The conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was undermined this week after the previously anonymous Juror #52 went public with interviews to discuss his experience on the jury and support the movement to curtail police abuse. The problem was not the public disclosure of his identity (which jurors can elect to do) but what his self-identification triggered on the Internet. A picture soon emerged showing Brandon Mitchell wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt with a reference to the death of George Floyd. The image was raised as contradicting his answers in voir dire and raising an appellate question as to juror bias that could be used to challenge the conviction.
The photo trending on social media was originally posted on Facebook in August 2020 and shows Mitchell wearing a hat that says “Black Lives Matter” and a T-shirt that says “BLM” with the words, “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” a common reference to the death of Floyd. The photo was posted by his uncle Travis Mitchell with the caption “The next Generation being socially active representing in DC my son Marzell, my nephew Brandon Rene Mitchell, and brotha Maurice Jauntiness Johnson.”
There is, of course, nothing wrong with the photo and it reflected the pride of his uncle when they went to march in Washington to commemorate MLK’s famous 1963 “I have a dream” speech. The march emphasized the campaign against police abuse and obviously many protested the killing of Floyd. Mitchell insists that he did not go to protest the Floyd killing.
The issue is really how Mitchell answered the voir dire questions. For example, Mitchell answers in the negative to two questions:
“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?” one question read, according to the newspaper.
“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?”
On March 15, Mitchell was also asked by the judge on March 15 if he was aware of the Chauvin case and George Floyd. He responded by saying that he’d heard “some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news”, but not the sort of information “that would keep him from serving as an impartial juror.”
I am not sure why the defense could not have located this picture on the Internet, which may raise a collateral issue in any challenge. However, this is still a credible basis for further investigation and possible challenge.
In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “the minimal standards of due process” demand a fair hearing before competent and impartial jurors. See also United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505, 507 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)(“constitutional standard of fairness requires that the criminally accused have ‘a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’”). In cases like Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court has held that statements in the jury room showing racial bias justifies reversal. The line is more blurry on political bias, but few cases involve a juror who previously discussed the defendant and his case.
The controversy is strikingly similar to discoveries made about Juror 1261 in the trial of Trump associate Roger Stone. I wrote a number of columns about Tomeka Hart who clearly gave false or misleading answers in voir dire. Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She not only participated in undisclosed protests and posted anti-Trump statements on the Internet but specifically discussed the Stone case.
However, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson engaged in willful blindness to excuse Hart’s conduct and avoid ordering a new trial. I predicted that the court would dismiss the motion rather than defend the defendant’s right to an unbiased jury. The court simply brushed aside these clear examples of bias. Jackson wrote:
“The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected. Moreover, while the social media communications may suggest that the juror has strong opinions about certain people or issues, they do not reveal that she had an opinion about Roger Stone, which is the opinion that matters . . . To the extent one could consider any of the social media posts to be inconsistent with the juror’s questionnaire, they do not warrant a new trial because they do not meet the legal test for something that has been ‘newly discovered.’ [A] defendant seeking a new trial must establish that the information presented in his motion could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”
I do agree with Judge Jackson that there is question of whether this information “could …have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.” The court notes
“the foreperson’s views were certainly not hidden at the time of jury selection. The juror’s personal affiliation with Democratic politics was set forth in her written answers. She said straight out that she had opinions about the “officials” on the list of people who might be mentioned in the case, and Donald Trump was the most prominent, if not the only, ‘official’ named.”
This was publicly available on social media and the question remains why the defense was not aware of the past expressions of political bias by Hart. One would have thought that Hart’s political past would have caused greater scrutiny of her past statements but, as I discussed previously, the transcript shows only a brief and matter-of-fact examination.
Jackson’s decision reveals the added burden faced by defendants in expensive, high-profile trials. Judge do not want to go through the cost and trauma of a new trial, particularly with the threat of rioting. They talk a good game of the guarantee of a fair trial, but when faced with juror bias, they rarely act to defend it in such cases.
It is still not clear the extent of any bias in the case of Mitchell. Some reports indicate that he may have done podcasts on police brutality and the George Floyd case. That would be particularly serious, though we saw in the Stone trial the lengths that courts will go to avoid the obvious.
The defense will have the same uphill battle in the Chauvin appeal and the question is whether there is anything in addition to to photo. It will also have to be prepared to answer, as in the Stone case, why it did not perform a full Internet search on prospective jurors.
Answer these questions: 1. Why did Chauvin stay on Floyd’s neck after Floyd was motionless? 2. Why didn’t Chauvin (himself) check for a pulse? 3. Why didn’t Chauvin administer chest compressions or CPR? When someone has the answers to these questions, along with explaining the officers “due care” (or lack there of), then people will listen. As far as you thinking Chauvin has an appeal, good luck. Appeals are extremely hard and there has to be proof that the law was not followed. Now, if people want to quote MN Stats or Case law showing or providing proof the law was not followed, with an intelligent conversation, not hurling insults, let’s hear it.
Hey Jeff S. Isn’t it about time that you post how everything that Turley said in HIS blog should be denigrated or dismissed because he works for Fox?
“Answer these questions: 1. Why did Chauvin stay on Floyd’s neck after Floyd was motionless?”
Does not matter.
“2. Why didn’t Chauvin (himself) check for a pulse?”
Does not matter.
“3. Why didn’t Chauvin administer chest compressions or CPR?”
Does not matter.
You seem to think that Chauvin had a duty to prevent Floyd from dying and that failure to meet that duty is murder.
That is not the law.
If Chauvin had ANY positive duty – failing in that duty is a tort – not a crime.
“When someone has the answers to these questions, along with explaining the officers “due care” (or lack there of), ”
Irrelevant. Failure to meet the moral duty that you are alleging – is NOT a crime.
With respect to your questions though.
Floyd had a 3x fatal overdose of Fentanyl in him.
Chauvin was not going to save him by doing CPR or checking his pulse or taking his knee off him when he quit moving.
Floyd died of a massive heart attack – not suffocation. Floyd’s blood oxygen levels were 98% at the time of his death.
CPR would have done nothing.
Taking his knee off would have accomplished nothing.
Tanking his pulse would have accomplished nothing.
The only thing that possibly could have saved Floyd – MAYBE was a dose of Narcan sufficiently early in the process.
That would have been the responsibility of the Paramedics – not the police.
“then people will listen.”
Guilt or innocence of a crime – is not about “people listening”.
If you do not like the way policing is done – then change policing.
But you do not accomplish that by sending police officers to jail.
You do that through changing policies.
Chauvin’s technique was approved policy – one that replaced more violent measures.
You can not suffocate a healthy adult by placing 200lb of weight on their back or chest.
Floyd was 6-6 and 300lb. Chauvin was 5-9 and 159lb.
You can be upset by your perception of the indifference that Chauvin showed to Floyd – fine, fire him. Still not a crime.
Further – I do not much care how the people of mineapolis choose to police their city.
So long as the police in MY city are arresting criminals.
Floyd passed a conterfeit $20 – likely in exchange for drugs from the drug dealer with him.
He was legitimately arrested for that.
He was in distress and out of control and having difficulty breathing – before he was hand cuffed, before he was placed in back of the police car, and before he was removed for his own safety.
Paramedics were called – if anyone had a duty to save Floyd it was them they are trained to do so.
But they arrived way too late. So sue the city.
“As far as you thinking Chauvin has an appeal, good luck.”
In a just system – he never would have been tried.
“Appeals are extremely hard and there has to be proof that the law was not followed.”
False – it is trivial to prove Chauvin did not get a fair trial – that is self evident.
What is difficult is getting an appeals court to care.
“Now, if people want to quote MN Stats or Case law showing or providing proof the law was not followed, with an intelligent conversation, not hurling insults, let’s hear it.”
Trivial. Floyd died of a heart attack, and had a blood oxygen level of 98% – all this was presented as evidence by the prosecution at trial.
Floyd did not die of suffocation.
Nor did he die because his blood supply to the brain was cuttof. You can cause someone to pass out by cutting off blood supply on one side of their neck. You can not kill them. Further cutting off blood to the brain is not a heart attack.
The cause of Floyd’s death was 3x a fatal dose of Fentanyl.
The law requires that criminal defendents must be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” – there is far far far more than a reasonable doubt here.
The law was not followed. Nor are these the only examples where the law was not followed.
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-law-enforcement-first-responders-administering-naloxone.pdf
So What ?
Are you trying to argue that police have an affirmative duty to diagnose drug overdoses and administer drugs to counteract those overdoses ?
You are imposing an impossible standard on police.
Regardless, prosecutors did not argue in court that Chauvin killed Floyd by failing to administer Narcan.
They were trying as hard as possible to bury the evidence that Floyd’s own actions prior to arrest assured his death absent 3rd party positive intervention.
Like the guidelines say, withholding Narcan is like withholding CPR. Not an impossible standard, a practical one. Even if Floyd was experiencing an opiate related overdose he wasn’t showing the signs of it…, but even if he was, using unsanctioned submission tactics that every MPD expert said are untrained in response to it is enough to meet the conviction guidelines on its own. But I don’t think factual information is what you’re after, John Say, otherwise you’d review your priors and not come in with a conclusion first. We know that about you though…, whether it be your claim trump would win by ten points, to your claim that man made climate change isn’t a scientific reality, to your woefully wrong claims about Covid. Nope,logic isn’t your strong suit, but maybe being an entertaining party monkey is.
“Like the guidelines say, withholding Narcan is like withholding CPR.”
Your paper is not policy or law.
Further Police officers are NOT physicians or Paramedics, or EMT’s.
They are not qualified to determine if a person is overdosing on drugs.
They are therefore not obligated to treat them.
The duty of care of a police officer is only slightly higher than that of ordinary people.
Few people are willing to perform CPR – even if they are trained.
While I am sure it has occured somewhere sometime, I have never seen a police officer perform CPR.
Many police departments provide some or all officers with NarCan.
All do not. I have no idea whether MPD does.
That was not introduced as evidence.
Nor was Floyd charged with failing to administer NarCan.
Any Duty of the City or Chauvin is due solely to the fact that Floyd was in custody.
If you wish to charge Chauvin with the death of Floyd for failure to administer NarCan – you would have a whole raft of things to prove that we do not know.
That MPD provided Chauvin with NarCan
That it trained him in its use.
That it was MPD policy for police to administer NarCan – rather than to wait for Paramedics.
Further you would have an additional liability for the city – because Paramedics were called and it took more than 10 minutes for them to arrive. That is not Chauvin’s fault.
“Not an impossible standard, a practical one.”
The document you provided was not policy – it is not a standard, it is some groups recomendations.
“Even if Floyd was experiencing an opiate related overdose he wasn’t showing the signs of it…,”
False – before he was arrested he was showing signs fully consistant with not merely opiate but specifically Fentayl overdose.
Floyd’s famous cries that he “can’t breath” – while obviously being able to breath – are completely consistent with FENTANYL OD.
“but even if he was, using unsanctioned submission tactics that every MPD expert said are untrained in response to it is enough to meet the conviction guidelines on its own.”
And yet you are both wrong in your alleged facts, and wrong in your conclusion.
Chauvin’s tactics were not “unsantioned” – there were specifically trained by MPD – and PROSECUTION witnesses testified to that.
In fact every single prosecution witness on submission tactics admitted on cross examination that Chauvin’s actions were not in violation of training and that they had frequently been used for as long as Chauvin had.
One Training officer specifically testified to having used the same technique as Chauvin for more than 15 minutes without harm.
You clearly are not familiar with the testimony.
Next, no that is not sufficient to meet conviction guidelines.
You can not convict someone of murder by suffocation – if the victim did not suffocate.
You can not convict a someone of murder by suffocation for using – or misusing a submission technique that can not cause suffocation – even if misused.
various murder charges have very specific elements – to convict ALL must be proven – beyond a reasonable doubt.
Further ALL plausible alternatives must be DISPROVEN – otherwise you have reasonable doubt.
If there are two possible ways a person may have died – and one would be murder and the other not, and there is a 90% chance of murder and a 10% chance that it is not – you must acquit. More likely than not is a civil standard not a criminal standard.
Regardless, in this case Floyd did not die of suffocation – therefore a charge of murder by suffocation must fail.
“But I don’t think factual information is what you’re after, John Say, otherwise you’d review your priors and not come in with a conclusion first.”
More mind reading.
While I have dealt with the majority of the assertions you have made – some of which are correct, many of which are partly correct, and some of which are false. The vast majority do not matter at all.
You make a fundimental logical error – you presume that you can convict by selecting a portion of the facts that supports your desired outcome. That is not how it works. It is not how it works in court. It is also usually not how it works in the real world.
In most instances we have a barrage of facts, and in this case also expert opinions. We also have substantial amounts of missing information.
