Listening again today. Basically, only white men answer are the ones saying that they feared for their safety upon finding out which trial it is. Just listening to it, the language used and how answers are received also is very much geared to short, direct and succinct answers, which also selects for race and gender, where the old white people tend to give more answers in absolutes where others tend to hedge their answers. How they describe the videos also selects for this, where the white people describe it in neutral language, mostly it seems because they are writing as if they are writing an office report instead of say talking to a friend.
Watched it today too. Feels like any potential juror with any kind of left-lean that they don't weasel out of like, 'I support BLM but they go too far' gets striked. Also got really angry when the defense asked the last one that if having political beliefs about defunding the police would make him feel like he's 'walking into the lion's den' by being on the jury.
I'd be really surprised if Chauvin gets more than whatever the least charge is. And seeing the jury, I have no faith in the others getting found guilty.
I wish I knew more about how jury selection worked.
Why get heated if you don’t know about the jury selection.
Wishing to know more does not imply not knowing anything, at least for me. Also, you do not need to know everything about a process to feel like it is flawed.
The prosecution gets the same amount of peremptory challenges as the defence
No, I believe its 9 and 15
And besides, do you really think a BLM supporter can be impartial? It's hard enough for the average person to be impartial, knowing that if they don't vote to convict there's going to be riots in the street.
Yes as far as anyone can actually be impartial. If you are selecting by asking about BLM, you might as well be asking if they watch Fox news or voted Trump, both of which would be wrong.
