Reasonable Doubt

Yesterday, the trial of Derek Chauvin began. And in spite of what everyone saw, a man kneeling on another man’s neck for almost ten minutes until he was unconscious and beyond, we will have to endure the usual defensive tactics of a killer cop. This is a cycle that has played out so many times I won’t recount them all here.

He was a criminal.

He was a threat.

He was a druggie.

He was resisting.

The cop was doing the best he could.

The cop was under pressure.

The cop was worried for his life.

The cop was following procedure.

Add of this together and presto: reasonable doubt.

The City of Minneapolis is already out $27 million, money that could have funded schools, libraries, or any number of services the “rainy day fund” could have provided for. This comes on the heels of a $20 million settlement for the killing of Justine Damond. Nearly $50 million spent in two years because the Minneapolis Police Department can’t stop killing their citizens.

Is that money well spent?

Defense lawyers, a necessary evil, will do their best to cloud the facts of the case. In our system of justice, the truth is a prop to the theatre of guilt or innocence. Opposing lawyers will use the “truth” to persuade jurors to their side. In this fog of truth, the jurors won’t have to decide what happened or who it happened to; all of that is on video. Instead, they’ll be asked to decide if it should have happened and if not, who is responsible for it.

Was George Floyd resisting arrest? Kind of. He was certainly uncooperative and not following the police officers’ directives. From the video I’ve seen, he seemed scared and confused, and possibly on drugs (we know from autopsies after the fact he was). Does this mean he deserved to die in the street, crying out for his mother? I hardly think so.

Floyd had committed a crime, to be sure. He used a counterfeit bill to buy cigarettes, hardly the act of a dangerous criminal mastermind. And the bill was such a bad counterfeit that the ink on it was said to be running. This was not a crime that even deserved a rapid police response, let alone one that called for four officers. The maximum penalty in Minnesota for it is a year in prison. And that’s the stiffest sentence. Most people never see the inside of a jail cell.

Was Chauvin’s response appropriate or reasonable? Once Floyd was handcuffed and on the ground, what threat existed? At no time did Floyd try to flee the scene or present a danger to others. Add in the fact that Chauvin and Floyd KNEW each other from previous work together providing security at a restaurant, I find it hard to see the need for lethal force. It seems much more likely that Chauvin was delighting in having the “right” to put a knee into Floyd’s neck and show him who was in charge. Look at his face:

Does that seem like the face and body of someone who was worried about his life? Sunglasses propped upon his head, hands in pockets, a relaxed expression staring back into the bystander’s camera. He looks more suited to be poolside than in a critical, life-or-death situation.

For his part, Chauvin’s defense seems to boil down to a few elements: One, that Floyd was not strangled to death, namely that Chauvin’s knee and the pressure he applied to the neck and torso of Floyd was not enough to stop him from breathing. Two, that Floyd was resisting arrest and Chauvin was restraining him until he was cooperative. Three, that the combination of the drugs Floyd had ingested earlier and a history of health issues led to his death, not the actions of the police officer.

While all of these claims are valid and true from the defense’s perspective, they leave out a few key elements. A person can be choked to death without having the tell-tale signs of strangulation. It only takes a small amount of pressure to block the veins in a person’s neck. A bit more for the arteries since they lie deeper in the neck. Allow that to continue over a period of time, say ten minutes, and it could be fatal. Also, putting weight on someone’s chest for extended periods can interrupt a normal breathing cycle. It’s a slower death than if I wrapped my hands around your throat and squeezed but can still be fatal. Combine the two and the life will slowly drain from a person.

Floyd may have initially resisted arrest but by the time of his death, he was well subdued. There was no reason for Chauvin to stay there for ten minutes. His fellow officers even suggested letting up. Even after one of them was unable to find a pulse, Chauvin did not let up. It is clear from his action what he was trying to do: kill George Floyd.

Lastly, there was no way to know at the moment what Floyd had ingested prior to his interactions with the police or how they would impact his health. It is clear to me from watching multiple videos of the murder that Floyd was under the influence of something. This should have immediately triggered a different response from the police. This has been one of the key tenets of the “defund the police” movement, that there needs to be a compassionate and humane response in cases of non-violent crimes. The only violence that occurred here was at the initiation of police officers. A person under the influence is, by definition, unable to make reasoned decisions. Remember, he had just tried to buy cigarettes with a bill that had runny ink. Does that seem like a reasonable thing to do? Or the act of a desperate person who is on something?

The defense will try to muddy the waters with these facts and create reasonable doubt within the mind of at least one juror. That’s all it will take for a mistrial. Get a few more and maybe you can convince the rest to vote not guilty. We’ve seen it play out dozens of times before. This case may not be any different. Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in a park and was executed by an officer less than a few seconds after arriving on the scene. His actions were seen to be “reasonable”.

Will this be any different?

I certainly hope so. I fear what will happen if Chauvin is found not guilty. The murder alone caused days of protests and unrest. A not guilty verdict will loudly proclaim that cops can kill with impunity. If he gets away with it, you can rest assured there will be a response from the community. The slogan means what it means.

No justice, no peace.