A conviction for murder REQUIRES – that every single element required for conviction is proven – each beyond a reasonable doubt, AND that there are no FACTS supporting plausible alternatives that are NOT murder.
You do not have EITHER of these.
You do not have sufficient evidence to prove murder – even if Floyd’s blood oxygen had been low and it was plausible to conclude Floyd suffocated – because Fentanyl overdoses more often than not cause death by suffocation. If you have two means to cause death by suffocation and no means to distinguish between them – then reasonable doubt requires a not guilty verdict.
In this instance you actually have WORSE than that. The very length of time it took Floyd to pass out favors an Overdose rather than misapplication of a submission tactic. Overdoses SLOWLY reduce respiration. The TESTIMONY (and evidence) regarding this submission technique is that properly applied is CAN NOT cause a person to pass out, and Improperly applied – it can cause a person to pass out, but it can not suffocate them. It is possible for a knee to ONE side of the neck to cause a person to pass out.
It is not possible to suffocate them that way. I have seen no evidence that Chauvin had Forked knees and could cut off blood supply to Floyd’s brain from BOTH sides of the neck – that BTW does not cause suffocation either.
To use a different analogy during WWII (and in nearly all complex logic problems), Turing’s Bomb’s were able to decrypt Enigma messages because they started with all possible solutions to the problem and at each step logically ruled out unlikely or impossible solutions.
This allowed Turing’s bombs to decrypt messages that had billions of possible keys in a tiny fraction of that number of tries.
Floyd’s blood oxygen levels falsify any assertion that Floyd suffocated. You can eliminate entirely every single combination or possibility that involves suffocation – because suffocation did not occur. The prosecutions case was that Floyd was suffocated by Chauvin.
They presented alot of evidence that Chauvin suffocated Floyd. You have provided some of that evidence.
But Floyd was not suffocated – so ALL trees that involve suffocation whether they contain valid evidence or not, are inherently wrong.
Every single branch that Turing Trimed from his tree using his Bombs involved facts that were correct. There are 5 rotors on the most complex enigma. a significant portion of incorrect results contain correct settings for one or more rotors.
I have applied this to the Chauvin trial. But it also applies to most if not all real world problems.
If you have a single fact that is not consistent with your argument – you must either prove that fact false, or the argument is falsified.
If there a dozen premises to your argument and every single one appears correct – but there is one fact that conflicts – no matter how good the argument – it is false.
I have stated here over and over and over again – nearly all claims, nearly all arguments, nearly everything is FALSE – no matter how credible it might sound.
The Floyd case is unusual – the FACTS make it pretty clear how Floyd DID die – of a Fentanyl over dose. That is the only conclusion that is not contradicted by facts that we know to be true.
But it is not normal in a criminal trial that we can know exactly what did happen. but we can often know what did NOT happen. Or alternatively we can often know what COULD have happened that is not a crime or the crime charged.
“We know that about you though…, whether it be your claim trump would win by ten points”
You seem to conflate a projection – with a claim of fact.
But for Covid, lawless elections and a biased media hiding the truth – Trump would have won by ten points.
Polls after the election indicatedf that 6.7% of Biden voters would have changed their vote had they been aware of that Hunter Biden;s laptop was NOT russian disinformation. that is but a SINGLE factor.
I have serious problems with the media lying. But it is not a basis to overturn an election result. Nor is Covid.
But conducting an election lawlessly means the election is not valid. There is no need to overturn it.
A valid election did not occur.
“to your claim that man made climate change isn’t a scientific reality,”
I have not claimed that – you are LYING.
I NEVER use the phrase “climate change” – the constant of the universe is change – the Climate is ALWAYS changing.
That is a tautology. Trying to sell it as somekind of threat is Decpetion.
Anyone using the phrase “climate change” is deliberately trying to hide from the FACT that change is a GIVEN. Nature is NEVER fixed – unchanging.
I specifically refer to CAGW – “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”.
If it is not catastrophic – there is no reason to care about it.
If it is not anthropogenic – there is nothing we can do about it.
If it is not global is it of little consequence.
For the moment warming is a given – the earth has been warming for more than 200 years. There is a reasonably good chance it will stop soon. There is a natural cycle a bit longer than 200 years. But whether it stops or does not – the rate of warming prior to 1975 – the earliest date at which Human CO2 was sufficient to have an effect, is no different from the warming rate since 1975.
Th UAH Global Temperature anomaly – the deviation from the average temperature since 1979 is -0.05C – we are near the start of a La Nina and it will likely continue down for a while.
The average increase per decade since 1979 is 0.14C – that is nearly identical to the average increase per decade since 1750 – long before Humans could have changed anything.
At the current rate of increase – which has been slowing – which is what the math tells us that it would.
Even if the rate of increase does not slow – the earth will be 1.12C warmer in 2100 than it is today.
NOT catastrophic.
As noted the rate of warming is SLOWING not increasing. That is not consistent with model predictions. It is not consistent with leftist theories.
I am not interested in a debate with you or anyone else about “climate change” – that is like debating the sun rising tomorow.
Climate changes – that is a GIVEN. When you can distinguish human caused changes from natural ones, and prove that the human caused changes are both on NET extremely bad and avoidable – then we can have a discussion.
Until you can – you are just a religious zealot selling snake oil.
“to your woefully wrong claims about Covid.”
Which would those be ?
Please go find a SINGLE claim about Covid I have made that was FALSE ?
There are probably thousands of posts I have made on C19 over the past year on this blog.
You should be able to find one error ?
I can find dozens of errors by Faucci – by the WHO, by CDC, by FDA, by the Imperial college.
By pretty close to every statist “expert” there is.
2020-2021 has been the most fantastic example of left wing nut failure, of government failure, of failure of experts that I have ever seen.
And unfortunately all too slowly people are waking up to that.
If I had made half a dozen false claims about Covid – that would still give me a track record better than any purported public heatlh expert.
But I have not made half a dozen errors.
You are free to prove otherwise. But I expect proof.
You are making the claim that I have been “woefully wrong” about Covid – so HOW SO ?
“Nope,logic isn’t your strong suit, but maybe being an entertaining party monkey is.”
ROFL.
I do not need to prove myself. My record here is self evident.
Anyone who wants can find my posts on “climate change” – the only ones will be those deriding those like you who use a stupid tautological term like climate change and try to scare people with it.
You can also look for my posts and CAGW – I am happy to stand by them.
Here is the latest comparison of the model predictions to reality.
As has been true for 20+ years – the models are running WAY hotter than reality.
The models may now be off on average 3std dev’s. Statistics considers that falsified, no correlation.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/climate-computer-models-running-way-too-hot-2-1200×900.jpg
And everyone can look up my posts on Covid.
I will be happy to stand behind them.
I am not the one wearing two masks on a virtual conference with world leaders.
Sometimes virtue signalling is just self provided evidence of idiocy.
John Say.
““Answer these questions: 1. Why did Chauvin stay on Floyd’s neck after Floyd was motionless?”
Does not matter.
“2. Why didn’t Chauvin (himself) check for a pulse?”
Does not matter.
“3. Why didn’t Chauvin administer chest compressions or CPR?”
Does not matter.
You seem to think that Chauvin had a duty to prevent Floyd from dying and that failure to meet that duty is murder.
Yes they did matter, because his department’s policy REQUIRED him to do so. This is why the policy which was used in court as evidence was so compelling for the jury.
Floyd died of asphyxiation which is the state or process of being deprived of oxygen, which can result in unconsciousness or death.
Suffocation is what happens when asphyxiation continues to the point of dying. Floyd was in a state of asphyxiation due to Chauvin’s knee and his own body weight on his chest.
“Yes they did matter, because his department’s policy REQUIRED him to do so. This is why the policy which was used in court as evidence was so compelling for the jury.”
False and irrelevant.
Failure to abide by a police department policy is not in and of itself murder.
Even if you could establish that Chauvin had some affirmative duty to save Floyd from a drug overdose – it would not be murder to fail to do so.
Violation of policies are NOT crimes.
“Floyd died of asphyxiation which is the state or process of being deprived of oxygen, which can result in unconsciousness or death.”
False, Floyd’s blood oxygen was normal – he did not suffocate.
The PROSECUTION introduced this evidence.
“Suffocation is what happens when asphyxiation continues to the point of dying. Floyd was in a state of asphyxiation due to Chauvin’s knee and his own body weight on his chest.”
All irrelevant – Floyd did not die from lack of oxygen – his blood oxygen levels were NORMAL
You keep ignoring the PROSECUTIONS evidence.
Both the Chauvin and Stone trials demonstrate serious failures of our legal system.
As the courts currently apply standards – it is the defenses obligation to assure the fairness of the trial – such as that biased jurors are not seated. That has Always been a stupid position. The duty to provide a fair trial, due process, and unbiased jury resides with the government, not the defendant in a criminal trial.
The defendant has a right to a fair trial, He has the right to a fair and impartial jury.
It is as much or more the prosecutors, and judges duty to assure that, than the defense attorney’s.
The cost of a new trial should NEVER be an impediment to assuring a fair trial.
Judge Jackson’s handling of the stone trial was abysmal. Frankly, her own conduct was biased.
Jackson Gagged Stone’s speech outside of court. Defendants are presumed innocent and the Judges authority should not extend outside the courtroom. We have heard the left rant about Trump’s authoritarianism – I have yet to see actual examples of that.
Yet we have enumerable examples of Mueller, the FBI, the DOJ, and Judges abusing their power – behaving authoritarian in persuit of their ideological goals and victims.
And in the Chauvin trial we see this again.
Was the jury Biased by seating a juror who had already prejudged the case – Absolutely.
That never should be allowed. It is likely impossible to charge the juror – how does one prove that someone misrepresented their objectivity. Regardless, this juror’s presence on the juror was a miscarraige of justice – and a moral failure on the part of the juror.
Anyone who seeks to get on a jury for the purpose of securing a specific outcome – is morally bankrupt.
But there are other concerns regarding the Chauvin jury.
It is near impossible for Chauvin to have gotten a fair trial at all.
A clear message was being sent – not merely by BLM and Antifa, but by prominent and powerful US politicians – Return a guilty verdict or see the country burned to the ground.
I am not sure how you fix that. Merely changing the venue from Mineapolis would not be sufficient.
Were in the country do you find a jury that will not convict an innocent man – if they beleive the results will be large scale mayhem ?
And all of that ignores the facts from the trial.
The defense attorney destroyed the prosecutions case on cross examination. Chauvin was entitled to a directed verdict.
Aurguably the prosecution did not make a prima fascia case for the required elements – they certainly did not make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not reach the lowest legal standard – that necescary to open an investigation – much less reach a criminal conviction.
The fact that Floyd had 3 times the lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system when he died – is MORE than reasonable doubt.
The fact that Floyd Died of a heart attack not suffocation – is MORE than reasonable doubt.
The fact that Floyd’s blood oxygen level was 98% – was MORE than reasonable doubt.
The fact that the technique that Chauvin used was accepted Mineapolis police – because it was SAFER than the alternatives, and that it was known that you can not suffocate a healthy adult – even by placing 200lbs on their chest – is more than reasonable doubt.
Whatever you might think of Chauvin’s conduct there is far more than reasonable doubt that conduct lead to Floyd’s death.
Wise defense attorney’s around the country have noted that the Chauvin conviction will drive convictions of accused criminals who are not police on equally flimsy evidence.
Floyd was dead when he ingested 3 times the lethal dose of Fentanyl. The Mineapolis police had nothing to do with that.
Paramedic’s were called – if they arrived to late to save Floyd from his own mistakes that is on Floyd or possibly the city and the paramedics.
The police are not paramedics. It is not their job to treat drug overdoses.
“Chauvin was entitled to a directed verdict.”
***
I thought so, too, but I knew it wouldn’t happen in that climate of terror.
Honestly – he never should have been charged – atleast not with any of the charges he was convicted of.
I am prepared to entertain the possibility that Chauvin might have been guilty of some lessor crimes.
Though from what I heard from the trial even that does not appear to be true.
The most likely cause of death was a self administered fentanyl overdose resulting in a heart attack.
But what is most important is that the medical facets of Floyd’s death were completely inconsistent with suffocation.
And in fact Chauvin’s knee on Floyds back or neck could not have caused suffocation.
What I learned from the trial testimony was that the very actions that Chauvin is accused of using to cause floyd’s death – could not have caused death and became police policy as more humane and safe means of controlling compliant arrest’s.
The prior alternative was the use of batons and other means to inflict pain to bring about compliance.
We seem to forget that the police do not make the laws. They merely enforce them.
Further they do not serve as judge and jury. Where there is sufficient basis to do so – they arrest you. They do not conduct a trial in the street to determine if you might be innocent.
