The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

Outcome?

  • Guilty of Murder

    Votes: 75 7.6%
  • Not Guilty of Murder (2nd/3rd), Guilty of Manslaughter

    Votes: 397 40.0%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 221 22.3%
  • Mistrial

    Votes: 299 30.1%

  • Total voters
    992
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Conversely, one holdout can force a mistrial. Just one based juror can shitcan this whole shit show. It's the outcome I can be most realistically optimistic about.
“And there we were ready to convict when the Juror who insisted we refer to him as Juror #1488 held out. He kept saying I can’t sneed and made monkey noises while replaying Floyd purchasing a banana and dancing”
 
Cases unexpectedly doing what's right in the past and present show that juries really are made up of normal people who generally want to do the right thing, and while it's 1000% possible the personal biases will influence their perception of the case, it's doubtful to the extreme they'll use that bias as an argument or justification itself. that requires 12 wholly morally corrupt people to all consciously agree to subvert every basic principle of a trial, and there's no reason to expect that to happen as of yet
I don't believe a "normal persons" cares about justice, not to any meaningful extent beyond lip service. If these jurors have at least room temperature iq they will realize their lives will be at risk if he is found no guilty. Self preservation >>>>>>>>>> justice to the "normal person".

>it's doubtful to the extreme they'll use that bias as an argument or justification itself
That's not how biases work. They won't say "CNN told me white cops are racist so we should find him guilty". It comes in the form of things like selective remembrance. They will recall and focus on the points brought up over these long 4 weeks that bolstered their preconceived verdict, because those are the things that will stick out in their mind.

>that requires 12 wholly morally corrupt people to all consciously agree to subvert every basic principle of a trial, and there's no reason to expect that to happen as of yet
No it doesn't. It requires self preservation, selective memory, social pressure, just plain going with everyone else cause you're tired and want to get this done with attitude, etc to make them vote unjustly. Those are all very normal human traits.
 
Yes, I've really come to question everything I've been taught about the past seeing how much the current media and societal narrative is pure lies.

Outright lies, intentional omissions, giving straw-man versions of one side, saying two things that are contradictory without any wording to indicate the contradiction, being unwilling to address certain topics, asserting directly or indirectly that there is one way to look at a situation... there are a lot of ways that the press does not represent reality.
 
Outright lies, intentional omissions, giving straw-man versions of one side, saying two things that are contradictory without any wording to indicate the contradiction, being unwilling to address certain topics, asserting directly or indirectly that there is one way to look at a situation... there are a lot of ways that the press does not represent reality.
You left out the part where they aren't very smart and routinely misunderstand things.
 
I don't believe a "normal persons" cares about justice, not to any meaningful extent beyond lip service. If these jurors have at least room temperature iq they will realize their lives will be at risk if he is found no guilty. Self preservation >>>>>>>>>> justice to the "normal person".
did you watch any of the pre-trial jury selection? the entire process centered around this, saying the jury is pre-decided brainwashed pawns requires them not only to lie to themselves and each other, but to lie extensively to the court about a number of details going all the way back to the original jury selection packets they were given. This shifts from bumbling drones to very intentional and malevolent actors, especially since personal bias and fear of public backlash were the two biggest subjects of the selection process.

Nobody is saying that personal biases won't play into the jury's decision and that what they want to happen can determine what they do, but taking that to the extreme is silly. Saying they're sitting their selectively choosing details to reinforce a guilty verdict with no higher thought to their actual direction is not impossible, but it's really groundless and contributes about as much
 
Outright lies, intentional omissions, giving straw-man versions of one side, saying two things that are contradictory without any wording to indicate the contradiction, being unwilling to address certain topics, asserting directly or indirectly that there is one way to look at a situation... there are a lot of ways that the press does not represent reality.
Reminds me of this one.
 

Attachments

  • mlk_birmingham_news_cartoon1.jpg
    mlk_birmingham_news_cartoon1.jpg
    140.4 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back