[Julian658]

You're deluded. Right wing media has been the largest, and Fox News ratings over the last 4 years are proof of that. I guess that wouldn't fit your narrative, though.

I never watch FOX, so I wouldn't know. I tend to mostly watch CNN and it is SJW central, not that different than MSNBC. As a centrist I cannot handle FOX.

[Godstud]

@Julian658 You spent the last 4 years defending everything Trump did. Don't keep bullshitting us about how you're a centrist. You couldn't be farther from that if you were a card-carrying Republican Nazi in the KKK.


Fox might not be your "go-to" news source, but Breitbart and others would be right up your alley.

How's your Parler account doing?

[colliric]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... 9d1d023c72

Chauvin is currently arguing there was a mistrial on a technicality. One of the Jurors was not impartial, since there is evidence he is a BLM sympathizer.

[colliric]

You're deluded. Right wing media has been the largest, and Fox News ratings over the last 4 years are proof of that. I guess that wouldn't fit your narrative, though.

In pure numbers, most mainstream media outlets are biased to the left wing, regardless of ratings being higher for conservative outlets.

Arguably Fox gets more because as Russell Crowe put it when he played Rodger Ailes: "They'll fight each other over that side, while we OWN this side".

CNN and MSNBC compete for Democratic party supporter ratings, while Fox has a virtual monopoly aiming at the other side.

Breitbart is still not MSM.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/derek-chauvins-lawyer-requests-new-trial-accusing-juror-of-misconduct/news-story/1ceb6db8819b05c7a808869d1d023c72

Chauvin is currently arguing there was a mistrial on a technicality. One of the Jurors was not impartial, since there is evidence he is a BLM sympathizer.

Even if we assume the absolute worst about this one juror, it is not enough for an appeal. The photo does not show explicit bias; it only shows that the juror knows someone who wore a t-shirt critical of the murderer’s actions.

[Drlee]

Chauvin is currently arguing there was a mistrial on a technicality. One of the Jurors was not impartial, since there is evidence he is a BLM sympathizer.

That is absurd. It is indicative of the level of "reason" we see on the right. BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Chauvin murdered a person. He is not in jail because he murdered a black person. He is in jail because he murdered a person. There are police members of BLM.

[colliric]

That is absurd. It is indicative of the level of "reason" we see on the right. BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Chauvin murdered a person. He is not in jail because he murdered a black person. He is in jail because he murdered a person. There are police members of BLM.

It's not absurd. He's asking for another trial on the basis of the jury being pro-BLM, therefore possibly biased against him, having needed to be impartial and probably should have been sequestered. That has successfully overturned guilty verdicts in the past. His lawyer is doing his job and giving him the correct advice, but probably also told him their chances are slim since the Judge would have to be in the mood for a round two.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his defence lawyers are doing their job well advising him to appeal all the way to the top since he believes he is not guilty. Probably won't get a new trial though. Maybe an appeal hearing instead.

[wat0n]

I doubt the verdict would change with a different jury.

[colliric]

I doubt the verdict would change with a different jury.

Yeah probably not, so I think the Judge will say that in rejecting it. The jury not being sequestered gives it some chance, but this is basically the legal version of a Hail Mary pass. Of cause for his lawyer a win would help his legal practice become extremely famous and receive more clients so of course he is going to advise retrial, then the usual appeal, then a Supreme Court submission for an Appeal.

If you think there's no chance this will ever succeed, this is exactly how Cardinal Pell got his Guilty verdict overturned here in Australia when the press went full on anti-Catholic bigotry and pressured the Jury for a guilty verdict. He fought tooth and nail all the way and had the funds to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not absurd. He's asking for another trial on the basis of the jury being pro-BLM, therefore possibly biased against him, having needed to be impartial and probably should have been sequestered. That has successfully overturned guilty verdicts in the past. His lawyer is doing his job and giving him the correct advice, but probably also told him their chances are slim since the Judge would have to be in the mood for a round two.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his defence lawyers are doing their job well advising him to appeal all the way to the top since he believes he is not guilty. Probably won't get a new trial though. Maybe an appeal hearing instead.

Again, the photo does not show the juror showing pro-BLM bias.

The murderer’s lawyer has the right to ask, but it will probably fail.

Though it is interesting that a juror can be disqualified for simply agreeing that the lives of black people are actually important.

[Pants-of-dog]

Mr. Floyd’s murderer and the three other cops with him at the time of the murder are now being charged with federal civil rights violations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57023223

[wat0n]

So Chauvin is getting 22.5 years:

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/derek- ... 7f4de58e06

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

If he is also getting charged with Federal civil rights violations, then Chauvin could get more time. I am not sure if that time would be consecutive time or in addition to the 22 and a half year sentence he got.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

If he is also getting charged with Federal civil rights violations, then Chauvin could get more time. I am not sure if that time would be consecutive time or in addition to the 22 and a half year sentence he got.

Yeah, but that trial has yet to begin.

I wonder if he can appeal.

[Drlee]

22 years sounds about right to me.

[Doug64]

I know, I’m bumping something from eleven pages back, but someone made the mistake of taking PoD seriously.

]@Doug64 that's not true, there was an attempt to storm Oregon's State Capitol 2-3 weeks before the attempts to do the same in DC.

Link?

Here you go:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heavily-a ... ref=scroll

Interesting that the word “violence” isn’t used once in your story. Neither is the word “riot.” Plenty of armed people, not a single shot fired or even mention of someone pointing a gun at the cops. Plenty of shoving as the protestors try to enter the building, no reports of fists thrown, lasers flashed at policemen’s eyes, or attempted property damage. It’s not hard to see why this didn’t receive widespread coverage by the MSM(D), the comparison between it and the riots that have shaken city after city in the last year+ would have been embarrassing. And then there’s the problem of how to describe it, after labeling those riots as “mostly peaceful protests.”

[wat0n]

I know, I’m bumping something from eleven pages back, but someone made the mistake of taking PoD seriously.



Interesting that the word “violence” isn’t used once in your story. Neither is the word “riot.” Plenty of armed people, not a single shot fired or even mention of someone pointing a gun at the cops. Plenty of shoving as the protestors try to enter the building, no reports of fists thrown, lasers flashed at policemen’s eyes, or attempted property damage. It’s not hard to see why this didn’t receive widespread coverage by the MSM(D), the comparison between it and the riots that have shaken city after city in the last year+ would have been embarrassing. And then there’s the problem of how to describe it, after labeling those riots as “mostly peaceful protests.”

Are you serious?