If there is sufficient basis for an arrest as there easily was here – you will be arrested. If you resist – if you make their life more difficult – the police will act to ensure their safety and that of others.
Very few of us want arrested. We may resist in myriads of different ways. Nearly all of those are problems for the police.
Floyd was uncooperative from the start. He was a very big man, and Chauvin was only a bit more than half his size.
An uncooperative big man is dangerous to everyone.
Regardless, as to whether Chauvin is guilty of misconduct that should have gotten him fired – I do not know. Maybe. My focus was whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. Was Chauvin a good cop or a bad cop ? Again i do not know. Was he guilty of a lessor crime – not that I can see, but the trial was focused on proving that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by suffocation. The prosecutors not merely failed to do so – they did not come close.
John: “the trial was focused on proving that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by suffocation. The prosecutors not merely failed to do so – they did not come close.”
***
No they didn’t come close. This was a Soviet-style show trial. I hoped one honest person of character on the jury would hang the jury and apparently one did stand strong for awhile but the pressure was too great to endure with at least one BLM supporter/activist on the jury. The holdout would have been outed and destroyed and in this Septemberist environment perhaps even prosecuted. Expert witnesses for the defense have been harrassed and investigated. I do not think justice was served. It appears as artfully disguised mob justice.
The prosecution lost the case before it started.
They certainly lost the case with their own witnesses.
I honestly never heard the defense side.
I did not need to. Though I thought that Chauvin might be guilty of some lessor included offense initially.
The Fentanyl levels in Floyd’s blood pretty much iced any direct culpability, and the late argument over blood gasses totally destroyed the prosecution case for me. The Prosecution introduced the evidence that Floyd’s blood oxygen levels were normal.
The defense then tried to argue that Floyd might have passed out do to Carbon Monoxide from the idling police car.
While that was a shell game on the part of the defense – the defense is allowed to play shell games. The defenses job is to introduce doubt.
But the wheels came off for the prosecution when the judge ruled that it could NOT introduce evidence that Floyd did not have CO in his blood as they had closed that part of their case. But they COULD argue based on the evidence they already introduced.
The Prosecution then CHOSE to HIGHLIGHT the fact that Floyd’s O2 levels were normal – this completely destroyed the Defenses claim that Floyd was unconscious because of CO. But it ALSO destroyed the entire prosecution claim that Floyd was suffocated.
Heart attacks can be caused by lack of oxygen. Even drug overdose heart attacks can be caused by lack of oxygen.
Low O2 levels in Floyd’s blood can not distinguish between a death due to Fentanyl OD or Suffocation.
But Normal O2 levels rule out suffocation. Many opiate deaths are due to suffocation, BUT some bypass respiratory failure and are directly caused by low blood pressure and heart failure. Floyd inarguably died of cardiac arrest. It is also near certain that serious heart disease was a contributing factor – I beleive his coranary arteries were 70% blocked. It is likely that blockage – combined with prior drug over dose related heart damage caused Floyd to die from cardiac arrest without respiratory failure.
But the relevant portion to the trial is that Floyd’s blood oxygen levels make death by suffocation impossible – not improbable, but impossible.
John Say, how would anyone know Floyd’s O2 levels were normal when he was prone and chauvin had his knee on his neck? O2 levels can change quickly and it doesn’t take much to deprive the heart of oxygen either. Saying the prosecution stating his oxygen levels were normal does not destroy the case for them. Context matters. Was it normal throughout the entirety of the event? Obviously he passed out, which means his O2 levels were NOT normal.
Svelaz–“Was it normal throughout the entirety of the event? Obviously he passed out, which means his O2 levels were NOT normal..”
***
No, it doesn’t mean that. Judging by the autopsy his passing out meant that his fentanyl levels were NOT normal. He took the fentanyl himself, and this was not the first time his carelessness with powerful drugs put him in a medical emergency.
I get your point but let’s also ask, how can anybody be careful with fentanyl who is not an anesthesiologist? The substance is very potent and hard to mix.
The fact it is regularly cut into heroin now means that the entire supply of street heroin is always less than one grain of sand away from killing somebody.
Every heroin user out there in our society is at the very least, an idiot. I have a lot of empathy for them, and I still feel bad about some of my friends from years past who have OD’d, but they are stupid at best, let’s be honest.
SO, yes, I feel that George Floyd was part of that group. He too was obviously an idiot.
Of course today our society rewards idiocy, doesn’t it?
I am still a libertarian.
Adults are free to do stupid things – as long as they do not directly harm others.
They are free to harm themselves. to commit suicide, to do drugs, even dangerous ones.
I can feel sorry for George Floyd, I can dislike Derek Chauvin, and I can still grasp that Chauvin did not murder Floyd.
There are two typical mechanism’s for death by opiate overdose.
The most common is reduced respiration, resulting in suffocation, loss of consciousness, eventually heart attack and brain death.
It would have been impossible to distiguish that from suffication by Chauvin. Given Floyd’s 3-10x fatal level’s of Fentanyl he NEVER should have been charged with murder.
Had floyd had low blood oxygen it would have been impossible to tell whether Chauvin suffocated Floyd BEFORE the Fentanyl did so.
But the 2nd drug overdose mechanism is through reduce blood pressure and reduced heart rate, followed by heart attack and brain death.
The normal blood oxygen levels found in Floyd AFTER death mean that he was NOT suffocated – either by fentanyl or Chauvin and that
he likely died of a drug induced heart attack.
But from the perspective of the trial all that matters is that Floyd did not suffocate.
Given the blood oxygen evidence introduced by the prosecution the judge should have precluded the prosecution from any claims that Floyd suffocated. The prosecution can not contradict its own evidence or have a theory fo death inconsistent with its own evidence.
I would note that the prosecution presented floyds NORMAL blood oxygen levels TWICE. Once in their case in main.
And once to rebut a defense claim that Floyd may have suffered from Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
“John Say, how would anyone know Floyd’s O2 levels were normal when he was prone and chauvin had his knee on his neck? O2 levels can change quickly and it doesn’t take much to deprive the heart of oxygen either. Saying the prosecution stating his oxygen levels were normal does not destroy the case for them.”
Much nonsense. O2 levels do not change quickly, Death by suffocation requires them to be low for over 6 minutes.
Further they are going to DROP not rise after death.
“Context matters. Was it normal throughout the entirety of the event? Obviously he passed out, which means his O2 levels were NOT normal.”
FALSE. People pass out for many reasons other than a drop in blood oxygen.
Have you ever had surgery ? Drugs are used to make you PASS OUT – yet if they caused your blood oxygen to drop – you would die.
You can pass out as a result of a heart attack – the heart ceases pumping blood to the brain – in less than 15 sec you will lose consciousness, but it will take several minutes to die.
Further people pass out all the time without dying.
And they pass out without having low blood oxygen.
I strongly suspect that Floyd “passed out” because he was dying – from a drug induced heart attack, not lack of oxygen.
Yes Young by a lot of self hating white losers who are ever eager to praise the superior black man and grovel before the feet of our corporate masters who demand this of us, to keep us terrorized and thus unable to oppose them. Pathetic, self-hating white losers who suck up to the BLM/ woke/ politically correct party line are awful, rotten people, whose backbones are made of jelly. They are soyboys, they are catamites, they are emasculated; and the biological women among them are all equally worthless too.
Chauvin was railroaded. Ask all your “friends” what they think of this. If you have any friends who will not allow the factual and legal irregularities of this case, at least as fairly as Turley has, then you have people who do not deserve the name “friend.”
I have argued – both here and other places for decades for police reform.
I believe the police are frequently overly aggressive.
I believe that the courts creation of qualified immunity was an unconstitutional and lawless act on the part of the courts.
That as Madison wrote
“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Good government REQUIRES meaningful external controls – and not merely for police, but on prosecutors, judges, and all government agents who violate peoples rights.
But what has gone on this summer and what continues to occur is bat$hit insane.
over 1000 arrests occur every single day in this country. What is miraculous is that so few of them result in violence, injury and death.
About once every 4 days a police officer is killed in an arrest that turns violent. About twice as often the person being arrested is killed.
Policing is not the most dangerous profession – but it is dangerous. And arrests are particularly dangerous.
We as the people as the community and through our govenrments set the parameters for policing and arrests.
One of the mistakes in the Floyd case – and numerous others we face is presuming that police determine how policing is done.
They do not. WE DO. We create the laws they enforce. We set the procedures they follow for arrests. We set the priorities they follow.
We decide.
Crime – particularly violent crime, has declined significantly over the past 4 decades. There has been a great debate as to the cause of that decline. The events of this summer ended that debate. it is not self evident that the decline in crime is the consequence of more agressive policing. Of stop and frisk policies. As we backed away from those policies over the summer – violent crime spiked. It continues to rise.
We have a clear choice. We can have “woke” policing – and much higher crime – more murders, more rapes, more robberies, or we can have more proactive and agressive policing and the resulting much lower violent crime.
This is OUR choice – not that of the police. We set the policies. We make the law.
Anyone who thinks the conviction of Chauvin is not going to result in changes in policing is an idiot.
Of course it will. That is the entire point. That is quite literally the problem with this juror – he sought to be on the jury to send a message, not to determine guilt of innocence.
I have no problem with “sending a message” – but we do not do that by convicting innocent people – even if we do not like them. Just to change policies.
The debate on policing should be public – out in the open. Not backdoor by subjecting police officers to the possibility of criminal conviction for doing their job in an unpopular fashion or even making a mistake on the job. We can not expect nearly 400,000 arrests a year to go off without a hitch.
But we can as citizens decide how “the social contract” is to be enforced. We are literally debating the most fundamental aspect of government – the social contract. We have government to protect us from violent infringement on our rights. That protection is secured by government through FORCE.
We get to decide the balance – that is OUR choice, and our duty – not the police.
Every law we make increases the number of violent confrontations with police – the laws we make are imposed by FORCE. Some small portion of people will ALWAYS refuse to comply and that will result in violence.
We can reduce the violence in policing by reducing the intrusion of government into our lives.
Is the sale of loose cigarettes important enough for people to die over ?
We can also reduce violence in policing by specifying the conduct of police. But we should not be blind to the fact that doing so will result in more violent crime.
John Say, what you are showing us is a fundamental failure in how you understand the justice system and the law.
Svelaz
You are showing us a fundimental inability to grasp simple FACTS.
Floyd’s blood oxygen levels were NORMAL
He did NOT die of Carbon Monoxide as the defense tried to claim.
He did not Suffocate as the prosecution claimed.
He most likely died of a fatal drug overdoes.
Bujt all that is important regarding the charges agains Chauvin is that Floyd was not suffocated and therefore Chauvin could not have murdered him.
It is not often that a case is so clearly wrongly decided.
That a single peice of evidence disproves the allegation so thoroughly.
Interesting argument made by Jackson, but it cuts both ways and therefore would not IMO have survived an appeal to a rational judge: if the argument is that the defense did not take some reasonable steps to discover the incriminating photo/whatever about the juror during the pretrial or trial, based on the notion that there was not due diligence on their part, then ceteris paribus the prosecution would have the same obligation and would thereby be liable for withholding exculpatory evidence.
The juror’s uncle posted the juror’s picture on the uncle’s Facebook account and you expect the defense attorney to find it? Surely you can’t be serious. Meanwhile the prosecutor has the nearly infinite resources of the state at his disposal and plays hide the ball with a dishonest juror. I thought that the prosecutor’s job was to ensure that justice is served, not secure a conviction by any means possible. Oh wait. This was a political prosecution from the get go. So never mind.
Ha ha
:I thought that the prosecutor’s job was to ensure that justice is served, not secure a conviction by any means possible.”
We all know that one thing you said is the theory, and the second thing is the reality.
Chauvin’s attorney has filed a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct and the court’s abuse of discretion in failing to grant a change of venue.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/04/derek-chauvins-attorney-files-motion-for-new-trial
The activist juror may have wasted millions spent on the first trial and opened the door to having the conviction tossed by this judge or a court of appeals.
He should be punished in any event and made an example that will deter future jurors from lying.
I wonder if he is the only one in this trial within a decaying justice system?
Related to an earlier Turley post. The university has determined that Professor Smith’s criticism of the Chinese government was protected within the university’s standards of academic freedom.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/05/u-san-diego-law-prof-tom-smith-vindicated-blog-criticising-chinese-government-held-protected-by-academic-freedom/
That was obvious from the start so I wonder why the reversal in attitude. Perhaps they read online that at some point during potential litigation the professor might discover how much money the CCP sends to the university. Just wondering-I don’t really know–but it is a thought.
Another interesting question is whether the prosecutors knew the background of this juror. They had vastly greater resources than the defense and may well have discovered his past activities.
I think if the prosecutor did know that this juror likely would be deeply prejudiced against the defendant they had an obligation to notify the court and have him dismissed for cause.
