Amidst all the hoopla and celebrations following the triple guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial not everyone is popping champagne corks.
This trial was a travesty, a kangaroo court, and as a country, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
From the beginning, we had politicians, media hacks, cultural poohbahs, and Twitter twerps demanding a pound of flesh. This was not outrage over a perceived crime – it was a mob interested in scoring points. A literal mob. People burned down the town where it happened. And a lot of other towns.
A fair trial? What a joke. At every point, they stacked the deck. “Due process is apparently a luxury we can’t afford because BLM will get mad,” went the elite’s gutless reasoning. In fact, like free speech and freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and due process matters most when defending that right is hard.
What happened here?
The judge refused to change the venue. He made the case be tried in a city whose inhabitants set it aflame. Seems legit.
The judge refused to sequester the jury, making them pinkie swear to ignore the Class 5 hurricane of media attention. That’ll work.
The city council decided to settle the wrongful death case right during the trial. What a coinkydink.
Minneapolis’s goofy mayor demanded a conviction. Great.
Minnesota’s governor did too. Awesome
The loathsome Maxine Waters decided to encourage violence if her preferred verdict didn’t come down. Spectacular.
The leftist scumbags did their part, splashing pig’s blood on the house of someone they thought had been a defense witness for the crime of giving testimony the mob disliked. Nothing to see here.
Piled together, this was a towering heap of due process violations that made this trial a farce. Not because of the evidence, but because the establishment decided to tamper with the jury. No, no one overtly told the jurors how they had to vote, but did anyone need to? Do you imagine anyone on that jury was unaware of what was in store for them if they determined the evidence defined the narrative and acquitted?
Columnist Kurt Schlichter
“The best way to show that the jury was not bamboozled into convicting would have been if deliberations had gone on for a few days, if they maybe acquitted on a count, if they made a record where you could say they made a discriminating appraisal of the evidence. The best way for [Derek Chauvin] to show that he might not have gotten due process is a quick verdict with no notes where they just convicted on everything. And that’s what happened.”
Fox analyst Andy McCarthy
It would be nice to think all of this would prompt reflection among those who have exploited Floyd’s killing for political purposes. But it probably won’t. Even after the verdict, commentators who applauded the jury gave last year’s riots in American cities the credit for inspiring it. Not the facts. Not the law. But lawless protests. If a large faction of Americans really believes that only mayhem in the streets can guarantee justice in America, then this verdict will mean little, and we are in for far more unrest ahead.
The Wall Street Journal
Even though the video of what happened to George Floyd was horrifying and the case became a symbol of racial justice in America, there is zero evidence that the outcome would have been any different if George Floyd had been white.
There was no evidence suggesting that Police Officer Derek Chauvin was motivated by racism. There were no racial comments made on the video. It may well be an example of bad policing. But it is not evidence of racism by law enforcement.
What should be made clear about the verdict is this: The negligent actions of a white police officer, convicted for the death of a black suspect, do not affirm the Left’s fallacious constituent-appeasing assertion of “systemic racism.” Our nation is not a racist dystopia. In fact, the prosecution in the Chauvin case did not focus on race.
But “systemic racism” is now the Left’s diversionary catch-all claim for any perceived racial disparity in our system of justice.
Columnist Mark Alexander
No, America’s “very soul” is not on trial.
An individual ex-officer, Chauvin, who is white, stood trial for allegedly murdering an individual suspect, Floyd, who is Black. Nothing more, nothing less. Indeed, the lead prosecution, in his opening statement, stressed that “the Minneapolis police department” is not on trial, just solely this defendant. Furthermore, many studies find cops more hesitant, more reluctant do use deadly force on a Black person than a white person. The facts simply do not bear out the Democrats’ and media narrative of anti-Black police “systemic racism.”
AND FROM 2020:
The Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019. The number of unarmed Black shooting victims is down 63% from 2015, when the database began. There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year. The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise only 0.2% of that total. Ideally, officers would never take anyone’s life in the course of their duties. But given the number of arrests they make each year (around 10 million) and the number of deadly-weapons attacks on officers (an average of 27 per day in just two-thirds of the nation’s police departments, according to a 2014 analysis), it is not clear that these 1,000 civilian shooting deaths suggest that law enforcement is out of control.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe”