backwards trials, Benjamin Crump, Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, George Zimmerman, Gov. Tim Walz, Gropin' Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, NBA, rule of law, Social justice, Trayvon Martin, white-Hispanic
As you surely know by now, gentle readers, former MPD Officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all counts. Judge Cahill, in supposedly giving the jury clear guidelines, did just the opposite. But that’s to be expected in a backwards trial. Tomorrow, I’ll go into a great deal of depth on the closing arguments, verdict and related issues. I’ll need that time for research and thinking rather than reflexive keyboard blathering. For today, I hope to provide a bit more perspective. In so doing, let us compare and contrast the Chauvin case, with the George Zimmerman case, which have far more in common than not. The Zimmerman case archive may be found here. For the most pertinent trial coverage, one might wish to begin with Update 30. The SMM George Floyd case archive may be found here. It is far smaller than the Zimmerman archive.
In a very real sense, it was the Trayvon Martin case that gave birth to the modern, ultra woke racial grievance industry. It was the case that gave rise to the public, high profile of race hustling attorney Benjamin Crump, whose pay day in that case was dwarfed by his pay day in the Floyd case. It’s great non-work if you can get it. No actual legal talent or effort is involved. Sue a city or other entity, knowing they’re absolutely on your side and are going to fork over a fortune in other people’s money. The only unanswered questions are how much and when.
To be sure, there are differences in the two cases. The Martin case was one of textbook self-defense, while the Floyd case involves the lawful application of police force. Let’s be certain of one thing: we hire the police to enforce the law so we don’t have to do it. One of the prosecution closing arguments in the Floyd case was Floyd was killed over a counterfeit $20 dollar bill. This is as false as it is despicable.
I’ve often written no law should be passed if legislators are not willing to kill to enforce it. Does this sound harsh? It’s the unspoken foundation of the criminal law. When the police are forced to use force, it’s not pretty. It’s not fight choreography as in the movies, but real, down and dirty, adrenaline pumping, on the ground, bloody, nasty and sometimes fatal life and death struggle, and we pay the police little enough to do that for us. We pay them because if we’re rational and not caught up in feelz-infused virtue signaling, we know there are a great many horrible people out there, people who would hurt, rape, maim or kill us and those we love for no reason other than that they don’t want witnesses, and/or they really like hurting people. If we’re really honest and rational, we know one of those monsters could run into us at anytime and anyplace, even in our homes. If we live in a Democract/Socialist/Communist ruled city or state, we know the odds of that happening are even greater.
Corrupt prosecutors and other D/S/C thugs scream “the police killed him over a traffic stop!” No, they killed him because when stopped for what should have ended with nothing more than a citation, “him” decided to do things that gave a reasonable police officer the belief he was facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Their fellow thug’s death was his fault. All he had to do was obey the officer’s lawful directions, sign the ticket—if he wasn’t wanted on multiple felony warrants—and go about his business.
The bottom line here is that if we want a police force to wallow in the muck that is the criminal element, if we want them to walk knee-deep in the blood, booze, drugs, and horrible things people do to each other, so we can sleep peaceably in our beds at night, we can’t pretend to be shocked—shocked! when they are forced to use the violence we don’t want to use, can’t use, and hire them to do for us. More, we can’t attack them for doing what we hire them to do. When we do that, we’re going to end up knee deep in their daily horror.
Back to our comparison.
*In the Martin case, the local prosecutor, recognizing a textbook case of lawful self-defense, declined prosecution. The modern racial grievance industry, then in its infancy, recognized an opportunity for fame, money and power, and went into full social justice warrior mode. A corrupt outside prosecutor was brought in with one mandate: get George Zimmerman. In the Floyd case, that industry, well established and in defacto control of D/S/C cities and states like Minneapolis/Minnesota, merely cashed in. The state Attorney General, a Muslim, D/S/C racist, was brought in with one mandate: get every officer involved.
*In both cases, the political class, up to and including the White House, joined in the “racism!” cry, and in both, worked behind the scenes to ensure prosecution and conviction where in a non-politicized climate, no charges would have been brought.
*In both cases, there was no evidence of racism. In the Martin case, D/S/Cs, particularly the media, worked very hard to manufacture it. When it was discovered that George Zimmerman was actually Hispanic and had ancestral black blood, the media invented a new, evil race for Zimmerman: “white-Hispanic.” In the Floyd case, because Floyd was black, and Chauvin was white, no such invention was required. His skin color was more than enough to sustain charges of racism because all whites are racist. In both cases, had Martin and Floyd been white or any other color, the actions of those forced to use force would have been the same.
