antifa, backwards case, BLM, Brandon Mitchell, Brooklyn Center, Derek Chauvin, DOJ, George Floyd, George Zimmerman, Kamala Harris, Keith Ellison, Lisa Christensen, Maine Waters, mistrial, Pattern and Practice investigations, perjury
The aftermath of any normal criminal trial, even one of such unusual public interest as to become notorious, is limited in scope and time. An acquittal occasions intense, but brief, media interest, and within a few days or a week, the media moves on to supporting whatever narrative is deemed virtuous at the moment. A guilty verdict drags out the speculation until the sentencing, and then within days or a week, the cause du jour again takes precedence. But then there are backward cases.
On July 13, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty, and a week later, the case would have been forgotten, but it was the grandfather of contemporary backward cases, and to this day, continues to resonate. So too does the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd case. It is a case we ignore at our peril, so for your information, gentle readers, a view to a continuing societal disaster, beginning with Jordan Davidson at The Federalist:
An alternate juror who sat in on the trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin said she worried about future ‘rioting and destruction’ and even personal harm if the jury did not agree to a guilty verdict.
When asked by a KARE 11 reporter if she wanted to be a juror, Juror 96 Lisa Christensen said she had ‘mixed feelings’ due to the threat of social unrest that came with the case.
‘There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict,’ she explained in an interview on Thursday.
Christensen also maintains the jury had no doubt whatever of Chauvin’s guilt. One may doubt that, or not, but I’ll address that shortly.
At City Journal.org, the invaluable Heather MacDonald notes:
America’s cities did not burn last night. But the terrified preparations in Minneapolis and elsewhere in anticipation of the George Floyd verdict—the razor wire and barricades around government buildings, the activation of the National Guard, the declaration in Minnesota of a “peacetime emergency,” the fortified police presence, the curfews, the cancellation of school, the boarded up businesses—raise serious questions about the rule of law in the United States. Had the jury failed to convict Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin on all three counts of murder and manslaughter, the ensuing riots would likely have made the conflagrations of 2020 look like a Girl Scout campfire.
This likely outcome was evident long before Congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraged such violence over the weekend. Last year’s precedent, the ensuing 12 months of wildly inaccurate rhetoric about white supremacy, and the recent looting in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, over a fatal police shooting made such rioting a virtual certainty. That inflammatory rhetoric poured forth from every institution in the country—from the presidency, Congress, corporations, law firms, banks, tech companies, academia, and the public school system. The mainstream media pounded home the narrative about unchanging black oppression. And even after the verdict, the White House (perhaps that name will be gone in another year) and the press have doubled down on the systemic racism conceit, despite the coordinated effort to convict among Minnesota’s public officials and the state’s most prestigious members of the private bar.
Going forward, it is an open question whether any police officer can receive a trial free from mob pressure, should he be prosecuted for use of lethal force.
MacDonald is the preeminent public intellectual writing, with irrefutable facts, about the lie that is the narrative of systemically racist police murdering huge numbers of innocent Black men. All of her writing, if you’re not familiar with it, deserves your attention. Her final sentence in this excerpt is particularly pertinent. It is surely going to be impossible for the remaining three officers in the Floyd case to get fair trials, and a virtual certainty that will be almost universally true for any police officer, particularly a white officer, who has the misfortune to lawfully shoot a black criminal, or have one expire through no fault of his own, in a blue city or state.
Christensen is not the only Chauvin juror to come forward. As The Daily Wire reports, the second juror, one who actually had a hand in the decision, may not have been as impartial as he represented himself to be:
According to a report from The Post Millennial, now-public juror Brandon Mitchell, 31, is seen in a Facebook post published in August 2020 wearing a hat that says ‘Black Lives Matter’ and a T-shirt that says ‘BLM’ with the words, ‘Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,’ a reference to the death of Floyd.
Even worse, Mitchell is actually admitting he attended a George Floyd rally. He is spinning it, however, as some kind of “neutral” protest:
‘I’d never been to [Washington] D.C.,’ Mitchell said Monday of his reasons for attending the event. ‘The opportunity to go to D.C., the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people; I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something.’
The Star Tribune notes that this participation was contrary to Mitchell’s jury questionaire answers:
Mitchell said the social media post was made by his uncle, who is the father of one of the cousins pictured, and appears to be ‘a partial real post.’ However, he said, he has no recollection of wearing or owning the shirt.
Speaking in a show called Get Up! Mornings with Erica Campbell on April 27, Mitchell said that people should say yes to jury duty as a means to promote societal change.
