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

Unfortunately the jury sent a completely different message. If they were afraid of backlash, and didn't think Chauvin guilty, they would have convicted him of 2nd degree manslaughter, and not guilty of the murder charges.
No. If you’re scared you convict on the maximum and hope it’s enough.
If they convicted because of "public pressure" they would have convicted on the lowest change only. They sent a message that it wasn't public pressure, because they found him guilty of all charges.
Wrong. Convict on the maximum and hope to God you're not doxed and your family is not attacked. If I were in their shoes, that would be my thinking. Can't yell at me, I convicted the man on the maximum sentence I could. Black Lives Matter. Please don't hurt my family. That was their mindset. Stop being a dink.
 
Obviously you don't know it can kill you.
So can alcohol - Your point?
Fentanyl and alcohol have similar symptoms of overdose.

Critical Signs and Symptoms of an Alcohol Overdose · Mental confusion, stupor · Difficulty remaining conscious, or inability to wake up

A little alcohol may make someone rowdy from depressing inhibitions. But a lot (overdose) turns the person into a zombie.
 
If they convicted because of "public pressure" they would have convicted on the lowest change only. They sent a message that it wasn't public pressure, because they found him guilty of all charges.
Wrong. Convict on the maximum and hope to God you're not doxed and your family is not attacked. If I were in their shoes, that would be my thinking. Can't yell at me, I convicted the man on the maximum sentence I could.
Actually they would say, Can't yell at me, I convicted the man.

You just have to throw raw meat at the crowd to distract them long enough to get away. You don't need to set up a three course dinner.
 
This is a mistrial, and now Chauvin can appeal the decision and get the trial declared a mistrial, and it's a slam dunk.

-------------

‘I Didn’t Want to Go Through the Rioting’: Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over ‘Guilty’ Verdict

'I Didn't Want to Go Through the Rioting': Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over 'Guilty' Verdict - Becker News
Did any of them hear Mad Maxie Pads statements before verdict. That is a defiite mistrial.lolol

Thanks for such good and joyous news on this blessed day.
Just sentence him to time served.
Fine. If the judge delays sentencing until 2061
The judge is already aware of jury intimidation. He was one step away from declaring a mistrial himself.

He also made it very clear that on an appeal, a mistrial could very easily be declared.

Now it's a slam dunk.
These libturds are so damned dumb it is absolutely incredible.
Ironic post is Ironic. :heehee:
Did you believe the Russia Hoax for 5 yrs???

The Insurrection Hoax??

I bet you believed he wanted 2 scoops of ice cream and everyone else have only 1.
 
If they convicted because of "public pressure" they would have convicted on the lowest change only. They sent a message that it wasn't public pressure, because they found him guilty of all charges.
Wrong. Convict on the maximum and hope to God you're not doxed and your family is not attacked. If I were in their shoes, that would be my thinking. Can't yell at me, I convicted the man on the maximum sentence I could.
Actually they would say, Can't yell at me, I convicted the man.

You just have to throw raw meat at the crowd to distract them long enough to get away. You don't need to set up a three course dinner.
Wrong again. Even now many said "This is not enough but a good first step". I have a family and don't want feral animal leftists attacking them and smearing pig blood on my door like they did to one witness' house. The police are powerless against rabid leftists like you because the media protects them. Meanwhile those who donate to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund are doxed and fired from their jobs.

Wake up. Leftists are running this country with their traditional and social media accomplices. FB and Twitter are leftist echo chambers.
 
Wrong. Convict on the maximum and hope to God you're not doxed and your family is not attacked. If I were in their shoes, that would be my thinking. Can't yell at me, I convicted the man on the maximum sentence I could.

Minnesota law allows for multiple convictions, including lesser included charges. They could have convicted of the maximum charge if they wanted to. But they didn't stop there. They convicted on the middle and lower charge in addition.

