WAITING FOR THE VERDICT - THOUGHTS ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN MURDER TRIAL

As I type this the jury for the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis, MN has entered the first full day of deliberations before reaching a verdict.  While most of us have our thoughts on the former cop's guilt or innocence it now lies in the hands of 12 people. With that in mind a few thoughts are in order.

Let's start with the guilty or innocence issue. What we do know is that Chauvin's knee being of the neck of George Floyd for almost ten minutes is what led to the latter's death. While Chauvin's defense has claimed Floyd died of  complications of previous medical issues in conjunction with that (hypertension, drug dependency issues, etc) medical experts called by the prosecution stated in their testimonies that those deaths would appear different  during the autopsy than they did in Floyd's case (his autopsy ruled his death a homicide). When added to evidence that wasn't allowed in the trial (such as Chauvin's history of police misconduct complaints - over 15 in the course of his career) as well as testimony from bystanders that Chauvin's knee remained on Floyd's neck minutes after George Floyd was unconscious [a couple of reports have said the knee remained even after Floyd died) and it's clear that Chauvin's act was a large reason why George Floyd died that late Spring afternoon.l  

So was it murder? Hard to say. Chauvin is charged with 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and manslaughter. Because of this we know that it wasn't premeditated. However, his actions would likely garner a guilty charge of murder if the defendant hadn't worked in law enforcement. This exact charge is up to the jury to decide so anything here may be speculation.  

As for the trial itself, the fact the prosecution went for the jugular in a trial involving a police officer is a change from normal. Due to the difficulties of a police officer's job [both real and perceived] it's hard for an officer to be charged if an incidence of misconduct ends up killing someone. In some cases DA's overcharge and then don't do the best job prosecuting the case in the trial. This is also made difficult by the face that a prosecutor often has to work with police on their cases for the state, which requires them to walk a tightrope. In this case though several police officers, including the MPLS chief of police, testified that Chauvin violated policies on use of force. In addition, the prosecution on this case predicted a lot of what the defense might do and countered a lot of it early on. The defense did what they could with what they had but, when their best expert witness is being sued on the grounds he reportedly helped police in Maryland cover up a death, there are some stumbling blocks that - unless they're hoping for a mistrial or jury nullification - might not work well for them.

So should Derek Chauvin be convicted?  Personally I say he should, even if only of manslaughter. While he may not have planned to kill George Floyd the fact that an off duty first responder told an officer at the scene that Floyd was losing consciousness and was ignored when she told them they needed to get the knee off of Floyd's neck shows that things that might (emphasis on might - we can't know for sure) have changed the outcome of this shows that the officer's actions are a main factor leading to Floyd's death.  And all of this over the reported passing of a counterfeit $20.00 bill - something that nobody should be killed over. 

However, as I stated earlier in this, while many of us outside the jury can believe Chauvin is guilty of at least manslaughter if not 3rd degree murder, it's up the the jury to decide. They have to put aside any of the media information they may have seen before the trial and focus on the evidence they were given.  Is it possible that they'll find Derek Chauvin guilty? Yes. It can also end up in a not guilty verdict or a mistrial, depending on those 12 jurors and how they read the evidence.

And speaking of mistrials...Chauvin's attorney (Eric Nelson) yesterday in the closing arguments tried to use the statements of Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), who stated that Chauvin should be found guilty and that, if he isn't, people need to become vocal vocal and more confrontational, as something that would taint the jury, While the judge dismissed that he stated that they could use that in the mistrial., While that, and the reading of jury instructions when he did (before closing arguments when normally they're read after closing arguments wrap up) are odd it's hard to say whether the jury will take those into account.  Also, as Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks pointed out, nobody asks for a mistrial if they think they're winning.

So will the jury bring a guilty or not guilty verdict for Derek Chauvin? Who knows. We do know that, regardless of the verdict it will be tense out in the streets. Here's hoping the tension doesn't become an explosive powder keg.

A FEW VERY BRIEF THOUGHTS ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN MURDER TRIAL: THE SAD, THE INFURIATING, AND THE WEIRDLY UNDERSTANDABLE

Today marks day five of the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis, MN. Chauvin is the former police officer from Minneapolis that faces  charges of 2nd degree unintentional murder, 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd after he and three other officers confronted him over Floyd reportedly passed a $20.00 counterfeit bill at a nearby store, creating a scenario that eventually ended with Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for between 7 to 10 minutes, including several minutes after Floyd lost consciousness - all caught on cell phone video by bystanders (a nearby video from another angle finds three of the four officers with their knees on Floyd), provoking a summer of unrest that pushed the country only slightly towards reckoning with issues such as police misconduct and systemic racism. 

Like a lot of people I've been forced to rely on snippets and news summaries to see what's going on with the trial; mainly because I have work obligations and other things that have to be done.Because of this I won't go massively in depth over  the case. Instead I want to bring up a few things that have caught my attention. So here's the sad, the infuriating, and the weirdly understandable.

Let's start with the saddest fact. In one of the bystander testimonies an off-duty firefighter who was on the scene and ended up calling 911 as things happened testified that she saw that Floyd's face looked puffy and swollen and that fluids were releasing from his body. She also said she tried asserting herself as a first responder in an attempt to help him but was rebuffed by the officers (she testified one of them - who was standing in a defense position between the officers and the onlookers - rold her that if she really was a firefighter then she'd "know better" than to get involved). 

What makes this truly tragic is that, while hindsight is 20/20 and one can "woulda, shoulda, coulda" anything to death, it's possible that if she were listened to then maybe the outcome would've ended up different.  Again that's not a guarantee but at least an effort could've been made to keep him alive where his reported crime (the passing of a counterfeit $20.00 bill) could'[ve been handled by the legal system rather than the events leading up to Floyd's death.  

The infuriating part of all this is something that's totally to be expected - the decision of the defense to try and put George Floyd on trial for his own killing, claiming Chauvin and his fellow officers had no choice but to take the actions that ended up killing George Floyd. This is a common move over the past decade, especially in cases where white police officers end up killing unarmed black people. Because of that (and the defenses attempt to paint Floyd as either some mythical being with superhuman powers or too nodded out on drugs to function safely) it's one of the standard ways defense attorneys in these cases try to make a case for the officer having no choice but to kill the person they're on trial for killing. What's infuriating is not just that it seems to work most of the time but that it's almost considered a normal defense.  

And then there's the weirdly understandable - the testimony of the clerk at the store pointing out that he couldn't tell if the $20.00 bill was legit or counterfeit and wasn't trained to tell the difference. For a lot of people who've worked cashier positions this rings true to some degree (especially for those working in smaller places) as there might not be training on how to spot a counterfeit bill or not.  The bill could've been counterfeit, it might not have been/ Either way it shouldn't have been a detah sentence for George Floyd.

Those are a few thoughts on the trial from what I've gathered and how ti stands thus far. I do want to add that I find it interesting that there are some cops who may be testifying against Chauvin (including one who testified that Chauvin should let his knee off of Floyd's neck once the latter was handcuffed and not resisting - Chauvin kept it on way longer).  It's interesting because it almost never happens. This means something went way wrong (even with the jury not baing able to hear about the previous police misconduct cases against Chauvin, this is big news).  

At this point one can't say what the verdict will be. While it's possible that Derek Chauvin could be convicted of either murder or manslaughter it's equally likely that he could get off for some reason or another (given how hard it is to prosecute a police officer this is well within the realm of possibility). What is apparent though is that there's something different in this case that calls for some kind of reckoning in the bigger social and political pictures. 

Whatever verdict the jury reaches, this is a stepping stone and the struggle for justice will continue.