The prosecutor does not represent the victim; he represents the people of the State, all of them.
The prosecutor’s duty is not to win by any means but to see that justice is done.
Even if it could be shown that they knew, I doubt much could be done about it. Prosecutorial misconduct, led by the DOJ,appears to have become the norm in this country.
So, basically, a BLM supporter lied in order to get on the jury for Chauvin.
I was disappointed to have missed so much of the evidence presented on the COD of George Floyd. I did catch some of the prosecution’s witnesses, but not nearly enough. The excessive use of force and failure to render aid were on display. However, I always wanted to know what exactly killed George Floyd. Did he OD under Chauvin’s hold, did the hold hasten his OD death, or would he have been alive today were it not for Chauvin kneeling upon him?
I’m sorry to have missed some critical testimony, because I wanted to know if the prosecution could prove its case to me. Would I have agreed with the jury?
Regardless, Chauvin was convicted in a court of law, and that conviction is now on record. His case will wind its way through the appeals process.
On a radio show May 2, Mitchell seems more interested in an agenda then justice and rule of law.“I mean it’s important if we wanna see some change, we wanna see some things going different, we gotta into these avenues, get into these rooms to try to spark some change. Jury duty is one of those things. Jury duty. Voting. All of those things we gotta do,” Mitchell said during his appearance on “Get Up! Mornings with Erica Campbell” May 2 – Big Leaque Politics
Karen S. — “The excessive use of force and failure to render aid were on display.”
**
In fact the police used less force than they legally could have used under department procedures and within existing law.
The presumptions went the wrong way in this case. For example, if there is a fire it is not presumed to be arson. If there is a death it is not presumed to have been murder. The crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If there were multiple pathways that could have caused Floyd’s death in those circumstances and if causation cannot be solidly proven or dis-proven for any of them then the default is not to choose only the one that results in a murder conviction.
This trial seems to have been deeply flawed in many respects.
On another matter, I do wonder at the thinking of established attorneys who would rush to defend terrorists and yet volunteer to work with the prosecution in a domestic case. I would think more of them if they had volunteered to help a defense being crushed by numbers.
The jury didn’t presume is was murder going into the trial. They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder by the evidence presented at the trial.
The jury didn’t presume is was murder going into the trial.
The prospective Jury were informed the charges included, but not limited to. Second degree murder and third degree murder
Thanks for playing, pick up your parting gift on your way out.
Thanks for playing, pick up your own parting gift on your way out.
Being informed of the charges is not a presumption that any of them are confirmed.
Young.
“The presumptions went the wrong way in this case.”
Perhaps you would like to volunteer to be subject of an experiment to prove that one policeman kneeling on your neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds while 3 others helped holding you down would not be sufficient to kill you.
I certainly would not expect to survive such a test.
It may not have been an interruption to breathing so much as an interruption to blood flow to the brain.
Derik Chauvins behaviour makes no sense to rational analysis but does make sense if he was responding to malign stereotypes of black people resident in his unconscious. I suspect that he believed that if he killed Floyd it would be a net good for the world eliminating one more dangerous inherently criminal and dangerous big black man and that there was no danger to him from prosecution. I also believe he had in his mind the stereo type of big black men having the evil magic powers of “The Incredible Hulk”, that if he allowed Floyd one breath he would throw all 4 policemen 30 metres in the air so that 3 would die from broken necks and the fourth Floyd would beat to death using the nearest police vehicle as a club.
Carlyle: “Perhaps you would like to volunteer to be subject of an experiment to prove that one policeman kneeling on your neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds while 3 others helped holding you down would not be sufficient to kill you.”
****
You make a good point. Unfortunately it has no application to this case [except on CNN perhaps]. Even the prosecution witnesses admitted that Chauvin’s knee was NOT on Floyd’s neck. It was on his upper back and shoulder in a manner approved and taught by the police department and demonstrated in their manual.
Not a crime.
The trial itself was a crime against the people. Unless the appellate judges wet their pants, the case will be overturned on appeal. There were many flaws, beginning with venue and proceeding through jury selection, lack of sequestration, threats of violence, politicians’ outrageous declarations, and on.
Wherever Chauvin was kneeling it either deprived Floyd of sufficient air to continue living or deprived his brain of oxygen. Had Chauvin eased up before Floyd stopped breathing Floyd would have been a cabbage, that is a living dead man.
Nothing in the autopsy supports your claim. But the autopsy is consistent with drug overdose and dangerous pre-existing pathology.
“basically, a BLM supporter lied”
Would you quote what he said that you consider a lie? Thanks.
Anonymous asked me to quote what I consider to be a lie from the juror. This is probably a waste of time, as they will probably just ignore my answer.
From voir dire:
“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?” one question read, according to the newspaper.
“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?”
Juror’s answers to both – “no.”
Brandon Mitchell was featured in a photo posted by Travis Mitchell, on Facebook on August 2020, wearing a BLM hat and t-shirt that read, “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks”. Mitchell wrote, ““The next Generation being socially active representing in DC my son Marzell, my nephew Brandon Rene Mitchell, and brotha Maurice Jauntiness Johnson.”
Mitchell is accused of lying when he denied that he, or anyone close to him, demonstrated or marched against police brutality. Obviously, he did march. Mitchell claims that he attended a MLK march, and was not demonstrating against police brutality. But he was marching, he was wearing BLM clothing, the foundation of the organization is anti-cop, and the shirt said, “get your knee off our necks.” In addition, the uncle said that his brother and his son were also there marching.
2nd alleged lie. The judged asked Mitchell if he was aware of the Chauvin case. Mitchell responded that he’d “heard “some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news”, but not the sort of information “that would keep him from serving as an impartial juror.”” Wearing a shirt that reads, “get your knee off our necks” brings into question whether he could have ben impartial, and casts doubt on his claim to only hearing “basic info about trial dates.”
He wore the George Floyd anti-cop message on his body. Denying it seems pointless.
Also, claiming that the march he was caught at was in DC is no defense, as the second question did not list a location.
I’ve now found a copy of the full questionnaire that prospective jurors had to fill out –
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20499178-jurorquestionnaire12222020
And here is what Mitchell has to say about having responded “no” to the second question –
https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-juror-defends-participation-in-march-on-washington-after-social-media-post-surfaces/600053102/
Lying is knowingly making a false statement to deceive. Doesn’t sound like he was trying to deceive anyone; it sounds like his view of the DC march is different than the view of those who are accusing him of lying. Based on his statements, I’d interpret it as a possible mistake rather than a lie.
Possible mistake? Pigs fly…right?
If the Man was in fact being honest….genuinely honest….and not attempting to deceive….please do explain how he could have legitimately answered with the response “NO!” to question Two?
He was lying when he said he had only heard unimportant snippets of information about the accusations and alleged facts of the case….in order to do so one must have lived under a Rock for months without access to TV’s, the Internet, and other people.
The fact he was at a March in DC wearing BLM style apparel CONFIRMS he was exposed to a lot of folks that were aware of the “Knee on the Neck” aspect of the Chauvin Case.
To say or think otherwise is flat frigging stupid.
Cost of a Re-Trial is not any part of a decision by a Judge re Due Process and an unbiased Jury.
The fact that BLM/Antifa/Politicians were stoking the fires of Riot if there was not a Conviction is in and of itself…..perfectly reasonable grounds to assume there was no way for the Defendant to have a fair trial and impartial decision by the Jury who must have feared for their Lives should they vote for Acquittal of the Charges.
To believe otherwise is also flat frigging stupid…..this is not a movie being played in real life where Henry Fonda stands up against prejudice and bias inside the Jury Deliberation Room.
Those days are gone unfortunately…..as we have not seen a Book like “Profiles in Courage” since JFK’s days.
The Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, Media, and the Leftist Politicians have all failed to rise to those Standards of the Hollywood film and Kennedy’s Book.
“Pigs fly…right?”
No, that’s fiction.
But people often have different opinions and shouldn’t confuse their opinions with facts, right?
“If the Man was in fact being honest….genuinely honest….and not attempting to deceive….please do explain how he could have legitimately answered with the response “NO!” to question Two?”
Read his explanation for yourself. I already linked to it. He knows better than I do what his beliefs about the rally are and why he answered “no” to the second one.
You seem fixated on trying to give the juror the benefit of the doubt regarding his answers to the jury questionaire.
You are to be applauded for that. He is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
But so is Chauvin. And that means Chauvin is entitled to an unbiased jury. Not a juror that we give the benefit of the doubt to about lying about bias.
This is probably a waste of time, as they will probably just ignore my answer.
Karen, it wasn’t asked for clarity. But I’m sure you’ll handle it just fine.
Karen,
Thank you, I appreciate your willingness to answer my question.
I addressed some of this earlier.
Saying “no” to the first question is not a lie if he only attended a protest in DC, since the question only asks about protests in Minneapolis.
Saying “no” to the second question might or might not be a lie. We simply don’t have enough info because the question very explicitly says “Other than what you have already described above,” and we do not know what he described above in the questionnaire. Perhaps you’re assuming that “what you have already described above” refers solely to his answer in the first question. I don’t assume that. I assume that the questionnaire is longer and that there may be other questions above where he identified the DC protest. Or maybe he didn’t. Maybe he’s lying, maybe he isn’t, we just don’t have enough info to draw a firm conclusion about it on the basis of the info in JT’s article.
“He wore the George Floyd anti-cop message on his body.”
That t-shirt has a photo of MLK Jr. encircled by those words, and I don’t consider it an anti-cop message or a message linked only to George Floyd. I consider it an anti-police-abuse message. Those are not at all the same. I’m not against cops. I am against police abuse. There are many good cops who don’t abuse people, but the police force also has cops who do abuse people, and they shouldn’t be cops.
So, basically, a BLM supporter lied in order to get on the jury for Chauvin.
Karen,
You have it correct. Don’t give that anonymous troll the satisfaction of having you restate the facts already provided in JT’s post.
JT didn’t quote any lie, Olly, which is why I’m trying to understand what Karen interpreted as a lie.
Fascinating how you know exactly who the troll was, but are absolutely clueless to figure out what lie(s) Karen was referring to. You’ve got the mental acuity of a gnat.
I don’t find it difficult to follow a conversation, Olly. Do you? I replied to Karen, and you replied to her about what I said to her. It’s not hard to figure out who you were referring to with your insult.
Your insults say more about you than they do about me.
“Your insults say more about you than they do about me.”
**
You aren’t a ‘me’. You are anonymous. Nothing there, no history,
He was dying anyway; he had put his stash up his bum and had a mix of drugs including meth which destabilizes and enough fentanyl to kill 4.
How do you know he lied? How do you know what was in the perspective juror questionnaire? How do you know what questions were asked of the jurors?
It does not matter whether we know he “lied”.
We do know that he was sufficiently biased as to be unqualified to sit on the jury.
The duty to provide a fair trial rests with the government – the prosecutors and the judge – not the defense.
Chauvin did not get an unbiased jury. He did not get a fair trial.
“We do know …”
Once again, John insists that his opinion is knowledge.
John has difficulty distinguishing between his personal opinions and facts.
You keep confusing Opinion with fact.
The FACT was that the juror traveled a long distance to participate in a protest premised on the OPINION that Floyd was murdered.
That is EVIDENCE of Bias. I am not – as you keep doing – trying to read the jurors mind.
I have no idea why he answered the jury questionaires as he did.
If you wish to claim the juror did not beleive that he was biased – I am OK with that.
People often beleive things that are not so.
This is why we rely on their ACTS. Driving long distance to participate in a protest asserting that Floyd was murdered is an ACT.
I am not reading the jurors mind – as you keep trying to do. I am looking at his ACTS.
You have a great deal of trouble distinguishing ACTS from your beleifs about the thoughts of others.
You also have a great deal of trouble distinguishing FACTS from opinions.
“You keep confusing Opinion with fact.”
You’re describing yourself, not me.
“You have a great deal of trouble distinguishing ACTS from your beleifs about the thoughts of others. You also have a great deal of trouble distinguishing FACTS from opinions.”
You’re describing yourself, not me.
“The FACT was that the juror traveled a long distance to participate in a protest premised on the OPINION that Floyd was murdered.”
Nope.
It’s a fact that “the juror traveled a long distance to participate in a” rally.
It’s your opinion — NOT a fact — that the rally Mitchell attended in DC was “premised on the OPINION that Floyd was murdered.”
As I noted earlier, “The August 28, 2020, march in DC was not a George Floyd protest … It was a commemoration of the [August 28,] 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where MLK Jr. spoke. Some groups, like the National Action Network, referred to it as the the ‘Get Off Our Necks’ Commitment March. The t-shirt worn by Mitchell has MLK Jr’s photo on it, not an image of George Floyd.”
