By now you almost certainly know that Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three counts. But this case was decided long ago – probably even before Chauvin encountered Floyd on that fateful day, culminating in the death of the latter and the ending of life as he knew it for the former. The verdict we see today is just the reflection of trends we’ve been seeing in this country for years.
For example, think of the Rodney King case (I’ve written a bit about Rodney King in this post). It was the first case I can recall of alleged police brutality towards a black man that involved inflammatory video that turned out to not be telling the whole story.
But of course it started long before that. I don’t know exactly when, but for example in 1967 the Newark riots were sparked by accusations of police brutality against a black man. And that certainly was not the first riot of its kind.
As time has gone on, all sorts of remedies have been tried, such as the obvious one of more black police officers and chiefs of police. But in recent years, with the ever-leftward movement of the Democratic Party (both on the national level and the municipal level), the turning of the MSM into leftist propaganda sheets, and the growth of mass movements like BLM fostered by social media, we have reached a crescendo of anti-police sentiment that has culminated in a verdict like this.
In the comments section, “Cornhead” writes: “I respect the jury system. The jury saw and heard all admissible evidence.” I do, too. But all that means is that I wouldn’t use extra-judicial means to try to negate or overturn the verdict. I wouldn’t try to lynch someone I thought was wrongly exonerated, and I wouldn’t try to help a convict escape from jail who I think is not guilty. It has nothing to do with whether a verdict was correct in my opinion or even in terms of the evidence submitted. Miscarriages of justice happen quite frequently at the hands of juries and of judges. Sometimes they are righted by the appeals system but sometimes they are not.
In the end, as with most systems involving humans, the jury system is only as good and as fair as the people who administer it such as judges, the laws that are passed, the lawyers for each side, and the understanding of each jury about all the elements of the trial and their decision, including what will happen out in the world as a result of their verdict.
In recent years we’ve closely followed cases that somewhat resembled the Chauvin case. For Zimmernan and Darren Wilson, the initial hype from the left and the MSM was that they were guilty guilty guilty – and in fact many people still believe they were guilty. But the justice system exonerated them when the facts came out. Other officers with different fact situations have been convicted, mostly rightly.
But Chauvin is something new, in my opinion, and his fate is a reflection of the power of videos and of propaganda. Within just a few days of Floyd’s death, most of America – the press, the left, and even many people on the right – judged him guilty merely on the evidence of a 9-minute video that only told a small portion of the story. Most of them unhesitatingly called his death a murder at the hands of Chauvin – and this was even done by lawyers, including lawyers on the right, who should know better. It seemed to me that way too many people were eager to signal how righteous they were, and they saw condemning Chauvin as a murderer without knowing the actual facts as the way to accomplish that.
That was only the beginning of what happened after Floyd’s death. America, and even some parts of the world outside America, exploded with destructive riots that lasted for many months. Cities discussed getting rid of police and replacing them with something else. Mayors let their cities burn. People were injured and killed, some of them civilians and some police. Buildings were destroyed, statues were pulled down. It was rioting and chaos the likes of which I can’t remember before in this country.
The press, the left, and organizations such as BLM pushed it further and further. And meanwhile, at the same time, facts were emerging that cast tremendous doubt on Chauvin’s guilt. I’m not going to recap that evidence here, but I wrote about it in real time, and some of it came out in the trial, more than enough to engender reasonable doubt in jurors who had not been exposed to the months of previous propaganda, or the threats of riots if Chauvin was not found guilty.
It didn’t matter. Chauvin has been found guilty of all three counts, including a preposterous charge of felony murder (most states would not even allow such as a charge, in which the felony is the same act alleged to have caused the death).
I’m fairly certain there will be an appeal. I doubt it will succeed. Because the larger issue here – and one that is not just the result of this case – is that our legal system now has been increasingly corrupted by the threat of mob action. Whether it be riots, members of Congress or a president opining on what the verdict should be, doxxing or mere cancel culture, many jurors are intimidated, many judges seem timid and afraid to go against the mob opinion, and many lawyers are afraid to defend unpopular defendants. These things undermine a legal system and can destroy it; perhaps it’s already destroyed. In the Chauvin jury selection process, people who said they were afraid to be on the jury were excused. Logic indicates to me that those people were probably more likely to have been the ones at least willing to hear the evidence and vote “not guilty.” They were rightly afraid; I can’t blame them.
Not that this verdict will sufficiently appease the mob. It will merely empower them. But a not guilty verdict would have been used to empower them, as well. Our problems are way, way beyond what happened to George Floyd and what will happen to Derek Chauvin. They are legion.
[NOTE: I was just listening to Candace Owens on Tucker Carlson, saying that we have two epidemics in this country: one of ignorance and one of cowardice. That’s true – but I’d add another, which is mendacity.]
