What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
9,154
Reaction score
4,820
Points
930
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.
People are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. Hell , there was a guy whose lawyer kept falling asleep during his murder trial, and the USSC said that qualified as a fair trial. Anything that would have made the Chauvin trial closer to perfect, still would not have made it unfair without them.

And fair is as far as is required. And that's what he got.
 

QuickHitCurepon

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
21,858
Reaction score
17,502
Points
2,445
Location
Earth
If the verdict were overturned, how would a 2nd, 3rd or 4th trial be any different than the 1st?
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
42,526
Reaction score
16,116
Points
2,320
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
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.


Do you think we are that dumb.





In your case absolutely.

lol.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
9,154
Reaction score
4,820
Points
930
He still might have been "guilty", but the court case didn't prove it. They certainly didn't prove any motive here.

I notice two threads have been merged. Before the merger I pointed out that juror intimidation would have stopped at second degree manslaughter. Second and third degree murder was a statement by the jury that they thought Chauvin was truly guilty.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
42
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
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 do not know if I like the thought but... there is something to be said about the concept of sacrificing one person for the betterment of others. The person sacrificed is of course Derek Chauvin.
 

task0778

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
5,070
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
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.

So, do we abandon the principles that our judicial system is based on, namely that every person is entitled to a fair and impartial trial that is free from intimidation? So, people are saying I woulda voted him guilty anyway, right? Oh yeah? Is the intimidation gone now? Is any juror now going to say I thought he wasn't guilty of 2nd degree murder? Got kids or grandkids? Got a job? Got a home somewhere?

What are you saying? The system failed so many times before, so let's burn this guy cuz he's obviously guilty to even the score a little? Screw it, why have the damn trial in the 1st place then, if you're not going to make sure the accused gets a trial that is as fair and impartial as we can make it. We are not supposed to change the rules just because we think the guy is obviously guilty. We are supposed to try to give even the obviously guilty people the fairest and most impartial trial we can, and in this case that did not happen. And past injustices should have absolutely nothing to do with it. If it does, then we're not talking about justice, we're talking about revenge and retaliation.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
9,154
Reaction score
4,820
Points
930
And since you have a different opinion, let's turn to the historical record.


Under Texas law, the 12-member jury that convicted Guyger was tasked with determining her punishment.
... they chose a punishment on the lower end of the five to 99 years allowed for murder.


And what happened when the lower punishment, instead of the maximum was reached by the jury?

Late Wednesday, roughly 200 demonstrators gathered on the courthouse steps and denounced Guyger’s 10-year sentence.

Notice there were no riots in the streets over the sentence.
You're going to have to do better than sourcing fake news to back your argument.
You can find any article you want on the case, but what happened, as in the jury rendering a verdict at the lowest end of guilt, and the crowd being satisfied with it, is the historical record.
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,841
Reaction score
6,523
Points
350
She thought he was guilty and would have voted that way, but she was an alternate and did not participate in the decision. The actual jurors' names have not been released.

Before the trial, she was asked if she wanted to be a juror, and said her feelings were mixed....but after she had sat through the trial she would have voted guilty anyway. So why a retrial?
She was scared of the democrat mob. Do you think no one else on the actual jury also felt that way? Your political party is ruining our legal system. I know you dont give a fuck about that, but i figured i should at least point it out.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
9,154
Reaction score
4,820
Points
930
If the verdict were overturned, how would a 2nd, 3rd or 4th trial be any different than the 1st?
They would have to find people in Alaska without the internet or cable TV to serve as jurors. As they would be the only one's in America who didn't see the trial.
 

QuickHitCurepon

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
21,858
Reaction score
17,502
Points
2,445
Location
Earth
For starters, they could move it out of a shithole where jurors are intimidated by thugs like Maxine.

Then there would very likely be a lot more rioting, and that would make chances for a fair trial much LESS. It would be an act of futility to say the least.
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
3,743
Reaction score
4,308
Points
1,918
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.

Damn, you're going to trigger some dumbasses with that post.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
40,586
Reaction score
14,339
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
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.
And they would have been happy with ANY conviction.

And since you have a different opinion, let's turn to the historical record.


The white former police officer who shot and killed her unarmed black neighbor in his own apartment was sentenced Wednesday to 10 years in prison

Amber Guyger, 31, could have faced up to 99 years in the 2018 slaying of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old St. Lucia native, church singer and accountant whose death drew protesters to Dallas streets.

Under Texas law, the 12-member jury that convicted Guyger was tasked with determining her punishment.
... they chose a punishment on the lower end of the five to 99 years allowed for murder.


And what happened when the lower punishment, instead of the maximum was reached by the jury?

Late Wednesday, roughly 200 demonstrators gathered on the courthouse steps and denounced Guyger’s 10-year sentence.

“We need to continue to seek reform of the police department,” he said to shouts and applause. “We are not broken. We are not deterred.”


Notice there were no riots in the streets over the sentence.
Youre not making any sense. The crowd was barely satisfied with this verdict and formed an autonomous zone in Minny. You’re just trolling.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,649
Reaction score
18,780
Points
2,220
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.

So, do we abandon the principles that our judicial system is based on, namely that every person is entitled to a fair and impartial trial that is free from intimidation? So, people are saying I woulda voted him guilty anyway, right? Oh yeah? Is the intimidation gone now? Is any juror now going to say I thought he wasn't guilty of 2nd degree murder? Got kids or grandkids? Got a job? Got a home somewhere?

What are you saying? The system failed so many times before, so let's burn this guy cuz he's obviously guilty to even the score a little? Screw it, why have the damn trial in the 1st place then, if you're not going to make sure the accused gets a trial that is as fair and impartial as we can make it. We are not supposed to change the rules just because we think the guy is obviously guilty. We are supposed to try to give even the obviously guilty people the fairest and most impartial trial we can, and in this case that did not happen. And past injustices should have absolutely nothing to do with it. If it does, then we're not talking about justice, we're talking about revenge and retaliation.
Wow. You've really dug in on this one. I'll leave it there.
 

ClaireH

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
817
Reaction score
759
Points
898
Location
Midwest US
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.


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.
So it was the hair leg speech that did it for you?

Do you like kids rubbing your legs and sitting on your lap and do you call black children "roaches"?

Just curious.
The most shocking thing from that video was when Biden referred to the black kids as roaches. Surely a Freudian slip based upon a warped mental connection Joe had made previously.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
9,154
Reaction score
4,820
Points
930
So, do we abandon the principles that our judicial system is based on, namely that every person is entitled to a fair and impartial trial that is free from intimidation? So, people are saying I woulda voted him guilty anyway, right? Oh yeah? Is the intimidation gone now?
Intimidation would have stopped at finding Chauvin guilty of "something"

The jury were convinced of his guilt because they found Chauvin guilty of "everything".
 

QuickHitCurepon

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
21,858
Reaction score
17,502
Points
2,445
Location
Earth
Actual jurors who are not afraid to render a fact based verdict.

That could never be determined. No one would admit to that.

And even if they didn't unintentionally lie and say they are not afraid, fear is a difficult thing to control.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top