Eat shit
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Take your head out of your pelosiEat shit
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.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.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.No. If you’re scared you convict on the maximum and hope it’s enough.
Fentanyl and alcohol have similar symptoms of overdose.So can alcohol - Your point?Obviously you don't know it can kill you.
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.
Actually they would say, Can't yell at me, I convicted the man.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.
Did you believe the Russia Hoax for 5 yrs???Ironic post is Ironic.These libturds are so damned dumb it is absolutely incredible.Did any of them hear Mad Maxie Pads statements before verdict. That is a defiite mistrial.lololThis 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
Thanks for such good and joyous news on this blessed day.The judge is already aware of jury intimidation. He was one step away from declaring a mistrial himself.Fine. If the judge delays sentencing until 2061Just sentence him to time served.
He also made it very clear that on an appeal, a mistrial could very easily be declared.
Now it's a slam dunk.
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.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.Actually they would say, Can't yell at me, I convicted the man.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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
What????. If you're ready to shit your pants you ask no questions and get out in record time.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.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.
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.
That means everybody on the jury was of like mind.What????. If you're ready to shit your pants you ask no questions and get out in record time.
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?
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.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.
so you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a jurorBut it wasn't a juror.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.So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?WTF?Why don't you believe in Due Process?Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.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.
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
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.
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 you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a jurorBut it wasn't a juror.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.So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?WTF?Why don't you believe in Due Process?Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.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.
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
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.
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.WOW. Do you say that of every murder victim? That there's no need to punish the person who killed them?Floyd? He's dead. Move on.He needs to spend life in prison.
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.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 you didn't read the OP? It certainly was a jurorBut it wasn't a juror.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.So why do you think it's garage that a juror was concerned about riots in response to her verdict?WTF?Why don't you believe in Due Process?Bald garbage piece. Sounds like Breitbart.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.
I do believe in sound reporting though. And clear thinking.
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.