What's Different in the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd Case?

[canyonwalker]

Last week I wrote briefly about the trial of Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer charged with the murder of George Floyd during an arrest. I asserted that this time is different despite what the doubters and SNL satirists say. Now I'll explain why it's different. Here are Five Things:

1. The evidence is highly visible. We have videos and multiple eyewitnesses to the circumstances of George Floyd's death at police hands on May 25, 2020. This isn't so much a thing that's different about Floyd's death but about many cases of police violence in recent years versus farther in the past. Farther in the past there rarely was objective evidence like a video. Thank ubiquitous cell phones for that. And thank ubiquitous Internet access both for helping such videos be seen and helping witnesses be heard. In the past witnesses could not reach millions of people with their statements as readily as they can today. By and large their statements were heard by investigators who kept it bottled up— or weren't even given to investigators, as people in oppressed communities feared speaking to the police.


2. There has been a sustained outcry for justice. Floyd's death at the hands of police not only sparked outrage in the community, it sparked outrage nationwide. And that outrage has lasted beyond the immediate days after the killing. Protests occurred in many cities over the summer. There was even a protest march in my hometown 1,600 miles away from Minneapolis. I joined it.


3. The Chief of Police and Minneapolis Mayor both condemned Chauvin's actions, swiftly. The norm in the past has been for leaders to first cover up the facts of what happened, then play the "Well, I don't know..." card to excuse taking action. Instead, here, local leaders acted quickly and decisively. Within 24 hours of the alleged crime Chauvin and 3 other officers were all fired. This has set a new precedent for political leaders to have to confront the ugly reality of police violence when it occurs in their jurisdiction and be accountable for their actions— or inaction— against it.


4. The district attorney followed swiftly with charges against Chauvin and 3 officers who allegedly witnessed his actions and failed to stop him. This alone is a huge change. The sad norm in police violence cases even in recent years has been to let the offenders off without charges. District attorneys hide behind claims of insufficient evidence or pass off responsibility to grand juries that decline to indict— despite the fact that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," in the legendary words of New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler— or to administrative review boards that do nothing and bury the results in red tape.


5. Police experts testified for the prosecution in the trial. It was striking in this trial that multiple respected policing experts stood up and said what Chauvin did was wrong. In the past the "blue line" of police officers siding with their own has rarely been broken.

Does any of this mean Chauvin will be convicted? After all, convicting a police officer for unlawfully killing a Black man in custody is the main "Will it be different this time?" question people are asking. It's impossible to guarantee as the verdict is in the hands of the jury now. But even if they do acquit— or if a mistrial is declared and the jury in a subsequent trial acquits, or a jury convicts but is overturned on appeal— the above 5 things that are already different about this case are significant and show progress is being made. As Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Comments

[prince_eric]

So I meant to reply in the other post, but just didn’t have time. While I agree with all of that, this is also not the first time crossing this particular bridge, and these convictions quite often get overturned, along with other punishments like job loss.

Maybe this is the case that busts the qualified immunity wall open, but until we see that happen it’s hard to view this as anything more than temporary at best.

[canyonwalker]

The jury returned a guilty verdict this afternoon. Let me just say that first. Chauvin has been convicted.

That said, Yes, we've been down this road before— a road where victory for justice at one turn, such as conviction at trial, is reversed at a later turn. It could happen here. But note my argument in the article above. Even if the conviction is reversed, points 3, 4 and 5 still represent important milestones of progress achieved with this trial. And points 1 and 2 represent milestones already achieved in multiple similar cases in recent years that have brought us closer to justice than we were able to reach years ago.

I'll also repeat my argument from the other thread: Reversals in criminal trials occur less frequently than in administrative proceedings. Refusing to prosecute cases of police wrongdoing and instead kick them over to internal review boards is part of the how the system and the powerful people at the top of it have avoided responsibility for far too long. Among the many aspects of that is that review boards are way less transparent than criminal court. They are the carpet that the system sweeps its problems underneath to hide them from public scrutiny. This case establishes strong precedent that that's not publicly acceptable anymore.