BLM Activist Was on the Jury in Chauvin Trial

The IRONY will come when this is cited in the Appeal case 😃

originally posted by: EvanB
It's a bit like a kkk member being on the trial of a black man :/

Chaivin's legal team had the right to object to them at the time, and so far from what I can see this person attended a rally, which doesn't make them an "activist".

originally posted by: xuenchen
The IRONY will come when this is cited in the Appeal case 😃

Given that the verdict was unanimous, and quickly reached this probably won't even be a factor.

Overturning a verdict because a single jury member attended a single event would set a dangerous precedent.

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

Would simply being a registered Republican stop you from being on the jury of a registered Democrat?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: EvanB
It's a bit like a kkk member being on the trial of a black man :/

Chaivin's legal team had the right to object to them at the time, and so far from what I can see this person attended a rally, which doesn't make them an "activist".

Yep, thought the same thing..it could be a problem though..but it doesn't change anything in my eyes.

originally posted by: cooperton
Trial by media is our native right. If you're in another country it's trial by predator drone.

What better way to go out? If I got droned I would die with a grin on my face knowing that my enemy had to go to that extreme and waste a massive amount of resources to take me out.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

You

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

The NRA doesn’t have ties to riots, torching, and sacking...

In fact, the NRA wouldn’t be a thing if it had ties to riots, sacking, and torching.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AaarghZombies

You

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

The NRA doesn’t have ties to riots, torching, and sacking...

In fact, the NRA wouldn’t be a thing if it had ties to riots, sacking, and torching.

Meh, non sequitur.

I'm not sure your points are exactly relevant. And no, not or ever was in support of rioting, torching..etc

originally posted by: EvanB
BLM Activist on Chavins Jury

I thought that jury's had to go through a vetting process in order to create a fair trial?

I'm not saying the Jury didn't reach the right conclusion but am saying that this trial didn't meet the required standards under the law and with information that one of the jurors was a t-shirt wearing, rally/protest attending paid up BLM member then this was never a fair trial and an unsafe conviction.

It is also very good grounds for appeal.

Jury selection needs a serious overhaul

12 angry men: the sequel

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AaarghZombies

You

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

The NRA doesn’t have ties to riots, torching, and sacking...

In fact, the NRA wouldn’t be a thing if it had ties to riots, sacking, and torching.

Meh, non sequitur.

I'm not sure your points are exactly relevant. And no, not or ever was in support of rioting, torching..etc

Really. How many times have we heard Trump supports this or that because he didn’t denounce something in a way they wanted...

So, in a sane world, I would agree. But I am applying liber standards.

And I am sure the past history of rioting and arson did run through the minds of the jurors. I don’t know if it played in the decision. But it was an aspect hinted at if the right decision wasn’t made.

Chauvin Judge: Rep. Waters’ Call for Protesters to Get ‘Confrontational’ Could Lead to Trial Being Overturned

www.thedailybeast.com...

A little melodramatic. Shrugs. But now we find a person with ties to BLM was on the ”inside” with the jury.

originally posted by: EvanB
BLM Activist on Chavins Jury

I thought that jury's had to go through a vetting process in order to create a fair trial?

I'm not saying the Jury didn't reach the right conclusion but am saying that this trial didn't meet the required standards under the law and with information that one of the jurors was a t-shirt wearing, rally/protest attending paid up BLM member then this was never a fair trial and an unsafe conviction.

It is also very good grounds for appeal.

Jury selection needs a serious overhaul

He's probably the same juror you can hear gasping aloud when the court would show dramatic footage. I'm sure it had no effect on those around him when it came time to make a decision. No effect whatsoever.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AaarghZombies

You

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

The NRA doesn’t have ties to riots, torching, and sacking...

In fact, the NRA wouldn’t be a thing if it had ties to riots, sacking, and torching.

Meh, non sequitur.

I'm not sure your points are exactly relevant. And no, not or ever was in support of rioting, torching..etc

Really. How many times have we heard Trump supports this or that because he didn’t denounce something in a way they wanted...