SOME people may think of it as a being “premised on the OPINION that Floyd was murdered.” Apparently you’re one of those people. But OTHER people do not think of it that way. OTHER people link it to the anniversary of MLK Jr.’s speech and see the rally as addressing a much broader set of issues. For example, the NAACP described it as “The 2020 Virtual March on Washington will take place on August 28, 2020, on the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech” and made no mention whatsoever of George Floyd. Martin Luther King III was one of the rally speakers, and other rally speakers addressed diverse issues. For example, David Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, a Black LGBTQ civil rights organization, spoke about the importance of Bayard Rustin, a gay advisor to MLK Jr.: “Without [Rustin’s] brilliance and his commitment to our intersectional social justice, there would not have been a March on Washington.”
Maybe part of the problem is that you simply don’t know enough about the multiple foci of the 8/28/2020 rally in DC.
Mitchell has stated that HE did not think of the 8/28/2020 rally as being focused on George Floyd, and HIS view of the rally is the one that matters in assessing HIS fitness for serving on the jury and whether HE completed the questionnaire truthfully. YOUR opinion about the rally doesn’t matter here.
Lets be real, if Roger Stone and General Flynn couldn’t get appeals on such obvious legal grounds, you think Chauvin will? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Flynn wasn’t convicted and so never appealed.
Stone dropped his appeal.
Both faulty comparisons.
Yes the Flynn and Stone prosecutions were corrupt.
I think a better analogy would be all the elections lawsuits that judges refused to hear evidence for.
Judges refused to advance the cases because the only remedy available was untenable.
Translated; Judges were not going to set aside clearly illegal votes because it would change the outcome of the Presidential election.
Here, Judges are not going to allow justice in the Chauvin trial because BLM will burn down even more minority owned businesses.
So the rule of law is suspended to appease BLM rioters.
“Judges refused to advance the cases because the only remedy available was untenable.”
No, mostly they rejected the suits because the plaintiffs lacked standing, a totally standard legal reason for rejecting suits. Are you going to present an argument that legal standing doesn’t matter and should be ignored in all suits? Or do you just want it ignored when it favors your goals?
In some cases, the plaintiffs had standing and the judges ruled against them on the merits. Some of those rulings were pretty scathing. Did you read any of them? Here’s an example –
“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together… This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/files/20-2078_202.pdf
“No, mostly they rejected the suits because the plaintiffs lacked standing, a totally standard legal reason for rejecting suits.”
Correct. Glad to see that you are admitting that there was no actual examiniation of the allegations of fraud and lawlessness.
“Are you going to present an argument that legal standing doesn’t matter and should be ignored in all suits? ”
Is standing often important – certainly. Should it be ignored in all suits ? Absolutely not.
But one of the problems with alot of “standing” decisions is that all too often as in the 2020 election,
Standing becomes a means for the courts to duck the responsibility to make difficult decisions.
Regardless of the merits of any court decisions denying Trump standing, the FACTS are that the 2020 election was conducted outside of the law – lawlessly, AND that there were subsequent credible allegations of fraud – many of very large scale.
Trump is not owed a trustworthy election – but citizens ARE. And it is the duty of the courts to consider credible claims that an election was lawless and fraudulent.
The legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed.
Governments own claim to legitimacy – which is NOT the same as that of the people, rests on free fair and lawful elections.
If you do not have that – you do not have legitimate government.
Put simply – in this case (and many others) standing is not relevant. The courts were REQUIRED to seriously examine credible allegations of fraud and lawlessness.
Or are you arguing that the executive branch of government can conduct elections however it pleases – without regard for the law, without regard for fraud and that no one has standing to challenge lawless and fraudulent elections ?
“In some cases, the plaintiffs had standing and the judges ruled against them on the merits.”
Nope. There are very few instances where the merits are being examined. Several causes that are still ongoing, as well as several that found against the state, and several state legislatures had inquiries into the meirts.
None of the court cases that the left cites were an actual inquiry into the merits.
There were no adversarial hearings where witnesses were called and evidence was presented.
That is what constitutes and a real inquiry into the merits.
“Some of those rulings were pretty scathing.”
The courts failed in their duty – of course some were “scathing” in their efforts to duck responsibility.
“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together… This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”
And yet that is precisely what the courts did – disenfranchise millions of voters.
This is the problem with lawless elections – it is not one sided.
The moment that various state executives acted lawlessly in their administration of elections they inherently disenfranchised voters.
Merely creating doubt about the legitimacy of the election – which was done by conducting the election lawlessly alone undermined the legitimacy of government.
Neither you nor the courts seem to grasp that the authority of government, the legitimacy of government – do not come from the government itself.
The legitimacy in government comes from the consent of the people. Elections are our chosen means to measure that consent.
But just as you can not build a building with a rubber ruler, you can not secure the consent of the governed in a lawless and possibly fraudulent election.
Government is not self legitimizing. Government does not get to determine on its own what constitutes a legitimate election.
Your court rants about Trump’s legal arguments – those are not relevant. What was relevant was that the election was conducted lawlessly – that was a failure of the courts that took place BEFORE the election.
Absolutely after the election when a plurality of people had no confidence in the results the courts were shucking and jiving – because they were complicit in the disaster. It was the courts that allowed lawless elections in the first place.
Why would anyone expect that after the fact they were going to clean up the mess they made ?
“the FACTS are that the 2020 election was conducted outside of the law ”
No, John, that’s your opinion. You often treat your opinions as if they were facts.
“that is precisely what the courts did – disenfranchise millions of voters.”
My opinion: you have an idiosyncratic definition of “disenfranchise.”
“”the FACTS are that the 2020 election was conducted outside of the law ”
No, John, that’s your opinion. You often treat your opinions as if they were facts.”
No it is a well established fact.
Several courts have found that already. YOU are the one who thinks that court findings are immutable.
But more important than court findings – is the FACT that the actual laws and constitutions in many states were not followed.
GA, PA, AZ, MI, WI all have state constitutional amendments that REQUIRE secret ballots.
The requirements for a “secret” or Austrailian ballot are
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place and
being marked in secret.
Mailin voting can not ever meet these requirements. Mailin voting in GA, PA, AZ, MI, and WI are all in violation of those states constitutions.
If you wish to have mailin voting in a state with a secret ballot constitutional amendment – then repeal that amendment.
Otherwise you are acting lawlessly.
The rule of law not man quite litterally requires that you scrupulously follow the law as written – until you can change it, even if you do not like that law. It also requires that you do not “interpret” a law into meaninglessness – that is quite litterally the rule of man not law.
““that is precisely what the courts did – disenfranchise millions of voters.”
My opinion: you have an idiosyncratic definition of “disenfranchise.”
Nope, You disenfranchise people when you destroy the value of their vote.
You can do so by preventing them from voting.
You can do so by diluting their vote.
The NARROW meaning of disenfranchise would mean that only those legitimate voters whose votes were not counted were disenfranchised. That understanding of disenfranchise is completely inconsistent with the court text you cite.
There is not a single election challenge that sought to remove a single vote cast by a legitimate voter.
These challenges ALL were to reject allegedly illegitimate ballots. Rejecting somewhere between 30,000 and 200,000 illegitimate ballots does not disenfranchise anyone – even if it alters the outcome.
UNLESS disenfranchise means that the outcome does not reflect the wishes of legitimate voters.
If that is your definition of disenfranchise – then in 2020 all trump voters were disenfranchised.
More importantly disenfranchised as the court that you are citing used could only boil down to a choice between disenfranchising one group of millions of voters or another.
My use of disenfranchise is not any different than YOUR courts.
What is true is the court MISUSED the word disenfranchise.
The court did raise a very legitimate point.
Specifically because the election was conducted lawlessly – the court was FORCED to choose between two equally unpalatable options.
Screw one set of voters, or the other. The lawless method the election was conducted assured that.
Nearly every contested state had voter ID laws. No one was able to vote in person without their ID being verified – signatures were checked, Photo’s were checked – all BEFORE the voter was given a ballot and allowed to vote.
While fraud is still possible – even fraud large enough to flip an election, it is an order of magnitude harder.
It is reasonable to presume that ballots that have been collected at the polls AFTER ID has been verified reflect the votes of actual living legitimate voters. The courts would rightly be suspect of any challenges that required wholesale discarding of those ballots absent extremely strong proof of fraud.
Conversely, there is virtually no checks on mailin ballots. Most of these states effectively disabled signature checking for mailin ballots, there was no checking of photo ID – even though these states had voter ID laws that required checking photo ID. There is plenty of evidence that post marks were ignored that adresses were not verified. In short that every effort was made by election officials to completely vitiate voter ID laws – as well as those states constitutional bars to mailin elections.
Once a mailin ballot is separated from its envelope – without undergoing the same scrupulous identity check that occurs with in person voting, there is no means to correct errors. Even if at a later date it is determined that hundreds of thousands of mailin voters were illegitimate – the problem can not be fixed without as the court claimed “disenfranchising” millions of voters. Of courts NOT correctly these problems equally “disenfranchises” millions of voters.
The courts erred in allowing mailin voting.
They erred in allowing relaxed verfication of mailin ballots.
They errod in allowing myriads of executive changes to voting procedures that violated state laws.
Having made these mistakes. AFTER the election courts were caught between a rock and a hard place.
And they punted – badly.
The “Rule of Law” required them to follow the law in the first place and require state executives to conduct elections according to existing election laws. PERIOD. In every one of these states – a legislature was in place. If voting process changes were needed – the legislatures could have changed the law. That did not occur – and yet the existing law was not followed – that is lawless.
Myriads of courts pretending otherwise actually makes it worse – MUCH worse.
You do not understand that the court opinions you celebrate are actually damning.
You rant about Jan 6. Grow up – Jan. 6th – or worse – an actual armed uprising is the natural consequence when government is lawless.
And lets be clear – the courts – not even the supreme court is NOT the final authority on the law. The people are.
Situations such as the american revolution – where citizens withdraw FORCEFULLY even violently their support of government are fortunately rare – because government usually pays atleast lip service to abiding by the rule of law.
I mostly agree.
But I will take small issue with one point.
Judges did not ignore clearly illegal votes.
They refused to look into credible allegations of fraud.
Worse they did so in an election that was clearly lawless.
Which raises the actually larger and more important failure of the courts – which is reflective of the failure of the lefts concept of the rule of law.
The major failure on the part of the courts was BEFORE the election.
28 of 50 states, and 5 of the 6 swing states have constitutional amendments requiring secret ballots.
No mailin election can EVER meet that constitutional requirement. That alone is huge – but innumerable bad decisions followed.
No matter how an election is conducted – unattended ballot drop boxes are obvious violations of the law, the constitution.
PA election law as an example had very specific requirements for delivering mailin ballots. A ballot had to be delivered by the voter to the county elections office. Not anonymously to some unsupervised drop box on the street.
We have 2 centuries of very serious election fraud in this country to make clear the consequences of such nonsense.
Nor are these the only examples of lawless election conduct.
The courts had the duty to order that the law was followed BEFORE the election.
Trying to fix lawlessness after the fact is nearly impossible.
After the trial was over, one of the jurors publicly stated that they could have delivered the verdict in 20 minutes. So much for a fair trial by a deliberative jury. Let’s face it, Minneapolis was being held hostage by BLM/Antifa, and the city officials were terrified to see another series of riots. But MN can’t keep the National Guard on speed dial forever, and city officials have to decide whether they want to be held in a perpetual hostage situation. The verdict may have been the same even under different circumstances, but given the following, Chauvin did not receive a fair trial:
–The City of Minneapolis paid the Floyd family a $27 million settlement in the middle of jury selection.
–The judge declined a change of venue.
–The judge refused to sequester the jury.
–Numerous public figures and the mass media constantly referred to the “murder of Floyd.”
–Maxine Waters issued a threatening ultimatum just days before the jury retired.
–Biden publicly declared he was “praying” for a conviction.
–A week before the verdict, Obama called Chauvin a murderer.
–The court house was surrounded by fencing and barbed wire, in plain view of the jury coming and going.
–Protesters camped outside the courthouse everyday.
–Riots throughout MN the week before over the killing of Wright.
–A bloody pig’s head was left in front of the former house of one of the defense witnesses.
–Various BLM activists went on Twitter to declare that MN will burn if they don’t get the verdict they want.
–On April 19, before the jury retired for deliberation, the Public Safety Editor of the Star Tribune Abby Simons posted an article to twitter revealing every detail about the jurors except their actual names and addresses.
— CBS News did an entire newscast revealing details of the anonymous jurors, including that one of them lives near where Daunte Wright was killed.
–The NYTimes ran a similar story with juror details.
