Derek Chauvin Trial Brings Twisted Truth and Great Harm

So a jury of cop-haters all thought that Chauvin was guilty.

Well, duh.

A child could see what happened to Chauvin.

The evidence was dancing in the street and throwing bricks and fire bombs at police.........with lots of injuries to police.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
So a jury of cop-haters all thought that Chauvin was guilty.

Well, duh.

A child could see what happened to Chauvin.

The evidence was dancing in the street and throwing bricks and fire bombs at police.........with lots of injuries to police.

Non sequitur. Cop haters convicted him or that they were threatened by civil unrest. Which is it?

You are just throwing everything, hoping something sticks.
 
Really? In court? I guess we will see.

The standard BLM stupidity comes back to haunt them.

Brandon Mitchell, known as Juror #52, told Minneapolis news outlets Monday that he attended the Aug. 28 march in Washington, D.C., featuring speeches by George Floyd’s siblings, while a photo circulating online shows him with two cousins wearing the T-shirt as well as a “Black Lives Matter” hat.


What may come back to haunt the prosecution is that Mr. Mitchell, 31, answered “no” when asked during jury selection if he had attended any protests for George Floyd.


 

roscoe

Well-known member
The standard BLM stupidity comes back to haunt them.





Right - so there may be grounds for appeal based on juror bias, although courts have interpreted that narrowly. The defense lawyers may try to use this as grounds for appeal, but we will shortly see if it means anything. The trial judge may have the jury re-deliberate with an alternate juror, but I would be pretty surprised if it causes the whole trial to be overturned. Although it is possible.

But that is certainly not related to intimidation, which was the point.
 
Right - so there may be grounds for appeal based on juror bias, although courts have interpreted that narrowly. The defense lawyers may try to use this as grounds for appeal, but we will shortly see if it means anything. The trial judge may have the jury re-deliberate with an alternate juror, but I would be pretty surprised if it causes the whole trial to be overturned. Although it is possible.

But that is certainly not related to intimidation, which was the point.
Depends on who ends up making the final decision.

If it's people who are not intimidated by BLM........anything could happen.

Local officials are obviously terrified........and for good reason.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Depends on who ends up making the final decision.

If it's people who are not intimidated by BLM........anything could happen.

Local officials are obviously terrified........and for good reason.

You keep saying people are scared. You got evidence?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You keep saying that people weren't scared. You got evidence?

You made the assertion. I am questioning it. So, please, demonstrate that your assertion is correct.

BTW - you do know that it is not logically possible to prove a negative, I hope (google 'burden of proof'). Which is why your assertion needs to be demonstrated.

Otherwise your post is logically and rhetorically empty.
 
You made the assertion. I am questioning it. So, please, demonstrate that your assertion is correct.

BTW - you do know that it is not logically possible to prove a negative, I hope (google 'burden of proof'). Which is why your assertion needs to be demonstrated.

Otherwise your post is logically and rhetorically empty.

Wrong.

Your post is logically and rhetorically WRONG.

The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

 

Selena

Active member
Non sequitur. Cop haters convicted him or that they were threatened by civil unrest. Which is it?

You are just throwing everything, hoping something sticks.
That would be a contradiction not a non sequitur. However your statement would be a non sequitur as your response doesn't reflect the poster's argument but a comparison to another poster that you have not established a connection between the two.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
That would be a contradiction not a non sequitur. However your statement would be a non sequitur as your response doesn't reflect the poster's argument but a comparison to another poster that you have not established a connection between the two.

Sigh. No. The non-sequitur was looters -> prejudiced jury. It just wasn't phrased in that sequence in his argument.

My second point was that the argument was made with two contradictory statements.

It was a mess all around.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Wrong, Roscoe.

You don't get to assign the burden of proof if you have refused to provide proof.

I have already provided evidence - two juror's statements that they made the decision on the merits of the case. You have provided none. To support your argument, you must provide some that jurors and the judge were intimidated. As I indicated above, it would be impossible to prove what was NOT in the jurors mind, but simple to show that fear was. One simple statement by one of them would be enough.

Plainly - you asserted jurors and the judge were intimidated. Where is the evidence?
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
-And at least one member of the jury had evidently lied about his previous activities and was photographed at a BLM protest, wearing an anti-Chauvin shirt.
That may make things a bit more spicy... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
-And at least one member of the jury had evidently lied about his previous activities and was photographed at a BLM protest, wearing an anti-Chauvin shirt.
That may make things a bit more spicy... .

True, possible juror bias. But, again, this is not evidence of intimidation. The judge is known to be conservative (and is a former prosecutor), so if there were intimidation somewhere in the chain, he is in a natural position to articulate that.
 
I have already provided evidence - two juror's statements that they made the decision on the merits of the case. You have provided none. To support your argument, you must provide some that jurors and the judge were intimidated. As I indicated above, it would be impossible to prove what was NOT in the jurors mind, but simple to show that fear was. One simple statement by one of them would be enough.

Plainly - you asserted jurors and the judge were intimidated. Where is the evidence?

LOL!

Juror's statements?

Two?

Are you saying that biased and intimidated jurors would admit it?

Please try for some credible evidence.
 
Top