Chauvin Juror Admits She Voted to Prevent Rioting, Not on the Facts

[Beetlegeuse]

Chauvin juror admits the truth…

[wango]

Cool, so did the OJ jurors.

So set the guy free. The family made their $, Chauvin succeeded in making the guy a martyr and the world will continue to rotate around the sun.

Really, who the f**k cares anymore. At least the public won’t have to pay for Chauvin’s existence in jail (crap, ain’t 20+ million enough ffs?).

[Fluidic Kimbo]

(crap, ain’t 20+ million enough ffs?).

Yeah but they're just American dollars.... not real Bitcoins.

[Honkey_Kong]

Yeah but they're just American dollars.... not real Bitcoins.

Let's not talk about bitcoin

[Hughinn]

Cool, so did the OJ jurors.

So set the guy free. The family made their $, Chauvin succeeded in making the guy a martyr and the world will continue to rotate around the sun.

Really, who the f**k cares anymore. At least the public won’t have to pay for Chauvin’s existence in jail (crap, ain’t 20+ million enough ffs?).

I know we're all tired of the situation Wango.

But the reality is that in the case of oj simpson, justice was tainted for political reasons and exploited by a political party.

In the case of chauvin, justice was tainted and exploited by the same political party.

A hundred years ago, democrat party leaders used to stand on courthouse steps holding bullhorns and rallying thier supporters, carrying scrolls, wearing white hoods and carrying crosses making threats and intimidating jurors to taint justice in favor of the outcomes they wanted, and benefittedthem politicallyat the time,, justice be damned.

Today democrat party leaders weild thier propoganda networks rallying thier supporters in black masks and skinny jeans, carrying smart phones, making threats and intimidating jurors to get the outcomes they wanted, that benefitted them politically at the time,, justice be damned.

That's undeniably true, and can be proven by demonstrable fact. And it's a travesty to the ideas of american justice and western jurisprudence in general.

It has to be called what it is sir.

Regardless of who gets offended or upset by hearing it.

So, thank you beetle, once again for your diligence on recognition of reality, while most other forces seek to cloud it.

[wango]

I know we're all tired of the situation Wango.

But the reality is that in the case of oj simpson, justice was tainted for political reasons and exploited by a political party.

In the case of chauvin, justice was tainted and exploited by the same political party.

A hundred years ago, democrat party leaders used to stand on courthouse steps holding bullhorns and rallying thier supporters, carrying scrolls, wearing white hoods and carrying crosses making threats and intimidating jurors to taint justice in favor of the outcomes they wanted, and benefittedthem politicallyat the time,, justice be damned.

Today democrat party leaders weild thier propoganda networks rallying thier supporters in black masks and skinny jeans, carrying smart phones, making threats and intimidating jurors to get the outcomes they wanted, that benefitted them politically at the time,, justice be damned.

That's undeniably true, and can be proven by demonstrable fact. And it's a travesty to the ideas of american justice and western jurisprudence in general.

It has to be called what it is sir.

Regardless of who gets offended or upset by hearing it.

So, thank you beetle, once again for your diligence on recognition of reality, while most other forces seek to cloud it.

Wow; justice was tainted (for political reasons)? Beetle recognized “reality”? Are you serious or just a child?

Oh wait, hold on a sec, I have a call on my smart phone, but I can’t seem to get it out of the tight pocket of my skinny jeans . . . .

[Hughinn]

Wow; justice was tainted (for political reasons)? Beetle recognized “reality”? Are you serious or just a child?

Oh wait, hold on a sec, I have a call on my smart phone, but I can’t seem to get it out of the tight pocket of my skinny jeans . . . .

My apologies sir, if I was a bit too brash or seemingly hostile.

My intention was to make it known that beetles point was valid. Yes sir, I'm serious. And only pointing out the parallels between the instances you had mentioned.

Self reflection is difficult to say the least. Especially when it shatters preconceived notions and illusions of righteousness people have.

[wango]

My apologies sir, if I was a bit too brash or seemingly hostile.

My intention was to make it known that beetles point was valid. Yes sir, I'm serious. And only pointing out the parallels between the instances you had mentioned.

Self reflection is difficult to say the least. Especially when it shatters preconceived notions and illusions of righteousness people have.

LOL, come on man, you weren’t brash. I was just f’n with you.

Seriously, this is just another one of these trials. It did have the potential to be a powder keg though because just like anything, the newer version has to be bigger and better. “Oh you thought the riots after the Rodney King verdict were bad, just wait and see these riots if Chauvin gets off, m-f’r!”.

Like this trial will do anything for anyone. It and the 20 million $ were nothing more than a temporary band-aid for race relations between blacks and whites. Cops still have to do their job (like they haven’t killed anyone doing so recently) and some will go overboard. Politics is ever present and won’t disappear.

