Derek Chauvin Trial

[Animal]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

I would suggest that if potential jurors came into the court room with t shirts like this, that expressed their actual views on the case, then the jury selection would be much easier. You know, rather than lyng on the forms.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

I would suggest that if potential jurors came into the court room with t shirts like this, that expressed their actual views on the case, then the jury selection would be much easier. You know, rather than lyng on the forms.

You mean the juror that said on his form he was very favourably disposed toward BLM, and commented that he regards 'black lives matter' as a statement of fact rather than a political movement?

[CHEEZY17]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

[necronomous]

In this thread, people who do not understand the law.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

[Animal]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.

No, the video of the cop committing the crime was directly a video of the cop committing the crime. The picture of the juror requires you to make some pretty big leaps of imagination about what someone else was thinking and to declare as fact that going to an event to commemorate an MLK speech means you were protesting the police.

[CHEEZY17]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

He would have been excused and you know it. I would even go so far as the judge probably would have done it and not even the defense.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

He would have been excused and you know it. I would even go so far as the judge probably would have done it and not even the defense.

So explain why he was not excused for stating openly in his questionnaire that he was very favourably disposed to BLM then?

The main thing asked of the juror is can you put your beliefs and desires aside and judge impartially on the evidence. It's a pretty narrow list of things that are exclusions for cause if a juror can state that.

[Animal]

Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.

What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?

Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.

just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.

No, the video of the cop committing the crime was directly a video of the cop committing the crime. The picture of the juror requires you to make some pretty big leaps of imagination about what someone else was thinking and to declare as fact that going to an event to commemorate an MLK speech means you were protesting the police.

honestly, the guy could have been in Washington DC to go to a cupcake convention. The fact that he bought a T shirt and posed for a picture in it that said "Get your Knee off our Necks" is enough for me to determine his motives. Sort of like the juror that said all she needed was the picture of Chauvin with his hands in his pockets. Pictures just have a way of speaking to you.

[Burn1dwn]

I am fully expecting every person that ever saw a Trump rally to be ineligible to sit as jurors on cases involving hispanics, Muslims. Democrats, fans of Reagan, suspects that wear a toupee, and anyone that voted for Joe Biden.

You guys are talking about a black man at an MLK rally. Not a black panther party. I understand the issue being raised but you drama queens are too much.

try to distinguish between people that just go to rallies and people that pose in T shirts with a specific caption printed on the T-shirt that pertains to the exact trial they are a juror on. Surely you can make that distinction.

I stand by my statement Nancy.

[AnalHamster]

It's enough to determine he bought a t-shirt at the MLK march sure enough. We're going in circles now, the judge will be dismissing your hysterical waaahs soon enough.

[pork]

just a reminder the judge had already given light prior to the verdict that because of Maxine waters comments that they would have grounds for a retrial...i think this just puts an explanation point on that statement

i dont know why this is such a debated topic. the guy apparently lied on his juror form. the judicial system has rules and if this in anyway broke them they will have no choice but to retry the case...i hope it doesnt happen but it certainly could if the guy actually lied on the forms.

[AnalHamster]

just a reminder the judge had already given light prior to the verdict that because of Maxine waters comments that they would have grounds for a retrial...i think this just puts an explanation point on that statement

i dont know why this is such a debated topic. the guy apparently lied on his juror form. the judicial system has rules and if this in anyway broke them they will have no choice but to retry the case...i hope it doesnt happen but it certainly could if the guy actually lied on the forms.

No, he did not.

[CaptQuint]

The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.

[pork]

The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.

thats not true. go listen to the court session

[pork]

[Animal]

watching an actual video of the words coming out of the judge's mouth won't matter to Queef. He will just pick a word or two here an there and construct his own meaning of what he said.

[CaptQuint]

The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.

thats not true. go listen to the court session

The previous Judges opinion means zero.

[CaptQuint]

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.

[CaptQuint]

The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.

thats not true. go listen to the court session

So he declared a mistrial? Or did he deny the request for one?

[Animal]

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.

Every time Queef quotes Judge Cahill, he intentionally leaves out this part of the Judge's statment.

"Judge Peter Cahill: (04:29)
Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. But what’s the state’s position?

[CaptQuint]

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.

Every time Queef quotes Judge Cahill, he intentionally leaves out this part of the Judge's statment.

"Judge Peter Cahill: (04:29)
Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. But what’s the state’s position?

That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.

[Animal]

That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.

actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.

[CaptQuint]

That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.

actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look st.upid.

None of us are Appellate Court Judges, so Cahill's opinion means nothing. You dumb cowboy