Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Ethel mermania]

You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani

I do want to point out that Chauvin is still going to be spending years in jail, no matter the outcome. The question right now if whether or not it'll be years or decades.

If there is a mistrial why would he go to jail for years?

If its manslaughter v murder on the retrial

[Atheris]

You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani

I do want to point out that Chauvin is still going to be spending years in jail, no matter the outcome. The question right now if whether or not it'll be years or decades.

If there is a mistrial why would he go to jail for years?

Because it's not about his conviction. His conviction is being upheld; the charges aren't.

[Neutraligon]

Predictable. Pretty sure the motion is going to fail.

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

Considering that info just came out, this filing might have been in the works for a bit and they need some time to get the new filing out.

[Postauthoritarian America]

How? Chauvin shouldn’t get a new trial were he could possibly get acquitted. I see no evidence of how this juror tainted the verdict.

You don't need to see that. All Chauvin's attorney has to prove is that the single juror went to a rally wearing a BLM t-shirt, and that BLM is heavily anti-cop, in order to show heavy bias on said juror's part, and there's the photo of him actually doing that:

A new trial is a waste of time and money and what’s to say the new jury wouldn’t acquit after a mistrial.

What evidence is there he was heavily biased?

See above. Also, everyone's owed a fair trial, even if they're as guilty as sin, or as guilty as Chauvin, irrespective of whether it's a waste of money or not. The government wastes plenty of money, rather heroically, on things like an upgrade of public transportation in San Francisco as workers are fleeing the city, and I'd be happy to discuss how to save money with you in another thread.

Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."

[Immortan Khan]

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

[Galloism]

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.

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

[The Black Forrest]

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room looking for escape points like before?

[Postauthoritarian America]

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

Tell it to the judge.

[The Reformed American Republic]

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

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Technicality that can throw out conviction.

[Immortan Khan]

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room look for escape points like before?

Yes.

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

Tell it to the judge.

I'm not his lawyer.

[Galloism]

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Technicality that can throw out conviction.

Possibly, but I hope not. I don't really want to go through all this again.

[Ethel mermania]

Technicality that can throw out conviction.

Possibly, but I hope not. I don't really want to go through all this again.

The problem is then its not a fair trial. If Chauvin were eligible for the death penalty, I would be happy to give it to him. But without a retrial justice is not being served and in fact is being sacraficed for expediency

[Shofercia]

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

Stating a fact in context is now character assassination according to Vass.

If business aristocrats can get away with claiming that obvious conflicts of interest don't count as conflicts of interest, I think this juror can get away with holding a specific political point of view without being discriminated against in the trial.

This "one juror lied on their questionnaire" nonsense ignores the fact that the rest or the majority of the other jurors did not, were not BLM sympathizers or at least documented to be so, and found Chauvin guilty anyway. Unless this juror was particularly charismatic, had hypnosis powers, or everyone on the jury were all secretly BLM saboteurs, this stinks of "Derek Chauvin was not judged by a jury of his peers because they weren't all white".

Here's the thing: ya only need one for a motion on appeal that could grant a new trial. Those are the rules, I don't make 'em, I just read 'em.

If business aristocrats can get away with claiming that obvious conflicts of interest don't count as conflicts of interest, I think this juror can get away with holding a specific political point of view without being discriminated against in the trial.

This "one juror lied on their questionnaire" nonsense ignores the fact that the rest or the majority of the other jurors did not, were not BLM sympathizers or at least documented to be so, and found Chauvin guilty anyway. Unless this juror was particularly charismatic, had hypnosis powers, or everyone on the jury were all secretly BLM saboteurs, this stinks of "Derek Chauvin was not judged by a jury of his peers because they weren't all white".

I agree with this largely; to what extent have the political leanings of the other jurors been examined?

This is not to say that lying on the juror questionnaire isn't problematic, but I'm not sure that there would be such an acute focus on this, especially by media, if the trial itself were not so divisive.

The extreme majority of NSGers agree that Chauvin is guilty. That ain't divisive. It's just that most of us also want a fair jury trial, because, as the Democrats learned the hard way with Merrick Garland, Republicans are quite good an amplifying any shenanigans. If you say that an impartial jury is no longer required in obvious cases like this one, then the other side might redefine what an obvious case is, and America's jails are going to be even more of a fuckfest than they are today.

Chauvin's filed for a new trial

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin filed an appeal for a new trial Tuesday after being convicted last month of murdering George Floyd.

Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, filed the request alleging that Chauvin's ability to have a fair trial was affected by pretrial publicity. The motion alleges that the court abused its discretion by denying the requests for a change in venue and a new trial.

Since the court failed to sequester the jury or "admonish them to avoid all media," they were not only subjected to prejudicial publicity but also "jury intimidation or potential fear of retribution," Nelson's filing said.

That's a dumb move. The only way the appeal can be granted, is by arguing for the totality of the circumstances, not throwing out motions piecemeal.

[Shofercia]

Predictable. Pretty sure the motion is going to fail.

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

Or he made a mistake and failed to realize it's value. Or someone on his team didn't yet point out the value. Even capable attorneys make mistakes, we're all human.

You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani

I do want to point out that Chauvin is still going to be spending years in jail, no matter the outcome. The question right now if whether or not it'll be years or decades.

If there is a mistrial why would he go to jail for years?

Because he's still under arrest, pending trial and/or appeal, while bail's denied. A tainted jury doesn't mean that he's innocent. A tainted jury means just that - the jury was tainted. Arrest warrant's still valid. No bail ruling's still valid. Just because the jury was tainted, doesn't mean that those two thingies I mentioned suddenly disappear.

