The show trial against Chauvin and the other officers marches on, this time at the federal level
A federal grand jury in Minnesota has voted to indict the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in the May 25, 2020, arrest of George Floyd, according to indictments unsealed Friday.
The three-count indictment names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao. Specifically, Chauvin, Thao and Kueng are charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force. All four officers are charged for their failure to provide Floyd with medical care. Chauvin was also charged in a second indictment, stemming from the arrest and neck restraint of a 14-year-old boy in 2017.
The fact that EMTs had been called and were on their way doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that one of the officers, Lane, had suggested early on and then again that Floyd be rolled on his side and that Chauvin overruled him – doesn’t seem to matter. Does anyone else remember this?:
Lane, 37, had only been on the force for four days when he helped to restrain Floyd, according to his lawyer.
“My client is holding his legs, Mr. Floyd is saying he can’t breathe and my client says to the 20-year veteran Chauvin should we roll him over,” Gray said.
“Lane asked, should we roll him on his side and officer Chauvin said no,” Gray said. “Now, we’ve got a 20-year officer here and a four-day officer in my client.”
“Then later, my client again says, do you want to roll him on his side? This is right before the ambulance comes and again he’s not rolled on his side.”
Gray said that Lane “did not want to see the man die” and started to perform CPR on Floyd.
“My client is holding his feet. When the ambulance comes, my client goes in the ambulance. Four days on the force … and starts his own CPR, pushing down on his chest, which he did for a lengthy period of time, until they got the machine on,” according to Gray.
Chauvin, the 20-year veteran, overruled Lane. But Lane is charged, just like the rest of them. And all also face state charges as well. Speaking of which…
In the Rodney King incident and trial of 1991, which also featured inflammatory video evidence (although King was not killed, only injured), you may or may not recall the legal niceties. I’ll summarize them by saying that four police officers were charged by the state, three acquitted, and one received no decision on a single charge because of a split jury. The results was terrible riots in Los Angeles:
The rioting lasted six days and killed 63 people, with 2,383 more injured; it ended only after the California Army National Guard, the Army, and the Marine Corps provided reinforcements to re-establish control.
Note the force with which the riots were met, quite different from today’s reaction.
After that came the federal charges, because of the failure to find the men guilty. It’s worth looking at that trial in more detail. As you read this, please compare and contrast with today [my emphasis]:
After the acquittals and the riots, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sought indictments of the police officers for violations of King’s civil rights…[T]he grand jury returned indictments against the three officers for “willfully and intentionally using unreasonable force” and against Sergeant Koon for “willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault” on King…
…The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 30 months in prison. Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges.
During the three-hour sentencing hearing, US District Judge John G. Davies accepted much of the defense version of the beating. He strongly criticized King, whom he said provoked the officers’ initial actions. Davies said that only the final six or so baton blows by Powell were unlawful. The first 55 seconds of the videotaped portion of the incident, during which the vast majority of the blows were delivered, was within the law because the officers were attempting to subdue a suspect who was resisting efforts to take him into custody.
Davies found that King’s provocative behavior began with his “remarkable consumption of alcoholic beverage” and continued through a high-speed chase, refusal to submit to police orders and an aggressive charge toward Powell. Davies…concluded that Officer Powell never intentionally struck King in the head, and “Powell’s baton blow that broke King’s leg was not illegal because King was still resisting and rolling around on the ground, and breaking bones in resistant suspects is permissible under police policy.”
Mitigation cited by the judge in determining the length of the prison sentence included the suffering the officers had undergone because of the extensive publicity their case had received, high legal bills that were still unpaid, the impending loss of their careers as police officers, their higher risks of abuse while in prison, and their undergoing two trials. The judge acknowledged that the two trials did not legally constitute double jeopardy, but raised “the specter of unfairness”.
These mitigations were critical to the validity of the sentences imposed because federal sentencing guidelines called for much longer prison terms in the range of 70 to 87 months. The low sentences were controversial and were appealed by the prosecution. In a 1994 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected all the grounds cited by Judge Davies and extended the terms. The defense appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. Both Koon and Powell were released from prison while they appealed to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, having served their original 30-month sentences with time off for good behavior. On June 14, 1996, the high court partially reversed the lower court in a ruling, unanimous in its most important aspects, which gave a strong endorsement to judicial discretion, even under sentencing guidelines intended to produce uniformity.
