Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A juror is not expected to respond to the "intent" of a question. Only the facts
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.Another Trump Humper who is in denial.
No a Trump humper that has comprehension abilities. The question was not which rally they went to, the question was formed to find out if the juror is a Floyd humper and had a bias from the get go. That's the information that was concerning for the courts.
That's your opinion and you know what those are like.You can use any excuse you want, those jurors weren't in fear of their lives. That bullshit is just a cop.out.
Those jurors were not scared because they already had their minds made up on how they were going to vote before the case even started. That's the problem here. No impartial juror would agree to be part of that jury if there was a chance they might find the officer not guilty, or guilty of manslaughter where he might only get a year or two in jail.
Again, jurors are expected to respond to the actual question. It's up to the lawyers to frame those questionsA juror is not expected to respond to the "intent" of a question. Only the facts
Yes, and the fact was the question was written so the court could find if anybody had their minds made up from the beginning. If you attend a Floyd rally, obviously your mind was already made up.
How do you know his answer?So you know that the claim that the juror lied is bogus.
Thank you.
Now go away
Yes, he did lie. He attended a Floyd rally. That's what the question asked.
You can use any excuse you want, those jurors weren't in fear of their lives. That bullshit is just a cop.out.
Those jurors were not scared because they already had their minds made up on how they were going to vote before the case even started. That's the problem here. No impartial juror would agree to be part of that jury if there was a chance they might find the officer not guilty, or guilty of manslaughter where he might only get a year or two in jail.
That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
If chauvin is guilty of something I just dont care anymore
Black race hustlers and guilt-ridden white marxists have overplayed their hand and now every traffic stop of a black person is a test of the cops patience as black people cry racism
Its bullshit
If there are a few bad cops there are even more bad black people committing crimes that someone has to deal with
How do you know his answer?
Again, jurors are expected to respond to the actual question. It's up to the lawyers to frame those questions
I disagree that it is "common sense", juries convict mafia members, drug lords, and gang members all rge time and those are groups known for intimidation, violence and retribution.That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
It's less opinion than it is common sense. Every juror knew that their safety and life could be in danger by a not-guilty verdict. Therefore the only jurors that would participate are those who were not going to vote for a not guilty verdict.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
No, it only says one thing:
Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches (against police brutality that took place in Minnesota) after George Floyd's death?
Against police brutality that took place in Minnesota. Not at a protest in Minnesota. WTF would the court care what rally they went to? They only care that they did indeed participate in gatherings supporting George Floyd.
[/QUOTE]That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
It's less opinion than it is common sense. Every juror knew that their safety and life could be in danger by a not-guilty verdict. Therefore the only jurors that would participate are those who were not going to vote for a not guilty verdict.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
No, it only says one thing:
Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches (against police brutality that took place in Minnesota) after George Floyd's death?
Against police brutality that took place in Minnesota. Not at a protest in Minnesota. WTF would the court care what rally they went to? They only care that they did indeed participate in gatherings supporting George Floyd.
We will see if a Good Ole Boy lawyer can pull this off.An affirmative action rookie lawyer could win this appeal. It's a slam duck.Get a new excuse, he got a fair trial and is headed straight to the big house.No it is not the same thing. Any neighborhood in the area could have been torched by thugs. Duluth, for example, would be much safer and likely has fewer thugs/BLM members to impanel of the jury.Same thing Shithead. Predominately white city or county as I said.It's not a neighborhood idiot, it's another county/city far away, like Duluth.Fair trial? Really? You wanted it moved to a lily white neighborhood where he would be guaranteed to walk.To get a fair jury, obviously. You no, one that doesn't have BLM members or have to worry about their neighborhood being burned down by a bunch of thugs, in this case.So why would you want the trial moved from where the crime actually took place?I disagree...it appears we are seeing more and more dems return to their mob rule mentalityYea, yea, yea. The days of Roy Bryant and JW Milam are coming to an end.Just cuz no one had ever heard of you or your thuggery when you were called to court, that doesn't make the standard.What a load of bullshit.
You lot are gunning for the policeman who shot Ashli Babbit.
And why not? When a white police officer shoots an unarmed black, it's protest and riot time. When a black police officer shoots and kills an unarmed white veteran woman, we are not even privileged to know his name yet alone an investigation or charges.