‘I mean it’s important if we wanna see some change, we wanna see some things going different, we gotta into these avenues, get into these rooms to try to spark some change,’ he said.
It’s this kind of obvious deception—perjury–that could easily result in a mistrial. Trying to “spark some change” is not at all what jurors are charged to do. Take the links and see for yourself. I doubt Christensen was a stealth juror, but it’s likely Mitchell was, though he maintains the jury wasn’t at all concerned about threats to their lives and to the city. Even if that’s true, serving to “spark some change” is no less despicable and destructive to our system of justice. A copy of the prospective juror questionnaire may be found here. At the very least, Christensen’s entirely reasonable fears were surely on the minds of the rest of the jury. We have since learned that on the day of the jury’s deliberations, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, one of the most leftist former newspapers in existence, published complete profiles of the jurors, revealing virtually everything about them except publishing their photos, addresses and phone numbers.
At Powerline, David Horowitz added this:
As soon as the formality of the trial was concluded the verdict demanded by the lynch mob was delivered with lightning speed: Guilty on all charges – murder and manslaughter, even though the murder charge didn’t make any legal sense, unless you think arresting a drug addled forged check passer and illegal substance ingester is a felony in itself. Second degree murder involves a killing in the course of committing a felony, and nothing else.
The speed of the decision was itself evidence that the jury hadn’t deliberated or even considered any of the evidence presented in the trial, as to what actually caused Floyd’s death, whether Chauvin acted in accordance with the standard procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department, and therefore whether there was any malice or inhumane disregard for Floyd’s life involved in Chauvin’s actions.
Let us recall, gentle readers, that George Floyd was a career felon and addict. He ingested a triple lethal dose of Fentynl, and was exhibiting signs of dying of that alone before the police laid eyes on him. He had also ingested meth. His coronary arteries were 70%-90% plugged, his heart enlarged, his lungs filled with fluid, and he was foaming at the mouth. The police, making a lawful arrest, used far, far less force than they legitimately could have used. They had no idea he was so medically fragile, and he violently resisted them and had the height, weight and strength to do that rather well. Chauvin actually did exactly what he had been trained to do, and what MPD policy dictated he do, though the MPD brass did their best to throw him to the wolves, which was not lost on the line officers of the MPD. Horowitz gets to the point:
Anyone watching the actual testimony of witnesses and experts would know that the issues in the case were complex, technical and contested. It would have taken days if not weeks for an open-minded jury to determine whether Chauvin was guilty or not. No one respectful of all the attention put on this case by experts and witnesses on both sides, would consider that the three contradictory charges could be lumped together. Only people frightened of disappointing the lynch mob could make that mistake. But the jury was uninterested in the evidence.
Is there another view that better explains the verdict? Keep in mind Horowitz is no fan of Chauvin (take the link to read the whole thing).
Did Chauvin murder Floyd? Murder requires intention. If you believe he murdered Floyd, then you have to believe that an officer of the law, in possession of his faculties, would choose to murder an individual while dozens of cameras – many of them hostile – filmed the event. No one in his or her right mind actually believes this, but virtually everybody and every commentator immediately went on record saying they had no problem with the verdict. Dissenters seemed only to have problems the lynch mob behavior, as though that didn’t corrupt the whole process, verdict included.
The hope they all expressed was that this corrupt verdict would bring social peace. Justice be damned.
It won’t. For the Black Lives Matter and Antifa fascists the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. The lynch mob doesn’t give a damn about George Floyd or black lives. They haven’t got the slightest interest in the justice or injustice of any case, this one included. Their attitude is: How can we use this case to advance our real agenda, which is overthrowing the American political and economic system and instituting a totalitarian state?
Mobs, barbarians, revolutionaries and D/S/Cs in general can never be appeased, and any attempt at appeasement will still end in personal and societal destruction. Dr. David Fowler, who testified for the Defense, now finds himself under investigation for daring to think and say the wrong things, as Victoria Taft at PJ Media explains:
Dr. David Fowler, the former Maryland medical examiner and forensic pathologist, testified for defendant Derek Chauvin on day 13 of the trial that the former cop’s actions weren’t solely responsible for George Floyd’s death. And because of this opinion, Maryland will now investigate 17 years of his findings in state cases, which includes the case of Freddie Gray, Anton Black, and other high-profile perps who died in police custody. Fowler ruled Gray’s death several days after being in police custody a ‘homicide,’ a medical term which means another contributed to his death. Police officers put on trial for his death were exonerated.
