(May 6, 2021 at 10:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(May 6, 2021 at 2:02 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Not irrelevant at all. You would not be cool with a pro Chauvin shirt juror who ended up voting not guilty. Fact. The trial does not seem to have been a fair trial at this point. I will not get over it. Of course these new developments do not get posted by anyone in the Chauvin thread, because people don't care whether it was a fair trial or not. I personally care about the legal system operating in a proper and fair fashion however, so I'll keep defending Chauvin where it seems the right thing to do, and the principal of people having the right to a fair trial. You get over it.
All jurors are assumed to have opinions on issues. The absence of jurors with opinions on issues is not a requirement of a fair trial.
Some rando may be accused of murder. Every single juror has a very negative view of murder and murderers. If feeling nothing about this issue were a requirement for a fair trial, as you define fairness - then there could be no fair trials for anything, anywhere, at any time. Perhaps you should face your assumptions and apprehensions for what they are? The trial was fair - but even so..you still don't feel comfortable with it. Your objections are rooted in that - whatever that is. Not some lunatic shit about a cop not getting a fair trial in the US.
I hope you never become a juror if you think it's cool for jurors to talk about using jury duty as a way to enact social change. That's going quite a bit further than just having a bias against murderers.