LOL. like that's going to make any difference on the appeal. Between this, your hideous Auntie and the judges failure to provide an alternet venue outside the shithole of New Mogadishu, MN, the appeal be lost.He attended an event in DC to honor MLK.
Yes he did. An MLK event titled get your knee off of my neck. Gee, I don't recall MLK ever having a situation with somebody's knee on his neck.Look at the question again that your comrade provided: Did you participate in ANY protest or march. In case you're a little slow tonight, any also includes DC.
Are you really that slow.
Page 4 question 7. Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches against police brutality that took place in Minnesota after George Floyd's death?
The question doesn't say anywhere in the country, it specifically states the state of MINNESOTA.
Alternate venue my ass, you wanted the trial moved to a right wing, racist county which would have got him off. Sorry not going to happen, he was judged where he committed the crime.
He wins on appeal easily and goes to retrial. Simple
How many had Senators and Congressmen from the PArty in power screaming for riots and violence outside the courtrooms, and a MAyor and Governor openly aligned with the vermin, along with hoodlums stalking the local police officers and threatening their families? All financed by the Party in power, and an AG who looks the other way on the organized crime in his own Party? It would be like living in one your Islamo-Nazi shitholes with no bribe money.I disagree that it is "common sense", juries convict mafia members, drug lords, and gang members all rge time and those are groups known for intimidation, violence and retribution.That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
It's less opinion than it is common sense. Every juror knew that their safety and life could be in danger by a not-guilty verdict. Therefore the only jurors that would participate are those who were not going to vote for a not guilty verdict.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
No, it only says one thing:
Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches (against police brutality that took place in Minnesota) after George Floyd's death?
Against police brutality that took place in Minnesota. Not at a protest in Minnesota. WTF would the court care what rally they went to? They only care that they did indeed participate in gatherings supporting George Floyd.
That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
It's less opinion than it is common sense. Every juror knew that their safety and life could be in danger by a not-guilty verdict. Therefore the only jurors that would participate are those who were not going to vote for a not guilty verdict.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
No, it only says one thing:
Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches (against police brutality that took place in Minnesota) after George Floyd's death?
Against police brutality that took place in Minnesota. Not at a protest in Minnesota. WTF would the court care what rally they went to? They only care that they did indeed participate in gatherings supporting George Floyd.
That's your opinion and you know what those are like.
It's less opinion than it is common sense. Every juror knew that their safety and life could be in danger by a not-guilty verdict. Therefore the only jurors that would participate are those who were not going to vote for a not guilty verdict.
That's all it is, how many jury members were threatened? That is just your opinion because you want to see Chauvin walk.
So it's like the Bible it says one thing, but you translate it to mean something else.
No, it only says one thing:
Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches (against police brutality that took place in Minnesota) after George Floyd's death?
Against police brutality that took place in Minnesota. Not at a protest in Minnesota. WTF would the court care what rally they went to? They only care that they did indeed participate in gatherings supporting George Floyd.
The lawyer should have asked better questions or more specific questions, if you think your hero is going to walk on that the it truly says all it needs to about the US Justice System.
It was a slam dunk before they found a thug on the jury. As I said, even an affirmative action lawyer could win this.We will see if a Good Ole Boy lawyer can pull this off.An affirmative action rookie lawyer could win this appeal. It's a slam duck.Get a new excuse, he got a fair trial and is headed straight to the big house.No it is not the same thing. Any neighborhood in the area could have been torched by thugs. Duluth, for example, would be much safer and likely has fewer thugs/BLM members to impanel of the jury.Same thing Shithead. Predominately white city or county as I said.It's not a neighborhood idiot, it's another county/city far away, like Duluth.Fair trial? Really? You wanted it moved to a lily white neighborhood where he would be guaranteed to walk.To get a fair jury, obviously. You no, one that doesn't have BLM members or have to worry about their neighborhood being burned down by a bunch of thugs, in this case.So why would you want the trial moved from where the crime actually took place?I disagree...it appears we are seeing more and more dems return to their mob rule mentalityYea, yea, yea. The days of Roy Bryant and JW Milam are coming to an end.Just cuz no one had ever heard of you or your thuggery when you were called to court, that doesn't make the standard.What a load of bullshit.