There’s a lot there to mull over, as well as tremendous differences between then and now. I strongly suspect that, had the King incident taken place today, the riots would have occurred even before the initial trial, and that the men would have been found guilty in that trial. They would have been sentenced to the harshest possible sentence, and then they would have been tried by the feds as well.
The present situation is an obvious show trial, and it seems that very few people care, because Chauvin is a seemingly dislikeable person. The other accused officers have not had that much personal exposure compared to Chauvin, and it remains to be seen whether they will ever have a higher profile in the public’s minds or whether the taint of Chauvin will wholly become their taint. How many people care about them or their fate? I certainly do, and anyone who cares about justice should care about each individual and each case, but I believe that’s very rare in this day and age.
As Scott Johnson of Powerline writes:
I wonder if such a case has ever been brought when the perpetrators have already been convicted or have yet to be tried in pending state criminal proceedings. I may be missing something, but I am unaware of relevant precedent. Absent relevant precedent or further explanation, I can only comment that I find this aspect of the case performative and abusive.
That is my thought as well.
As with the King case, the court can say that the two trials do not legally constitute double jeopardy. The difference, of course, is – as Scott Johnson says – that Chauvin was convicted by the state in his first trial, and the others have yet to be tried but certainly have not been acquitted and the plan is for the state of Minnesota to try them. The unusual nature of this particular double prosecution may also not be double jeopardy in the technical sense – at least, that will be the prosecution’s argument – because the exact charges are different although they arise from the same set of acts. I submit that they not only raise “the specter of unfairness” but constitute actual unfairness, especially considering the highly serious nature of the crimes of which Chauvin has already been convicted. And I wonder whether an argument can be made that these federal charges, coming at this time – prior to sentencing on the state charges – have the goal of affecting the Minnesota sentencing in the first trial and making it even more harsh.
The state of justice in the US today is sickening. The DOJ is quite the Orwellian designation at this point.
[NOTE: I have already discussed that charge against Chauvin in the case of the 14-year-old.]
Didn’t the medical event precede the restraint, and, in fact, prompted the early exit from the cruiser?
Also, while the first-order forcings of a progressive loss of viability were a drug overdose, diverse comorbidities, and anxiety, the proximate cause of death was a belligerent mob that prevented safe and timely emergency aid.
Neo: I think you’re right that a main purpose of the federal indictments is to prejudice Chauvin’s sentencing hearing (including the prosecution’s motion for an enhanced sentence) and also to prejudice the trial of the other three officers.
As for double jeopardy: It’s true that the Constitution recognizes a right to due process, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. So in this trivial sense the DOJ’s policy of bringing civil rights charges for the same conduct tried in state court does not violate due process as defined in the Constitution.
But the idea of due process precedes the Constitution and is independent of it. It’s always open to question whether the Constitution guarantees due process. The Supreme Court’s “dual sovereigns” rationale is not really convincing. The opinion usually quoted states that since citizens “voluntarily participate” in the American political system they really have no argument that the application of the dual sovereigns doctrine is unfair. I think that begs the question.
The dual sovereigns doctrine must be applied in the context of the existing political system in America. If the application has a patently unjust result as in the George Floyd prosecutions (and also in the Rodney King prosecutions), then the dual sovereigns doctrine is flawed.
buster:
I believe it is flawed, and obviously so. But it serves political purposes to ignore or deny that.
right to be free from unreasonable seizure
The criminal complaint the officer’s were responding to was “passing of counterfeit money”. That’s a federal crime that the fed’s expect local police to handle for them. I suspect that dynamic is about to change. Of course, when anybody can print counterfeit money without consequences, it devalues our currency and causes inflation. I’m not seeing that our federal government cares at all about inflation.
I guess we are going with “printing our way out of debt”. Sucks to be a low or fixed income earner, which I believe are the poor and elderly to be hardest hit.
Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
Refrain:
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we’ll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They’ll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We’ll shoot the generals on our own side.
No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E’er the thieves will out with their booty
And give to all a happier lot.
Each at the forge must do their duty
And we’ll strike while the iron is hot.
The psychological effect on that police department is unimaginable.
They won’t be happy until ever policeman is disarmed or dismissed.
Skip:
Actually, I think the psychological effect is very imaginable – police quitting in droves, and the ones who remain being very reluctant to enforce the law.
I assume you were just using hyperbole, and that you have imagined it as well. The effect is enormous and dangerous, and not only imaginable but already occurring. It will almost certainly worsen now.
I also think the effect on criminals is to embolden them. I would like to think that the effect on the communities involved is to turn them away from voting for the left, but I doubt that will happen.
