Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
The problem of course is the jury. 12 random Americans is not a recipe for critical thinking.
This was my point with starting the thread; can the jury get this right or will there be a few people who’s biases get in the way and they use the defence’s arguments to find Chauvin not guilty?
Looks like no tox report so..
Did Maxine Water's actually incite people (y'all need to be more confrontational) and that led to the National Guard receiving a few shots fired their way? She gone did fuck up if so.
Her exact words: "I am hopeful that we will get a verdict that says, 'guilty, guilty, guilty,' and if we don't, we cannot go away," she added. "We've got to get more confrontational." It would be hard to ignore the fact that there hasn't been a verdict. And Trump supporters like Cruz can fuck right off.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
The problem of course is the jury. 12 random Americans is not a recipe for critical thinking.
This was my point with starting the thread; can the jury get this right or will there be a few people who’s biases get in the way and they use the defence’s arguments to find Chauvin not guilty?
I have listened to too many true crime podcasts to have an unbiased opinion. Every wrongfully convicted prisoner has a story that starts and ends with a bunch of dipshits on the jury. So ya, I could totally see them letting him off. They are 12 people that somehow had never heard about this case before the trial. They are uninformed by design.
Just a small point here ... the jury does not necessarily contain 12 people that have never heard about the case. Potential jurors may have heard about the case, but during jury selection, the trial lawyers will ask questions to determine whether any prospective juror has already formed an opinion on the case - and will dismiss them if they have. However, each side has a limited number of challenges they can issue to have a potential juror dismissed, so each side has to be careful about dismissing too many, as they will have one less peremptory challenge left.
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong about the jury's being a bunch of dipshits, but they may be one iota less dipshitty than you think.
Posted by: KenN
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
The problem of course is the jury. 12 random Americans is not a recipe for critical thinking.
This was my point with starting the thread; can the jury get this right or will there be a few people who’s biases get in the way and they use the defence’s arguments to find Chauvin not guilty?
I have listened to too many true crime podcasts to have an unbiased opinion. Every wrongfully convicted prisoner has a story that starts and ends with a bunch of dipshits on the jury. So ya, I could totally see them letting him off. They are 12 people that somehow had never heard about this case before the trial. They are uninformed by design.
Just a small point here ... the jury does not necessarily contain 12 people that have never heard about the case. Potential jurors may have heard about the case, but during jury selection, the trial lawyers will ask questions to determine whether any prospective juror has already formed an opinion on the case - and will dismiss them if they have. However, each side has a limited number of challenges they can issue to have a potential juror dismissed, so each side has to be careful about dismissing too many, as they will have one less peremptory challenge left.
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong about the jury's being a bunch of dipshits, but they may be one iota less dipshitty than you think.
LMAO. Thanks KenN
Posted by: chupacabra
LMAO. Thanks KenN
Don't forget, that being our intellectual superior he has to point out every last little iota of detail. You can't really fault the guy, it's a heavy burden to bear.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
LMAO. Thanks KenN
Don't forget, that being our intellectual superior he has to point out every last little iota of detail. You can't really fault the guy, it's a heavy burden to bear.
I wasn't being sarcastic. KenN's job here is to mind the details and he does good work.
It's really scary at times. I just got my copy of Innovation magazine, and the moment I picked it up, the spelling error smacked me full in the face. It's a really weird thing my brain does - sees spelling errors before actually reading the context.
Slueths. So much for spell checking.
Well... here we go. 10 hours of deliberation. Less than 15 minutes until we find out the verdict.
Guilty on all counts.
Sentencing will be interesting.
Phew. America dodged a bullet today.
Posted by: KenN
Sentencing will be interesting.
Theoretically its supposed to be 10-15yrs for each of the murder convictions and ~4yrs for the manslaughter conviction (based on what is normally seen in Minnesota).
Forum jump:
