I last wrote on the death of holy social justice martyr George Floyd in August of 2020, under George Floyd: Social Justice, Real Chaos.
The information in that article established a number of facts. Among them:
1) Floyd was a violent felon passing counterfeit bills, which is why the police were called.
2) He had a triple fatal level of fentanyl in his blood, and was dying before the police were called. He also had meth and pot in his bloodstream.
3) Despite his continuous resistance, the police treated him with enormous restraint, never struck him or otherwise injured him.
4) Floyd repeatedly complained of breathing difficulties almost from the moment they met him, and was foaming at the mouth. The police called for medical help at least twice.
5) The “neck” restraint used was taught in the MPD Academy, and was official police policy, though the MPD hurriedly changed that policy after Floyd’s death.
I concluded that article:
But here’s the greatest danger: by acting without all the evidence, by pushing a political prosecution from the beginning because Floyd was black and the officers weren’t, Minneapolis has bought itself no end of riots, looting and violence. The narrative inspired the nationwide conflagration that has yet to burn out. When the officers are exonerated, or even if one or more is found guilty on lesser charges, the flames of social justice/Antifa/BLM rage are going to reach epic heights. Were I the owner of a business destroyed by the Floyd riots, I wouldn’t rebuild until long after the trial ends. In fact, I’d take the insurance money—if they pay—and run, far, far from Minneapolis. Real justice—the rule of law—doesn’t mix well with social justice.
George Parry, a former federal prosecutor and police use of force investigator, has been writing on the case, and confirms the officers acted entirely within policy. By all means, take the link and see for yourself.
Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz bypassed local prosecutors and assigned Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to handle the trial. Ellison, a racist radical of the worst sort, tried to have the four officers charged in Floyd’s death tried together, but his efforts failed, and Derek Chauvin’s trial will begin on March 8, with the remaining officers to be tried during the summer of 2021. Consider this, also from Parry:
On May 29, 2020, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office charged former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin with third-degree murder (later raised to second-degree by Minnesota’s attorney general) in the death of George Floyd. Former Officers Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao were also charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Floyd.
These charges were based on the autopsy performed by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office and a private ‘re-autopsy’ performed at the request of the Floyd family’s attorney. Based on those procedures, the medical examiner issued a revised autopsy report stating that Floyd had died of ‘cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.’ In short, Floyd’s death was allegedly caused by the manner in which the police had restrained him.
This was a bought and paid for result, an attempt to make a case where none existed. It didn’t last long.
But the police defendants were charged before the medical examiner had received the report of Floyd’s toxicology screen by NMS Labs of Horsham, Pennsylvania.
Then, on May 31, 2020, NMS Labs forwarded Floyd’s toxicology report to the Hennepin County Medical Examiners’ Office.
And that’s when the proverbial fecal matter hit the fan.
At 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 2020, prosecutors ‘met’ online with Dr. Andrew Baker, Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, to discuss Floyd’s toxicology report. Take a look at this recently released June 1, 2020, memorandum by Assistant County Attorney Amy Sweasy of that discussion.
So there they were, staring at the just-received and damning toxicology report that blew to smithereens the whole prosecution theory that the police had killed Floyd. To their undoubted dismay, Dr. Baker, the chief medical examiner, had to concede that at 11 ng/mL, Floyd had ‘a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.’ He also conceded that the fentanyl overdose “can cause pulmonary edema,” a frothy fluid build-up in the lungs that was evidenced by the finding at autopsy that Floyd’s lungs weighed two to three times normal weight.
In other words, like a drowned man, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid. And that was the obvious and inescapable reason why Floyd kept shouting over and over again that he couldn’t breathe even when he was upright and mobile.
The memorandum ends with Dr. Baker’s devastating conclusion that ‘if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death.’
Translation: this toxicology report drives a stake through the heart of our murder case. How do we justify criminally charging these police officers and explain away our colossal screw-up?