The question though is why keep beating a dead horse? Are you thinking that one day someone will actually believe the horse is not really dead and simply needs to be beaten more to awaken it from its slumber? The horse is dead, it’s body is rotting and the flies have already come and gone. All that’s left is maggots & a stinking carcass that needs burying.

And I still can’t get that damn smart phone out of the pocket of my skinny jeans, lol.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

So Beetlegeuse posts "Chauvin Juror Admits She Voted to Prevent Rioting, Not on the Facts"...

And you fucking believe him????

Please always consider the source.

The "juror" was an alternate and never even voted.

The complete lack of morals of some people just never ceases to amaze me.

[Hughinn]

So Beetlegeuse posts "Chauvin Juror Admits She Voted to Prevent Rioting, Not on the Facts"...

And you fucking believe him????

Please always consider the source.

The "juror" was an alternate and never even voted.

The complete lack of morals of some people just never ceases to amaze me.

Considering that during the jury selection process, several jurors asked to be dismissed out of fear of violence from left Wing mobs. They said serving on the jury fairly wasn't possible because it put thier lives, the lives of their families and livelyhoods in danger from leftist violence.

Knowing that as fact. It's entirely believable that other jurors who wound up serving had the same fears and voted to save themselves from violence perpetuated by the militant wing of the democrat party if they voted against thier wishes. And so they simply voted for self preservation. At the end of the day, it was hang Chauvin or hang themselves.

So yes, it's not hard to believe, because it makes logical Sense.

[Cuz]

Doesnt matter, guy never had a chance. He handled the situation wrong, as hundreds of cops do everyday. It was the world attention that got him. Remember the mobs in Rome? When they yelled “crucify him”... you have a prime example of that here. The liberals have the same “mob mentality “ as Rome and we all know what eventually happened.
My fellow conservatives of the board, keep the right to bear arms you never know when you will have to take them up

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Remember the mobs in Rome? When they yelled “crucify him”... you have a prime example of that here. The liberals have the same “mob mentality “ as Rome and we all know what eventually happened.

The circumstances in which Jesus died are well-documented in unbiased objective written accounts. It's crystal clear from start to finish. Although personally I think more people should accept the fifth gospel of Thomas (or at least consider it).

The death of G. Floyd -- although it was filmed -- isn't as obvious to understand. Jesus cried out "It is finished" however Floyd's last words would have more appropriately been "It's just beginning".

[Wannabhuge14]

The circumstances in which Jesus died are well-documented in unbiased objective written accounts. It's crystal clear from start to finish. Although personally I think more people should accept the fifth gospel of Thomas (or at least consider it).

The death of G. Floyd -- although it was filmed -- isn't as obvious to understand. Jesus cried out "It is finished" however Floyd's last words would have more appropriately been "It's just beginning".

So true

[The Deadlifting Dog]

So lying is fine then??

He specifically said she voted when she didn’t.

Doesnt matter, guy never had a chance. He handled the situation wrong, as hundreds of cops do everyday. It was the world attention that got him. Remember the mobs in Rome? When they yelled “crucify him”... you have a prime example of that here. The liberals have the same “mob mentality “ as Rome and we all know what eventually happened.
My fellow conservatives of the board, keep the right to bear arms you never know when you will have to take them up

Then mobs or no mobs...
If hundreds of cops act like Chauvin everyday then we should have hundreds of guilty verdicts a day.

[tarmyg]

And we continue down the timeline of forums most hateful poster since -98.

[Wannabhuge14]

And we continue down the timeline of forums most hateful poster since -98.

Lol why do you say that?

[wango]

No dude, by all means please do. I can’t say that I have witnessed the members that you are referring to doing any bullying. And actually the insults seem to be reasonable as well. They have gone in both directions, but it’s been pretty civil and members have generally fessed up when they have gone overboard.

I just feel that the “reality being shown” is not all that ground-breaking or new. Case and point, this thread. Trials come and go, politics and deals are involved, so what is really all that new that needs to be presented? That was the point of my first post here. The civil suit prior to the trial said it all to me, the conclusion of this was that predictable.

Another one of these deaths/trials will pop up quicker than expected unfortunately, even given present circumstances.

[Hughinn]

No dude, by all means please do. I can’t say that I have witnessed the members that you are referring to doing any bullying. And actually the insults seem to be reasonable as well. They have gone in both directions, but it’s been pretty civil and members have generally fessed up when they have gone overboard.

I just feel that the “reality being shown” is not all that ground-breaking or new. Case and point, this thread. Trials come and go, politics and deals are involved, so what is really all that new that needs to be presented? That was the point of my first post here. The civil suit prior to the trial said it all to me, the conclusion of this was that predictable.

Another one of these deaths/trials will pop up quicker than expected unfortunately, even given present circumstances.

It's not that it's new or old wango. Thats irrelevant.

The fact is that justice has been clouded once again by politics, and thats wrong. It has to be called out. It must.

