Kimberly Potter Trial

fishthumper wrote:

Jurors in the Derek Chauvin case openly admitted that the aftermath of there decisions did come into play on forming their decision. If you truly believe that this doesn’t effect a Jurors decision then you are even more insane and not even worth a discussion with.

I don’t disagree with that. It would be very difficult not to consider the outcome of something like that based on the verdict.

However, this is why jurors are very specifically vetted and questioned by both sides before they are permitted to be a part of the trial. If they admitted that their potential decision was going to be influenced by the consequences of their vote, then they should have been removed from the jury pool. Jurors should be making their decision on the evidence presented in trial, and ONLY the evidence presented in trial. I certainly hope any juror who admitted that they could not make a decision solely based on the trial would have been removed from the selection process.

Fishthumper: Are you not assuming the same thing as Matt just on the opposite side?
Are you both not telling each other that you know what jurors are thinking and taking into consideration?

I just find it ironic.

It’s almost as if he has an opinion and you have yours. 🤷‍♂️

Once again, the point being that it’s abundantly clear that you only trust the democratic process if it supports your bias. You’ve also made it clear that when someone you oppose undermines the democratic process it’s full justification to subvert it entirely. Very disturbing.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Fishthumper: Are you not assuming the same thing as Matt just on the opposite side?
Are you both not telling each other that you know what jurors are thinking and taking into consideration?

I just find it ironic.

It’s almost as if he has an opinion and you have yours. 🤷‍♂️

Fair enough. I was just going off of what other Jurors in high profie cases have stated.

biggill wrote:

Once again, the point being that it’s abundantly clear that you only trust the democratic process if it supports your bias. You’ve also made it clear that when someone you oppose undermines the democratic process it’s full justification to subvert it entirely. Very disturbing.

Where have I ever stated any of that ???? You are really out there !!!! Just curious – What color is the sun in the world you live in ????

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
Jurors in the Derek Chauvin case openly admitted that the aftermath of there decisions did come into play on forming their decision. If you truly believe that this doesn’t effect a Jurors decision then you are even more insane and not even worth a discussion with.

I don’t disagree with that. It would be very difficult not to consider the outcome of something like that based on the verdict.

However, this is why jurors are very specifically vetted and questioned by both sides before they are permitted to be a part of the trial. If they admitted that their potential decision was going to be influenced by the consequences of their vote, then they should have been removed from the jury pool. Jurors should be making their decision on the evidence presented in trial, and ONLY the evidence presented in trial. I certainly hope any juror who admitted that they could not make a decision solely based on the trial would have been removed from the selection process.

I don’t think that worked out all that well in the Chauvin trail however.

glenn57 wrote:

I don’t think that worked out all that well in the Chauvin trail however.

I don’t disagree Glenn

I already know where you stand on a not guilty verdict but are you unwilling to accept a guilty verdict with the acknowledgment that a jury made up of her peers determined the facts in accordance with the principle of the law?

Your answer to my point that the former president attempted to illegally subvert the constitution was “but but but, look what Hillary said”. How is that NOT justifying his actions post election?

To be perfectly clear, everyone is allowed a bias, or opinion. It’s just disturbing that people are unwilling to accept that the legal process hasn’t been applied every time it doesn’t support their bias.

It’s not that the democratic process doesn’t fail sometimes, it’s that we all need to accept that it succeeds overwhelmingly more often than it fails. The OJ Simpson case is a clear example of how it can fail and I believe the country has learned from that failure.

biggill wrote:

It’s not that the democratic process doesn’t fail sometimes, it’s that we all need to accept that it succeeds overwhelmingly more often than it fails. The OJ Simpson case is a clear example of how it can fail and I believe the country has learned from that failure.

SO you reference not accepting a guilty verdict in the Potter case when she has a jury of her peers, but then you say the OJ trial was failed when he had a jury of HIS peers?
Im wondering if that isnt indeed bias?

So if this ends in a hung jury, she could possibly be tried again. Why?? Apparently there isn’t enough evidence to make it a clear cut case.

So 12 different people can decide? Think it’s a crock. In this trail or any other for that matter.

biggill wrote:

I already know where you stand on a not guilty verdict but are you unwilling to accept a guilty verdict with the acknowledgment that a jury made up of her peers determined the facts in accordance with the principle of the law?

Your answer to my point that the former president attempted to illegally subvert the constitution was “but but but, look what Hillary said”. How is that NOT justifying his actions post election?