This is a case brought because social justice, not actual justice. Any sane prosecutor in a red state would never have charged the officers. But this is Minnesota, not a sane state, a state whose officials allowed its cities to be burned down over the overdose death of a violent felon.
The biggest legal issue at the moment is whether the officers can get a fair trial in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or pretty much anywhere else in Minnesota. D.J. Tice at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which is very much a leftist paper, notes surely vain attempts to pre-screen jurors. Why would they be in vain?
On May 27, 2020, a day and a half after Floyd’s death, and before much of anything was known about the incident beyond the initial disturbing video of Chauvin pinning a handcuffed Floyd to the pavement, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey demanded that prosecutors file criminal charges against the officers he had quickly fired:
‘Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail?’ Frey protested. ‘If you had done it or I had done it, we would be behind bars right now … We cannot turn a blind eye … I saw no threat … .’
Minneapolis was soon in flames, and riots erupted in cities around the country. Two days later, presidential candidate (now President) Joe Biden weighed in on a campaign video, denouncing Chauvin for ‘an act of brutality so elemental, it did more than deny one more Black man his civil rights and his human rights. It denied him of his very humanity and denied him of his life … .’
Gov. Tim Walz made comparable pronouncements in the early days, and in the middle of June he traveled to Duluth to commemorate the 100th anniversary of one of Minnesota’s most shameful crimes — the lynching of three Black circus workers from a downtown lamppost by a mob of thousands that had rushed to judgment over dubious allegations of rape.
‘There is an unbroken line between what happened on that street corner 100 years ago right to George Floyd’s murder on the streets of Minneapolis,’ Walz declared.
So much for the presumption of innocence and due process in Minnesota, at least for police officers doing their jobs within the law and policy. Parry recently weighed in again:
Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury.
– Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissent in the appeal of Leo Frank, April 19, 1915
On March 8, 2021, jury selection will begin in the trial of former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the alleged murder of George Floyd, and the city and state governments are preparing for another round of violence, rioting, looting, and burning similar to that which followed Floyd’s death.
According to KARE11 News, ‘The area around the Hennepin County Courthouse is starting to look like a war zone now that the [courthouse] plaza is surrounded by metal fencing and concrete barriers.’
Gee, why would that be necessary?
Minneapolis officials apparently fear that, during Chauvin’s trial, they will have to deal with a repeat of the violence, looting, and burning that destroyed much of the city following the release of selected parts of the video of George Floyd’s arrest.
‘We are working to be prepared for anything that might happen,’ said Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. “Undoubtedly the primary flashpoint associated with this trial will be the jury deliberation and the verdict itself, and it’s really impossible at this point to know what date that will be on, whether it’s late April or early May.”
The mayor is correct insofar as an acquittal of Chauvin would undoubtedly result in a city-wide explosion of violence and destruction.
But is an acquittal even possible? Didn’t the arrest video clearly and unequivocally show in real time the police defendants calmly and deliberately murdering Floyd in broad daylight while wearing body cameras recording their every move and before eyewitnesses with video cameras? Didn’t Mayor Frey himself pronounce them guilty the day after Floyd’s arrest and demand that they be fired by the police department?
And, in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death, didn’t the Minneapolis city council vote to abolish the police department even as Mayor Frey knelt weeping before Floyd’s gold casket?
So, since Chauvin is clearly guilty and his conviction is in the bag, why are the authorities preparing for World War Three?
The answer is simple. As I have attempted to explain in several previous articles in The American Spectator (“Who Killed George Floyd?,” “The George Floyd Fall Guys,” and “Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin et al.: The Prosecution’s Dirty Little Secret”), in sharp and devastating contrast to its widely broadcast and selectively edited version, the full and complete arrest video and the findings at autopsy combine to make a compelling defense case that the police did not kill Floyd.