Maybe it would not have been possible for Chauvin to get a fair trial under any circumstances, but let’s at least admit that instead of pretending that he received his constitutional rights. In any case, BLM/Antifa and the loud-mouthed “woke” black elites are still not satisfied, and their constant hammering about “systemic racism” is starting to backfire…as it should.
Some, Select Black Lives Matter is incorporated under the diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, including racism) racket that subscribes to the Progressive Church, Synagogue, Clinic’s Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) religion. Anyone associated with that institution cannot be considered an honest broker. #BabyLivesMatter
” and their constant hammering about “systemic racism” is starting to backfire…as it should.”
According to??? Do you have some kind of poll results to back this up? What is this claim based on?
Free Derek Chauvin!
Reverse the fraudulent verdict of the Chauvin “Show Trial.”
The venue must have been changed to a jury of his peers, not a jury of his hysterical and incoherent enemies.
Chauvin was doing his job; conducting a police procedure he was trained to employ.
Execute OJ Simpson.
Black-on-black murders increased y/y.
______________________________
“In Chicago, 201 people have been killed this year. That is 35 more than 2020.”
– Chicago Tribune
Darren.
A comment of mine has gone into one of the “dont publish” buckets.
Thanking you in advance.
Regards Carl.
“The controversy is strikingly similar to discoveries made about Juror 1261 in the trial of Trump associate Roger Trump.” Should be Roger Stone
No challenge. The world watched Chauvin suffocate a man on the street.
EB
A fleeing criminal. Drug overdose. Comorbidities. Covid-19 case. A medical event that preceded the constraint. No forensic evidence to support the allegation of anthropogenic suffocation. No evidence presented that diversity was a motive. Trial by press with an em-pathetic appeal and an at risk judge, jury, and, given diverse precedents, cities, businesses, and neighborhoods across the nation. Presumed guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you n.n. for the accurate summation of the events. Of course the racist Marxists on this blog have no use for due process when it involves a social injustice narrative.
One day the shoe may be on the other foot. And on that day, perhaps the victors will have little use for due process when it comes to them..
We can only hope that if EB ever goes on trial the jury members will be as unbiased as the jurors in the Chauvin case. Hopefully they too will lie when questioned about their bias so that EB will have the pleasure of spending his time behind bars.
Thanks, TIT. i don’t think I’d wish jail on you as I think walking through life with your clear limitations may be a cruel and unusual punnishment that takes much to overcome. Good luck on your journey.
EB
EB
TIT is merely paraphrasing Kant’s “catagorical imperative”.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Or a different paraphrase,
The most rights you can assume to have yourself, are the least rights you allow those you hate the most.
Or try Matthew 18:21-35 The parable of the unforgiving servant.
Regardless, count yourself fortunate if you are not judged as you judge others.
I watched a junkee OD while fighting cops.
No … The world watched a drug user who had overdosed, someone with serious heart problems and related disease, someone with CCPvirus, a person who complained about breathing in a police vehicle (but not the one in which he was riding) – all this after he tried to pass counterfeit money. The police officers could have done things differently and may have done something “wrong” – but were and are being used by the very political left while make-believe justice is done.
The problem is that if you’re willing to allow the court system to ignore fair trial rules for Chauvin then the consequence is ignoring a fair trial for you.
Why must we be able to find this stuff? I couldn’t find it if my life depended on it…I wouldn’t even know where to look. Isn’t a lawyer entitled to assume the truthfulness of a juror’s answer on a questionnaire? How far must one go to dig through the internet to find someone?
“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 August 28, 2020, march in DC was not a George Floyd protest, and obviously, was not in Minneapolis. It was a commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where MLK Jr. spoke. Some groups, like the National Action Network, referred too it as the the ‘Get Off Our Necks’ Commitment March. The t-shirt worn by Mitchell has MLK Jr’s photo on it, not an image of George Floyd. So it’s irrelevant to the question “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?”
Variations of “get your knee off our necks” / “get your feet off our necks” have existed since long before George Floyd.
Notably, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is known for paraphrasing 19th century abolitionist Sarah Moore Grimké, who wrote “I ask no favors for my sex. I surrender not our claim to equality. All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks, and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God designed us to occupy.”
As for the question “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?,” what did he describe above? We’d need to see all of this questionnaire responses.
“The controversy is strikingly similar to discoveries made about Juror 1261 in the trial of Trump associate Roger Trump.”
“Roger Trump” is quite the Freudian slip. Thanks for the laugh!
“we saw in the Stone trial the lengths that courts will go to avoid the obvious.”
We often see in JT’s columns the lengths that he’ll go to avoid the obvious too. Physician heal thyself.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is known for paraphrasing…
And from that progressed diversity, inequity, and exclusion based on sex and other class-based judgments and labels. Take a knee to a baby’s neck to relieve a “burden” demanded by feminists and masculinists to keep women appointed, available, and taxable.
Right, women are there to gestate babies whether they want them or not, whether they create serious health concerns for the woman or not, whether or not the pregnancy was the result of rape, … Women are just their uteruses.
Revitalization. Rehabilitation. Reconciliation. Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness without diversity (i.e. color, class-based (notably age) judgments and labels).
Spin it however you want. But every honest, rational person understands he was attending protests and wearing attire emblazoned with slogans, “Black Lives Matter”, “BLM” and “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks” out of sympathy for Floyd’s death.
Only he knows if he heard the evidence with an open mind and offered a fair verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
But the appearance that he prejudged the case with his conduct and actions before the trial is obvious to anybody who cares about due process.
That, unfortunately, no longer includes illiberal progressives.
“every honest, rational person understands he was attending protests and wearing attire emblazoned with slogans, “Black Lives Matter”, “BLM” and “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks” out of sympathy for Floyd’s death.”
Yep, clearly there’s no difference between an image of MLK Jr. and an image of George Floyd, and clearly there’s no difference between Minneapolis (which he was asked about) and everywhere else (which he was not asked about).
BTW, what other protests did he attend? Please share the juicy details.
Correction: he was not asked about other locations in the first of the two quoted questions. He was asked about all locations in the second of the two quoted questions, but that question also refers to “what you have already described above,” so his answer to that question has to be interpreted in the context of what he wrote above.
Attending Black Lives Matters’ rallies is not inherently predjudical – though it is a basis for deeper inquiry.
Wearing a “get your knees off our necks” tshirt is a clear prejudging of the facts in this case.
This is not about sympathy for Floyd.
I have alot of sympathy for Floyd. There are few who think he deserved to die.
That is not the relevant question.
The relevant question is whether Chauvin’s “Knee on his neck” killed Floyd.
If there is reasonable doubt of that – Chauvin must be aquitted. And there is many times more than reasonable doubt.
If as a juror you are incapable of rendering an innocent verdict where there is many reasons for reasonable doubt – then you should not be on a jury.
Chosing to go on a jury for the purpose of convicting the defendant – is no more moral is the defendant is a white purported or actual oppressor and the victim black – than the other way arround.
Let’s get real here. If we whiteys are afflicted by “systemic racism” in which NONE OF US CAN BE UNBIASED, then the same logic of race applies to blacks. NONE of them could have given Chauvin a fair trial- just because they were black– if you buy into all this “systemic racism” stuff. Any black that might vote to aquit him would be a race traitor, an uncle tom, and victimized by the rest of the vigorously cohesive black group
Wow somedays I WISH white people were as cohesive as blacks are. IF it were truly so, then I would not have had my opportunities for education and career advancement cut short a thousand times over the past 30 years of “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION”
If anything, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES PROVE SYSTEMIC RACISM– IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE~!!
Dear Anonymous. The question was, “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?” That is the entirety of the question. You conveniently added the phrase “that took place in Minneapolis” to the question. The question is obviously general in nature and you tried to make it specific to obfuscate the fact that the juror had attended a black lives mater event and lied to the judge about it. Yours is a trick that we often see on CNN and MSNBC and we have become wise to it. BLM was on his shirt. BLM was not around during Martin Luther Jr’s march. The meaning of his shirt was obviously meant to apply to today’s circumstances. You must have found a dusty game of twister in your basement to place you in the position you are in.
“Dear Anonymous. The question was, “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?” That is the entirety of the question. You conveniently added the phrase “that took place in Minneapolis” to the question.”
Dear TIT, work on your reading skills and your counting skills. Let me know if you need a recommendation for a tutor.
JT quoted TWO questions, not one. The two questions he quoted were
“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?”
“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?”
I copied and pasted them exactly from his column, and I pointed out the parts in bold. I did not add the phrase “that took place in Minneapolis” to either question.
You are the one taking a twisted position here, not me.
Turley: “[The defense] will also have to be prepared to answer, as in the Stone case, why it did not perform a full Internet search on prospective jurors.”
***
Maybe. But both sides are entitled to assume that jurors will answer questions truthfully.
There should be significant and public civil, contempt and criminal costs for activist jurors who lie to get on the jury. He created an issue for appeal that could end up with a repeat of an enormously expensive and socially dangerous trial
Failing punishing activist jurors who lie to obstruct justice in the jury room, then maybe voir dire should be done with prospective jurors clamped to a polygraph.
Polygraphs can be fooled rather easily by taking a drug such as a valium.
Can you quote him lying?
He lied twice if he responded negatively to the second question cited in the article. Both he and his uncle drove halfway across the country to attend the Get Your Knee of Our Necks Rally. BTW- this is NPR’s description of that event in an interview with the organizers:
“Well, you know, organizers called this march the Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks, in reference to George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. The march aimed to draw on the legacy of that 1963 march on Washington, but this time with much of the focus on police killings of Black Americans.”
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/28/907157313/-get-your-knee-off-our-necks-rally-takes-place-on-anniversary-of-march-on-washin
Turley is being generous saying this is appealable. The judge is obligated to order a mistrial if he really answered “no” to that question.
I think there were several times the judge could have declared a mistrial but I suspect he was afraid he would lose his home to a ‘mostly peaceful’ mob attack and arson. He should have granted the motion for a change of venue.
The threat of violence – and WORSE the attitude of prominent people on the left – right up to the president – that somehow violence would be acceptable if there was no conviction all by itself assured there would not be a fair trial.
I have no idea if Chauvin is scum of a racist.
What I do know – fdfrom the evidence at the trial is that Chauvin did not even come close to committing the crimes he was convicted of.
The US used to rant about countries like the USSR that had these show trials.
Where people were convicted of having the wrong ideology.
“He lied twice if he responded negatively to the second question cited in the article.”
Please explain how you come to that conclusion. The second question was “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?”
How can you conclude that he lied without first knowing what he had “already described above”?
“Both he and his uncle drove halfway across the country to attend the Get Your Knee of Our Necks Rally.”
Yep.
Again: how do you know that he did not already describe that above? Have you seen a complete copy of his questionnaire? If so, please share it with us, so we can all read it in full.
“The judge is obligated to order a mistrial if he really answered “no” to that question.”
How do you know that he omitted it from what he’d described above?
I do not know that he “Lied” – nor do I much care.
What I do know is that he did not belong on the Jury – nor should anyone participating in the Rallies he did.
I know that the Prosecutor, and the judge have a Duty do assure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial – and they FAILED.
Anon, the question was “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?” His answer was “no”. The truth was that he attended a BLM event and his shirt testified to his feelings about the police. A truthful answer would have been “yes”. A truthful person would be able to easily see that his “no” answer was a lie. Of course an untruthful person would say that he was telling the truth. Present company included.
Once again, TIT, you need a tutor to help you with your reading skills. The second question was “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?”
How can you conclude that answering in the negative means he lied, unless you ALSO know what he had “already described above”?
Have you seen a complete copy of his questionnaire? If so, please share it with us, so we can all read it in full.
You are the company you describe.
does it really matter where it was. this juror was duplicitous does it make you feel better that you mince words? clearly, he did no favors for the prosecution. for you to mince words just shows y our ingnorance. .
“does it really matter where it was.”
Yes, with the first question is absolutely does, because it affects whether the answer is true or false.
As for your insults, they only reflect on you.
“does it really matter where it was.”
“Yes, with the first question is absolutely does, because it affects whether the answer is true or false.
As for your insults, they only reflect on you.”
It matters if you are seeking to convict the juror of perjury.
The very fact that there is even the slightest debate over whether a juror lied in Voir Dire proves that juror should not have been seated and the trial was not a fair trial.
The standard for jurors is not “biased but truthful only technically”.
This jurors conduct is just about the precise defintion of an unfair trial.
When you seek to get onto a jury for the purpose of shaping its outcome – rather than seeking the truth – that is immoral.
It is infinitely more immoral when do so to find guilt, rather than innocence.
Would you seat a prospective Juror that said:
“Most blacks are criminals”
or
“I beleive the police all of the time”
or
“If the police charged him, he must be guilty of something”
The very fact that there is even the slightest debate over whether a juror lied in Voir Dire proves that juror should not have been seated and the trial was not a fair trial.