Scott Johnson opines from his office in the tall grass.
The state of INjustice in the US today is sickening.
But this is not about justice, this is about intimidation and demonization, as a tactic to fundamentally transform policing in America. A transformation into a federalized force, one under the control of the Left.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set, we’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Obama during a 2008 campaign speech
@GB:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set, we’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Obama during a 2008 campaign speech
Attended an event in China which had a substantial People’s Armed Police security cordon presence — not your usual gun-toting, neighbourhood cops, but the paramilitary guys who exist to put down local insurrections. Quantity has a quality all of its own and seeing it in action makes a person think more than twice.
Be interesting to see how politically correct and diverse a FedGov implementation of PAP or Soviet Interior Ministry Troops would be and how well that would work out for them on the ground amongst the heavily armed Deplorables.
This is the sort of thing that’s keeping gun sales through the roof. When the police can’t or won’t protect you, who ya gonna call?
It’s quite clear that they want to federalize the police. At least the big city departments to begin with. Stalinists!
Neo comments that Chauvin is “seemingly dislikable.” Others, including David Horowitz, have made similar comments. It may or may not be true, but I know of no evidence one way or the other. Can someone help me out?
@Sheldon:
Neo comments that Chauvin is “seemingly dislikable.” Others, including David Horowitz, have made similar comments. It may or may not be true, but I know of no evidence one way or the other. Can someone help me out?
Wellll…. He’s White, Legacy American, Straight Male, Proletarian, gets his hands dirty in daily interactions with dirt bags, doesn’t care for arugula or cilantro… so obviously he’s an unsympathetic character. Nobody is going to go found the ADL to defend a sleazebag like him or his kind.
Not much of a fan of cops myself; they’re a necessary evil. Not even much of a connoisseur of prole-feed, but it irks me to see pontificating grifters like Horowitz who never did a day’s honest work in their life criticize de haute en bas Little Cattle People for their sometimes easy to pick over semi-sordid little existences. We’re all in the mud. Nobody and I mean Nobody’s life bears too much close scrutiny.
It’s the Who Whom blatant unfairness of it that sticks in the craw. Something will eventually snap if it isn’t walked back.
Maybe Merrick ( what kind of Jew names their kid Merrick) will have Amy Berman Freisler as the judge
@avi:
“Maybe Merrick (what kind of Jew names their kid Merrick) will have Amy Berman Freisler as the judge”
The kind who used to shop at Ralph Lauren? Not quite my bailiwick so just putting it out there.
For the other bit, well you can’t beat History for the Rhyming Funnies.
*Alec Guinness Mode On*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3LE15AyT5g
The Quality of Mercy is going to be Strained exceeding fine.
Meanwhile…
https://www.unz.com/article/29-whites-dead-april-2021-another-month-in-the-death-of-white-america/
Looks like there could be a Volkproblem down at the Volksgericht.
Time to Elect a New People.. err… *brain explodes*.
Interesting take here from David Cole:
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-ghettos-on-fire-let-it-burn/
“Hispanics seem to be the only group that’s not down with the whole suicide thing. The only group with a focus on growth rather than self-destruction. And while that growth is surely a mixed blessing (and that’s putting it mildly) for the nation, pragmatic whites might just come to realize that throwing in with a non-suicidal population is a better deal than trying to deprogram those lost to 1943 ghetto fighter dementia.”
Come to think of it, there’s plenty of people out there who would be more satisfying as piñatas than in their present incarnations.
Is the FBI unconstitutional? It’s roots go back to the Mann Act to enforce legislation against so-called “White Slavery.” It was an early Moral Panic. Black pimps transporting white females across state lines “for immoral purposes” like prostitution.
Yet, Obama: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set, we’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Obama during a 2008 campaign speech
If the FBIs roots of legitimacy are prima facia racist, and unCinstitutional, how does Obamunist Fed Police Forcing become anti-racist and Constitutional?
Add in that half the US already sees the FIB as corrupt and untrustworthy, who’s going to submit without a violent fight?
Actually, I think the psychological effect is very imaginable – police quitting in droves, and the ones who remain being very reluctant to enforce the law.
The Second City cop blogger used to call this “Going fetal” before he was doxxed and his blog shut down. The cops that are not retiring or looking for jobs in suburbs are going fetal. I wonder how many social workers will be killed as they are sent to domestic dispute calls? Those are probably the most dangerous calls.