Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[jhu72]

Sounds like JHU72 won’t respect the outcome ‘no matter how it’s decided’.

Color me not shocked.

Petey we understand you don't care about people, only bronze elks; making excuses for fascist criminals storming capitols; defending sex trafficking white elitists like yourself. You have made it very clear what you care about. I will live with whatever the verdict is.

By the way, your predictions for the election were pretty far off, not even close. How did that workout for you?? You get all those tears you predicted?

[Peter Brown]

5. Derek Chauvin, specifically, did not need to knee Floyd for as long as he did. In the heat of the moment, you don’t know what’s going on, and we don’t know what was in this particular cop’s head, nor what he was staring at as long as he did. The jury might find out; you likely won’t.

I agree with your first sentence. That’s why he is on trial for murder.

Don’t know if you are watching the trial or not, but by now we have a very good idea of what was going on. We have seen body cam videos from three or four cops. We have seen cell phone videos from a half a dozen eye witnesses. We have seen security footage from at least two businesses. We have seen the police security footage. Many of these videos have audio.

So we have all of the surrounding evidence relevant to what was going on around the officer. Only he, I suppose, knows what was in his head. Will he take the stand? We don’t know yet. He, and only he, can tell the jury what was in his head. He may need to testify in order to get off. Even then, he may not. We don’t know what other gremlins there may be in his past that would make it inadvisable for him to get on the stand.

We will see and hear everything the jury sees and hears.

Trials ebb and flow. Some days are good for your side, some days are bad. This was a very bad day for the defendant. Today we watched Floyd literally die in front of our eyes from multiple close up police body cam videos, while he is clearly in distress, and while bystanders, one of whom is an EMT, are screaming for the cops to let him up.

All the while, the cop is blithely pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck. He was right on top of him. Floyd had been squirming and hollering for several minutes. Then he stopped. We saw that. Obviously the officer knew it better than anybody else because he was right on top of the man and felt him stop moving and breathing.

Of course I’m not watching the trial; I hardly care what the outcome is.

I do care how people react to the outcome. I also care that the media is again inflaming tensions, working their Democratic lemming watchers to prepare to bellyache (and worse) if Chauvin is exonerated.

I respect the outcome no matter what. Do you?

I don’t know what the outcome will be. Do you? I’ll let you know after the verdict is in.

Did you respect the outcome of OJ’s trial?

Sure did and do. Prosecution was awful. Did I think it was incorrect? Sure, hard not to. Yet I didn’t break glass windows or loot stores or tell everyone that juries are hopelessly biased. Even juries are prone to mistakes, just like cops.

It’s telling you’re unable to accept a jury’s verdict that doesn’t comport with your preferred Democratic/media narrative, which is really what you’re saying. You’re not in the jurors room and you don’t have the omnipotent presence of being there in person, to see facial change and gauge emotions. Sounds like you’d have been struck from the pool anyway since you’re in fact hopelessly biased.

The only takeaway from your post is perhaps all future juries should preclude Democrats? If you can’t park your bias at the courtroom steps and if you won’t respect a jury’s verdict that goes against your wishes, why would you be considered for any jury?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sounds like JHU72 won’t respect the outcome ‘no matter how it’s decided’.

Color me not shocked.

Petey we understand you don't care about people, only bronze elks; making excuses for fascist criminals storming capitols; defending sex trafficking white elitists like yourself. You have made it very clear what you care about. I will live with whatever the verdict is.

By the way, your predictions for the election were pretty far off, not even close. How did that workout for you?? You get all those tears you predicted?

Kim Klacik was robbed!!

[njbill]

Sure did and do. Prosecution was awful. Did I think it was incorrect? Sure, hard not to. Yet I didn’t break glass windows or loot stores or tell everyone that juries are hopelessly biased. Even juries are prone to mistakes, just like cops.

It’s telling you’re unable to accept a jury’s verdict that doesn’t comport with your preferred Democratic/media narrative, which is really what you’re saying. You’re not in the jurors room and you don’t have the omnipotent presence of being there in person, to see facial change and gauge emotions. Sounds like you’d have been struck from the pool anyway since you’re in fact hopelessly biased.

The only takeaway from your post is perhaps all future juries should preclude Democrats? If you can’t park your bias at the courtroom steps and if you won’t respect a jury’s verdict that goes against your wishes, why would you be considered for any jury?

The prosecution lost the case when the DA decided to hold the trial downtown, as opposed to the area of the city where the crime occurred, as they should have. The prosecutors made some mistakes in their months long presentation, but that is to be expected. They weren’t the ones who decided the venue.

I can’t predict the future. I don’t have an opinion on the NCAA championship game as it hasn’t happened yet.

