Juror: Chauvin deliberations 'should have been 20 minutes'

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,378
    113
    West-Central
    This statement ought to be enough alone, to overturn the verdict. When you brazenly admit you weren`t going to review and weigh the evidence, you`ve admitted your pre-conceived notions.



     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,860
    113
    Indy
    Pretty terrifying that all but one walked into deliberation already 100% sure of conviction, and all they had to do was gang up on the one skeptic. Sounds like a tainted jury if I've ever heard of one.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,063
    113
    This statement ought to be enough alone, to overturn the verdict. When you brazenly admit you weren`t going to review and weigh the evidence, you`ve admitted your pre-conceived notions.



    I figure one would do that daily.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,856
    149
    Valparaiso
    There is no requirement that jurors start from scratch when deliberations start. If they all come in there agreeing on a verdict after hearing the evidence, a verdict can come quickly. I've had a few cases under 30 minutes and heard of them around 15 minutes.

    In Indiana, at least, jurors are allowed to the discuss the evidence as it come in during breaks. They don't have yo wait until deliberations.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    This statement ought to be enough alone, to overturn the verdict. When you brazenly admit you weren`t going to review and weigh the evidence, you`ve admitted your pre-conceived notions.



    It ain't. Let's not turn this in to the new "Biden will never take office" belief.
     
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Oct 3, 2008
    4,201
    149
    On a hill in Perry C
    This statement ought to be enough alone, to overturn the verdict. When you brazenly admit you weren`t going to review and weigh the evidence, you`ve admitted your pre-conceived notions.



    Not at all what he said. He said the evidence against Chauvin was so overwhelmingly against him and the defense so weak that the individual jurors had already made their decision when they started deliberations. Even the alternate juror interviewed last week said the same thing about what was presented in the courtroom.
     

    IndyTim

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    37
    9
    Pretty terrifying that all but one walked into deliberation already 100% sure of conviction, and all they had to do was gang up on the one skeptic. Sounds like a tainted jury if I've ever heard of one.

    Tainted by what? The evidence?
    I swear, it seems I was watching a different trial from many of the users here. It was a slam-dunk for the prosecution, the defense had no case.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Tainted by what? The evidence?
    I swear, it seems I was watching a different trial from many of the users here. It was a slam-dunk for the prosecution, the defense had no case.
    I agree completely. You must have been watching a different trial.
     

    schmart

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Nov 10, 2014
    570
    47
    Lafayette
    This statement ought to be enough alone, to overturn the verdict. When you brazenly admit you weren`t going to review and weigh the evidence, you`ve admitted your pre-conceived notions.



    Not wanting to pile on, but the juror says the arguments were about the jury instructions, not the guilty part. I've been on two Jury trials, one civil, one criminal, ending up as Jury forman both times. Both cases had paperwork we had to fill out, then go around the table and let everyone have their say with no arguing. On the civil case, none of us had heard about the case until the suit, but everyone agreed with the defendant from the start. It still took us close to 30 minutes to get the discussion and paperwork done. I see this is what the juror was indicating. The criminal case had much more deliberation...

    The defense MAY file for appeal, but I don't expect it to be granted. Not that I'm wishing vengeance on anyone, but with the social justice anger in society, unless he is in solitary the entire time, I don't expect him to live through his sentence.
    --Rick
     

    IndyTim

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    37
    9
    I agree completely. You must have been watching a different trial.

    Could be. The trial I watched had some body-cam footage. Oh, GF has passed out? I guess I’ll just remain kneeling on his neck. Yes, his neck, get over it.
    Oh, he has no pulse? Yeah, keep on kneeling. Because this pulse-less suspect is resisting. A gen-u-wine medical miracle!

    Yeah, that’s the sort of thing the defense wanted the jury to believe. Along with the classic, pinning somebody to the ground with 3 grown ass men on his back/neck is not a use of force.

    Oh yeah, Chauvin didn’t kill him, his death was due to carbon monoxide. And Chauvin can’t be held responsible for holding his head down near the exhaust of a running car until he died from said CO.

    For real, drop the cop-sucking and look at the evidence.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Could be. The trial I watched had some body-cam footage. Oh, GF has passed out? I guess I’ll just remain kneeling on his neck. Yes, his neck, get over it.
    Oh, he has no pulse? Yeah, keep on kneeling. Because this pulse-less suspect is resisting. A gen-u-wine medical miracle!

    Yeah, that’s the sort of thing the defense wanted the jury to believe. Along with the classic, pinning somebody to the ground with 3 grown ass men on his back/neck is not a use of force.

    Oh yeah, Chauvin didn’t kill him, his death was due to carbon monoxide. And Chauvin can’t be held responsible for holding his head down near the exhaust of a running car until he died from said CO.

    For real, drop the cop-sucking and look at the evidence.
    Enough drugs to kill a rhinoceros, crying wolf about several ailments not pertaining to the overdose, multiple camera angles showing Chauvin's knee NOT on Floyd's neck, no evidence of force having been applied to his neck, all coupled with resisting at every turn, at minimum I see plenty of reasonable doubt.

    I am guessing that you don't have a problem with Chauvin being convicted of killing Floyd both accidentally and deliberately at the same time.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom