Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Phenix Springs]

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

>concerned about source

>still uses ”media bias fact check”

[Vassenor]

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

>concerned about source

>still uses ”media bias fact check”

Is there a point you are trying to make here or are you just mouthing off because we won't take your drive-by link as the absolute gospel truth?

[San Lumen]

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

>concerned about source

>still uses ”media bias fact check”

What do you have against them?

[Phenix Springs]

>concerned about source

>still uses ”media bias fact check”

What do you have against them?

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

[San Lumen]

What do you have against them?

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

Seriously? Facts aren’t partisan. I don’t get your point here. Daily Mail is a trash source.

[Phenix Springs]

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

Seriously? Facts aren’t partisan. I don’t get your point here. Daily Mail is a trash source.

So you don’t think that the mails article has any truth to it?

It even included some nice pictures of the guy.

[Vassenor]

Seriously? Facts aren’t partisan. I don’t get your point here. Daily Mail is a trash source.

So you don’t think that the mails article has any truth to it?

It even included some nice pictures of the guy.

And what is the Mail's source?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

[Ethel mermania]

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

[Vassenor]

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Because people are desperate to prove the jury was biased and thus their decision that it is illegal for police officers to kill people is wrong.

[San Lumen]

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

How?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

This, that's very good news for Chauvin and co. BLM is inherently a political social movement, hiding that information is a huge boost in favor of a mistrial.

[Vassenor]

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Because people are desperate to prove the jury was biased and thus their decision that it is illegal for police officers to kill people is wrong.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

QED.

[Andsed]

Because people are desperate to prove the jury was biased and thus their decision that it is illegal for police officers to kill people is wrong.

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

QED.

No Ethel does have a point here. If this is true, then sadly it is decent grounds for a mistrial.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

This, that's very good news for Chauvin and co. BLM is inherently a political social movement, hiding that information is a huge boost in favor of a mistrial.

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

[Picairn]

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

ABC News and the Washington Post reported this as well.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cha ... t-77472635

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ial-juror/

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

Citation needed. From what I have seen they cite their sources well.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Chauvin would have an excuse to claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated, though according to the article that claim will require a higher standard of evidence than a photo.

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

You should read the articles before jumping to conclusions.

[San Lumen]

This, that's very good news for Chauvin and co. BLM is inherently a political social movement, hiding that information is a huge boost in favor of a mistrial.

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

Many people will be. Why would you say this to the media?

[Washington Resistance Army]

This, that's very good news for Chauvin and co. BLM is inherently a political social movement, hiding that information is a huge boost in favor of a mistrial.

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

The biggest part imo isn't that the juror was at a BLM rally but that they lied about it and responded no to the question about demonstrations or protests. If he had been open about it then it wouldn't matter but a good lawyer can use that "no" response to spin all sorts of things.

[Ethel mermania]

This, that's very good news for Chauvin and co. BLM is inherently a political social movement, hiding that information is a huge boost in favor of a mistrial.

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

A couple things

A mistrial doesn't mean Chauvin goes free. He would still be subject to the same bail conditions and would be retried. The state isn't going to drop this.

2nd. The source has to be true.


I do think if it is true the state should go after that juror for perjury and that juror should serve time. If the story is true

[Ethel mermania]

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

The biggest part imo isn't that the juror was at a BLM rally but that they lied about it and responded no the question about demonstrations or protests. If he had been open about it then it wouldn't matter but a good lawyer can use that "no" response to spin all sorts of things.

The juror would have been excused, which if the story is true, should have happened.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Im gonna be very pissed if this one person's bullshit ends up leading to Chauvin somehow going free. Like you just had to tell the truth stupid.

A couple things

A mistrial doesn't mean Chauvin goes free. He would still be subject to the same bail conditions and would be retried. The state isn't going to drop this.

2nd. The source has to be true.


I do think if it is true the state should go after that juror for perjury and that juror should serve time. If the story is true

Yeah perjury was on my mind too, absolutley bizarre that this all happened.

[Phenix Springs]

If this doesn’t prove that the jury was biased, I don’t know what will.

BLM have protested and rioted in situations where the officers were absolutely correct, so going to one of their events is a huge issue to not disclose.

[Vassenor]

If this doesn’t prove that the jury was biased, I don’t know what will.

BLM have protested and rioted in situations where the officers were absolutely correct, so going to one of their events is a huge issue to not disclose.

And which situations would those be?

[Ethel mermania]

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

ABC News and the Washington Post reported this as well.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cha ... t-77472635

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ial-juror/

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

Citation needed. From what I have seen they cite their sources well.

Even if it is true, why would it matter?

Chauvin would have an excuse to claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated, though according to the article that claim will require a higher standard of evidence than a photo.

Means he wasn't impartial. Absolutely grounds for mistrial

You should read the articles before jumping to conclusions.

"According to the Star Tribune, Mitchell said he responded “no” to a question asking if he, or anyone close to him, had ever participated in protests over police use of force or police brutality."

According to the rest of the article the juror claimed it wasn't for floyd


So now i dont believe Chauvin got a fair trial. I dont think the result would change, but he should get a retrial. And that juror needs to be prosecuted

[Shofercia]

Don't forget about the potential Maxine Waters Appeal...

There is a almost zero chance it’s overturned on appeal.

I recall the Judge saying something rather different, would you like me to re-quote that yet again?

Don't forget about the potential Maxine Waters Appeal...

And what is the evidence that her words influenced the jury, beyond you desperately wanting it to be true?

> desperately
> actual quote has the word "potential" in it

Would you like me to look up the word "potential" Vass? I just re-quoted the Judge, but apparently re-quoting the Judge is a sign of desperation.

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

>Daily Mail

Juror attends BLM rally and lies about it during selection process.

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

Why not just try a simple Google Check?

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-jur ... 600053102/

The picture shows Mitchell, 31, standing next to two cousins in Washington, D.C. He is wearing a Black T-shirt with a picture of King surrounded by the words, "GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS" and "BLM" (Black Lives Matter). Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.

Mitchell said the social media post was made by his uncle, who is the father of one of the cousins pictured. However, he said, he has no recollection of wearing or owning the shirt.

I wonder, if someone on the Jury had a t-shirt saying "all petty thieves deserved to die", served on the Jury, and Derek Chauvin was found innocent, what would Vass and Lumen be saying about that t-shirt and his statement that he had no recollection of it? Would they instantly try to desperately deflect by questioning the source, even though numerous other sources reported it? Somehow I happen to doubt that.

Fact checkers are as biased as most media sources these days.

Seriously? Facts aren’t partisan. I don’t get your point here. Daily Mail is a trash source.

And yet you're deflecting from basic facts by questioning the source, when there are numerous other sources backing it up.

So you don’t think that the mails article has any truth to it?

It even included some nice pictures of the guy.

And what is the Mail's source?

The actual t-shirt that one of the Jurors wore saying "BLM"...

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... perts-say/
https://news.yahoo.com/photo-chauvin-ju ... 29120.html

Actual photo: