Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Phenix Springs]

And yet he still lied in the selection process.

He may or may not have lied. I don't know what he subjectively thought was the truth about the rally he attended.

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

[Gravlen]

He may or may not have lied. I don't know what he subjectively thought was the truth about the rally he attended.

He definitely lied.

No. Nothing definite about it.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

Yet the defence chose not to. As the article I linked to explains, Chauvin's lawyer had peremptory strikes available to use, and didn't. That's on them, and not something you can whine about after the trial is over.

[Ethel mermania]

He definitely lied.

No. Nothing definite about it.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

Yet the defence chose not to. As the article I linked to explains, Chauvin's lawyer had peremptory strikes available to use, and didn't. That's on them, and not something you can whine about after the trial is over.

The juror lied on the questionnaire. If he answered honestly it would be incompetence on the defenses part not to excuse him

[Ifreann]

He may or may not have lied. I don't know what he subjectively thought was the truth about the rally he attended.

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

It would be very strange indeed if the only way a Black person could serve on a jury was if they believed that their life did not matter.

[Dogmeat]

He may or may not have lied. I don't know what he subjectively thought was the truth about the rally he attended.

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

BLM has more than 80% support in the Black community. You may as well just disqualify Black people from serving as jurors.

[Ethel mermania]

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

BLM has more than 80% support in the Black community. You may as well just disqualify Black people from serving as jurors.

Supporting BLM isn't the issue, perjury about attending a rally where the Floyd family spoke is

[Gravlen]

No. Nothing definite about it.


Yet the defence chose not to. As the article I linked to explains, Chauvin's lawyer had peremptory strikes available to use, and didn't. That's on them, and not something you can whine about after the trial is over.

The juror lied on the questionnaire.

That remains to be seen. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what the objective truth was, what matter is his subjective experience.

Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King's famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."

In order to prove that he is lying about this, you have to prove that he did not believe what he's saying in the quote above is true. If he understood the event to not primarily be a protest about police use of force or police brutality, then it's not a lie from his perspective.

If he answered honestly it would be incompetence on the defenses part not to excuse him.

It can't be ruled out.

[Fahran]

I believe that possession of extreme excess wealth while others can't afford to eat or get health care is categorically wrong. I consider expropriation to be both morally acceptable and a valid revolutionary tactic.

And I would consider putting down attempted expropriation and revolution with extreme prejudice both morally acceptable and a valid reaction from communities and governments that do not want to be gaslit into breaking baby's first moral precepts. The fact that we have to teach certain lefties not to take what isn't theirs and not to hit people every couple months like clockwork is ridiculous.

Food shortages are a good deal more complex than restaurants and wine moms throwing stuff out. A lot of the problem has to do with infrastructure and the supply chain in the United States. You don't actually improve the situation much by destroying or blocking up infrastructure. In fact, it can make the problem worse in the short-term. We'd need a stronger state to actually effect the necessary changes here, not a weaker one that's juggling LARPers playing revolutionary with a dozen other issues. But I think you'll find that looting and rioting isn't really about food.

And while such tactics do necessarily cause chaos, it is no one's goal to perpetually loot an eternal capitalist system, the goal is the dissolution of the system.

It is some people's goal. I think you're overestimating how many of these people are dye-in-the-wool socialists who want to create a pipedream society. I think you're also overestimating the ability of a socialist society to not operate as a looters' state in the absence of centralized authority and a powerful economic apparatus.

Furthermore, I do not believe private property can be stolen because I do not believe it was ever owned in the first place. Only personal property can be stolen.

The sole distinction between personal and private property is that private property has been set to the purpose of earning an economic return. It's a distinction primarily of orientation, not of substance or nature.

[Fahran]

It would be very strange indeed if the only way a Black person could serve on a jury was if they believed that their life did not matter.

I think not being an activist in a movement that grew in response to the events that you're expected to arrive at a conclusion about is a reasonable expectation for a court to have of a juror. We wouldn't put a bunch of grumpy ranchers on the jury to try Ammon Bundy for similar but opposite reasons. It precludes a fair trial.

