Derek Chauvin Trial

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

Post Reply

What does UJR think the outcome will be? Innocent, Guilty, Hung Jury/Mistrial

Poll ended at Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:09 pm

Innocent
3
15%
Guilty
7
35%
Mistrial/Hung Jury
0
No votes
Shit's gonna be set on fire
9
45%
Erick Gifford is Leet
1
5%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#476

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
I would suggest that if potential jurors came into the court room with t shirts like this, that expressed their actual views on the case, then the jury selection would be much easier. You know, rather than lyng on the forms.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#477

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
I would suggest that if potential jurors came into the court room with t shirts like this, that expressed their actual views on the case, then the jury selection would be much easier. You know, rather than lyng on the forms.
You mean the juror that said on his form he was very favourably disposed toward BLM, and commented that he regards 'black lives matter' as a statement of fact rather than a political movement?
User avatar
CHEEZY17
Libertarian house cat
Posts: 14904
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:25 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#478

Post by CHEEZY17 »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
User avatar
necronomous
Official UJR Trolling Czar
Posts: 7939
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#479

Post by necronomous »

In this thread, people who do not understand the law.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#480

Post by AnalHamster »

CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#481

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:44 pm
CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#482

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:47 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:44 pm
CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.
No, the video of the cop committing the crime was directly a video of the cop committing the crime. The picture of the juror requires you to make some pretty big leaps of imagination about what someone else was thinking and to declare as fact that going to an event to commemorate an MLK speech means you were protesting the police.
User avatar
CHEEZY17
Libertarian house cat
Posts: 14904
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:25 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#483

Post by CHEEZY17 »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:44 pm
CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
He would have been excused and you know it. I would even go so far as the judge probably would have done it and not even the defense.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#484

Post by AnalHamster »

CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:51 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:44 pm
CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
He would have been excused and you know it. I would even go so far as the judge probably would have done it and not even the defense.
So explain why he was not excused for stating openly in his questionnaire that he was very favourably disposed to BLM then?

The main thing asked of the juror is can you put your beliefs and desires aside and judge impartially on the evidence. It's a pretty narrow list of things that are exclusions for cause if a juror can state that.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#485

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:49 pm
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:47 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:44 pm
CHEEZY17 wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:22 pm Yeah this like any other legal case will totally be decided based on what tshirt someone wore. That's just how law works.
What do you think would have happened had he wore that shirt on the day(s) they were picking the jury?
Maybe would have dropped his chances, but who knows? He did state he was favourably disposed to BLM and the defence lawyer didn't seem too concerned. Though perhaps he'd just used up all his peremptory strikes by then. You realise they do get a limited number?

Y'all keep throwing in these little bits of outright misinformation, like he'd denied liking BLM or denied having heard of the case. It's just not true. The issue here is whether he regarded a march to commemmorate MLK as a protest against police brutality. Not doing so is a reasonable position, if he didn't.
just like we all saw the video and presumed the guilt of Derek Chauvin, we have all seen the picture of the guy at the rally in the Knee on the neck t-shirt and presumed his mindset about the case. Its pretty simple.
No, the video of the cop committing the crime was directly a video of the cop committing the crime. The picture of the juror requires you to make some pretty big leaps of imagination about what someone else was thinking and to declare as fact that going to an event to commemorate an MLK speech means you were protesting the police.
honestly, the guy could have been in Washington DC to go to a cupcake convention. The fact that he bought a T shirt and posed for a picture in it that said "Get your Knee off our Necks" is enough for me to determine his motives. Sort of like the juror that said all she needed was the picture of Chauvin with his hands in his pockets. Pictures just have a way of speaking to you.
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#486

Post by Burn1dwn »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:16 pm
Burn1dwn wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 4:10 pm I am fully expecting every person that ever saw a Trump rally to be ineligible to sit as jurors on cases involving hispanics, Muslims. Democrats, fans of Reagan, suspects that wear a toupee, and anyone that voted for Joe Biden.

You guys are talking about a black man at an MLK rally. Not a black panther party. I understand the issue being raised but you drama queens are too much.
try to distinguish between people that just go to rallies and people that pose in T shirts with a specific caption printed on the T-shirt that pertains to the exact trial they are a juror on. Surely you can make that distinction.
I stand by my statement Nancy.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#487

Post by AnalHamster »

It's enough to determine he bought a t-shirt at the MLK march sure enough. We're going in circles now, the judge will be dismissing your hysterical waaahs soon enough.
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#488

Post by pork »

just a reminder the judge had already given light prior to the verdict that because of Maxine waters comments that they would have grounds for a retrial...i think this just puts an explanation point on that statement

i dont know why this is such a debated topic. the guy apparently lied on his juror form. the judicial system has rules and if this in anyway broke them they will have no choice but to retry the case...i hope it doesnt happen but it certainly could if the guy actually lied on the forms.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#489

Post by AnalHamster »

pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:27 pm just a reminder the judge had already given light prior to the verdict that because of Maxine waters comments that they would have grounds for a retrial...i think this just puts an explanation point on that statement

i dont know why this is such a debated topic. the guy apparently lied on his juror form. the judicial system has rules and if this in anyway broke them they will have no choice but to retry the case...i hope it doesnt happen but it certainly could if the guy actually lied on the forms.
No, he did not.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#490

Post by CaptQuint »

The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#491

Post by pork »

CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:29 pm The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.
thats not true. go listen to the court session
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#492

Post by pork »

User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#493

Post by Animal »

watching an actual video of the words coming out of the judge's mouth won't matter to Queef. He will just pick a word or two here an there and construct his own meaning of what he said.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#494

Post by CaptQuint »

pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:30 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:29 pm The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.
thats not true. go listen to the court session
The previous Judges opinion means zero.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#495

Post by CaptQuint »

pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:34 pm
"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#496

Post by CaptQuint »

pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:30 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:29 pm The previous Judges opinion means zero. He found no reason to declare a mistrial.
thats not true. go listen to the court session
So he declared a mistrial? Or did he deny the request for one?
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#497

Post by Animal »

CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:42 pm
pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:34 pm
"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.
Every time Queef quotes Judge Cahill, he intentionally leaves out this part of the Judge's statment.

"Judge Peter Cahill: (04:29)
Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. But what’s the state’s position?
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#498

Post by CaptQuint »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:49 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:42 pm
pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:34 pm
"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
"Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot."

Judge Peter Cahill

The Appellate Judge is what matters now.
Every time Queef quotes Judge Cahill, he intentionally leaves out this part of the Judge's statment.

"Judge Peter Cahill: (04:29)
Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. But what’s the state’s position?
That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#499

Post by Animal »

CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#500

Post by CaptQuint »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look st.upid.
None of us are Appellate Court Judges, so Cahill's opinion means nothing. You dumb cowboy
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
Post Reply