https://www.vox.com/identities/2020...knee-off-our-necks-march-on-washington-photos The juror attended the above march, which has literally been coined the "Get Your Knee off Our Necks" march on Washington, then claimed on his questionnaire during jury selection that "neither he, nor anyone close to him, has participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality." Doesn't pass the smell test. If it's not a straight up lie, it's definitely misleading. It shouldn't matter whether you think Chauvin is guilty or not. You should want him to have a fair trial.
Am I to take it that when the appeal is denied that you will be on here posting about why they got it wrong?
"doesn't pass the smell test", is that a legal term? It was a celebration of the 57th Anniversary of the "March on Washington" and of MLKs "I have a dream speech" The shirt was purchase at the celebration and depicts a picture of MLK and something he might say today. From the organizers website: 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. This year, thousands will virtually March on Washington to restore and recommit to the dream.
I already said in post #559 that "it's possible to see how one might not classify it that way" (as a protest against police use of force or police brutality), so it's not like I'm refusing to acknowledge your point. But it's significantly easier to make the case that it was a protest about police use of force or police brutality than it is to make the case that it wasn't. The celebration is literally selling shirts that protest against police use of force and/or police brutality. Again, not saying you can't weasel your way into an understanding that makes him maybe not a liar, but it takes quite a bit of weaseling.
I think a retrial would be justified. I'm not sure I'll need to post, as I think I've made my stance about whether the guy got a fair trial or not clear. I don't think the 3rd degree murder charge will stand, and I think there are a number of steps that could/should have been taken to make more certain that he received a fair trial. Do you want people in the US who are charged with crimes to receive a fair trial? If you felt someone might not have, would you post about it?
Hung juries are actually pretty rare. If you had 11 jurors voting not guilty, and a single white supremacist voting not guilty, you have a not guilty verdict. You don't have a re-trial. If you have 11 jurors voting guilty, and 1 juror, who is a white supremacist, voting not guilty, you have a retrial, on the grounds that the juror was not forthcoming in the fact that they were a white supremacist.
Dude shouldn't have been a juror. He shouldn't have been selected and should have been removed. I don't think it changes the outcome, but whether he got the legal definition of a fair trial will be decided by whether he has hired a good enough lawyer. I'm not sure that is necessarily possible.
Looks like the Judge is getting ready to throw the book at him: Judge to consider longer sentence for Derek Chauvin Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill said he will consider an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin after finding aggravating factors in George Floyd's death, according to an order made public Wednesday.
Did not think I'd ever see this day. Huge step in fixing broken parts of system. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/us/police-unions-intervention-blueprint/index.html