In general, I respect the legal system, including the jury system, but that doesn’t mean I respect every single jury verdict or every single judge’s decision. Look at Heller for a perfect example. Scalia didn’t just make a mistake. He purposely perverted the meaning of the second amendment to achieve a result he wanted.

Yes, I’m not in the court room, but I am watching it on TV. I would submit there’s very little difference between what I am seeing and hearing and what the jury is seeing and hearing. No, I won’t be in the jury room deliberating with them, but that doesn’t mean I won’t have a pretty darn informed view of what the verdict should be.

What bias? How is it biased to think this cop is guilty of murder? He kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for something like three minutes after his partner told him he couldn’t get a pulse. He felt Floyd stop breathing and stop moving. Yet he continued to press his knee into his neck. If that’s bias, then, yeah, I’m biased. I’m biased against murder.

[DMac]

Here, Petey, this should give you an idea of what was going through the jurors' minds and why one might be inclined to not accept their verdict. The jurors themselves will tell you they cheated the system for revenge but you go ahead and respect that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpuTZU2kw

[jhu72]

Here, Petey, this should give you an idea of what was going through the jurors' minds and why one might be inclined to not accept their verdict. The jurors themselves will tell you they cheated the system for revenge but you go ahead and respect that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpuTZU2kw

Yup. Juice was guilty. The prosecution was a joke and the defense was a clown show. And the jury knew all of this. They were making a point.

[Peter Brown]

Sounds like JHU72 won’t respect the outcome ‘no matter how it’s decided’.

Color me not shocked.

Petey we understand you don't care about people, only bronze elks; making excuses for fascist criminals storming capitols; defending sex trafficking white elitists like yourself. You have made it very clear what you care about. I will live with whatever the verdict is.

By the way, your predictions for the election were pretty far off, not even close. How did that workout for you?? You get all those tears you predicted?

You sound imbalanced.

Are you the same guy who posted earlier that I kill Asian women or something to that effect? Now I’m a “white elitist sex trafficker”? Not even sure what that is and I’m sure I don’t care.

It’s difficult to ascertain if you’re trying (and failing) to write in some sophomoric attempt at humor, so the only rational conclusion is you might have some mental problems. If so, perhaps you could detail them so we don’t malign you unnecessarily.

PSA. Maybe your fellow Democrats might encourage you to take a break from the Internet; it doesn’t seem healthy for your emotional well-being to post.

[Peter Brown]

Here, Petey, this should give you an idea of what was going through the jurors' minds and why one might be inclined to not accept their verdict. The jurors themselves will tell you they cheated the system for revenge but you go ahead and respect that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpuTZU2kw

I previously wrote that ‘some juries get it wrong’. Just like any person handling another’s liberty. Most are good, a few are stinkers.

What I’m more interested in is how outsiders react to jury verdicts. If you’re not willing to accept jury verdicts, even the ones that seem outrageous, how far are you from supporting mob justice? Because that’s next.

You can read on a board like this that Chauvin’s guilt is not only presumed, but some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

That kind of external pressure makes the ability to have a fair trial all but nonexistent.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why are you guys feeding the troll?

[Peter Brown]

Sure did and do. Prosecution was awful. Did I think it was incorrect? Sure, hard not to. Yet I didn’t break glass windows or loot stores or tell everyone that juries are hopelessly biased. Even juries are prone to mistakes, just like cops.

It’s telling you’re unable to accept a jury’s verdict that doesn’t comport with your preferred Democratic/media narrative, which is really what you’re saying. You’re not in the jurors room and you don’t have the omnipotent presence of being there in person, to see facial change and gauge emotions. Sounds like you’d have been struck from the pool anyway since you’re in fact hopelessly biased.

The only takeaway from your post is perhaps all future juries should preclude Democrats? If you can’t park your bias at the courtroom steps and if you won’t respect a jury’s verdict that goes against your wishes, why would you be considered for any jury?

The prosecution lost the case when the DA decided to hold the trial downtown, as opposed to the area of the city where the crime occurred, as they should have. The prosecutors made some mistakes in their months long presentation, but that is to be expected. They weren’t the ones who decided the venue.

I can’t predict the future. I don’t have an opinion on the NCAA championship game as it hasn’t happened yet.

In general, I respect the legal system, including the jury system, but that doesn’t mean I respect every single jury verdict or every single judge’s decision. Look at Heller for a perfect example. Scalia didn’t just make a mistake. He purposely perverted the meaning of the second amendment to achieve a result he wanted.

Yes, I’m not in the court room, but I am watching it on TV. I would submit there’s very little difference between what I am seeing and hearing and what the jury is seeing and hearing. No, I won’t be in the jury room deliberating with them, but that doesn’t mean I won’t have a pretty darn informed view of what the verdict should be.

