I had jury duty once and we all felt like the lady was messed up on pills or something but the supposed blood samples they had as proof were lost.
Imagine the rallies that all the white people that also found him guilty of all three charges in 10 hours of deliberation went to
If the jury is the "will of the people," then why don't we just let them make up the charges themselves?
There is no problem with any jury member going to any rally, regardless of their skin color. The problem *potentially* lies in whether the juror was honest and up front about it. The guy has been quoted as saying about jury duty, "We gotta get out there and get 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." That doesn't sounds like an impartial juror to me. No juror should be approaching a case looking to "spark some change." He also allegedly told the defense lawyer that he didn't know whether Chauvin did anything wrong and believed the officer had no intention of harming anyone. Kind of hard to believe when you see the photo of the dude with a shirt that says "get your knee off our neck" a year earlier. It really has nothing to do with whether you think Chauvin is guilty or not. You should want everyone to have a fair trial. And you should want there to be no doubt. This dude is causing doubt.
"The jury is the will of the people... except when they don't give us the verdict we want. Then we burn shit." Am I doing it right? What's your point with the other cop? Sounds to me like they got too aggressive with the charges. I don't think that is how it works. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that if it's declared a mistrial, they would just retry him. Chauvin ain't walkin.
Yes, people are not a monolith. I think we all can see that. Democracy and government by the people is far from perfect, but it is literally the best thing we've got until either Jesus returns or the technological singularity forms, which either is still debatable depending on your views of unproductive fig trees and unfettered capitalism, or individuality, respectively.
In essence, yes. Our country was founded on the principal that government should fear its people, enough to work toward the goal of the people, indirectly. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. One, I'm sure, you've heard before and, understand. That the people can always rise up against government, and government should fear that. But I imagine that you've never put 1 and 2 together. There are three branches of government. One of them is judicial. And judicial should also fear the people, as judicial is also government. Whether the charges were too aggressive or not, the people spoke on the matter, the court allowed the matter. The judicial process worked correctly, and if the judicial process wants to amend the will of the people, then it should do with the knowledge that government should fear its people. And if things burn, things burn. It's murky because the 5th amendment speaks on double jeopardy, and mistrials are declared BEFORE the trial is complete. This trial has been completed. As a result, it isn't really a mistrial. From ABA.org (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/..._education_network/how_courts_work/mistrials/) So, it can't be a mistrial. The trial has completed. If the trial has completed, then there is an argument that he has been tried once. If he has been tried once, he can't be tried twice.
Everything about this causes doubt in you, Indy. There is no doubt here, there is no doubt about kneeling on the neck, there is no doubt about whether it was drugs or something else, because drugs aren't on trial. There is no doubt. He is convicted, and guilty, and the rest is throwing whatever at any wall that his attorney can throw, because that's his attorney's job.
They'll request a new trial on the basis of reasons they claim should have led to a mistrial. I'm a words have meaning guy, but it's essentially the same potential outcome. Still believe it's highly unlikely. Edit: clean up my wording because words have meaning.
I was watching something about the Scott/Lacy Peterson trial. One of the lead jurors or most influential had a history of domestic abuse against her, wasnt forthcoming about it and if I recall, lied about something else. Lawyers are trying to use this to get him a new trial. Hopefully nothing comes of this, but we can't have people who may already have their minds made up or carry some bias, lying and gaining a seat on an "impartial" jury. Not sure what the deterrent is, but there needs to be one.