That's more of a statement of his guilt, than of their fear.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Convict on the maximum and hope to God you're not doxed and your family is not attacked. If I were in their shoes, that would be my thinking. Can't yell at me, I convicted the man on the maximum sentence I could.

Minnesota law allows for multiple convictions, including lesser included charges. They could have convicted of the maximum charge if they wanted to. But they didn't stop there. They convicted on the middle and lower charge in addition.

That's more of a statement of his guilt, than of their fear.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, you are not listening. They were scared. They didn't want any backlash. They did the max and crossed their fingers. I would have done the same thing. If I didn't have kids to protect then no but kids come first. Kids weaken you.

You're arguing just to argue.
 
Wrong again. Even now many said "This is not enough but a good first step". I have a family and don't want feral animal leftists attacking them and smearing pig blood on my door like they did to one witness' house. The police are powerless against rabid leftists like you because the media protects them. Meanwhile those who donate to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund are doxed and fired from their jobs.

Again, you seem immune to reality. If they were ruled by fear, they would do the minimum, not the maximum.

Tell me, if you were being robbed, and the crook demanded your wallet. Would you also tell him about your moneyclip where you keep most of your cash. Plus the pad with your bank PIN numbers. And the keys and remote to your car.
 
The judge is already aware of jury intimidation. He was one step away from declaring a mistrial himself.

He also made it very clear that on an appeal, a mistrial could very easily be declared.

Now it's a slam dunk.
Unfortunately the jury sent a completely different message. If they were afraid of backlash, and didn't think Chauvin guilty, they would have convicted him of 2nd degree manslaughter, and not guilty of the murder charges.

Instead they found him guilty of all counts ,and did so by unanimous verdict in record time. It may seem strange to you, but the jury paid attention to the evidence presented, and it wasn't even close. They asked no questions or sought any clarifications from the judge.
What????. If you're ready to shit your pants you ask no questions and get out in record time.
 
What????. If you're ready to shit your pants you ask no questions and get out in record time.
That means everybody on the jury was of like mind.

You think that means they were all afraid, I think that means they were all in agreement to Chauvins guilt.

I think it unlikely that instead of twelve angry men, there were twelve fraidy cats.
 
duh.

. . . I haven't been following this trial AT ALL.

I just didn't care.

I only found out yesterday that the Jury wasn't sequestered. I mean, really? They had their phones and access to all that media that entire time?

wtf?

Did the Times publisher their photos, phone numbers, kids schools and addresses?
 
Wrong again. Even now many said "This is not enough but a good first step". I have a family and don't want feral animal leftists attacking them and smearing pig blood on my door like they did to one witness' house. The police are powerless against rabid leftists like you because the media protects them. Meanwhile those who donate to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund are doxed and fired from their jobs.

Again, you seem immune to reality. If they were ruled by fear, they would do the minimum, not the maximum.

Tell me, if you were being robbed, and the crook demanded your wallet. Would you also tell him about your moneyclip where you keep most of your cash. Plus the pad with your bank PIN numbers. And the keys and remote to your car.
Moron. If the robber knew that I had a safe and other shit I would give it all and not fight him to protect my family. The feral animals knew what the maximum conviction could have been as the news media reported that constantly. The jurors themselves are saying it. Anything less than 100% conviction on ALL charges would have led to riots. You’re either trolling or a moron.
 
Wake up & smell the coffee.

No court would dare overturn the three guilty sentences.

The resultant insurrection among certain folks would plunge this nation into the worst crisis since the South declared independence.

Justice is blind, except when she isn't. This time she isn't. She knows that certain folks have the nation over the barrel.

Seeing the nation in flames would embarrass the nation before the world, and the (Biden)-Harris administration would be stained.

Therefore, not to worry, everything will go according to script: the ex-cop will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Then the activists will start looking for their next martyr.
 
