It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christens…
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.