Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» It just takes one RACIST to hang the Derek Chauvin jury. How many racists ae there? What are the odds that a jury of 12 is RACIST-FREE?
I really do hope that the jury can come to a unanimous verdict (preferably "guilty"). Not surprisingly, Chauvin's attorney has not put up a very robust defense (how can you defend the indefensible?), but you never know how people will react. I'm just clad I don't live in Minnesota!
I don't trust any jury that has to deal with a cop getting punished. They are uniformly pro cop no matter what. Will this jury be different? Why should it? Thank you for your reply L.
I sure hope they are more open. What Chauvin did was so egregious that it boggles my mind that anyone could think he wasn't the contributing force behind Floyd's death.
They deliberated only a few hours. I doubt there was any holdouts. I think they all went over their notes and shared the understanding of what things the judge isntructed them to do and they did it! A gladdening thing but even as they were deliberating another cop killed a black person...this time a woman/girl. The cops don't seem to be learning anything or paying any attention to what's going anywhere. Are they really that incurious obtuse and limited? Thank you for your reply L! :)
Yes, the deliberation was very short and it was reported that they asked no questions of the judge or for any clarification of the charges. I can only think of one person who could watch that video and not believe that Chauvin was directly responsible for Floyd's death. I did see that another young kid was shot by a police officer just before the verdict. The video is out, but it isn't really that clear so I'm not quite sure of what happened. Over the coming days, I'm sure someone will look at that video frame by frame and it will be clearer what actually occurred.
Every day another one "bites the dust". I think it is hopeless. I never knew how awful terrible copping African American young man was. Now I do. I feel for those parents but it will never end. It is a routine standard issue typical ordinary. How sad is that? Thank you for your reply L! :)
Lawyers and judges tend to do a good job of weeding out any potential jurors with a bias that would affect the verdict. Not to mention fellow jurors who would speak out if a fellow juror made racist comments during deliberations.
I've never served on a jury Walt. I've been called up a few times but in each case the folks settled so there was no case to discuss. All I know about being a juror is what I see in the movies and on TV. Have you ever served on one and what was it like if you did? Thank you for your informative reply m'dear! :)
I have only served on 2 juries. I normally get released/dismissed, when I answer that I can't promise to follow the judge's instructions - because I believe in Jury Nullification.
OKAY my friend jury nullification sounds anti American to me. When you nullify you make it toothless. You don't like juries and want their verdicts ignored? Please explain. Okey dokey? Thank you for your reply. Oh. Unless it is a ruse to get off so you don't have to serve. Is that it?
A jury has the RIGHT to decide if a law is just? 12 people whose backgrounds are all over the place decide that? I am shocked. Disgruntled. Disturebed. Flummoxed.
What LEGAL background do they have? What education experience real-world not pie in sky?
Does a patient have the right toi decide if the surgeon's plan to operate is unjust? Stupid isn't it? I have no reason to doubt you Walt. But I think that is absolute ridiculous! What if all the 12 are white supremacists or pedophiles or murderers? You have no rules for them but they can rule whether or not a law is just? I CAHN'T STEND IT. Sheesh. What else can you tell me that will floor me upset me drive me bonkers? Thank you for your reply and here goes a question about it. Maybe I am the only one in the world who thinks that is very stupid dumb and unconscionable. I doubt it but anything is possible.
Using your patient question ... actually, yes. Patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, for any reason.
If you read the link, you would see that there are good reasons for Jury Nullification. Remember, lawyers were not a profession for thousands of years. It was just average people arguing the law. (well, they usually did have to be literate, but not always.)
Even John Adams said of the juror “it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” (my emphasis)
Imagine if the jury followed the judge's direction in 1735 and found that "truth is no defense" when facing trial. The government could charge you with any crime it wanted - and the truth would not be allowed to be used as a defense. How would there ever be an innocent verdict?
I think you know what immediately jumps out at me Walt. "THE TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE"! What kind of cockamamie idiot would say such a thing as that? A JUDGE saying that in 1735 proves the stupid dumb of the white men way back then. Who in his/her right mind ignores the truth other than THE BIG LIE Party ilk? I just don't get it. Rules and regs and dumba** precedents serve as justice? Sheesh. Sigh. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Walt. Glad am I that I have no part in it because it would cause me much misery. I SEEK THE TRUTH and abhor those who don't. VERY BIGLY. :) So I am at odds with everyone else who subscribes to the bullsh** that is floated. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY even though you witness the murder being committed along with dozens of others? Seriously? Not my cuppa tea. No way no how no time. :(
SpunkySenior 