What bias? How is it biased to think this cop is guilty of murder? He kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for something like three minutes after his partner told him he couldn’t get a pulse. He felt Floyd stop breathing and stop moving. Yet he continued to press his knee into his neck. If that’s bias, then, yeah, I’m biased. I’m biased against murder.

It’s great that ‘in general’ you respect the jury system, but your hedge makes me wonder what your temperament will be toward the holdout juror if there is no guilty verdict. Will you support the inevitable ruination of that persons private life? My gut tells me you will.

Democrats have abandoned so much life balance in their maniacal zeal for liberal confirmation bias narratives.

[njbill]

some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

This is about the third time you have written something like this. I haven’t seen any such reports.

Where are you getting it? The right wing crazy boards?

[Peter Brown]

Why are you guys feeding the troll?

Try to add something to the topic interesting enough and you won’t be stuck on an island begging your friends to play with you.

Your posts are mostly Karen-like friend-shaming nuggets of nothing. I can’t recall anything you’ve written the last two days worth replying to.

[Peter Brown]

some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

This is about the third time you have written something like this. I haven’t seen any such reports.

Where are you getting it? The right wing crazy boards?

It’s fairly commonsensical. Ask your own self. If one juror votes to acquit resulting in Chauvin’s being found not guilty, would you demand to know everything about that juror? Will you support that juror’s anonymity?

Since we mentioned Rodney King, I don’t recall anyone demanding to know everything about those individual jurors.

[DMac]

Here, Petey, this should give you an idea of what was going through the jurors' minds and why one might be inclined to not accept their verdict. The jurors themselves will tell you they cheated the system for revenge but you go ahead and respect that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpuTZU2kw

I previously wrote that ‘some juries get it wrong’. Just like any person handling another’s liberty. Most are good, a few are stinkers.

What I’m more interested in is how outsiders react to jury verdicts. If you’re not willing to accept jury verdicts, even the ones that seem outrageous, how far are you from supporting mob justice? Because that’s next.
This is such horseschidt, (not surprising coming from you but horseschidt nonetheless) I don't know how you can even believe it yourself. What you're saying is that when a jury tells you they lied about whether they thought the defendant was guilty or not you should accept that. The verdict in this case was outrageous and you know why which is what makes it unacceptable.


You can read on a board like this that Chauvin’s guilt is not only presumed, but some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

That kind of external pressure makes the ability to have a fair trial all but nonexistent.

[njbill]

some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

This is about the third time you have written something like this. I haven’t seen any such reports.

Where are you getting it? The right wing crazy boards?

It’s fairly commonsensical. Ask your own self. If one juror votes to acquit resulting in Chauvin’s being found not guilty, would you demand to know everything about that juror? Will you support that juror’s anonymity?

Since we mentioned Rodney King, I don’t recall anyone demanding to know everything about those individual jurors.

Usually the identity of jurors in high profile cases comes out one way or the other, sometime down the road. That’s just the way it is.

If only one juror votes to acquit, Chauvin won’t be found not guilty. All 12 would have to vote to acquit for him to be found not guilty. If the jurors are split, whether 11-1 to acquit or 11–1 to convict or 6-6, or anything else, the judge will in all likelihood declare a mistrial. It is possible he could dismiss one or more of the charges. Too early to tell about that. If any charges remain following a mistrial, it would then be up to the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry the case. I suspect they would do so.

You didn’t answer my question about where you are getting all the stuff and nonsense about jurors being doxxed if there is a not guilty verdict. I certainly would be against that or any other type of juror harassment. If, on the other hand, a juror voluntarily wants to talk to the media, that’s up to him or her.

Rodney King? We were talking about OJ. Don’t remember the specifics of how or when the identities of those jurors became known, but I’m pretty sure that many of them have spoken out publicly by now.

[Typical Lax Dad]

some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

This is about the third time you have written something like this. I haven’t seen any such reports.

Where are you getting it? The right wing crazy boards?

It’s fairly commonsensical. Ask your own self. If one juror votes to acquit resulting in Chauvin’s being found not guilty, would you demand to know everything about that juror? Will you support that juror’s anonymity?

Since we mentioned Rodney King, I don’t recall anyone demanding to know everything about those individual jurors.

Usually the identity of jurors in high profile cases comes out one way or the other, sometime down the road. That’s just the way it is.

If only one juror votes to acquit, Chauvin won’t be found not guilty. All 12 would have to vote to acquit for him to be found not guilty. If the jurors are split, whether 11-1 to acquit or 11–1 to convict or 6-6, or anything else, the judge will in all likelihood declare a mistrial. It is possible he could dismiss one or more of the charges. Too early to tell about that. If any charges remain following a mistrial, it would then be up to the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry the case. I suspect they would do so.

