Derek Chauvin got the book thrown at him yesterday, for killing George Floyd.
Good.
By accounts, he was a bad cop, with a bad track record, and he spent nine minutes suffocating to death someone he sought to arrest.
The Left’s behavior and reaction to this all has been, well, what we’ve come to expect, with grossly irresponsible statements from Biden, Pelosi, Waters, et al the icing on the cake. Like anyone else, Chauvin was due his day in court, to be judged by a jury of his peers, rather than presumed guilty by grandstanding politicians. Nevertheless, scorpions do what they do, so we should not be the least bit surprised by their antics.
What’s unfortunate in all this is that many on the Right signaled a basely contrarian attitude about the whole affair – as if the Left’s grossness, opportunism, and abandonment of principle are sufficient reason to show some empathy for Chauvin. And, indeed, my social media feed includes some unfortunate nuggets about Chauvin being “overcharged,” some hints that Chauvin was convicted in the pursuit of societal peace rather than because he was guilty, and the like.
My unsolicited advice? Stop it. There are times to rally against injustice. This isn’t one of them, and Chauvin is an absolutely horrible poster boy for the rejection of mob rule.
This isn’t about choosing sides between cops and mobs. Anyone who’s got a shred of honesty and integrity knows there are good cops and bad cops, just as there are good and bad in any profession, job, or other endeavor. Protecting the bad harms the good, and blind, unyielding “solidarity” is what has brought society to its current fractured state.
Floyd himself is, to be frank, almost irrelevant in this bit of business. He is neither hero nor villain. Just as it’s grotesque for Pelosi to thank him “for sacrificing [his] life for justice” – Floyd would very much rather be alive, it’s grotesque to defend Chauvin on the grounds that Floyd wasn’t an angel. Police officers have been granted powers over the rest of us, and those powers (should) require a greater level of care and personal responsibility. It behooved Chauvin to do his best to arrest Floyd without doing him harm (or killing him).
Was Chauvin overcharged? Perhaps. The courts will sort that out, across appeals that will probably take years. In the meantime, unless you hold a belief against all evidence that Chauvin should not have been convicted of any wrongdoing, you should be fine with him waiting out that process where he should: in prison.
Meanwhile, to re-focus this debate where it should have stayed all along (and certainly longer than the couple weeks it took to corrupt the moment), Floyd’s death (as well as Breonna Taylor’s and those of others) should be prompting us to demand real reforms.
As Justin Amash recently posted,
Restore justice to our justice system:
End qualified immunity.
End civil asset forfeiture.
End the drug war.
End victimless crimes.
End overcriminalization.
End no-knock warrants.
End militarization of police.
End mandatory minimums.
End the death penalty.
Want to take a stand on principle? Pick one, just one of these reforms and champion it. It’s a far better use of your time than griping about Chauvin being overcharged or about cops being unfairly vilified, and it’ll separate you from the Left’s grotesqueries – which is what I surmise the Chauvin-sympathy is really all about. Don’t worry – no one will think you a woke-Lefty if you applaud Chauvin getting his just deserts.
Loading ...
I agree that Chauvin is guilty, but I also believe he was overcharged, 2nd Degree Murder with what I read seems a bit of a stretch, and considering that the Judge reinstated this gives me pause on it. I have to wonder if it prejudices the Jury in someway. I also notice that Justin Amash’s list includes overcriminalization – yeah not the same thing…
I can see cases for the no-knock-warrants, but do feel that they are overused.
I’m pro-death penalty but do not like the way it is instituted. Now it is probably a Hollywood treatment that Prosecutors pursue the death penalty to further their political ambitions, and then we also have the mob mentality. I personally think it should be reserved for career criminals, that don’t seem to be reformable.
Prison Reform should be on the list, though I think most of the problems are again overhyped by Hollywood. It shouldn’t be a school for prisoners to become better criminals or gang members, but neither should it be a walk in the park. I have no problem with “For-Profit” Prisons how do you feel on the subject.