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

But muh character assassination! /sarcasm

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

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

The Hill's a good source.

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.

Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room look for escape points like before?

Considering that it looks like that he's still in denial about getting Manslaughter, I'd say so.

[Shofercia]

You don't need to see that. All Chauvin's attorney has to prove is that the single juror went to a rally wearing a BLM t-shirt, and that BLM is heavily anti-cop, in order to show heavy bias on said juror's part, and there's the photo of him actually doing that:

(Image)




See above. Also, everyone's owed a fair trial, even if they're as guilty as sin, or as guilty as Chauvin, irrespective of whether it's a waste of money or not. The government wastes plenty of money, rather heroically, on things like an upgrade of public transportation in San Francisco as workers are fleeing the city, and I'd be happy to discuss how to save money with you in another thread.

Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."

First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:

Said juror's behavior implies that he's lying:

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... The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said...

So were there t-shirts saying "get your knee off our necks" prior to the tragic killing of Floyd? Meanwhile at the event that was "100% not a march for Floyd" this happened:

Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd. It served as a rallying point for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a federal police reform bill.

With Mitchell's mindset in mind, let's take a look at the questionnaire:

The first question asked, "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

The second asked, "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Mitchell answered "no" to both questions. My question is this: do you honestly think that an event in Washington DC where Floyd's brother and sister spoke to the crowd was not about the police use of force? Honestly?

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

Third, this point:

The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?

[Postauthoritarian America]

Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."

First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:

Said juror's behavior implies that he's lying:



So were there t-shirts saying "get your knee off our necks" prior to the tragic killing of Floyd? Meanwhile at the event that was "100% not a march for Floyd" this happened:



With Mitchell's mindset in mind, let's take a look at the questionnaire:



Mitchell answered "no" to both questions. My question is this: do you honestly think that an event in Washington DC where Floyd's brother and sister spoke to the crowd was not about the police use of force? Honestly?

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

Third, this point:

The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.

Chauvin will probably get a hearing; it was pretty clear the defense was laying the grounds for such an appeal. He won't get a new trial. No one asked the juror whether or not he took place in a march commemorating Martin Luther King jr. or ever wore a shirt with "Keep your knee off our neck" or "BLM" on it. You can think what you like about the answers he gave but the judge will find they were patently not untruthful. He was under no obligation to do anything but respond to the questions he was asked. There's no way to grant Chauvin a new trial without vacating the original jury's verdict tho; as I've pointed out the criminal legal system is most unwilling to take that step even in cases where the "bias," nonexistent in this case, is much more blatant.

One possible worse outcome for the defense would be that the prosecution could introduce the postmortem blood work that showed George Floyd could not have died from being held too close to the tailpipe of a car that was not running for ten minutes while three cops crushed the life from his body and another one stood lookout.

Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?

It's too late for a mistrial. The judge would have to vacate the jury verdict and order a new trial.

[Coicantrost Terbi]

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.

[Postauthoritarian America]

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.

You might be interested in reading "George Floyd's America." It is better to be knowledgable than to be ignorant.

[San Lumen]

First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:

Third, this point:



is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.

Chauvin will probably get a hearing; it was pretty clear the defense was laying the grounds for such an appeal. He won't get a new trial. No one asked the juror whether or not he took place in a march commemorating Martin Luther King jr. or ever wore a shirt with "Keep your knee off our neck" or "BLM" on it. You can think what you like about the answers he gave but the judge will find they were patently not untruthful. He was under no obligation to do anything but respond to the questions he was asked. There's no way to grant Chauvin a new trial without vacating the original jury's verdict tho; as I've pointed out the criminal legal system is most unwilling to take that step even in cases where the "bias," nonexistent in this case, is much more blatant.

One possible worse outcome for the defense would be that the prosecution could introduce the postmortem blood work that showed George Floyd could not have died from being held too close to the tailpipe of a car that was not running for ten minutes while three cops crushed the life from his body and another one stood lookout.

Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?

It's too late for a mistrial. The judge would have to vacate the jury verdict and order a new trial.

I don’t think the judge is likely to do that but my faith in the justice system isn’t great.

[Coicantrost Terbi]

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.

It is better to be knowledgable than to be ignorant.

I can say the same of you.

[Uzbekstaland]

I can already see this becoming controversial, But here is my opinion.

Floyd was killed by the excessive force on his airways PLUS the fentawhatchamacallitin his system, which neither are usually good anyways. In which Chauvin was right to be given manslaughter and the two officers with him should be charged with being an accessory.

With that said Chauvin probably will be given leeway because he is white, Which should be no big surprise.


The world isnt exactly better off without Floyd as you can see how much more powerful he is now that he is gone but in the wrong way. For his death alone sparked a huge divide and caused the anger and hatred of a 40 million strong group of people treated like dogshit to erupt into the emotional violence we see today. The sentencing is a victory by far but there is still much more work to be done in order to actually see positive change. With police being defunded these people who have been forced into a criminal mindset are going to be taking advantage of the weakening of law and order. To fix this it requires a reformation of the American system and we all know that its too late for something like that now. All we can do now is wait for the anger and Emotion to calm down.

The American powder keg seems to have been lit again and this may be the second time it explodes...

[Kowani]

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

yeah this literally never happened

[Coicantrost Terbi]

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

yeah this literally never happened

Yeah, this literally did happen.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/ ... al-record/

[Immortan Khan]

yeah this literally never happened

Yeah, this literally did happen.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/ ... al-record/

After he left prison he started working with various charities to steer people away from crime. While he had a flawed past he was working to change himself and move past it.