You didn’t answer my question about where you are getting all the stuff and nonsense about jurors being doxxed if there is a not guilty verdict. I certainly would be against that or any other type of juror harassment. If, on the other hand, a juror voluntarily wants to talk to the media, that’s up to him or her.

Rodney King? We were talking about OJ. Don’t remember the specifics of how or when the identities of those jurors became known, but I’m pretty sure that many of them have spoken out publicly by now.

They look alike to Pedito.

[Peter Brown]

Here, Petey, this should give you an idea of what was going through the jurors' minds and why one might be inclined to not accept their verdict. The jurors themselves will tell you they cheated the system for revenge but you go ahead and respect that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpuTZU2kw

I previously wrote that ‘some juries get it wrong’. Just like any person handling another’s liberty. Most are good, a few are stinkers.

What I’m more interested in is how outsiders react to jury verdicts. If you’re not willing to accept jury verdicts, even the ones that seem outrageous, how far are you from supporting mob justice? Because that’s next.
This is such horseschidt, (not surprising coming from you but horseschidt nonetheless) I don't know how you can even believe it yourself. What you're saying is that when a jury tells you they lied about whether they thought the defendant was guilty or not you should accept that. The verdict in this case was outrageous and you know why which is what makes it unacceptable.


You can read on a board like this that Chauvin’s guilt is not only presumed, but some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

That kind of external pressure makes the ability to have a fair trial all but nonexistent.

This is such numbskulledness, not surprising coming from the guy who will never stop writing ‘I could care less’ even after being repeatedly told the actual phrase is ‘I could NOT care less’.

In any event, you can object to a jury’s decision when one or more admit they lied. What you can’t do is blast the entire system when only a few juries prove corrupt. Also, don’t doxx jurors (as will certainly occur by Democrats with Chauvin’s jury should one or more vote to acquit). Thx.

[DMac]

You are correct, Peter, I do incorrectly say I could care less when it should be I couldn't care less. Glad to have annoyed you a little with it but I will correct that from here on out. You are wrong about my having been repeatedly told about this though.

In any event, you can object to a jury’s decision when one or more admit they lied. What you can’t do is blast the entire system when only a few juries prove corrupt. Also, don’t doxx jurors (as will certainly occur by Democrats with Chauvin’s jury should one or more vote to acquit). Thx.

This is rich coming from a guy who lumps all people into D or lib camps and says they all think the same.

[Peter Brown]

some of you will go after the jurors themselves if they vote to acquit.

This is about the third time you have written something like this. I haven’t seen any such reports.

Where are you getting it? The right wing crazy boards?

It’s fairly commonsensical. Ask your own self. If one juror votes to acquit resulting in Chauvin’s being found not guilty, would you demand to know everything about that juror? Will you support that juror’s anonymity?

Since we mentioned Rodney King, I don’t recall anyone demanding to know everything about those individual jurors.

Usually the identity of jurors in high profile cases comes out one way or the other, sometime down the road. That’s just the way it is.

If only one juror votes to acquit, Chauvin won’t be found not guilty. All 12 would have to vote to acquit for him to be found not guilty. If the jurors are split, whether 11-1 to acquit or 11–1 to convict or 6-6, or anything else, the judge will in all likelihood declare a mistrial. It is possible he could dismiss one or more of the charges. Too early to tell about that. If any charges remain following a mistrial, it would then be up to the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry the case. I suspect they would do so.

You didn’t answer my question about where you are getting all the stuff and nonsense about jurors being doxxed if there is a not guilty verdict. I certainly would be against that or any other type of juror harassment. If, on the other hand, a juror voluntarily wants to talk to the media, that’s up to him or her.

Rodney King? We were talking about OJ. Don’t remember the specifics of how or when the identities of those jurors became known, but I’m pretty sure that many of them have spoken out publicly by now.

It’s the Left’s newest tactic, intimidate jurors to get the verdict you want.

The judge presiding over the fraud trial of former Trump campaign Paul Manafort says he won’t release the names of jurors at the trial’s conclusion because he fears for their safety b

https://apnews.com/article/c62c9720d9e3 ... f65bb141dd

[admin]

Yo, Pete, why all the anger?

Petey's angry because an innocent cop is being railroaded. The knee on the neck, according to PB, had nothing to do with it.

Let's go easy on Petey. He is having a real bad day. He might go out and kill a bunch of old Asian women.

one of the most disgusting comments I have ever read............

People, discuss issues, not each other. No personal attacks...