I’ve been keeping an eye on Derek Chauvin’s trial over the last few days. I keep telling myself that we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions yet because, at this point, the prosecution is still presenting their case. Things could change next week when the defense begins to call their witnesses.
But so far, it is hard to envision how a jury would conclude anything other than Chauvin is guilty of at least second degree murder. Here is some of the evidence that stood out to me.
1. One of the criteria for justifying the use of force against a suspect is the severity of the crime. George Floyd was in the process of being charged with passing a counterfeit $20 bill – a minor nonviolent felony. According to testimony from Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, officers are trained to detain a suspect only in the case of a violent felony. In other words, the entire incident with Floyd was outside department policy from the get-go.
2. Once a suspect is in police custody, the officers involved have a “duty of care” that requires them to provide basic medical care. According to videos presented at the trial, at one point another police officer told Chauvin that Floyd had no pulse. Rather than attempt CPR or chest compressions, Chauvin continued to keep Floyd in the prone position with a knee on his neck for an additional 2 1/2 minutes.
3. Multiple police officers, including Chief Arradondo, stated that Chauvin didn’t follow police department policies when he held Floyd in the prone position after he was handcuffed and ceased to resist.
4. Multiple expert witnesses, including pulmonary specialists and medical examiners, reviewed the evidence in this case and came to the conclusion that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to the actions of the police officers involved. They all disputed defense claims that Floyd’s death was the result of his heart condition or drug use.
Of course, all the defense lawyers have to do is convince at least one juror that there is “reasonable doubt” that Chauvin caused the death of George Floyd. But at this point, they don’t seem to have reached that bar with their cross examination of prosecution witnesses. We’ll have to wait and see what they come up with next week.
An indication that perhaps the prosecution has made their case quite successfully is demonstrated by articles published at the conservative Washington Examiner both before and after the trial began. In a column from two weeks ago titled, “Convicting Derek Chauvin of George Floyd’s murder won’t be easy,” Eddie Scarry pointed to the fact that the medical examiner’s report showed that Floyd had heart disease and found that he had both methamphetamine and fentanyl in his blood. Scarry also noted that the medical examiner found no injuries on Floyd’s neck or throat. All of those issues were dealt with substantively by experts witnesses for the prosecution.
But Scarry also wrote something that amounts to a lie of omission. He claimed that the medical examiner said that Floyd wasn’t suffocated, “his heart simply gave out.” Here is the testimony of Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County Medical Examiner, about the conclusions he reached in his autopsy report.
Baker ruled Floyd’s death a homicide. He listed the cause of death as “cardiopulmonary arrest” (a fancy way of saying his heart and lungs stopped) brought on by law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. Baker made it clear that Floyd’s heart disease and drug use were “complicating factors,” but not the cause of death.
In an editorial published Friday titled, “Only Derek Chauvin is on trial—not our justice system and not the police,” writers at the Washington Examiner took a totally different tone.
What exactly is on trial in Minneapolis right now?
It is not the nation’s justice system. It is not the practice of trial by jury. It is not the Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh amendments to the Constitution. It is not even police operations.
Rather, the trial is of a former police officer, Derek Chauvin. And he is on trial not for his character or his aptitude as a police officer but for the specific, infamous, filmed arrest that ended with George Floyd’s death…
If the jury decides Chauvin caused Floyd’s death, it should rule accordingly. It should not rule based on any hyped-up media narrative about police shootings.
The entire article reads like a pre-emptive strike against using a guilty verdict as a call for police reforms. In other words, the editorial staff at the Washington Examiner is telegraphing what they think the outcome of this trial will be and preparing their next argument. Take that for what it’s worth. But a guilty verdict would be a historic milestone for justice.
I fear what happens if Chauvin isn’t found guilty. Our cities will explode. All the pent up frustration from years of abusive misuse of power and silent suffering that’s been off radar to white folks will rear up in a way that no one can fail to notice. Of course this has happened before and we’ve gone on. But the right is so polarized now, with so much tolerance of violence, that most anything could happen. We could see pitched battles in the street that police alone cannot contain. We could potentially see military vehicles in our streets. I can’t imagine it would be wide-scale enough that the enormity of our armed forces couldn’t handle it but one never knows. Moreover, it would be the next step in our degredation to third-world status (in which the military is more about maintaining order than defending the state from outside forces).
I agree that the prosecution made a really strong case.
The most shocking part – setting aside the actual killing – was in the very first interaction between a police officer and Floyd. The cops were responding to a nothing call, something that probably could have been resolved by taking Floyd into the store and discussing it with the manager. There was not going to be an arrest. A desk appearance ticket, maybe. As far as the cop knew, Floyd may have unknowingly passed the bill.
Yet how did the cop approach Floyd’s vehicle? With his gun drawn. Pointed at Floyd. Used it to rap on the window. Immediately started screaming at Floyd about his “fucking hands” while Floyd immediately started asking the cop not to shoot him.
I get that a police officer has a moderately dangerous job – a logger has really dangerous work – but come on. Do US cops approach every interaction with a black man like a gun battle is about to break out? The cops were out of control and Floyd was begging for his life before he got out of his car.
I thought police were supposed to have some courage. Are all American cops such chickenshits? No wonder they shoot so many people. They are afraid of their own shadows. I would fire the first cop to talk to Floyd just for being such a wussie.
Yes they are scared shitless but they are also racist bastards. I wish we could fire all those nut jobs but it appears it can’t be done in our lifetimes.
Yes, racism had Floyd labelled “Big Bad Black Guy – danger!” before a word was said. Even if Floyd could be called possibly dangerous, nobody needs cops who shit their pants in fear when faced with possible danger. This is the kind of cop who will, in a panic, mistake a cellphone for a gun and shoot somebody. Fear equals trigger happy.