That said, even if it is found that the juror perjured himself, Chauvin will go back for another trial and will be convicted again. He's not going to walk given the testimony that has been provided and the available evidence. It's just an annoying hiccough in the process because some folks don't want to do things the right way.

[Ifreann]

It would be very strange indeed if the only way a Black person could serve on a jury was if they believed that their life did not matter.

I think not being an activist...

Who is talking about being an activist? The post I am responding to talks about simply supporting BLM.

...being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

[Insaanistan]

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

It would be very strange indeed if the only way a Black person could serve on a jury was if they believed that their life did not matter.

So the only viable options are Candace Owens, Clarence Thomas, Kanye West, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tim Scott?

[Fahran]

Who is talking about being an activist? The post I am responding to talks about simply supporting BLM.

I mean, if you're on record as supporting BLM, you've been engaging in social media activism at the very least. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have anyone who vocally supports BLM or Blue Lives Matter sitting on a jury that's supposed to arrive at a verdict in a case that's politically salient to their respective movements. That's next to impossible to actually uphold as a standard though. At this point, it's more "don't be an involved activist."

[Fahran]

So the only viable options are Candace Owens, Clarence Thomas, Kanye West, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tim Scott?

I'm pretty sure Clarence Thomas, Kanye West, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would still find Chauvin guilty. Clarence Thomas's color blind approach to justice has a lot to do with growing up in a time and place where the justice system was openly weaponized against black people. He's a pretty remarkable man by most accounts. Ditto for Ayaan Hirsi Ali (woman) despite her Islamophobia.

That said, if Chauvin's defense actually wanted to win, they'd get Uncle Ruckus. But I think that'd get declared a mistrial immediately when he began talking about revitiligo.

[Ifreann]

Who is talking about being an activist? The post I am responding to talks about simply supporting BLM.

I mean, if you're on record as supporting BLM, you've been engaging in social media activism at the very least. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have anyone who vocally supports BLM or Blue Lives Matter sitting on a jury that's supposed to arrive at a verdict in a case that's politically salient to their respective movements. That's next to impossible to actually uphold as a standard though. At this point, it's more "don't be an involved activist."

You don't need to have done any activism of any kind of be on the record as supporting BLM when potential jurors were asked about whether they support BLM.

And what even is the impartiality of supporting BLM? The belief that police disregard for the lives of Black people is a real and bad thing?

[Fahran]

You don't need to have done any activism of any kind of be on the record as supporting BLM when potential jurors were asked about whether they support BLM.

And you also don't need to support BLM to care about black folks.

And what even is the impartiality of supporting BLM? The belief that police disregard for the lives of Black people is a real and bad thing?

Given the killing of George Floyd has been cited as a grievance by BLM repeatedly since it occurred, there's a bit of prejudice in believing that Derek Chauvin disregarded George Floyd's life because George Floyd was black before you hear the facts of the case presented in the courtroom. You could find folks who don't watch the news or have social media accounts at all, but I don't think that's very tenable. That said, the legal standard on this sort of thing is a little bit higher.

[Seangoli]

He definitely lied.

Even if he didn't, being on record as supporting BLM alone should've been grounds to disqualify him.

BLM has more than 80% support in the Black community. You may as well just disqualify Black people from serving as jurors.

I think it's less his activity at the march itself, and more that he was wearing attire directly referencing to the case at hand, as well as attending an event with the victim's family as speakers that is really, really not good for a juror to claim to be impartial.

Depending on the exact questions asked, and how he responded, could give a good argument for a mistrial in this case. It's less the broad implication of his involvement with the march and more the specific nature of what he was wearing being a direct reference to the case and the fact that the victim's family were speakers that are problematic, as those two issues are directly prejudicial to the specific case at hand. Broad BLM support is likely a flimsy argument, however the specific problems involved do give weight.

[Brickilini]

BLM has more than 80% support in the Black community. You may as well just disqualify Black people from serving as jurors.