Parry narrated a video analysis of Floyd’s arrest that is essential to understanding what a miscarriage of justice the prosecution of the officers is (screenshots throughout). Go here for that video. It’s absolutely devastating to any case the prosecution could possibly make. Even better, against the vigorous protests of the prosecution, the trial will be broadcast live. Parry continues:
Now, as you can see, before a fair and impartial jury, Derek Chauvin would have more than a fighting chance at acquittal. But that assumes that a fair, impartial, and unintimidated jury can be drawn from amidst the traumatized population of the Hennepin County war zone.
How can Chauvin even remotely hope to receive a fair trial before an impartial and non-terrorized Hennepin County jury when the previously burned and looted city of Minneapolis appears to be primed to explode if Chauvin is acquitted?
Is there a rational juror who would ever vote to acquit Chauvin knowing that doing so would subject the juror and the juror’s family, friends, property, and peaceful existence to threats, harassment, and mob violence?
This is not some remote concern. A potential juror need only look at the draconian preparations being taken by the authorities to readily understand the very real and imminent threat of violence and destruction should there be an acquittal.
Having tried more than my share of highly contentious and high-profile cases under difficult circumstances, it is my less-than-humble opinion that there is no conceivable possibility that Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Hennepin County, simply because it will be impossible to seat an unintimidated jury free from the threat of mob violence. Conducting a trial under these circumstances will serve only to put a thin veneer of pretend due process on what in reality will be a legalized lynching based on a verdict rendered by a properly and quite understandably terrorized jury.
If there ever was a case for a change of venue, this is it. Should the trial proceed and Chauvin be convicted, he’ll have an excellent issue on appeal. Scott Johnson of Powerline is among the most capable legal commentators on the Internet. I have often quoted him and linked to his articles, and he has, upon occasion, returned the favor. He very much agrees with Parry, and his recent article on press arrangements, and impossibility of a fair trial in this case, is worth your time. He concluded that article:
The court and environs are to be protected by officers and troops numbering in the thousands. ‘Protesters’ promise to do their thing. The prospect of a fair trial in this atmosphere seems incredibly remote. We remain one step removed from the territory of The Ox-Bow Incident.
It is not “Trump Supporters,” “white supremacists” or “Insurrecttionists” Minneapolis authorities prepare to repel, but it will surely be racists, including Antifa and BLM. Should any of them be arrested this time, will VP Harris raise money for their bail?
One additional bit of lunacy. Minneapolis authorities were planning to spend a million or so to pay “social media influencers” to parrot the city’s line on daily developments in the trial. As the Daily Wire reports, they seem to have abandoned that plan, at least formally. There will surely be more than enough “influencers” around to push the official narrative. They may even get financial encouragement under the table. Woke is well funded these days.
Final Thoughts: Don’t bother to try to tune into the trial next week, gentle readers. The entire week, if not longer, will be taken up with trying to seat a jury. There will be stealth jurors, people who will pretend to be able to fairly judge the evidence, but are there to convict Chauvin regardless. They will perjure themselves to gain seats on the jury, and may be virtually impossible to weed out.
As I’ve often observed, it’s difficult to accurately analyze such cases because I don’t have access to all the police reports. Apparently, that’s also the case—very much against the law—for the defense, as the prosecution is slow rolling discovery and refusing to turn over exculpatory evidence.
What we’re going to see is another bizarro trial, just like that of George Zimmerman, and those of the Baltimore Officers persecuted in the death of Freddie Gray. The Prosecution will behave as stereotypically sleazy defense lawyers, ignoring the law, trying the case on emotion and inflaming racial passions. The Defense will rely on the law and the evidence, and will uphold professional standards.
The facts—the evidence—don’t really matter. If Chauvin is exonerated, Minneapolis, and many other cities, will burn yet again, and in the name of social justice, millions in consumer electronics and other goods will be “liberated” for “reparations.” The same will likely be true if he is convicted. In any case, “mostly peaceful protestors” can count on the support of Minnesota authorities and of the Harris Administration in waiting.
One thing, however, is certain: a self-overdosed violent felon will remain a symbol of the continuing deterioration of our Republic, a martyr to violence, hate, and actual, not invented, rhetorical racism, which is in great supply in D/S/C circles.