Chauvin’s case will wend its way through the appeal process, I would think at least one of the charges will be reviewed and maybe thrown out, but I doubt he will get a new trial and will be in prison for a while.
Overcriminalization is part of the “policing for profit” problem. Turns cops into revenuers, at the direction of greedy politicians, and produces countless adversarial encounters between cops and those who should look to them for community protection.
When someone can produce a system that 100% guarantees no innocents will ever be executed, I’ll lift my objections to the death penalty.
Private prisons as a concept aren’t “good” or “bad.” It’s the implementation that’s always at the root of issues. But, eliminate victimless crimes and you need fewer prisons – private or public.
As for Chauvin, I’ll defer to the jury and the appellate courts. If he was overcharged, it’ll likely be sorted out years from now, when it won’t be as incendiary. Will he spend more time in prison than he deserves? I’m not going to make him my poster-child for this matter.
Like I mentioned, you can champion just *one* of the reforms I listed, and be in a good place as a result.
No, I’m not going to stop it. The prosecution, in it’s closing remarks, told the jury to “search your feelings”. He cited the supposedly irrefutable evidence of the testimony of a 9 year old who didn’t know all of the facts. Essentially he said to ignore the facts and use their feelings. The defense, however pointed to the facts, which contradicted the prosecution’s case. There was ample room for doubt, and thus justice was *NOT* served. This trial was a travesty.
So, just to be clear, you think Chauvin should have been acquitted?
FTR, prosecutors *and* defense attorneys use that sort of emotional language all the time.
Correct. The facts revealed by the autopsy contradict the prosecution’s case. Floyd had a normal blood oxygen level, which rules out asphyxiation. Thus, the prosecution’s “knee on the neck” hypothesis is ruled out. It’s BS. And it also turned out that Floyd had a lethal level of fentanyl in his system. He died of an overdose. That’s not the defendant’s fault. There is ample *EVIDENCE* to cast a reasonable doubt regarding guilt. For that matter, innocence was proven. The death was self inflicted, and an innocent man has been convicted.
We are on a very slippery slope when juries are deciding based on emotions and feelings as opposed to the facts. The facts are, Chauvin didn’t cause Floyd’s death, and this verdict is a travesty of justice.
Well, a jury concluded otherwise, and since you weren’t sitting in the jury box or joining in deliberations, it’s quite presumptuous to conclude that they ruled on emotion.
Putting EVIDENCE in all-caps doesn’t bolster the argument that Chauvin (who should have been run out of policing long before) was justified in kneeling on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes.
Besides, if Floyd was so heavily loaded on Fentanyl, he’d have been totally unable to resist anything.
If he ate his stash just before the struggle, as he was being confronted, as is apparent, he would have had plenty of time to struggle before ultimately succumbing to the OD. And yes, I wasn’t on the jury. If I was, the jury would have been hung and Chauvin would be a free man, because I know that the facts overrule the optics.
my take is that you are both correct.
Floyd’s overdose did substantially lead to his death. but Chauvin’s actions contributed and more importantly his inactions did too.
At some point if should have been clear to Chauvin that Floyd had stopped struggling and maybe even stopped breathing. At the minimum he should have checked. I would have thought that the two would have had a running dialog, how are you doing, the ambulance is here, they’ll come over and look at you when it is safe, etc.
Chauvin in my mind didn’t care about the status of Floyd.Now maybe there were factors, was Chauvin a victim of one of Floyd’s kicks, was the crowd more worrisome than we think (at least to Chauvin)or maybe he had reasons to feel that Floyd’s health at the time was okay.
I also have to believe worry about riots had to weigh on the Jurors’ minds, now maybe they could set those aside, and only they know.
Also, consider this. The whole trial has been tainted. Justice was *not* served.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/21/theres-no-way-americans-can-trust-the-jurys-chauvin-verdict/