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

[StormAl]

How many of you would have knelt on Floyd's neck? I would not.

How many of you would have shot the girl with the knife? I would.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

You fucking dummies... she did not tie those concerns to her verdict. In fact, she explicitly said what evidence and testimony convinced her Chauvin was guilty. Desperate racists...

 

[basquebromance]

go on a ride with a cop. they give free rides, so you see what they do all day.

you'll get such respect for them, that every time you see a cop, you'll go out of your way to thank them for their service!

 

[meaner gene]

Cahill told jurors they must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or public opinion influence their decision, and they must not consider any consequences or penalties. He said the verdict must be unanimous and based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as he provides.

So if i tell you not to be scared when i knife wielding maniac is coming after you, you wont be?

Actually the corollary would be if you were in special forces and the drill sergeant told you not to be scared when a knife wielding maniac comes at you. If you can't do what he says, you should resign from either the special forces, or from the jury.

Reasons Jurors Are Disqualified After Trial Starts


At any point after a criminal trial starts, a judge must remove any juror when it becomes clear that the person is disqualified for any of the “for cause” reasons for disqualifying potential jurors before trial, including:

• bias for or against the defendant
• contact with the defendant, or
• refusal or inability to follow the law.

Other times, jurors only realize during the trial or jury deliberations that they have strong feelings or preconceived opinions that make it impossible to be fair, consider the evidence, and apply the law to the facts presented at trial.


Judges may also disqualify jurors for misconduct or other actions that impair their ability to perform their duty. Examples of conduct that could interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial include:

• Disobeying court instructions. Jurors could be removed if they don’t follow important instructions from the judge, such as not using cell phones during trial proceedings, avoiding media coverage of the case, or not bringing outside information into the jury room.

 

[JoeB131]

I expect the State Attorney to offer a plea when the Appeals Court orders a new trial. I don't think they State wants to deal with the expense of a new trial, stress on the family of the victim, or worry of more riots and insurrections by the Dems

.
Do you think there is an appeals judge who wants to be the most hated man in America by giving Chauvin a new trial?

There isn't.

Here's what's going to happen. He's going to get a sentence, and then the prison system will declare him reformed after serving half his term, because prisons don't like guarding ex-cops from the other prisoners.

 

[JoeB131]

For all intents and purposes, Democrat fascists have achieved one-party rule. Their reach now extends down to our judicial system where people follow democrat orders OR ELSE.

I always thought that if fascism were ever to rear its ugly head in this country, it would arrive "wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross". Boy, was I ever wrong! It has arrived with an intense hatred of both.

Um, wow. Hysterics much?

So let's be blunt as to what happened here. A guy was put on trial after he was caught murdering someone on tape from several angles.

His defense basically consisted of

1) The victim was a bad person who was probably going to die anyway.
2) Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Um, yeah, the jury didn't buy it.

 

[JoeB131]

They asked no questions or sought any clarifications from the judge.

....a sure indication that they were too terrified to vote anything but guilty due to democrat fascist intimidation.

Or that they knew a guilty guy when they saw one.

Come on, get the fuck real. He's on tape, for NINE minutes, choking a guy until he stops moving. This wasn't a complicated case.

The prosecution had those tapes and a bunch of horrified witnesses.

The defense had babbling about milligrams in microliters. It was absurd on it's face.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is why it should have been held in a small town somewhere out of the state and far from any city where the lowlifes won't travel to.

This is no different than the Mafia days where jurors were afraid they'd disappear if they voted against an accused mob member.

Except they still convicted those Mafia guys in the cities they were committing their crimes in.

The whole country saw Chauvin murder that man. The idea that you should move it to some small town is just silly.

He committed his crime in Minneapolis, that's where he should be made to answer.

It was just as likely that someone who lost property or was generally inconvenienced by the riots that followed would vote in his favor out of spite...

BUt all the indications are they considered the evidence, which was slam dunk, overwhelming. I mean, seriously, if you catch the entire crime on tape and you STILL can't convict the guy, no one should be in jail.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well, just because you are a gutless coward doesn't mean they were.

 

[struth]

I expect the State Attorney to offer a plea when the Appeals Court orders a new trial. I don't think they State wants to deal with the expense of a new trial, stress on the family of the victim, or worry of more riots and insurrections by the Dems

.
Do you think there is an appeals judge who wants to be the most hated man in America by giving Chauvin a new trial?

There isn't.

Here's what's going to happen. He's going to get a sentence, and then the prison system will declare him reformed after serving half his term, because prisons don't like guarding ex-cops from the other prisoners.

I don't think Judges....well most....simply do whatever the mob wants...and actually does their job of upholding the law.

The fact that you wish and hope that a judge bends to the well of a mob, instead of the law is very telling.

As far as Minn parole system, I can't really speak to that...I don't know much about it. That's also out of the Court's hands

 

[JoeB131]

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.

You guys had no problem with Mob Rule on January 6th

The real problem is that you whine about Mob Rule, but frankly, the system wasn't working before the riots, was it? Expecting the politicians and the courts to hold rogue police officers to account wasn't working? They rarely got charged in even the most egregious cases, and when they did, they got minimal slap on the wrist sentences

The point is, Chauvin committed his crime against the people of Minneapolis. They were the ones who had to deal with the fallout from his crime. They should be the ones to sit in judgement of him.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think Judges....well most....simply do whatever the mob wants...and actually does their job of upholding the law.