So, in a sane world, I would agree. But I am applying liber standards.

And I am sure the past history of rioting and arson did run through the minds of the jurors. I don’t know if it played in the decision. But it was an aspect hinted at if the right decision wasn’t made.

Chauvin Judge: Rep. Waters’ Call for Protesters to Get ‘Confrontational’ Could Lead to Trial Being Overturned

www.thedailybeast.com...

A little melodramatic. Shrugs. But now we find a person with ties to BLM was on the ”inside” with the jury.

None of that makes the point I replied to relevant. I think this could be problematic, but attending a rally..I'm not sure that "ties" him to BLM, as in card carrying member..if he lied, not good.. We will see.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AaarghZombies

You

For example, would belonging to the NRA or attending a second amendment rally prevent you from serving on any jury involving gun control?

The NRA doesn’t have ties to riots, torching, and sacking...

In fact, the NRA wouldn’t be a thing if it had ties to riots, sacking, and torching.

Meh, non sequitur.

I'm not sure your points are exactly relevant. And no, not or ever was in support of rioting, torching..etc

Really. How many times have we heard Trump supports this or that because he didn’t denounce something in a way they wanted...

So, in a sane world, I would agree. But I am applying liber standards.

And I am sure the past history of rioting and arson did run through the minds of the jurors. I don’t know if it played in the decision. But it was an aspect hinted at if the right decision wasn’t made.

Chauvin Judge: Rep. Waters’ Call for Protesters to Get ‘Confrontational’ Could Lead to Trial Being Overturned

www.thedailybeast.com...

A little melodramatic. Shrugs. But now we find a person with ties to BLM was on the ”inside” with the jury.

None of that makes the point I replied to relevant. I think this could be problematic, but attending a rally..I'm not sure that "ties" him to BLM, as in card carrying member..if he lied, not good.. We will see.

You mean violence and destruction BLM protests lead to? With no denouncing of the violence, and calls and appeals for peaceful protests by BLM and democrats leadership? With the mayors of certain cities doing little to stop the rioting, looting, and arson?

Do you think if a NRA rally lead to the same chaos, the rioters would be given as much leeway as the rioters last summer?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Wasn't exactly unbiased or without prejudices was he though regardless?

originally posted by: EvanB
Wasn't exactly unbiased or without prejudices was he though regardless?

You just described every single person on the planet who isn't lying to themselves.

a reply to: neutronflux

Do you think if a NRA rally lead to the same chaos, the rioters would be given as much leeway as the rioters last summer?

Probably not, still irrelevant to the legal question. A member of BLM should be excluded from this trial, same as an NRA member, is not suitable to sit on some proceeding's related to guns.

Whether there has been a riot related to either of those orgs is irrelevant to the question. Unless either has been declared a terrorist organization. Do you understand my point?

originally posted by: SuperDave90
Id love to see the questions that were asked of the jurors on that questionnaire.
This person could have committed perjury, I wonder if they will be charged...........

A BLM member charged?
Where? When? Ever happened?
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

a reply to: vonclod

What is relevant is you have people with ties to BLM making demands of the jury. And stating certain things will happen if the right decision isn’t made.

Is that a false statement.

Has anyone here ever actually been part of a jury? A jury decision has to be unanimous or it'll be a mistrial, and I can tell you from the times I've been in a jury, most of the people on the jury can be swayed pretty easily by one or more people who are smooth talkers.

There was a case I was on where one guy had swayed damn near the whole jury into going into his decision, and I drew the damn thing out, because I didn't agree with him. I was finally able to get him to concede on a few important points because the other members were getting tired of being on jury duty.

I don't doubt that this jury was BS especially with everyone going into it with preconceived notions.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes but those prejudices have to be weighed when selecting a jury in order to have a fair trial. This clearly didn't happen very well in this case and has given the defence a legal route for a miss trial, retrial or an appeal at the minimum