Chauvin juror: I didn't want to go thru the rioting

[OldLady]

I would say that all 12 of them may have come to second degree manslaughter out of fear or intimidation. But finding Chauvin guilty of third degree murder and especially of second degree murder was because they truly believed beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty.

You don't know what they believed.

Neither do you.

 

[Lesh]

She very clearly said the evidence showed that Chauvin was guilty

sure, but we know that her views on the evidence has been tainted

She very clearly said the evidence showed that Chauvin was guilty

Sure, but we now know her view on the evidence and what she heard was tainted by her fear of more violence by the left if she didn't see it their way.

Bullshit

 

[OldLady]

ZERO.

Stop making excuses for this guy. He is guilty as sin. It doesn't matter that Floyd was a crook or a drug addict. It doesn't matter that there were riots last summer over it, or what Maxine Waters said. This is more crap just like the election fraud conspiracy theories. WHAT IFs DO NOT WORK IN COURT.

Yes, thanks for telling everyone what a closed mind you have.

Totally closed to these excuses and what if's. I don't know what you call a mind so prone to believing bullshit, but that would be you.

 

[meaner gene]

They were satisfied, and no riots broke out. So why would the Chauvin case be any different.

They were satisfied barely due to the Max sentence. If it was anything less they would have likely rioted. You cannot prove me wrong as it is my opinion. You're free to have your own.

They could have given the cop 99 years, but the jury gave her 10 years. And as is often repeated here, the crowd was "barely satisfied" but still satisfied, and no riots broke out.

History serves as future expectations.

 

[meaner gene]

Also, keep in mind, this alternate juror never went into deliberation so her mind was made up. The whole thing smacks of jury intimidation.

Jury intimidation could account for them going for the minimum they could find Chauvin guilty of. They went well beyond that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They were satisfied, and no riots broke out. So why would the Chauvin case be any different.

They were satisfied barely due to the Max sentence. If it was anything less they would have likely rioted. You cannot prove me wrong as it is my opinion. You're free to have your own.

They could have given the cop 99 years, but the jury gave her 10 years. And as is often repeated here, the crowd was "barely satisfied" but still satisfied, and no riots broke out.

History serves as future expectations.

Nope. Not always. Sentencing has yet to be determined. You’re arguing just to argue. Point is how the crowd felt should not have mattered at all.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

One juror: "I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

Appeal on the way.

'I Didn't Want to Go Through the Rioting': Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over 'Guilty' Verdict - Becker News

On Tuesday, a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in a case that had sparked nationwide riots: The death of George Floyd. During the course of the trial, Judge Peter Cahill mentioned that the court case was getting...

beckernews.com

If this is a just World...which it isn't.......then the appeals court would dismiss all 3 verdicts......and free this guy ....

Sorry this isn't 1921.

 

[Meathead]

Also, keep in mind, this alternate juror never went into deliberation so her mind was made up. The whole thing smacks of jury intimidation.

Jury intimidation could account for them going for the minimum they could find Chauvin guilty of. They went well beyond that.

Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Idiot!

 

[meaner gene]

History serves as future expectations.

Nope. Not always. Sentencing has yet to be determined. You’re arguing just to argue. Point is how the crowd felt should not have mattered at all.

And i've shown it did not influence the jury to go past finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter.
As I asked in the case of a robber asking you for your wallet, you would have handed over your wallet, without volunteering anything else. Having your wallet, the crook would be "barely satisfied".

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Idiot!

Are you sure you don't want to correct that? Try it again before I answer the question.

 

[airplanemechanic]

One juror: "I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

Appeal on the way.

'I Didn't Want to Go Through the Rioting': Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over 'Guilty' Verdict - Becker News

On Tuesday, a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in a case that had sparked nationwide riots: The death of George Floyd. During the course of the trial, Judge Peter Cahill mentioned that the court case was getting...

beckernews.com

Do you think we are that dumb.

Kyle is a writer and producer for Fox News' #1 cable primetime show Hannity. He is a veteran of award-winning digital news startup Independent Journal Review. He was one of the initial hires as a freelance Content Creator and quickly became Senior Managing Editor and then Director of Viral Media.
Kyle Becker’s Biography | Muck Rack

Do we think you are dumb?

View attachment 483010

Yes.

Next question.

Really, all that is needed here is blabbering Maxine Waters threatening the world along with her side kicks Biden and Obama for an appeal.

The judge also chose not to sequester the jury, so they saw all of it.

You must think we , the democrats, are stupid.

You want me to repeat myself?

Do you really think that will help you understand any better?

