Minnesota law is weird. [It's flyover country, after all.]

[TOP]

We'll never know....The crowds were poised and ready to react, were they not?
I stand behind my opinion....I understand you don't agree...I'm fine with that....

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They were not prior to that....

They were directed to not watch news or discuss the trial just as every other jury is. Unless you have evidence they didn't follow instructions, the presumption for any appeal is that they did.

[TOP]

They were directed to not watch news or discuss the trial just as every other jury is. Unless you have evidence they didn't follow instructions, the presumption for any appeal is that they did.

It would be very difficult to not see any news or discuss considering the coverage of this trial , but none of us have "evidence" that they did...or did not....

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It would be very difficult to not see any news or discuss considering the coverage of this trial , but none of us have "evidence" that they did...or did not....

It would be very easy to not see any news. Just don't look at news. Lots of people do it every day.

I can understand how upset you must be while binge watching Friends on Netflix and they interrupt to tell you the news.

[TOP]

It would be very easy to not see any news. Just don't look at news. Lots of people do it every day.

I can understand how upset you must be while binge watching Friends on Netflix and they interrupt to tell you the news.

It would be pretty difficult to not see any news regarding this case....I don't binge watch Friends...maybe the Food Network....no Netflix....

[Taichiliberal]

We'll never know....The crowds were poised and ready to react, were they not?
I stand behind my opinion....I understand you don't agree...I'm fine with that....

You're "opinion" is based on a collection of supposition, conjecture, denial and revisionism of the facts. In short your opinion is just plain wrong regarding the jurors. We all know that various state law enforcement groups were poised and set to mobilize in the event of mass protests to quell any from becoming riots. What YOU might not know or don't want to know is the following: google or bing "leaders call for calm prending chauvin trial verdict".

You can't state an "opinion" as fact as you did...and then when your little prediction didn't come true, you fall back on a lame "we'll never know" bluff to avoid admitting error.
I expect nothing less from insipidly stubborn right wingers...I'm fine with that.

[TOP]

You're "opinion" is based on a collection of supposition, conjecture, denial and revisionism of the facts. In short your opinion is just plain wrong regarding the jurors. We all know that various state law enforcement groups were poised and set to mobilize in the event of mass protests to quell any from becoming riots. What YOU might not know or don't want to know is the following: google or bing "leaders call for calm prending chauvin trial verdict".

You can't state an "opinion" as fact as you did...and then when your little prediction didn't come true, you fall back on a lame "we'll never know" bluff to avoid admitting error.
I expect nothing less from insipidly stubborn right wingers...I'm fine with that.

OK

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're "opinion" is based on a collection of supposition, conjecture, denial and revisionism of the facts. In short your opinion is just plain wrong regarding the jurors. We all know that various state law enforcement groups were poised and set to mobilize in the event of mass protests to quell any from becoming riots. What YOU might not know or don't want to know is the following: google or bing "leaders call for calm prending chauvin trial verdict".

You can't state an "opinion" as fact as you did...and then when your little prediction didn't come true, you fall back on a lame "we'll never know" bluff to avoid admitting error.
I expect nothing less from insipidly stubborn right wingers...I'm fine with that.

OK

[ThatOwlWoman]

Toxic Top is too stupid to have her own opinions; she faithfully echoes what she reads on Breitbart, Fox, OANN, and Newsmax.

[ThatOwlWoman]

It would be very difficult to not see any news or discuss considering the coverage of this trial , but none of us have "evidence" that they did...or did not....

That's true. So why, then, are you insisting that they somehow violated their oaths (all 12 of them, total strangers to each other) and voted to convict because "they knew what would happen...to the city, the country and more than likely to them and their families, if there was any announcement of "not guilty"...." Those are your words in Post #2, aren't they? You stated that they knew what would happen if they found Chavin innocent. In other words, "teacher," you accused them of being faithless, dishonest, and possibly corrupt.

As I said, straight from the Newsmax, OANN, Breitbart, Fox, et al playbook.

[katzgar]

Chauvin was guilty as hell, but how could the same homicide be three different crimes?

Normally, in most states, a conviction will be returned for the most serious charge on which the jury can agree.

Our federal system is in my opinion absurd. 50 states. 50 different sets of felony statutes.