I think it's less his activity at the march itself, and more that he was wearing attire directly referencing to the case at hand, as well as attending an event with the victim's family as speakers that is really, really not good for a juror to claim to be impartial.

Depending on the exact questions asked, and how he responded, could give a good argument for a mistrial in this case.

I think the juror's actions and comments following the trial add additional context. He isn't the only juror right to reveal that the verdict might be compromised.

[Seangoli]

You don't need to have done any activism of any kind of be on the record as supporting BLM when potential jurors were asked about whether they support BLM.

And you also don't need to support BLM to care about black folks.

And what even is the impartiality of supporting BLM? The belief that police disregard for the lives of Black people is a real and bad thing?

Given the killing of George Floyd has been cited as a grievance by BLM repeatedly since it occurred, there's a bit of prejudice in believing that Derek Chauvin disregarded George Floyd's life because George Floyd was black before you hear the facts of the case presented in the courtroom. You could find folks who don't watch the news or have social media accounts at all, but I don't think that's very tenable. That said, the legal standard on this sort of thing is a little bit higher.

Likely one of the questions asked involved how knowledgeable about the case the person is, and a defense attorney would likely try to exclude jurors with too much of their own knowledge or have come to preformed conclusions about the trial. Supporting BLM doesn't necessarily preclude you from the jury at all, so long as you are willing to form your decision based on only the evidence presented.

The problem here is that the issue isn't broad BLM support, but rather specific instances and references related to the case at hand that can be argued involved coming to a conclusion prior to the trial. The shirt he was wearing wasn't merely a BLM shirt or MLK shirt, but rather directly and specifically referenced the case at hand in aanner that could easily be interpreted as him having determined his decision prior to the trial itself; further, and just as problematic, is that the event had the family of the victim as speaker, speaking out about the case.

Those two specific instances are actually fairly problematic, as it gives good weight to the argument that he had formulated his decision prior to the trial, or was prejudiced against Chauvin's defense arguments before the trial began.

[Gravlen]

BLM has more than 80% support in the Black community. You may as well just disqualify Black people from serving as jurors.

I think it's less his activity at the march itself, and more that he was wearing attire directly referencing to the case at hand, as well as attending an event with the victim's family as speakers that is really, really not good for a juror to claim to be impartial.

Depending on the exact questions asked, and how he responded, could give a good argument for a mistrial in this case.

Not a mistrial. That ship has sailed a long time ago.

Appeal, or motion for a new trial.

I think the juror's actions and comments following the trial add additional context. He isn't the only juror right to reveal that the verdict might be compromised.

What?

[Ifreann]

You don't need to have done any activism of any kind of be on the record as supporting BLM when potential jurors were asked about whether they support BLM.

And you also don't need to support BLM to care about black folks.

And what even is the impartiality of supporting BLM? The belief that police disregard for the lives of Black people is a real and bad thing?

Given the killing of George Floyd has been cited as a grievance by BLM repeatedly since it occurred, there's a bit of prejudice in believing that Derek Chauvin disregarded George Floyd's life because George Floyd was black before you hear the facts of the case presented in the courtroom. You could find folks who don't watch the news or have social media accounts at all, but I don't think that's very tenable. That said, the legal standard on this sort of thing is a little bit higher.

If the problem is support of BLM, why is the solution to find people who don't watch the news? That seems to me to suggest that the problem is people being familiar with some of the facts of the case.

[Fahran]

I think the juror's actions and comments following the trial add additional context. He isn't the only juror right to reveal that the verdict might be compromised.

Well, we have no idea if the verdict is compromised at the moment - even supposing the allegations that one juror attended a demonstration relating to George Floyd's murder are true.

[Gravlen]

And you also don't need to support BLM to care about black folks.


Given the killing of George Floyd has been cited as a grievance by BLM repeatedly since it occurred, there's a bit of prejudice in believing that Derek Chauvin disregarded George Floyd's life because George Floyd was black before you hear the facts of the case presented in the courtroom. You could find folks who don't watch the news or have social media accounts at all, but I don't think that's very tenable. That said, the legal standard on this sort of thing is a little bit higher.

