Guilty on all three counts.

So you clearly only watch hyper-partisan news. You're not really worth discussing anything politically with, then, since you're about as biased as it gets. I mean, you can at least admit that aspect.

Her full quote is out there. Her full quote clearly says that there was no external pressure on the jurors and she only had some apprehension prior to serving as an alternate. To quote you, this is not rocket science. You're relying on a complete distortion of her quote and can't even admit that. Her actual words speak for themselves yet you somehow think Jack Posobiec somehow knows what the juror was saying more than the juror does. Hell, she also seemed to completely confirm the belief that the jurors themselves stayed away from any form of media about the trial.

You're only done with the conversation since you're blatantly wrong and tried to lie about what a juror said (I think this was more you lying by omission since you didn't bother to look up her full quote, but as you go on and on without admitting that you're wrong this sort of evolves into more of a typical lie). Sorry that you got called out for that, but you should probably search for a full quote next time. Google exists for a reason. But instead you chose to rely on some hyper-partisan media interpretation of a quote rather than the actual quote itself.

You also said that multiple jurors expressed this but as far as I can tell, it was only one juror who seemed to speak to any of this and nothing she said had anything to do with being intimidated once the trial began or right before deliberations.

That's on you, though. Own your mistake and move on. But feel free to dig the hole deeper if you really want to.

- - -

For the record, I don't have any real issue with DeSantis. He's a pretty moderate Republican governor (all things considered) that knows how to stoke his base when he needs to. I wish he'd remove himself from the incendiary language, but that's how he got elected. He knows how to play to his base and to govern fairly effectively. But that's Republican politics today. You need to be incendiary to placate the base since that's what somehow works. His governing itself has been pretty solid.

I dont watch any "news" on TV and havent for YEARS. I get news from about 30 sources(both conservative and liberal) though on my phone and computer. I am a critical thinker though so I dont latch on to any one news source as they are all biased to something. The truth generally lies in the middle. One of the best news sources(that was shut down several years ago due to lack of viewership) was Al Jazeera USA shockingly enough. BBC is also pretty decent. Bet you never watched either of those news sources though...

I will admit that I am biased to reality, which is generally where conservatives sit... vs. the liberal idealistic mindset, which I can actually get behind a lot of it because it all SOUNDS good, until it eventually(and it ALWAYS DOES) clash with REALITY. Like the "green new deal"... I can actually get behind a lot of what they want to do, it SOUNDS good... until you look at what it would actually take to make that stuff a reality and then they lose me completely because 99% of people arent willing(or could never afford) to do what would be required to make their "ideas" into "reality"... Or you look at stuff like EV's and the nasty shit required to make the base components for the batteries and the "green-ness" wears off quickly for me... or where does all the power for your EV come from? I would guess 98% of people dont know what their electricity is generated from(coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc...)... so again, EV car, getting electricity from a coal or NG power plant(I believe still the most prevalent forms of power generation), and reality sets in that you are simply swapping one fossil fuel for another with maybe marginal increases in thermal efficiency...

Did y’all figure out who can piss the farthest yet?

It's always surprising to me that otherwise rational, reasonable people will argue over the internet with an absolute stranger. I'm not referring to someone who posts their view and moves on- I'm referring to those who somehow take another's opposing view as a personal attack...and then the posts back and forth begin. Do any of you truly believe that if you post enough you're going to change someone's mind???

No.

The only thing, frankly, that pisses me off is when someone misinterprets what I say since I try and speak in plain language. Well, that and those who instantly dive into partisan viewpoints.

I'm a communist to my conservative friends and a fascist to my progressive friends. Such is life in the political center.

Gonna be honest, here. The bold shows me precisely why I don't really think engaging with you is worth it. That kind of hyper-partisan bullshit where you basically say your way or your side is the only one that is "biased to reality" is such a horseshit view and precisely why both sides dive into hyper-partisanship these days.

I'm sorry, but that viewpoint means you're part of the problem.

Sincerely hope you rethink that mindset. If you do and more people follow, we'd be in a better place politically.

WOW! Can someone flush now? This thread is in the toilet right along with a lot of discussion of that which belongs there.

Lol....

You sound the same as one of my old whiny cry baby co-workers... Nobody liked him either because of his political views... Communist is probably right...

I'm out...

I mean, this is precisely my point. You cannot accept an opposing view. You're incapable of it and you can only exist in a hyper-partisan bubble. I think you need to do some real soul searching, here.

Y’all both sound like idiots at this point.

No, only one is name calling. You on the other hand are presenting like you are tired of the conversation, but for some reason you keep posting. Interesting.

Yea he got a fair trial.......Not!

https://www.westernjournal.com/report-chauvin-juror-said-impartial-wore-blm-shirt-george-floyd-july/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good morning,

I just saw an article on this topic too. Not sure how the judge could ever find 12 (or 14 jurors) that had not been aware of the case in advance of the trial. Definitely, concerning for sure. Not sure what the remedy would be, but I am sure the appeal will list many ideas.

Have a good one,

Ron

I agree. He was screwed from the start regarding a fair and impartial jury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi,

Maybe, but (and I know I am sounding like a broken record) if you watched the trial and looked at the evidence with the witness testimony, Chauvin killed Floyd. Intention was certainly at question, but he was a bad officer (at least on that fateful day) and the situation was not made better by him. He created a huge movement in the US that has led to millions, if not billions, in damage and additional loss of life. Hopefully some good will come out of the situation.

Ron

Yeah no doubt he was not a good cop. Dumb decisions were made. I’m just referring to the trial itself. A lot of evidence was kept from the jury and I think the jury had their mind made up already. Maybe not all of them but enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone see the juror in the news today? Old pics of him at some rally or something with a “get your knee off my neck” and BLM shirt. Unbiased...ooookkkkaaayyyyy

So you can assume intent through the wearing of a sweater, but you cannot see intent in a video or two or ten?
A jury decision of guilty requires all the jurors to agree on guilty. It would only take one juror to cause a mistrial or hung jury. I would hope that each of counsellors would have assured the jury contained at least one or two individuals with the courage to let their character guide their decision.

They signed statements saying they had not done those types of things. He lied. That’s a big deal.