Derek Chauvin Trial Brings Twisted Truth and Great Harm

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
No, the burden of proof was supposed to be on the prosecution.

The message to the jurors was, in effect, "We will find out who you are, where you live, where your children go to school, where you work. If you disappoint us then we will destroy you and everything that you love."

The alternate jurors are already backing this up.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
The alternate jurors are already backing this up.

Got a link, because this one says the exact opposite:

 

roscoe

Well-known member
No, the burden of proof was supposed to be on the prosecution.

The message to the jurors was, in effect, "We will find out who you are, where you live, where your children go to school, where you work. If you disappoint us then we will destroy you and everything that you love."

The alternate jurors are already backing this up.
And this juror:

 

roscoe

Well-known member
What would YOU say if the wrong answer would at least get you a pig's head on your porch... .

I would make sure my 9mm was handy, but otherwise, i would do my duty as an American juror. Which appears to be what they did.

Anyway, your assertion about the jurors appears to be untrue. They thought he was guilty, and so decided. It was not a close decision.
 
The judge refused to move the trial out of the urban area so instead of a jury of his peers he got a jury of cop-haters.

Yes, Chauvin screwed up........meaning he misjudged Floyd's condition by a few minutes.

It's likely that Floyd would have died from his overdose anyway, but Chauvin was careless and so could be judged as negligent.

A sorry mess all the way around.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
-And what does that prove?
Any competent lawyer would argue that the jury was already intimidated before they entered the Jury Room,
I'm afraid that the Chauvin trial is far from over.
 
Well, since it was an urban jury of cop-haters........the verdict was guilty from the start.

They were EAGER to do what their friends in the lynch mob wanted.

The intimidation started much earlier.........intimidation of the judge......who was afraid to move the trial to a new jurisdiction because the BLM lynch mob would have showed up at his house.

That's why we had a jury of cop-haters in the first place.

A sorry mess. Our legal system is now controlled by mob rule.
 

str8_forward

Active member
Well, since it was an urban jury of cop-haters........the verdict was guilty from the start.
They were EAGER to do what their friends in the lynch mob wanted.
The intimidation started much earlier.........intimidation of the judge......who was afraid to move the trial to a new jurisdiction because the BLM lynch mob would have showed up at his house.
That's why we had a jury of cop-haters in the first place.
A sorry mess. Our legal system is now controlled by mob rule.
You re 100% correct
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, since it was an urban jury of cop-haters........the verdict was guilty from the start.

They were EAGER to do what their friends in the lynch mob wanted.

Well, that is the point of a trial by jury - it is composed of the populace. Sorry if they didn't do what you wanted, but that is the way representative governments and judicial systems work.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
-And what does that prove?
Any competent lawyer would argue that the jury was already intimidated before they entered the Jury Room,
I'm afraid that the Chauvin trial is far from over.

Argue, yes. Prove - that is another thing altogether. But just so you understand how the American legal system works, if Chauvin wins an appeal, all that means is another trial, which the prosecutor will almost certainly pursue.
 
Well, that is the point of a trial by jury - it is composed of the populace. Sorry if they didn't do what you wanted, but that is the way representative governments and judicial systems work.

This was no fair trial.

Instead of a jury of his peers, Chauvin was tried by a jury of cop haters who had their minds made up before the trial.

The reason, as I said, was that the judge was afraid that if he moved the trial out of the urban area he would have had the BlackLivesMatter lynch mob in front of his house.

Our legal system is now controlled by lynch mobs, at least in the urban areas.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
This was no fair trial.

Instead of a jury of his peers, Chauvin was tried by a jury of cop haters who had their minds made up before the trial.

The reason, as I said, was that the judge was afraid that if he moved the trial out of the urban area he would have had the BlackLivesMatter lynch mob in front of his house.

Our legal system is now controlled by lynch mobs, at least in the urban areas.

Look - if you commit a crime in a jurisdiction, you get tried in that jurisdiction. It was up to the prosecutor to prove that they couldn't be fair. If you understand how a criminal trial works, you should know that the prosecutor and defense attorney get to strike people off the jury if they suspect bias. This was a mixed and carefully chosen jury who ALL agreed on conviction (in criminal trials the jury has to be unanimous).

In any criminal trial, you can get an unfriendly jury, and that is how it works. If you think Chauvin's attorney was no good, well, ask the 2.3 million incarcerated in the US system how good their attorneys were.

This was a very public and open trial, so there will be ample chance for his appellate attorneys to argue bias. We will see.

Also, you comment about the US legal system shows a very poor knowledge of American legal history. Bias has always played a role, evidenced by the fact that for more than 100 years, blacks were not permitted on juries south of the Mason-Dixon. THOSE were lynch mobs.
 
Look - if you commit a crime in a jurisdiction, you get tried in that jurisdiction. It was up to the prosecutor to prove that they couldn't be fair. If you understand how a criminal trial works, you should know that the prosecutor and defense attorney get to strike people off the jury if they suspect bias. This was a mixed and carefully chosen jury who ALL agreed on conviction (in criminal trials the jury has to be unanimous).

In any criminal trial, you can get an unfriendly jury, and that is how it works. If you think Chauvin's attorney was no good, well, ask the 2.3 million incarcerated in the US system how good their attorneys were.

This was a very public and open trial, so there will be ample chance for his appellate attorneys to argue bias. We will see.

Also, you comment about the US legal system shows a very poor knowledge of American legal history. Bias has always played a role, evidenced by the fact that for more than 100 years, blacks were not permitted on juries south of the Mason-Dixon. THOSE were lynch mobs.

And if a jurisdiction is biased, the judge will move the trial.

Since the judge was afraid to do that..........the jury was tainted.

While the lawyers CAN strike jurors.........they have little recourse when the entire jury pool is biased.

It was not a fair trial.

It was trial by lynch mob.
 

Skidmarx

New member
here we go again: " it's not enough, where is my free obozo car, house and a few million dollar on my account for the hardship my forefathers had to endure:


Horse crap. You never grew up on a small farm in Ohio in the 50's. I grant you, some of the black slaves had it pretty tough. On the other hand, growing up on 80 acres the oldest of 11 kids on a farm that a German immigrant grandfather who went broke in the depression and had to start over was no piece of cake either. We didn't work, we didn't eat...some days we worked and the eating still wasn't very good. BUT...we grew up in a two parent house where we knew who our parents were and what they expected of us....Know what I learned? It's not hard to succeed, you just have to work harder. That don't play too well with today's entitlement mentality though. Just my $.02
 

roscoe

Well-known member
And if a jurisdiction is biased, the judge will move the trial.

Since the judge was afraid to do that..........the jury was tainted.

While the lawyers CAN strike jurors.........they have little recourse when the entire jury pool is biased.

It was not a fair trial.

It was trial by lynch mob.

This is all simply assertion on your part, with out any corroborating evidence.

Interviews with the jurors indicate they all though Chauvin was guilty, and none mention intimidation. The judge is a conservative, appointed by a Republican governor, and has access to personal protection form court officers.

Sorry, it was a pretty standard trial, albeit one with a lot of media attention. The trial was televised - and nothing in the actual trial record indicates there was any evidence of intimidation of jurors nor the judge. There is just a lot of hand-waving about it from the likes of Tucker Carlson. But he is pretty tough to take seriously.
 
Top