Justice served. The article was about an alternate juror who didn’t get a standing and said the cop was guilty. Separately the article throws in an anonymous “quote” from “one juror” that has no context and has a broken link for citation. BULLSHIT.
Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.
Why don't you believe in Due Process?
WTF?
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?
It's garbage that her consideration about that BEFORE the trial somehow means it influenced her final decision, or that it means ALL the actual jurors felt that way. Of course, anyone would think of that when they were called up. But at least this particular woman was relieved to find she didn't have to worry about it because he was clearly guilty.


I have an ex friend that was found guilty in federal court and sentenced to 5 years in prison. When he was in prison he found out that one of the jurors in his case looked at his LinkedIn profile before his case. His attorney filed an appeal and won it. Now there’s going to be another trial.

A juror aware of the possible implications of violence his decision could lead to gives a reasonable enough theory that outside influences might have played a roll in his decision. Jurors are not supposed to know anything regarding the case of what is outside the courtroom.

The video evidence does speak for itself, but due process is important no matter how heinous the crime.
But it wasn't a juror.
so you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a juror
 
Justice served. The article was about an alternate juror who didn’t get a standing and said the cop was guilty. Separately the article throws in an anonymous “quote” from “one juror” that has no context and has a broken link for citation. BULLSHIT.
Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.
Why don't you believe in Due Process?
WTF?
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?
It's garbage that her consideration about that BEFORE the trial somehow means it influenced her final decision, or that it means ALL the actual jurors felt that way. Of course, anyone would think of that when they were called up. But at least this particular woman was relieved to find she didn't have to worry about it because he was clearly guilty.


I have an ex friend that was found guilty in federal court and sentenced to 5 years in prison. When he was in prison he found out that one of the jurors in his case looked at his LinkedIn profile before his case. His attorney filed an appeal and won it. Now there’s going to be another trial.

A juror aware of the possible implications of violence his decision could lead to gives a reasonable enough theory that outside influences might have played a roll in his decision. Jurors are not supposed to know anything regarding the case of what is outside the courtroom.

The video evidence does speak for itself, but due process is important no matter how heinous the crime.
But it wasn't a juror.
so you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a juror
What I meant by that was that this woman was not among the 12 who decided Chauvin's guilt. I really think you should limit this to the people who made the decision, since it is your argument the decision was tainted.
 
He needs to spend life in prison.
Floyd? He's dead. Move on.
WOW. Do you say that of every murder victim? That there's no need to punish the person who killed them?
He wasn't murdered. He O.D. on fentanyl. He had three times the amount of an overdose in his system. Had he not been a junkie hopped up on a deadly dose of fentanyl, he'd be alive today. He killed himself.
st floyd.jpg
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Taz
Justice served. The article was about an alternate juror who didn’t get a standing and said the cop was guilty. Separately the article throws in an anonymous “quote” from “one juror” that has no context and has a broken link for citation. BULLSHIT.
Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.
Why don't you believe in Due Process?
WTF?
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?
It's garbage that her consideration about that BEFORE the trial somehow means it influenced her final decision, or that it means ALL the actual jurors felt that way. Of course, anyone would think of that when they were called up. But at least this particular woman was relieved to find she didn't have to worry about it because he was clearly guilty.


I have an ex friend that was found guilty in federal court and sentenced to 5 years in prison. When he was in prison he found out that one of the jurors in his case looked at his LinkedIn profile before his case. His attorney filed an appeal and won it. Now there’s going to be another trial.

A juror aware of the possible implications of violence his decision could lead to gives a reasonable enough theory that outside influences might have played a roll in his decision. Jurors are not supposed to know anything regarding the case of what is outside the courtroom.

The video evidence does speak for itself, but due process is important no matter how heinous the crime.
But it wasn't a juror.
so you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a juror
What I meant by that was that this woman was not among the 12 who decided Chauvin's guilt. I really think you should limit this to the people who made the decision, since it is your argument the decision was tainted.
So? She was still in the room with them throughout the entire trial. I don't think you can at all...and thankfully the Courts don't....since they were where together throughout the process.
 

Forum List

Back
Top