If you want to ignore it, simply because you think that's just the way it is, so why even bother, then fine sir. That's your choice.

But it's not fine to Americans who believe in blind justice and western jurisprudence. In fact, it goes completely against either of those principles, and therefore some Americans choose not just to accept it simply because "thats the way it is, so oh well, let's move along, nothing new to see here". And that sir, is thier choice. I don't understand why you and others here refuse to accept that. Other people can make thier own decisions and determine thier own beliefs, discuss openly whatever they want, and we don't get to give or deny them permission. Because this is still America, the land of the free

[wango]

It's not that it's new or old wango. Thats irrelevant.

The fact is that justice has been clouded once again by politics, and thats wrong. It has to be called out. It must.

If you want to ignore it, simply because you think that's just the way it is, so why even bother, then fine sir. That's your choice.

But it's not fine to Americans who believe in blind justice and western jurisprudence. In fact, it goes completely against either of those principles, and therefore some Americans choose not just to accept it simply because "thats the way it is, so oh well, let's move along, nothing new to see here". And that sir, is thier choice. I don't understand why you and others here refuse to accept that. Other people can make thier own decisions and determine thier own beliefs, discuss openly whatever they want, and we don't get to give or deny them permission. Because this is still America, the land of the free

Look Hughinn, I understand everything that you say, truly.

And you are right, the freedom to discuss should be part of the process. I think the point I was trying to make was that it appears some topics that are continually rehashed and being passed as “new” information, particularly if it is not 100% true (deliberately or un deliberately) is nothing that needs to be continuously added as new threads.

I’m agreeing more with members that are stating that this political “discussion” is being viewed as a turn off to members or potential members.

But there are members like yourself that are passionate about current events and continually start threads and other members do have “their eyes open” and don’t “move along” because there is “something to see” and what they are seeing isn’t really truthful. And we go round and round and round and round and . . . .

Beetle got caught in yet another mistruth (per DD’s post) being passed off as “news worthy” and in need of everyone’s attention. Do you feel that is correct? Propagating mistruths to undermine faith is not a cool thing.

[Hughinn]

Look Hughinn, I understand everything that you say, truly.

And you are right, the freedom to discuss should be part of the process. I think the point I was trying to make was that it appears some topics that are continually rehashed and being passed as “new” information, particularly if it is not 100% true (deliberately or un deliberately) is nothing that needs to be continuously added as new threads.

I’m agreeing more with members that are stating that this political “discussion” is being viewed as a turn off to members or potential members.

But there are members like yourself that are passionate about current events and continually start threads and other members do have “their eyes open” and don’t “move along” because there is “something to see” and what they are seeing isn’t really truthful. And we go round and round and round and round and . . . .

Beetle got caught in yet another mistruth (per DD’s post) being passed off as “news worthy” and in need of everyone’s attention. Do you feel that is correct? Propagating mistruths to undermine faith is not a cool thing.

I understand you as well sir.

But, you don't know about the silent support I get here. I can only assume beetle gets it as well.

This board has been under the control of a few bullys for a long time.

Those who are turned off by the discussion here, are those who've had to reassess thier positions when faced with scrutiny that will not cower or waver under threat or intimidation.

I saybthat b for ever one who's turned off, two come here and feel persuaded to post or join.

I've personally got messages from silent members that I now see are not so silent, because the bullies now have adversaries they cannot intimidate.

To me sir, that is healthy open discourse, and would not turn off anybody objectively seeking truth and knowledge to gain personal perspective

[wango]

I understand you as well sir.

But, you don't know about the silent support I get here. I can only assume beetle gets it as well.

This board has been under the control of a few bullys for a long time.

Those who are turned off by the discussion here, are those who've had to reassess thier positions when faced with scrutiny that will not cower or waver under threat or intimidation.

I saybthat b for ever one who's turned off, two come here and feel persuaded to post or join.

I've personally got messages from silent members that I now see are not so silent, because the bullies now have adversaries they cannot intimidate.

To me sir, that is healthy open discourse, and would not turn off anybody objectively seeking truth and knowledge to gain personal perspective

And it’s posts like this that get my “spidey senses” going. Why “sir”? That is entirely too formal in our society after this much exchange. It’s “stilted” and comes off a bit disingenuous.

Please show me this bullying. I honestly haven’t seen it. I’m not disputing you, but I want to see evidence if you would please.

“Seeking truth and knowledge” is the point here. Was the OP truthful? Is the OP’s intent to always be “truthful” in the true sense of the word?

I am happy that you are doing this for the “silent members”; it’s a great gesture. But perhaps those who are so silent, yet so bold to break the law to use illegal substances should step up & finally voice their opinions. The reason being is that those that are already willing to speak up are suggesting that this type of posting should not be allowed.

Is there no middle ground? What say you as well, OP?

[BG]

Thanks guys for having a civil debate......refreshing to read.