To be perfectly clear, everyone is allowed a bias, or opinion. It’s just disturbing that people are unwilling to accept that the legal process hasn’t been applied every time it doesn’t support their bias.

It’s not that the democratic process doesn’t fail sometimes, it’s that we all need to accept that it succeeds overwhelmingly more often than it fails. The OJ Simpson case is a clear example of how it can fail and I believe the country has learned from that failure.

Matt. Do me a favor and go back and read all my replies in this post, or any post I’ve replied to and show me where I said the former president was correct or justified in his actions after this election. I said the other side did not accept the results in the prior election well either and I gave a example of that. I also stated that if either / both sides truly want to have a election where voters could feel better about the validity of the results that they should take anything other than in person voting or justified mail in voting out of it.

As for where I stand on a not guilty verdict and if I will accept a guilty verdict. Once again if you read my replies I stated that I don’t feel she will or should be found not guilty. She made a mistake that cost a person his life. And for a that she should be penalized. You tend to read things into my and other people’s statements that were not said.

As far as my statements on feeling worse for her and her family than I do for him and his. I stand by my statement. She was a law abiding citizen who chose a life of community service attempting to protect and help other people. He was a young thug who spend the last portion of his life being a criminal and harming or attempting to harm others. Hard for me to feel more sorry for him and his family.

Should be illegal to troll or beat dead horses, but it ain’t. What’s the best rod for internet trolling?

Should also be illegal to open a thread, by your choice… read some and then beoch about it by responding how much you dislike it. For what it’s worth… jury’s constantly get cases wrong as well as right.

basseyes wrote:

What’s the best rod for internet trolling?

Something with no backbone.
DT

deertracker wrote:

Something with no backbone.
DT

I laughed way too hard at this.

deertracker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
What’s the best rod for internet trolling?

Something with no backbone.
DT

Also something over sensitive.

Doing a little research on the current status of the trial I came across this information on the Jurors that were selected. Kind of interesting.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/daunte-wright/kim-potter-trial-who-is-on-the-jury/89-20d15244-40c2-4b92-8d83-c9e1b503f0cc

deertracker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
What’s the best rod for internet trolling?

Something with no backbone.
DT

Curious if they are waiting till after Christmas and New Years to help with the possibility of lesser charges or a not guilty verdict to help with the possibility of rioting and looting? Hopefully it’s below zero and windy if she’s found not guilty. Anyone you slice it, no easy answers and no winners in this situation.

Hopefully people grow up and realize throwing a tantrum because something didn’t go their way doesn’t work. An accident is an accident.

basseyes wrote:

Curious if they are waiting till after Christmas and New Years to help with the possibility of lesser charges or a not guilty verdict to help with the possibility of rioting and looting? Hopefully it’s below zero and windy if she’s found not guilty. Anyone you slice it, no easy answers and no winners in this situation.

Being that the jurors are being sequestered at a hotel until a verdict is reached I feel bad for them. I would think they don’t want to rush to a judgment, but at the same time I’m sure they would like to be home with their families for the holiday.

Looks like a hung jury mistrial, and probably a retrial soon to me.

BigWerm wrote:

Looks like a hung jury mistrial, and probably a retrial soon to me.

I hope not. A hung jury should not even be a thing. Total waste of time and tax payers money to go through the whole process again.

So are you saying that jurors should come to an agreement one way or another no matter what. I think that is easier said than done.

Decision gas been made, just waiting for the jury to come back and it to be announced. Glad they figured something out before they would go home for x-mas, what an aukward holidays that would be.

Yep, will be read about 1:30.

Ripjiggen wrote:

So are you saying that jurors should come to an agreement one way or another no matter what. I think that is easier said than done.

To be found guilty its must be beyond a reasonable Doubt. I say if they can not come to an agreement then there is reasonable doubt. Just my .02 worth.

Interesting. Did you see how they announced it?
The jurors have reached a “trial outcome” in the trial of Kim Potter

Not a Verdict but a Trial Outcome.

That’s not typical.

Gotcha

haleysgold wrote:

Interesting. Did you see how they announced it?
The jurors have reached a “trial outcome” in the trial of Kim Potter

Not a Verdict but a Trial Outcome.

That’s not typical.

pretty much thought the same thing..pretty oddly worded?????

haleysgold wrote:

Interesting. Did you see how they announced it?
The jurors have reached a “trial outcome” in the trial of Kim Potter

Not a Verdict but a Trial Outcome.

That’s not typical.

Sounds like code for “hung jury”