There is still hope.

It not is murder if he was does department policy.

so....now the fascist aren't even shy about using the Nazi's defense?

Bartholomew you certainly seem really concerned about black people...an obsession almost.

....wondering if you ever have time to run at all?

I just want to respond and tell you I agreed with your point on Reagan, Biden, Trump, and Obama from a previous thread. It has been deleted though so I must say it here.

Let it Rupp wrote:

BigYawn wrote:

It’s easy to accuse others of racism when the only thing whiter then New Zealand’s human population are its sheep.

Refresh my memory but I believe New Zealand was home to a large gun massacre a few years ago carried out against a minority group. Get your own house in order over there

For sure Armstrong's hatred of the US is an example of Freudian projection of the racism of his own country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_discrimination_in_New_Zealand

Apparently it's so bad they have a whole Wikipedia page for it.

Coming from "the land of the free" that made my day.

Chauvin is a folk hero to the white supremacist American right. And there are quite a few of you.

BigYawn wrote:

Muldoon wrote:

S/he spends their life on here calling people Klan members and exaggerating race issues in the US, as a means of deflecting from the awful, essentially apartheid state New Zealand, that they live in. What would compel a person to hang around a message board, pretending to be a lawyer, and calling everyone in a country they've never even been to a racist, when their own lousy, completely irrelevant country is a racist's paradise? It's a weird sociopathy and obsession/compulsion.

It’s easy to accuse others of racism when the only thing whiter then New Zealand’s human population are its sheep.

Refresh my memory but I believe New Zealand was home to a large gun massacre a few years ago carried out against a minority group. Get your own house in order over there

The attack came from an extreme right white fanatic (who was also incidentally not a New Zealander) against Muslims. He would have been right at home here.

Muldoon wrote:

BigYawn wrote:

It’s easy to accuse others of racism when the only thing whiter then New Zealand’s human population are its sheep.

Refresh my memory but I believe New Zealand was home to a large gun massacre a few years ago carried out against a minority group. Get your own house in order over there

New Zealand, it turns out, is full of racist freaks. They way they still oppress the indigenous people is appalling. I think they keep it a secret by being so irrelevant in world matters.

Whereas, as we see, American racism is not a secret. It's what you're best known for. You even have your own conventions for it - like here.

Armstrong once posted on this forum that he is a black man from the US....

He thinks he'll have more credibility if he pretends to be white but it'd pretty obvious that he's a black American, he spouts the standard BS we hear from many AA's.

runnerboy70 wrote:

Armstrong once posted on this forum that he is a black man from the US....

He thinks he'll have more credibility if he pretends to be white but it'd pretty obvious that he's a black American, he spouts the standard BS we hear from many AA's.

LOL! S/he's a Dolezalerist? I guess I'm not that surprised given his/her obsessions and repetitiveness. Still funny, though!

You need to be banned until you learn that you don't need to quote the entire chain of responses every single time. They are all on the board already.

Does anyone want to bet on the results of this/any appeals?

I don't care much for the nonstop blathering from you morons - let's put our money where our mouths are.

runnerboy70 wrote:

Armstrong once posted on this forum that he is a black man from the US....

He thinks he'll have more credibility if he pretends to be white but it'd pretty obvious that he's a black American, he spouts the standard BS we hear from many AA's.

oh look it's the little certified racist chiming in....so glad you could make it!

...and YOU once posted that people who kneeled for the anthem served to be called N*****s

so surprising that someone like you that advocated calling protestors N*****s thinks the the G. Floyd killing was justified. ....nevah could guessed!

I'm sure race has nothing to do with it either. nope.

none at all.

In almost all of these controversial cases, if you say they are simple and the person in the spotlight is obviously guilty or not guilty, YOU are part of the problem with why America is so divided today. Like most things controversial, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

This case is no different

Jimmy21 wrote:

In almost all of these controversial cases, if you say they are simple and the person in the spotlight is obviously guilty or not guilty, YOU are part of the problem with why America is so divided today. Like most things controversial, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

This case is no different

In this case justice system, a jury of his peers, found him guilty. Doesn't seem that controversial to me.

2600 bro wrote:

Jimmy21 wrote:

In almost all of these controversial cases, if you say they are simple and the person in the spotlight is obviously guilty or not guilty, YOU are part of the problem with why America is so divided today. Like most things controversial, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

This case is no different

In this case justice system, a jury of his peers, found him guilty. Doesn't seem that controversial to me.

In this case, the justice system....

2600 bro wrote:

Jimmy21 wrote:

In almost all of these controversial cases, if you say they are simple and the person in the spotlight is obviously guilty or not guilty, YOU are part of the problem with why America is so divided today. Like most things controversial, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

This case is no different

In this case justice system, a jury of his peers, found him guilty. Doesn't seem that controversial to me.

remember...you are likely responding to a guy who still thinks there was proof of large wide scale election fraud even after they lost 60 out of 61 court cases.

When this situation happened a year I ago I thought it was clearcut murder. The video was obviously terrible. But as more information came out there was reason to question that. From the information I saw at the trial I think a manslaughter conviction could be justified but I don't see any way a murder conviction is possible under the reasonable doubt standard.

I think there is little doubt that Chauvin did not get a fair trial and even someone like deserves one rather than a trial by mob. It was very clear that once the Jury decided in 10 hrs with no questions going back to the court that there was no studying of the evidence. They were never going to let him off no matter what the evidence showed. This juror may have been an activist, I'm sure others were intimidated to convict because they knew there would rioting and they could be targeted if Chauvin was not convicted on all accounts. Chauvin deserves a new trial in a fair setting. If he's convicted again fine, but the message needs to go out that the outside influence that happened, in this case, is not acceptable and in America ever deserves a fair trial as guaranteed by the constitution. If there was not already ample justification for appeal there definately is now.

Another very common and plausible explanation for your observation is that the evidence was clear and conviction was the obvious choice. How do you differentiate my hypothesis from yours?