I Believe the Juror

[k.d.]

https://www.infowars.com/posts/alternate...-her-home/

Judging by Christensen’s remarks, that guilty verdict would clearly have been influenced not primarily by the evidence, but by the threat of mass rioting and threats to her own personal safety.

“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,” she said.

The comments clearly suggest that members of the jury were swayed by the threat of nationwide civil unrest, violence and looting that would have undoubtedly occurred had Chauvin escaped any of the charges.

“This is the clearest picture yet of the terroristic intimidation jurors faced to ensure Chauvin was found guilty in what was fundamentally a rigged show trial,” comments Chris Menahan.

[j.p.]

I'm sure all American's felt the same as she did. From about June 2020 on.

But if you read the rest of the interview, it said she was mentally prepared. You should read it.

[k.d.]

If there was nothing to be concerned about there would be no need to be mentally prepared for anything.

[j.p.]

If there was nothing to be concerned about there would be no need to be mentally prepared for anything.

The entire country was concerned. The trial still had to go on. A change of venue wouldn't have helped. At some point we have to expect jurors to do their job , what's the alternative ?

[k.d.]

The entire country was concerned.

Which goes to exactly what I had been saying, the jury felt intimidated or at the very least, influenced.

[j.p.]

The entire country was concerned.

Which goes to exactly what I had been saying, the jury felt intimidated or at the very least, influenced.

And as I've been saying. Jurors have no choice but to fulfill the duty they took an oath to do. In addition they were required, under law, NOT to consider anything happening outside the courtroom. They went into this knowing full well the implications. If they expressed the fear you are claiming they would certainly have been disqualified or not selected. The defense is a full partner in jury selection. The possibility of violence was present long before the jurors were selected.

As I also said, jurors are human. Being aware of outside influences are not totally avoidable in any trial. But we we still need to have juries of peers, right ?

On a personal note, do you think Chauvin should have walked.

[k.d.]

Had the jury been fully sequestered I think we may have gotten the jury you imagine.

I believe he should have walked.

[j.p.]

Had the jury been fully sequestered I think we may have gotten the jury you imagine.

I believe he should have walked.

I don't think sequestration would have helped but it wouldn't have hurt. There was nothing said in the press etc during the trial that every jury didn't already know.

I watched or read most of the trial. Based on the presented evidence, there left no doubt that 1) Chauvin broke police policy 2) Floyd's death was not imminent based on his under lying health issues. The defense could not refute those.

So that left me with two conclusions 1) the force was not necessary 2) Chauvin contributed the Floyd's death.

He was guilty of something. 9 minutes in the prone position, much of it in an unresponsive state, tells me their was malice in Chauvin's heart. Maybe he just couldn't handle an overload of testosterone, but that is no excuse..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you declare Chauvin innocent months ago ?

[k.d.]

There was nothing said in the press etc during the trial that every jury didn't already know.

They got to see the crowds, protests and criminal activity every night.

1) Chauvin broke police policy

Then why are they talking about changing the policy. From what I read, he did not break the policy. One of us is wrong.

Floyd's death was not imminent based on his under lying health issues.

He had taken 3 times the amount of fentanyl to kill a person.

1) the force was not necessary

They couldn't get him and keep him in the squad car.

Chauvin contributed the Floyd's death.

How exactly?

He was guilty of something.

IMO, what he was guilty of is not getting Floyd's ass in the back of the squad and keeping him there instead of being accommodating to the criminal.


Yes, I have always said he was innocent after watching the evidence that was presented before the trial.

[j.p.]

You apparently did see or read anything about the trial. Pretty much everything you mentioned was wrong or irrelevant.