Here, let me sooth your angst with a Joe Biden moment that probably made you vote for him

" ... I got hairy legs that turn, that, that, that turn blonde in the sun. And the kids used to come up and reach into the pool and pull and rub my leg down so it was straight, and watch the hair come back up again ... So I learned about roaches. I learned about kids jumping up my lap. And I love kids jumping up my lap."

I voted for Joe Biden, take that you lover of tramp cult.

Which Joe Biden did you vote for?

The Joe Biden against packing the court?
or the Joe Biden in favor of it?

The Joe Biden who voted for the gulf war?
or the one who later came out against it?

The Joe Biden who sniffs little girls?
or the Joe Biden who sniffs women?

The Joe Biden who is a gaffe prone idiot?
or the Joe Biden who can barely read off a teleprompter?

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Idiot!

Are you sure you don't want to correct that? Try it again before I answer the question.

OK: Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Moron!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

History serves as future expectations.

Nope. Not always. Sentencing has yet to be determined. You’re arguing just to argue. Point is how the crowd felt should not have mattered at all.

And i've shown it did not influence the jury to go past finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter.
As I asked in the case of a robber asking you for your wallet, you would have handed over your wallet, without volunteering anything else. Having your wallet, the crook would be "barely satisfied".

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

And I answered you that your example is stupid as the robber already knows what other monies I have. The feral mob knew what all the charges were. Hell a juror admitted that they were influenced. You’re arguing just to argue.

 

[WEATHER53]

History serves as future expectations.

Nope. Not always. Sentencing has yet to be determined. You’re arguing just to argue. Point is how the crowd felt should not have mattered at all.

And i've shown it did not influence the jury to go past finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter.
As I asked in the case of a robber asking you for your wallet, you would have handed over your wallet, without volunteering anything else. Having your wallet, the crook would be "barely satisfied".

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

And I answered you that your example is stupid as the robber already knows what other monies I have. The feral mob knew what all the charges were. Hell a juror admitted that they were influenced. You’re arguing just to argue.

The juror is not authorized to state why and what he/she decided when it conflicts with the mobs feelings.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

History serves as future expectations.

Nope. Not always. Sentencing has yet to be determined. You’re arguing just to argue. Point is how the crowd felt should not have mattered at all.

And i've shown it did not influence the jury to go past finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter.
As I asked in the case of a robber asking you for your wallet, you would have handed over your wallet, without volunteering anything else. Having your wallet, the crook would be "barely satisfied".

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

And I answered you that your example is stupid as the robber already knows what other monies I have. The feral mob knew what all the charges were. Hell a juror admitted that they were influenced. You’re arguing just to argue.

The juror is not authorized to state why and what he/she decided when it conflicts with the mobs feelings.

No kidding. LOL

 

[struth]

She very clearly said the evidence showed that Chauvin was guilty

sure, but we know that her views on the evidence has been tainted

She very clearly said the evidence showed that Chauvin was guilty

Sure, but we now know her view on the evidence and what she heard was tainted by her fear of more violence by the left if she didn't see it their way.

Bullshit

Did you not read the OP and what the juror said? She was clearly worried about more riots....I don't know how much clearer she can be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The juror is not authorized to state why and what he/she decided when it conflicts with the mobs feelings.

No law stopping her.

 

[Rocko]

The sad thing about this trial was that it proved that intimidation works IF you let it. IMHO, the judge's decisions to hold this trial in Minneapolis and deny sequestration allowed the intimidation of witnesses and jurors to occur without impediment. The point isn't whether Chauvin wouldn't have been convicted of all 3 charges if the trial had been moved to Duluth and the jury sequestrated, maybe the outcome would been the same. BUT - the notion that Chauvin got the fairest and most impartial trial he could have is wrong - he didn't. In our justice system, the ends do not justify the means.

And this trial sends an awful message to those who desire mob rule: all we have to do is raise hell and threaten to do more if we don't get our way, not just in a courtroom but in politics and just about everywhere else. Are we a nation of laws or not? And I lay the blame for allowing the intimidation to continue unabated squarely on the democrats for not maintaining law and order in their cities; we are moving in the direction of totalitarianism, a step at a time. And we are moving fast too.

There were times last summer when I felt the same. You can look at it that way, or that a great many people were demanding justice in a very obvious case from a system that had failed to give them justice many times before. Same scenario, different perspective.

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Idiot!

Are you sure you don't want to correct that? Try it again before I answer the question.

OK: Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Moron!

Based on your post being sarcastic, I have to point out historically that hasn't happened.

 

[WEATHER53]

The juror is not authorized to state why and what he/she decided when it conflicts with the mobs feelings.

No law stopping her.

The Law of Mob Rule which is what was the governor of this trial