I am not an attorney. Minds so trained might know of legal factors that pertain. This is a thought exercise based on principle and morality, phenomena not always encountered in courtrooms.
Read more JD Vance Dishonored Himself for Tucker Carlson
Cause for fair-minded men to question one-time officer Derek Chauvin’s culpability in the death of George Floyd has always existed. Floyd was an odd selection for placards, t-shirts, and martyrdom; his criminal record included leveling a gun at the distended belly of a pregnant woman.
The first coroner’s report (there were two — the second commissioned by Floyd’s family) cited fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as factors that contributed to Floyd’s death.
The second, again, arranged by Floyd’s relatives, did not. Both reports classed Floyd’s death as the result of homicide by asphyxiation.
Reportedly, Floyd told officers he had difficulty breathing the moment he exited his vehicle, prior to any officer’s putting hands on him.
Too, it has been asserted that the knee-on-neck posture Chauvin used was recommended in official training he’d received, and that a department representative who testified contrarily was lying. That bears reconsideration.
A fair-minded man — not tossed by emotion this way or that — might well deem a new trial and objective reexamination of all pertinent evidence as proper. Herein, then, lies the question. (And suspension of set perspective is necessary to participation.)
It is a matter of principle, as well as of American jurisprudence, that an innocent man not be imprisoned. Chauvin should be freed, lest a new trial finds guilt.
But…
Recall the summer of 2020, when the tragedy was in headlines: Mass riots roiled the nation; cities burned; attacks on passersby were perpetrated; mobs filled avenues chanting for police deaths; unscrupulous politicians leapt atop the awful tide, cheering on the ugly cause of criminals; and mayhem resulted in billions of dollars in wreckage.
Read more A Young Immigrant’s Poem to America
Lest such terror again be reality, Chauvin’s liberty must not be restored to him.
Wait, though — that means keeping a man possibly innocent of any offense behind bars. And that would be a roaring violation of principle.
Here is my own conclusion (with which I am not entirely comfortable):
Perhaps Chauvin could be judged guilty of a lesser offense, should asphyxiation be recognized as but one of several contributory elements.
We can control only our own actions. We exercise no complete control over those that others choose, be they positive or negative. Therefore, as a just and principled society (at least theoretically), we must grant Chauvin a new and wholly open trial. (Perhaps he could be held awaiting its outcome.)
Yes, sadly, fresh violence and arson are 99.99% likely. But the system, and law-abiding citizens, would bear no direct responsibility.
A reasonable man could judge that violent, mass unlawful reaction by others would be likely. But an innocent man should not be wrongly punished by us to forestall possible wrongs. Period.
Iowa’s DC Larson is the author of That a Man Can Again Stand Up and Ideas Afoot. He counts among freelance credits Daily Caller, The Iowa Standard, American Thinker, and numerous heartland newspapers. His political blog is American Scene Magazine
Read more Does Volkswagen have a Future?
Image: Minnesota Department of Corrections