Obviously, it doesn’t matter how one supported the narrative in the past. The slightest deviation from right think/speak is more than sufficient for the mob to attack. Judge Cahill ordered the juror list sealed for six months. Does anyone imagine those names won’t be leaked before then?
And of course, the federal Department of Justice is going to investigate the MPD for a “pattern or practice” of racism, etc. Keep in mind even the Chauvin prosecutors did not, for a moment, suggest racism was involved in Floyd’s death; they didn’t have to. The narrative handled that for them. Still, there is no reason for the DOJ to suspect institutional racism in a police agency with a Black chief. Pattern and Practice investigations were one of the signature features of the Holder DOJ under Barack Obama. It allowed the DOJ to force ruinous and destructive consent agreements on police agencies, essentially putting them under the daily operational control of the DOJ, and in every case, dramatically increasing crime. I’m quite sure institutional racism will be discovered in the MPD. I’m equally sure the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor will be delighted to spend untold millions of taxpayer dollars to dance to the DOJ’s tune. Residents faced with skyrocketing crime rates, particularly Black residents, may not be so pleased.
That is, of course, not nearly enough. Professor Jacobson reports the DOJ, should Chauvin be acquitted, planned to immediately arrest him on federal charges before he left the courtroom.
Why would they do this? Couldn’t Defense Attorney Nelson merely see that Chauvin presented himself for arrest at a mutually agreed time and place? Of course he could. This would have been nothing more than appeasement of the mob, virtue signaling, and another attempt to poison any potential jury pool. The DOJ will surely pursue Chauvin and the other officers for violating Chauvin’s civil rights regardless of the disposition of any state charges.
Minnesota’s racist Attorney General Keith Ellison is also pushing for enhanced punishment of Chauvin. If Judge Cahill agrees, Chauvin’s sentence could be considerably lengthened.
And if that were not enough, the D/S/C controlled House has introduced a bill to remove qualified immunity from the nation’s police. The text of the bill is here.
This is a contentious issue. My immediate inclination is a relaxation of immunity against police agencies, not officers, may be in order, but only if very carefully crafted. Taking away individual immunity would see individual officers subjected to constant harassing lawsuits. Remember, this is an attempt to change law everywhere. It would take few such suits to convince all but the terribly stupid or corrupt they’d have to be stupid or corrupt to be police officers. Removing immunity entirely from police agencies would convince cites and counties they could not possibly afford police officers in the light of constant harassing lawsuits.
It’s an issue that will take far more serious, adult consideration than it can possibly get in the current political climate.
And of course, there is the “George Floyd Justice In Policing Act,” which is essentially a “George Floyd Emasculate the Police and Empower Crooks Act.” Here is only a little of the potential damage:
The bill requires all law enforcement to undergo training ‘on racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling for all law enforcement.’ It also:
Bans chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level and conditions law enforcement funding for state and local governments banning chokeholds.
No such thing occurred in the Floyd case.
Requires that deadly force be used only as a last resort and requires officers to employ de-escalation techniques first.
It is now a last resort, but the bit about “de-escalation techniques” would allow corrupt prosecutors to charge any officer with murder regardless of how justified they were, which is the point.
Changes the standard to evaluate whether law enforcement use of force was justified from whether the force was ‘reasonable’ to whether the force was ‘necessary.’
This would ensure convictions of any officer for any reason regardless of the evidence. Reasonableness is the essential standard for any use of force by the police or others, which is why D/S/Cs want to replace it.
Bans no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level and conditions law enforcement funding for state and local governments banning no-knock warrants at the local and state level.
This would absolutely get police officers killed, which is, again, the point.
Final Thoughts: Not only was the deck stacked against the officers from the moment they answered the call of Floyd passing counterfeit money, the deck continues to be stacked against them on every level, yet that is not enough. D/S/Cs want to stack the deck against every American police officer, forever.
The laws of economics adhere. Reward something, and you get more of it. Punish something, and you get less. Everything that has been done in this case, and all D/S/Cs want to do, will ensure criminals are allowed to go about their business unmolested; we’ll get exponentially more crime. California, for example, is about to release 76,000 felons, more than 63,000 of who are violent, repeat offenders. Why would they do that? To make prisons safer. This kind of lunacy will also ensure no sane person will want to be a police officer. We’ll get far fewer of them, and those we get will not be the kind of people any sane citizen would want. And that too, gentle readers, is the point.