| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
?Q?OT=3a_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=e2=80=a6 Conviction_?= ?B?VG9hc3TigKY=?=
Chauvin did not get an impartial jury
A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ |
|
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Chauvin Juror Caught Red Handed?Conviction Toast?
On Mon, 03 May 21 14:38:20 UTC, Art60430 posted for all of us to digest... Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read ?Get your knee off our necks? and ?BLM.? He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to ?spark some change.?? https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Forward that to his lawyer. It doesn't belong here. -- Tekkie |
|
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3a_OT=3a_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=e2 =80=a6Convi?=?Q?ction_Toast=e2=80=a6?=
On 5/3/2021 2:38 PM, Art60430 wrote:
Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ The fact is, Chauvin shouldn't have kneed his neck. Was it the reason that killed him? No, but it was an idiotic move, considering he was already in cuffs and restrained? Yes. From that day, we all knew he would never receive a fair trial. To help ensure that, the media indicated it would release juror names if he wasn't convicted. With the overwhelming news and protests surrounding the issue, there wasn't a single person who can say "I knew nothing or very little about it." The responsibility of setting an example weighed on their minds and they knew, if they didn't convict, they would be targeted. The guy didn't have a fighting chance. |
|
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Chauvin Juror Caught Red Handed?Conviction Toast?
"Tekkie" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 May 21 14:38:20 UTC, Art60430 posted for all of us to digest... Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read ?Get your knee off our necks? and ?BLM.? He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to ?spark some change.?? https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Forward that to his lawyer. It doesn't belong here. Neither do your demands. |
|
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Heavy Trolling by the Senile Octogenarian Nym-Shifting Ozzie Cretin!
On Tue, 4 May 2021 07:07:28 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread -- Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed: "**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll." MID: |
|
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3A_OT=3A_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=E2 =80=A6Conviction?=?Q?_Toast=E2=80=A6?=
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote:
Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. |
|
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3A_OT=3A_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=E2 =80=A6Conviction?=?Q?_Toast=E2=80=A6?=
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote: Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? If not, then he probably told the truth. I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then so can a potential juror. A Yes or No question is asked and when the witness tries to expand on their answer, "Yes, but..." the attorney shuts her/him down. "It was a Yes or No question. Thank you." I haven't read the transcript of the voir dire sessions, but if it went something like this, then I don't think the defense will win this argument: Atty: "Have you ever taken part in an anti-police protest?" Potential Juror: "No" Had he said "No, but I went to the MLK rally" then the defense could have tossed him. However, if all he did was answer a Yes or No question with a one-word answer, it doesn't matter what he wore to that rally. He didn't lie when he answered the direct question. Again: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? |
|
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3a_OT=3a_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=e2 =80=a6Convi?=?Q?ction_Toast=e2=80=a6?=
On 5/6/21 3:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote: Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? If not, then he probably told the truth. I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then so can a potential juror. It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If theif heif 'is' means is and never has been, that is notthat is one thing. As we all recall, Democrats frequently redefine the meaning of words. |
|
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3A_OT=3A_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=E2 =80=A6Conviction?=?Q?_Toast=E2=80=A6?=
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-4, Larry wrote:
On 5/6/21 3:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote: Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? If not, then he probably told the truth. I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then so can a potential juror. It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If theif heif 'is' means is and never has been, that is notthat is one thing. Interesting response, considering that I don't see the word "is" anywhere in what you quoted. Care to explain what "is" you are talking about? |
|
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3a_OT=3a_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=e2 =80=a6Convi?=?Q?ction_Toast=e2=80=a6?=
On 5/6/2021 6:08 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-4, Larry wrote: On 5/6/21 3:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote: Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? If not, then he probably told the truth. I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then so can a potential juror. It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If theif heif 'is' means is and never has been, that is notthat is one thing. Interesting response, considering that I don't see the word "is" anywhere in what you quoted. Care to explain what "is" you are talking about? Clinton and Monica. He can't get over the pussy lapper got away with it. |
|
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
?Q?Re=3A_OT=3A_Chauvin_Juror_Caught_Red_Handed=E2 =80=A6Conviction?=?Q?_Toast=E2=80=A6?=
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:46:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/6/2021 6:08 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 4:06:32 PM UTC-4, Larry wrote: On 5/6/21 3:17 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote: Chauvin did not get an impartial jury A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read Get your knee off our necks and BLM. He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to spark some change. https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/ Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent, upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally, wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted. That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis. Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"? If not, then he probably told the truth. I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then so can a potential juror. It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If theif heif 'is' means is and never has been, that is notthat is one thing. Interesting response, considering that I don't see the word "is" anywhere in what you quoted. Care to explain what "is" you are talking about? Clinton and Monica. He can't get over the pussy lapper got away with it. I guess I should have used the word stupid instead of interesting. My mistake. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
