So the answer is no, apparently – you have zero evidence he did not answer those questions truthfully.
Yes, probably. There’s nothing particularly damning in that photo. He’s not expressing any extreme opinions, or making any direct commentary on the case, and there’s no reason to assume, based on attendance at an MLK memorial rally, that he would be unable or unwilling to impartially judge the evidence presented against Chauvin. Lawyers in criminal cases do not have unlimited discretion to reject jurors. They have a particular number of dismissals, and they don’t want to waste them on something as flimsy as attending the rally shown in that photo, and then not have a challenge remaining for someone who’s actually biased.
(edited for clarity)
According to the Newsweek quote DavidNRockies posted just now, yes.
It’ll all come out in the retrial, if it even gets that far. My guess is Chauvin will get the manslaughter charge in the end, murder charges will be thrown out. He’ll do a few years in jail.
This juror is lying, all the proof I need is in the questionnaire and his pictures, more are coming out now.
You haven’t presented any evidence the juror is lying. Random, unsupported accusations of lying (and legal predictions) from a random internet stranger (and presumably not a lawyer) are worth exactly nothing.
You were convinced he was lying before you even knew what the questions were. “Proof” is clearly not a part of your decision process, here.
Previous posters have said BLM protests are the same as MLK. Your guys words, not mine but either way the guy lied. He’s an activist that was looking for a certain decision.
Is this “guess” of a similar confidence level as your assertion that Trump would win in 2020? Do you think Trump will win in 2020? - #690 by split_p_j
You can bring that up, but you know we are not done with Trump or his minions, so I’m not sure why you’re gloating here. If Harris runs in '24 we could very well see Trump again.
I’m pretty certain nobody said this, mostly because it makes no sense. But even if they did, so what? I’m not a hive mind. I’m not responsible for someone else’s dumb argument, even if it’s vaguely on “my side” of the argument.
Beyond that, wearing a t-shirt doesn’t make you an activist, and you haven’t shown he lied about anything on the questionnaire.
Who’s gloating? I’m just showing that you make predictions based on guesses, and apparently nothing more. You’ve failed to show any evidence at all that this juror lied, so I think we can leave it there. If you have further guesses about this juror or the trial, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t expect anyone to treat your wild guesses as anything more than random internet noise.
Actually, this is what happened: the defense was down to their last juror dismissal: this guy or an older black man who was a member of the Black Panthers in his youth, spent time in prison for protesting police brutality, was a producer on NWA’s “Fuck da Police,” and whose nephew was killed in a traffic stop just a week before the trial.
Now, I have no proof of this whatsoever, but it fits my preformed narrative, so it must’ve happened that way.
[quote=“Miller, post:876, topic:939024, full:true”]
You should have gone with your first instinct.
He wore a t-shirt that said “BLM” on it. He might have worn it because he agrees with the specific aims of one of the legally contracted public organizations that use BLM in their names. He might have worn it because he agrees with the plain meaning of the phrase, “Black lives matter.” He might have worn it because he agreed with the other sentiment displayed on the shirt - which we’ll get to in a second - and the shirt happened to have been produced by a BLM-affiliated organization.
That imagery has been common in Civil Rights arguments for decades.
“It demands great spiritual resilience not to hate the hater whose foot is on your neck, and an even greater miracle of perception and charity not to teach your child to hate.” - James Baldwin, 1963
“That’s not a chip on my shoulder, that’s your foot on my neck.” - Malcolm X, 1964
“I ask no favor for my sex, all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2018
MLK, of course, was a Civil Rights leader who spoke often about the evils of white supremacy, and who was, famously, frequently the target of police violence.
While the shirt designer likely was referencing Floyd’s murder by changing “foot” to “kneeling,” it’s a leap to go from that t-shirt message, to the idea that the person wearing it was too biased to sit on this jury. You will be hard pressed to find a Black person who does not think that Black lives matter, or who does not think that police violence should go unaddressed: and that’s as much as can be learned from the photo of the gentleman at the MLK rally. If the bar for keeping a Black person off a jury in a civil rights case is that low, you’re effectively arguing that no Black person can sit on a jury for a civil rights case.
You just went off listing Malcom X and tying MLK to BLM
The messed up quote tags make this post incomprehensible.
I’m not sure the quote tags are the only problem.
Fine, I know I messed up the quotes, but you know what I’m saying. Miller ties MLK to BLM and then tries to say the two have nothing to do with each other in regards to this juror.
No, I was pointing out that using the imagery of someone standing on your neck to describe systemic racism predates George Floyd’s murder. It says nothing at all like “BLM protests are the same as MLK,” which, again, is incoherent.
Of course, excuses for everything, you are spinning over trying to make this juror look legit. I know that works in this echo chamber and I get piled on and look weak. But people see this for what it is.
I think the problem is that you have a very clear position, but that you’ve been unable to articulate a valid, logical, coherent, and rational argument in support of that position.
Thus my reference to Argument by Assertion/Repetition: it’s so because I say it’s so, and because I say it’s so … ad nauseum.
Par for the course with Truthers.