The fact that you wish and hope that a judge bends to the well of a mob, instead of the law is very telling.

You know the old joke. WHat do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 90? "Your Honor".

Here's the reality- Judges are politicians, and they aren't going to make a political mistake. Nobody really wants to revisit this issue, and after a certain point, even the FOP is going to not want to throw good money after bad doing an appeal.

 

[JoeB131]

I know how the cop haters feel, but be honest for once. If this lowlife wasn't all doped up and taking care of his serious medical conditions, do you think he's still be alive today with what Chauvin did to him? I do, and that's because I've seen police officers do the same thing to unruly suspects many times.

dude, that's like your porn, watching cops abuse people of color, isn't it?

Gee, he wasn't taking care of his medical issues.... Um, right, did we suddenly become France with universal health care when I wasn't looking?

 

[Care4all]

They asked no questions or sought any clarifications from the judge.

....a sure indication that they were too terrified to vote anything but guilty due to democrat fascist intimidation.

Or that they knew a guilty guy when they saw one.

Come on, get the fuck real. He's on tape, for NINE minutes, choking a guy until he stops moving. This wasn't a complicated case.

The prosecution had those tapes and a bunch of horrified witnesses.

The defense had babbling about milligrams in microliters. It was absurd on it's face.

Correction:

Chauvin choked/kneed Floyd for an additional 3 minutes AFTER Floyd STOPPED BREATHING.

 

[JoeB131]

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. As to why I have this opinion. The BLM and their allies rioters are feral animals who burned police stations and small businesses to the ground based on something 99% of the country agreed was bad policing without any proof that racism was involved. That is what I base my opinion on. The riots lasted all summer long. Free stuff is free stuff.

Oh, I agree, TRUMP RIOTS(TM) were a lot worse than they needed to be because TRUMP PLAGUE(TM) had already put everyone in a much more anxious state and TRUMP RECESSSION(TM) meant there were a lot of people out of jobs at the time.

But here's the other part of the problem.

There was no major reform of police after Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Alton Sterling, Sandra Bland and a whole bunch of names I can't remember right now.

Colin took a knee, and it ruined his career.

People just got tired of asking nicely for justice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I agree, TRUMP RIOTS(TM) were a lot worse than they needed to be because TRUMP PLAGUE(TM) had already put everyone in a much more anxious state and TRUMP RECESSSION(TM) meant there were a lot of people out of jobs at the time.

And they still are anxious during the Biden plague which is why the Biden riots. There are still fewer jobs, and if the commies dramatically increase taxes on our job creators, there will be many less.

There was no major reform of police after Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Alton Sterling, Sandra Bland and a whole bunch of names I can't remember right now.

Which all took place in commie cities. So what's stopping them from reform, the same thing that stopped them from reform the last ten years?

Colin took a knee, and it ruined his career.

He took a knee and is a multi-millionaire because of it. Had he not taken a knee there is no way he'd be worth a tenth of what he's worth today playing football. From what I read, he was less than an average quarterback.

People just got tired of asking nicely for justice.

You get justice by electing the people of your choice to make laws. You don't get justice by burning, looting and assaulting people. That only happens in an uncivilized society...........oh....wait!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

dude, that's like your porn, watching cops abuse people of color, isn't it?

Gee, he wasn't taking care of his medical issues.... Um, right, did we suddenly become France with universal health care when I wasn't looking?

He was probably on Medicaid. That's besides the fact we have great healthcare in this country. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital. And look at the $2,500 a year families are saving on healthcare every year for the last eight years!!!!

God you people are such suckers. Why don't you listen to us when we warn you about people like the Kenyan Klown?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except they still convicted those Mafia guys in the cities they were committing their crimes in.

The whole country saw Chauvin murder that man. The idea that you should move it to some small town is just silly.

He committed his crime in Minneapolis, that's where he should be made to answer.

It was just as likely that someone who lost property or was generally inconvenienced by the riots that followed would vote in his favor out of spite...

BUt all the indications are they considered the evidence, which was slam dunk, overwhelming. I mean, seriously, if you catch the entire crime on tape and you STILL can't convict the guy, no one should be in jail.

They moved the Rodney King case out of his area. They moved the OJ case from where the crime was committed. Why? Because they felt they wouldn't be given a fair trial.

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: One set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[struth]

I don't think Judges....well most....simply do whatever the mob wants...and actually does their job of upholding the law.

The fact that you wish and hope that a judge bends to the well of a mob, instead of the law is very telling.

You know the old joke. WHat do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 90? "Your Honor".

Here's the reality- Judges are politicians, and they aren't going to make a political mistake. Nobody really wants to revisit this issue, and after a certain point, even the FOP is going to not want to throw good money after bad doing an appeal.

They should lose their seats if they don't follow the law. Lucky though, if he loses at the MN Court of Appeals, and State Supreme he can take it to Federal Court, and those Judges aren't elected....

I do agree once it's overturned the DA will likely offer a plea and not have a re-trial.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Well, just because you are a gutless coward doesn't mean they were.

Say it to my face, princess. LOL

It’s actually brave when you’re protecting your family.