You lot are gunning for the policeman who shot Ashli Babbit.
And why not? When a white police officer shoots an unarmed black, it's protest and riot time. When a black police officer shoots and kills an unarmed white veteran woman, we are not even privileged to know his name yet alone an investigation or charges.
LOL. like that's going to make any difference on the appeal. Between this, your hideous Auntie and the judges failure to provide an alternet venue outside the shithole of New Mogadishu, MN, the appeal be lost.He attended an event in DC to honor MLK.
Yes he did. An MLK event titled get your knee off of my neck. Gee, I don't recall MLK ever having a situation with somebody's knee on his neck.
Are you really that slow.
Page 4 question 7. Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches against police brutality that took place in Minnesota after George Floyd's death?
The question doesn't say anywhere in the country, it specifically states the state of MINNESOTA.
Alternate venue my ass, you wanted the trial moved to a right wing, racist county which would have got him off. Sorry not going to happen, he was judged where he committed the crime.
He wins on appeal easily and goes to retrial. Simple
We'll see how that works out for you Shithead.It was a slam dunk before they found a thug on the jury. As I said, even an affirmative action lawyer could win this.We will see if a Good Ole Boy lawyer can pull this off.An affirmative action rookie lawyer could win this appeal. It's a slam duck.Get a new excuse, he got a fair trial and is headed straight to the big house.No it is not the same thing. Any neighborhood in the area could have been torched by thugs. Duluth, for example, would be much safer and likely has fewer thugs/BLM members to impanel of the jury.Same thing Shithead. Predominately white city or county as I said.It's not a neighborhood idiot, it's another county/city far away, like Duluth.Fair trial? Really? You wanted it moved to a lily white neighborhood where he would be guaranteed to walk.To get a fair jury, obviously. You no, one that doesn't have BLM members or have to worry about their neighborhood being burned down by a bunch of thugs, in this case.So why would you want the trial moved from where the crime actually took place?I disagree...it appears we are seeing more and more dems return to their mob rule mentalityYea, yea, yea. The days of Roy Bryant and JW Milam are coming to an end.Just cuz no one had ever heard of you or your thuggery when you were called to court, that doesn't make the standard.What a load of bullshit.
You lot are gunning for the policeman who shot Ashli Babbit.
And why not? When a white police officer shoots an unarmed black, it's protest and riot time. When a black police officer shoots and kills an unarmed white veteran woman, we are not even privileged to know his name yet alone an investigation or charges.
LOL. like that's going to make any difference on the appeal. Between this, your hideous Auntie and the judges failure to provide an alternet venue outside the shithole of New Mogadishu, MN, the appeal be lost.He attended an event in DC to honor MLK.
Yes he did. An MLK event titled get your knee off of my neck. Gee, I don't recall MLK ever having a situation with somebody's knee on his neck.
Are you really that slow.
Page 4 question 7. Did you or anybody you know participate IN ANY of the demonstration or marches against police brutality that took place in Minnesota after George Floyd's death?
The question doesn't say anywhere in the country, it specifically states the state of MINNESOTA.
Alternate venue my ass, you wanted the trial moved to a right wing, racist county which would have got him off. Sorry not going to happen, he was judged where he committed the crime.
He wins on appeal easily and goes to retrial. Simple
That's all it is, how many jury members were threatened? That is just your opinion because you want to see Chauvin walk.
Big Al simply picked that date because it's when MLK gave his speech. But it had nothing to do with King.
The juror's continued dishonesty is alarming really...I mean if he simply came clean, and said yes I went to a protest...it might be less of an issue It certainly is putting up a red flag...in addition to the fact this is the juror that decided to come forward and go on Good Morning America (I believe, could have been the Today Show) after the other juror's interview came public when she mentioned how the riots and threat of more weighted on her mind.
He actually perjured himself because you fill out that questionnaire under oath. Then he tried to play it off saying that yes, he was there, but he wasn't wearing those clothes. What? We have a picture of you wearing those clothes dummy.
The lawyer should have asked better questions or more specific questions, if you think your hero is going to walk on that the it truly says all it needs to about the US Justice System.
