New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

PNWest says: Derek Chauvin deserves a new trial

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
While the evidence in the trial did prove that Chauvin was guilty, every person is entitled to be tried before an unbiased jury. It is clear that one juror, Brandon Mitchell should not have been seated.

PNWest believes that Chauvin should receive a new trial, that the trial should be moved out of Minneapolis due to the publicity and that the jury should be sequestered during the new trial in case some idiot like Maxine Waters starts running her mouth possibly intimidating the jury.

Let the facts speak for themselves.

PNWest also believes that the charges should include murder in the first degree because strangling someone for 9 and a half minutes gave Chauvin plenty of time to think about what he was doing.

Story about Chauvin appeal:
 

EatTheRich

President
Would you have felt differently if one of the jurors had attended a BLUE LIVES MATTER rally and then hung the jury?
I’d certainly question the impartiality of the jury. But defendants aren’t guaranteed an impartial jury, they are guaranteed a jury of their peers. To all indications, Mitchell told the truth during his voir dire; if the defense attorney didn’t disqualify him, that was a reflection of the jury pool. Mitchell happens to be one of a solid majority of Americans who support BLM ... doesn’t mean he didn’t hear the evidence and decide this individual case based on it. Are you saying only people from the bootlicking minority should have been on the jury? Would you also guarantee a neo-Nazi defendant a jury of people who’ve never expressed opposition to Nazism?
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
1. Baloney.
2. No way would Chauvin get convicted of 1st degree murder.
At least in Texas I have seen closing arguments in murder cases where the prosecutor insists that the defendant get 1st degree because they had plenty of time to consider their action during the commission of the murder. in one case the argument was that it took over a minute to strangled the victim which was plenty of time for the defendant to stop. In the other (a robbery gone bad) because the final kill shot was maybe 30 seconds or so after the original volley of shots - same thing - they had time to think about it before the final shot. In Chauvin's case you had 9 and a half minutes to stop with a crowd yelling at you to stop. He did not. That's first degree. If Chauvin was a black civilian who had done that to a white guy in Texas he'd be on death row.

Just sayin'.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
At least in Texas I have seen closing arguments in murder cases where the prosecutor insists that the defendant get 1st degree because they had plenty of time to consider their action during the commission of the murder. in one case the argument was that it took over a minute to strangled the victim which was plenty of time for the defendant to stop. In the other (a robbery gone bad) because the final kill shot was maybe 30 seconds or so after the original volley of shots - same thing - they had time to think about it before the final shot. In Chauvin's case you had 9 and a half minutes to stop with a crowd yelling at you to stop. He did not. That's first degree. If Chauvin was a black civilian who had done that to a white guy in Texas he'd be on death row.

Just sayin'.
I'm sure the prosecution gamed out every charge and decided 1st degree wouldn't fly.

The defense would've been better off claiming Chauvin was having a psychotic break while he suffocated Floyd. All they'd need to show was video, photos of Chauvin's face. That frozen, sociopathic, catatonic look scared all of us. Then Chauvin could've been sent to a psych institution ala Hinckley.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
So it is your position that every Black defendant should have no whites on the jury since all whites can be suspected of internalized racial supremacy?
"So it is your position that every Black defendant should have no whites on the jury..."

Being it was YOU who stated earlier; "they are guaranteed a jury of their peers.", is it now your contention that blacks are not the peers of whites?

No one was speaking of any, "suspected internalized racial supremacy", the post specifically mentioned the fact his impartiality may have been in question AFTER it was made known he participated in a march.

NOT that he was black and could therefore be suspected of internalized racial bias.
 

EatTheRich

President
"So it is your position that every Black defendant should have no whites on the jury..."

Being it was YOU who stated earlier; "they are guaranteed a jury of their peers.", is it now your contention that blacks are not the peers of whites?

No one was speaking of any, "suspected internalized racial supremacy", the post specifically mentioned the fact his impartiality may have been in question AFTER it was made known he participated in a march.

NOT that he was black and could therefore be suspected of internalized racial bias.
Exactly. According to you the only impartial people are from the minority who oppose BLM, that is, his jury should have been composed solely of people who were predisposed to favor the killing.

Socially, Blacks and whites clearly are not peers (equals) in a country with as much deep-seated racial inequality as this.
 
Top