*In both cases, the “victims” were anything but innocents and people of character and accomplishment. While Martin was, barely, too young for a felony record, he had already committed multiple crimes that would have been felonies had he been older, was a drug user, a burglar and thief, and a wannabe gangbanger, whose social media was full of manifestations of violent and misogynistic “thug life.” George Floyd was an accomplished and experienced violent and misogynistic felon and drug addict who had nearly killed himself with a fentynl overdose on at least one occasion that closely paralleled his final contact with the police.
*In both cases, the prosecution had overwhelming power and resources, all focused on destroying a single man rather than doing justice. In the Martin case, the prosecution team was at least five corrupt prosecutors. In the Floyd case, 12-15 corrupt prosecutors, including many private attorneys working for free, the better to earn woke street cred and D/S/C acclamation. In the Martin case, the leftist legal establishment had not yet caught on to the possibilities of self-glorification such a public spectacle could provide.
*In the Martin case, only two attorneys provided a defense: Mark O’Mara and Don West. Fortunately for Zimmerman, they were excellent, experienced lawyers who could share the crushing burdens involved. In the Floyd case, former MPD Officer Derek Chauvin had only Eric Nelson, who while not quite up to the standards of O’Mara and West, was certainly competent, and also overwhelmed.
*Both trials are backward trials, in which the prosecution and defense exchanged roles. Normally, prosecutors present a brief and tight case, using a minimum of witnesses, because they have the law and the evidence on their side. They would not bring a case unless they had the law and the evidence on their side, and so, they are sober, non-emotional and professional. Normally, defense lawyers, because they do not have the law and evidence on their side, rely on emotion, race baiting, hyperbole, even outright lying, to try to confuse the jury. In both trials, the prosecution and defense switched roles.
*In both trials, there was genuine concern that the defendant, in the highly politicized atmosphere, could not get a fair trial. The factors involved in the Floyd case are so far beyond and above that of the Martin case as to be virtually incomparable. Never before in American history has a trial been so politicized. Never before has a courthouse been turned into an armed camp. Never before has the very real threat of the murder of everyone involved in the trial—except the prosecutors, of course—been present. Never before has the virtual certainty of riots costing billions, and the potential for the deaths of innumerable innocents been present if the “wrong” verdict be handed down.
*In both trials, most of the prosecution witnesses actually helped prove the defense case. Prosecutors would carefully guide their witnesses, concealing and misrepresenting evidence, only to have the defense, on cross- examination, bring out the whole truth. In a normal trial, the prosecution’s credibility with the jury would be shot. In this case, we can be certain there are multiple stealth jurors, empaneled to ensure Chauvin is convicted of something, anything.
*In both trials, the judge was clearly biased toward the prosecution, though possibly more so in the Martin case. In both cases, egregious prosecutorial misconduct that should have resulted in a mistrial and sanctions on the prosecutors was ignored, even arguably encouraged.
*In both trials, the prosecution slow rolled, even concealed, exculpatory evidence from the defense. In the Martin case, even that unethical and unlawful practice did not prevail. In the Floyd case, it did.
*In the Martin case, the Florida law of self-defense was clear and unambiguous, and there was no video of the event. In the Floyd case, the law, particularly regarding third degree murder, and bearing on what constitutes a substantial cause of death is murky, at best, and there is video that even the more honest jurors admitted they had seen to bad effect. As desperate as the Martin prosecutors were to use emotion, the lack of a video made that attempt ineffective. In the Floyd case, the video, regardless of the evidence that belied it, was surely the single piece of evidence that largely determined the outcome.
*In the Martin case, the prosecution witnesses proved the Defense case. This was not so simple in the Floyd case, though prosecution witnesses did prove Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd’s neck, but on his shoulder and upper back. They proved his numerous medical conditions and multiple drug overdoses that could kill anyone at any moment. They proved the restraint technique Chauvin used was not only taught at the MPD Academy, but was standard operating procedure. It was not enough.s The precedent established is chilling: no longer can police officers rely on the protection of their own, correctly followed policies and procedures.
*In the Martin case, George Zimmerman was ambushed and was being beaten to death when he managed to fire a single shot that saved his life. He was unable to land a single blow on his attacker. In the Floyd case, the officers were doing their lawful duty, investigating a felony crime. Even the prosecution witnesses established they used far less force than they were authorized to use. They never struck Floyd, merely tried to push him into a police vehicle and keep him there. The video established Floyd actually begged the officers to put him on the ground.
*In both cases, autopsy established Martin and Floyd showed no signs of outward physical trauma. Floyd had not been beaten or abused.
*In Zimmerman’s case, the police arrived within seconds of Martin’s death, an ambulance a short time later. In Floyd’s case, the officers called for ambulance assistance twice, the second time more urgently. Testimony established the ambulance took an unusually long time to arrive, which was not the officer’s fault.
