Chauvin Murder Trial

[Brian37]

Alternate juror who did not know they were an alternate

Raguse: Did you want to be a juror?

Christensen: I had mixed feelings. There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/loca...72620b9f18

And that means what? That almost 10 minutes of choking someone to death is justified?

[Irreligious Atheist]

Alternate juror who did not know they were an alternate

Raguse: Did you want to be a juror?

Christensen: I had mixed feelings. There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/loca...72620b9f18

And that means what? That almost 10 minutes of choking someone to death is justified?

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And that means what? That almost 10 minutes of choking someone to death is justified?

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

Really? My take away is that she was going to vote guilty irrespective of personal danger. Like a proper juror, she reached her conclusion based on what was presented at trial.

What’s fairer than that?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

From that same article 

Raguse: Do you think the use of force was reasonable?

Christensen: I do not.

Raguse: You were an alternate, but would you have voted guilty or not guilty? 

Christensen: I would have voted guilty. However, at the end the judge did read us the rules for deliberation, but it was quick, and I could not absorb it. I would have said guilty on some level. After I was excused, I did not look at the jury instructions any longer. I do not know how hard that process was, but I feel like Chauvin is responsible for Mr. Floyd’s death.

Raguse: Was it ever any moments that it tipped toward the defense for you?

Christensen: On the first or second day, I feel like Mr. Nelson did a really good job. He was believable and brought out a lot of good points. When he said, “We are just concentrating on those nine minutes and 29 seconds and no one is talking about the 16 minutes prior," it was kind of an eye opener. I did listen to what he said, and I did think the officers were reasonable during the first 16 minutes, but when Mr. Floyd was put in the prone position on the ground it all seemed to go out of the window. It did not apply any longer.

Raguse: What was the key evidence in your opinion?

Christensen: The testimony by the experts, the forensics, and all the perspectives from the different videos. I think it would have been harder to understand exactly what happened, but the videos are what really nailed it.

Raguse: Do you think that Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd’s death?

Christensen: I feel like the kneeling on the neck for so long did, yes.

I can use quotes too.

[Brian37]

And that means what? That almost 10 minutes of choking someone to death is justified?

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

What a load of fucking bullshit.

It was both a race and polictal mixed jury.

Chauvin's problem wasn't that it was not a fair trial, his problem was that IT WAS ON CAMERA!

And not only was it on camera, you had BOTH white and black cops/officials whom all said what he did went too far. You also had medical experts, SEVERAL, whom said that what Chauvin did was a substantial contrubutor to George's death.

I have no doubt, that if no camera's existed as evidence Chauvin would still be on the beat. But that doesn't speak to the truth of the witness's testimony, it speaks to the privilage of abuse of office.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

No, it doesn't .The trial was completely fair and he was found guilty based on the evidence. GET OVER IT !!!!!

[Irreligious Atheist]

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

Really? My take away is that she was going to vote guilty irrespective of personal danger. Like a proper juror, she reached her conclusion based on what was presented at trial.

What’s fairer than that?

Boru

You know exactly what I meant. Stop pretending. If someone in the mob threatens a witness or juror, would you be saying that that is irrelevant since the person says they would have voted the way the mob wanted them to anyways? You like the BLM mob so you're giving them a pass. You don't like the Italian mob so you would not give them a pass.

---

No. It just raises questions about whether a fair trial was ever possible.

What a load of fucking bullshit.

It was both a race and polictal mixed jury.

Chauvin's problem wasn't that it was not a fair trial, his problem was that IT WAS ON CAMERA!

And not only was it on camera, you had BOTH white and black cops/officials whom all said what he did went too far. You also had medical experts, SEVERAL, whom said that what Chauvin did was a substantial contrubutor to George's death.

I have no doubt, that if no camera's existed as evidence Chauvin would still be on the beat. But that doesn't speak to the truth of the witness's testimony, it speaks to the privilage of abuse of office.

All irrelevant to my point Brian if jurors are fearing for their safety. We're not talking about the evidence and officer testimony and things like that here. I'm just saying this gives the defense more grounds to argue that this was not a fair trial.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You know exactly what I meant. Stop pretending. If someone in the mob threatens a witness, would you be saying that that is irrelevant since the person says they would have voted the way the mob wanted them to anyways? You like the BLM mob so you're giving them a pass. You don't like the Italian mob so you would not give them a pass.

The juror voted of her own conscience and came to her own conclusions based on the evidence. It's in the very article you cited. She wasn't intimidated into her position. So this bullshit narrative you have concocted to get Chauvin off fails.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Really? My take away is that she was going to vote guilty irrespective of personal danger. Like a proper juror, she reached her conclusion based on what was presented at trial.

What’s fairer than that?

Boru

You know exactly what I meant. Stop pretending. If someone in the mob threatens a witness, would you be saying that that is irrelevant since the person says they would have voted the way the mob wanted them to anyways? You like the BLM mob so you're giving them a pass. You don't like the Italian mob so you would not give them a pass.

I’m saying that her voting her conscience is a sign of fairness. If she voted ‘guilty’ only out of fear, that would be unfair.

You can’t accept what she said about her concerns regarding civil unrest and at the same time reject what she said about how she decided her vote. She’s either credible or she isn’t. 

And I don’t give organised criminals a pass regardless their national origin or ethnicity, I just don’t view BLM as a criminal organisation.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

All irrelevant to my point Brian if jurors are fearing for their safety. We're not talking about the evidence and officer testimony and things like that here. I'm just saying this gives the defense more grounds to argue that this was not a fair trial.

It had no serious bearing on her decision. She voted on the evidence. Your own article acknowledges this.

---

You know exactly what I meant. Stop pretending. If someone in the mob threatens a witness, would you be saying that that is irrelevant since the person says they would have voted the way the mob wanted them to anyways? You like the BLM mob so you're giving them a pass. You don't like the Italian mob so you would not give them a pass.

I’m saying that her voting her conscience is a sign of fairness. If she voted ‘guilty’ only out of fear, that would be unfair.

You can’t accept what she said about her concerns regarding civil unrest and at the same time reject what she said about how she decided her vote. She’s either credible or she isn’t. 

And I don’t give organised criminals a pass regardless their national origin or ethnicity, I just don’t view BLM as a criminal organisation.

Boru

Not to mention the article IA cites undermines this narrative. Quote after quote shows she was convinced by the evidence and she came to her own conclusions.