That's where the similarities end. Both are civic duties. You should show up for both. That's it. You vote for people who represent the changes in society that you want to see. You come into it with a bias towards one candidate or another, based on your beliefs. You should not be coming into jury duty with the same mindset. There's no way you actually believe what you're typing these last few posts.
If it's clear that what I did was a misdoing, I don't see the issue. The goal of the justice system is justice, not to take clear things and muddy them.
What about it do you not believe is accurate? Look in to it. Get informed, then weight in on the chance. You'll find it much, much higher than 0%.
You have not proved that the individual was biased. Sparking change isn't a bias. You have a belief that it is bias, without proving that it is bias. It is impossible to walk anywhere without your beliefs. Everyone sitting on a jury, has beliefs. Those beliefs impact their decisions. Jury duty is no different. The only question is did this particular belief change the outcome. And the answer is quite clearly no.
In this context, where every juror voted guilty... how does the bias you perceive of this one individual change the outcome? It only takes one to change the outcome, sure. How does that statement apply, here, in this case?
Isn't this the whole "Proving a negative" thing you always talk about? Shouldn't the burden be on you to provide some sort of proof or evidence that what you've outlined can actually happen? Have you read an article suggesting it can happen? Or that it's likely?
The reason we go through jury selection is to weed out jurors who might have strong beliefs about specific topics that could cause them to apply their bias to their decision about the verdict, rather than basing that decision on the actual evidence of the case. The dude allegedly attended a March where members of GF's family spoke, and he wore a shirt that literally used a tag line born from GF's death. Again, there's nothing wrong with any of that. It's perfectly acceptable for any US citizen to do those things. But if he lied about it or was misleading with his responses during the jury selection process, then it's absolutely a problem.
Imagine if Chauvin had been found not guilty, and it was later found that one of the jurors had ties to white supremacy groups that he or she lied about during jury selection. We should want everyone to have a fair trial, regardless of how strongly we feel about whether the person should be convicted or not.
I think the more pertinent piece of info is "marches attended with speeches given by the alleged victim's family members."
1) Happened throughout the South for decades 2) Nothing suggest he did not get a fair trial. We saw over 9 minutes of video on a continues loop showing him kill a man.
Let's pretend you were there and heard them speak. Are you saying that would prevent you from listening to the evidence and making an informed decision yourself. You would be swayed that easily?