*In the Martin case, there were no hostile bystanders, though fortunately, there was at least one credible witness whose testimony blew up on the prosecution and helped the defense. In the Floyd case, there was a growing crowd of increasingly hostile witnesses who directly threatened the officers. The Defense was able to establish their interference likely delayed any treatment Floyd could have received, and even that the ambulance personnel felt so threatened they did a “load and scoot,” driving three blocks away before stopping to deal with Floyd. During that time, one of the officers was in the ambulance, doing CPR on Floyd.
Final Thoughts: What we’ve seen in the Chauvin trial is the culmination of a societal and legal process that arguably began with the Zimmerman trial, a process or racial hatred and replacement of the rule of law with social justice that threatens to end our republican experiment.
D/S/Cs would have us believe the Chauvin trial is a referendum not only on policing, but on the indescribable evil of white people and their systemically racist society. They are right in a sense. The trial is a referendum on policing, and on race, but not at all as they imagine. The conviction of Derek Chauvin will end proactive policing in Minneapolis, if the idiots in charge of the city don’t entirely abolish their police force. Should the remaining three officers be convicted for, essentially, just being present, the destructive effects will be even worse. But more than that, Chauvin’s conviction alone will have a dramatic and immediate effect on police forces across the nation.
Police officers in D/S/C ruled cities and states will simply stop arresting, even approaching, black people. They will stop making traffic stops. They will do only the bare minimum—answering calls only when sent to them—and even then, should black criminals be involved, will do all they can to avoid any direct contact with them. Over the last year, we’ve already seen the results of that when police officers have been forced to ignore crimes, criminals are immediately bailed out of jail, or bail has been eliminated, and prosecutors refuse to prosecute.
Few criminals, thank God, are the brilliant masterminds of crime novels, but they are more than smart enough to take full advantage when they are given full reign to do as they please. This is particularly so when they know local politicians and prosecutors will destroy the law abiding for daring to defend themselves.
In many ways, the Chauvin trial is the culmination of the abdication of elected officials to discharge their most important duty: to protect the public and enforce the law. Minneapolis authorities have tacitly admitted they not only will not enforce the law against ravening mobs, they’ve demonstrated, time and again, they won’t even try. The barricades, troops, armored vehicles and fences surrounding the Hennepin County Courthouse are there not to protect the law-abiding of Minneapolis, but the system and its cowardly functionaries that has already given its authority and power to the mob. All they have left is a weak threat of force barely sufficient to prevent public lynching of the officers.
Judge Cahill has allowed unethical, outrageous prosecutorial behavior that should have resulted in a mistrial. He has admitted—on the record—the actions of Rep. Maxine Waters in all but guaranteeing riots if Chauvin is acquitted likely will cause the case—should there be a conviction—to be thrown out, but refused to declare a mistrial. Cahill certainly knows an appeal on his refusal to grant a change of venue alone can succeed. But to be entirely fair, he had no choice. He knows anything he did to incur the wrath of the mob would surely see his home burned down, his family and himself murdered. He knows the police will not be allowed to protect him, and if they were, they would not be so inclined. Admitting any of this by doing his duty to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law would be an admission of the complete corruption of the Minneapolis system.
Minneapolis businesses not already closed or destroyed in the summer of love’s riots have boarded up in anticipation of any verdit. They’re not alone. Cities across the nation are bracing for renewed Floyd riots, which are, in the name of social justice, wonderful opportunities for the “liberation” of “reparations” in the form of expensive clothing, shoes, consumer electronics, and anything else that catches the eye of the socially just.
Will we, gentle readers, beginning in Minneapolis, choose and reestablish the rule of law, or will we continue our descent into social justice? Will we, beginning in Minneapolis, rise up as a nation and stop riot, looting, arson and murder disguised as a bizarre sort of civil rights movement, or will we continue to descend into D/S/C mob rule? Will we scream “enough!” and once again demand nothing less than equality under the law, or continue into the degradation and squalor of equity, diversity and inclusion?
In this case, the winners are a violent, addict felon with enough self-inflicted health problems to kill ten men regardless of enough drugs in his system to kill three men, his suddenly wealthy beyond imagination relatives, race-hustler Ben Crump and his legal associates, Antifa, BLM and every criminal ready and willing to take advantage, and of course, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden as the rest of the chaos enabling self-imagined elite. The losers are Derek Chauvin and the remaining three officers, the rule of law, and the law-abiding, Normal Americans living in Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, and virtually every other D/S/C ruled city and state. Longer term, we are all the losers.
One final thought: when the inevitable, mostly peaceful, riots break out tonight in Minneapolis, will any police officer be so stupid, so self-destructive, as to dare do anything to stop them?