My Verdict

[psychodave]

Dave don't forget the part where the alternate also said Chauvin was clearly guilty.

I think he was guilty of something as well. That said, we will never REALLY know if jurors felt intimidated by the repercussions of not providing the mob with anything other than a guilty verdict. I believe he will get a retrial and likely have the convictions overturned.

 

[CornNutz]

I think he was guilty of something as well. That said, we will never REALLY know if jurors felt intimidated by the repercussions of not providing the mob with anything other than a guilty verdict. I believe he will get a retrial and likely have the convictions overturned.

We'll that's all the right wing talking points covered.

The problem with only ingesting "news" that tells you what you want to hear, is they leave out them important details.

The "mob" cannot intimidate unless they know who they are intimidating.

Here's the important details left out of the Right wing reporting I've watched.
"Because the case is so high-profile, the jurors were cloaked in anonymity, shielded from public view and shuttled to and from Courtroom 1856 under armed guard"

 

[psychodave]

We'll that's all the right wing talking points covered.

The problem with only ingesting "news" that tells you what you want to hear, is they leave out them important details.

The "mob" cannot intimidate unless they know who they are intimidating.

Here's the important details left out of the Right wing reporting I've watched.
"Because the case is so high-profile, the jurors were cloaked in anonymity, shielded from public view and shuttled to and from Courtroom 1856 under armed guard"

Well, those are my personal thoughts based on logic. Trust me, if the mob wanted to get the juror information... they could get it.

 

[Monkey Man]

Agreed; it was always manslaughter, Brother CentristNutz... IMHO.

He might've had cruel intentions at worst, but the intention to kill is not only illogical (in plain-sight) and ill-conceived if true (you can't choke someone at the sides of the neck), but it's unprovable.

Manslaughter would've been the only sensible verdict IMHO; a consequence of "recklessness". That would've been easy-to-prove. In fact, I'd argue that in a "normal" trial, that would've been the prosecution's aim, but this was no normal trial, incurring much perceived pressure for a politically-correct outcome.