Likely one of the questions asked involved how knowledgeable about the case the person is, and a defense attorney would likely try to exclude jurors with too much of their own knowledge or have come to preformed conclusions about the trial. Supporting BLM doesn't necessarily preclude you from the jury at all, so long as you are willing to form your decision based on only the evidence presented.

The problem here is that the issue isn't broad BLM support, but rather specific instances and references related to the case at hand that can be argued involved coming to a conclusion prior to the trial. The shirt he was wearing wasn't merely a BLM shirt or MLK shirt, but rather directly and specifically referenced the case at hand in aanner that could easily be interpreted as him having determined his decision prior to the trial itself; further, and just as problematic, is that the event had the family of the victim as speaker, speaking out about the case.

Those two specific instances are actually fairly problematic, as it gives good weight to the argument that he had formulated his decision prior to the trial, or was prejudiced against Chauvin's defense arguments before the trial began.

But what does it matter legally speaking? It seems nobody asked him if he owned such a shirt (which, by the way, was a "'Get Your Knee Off Our Necks' Commitment March shirt), and that nobody asked him if he had been to a rally where Floyd's family had spoken. He was not required to volunteer information beyond what he was asked. Soooo... So what?

On what legal grounds would you base an argument that the trial should be redone based on information which wasn't uncovered during the pretrial process? Why would not the rule set forth in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. apply here, as Postauthoritarian America has pointed out? And can you show that, had this juror not served on the jury or disclosed this information, the verdict would have been different?

[Vassenor]

:D

I think it's less his activity at the march itself, and more that he was wearing attire directly referencing to the case at hand, as well as attending an event with the victim's family as speakers that is really, really not good for a juror to claim to be impartial.

Depending on the exact questions asked, and how he responded, could give a good argument for a mistrial in this case.

I think the juror's actions and comments following the trial add additional context. He isn't the only juror right to reveal that the verdict might be compromised.

So what did the other jurors say?

[Seangoli]

And you also don't need to support BLM to care about black folks.


Given the killing of George Floyd has been cited as a grievance by BLM repeatedly since it occurred, there's a bit of prejudice in believing that Derek Chauvin disregarded George Floyd's life because George Floyd was black before you hear the facts of the case presented in the courtroom. You could find folks who don't watch the news or have social media accounts at all, but I don't think that's very tenable. That said, the legal standard on this sort of thing is a little bit higher.

If the problem is support of BLM, why is the solution to find people who don't watch the news? That seems to me to suggest that the problem is people being familiar with some of the facts of the case.

A misunderstood point about an impartial jury isn't that they need to live under a rock and have no idea about the case at hand, or even have political opinions that could away then in one direction or another. While it is technically ideal to have those sorts of jurors, the courts have long since determined that it is impractical to the point of impossibility. Rather, jurors are instructed and required to formulate their decisions based solely on the evidence presented, and not have determined guilt or innocence prior to the case. Hence the lengthy jury selection process. They often bend one way or the other prior to the trial, but so long as they honestly state they have not preconcluded the verdict, it's not really an issue.

Which, frankly, is where things kind of unravel here. The juror wasn't merely at a march for MLK, a supporter of BLM, or had a particular political bend. In this instance, he was wearing a shirt that directly referenced the case at hand in a manner that could reasonably be viewed as prejudicial prior to the trial and having preconcluded his verdict, as well as attending an event with the victim's nfamily as speakers which provides further issues as it could easily be argued that his decision was further prejudiced for this specific case.

These two *specific* issues are the best arguments for appeal, and not his support for BLM in the broad sense.

[Equalsun Empire]

Question about the poll- have we already established why 200+ NSers outright deny the coroner's report? And why isn't there a "he caused the death, but it was within his capacity as a police officer doing his job" option? I wouldn't agree with such an answer, but I'd at least be able to disagree instead of just wondering why others aren't acknowledging fact.