Minnesota trial of Derek Chauvin (killer of George Floyd) reactions

I mean you quoted people saying things about knees and necks but never quoted MLK saying that. But then at the end you throw in police abuse for MLK.

And now you are trying to deny that.

I’m not denying that I explained who MLK was to you, because it seemed like information you might not know. How this relates to… really, absolutely anything at all, escapes me entirely.

What point, exactly, do you think you’ve proved by demonstrating that I’ve “tied” MLK to BLM?

(edited to fix quote)

It also may be worth your while, @split_p_j , to take a few minutes and actually read the responses to your arguments that other posters have offered up. Good, valid, logical, coherent, and rational counterarguments have been offered up repeatedly.

This might break the cycle.

Or … y’know … it might not.

Yes of course. I can’t type well so I’m not logical. Sure.

[Looks at bottom of shoe]

Awww, yeah. I definitely stepped in something.

Since this juror was very open about his beliefs during jury selection, Chauvin is more likely to get an appeal if he argues ineffective counsel,

That makes sense. And I did a search to confirm it - yes, you are correct.

You said the juror wasn’t at a BLM event in DC, he was at an MLK event. Then you went and tied MLK to BLM by saying MLK was fighting against police abuse. You couldn’t respond to my question of why the juror was wearing a BLM hat and shirt to a MLK event, so you brought up quotes from Malcolm X and others saying things about knees and necks.

You couldn’t get a quote from MLK saying that so you just said he was fighting police abuse too. Is that not what you said?

Did you read the Newsweek article ?

If your sources are better than theirs, and in direct contradiction to theirs, then please cite your sources in support of your position.

ETA: and with the information we currently have, I’ll repeat myself:

Mitchell told The Star Tribune that he had answered “no” to two questions on a questionnaire for potential jurors. The first asked whether he or someone close to him had participated in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after Floyd’s death. The second asked, “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?”

He participated in last summer’s March on Washington.

This is uncomfortably close to being a lie. That march was to honor MLK, true, but here is one other announcement about it:

Instigated from the protest movement that has risen up since the police killing of George Floyd, the ‘Get Off Our Necks’ Commitment March on Washington will be a day of action that will demonstrate our commitment to fighting for policing and criminal justice.

The Commitment March will take place on August 28th 2020 — the 57th anniversary of the historical March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

However, the juror was upfront about his BLM beliefs so the Defense could have just kicked him out.

Could it be they left him in so as to have grounds for Appeal?

Yes I read the article. I see a lot of maybes and probably nots.

No Miller is trying to say “get your hands of our necks” was a MLK cry too.

Then there you go. If he was open about his beliefs in court, he had no reason to lie on his form.

But Moran described the issue as more of “a close call.”

“I don’t think that’s a clear lie, so it probably doesn’t qualify as misconduct,” she said.
Moran said: "It definitely involved condemnations of police brutality, so some people would say he should have answered that question yes (particularly given the shirt he was wearing in the photo, which suggests he was concerned at least in part about police brutality).

“But I don’t think he was necessarily lying by answering no, since some people would conceive of the march as much broader than a protest about police brutality.”

So, like I said- uncomfortably close to being a lie, but not quite.

I picked the wrong DrDeth quote and had to fix it.

But what you also said is truly controlling here. If this guy’s answer to the ‘second question’ was intended to deceive, then there’s no rational explanation for what we are told he said:

“He said he had an extremely favorable opinion of Black Lives Matter as a statement; he expressed concern for how Black people are treated unequally; and he said he would be excited to serve on the jury because this was such an important and historic trial,” she said. “He was very clear about his opinions and the lawyers picked him.”

I don’t think that can be ruled out, but I don’t have any reason to subscribe to that position.

If he was honest about his beliefs (and it appears he was) than the defense would have had to have tried and failed to excuse him in order to have an appeal issue. They would have an appeal issue (and a good one) if he lied during jury selection.

Given that he expressed support for BLM, and oncern about how Black people are treated unequally, the defense had ample reason and I’m sure opportunity to explore those issues with him before he was selected. In a case like this I’m sure they also had a team of people searching his social media before they had to make a final decision.

The jury questionnaire isn’t intended to be some kind of gotcha system intended to catch jurors in a lie or contradiction after the fact. It’s so the lawyers have an idea going in of how they should approach each juror with their interview. It’s ludicrous to think a trial could be appealed on the basis of a slightly ambiguous question as long as the juror was candid during the oral questioning.

Yes, he was not at a BLM event, he was at an MLK event. Also, you are correct that both MLK and BLM were active in the Civil Rights movement. None of this is relevant to the question of whether he lied on the questionnaire, because none of the questions on the questionnaire mention BLM at all. There is a question about attending protests against police violence. While MLK was concerned about police violence, the rally Mitchell attended was not about police violence, nor was it a protest of any sort. It was a commemoration of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Mitchell likely wore that shirt because he is opposed to the police using illegal violence against Black people, and properly thought that a t-shirt about a civil rights issue would be appropriate to wear at a rally commemorating a civil rights icon.

I brought up the other quotes, because you said the “kneeling on my neck” quote was a direct reference to George Floyd’s murder. I was pointing out other instances where that sort of language was used to discuss civil rights issues long before George Floyd was murdered. Admittedly, it wasn’t my strongest argument, mostly because it was irrelevant to the question at hand. The rally wasn’t a police violence protest, and it didn’t happen in Minneapolis, so it wasn’t relevant at all to the question on the questionnaire. The rally is irrelevant - the closest you’ve got to a genuine issue here is that the guy’s wearing a t-shirt that expresses a mainstream opinion on civil rights, which is not by itself enough to disqualify him from the jury.

And you still haven’t provided any evidence that he lied about any of this, even by omission.

I am absolutely not saying that at all.

Tangential question, here, but aren’t jurors supposed to be anonymous?

I think having this guys name and picture slapped all over the news as the “Lying juror, who put away Chauvin” may make him a target of white supremacists and right wing Blue lives extremists.

It makes me less willing to serve on a jury.

I think in most cases names of jurors are eventually in the public record. In this case, the judge is holding them back for now, but Juror 52 outed himself in a media interview.