Anonymous is arguing like my 12 year old son. My son will defend a lie we know he’s made by twisting the words of our instructions, knowing full well what the intent of our instructions were. That’s precisely what this juror did. They treat the law like it is simply a game and to these Marxists, they can’t lose. They are always on the attack because they are not defending anything. Seriously, what are the consequences of their attacks? Relatively nothing compared to the consequences if they succeed.
Anonymous is pretending that this is black and white – that anything short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror lied means the chauvin got a fair trial.
Anonymous still fails to grasp that the most rights he can expect himself are the least rights he grants those he hates the most.
I think the jurors responses were decpetive – LIES. but I will accept Anonymous’s claim that we do not know the intent of the juror, nor can we prosecute that juror as there is sufficient wiggle room in the questions to the juror and his answers.
But there is no doubt that the defense was denied the opportunity to further explore this juror’s biases.
Anonymous seems to think that jury questionnaires are like a puzzle – a game, where prospects seek to legalistically thread their way through avoiding any scrutiny of their prejudices. Rather than a means of identifying jurors that have prejudged the case.
“Anonymous is pretending that this is black and white – that anything short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror lied means the chauvin got a fair trial.”
No, John, I’ve never said that Chauvin got a fair trial or discussed whether he got a fair trial. Your allegation is a figment of your imagination. That you could read what I wrote and distort it so dramatically reflects really badly on you.
“Anonymous seems to think …”
Once again, you’re claiming that someone “seems to think” things that you’ve invented out of whole cloth. You should stop pretending to read people’s minds. It undermines effective discussion.
“No, John, I’ve never said that Chauvin got a fair trial or discussed whether he got a fair trial.”
This line of argument on your part is stupid.
And you do this constantly.
“I never said some set of words exactly” – so what ?
You have been arguing AGAINST anyone who has noted that Chauvin did NOT get a fair trial.
It is reasonable to presume that you beleive that he did.
“Your allegation is a figment of your imagination.”
If my assessment is actually incorrect – then come out clearly and STATE what you beleive.
Did Chauvin get a fair trial or Didn’t he ?
Simple question.
If you beleive he did not – maybe we can find some common ground.
But if you beleive that he did – I am not consequentially misrepresenting you – you are litterally lying about yourself.
“That you could read what I wrote and distort it so dramatically reflects really badly on you.”
Again – did Chauvin get a fair trial or didn’t he ? Not a complex question.
If I have misrepresented you as believing that he did – then I appologize – though I note that is a reasonable inference from your remarks.
Regardless, I would appreciate YOUR views on why he did not.
But if you beleive Chauvin did get a fair trial – then no one is misrepresenting you.
“Once again, you’re claiming that someone “seems to think” things that you’ve invented out of whole cloth. You should stop pretending to read people’s minds. It undermines effective discussion.”
Would it make you feel better if I replaced “seems to think” with “appears to be saying” ?
Regardless, I am not trying to read your mind. I am reading your words.
Am I wrong ? Do you actually beleive Chauvin’s trial was not fair ?
If so – I appologize, and welcome YOUR thoughts regarding why Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
But if you think that Chauvin did get a fair trial – which is the reasonable assessment of what you have said,
Then maybe YOU do not understand your own thinking very well.
Certain arguments I have effectively used against you are only reverse-able when the fact patterns.
I have attacked you for mind reading – constantly, because you are quite bad at it. You constantly make false assumptions about things you do not know, and you read into what I have said things that are not there.
When I make the same mistakes – you will be able to effectively expose that in the same way that I have with you.
But that REQUIRES that I have made the same mistake.
Have I misrepresented your views ? Have I made false assumptions about you ?
If so I will be happy to apologize. If so – we have some common ground, and I would love to examine that further.
But we both know that is unlikely to be true.
Am I wrong in my presumption that you think Chauvin’s trial was fundimentally fair ?
I would be happy to be wrong.
But that is not likely.
but I will accept Anonymous’s claim that we do not know the intent of the juror,
Intent in the voir dire is unmistakable. We do know the juror answered the reported questions in a manner that would deceive the intent of the questioning. Perhaps the penalty for perjury should be the same one facing the defendant if they are convicted.
I have problems with the conduct of the juror.
But the responsibility to deliver a fair trial rests with the prosecution and the courts.
“You have been arguing AGAINST anyone who has noted that Chauvin did NOT get a fair trial.”
BS. I haven’t been discussing that topic at all, except to tell you that I’m not interested in discussing it. I’ve only been discussing whether he lied on the questionnaire, and I haven’t responded at all to many of the people arguing that he didn’t get a fair trial, as they weren’t discussing the questionnaire.
“It is reasonable to presume that you beleive that he did.”
No, it isn’t. It’s pure invention on your part.
“you do this constantly.”
No, John, YOU constantly infer things that aren’t implied and then blame your discussion partner for YOUR mistaken inferences.
“If my assessment is actually incorrect – then come out clearly and STATE what you beleive.”
You don’t get to command me to participate in a discussion of what YOU want. I get to decide for myself what I want to discuss, and I am not interested in discussing with you whether Chauvin got a fair trial. I AM interested in discussing Mitchell’s questionnaire and how people are interpreting the 8/28/2020 rally. If YOU aren’t interested in discussing those things, then simply ignore me instead of trying over and over to drag me into a discussion of what YOU want.
“Did Chauvin get a fair trial or Didn’t he ? … Again – did Chauvin get a fair trial or didn’t he ? … Do you actually beleive Chauvin’s trial was not fair ?”
How many times do I have to tell you: I am not interested in discussing that with you. Stop trying to get me to discuss it with you. Accept that you do not control the topics that I choose to discuss. Accept that you simply do not know what my answer is because I haven’t said either way.
“if you think that Chauvin did get a fair trial – which is the reasonable assessment of what you have said …”
No, John, it is NOT a reasonable assessment. I haven’t discussed it either way. You are inferring something I haven’t addressed, instead of just accepting that you don’t know. Stop assuming what my answer is, and stop asking me questions about it, because I do not want to discuss it with you.
“I have attacked you for mind reading – constantly, because you are quite bad at it. You constantly make false assumptions about things you do not know, and you read into what I have said things that are not there.”
You are projecting.
“Have I misrepresented your views ? Have I made false assumptions about you ?”
Yes.
“Am I wrong in my presumption that you think Chauvin’s trial was fundimentally fair ?”
You are wrong in assuming that I’ve addressed it. I have not addressed it either way. And I will not address it with you because I’m not interested in discussing it with you. How many times do I have to say this to you before you accept it? You get to control what you choose to discuss, but you do not get to control what I choose to discuss.
“BS. I haven’t been discussing that topic at all, except to tell you that I’m not interested in discussing it.”
Still posting as Anonymous – you do not get to claim an identitity just because right now it might be useful.
Regardless, you keep discussing it.
that is your problem not mine.
“I’ve only been discussing whether he lied on the questionnaire, and I haven’t responded at all to many of the people arguing that he didn’t get a fair trial, as they weren’t discussing the questionnaire.”
Wow, because you have not responded to every single posters who argued X, you can not be accused of arguing !X.
““It is reasonable to presume that you beleive that he did.”
No, it isn’t. It’s pure invention on your part.”
Nope, regardless, you can clear this up trivvially – did Chauvin get a fair trial ? Yes or no ?
If you say “No” – I will appologize and we can move on.
IF you say ANYTHING besides NO, My presumption is reasonable.
““you do this constantly.”
No, John, YOU constantly infer things that aren’t implied and then blame your discussion partner for YOUR mistaken inferences.”
Again – this is easy to address – if my assumptions are wrong – correct them.
Posters like you try to read my mind all the time. They are nearly always wrong and I respond CLEARLY.
I not merely accuse them of attempted mind reading – but also of being WRONG.
I am not unclear in my remarks.
IF I am making false inferances – correct them.
What have I infered regarding you that is WRONG ?
I agree with you that juror #52 did not technically lie on his jury questionaire. There is sufficient wiggle room to preclude prosecuting him.
Never the less Chauvin did not get a fair trail because this juror’s biases were not explored.
And that is the core issue here. Which you do not seem to get.
This is not binary – i.e. either the juror lied or he should have been allowed on the jury.
The fact that he did not technically lie does not make this a fair trial.
““Have I misrepresented your views ? Have I made false assumptions about you ?”
Yes.”
Then you can list those.
Naked assertions are not evidence.
“Am I wrong in my presumption that you think Chauvin’s trial was fundimentally fair ?”
You are wrong in assuming that I’ve addressed it. ”
Did I say that you addressed it ?
The false assumption is yours.
I asked you if I am wrong in my presumption.
Not whether you EXPLICITLY stated something.
“I have not addressed it either way. And I will not address it with you because I’m not interested in discussing it with you.”
That is fine, but you can not claim that my or anyone else’s assumptions are wrong – particularly as you insist on posting anonymously.
You are engage in a very stupid word game.
Again read what i wrote ?
I asked you a question.
You need not answer,
But you can not claim I am wrong without answering the question by doing so.
“How many times do I have to say this to you before you accept it?”
Accept what ? That you hold a position, but are unwilling to discuss it ? i accept that.
And I an using it to your disadvantage.
The reason that I can successfully attack you for mind reading all the time – is because you are WRONG all the time.
If I was wrong in my presumption – you could trivially do the same. Yet, you do not.
Now I have TWO sticks to beat you with. First that you are misrepresenting yourself, and 2nd that you are wrong.
And you have given me the sticks.
“You get to control what you choose to discuss, but you do not get to control what I choose to discuss.”
That is correct.
I asked you a question. A simple one, you chose not to answer. Perfectly fine.
But you then chose to argue about what i presumed would be your answer.
You can do that – but not credibly.
Regardless you are constantly falling into potholes of your own making.
Olly said:
“They treat the law like it is simply a game and to these Marxists, they can’t lose. They are always on the attack because they are not defending anything. Seriously, what are the consequences of their attacks? Relatively nothing compared to the consequences if they succeed.”
Very wisely said, and indeed, you are right. law is treated like a game by the professionals, ever and always
and a winning team is always on the attack
the question then Olly is why do your (our) leaders not embody the same strategic cunning?
because they are perpetually “conserving” that’s why. there’s nothing left to conserve. what we need now is a vision of victory not a vision of “conserving” tired old bromides that lead us to this sorry spot in the first place. a vision of victory worth fighting for, one in which they are squashed to totally, and we will reorganize the rules when we are done.
the question then Olly is why do your (our) leaders not embody the same strategic cunning?
That really is the question. The Marxist insurrectionists have control of the Executive and Legislative branches. They have a strong foothold in the Judiciary and where they don’t, their foot soldiers have intimidated those courts to kneel before them. They have control of many state governments and many of our largest cities. They are already in control of our DOJ, FBI, CIA and NSA. They are actively purging our military. The media and Big Tech are pumping out their propaganda that those in dissent are the insurrectionists and then silencing those dissenters. We are at that house divided moment in history again, but this time, those wanting to preserve this union are being forced into a position of secession. Will we make it to 2022?
You seem to have no grasp of what conservatism is.
It is NOT an ideology.
It is the simple proposition that whatever system is currently in place that has been working – albeit with flaws, should not be discarded at a moments notice on whim for some new approach that at best we can Hope works and has no large unintended consequences.
That is conservatism in a nutshell.
And there will ALWAYS be something to conserve – the status quo. Whatever that is, or in some cases, whatever it was before the left burned everything to the ground and created chaos and anarchy.
I am libertarian – not conservative. Libertarian is an actual ideology. It rests on firm factual and philosophical foundations that have been tested for centuries. Libertarianism allows people the freedom to do as they please with their own lives and posessions so long as they do not use force against others or cause them direct harm.
Libertarians share many of the goals of those on the left. But we do not accept the left’s use of FORCE against others to attain them.
Many libertarains share the “conservative” view that change should be made carefully and with assurance that change is actual improvement before proceeding.
he lied. stop trying to justify. you have lost all credibility at this point. get over yourself and use you rational abilities if you have any. perjury is a punishable offence.
You seem to beleive that the right of a defense to a fair trial, is not abridged when a juror clearly prejudges a case, – so long as they do not “technically” lie – because they are not asked exactly the right question to expose their bias.
This juror should not be prosecuted – whether you want him off the hook because “technically” he may not have lied, or simply because it is nearly impossible to prove lying about your own intentions.
We – and particularly the left have been abusing claims of perjury for the past 4 years.
The rest of us need not join in and start convicting people for things that we can not prove or are meaningless.
But that does not mean there was not a gross miscarraige of justice.
“You seem to beleive …”
Once again John, you are not a mind reader, and I do not believe what you allege.
