George Floyd's murder trial

tungsten, the way you presented your argument was horrible. All I wanted was a simple answer to a question and you didn't provide it. When you finally did post something (that has very weak support for your claim btw) you didn't indicate that's what it was for or state how it may have been relevant to the discussion or question at hand. I didn't bother to read that last link due to the ramblings that preceded it. 

A normal form of conversation involves making an attempt to answer questions in a relatively direct manner, or at least one that isn't vague or being purposely obtuse.

Posted by: Schnickelfritz

Posted by: tungsten

One of the jurors lied during selection.

Did he though?

The event he attended was an MLK event put on by the NAACP, specifically about *CIVIL RIGHTS, and MLK's march on Washington, not police brutality. **It wasn't in Minneapolis.

The guy is wearing a BLM T-shirt, but it's gonna have to be some fancy lawyering to get it overturned based on a T-shirt.

*Police brutality isn't a violation of ones civil rights?

**2nd question.

That outside the beltway article claims he lied, then details how he didn’t.

Weird, most good opinion pieces avoid using quotes that undermine their point. That guy goes right to it for some reason. 

Satire, disengeneous or just a fool? You decide, it’s a post-truth post-irony world!

Posted by: Schnickelfritz

Posted by: tungsten

One of the jurors lied during selection.

Did he though? 

The event he attended was an MLK event put on by the NAACP, specifically about CIVIL RIGHTS, and MLK's march on Washington, not police brutality. It wasn't in Minneapolis.

The guy is wearing a BLM T-shirt, but it's gonna have to be some fancy lawyering to get it overturned based on a T-shirt.

Slow your roll trying to interject objective facts into this thread,

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-former-minneapolis-police-officers-indicted-federal-civil-rights-charges-death-george

Posted by: tungsten

*Police brutality isn't a violation of ones civil rights?

**2nd question.

*Read how the NAACP markets the March on Washington event. It's not about Police brutality. It was a commemoration of MLK's speech. Pretty hard to claim that it's a Police brutality demonstration when nothing in any of the marketing materials even mentions it. I suspect the defense will try and push a noodle uphill and make the same specious argument you're trying to. They may be able to point to George Floyd's family speaking and claim that somehow made it about Police brutality, but I'll leave that up to lawyers.

** My post addressed both questions. He didn't attend a Police Brutality demonstration (2nd question), it was not in Minneapolis (1st question).

Don't matter. He went to an event somewhere full of black people some of who were probably pissed about police brutality somewhere at some time or another in their lives and said he didn't.

Do you think that an appellate judge will care that he “lied” in his answer to that question?

Defense lawyers ask unreasonably broad questions like this strategically, to possibly give an opening for appeal.  Judges know this, and analyze the questions accordingly.

I doubt it’ll make any difference on appeal, but that if this gets used as an Avenue of appeal it’ll play very well in the part of the media that wants to let cops do this shit.