“Once again John, you are not a mind reader, and I do not believe what you allege.”
Then actually state what you believe.
Is the defense entitled to a jury that has not prejudged the case ?
Did the defense get a meaningful opportunity to explore the prejudices of this juror ?
It is irrelevant whether the juror lied. The standard for a fair trial is not a jury made of people who honestly answered questions that did not expose their actual prejudices.
Nor is the obligation to acheive a fair trial the burden of the defense.
IF a fair trial and a presumption of innocence mean anything – it is the prosecution and judge that are obligated to ensure those.
Regardless, the juror is not on trial. They are not charged, they are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a criminal defendant.
It is the actual defendant – Chauvin that has a right to a fair trial. The right to a jury that has not prejudged the case.
“Then actually state what you believe.”
I did.
The problem is that you want me to discuss a topic that I wasn’t discussing, and that I’m not interested in discussing with you.
You’re welcome to choose what YOU discuss. You are NOT welcome to insist that I discuss it with you.
“Then actually state what you believe.”
I did.
The problem is that you want me to discuss a topic that I wasn’t discussing, and that I’m not interested in discussing with you.”
The core topic here is whether Chauvin got a fair trial.
If that is not what you are discussing – then what is it that you are discussing ?
You are free to choose whatever you wish to discuss.
But it is deceipt to claim that you have discredited and argument when you claim that you are not even discussing the same issues.
Regardless, Anonymous – you are just as typical engaging in word games.
I am very successful in attacking you for stupid attempts at mind reading – because you are attrociously bad at it.
I am very successful at attacking you for misrepresenting my position – because you DO misrepresent my positions,
You are incredibly poorly educated, and seem to have no exposure to any positions other than your own.
You are unable to attack the views of others because you have no understanding of them.
Those criticisms and those attacks do not work in reverse – because I need not mind read you – you make clear what you beleive.
If I am wrong – Great, If as an example you think Chauvin did not get a fair trial – then I welcome your thoughts on that.
And I will happily and humbly apologize for misrepresenting you.
Am I wrong ? Do I owe you an apology ?
Or are you just playing word games and trying to apply and argument that has been effective against you without understanding why it is effective ?
You are free to choose what you wish to discuss. You are even free to lie about that.
But you can not expect anyone else to treat you credibly when you do.
I would further note that so long as you continue to post as anonymous
There is no “you” – you have no actual identity. You can not even claim I was wrong about a prior post of yours – no one can.
Because that is unknowable. It is not possible to know that a prior post is yours. We can all guess. But we can not know.
I can not misrepresent you – because you do not exist.
You are a onetime text dump that may or may not be from the source of another one time text dump.
You have no identity. not reputation, no credibility, no history, no legitimate claim to have been defamed or misrepresented.
Different Anonymous chiming in, John Say, but you sound obsessive. Maybe best to take a break.
Not obsessive.
There is no such thing as “this anonymous” or that.
Every single anonymous post must stand on its own. As only the person who posted each know which anonymous posts are theirs.
And by posting as anonymous even the credibility to claim or disown specific posts does not exist.
Post as anonymous all you wish.
But do not claim or expect as entitlements privileges that can only exist for those who post under an identity.
As an example, it is not possible to defame an anonymous poster, to damage a persons reputation – you must defame an identifiable person.
Yes there are at least 3 person who post under the handle anonymous. 2 of them EB & Sal Sar sign at the bottom of their posts. The 3rd one or maybe 3rd, 4th etc ….. do not sign.
As I understand it Anonymous is the handle and associated gravatar given to people who do not fill in an either the email or handle fields.
“You have no identity. not reputation, no credibility, no history, no legitimate claim to have been defamed or misrepresented.”
Then ignore me.
But as long as you quote something I wrote and respond to it, I will call you out when you are making false claims in response.
For the record, all of the comments here are a textual history. It’s extremely easy to identify different anonymous commenters by the timestamp of the comment(s) you’re responding to or referring to. I often do that in my responses to other anonymous commenters.
“But as long as you quote something I wrote and respond to it, I will call you out when you are making false claims in response.”
No, actually you can’t. You are logically constrained to the 4 corners of the quote.
You can not claim error because of facts about yourself – you are posting as anonymous – there are no know facts about yourself.
“For the record, all of the comments here are a textual history. It’s extremely easy to identify different anonymous commenters by the timestamp of the comment(s) you’re responding to or referring to. I often do that in my responses to other anonymous commenters.”
FALSE. You keep making false assumptions.
The moment you post as anomymous – what you call “textual history” is just a weak assumption.
There is absolutely no means for any of us to be certain that any two posts by anonymous are from the same person.
What you call “extremely easy to identify” has a different more accurate name – “guessing”.
The rest of us are not obligated to guess. We are not obligated to do the slightest work to reach a conclusion that we can not know will be correct.
Numerous anonymous posters here have taken delight in claiming that they are not the anonymous poster someone was responding to.
Could be true – could be a lie.
Regardless, I am neither obligated to ignore you, nor to guess at your identity.
Why are you arguing so hard to force others to do work to give you something you can have for free if you want it ?
And identity.
So long as you post as anonymous”
we are free to ignore you – or not.
To attempt to identify you by context – or not.
To make assumptions based on anything or nothing at all about your identity.
If you want the trappings that come with identity – you are free to do what little is required to secure them.
Otherwise you are railing at the wind.
And you keep trying to shift the burden of your own choices to others.
Once again, TIT, you need a tutor to help you with your reading skillsf
Your are claiming the juror disclosed his participation in the DC protest? Because unless he did, he lied.
“Your are claiming the juror disclosed his participation in the DC protest?”
No, and if you think I claimed anything close to that, then you need to work on your reading comprehension too.
“unless he did, he lied”
That’s your opinion. The court will form its own opinion about that. And it’s the court’s opinion that will matter legally.
This is not about oppinion.
It is not about whether the juror lied. While I think that he unarguably did, I do not think he did so to an extent that is prosecutable.
Something you should think seriously about.
You can not give the juror the benefit of the doubt – without giving Chauvin the same benefit of the doubt.
If you do not think the juror can be convicted of lying – then you do not think Chauvin can be convicted of murder.
Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt.
But this is not about whether the juror lied – though by moral rather than legal standards – he most certainly lied.
It is about whether the juror was biased.
Anyone traveling the distance that he did to go to a Floyd protest and wearing the Shirt that he did and participating in a protest whose central premis was that Floyd was murdered – has prejudged the case, and is not qualified to be a juror.
There is not a right to be a juror.
The prospective juror had the absolute right to protest. But he did not have the right to do so AND after obviously prejudging the case sit in judgement on Chauvin.
“It is not about whether the juror lied.”
That’s the topic I’m discussing with others. If you’re not interesting in discussing whether he lied, just ignore our discussion of it.
Please read what I wrote.
“While I think that he unarguably did [lie],
I do not think he did so to an extent that is prosecutable.
Something you should think seriously about.
You can not give the juror the benefit of the doubt – without giving Chauvin the benefit of the doubt.”
I discussed whether the Juror lied. and I pointed out that you can not give the Juror the benefit of the doubt without doing the same for Chauvin.
There is no “Reasonable doubt for me, but not for thee” standard.
The juror’s conduct was immoral. He intentionally deceived the court.
But he likely threaded the needle regarding prosecutable lying.
Further he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt – just as Chauvin is.
I would not invite either of them to dinner.
But the failure is not with the Juror – it is with the courts.
It is the duty of government to assure a fair and impartitial jury.
Not the defense.
Whether the juror lied, he was predjudiced and that prejudice was not examined.
I think it is clear that prejudice was to great to allow on the jury.
But even if you disagree – neither the prosecution nor the court properly explored it.
“I think that he unarguably did [lie]”
And I don’t agree, for reasons I’ve already explained, including that you consistently misportray the multiple foci of the 8/28/2020 march and rally in DC on the anniversary of the 8/28/1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where MLK Jr. spoke.
“I do not think he did so to an extent that is prosecutable.”
OK, but I haven’t been discussing whether it’s prosecutable. I’ve been discussing whether he lied at all. You and I disagree about whether he lied in the first place.
“The juror’s conduct was immoral”
That’s your opinion. You think he lied. Given what he’s said about it, I don’t think he lied, so I don’t think his conduct was immoral.
“He intentionally deceived the court.”
You and I disagree about that.
“I think that he unarguably did [lie]”
And I don’t agree, for reasons I’ve already explained, including that you consistently misportray the multiple foci of the 8/28/2020 march and rally in DC on the anniversary of the 8/28/1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where MLK Jr. spoke.”
Your multiple foci argument is nonsense.
If the question is “did you attend a George Floyd protest” – the truthful answer is YES, if you attended a GF, BLM, MLK protest.
““I do not think he did so to an extent that is prosecutable.”
OK, but I haven’t been discussing whether it’s prosecutable. I’ve been discussing whether he lied at all. You and I disagree about whether he lied in the first place.”
We more than disagree – you are wrong. The standard for a lie is much lower than the standard for perjury, or even a prosecutable lie where the burdern is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Your foci argument is crap. If ONE of the topics – particularly the advertised topics, We Floyd – then he LIED.
IF the event had many topics and he attended a GF speach – which he did, then he LIED.
I do not beleive this lie is prosecutable because there are too many loopholes in the question.
Not because it is not an obvious lie.
““The juror’s conduct was immoral”
That’s your opinion. You think he lied. Given what he’s said about it, I don’t think he lied, so I don’t think his conduct was immoral.”
Nope, his conduct was immoral.
You keep trying to make everything a matter of opinion – it is not.
It is a FACT that Hitler ordered the extermination of the jews.
It is not somehow moral because in your opinion that was a good thing.
It is a FACT that this juror attended rallies that included “foci” presuming that Chauvin murdered Floyd. It is a FACT that he attended speaches at those rallies espousing that. It is a FACT that he wore a “Get your Knee off my Neck” Tshirt with an image of Floyd and Chauvin.
He intentionally deceived the court.
“You and I disagree about that.”
You can disagree until pigs fly.
That does not make it so.
The purpose of debate, discussion, argument, is to find the truth. You are clearly not interested in doing so.
You are entitled to that.
You are entitled to deceive others or yourself.
But it does not make you moral.
Everything is not an opinion and all opinions are not equal.
The primary means that humans learn is through failure.
I have failed alot in the past. I have learned, and I do not make the same mistakes nearly so often.
I check the facts most of the time BEFORE writing.
I correct myself when I am actually wrong.
Those are LEARNED behaviors.
What was the purpose of these questions on the jury questionaire ?
Wasn’t it to identify prospective juries that might have prejudged the case in order to inquire further and exclude them ?
If you wish to claim that the Jury questionaire was written with a loophole this juror slipped through – fine. That is a failure of the court, not the juror.
But at the barest minimum the defense was entitled to sufficient information to more thoroughly question this juror.
Whether they were denied that by the loophole in the questions or because the juror lied is unimportant.
Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
That is all that matters.
I am not looking to prosecute the juror. Only to exclude jurors that have prejudged the case.
The defense in a criminal trial has an adversarial role. They are supposed to be relatively free in what they can do – in reality that is not the case, defense attorney’s are severely hobbled and everything that goes wrong is their fault.
But both the prosecution and the judge have an actual duty to conduct a fair trial.
While Turley is technically correct that in the botched system we have it is the defenses responsibility to ferret out juror biases.
That is NOT what the constitution demands.
So where is the shill who this morning on the other article about content modification was challenging someone to name the juror?
Suze: “So where is the shill who this morning on the other article about content modification was challenging someone to name the juror?
***
Judging by his final word he is busy treating his peculiar medical issues related to his rectum and several monkeys.
If we tried Hitler for his crimes (had he been alive) at Nuremberg there could hardly have been found an unbiased juror.
When the defendant is real bad it’s sad. But bad people got no reason to live!
POI
Hitler and half the SS went to Argentina and neighboring countries, while Werner Von Braun went to NASA then the moon.
Oh, and Oswald did not shoot Kennedy.
Oh, and Ray did not shoot King.
Oh, and Sirhan did not shoot Kennedy.
Oh, and the Navy accidentally shot down Flight 800 (there is no such thing as a “spontaneous fuel tank combustion”).
Oh, and Mossad destroyed the World Trade Center by controlled demolition.
Oh, and no Vietnamese attacked the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Oh, and FDR caused and allowed Pearl Harbor.
Oh, and Lincoln had no cause for war as secession was and is not prohibited by the Constitution.
History is a mystery, isn’t it?
No. History is written by the winners.
A fair trial is so 19th Century
Before the unparalleled bigotry of diversity, inequity, and exclusion, and accusing people of “Jew privilege” to share/shift responsibility and its aftermath was characterized as socially progressive. One step forward, two steps backward.
What?