THE GEORGE FLOYD VERDICT: THREE VIEWS AMDIST SETTLING DUST

 

Anyone regularly perusing this space knows we comment on current events, usually as

quickly as possible. We’re not a news service, however, so sometimes we think it best we let time pass between a significant happening and having our say. That’s the case with the guilty verdicts in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.  On April 20 a jury pronounced Chauvin guilty on all three charges against him. We decided we should let the dust settle, so we proceeded with our April 22 post on Major League Baseball’s decision to pull its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive voting law.

Now, the time has come for our thoughts on the verdict. The inherently personal character of our reactions merits speaking independently:

Henry: Sighs of Relief/Hope/Grief

This experience felt like batting practice for a baseball game in which the ball has been put on a

tee or watching a mystery with what seems an obvious ending. No doubt about the plot existed. A video showed who did it and how. Everything was teed up for an inevitable conclusion. Still, though the images had circulated around the globe for a year, doubt about our criminal justice system and white resistance to letting go of systemic and individual racism made me wonder if the result still might mimic so many before – “not guilty” said the jury.

When I heard the verdict on the first charge I breathed a sigh of relief. Wow, we have a conviction! Upon hearing the second, I felt a spark of hope. Maybe, just maybe, we now live in a different world.  After the third, however, grief for the Floyd family and those who came before overtook me. Neither George nor the others were coming back.

Then my mind turned to the pragmatic.  Will law enforcement organizations, particularly police unions, double down and fight police reform efforts?  Or will the good officers become the engine for change the nation needs? That’s in the hat, I decided. Though I have hope, I’m not optimistic. I still hear the wails of the many who couldn’t breathe, but perhaps now we can hear their voices.

Woodson: The Wind Is at Our Backs

Black Lives Matter members, supporters, and sympathizers believe Chauvin’s conviction

represents hope that at last African Americans will be policed as Caucasians are. They believe cries for equality in policing are gaining traction and the wind is at the movement’s back. They believe, as echoed by the biblical prophet Isaiah, “Justice will one day roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”. They are inspired to make “good trouble”.

Others believe the verdict was unjust; that it resulted from jurors’ fears of rioting. They fear that people of color will continue demanding to be policed as their white counterparts, which in their opinion is unreasonable, given their view of the criminality of black and brown people. For them Chauvin’s conviction is a threat to White Supremacy, and something should be done to squelch the fervency of demands for changes.

Like South Carolina’s Democratic Senator Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman, who in 1901

objected to President Roosevelt inviting the first African American, Booker T. Washington, to dine at the White House, they fear the conviction will unleash a torrent of demands for rights that are for whites only. Tillman said that the expectations growing out of a single African American having dinner at the White House meant that “we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back in their places”. Today, the Tillmans of the country may be outnumbered.  The January 6^th insurrection, the rash of anti-voting rights laws, and continuing police killings of African Americans, suggest a number of Tillmans remain. 

I join the former group. Our numbers are growing as young Caucasians become aware of racial discrimination in policing. With the shifting demographics in the country, the fight continues with the wind at our backs!

Rob: The Playbook Fails

I watched the judge read the verdicts and

experienced some of the same thoughts and emotions  as my brother bloggers. I took in the cable news commentary (well, at least MSNBC and CNN). MSNBC’s Joy Reid expressed an observation about what happened in the courtroom that rang truest. I wish I could claim it as original with me, but it’s not, so I’ll give her credit. It best represents my thoughts about the impact of the verdicts.

Having practiced law for 34 years, mostly doing

litigation, and having tried dozens of cases myself, I never fault a lawyer for doing the best he or she can for their client. Every defendant enjoys the right to a vigorous defense by competent counsel.

Chauvin’s lawyer did what he could with what he had. He trotted out the defense police officers accused of killing black people usually offer – put the victim on trial, try showing the officer’s fear of the black suspect, blame the death or injury on a confluence of circumstances that exonerate the officer. The defense claimed George Floyd’s drug use and medical condition killed him, not Chauvin. Floyd, in the defense’s telling, could have risen from the pavement and overwhelmed the officers, the reason they kept holding him down. The nearby, supposedly menacing, crowd posed a threat that made aiding Mr. Floyd imprudent, even after he couldn’t breathe.

Supposedly menacing crowd witnessing death of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin

Beginning with the Rodney King case in 1992, we’ve often seen these tactics employed in trials of police officers accused of killing unarmed black people. Many times they worked, resulting in

acquittals by jurors reluctant to find against police officers.  The playbook failed this time, perhaps demonstrating it’s not infallible. Maybe it’s out of date. I think that’s potentially the verdict’s long-term significance.       

MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought? 

                

                                                             

HAMMERIN’ HANK AARON: MORE THAN A BASEBALL PLAYER

 

Hank Aaron spoke to The New York Times in 1990 about the true cost of chasing Babe Ruth’s career home run record:

“April 8, 1974, really led up to turning me off on baseball.”

“It really made me see for the first time a clear picture of what this country is about,” he said. “My kids had to live like they were in prison because of kidnap threats, and I had to live like a pig in a slaughter camp…All of these things have put a bad taste in my mouth.”

I realize that if I hadn't been able to hit the hell out of a baseball, I would have never been able to lay a finger on the good life that I've been fortunate to have. Playing baseball has given me all that a man could ask for…I don't even hear much about Babe Ruth anymore, thank goodness, and I haven't received a really nasty piece of hate mail in about fifteen years.

HANK AARON

I Had a Hammer

June 12, 2007

 

The January 22 death of baseball great Henry Aaron at 86 saddened us and we recognize the importance of

memorializing his life.  Awarded the Presidential Medal of  Freedom in 2002, the nation’s highest civilian honor, Aaron symbolized excellence in his sport and dedication to human rights causes. 

Before he became a major league star, he played in the Negro Leagues. The Howe Sports Bureau credits him with a .366 batting average in 26 official Negro League games with five home runs, 33 runs batted in (RBIs), 41 hits, and nine stolen bases. After joining the major leagues, he hit 24 or more home runs every year from 1955 through 1973 and is one of only two players to hit 30 or more home runs in a season at least fifteen times.

Up From Poverty

Hank Aaron began his life in a poor section of Mobile, Alabama and grew up in a little nearby

place called Toulminville. Because his family couldn’t afford baseball equipment, he made do with balls and bats pieced together from scrap picked up on the street.

Talking about Aaron’s career without talking about racism resembles talking about apple pie without talking about apples. His baseball success represents a testimony to his character as much as to his baseball prowess. Numbers are important, like his career 755 major league home runs and the fact he’s still the sport’s RBI leader at 2,227. But ignoring racism Aaron confronted diminishes the significance of the numbers. It’s revisionism.

Aaron said, “Too bad integration didn't come sooner, because there were so many ballplayers that could have major leagues…not to take away anything from Babe Ruth or some of those other guys – they didn't play against the greatest ballplayers …”   Aaron contends those players, such as Satchel Paige,  were in the Negro League. 

In 2014, Aaron told USA TODAY’s Bob Nightengale that he kept the death threat letters received when he challenged Ruth’s record to remind himself of how far we still had to go.

“To remind myself that we are not that far removed from when I was chasing the record... A lot of things have happened in this country, but we have so far to go...”

Many remember him for records, awards, and racist abuse during his pursuit of the career home run record, but he accomplished

much more. He supported civil rights causes. After retirement as a player, he paved the way for African-American front office executives, eventually becoming a Braves senior vice president. He excelled in business and his community service record earned him countless honors. Princeton University awarded him an honorary Doctor of Humanities degree.

In his words:
“The way I see it, it's a great thing to be the man who hit the most home runs, but it's a greater thing to be the man who did the most with the home runs he hit. So as long as there's a chance that maybe I can hammer out a little justice now and then, … I intend to do as I always have -- keep swinging.”

HANK AARON

I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story

 
An Exquisite Player
Hank Aaron had maybe the smoothest, easiest

swing ever. It looked effortless. Undoubtedly it wasn’t. He hit home runs because of his quick wrists, not overpowering size. He played at about 180 pounds distributed over a six-foot frame. He wasn’t an imposing figure, but no pitcher enjoyed seeing him at the plate with runners on base as his RBI numbers attest.

Aaron was the quintessential five tool outfielder. He had speed (240 career stolen bases), could hit for average (two batting titles, .305 lifetime average), hit for power (MLB career best for extra base hits), throw

strongly with accuracy, and field his position cleanly (three-time Gold  Glove winner). He captured the National League Most Valuable Player Award in 1957 when the Braves won a World Series in which he hit .393.

He was a true hero because of the dignity with which he played the game and what he did off the field. He took pride in the fact he played in the Negro leagues before he reached the majors, then contributed mightily to the cause of justice for all people.

When he chased Ruth’s record, he knew he

carried a huge burden as a black man pursing a revered sport record many white people didn’t want him to break. He bore that burden with grace and dignity, despite hate mail and death threats. He never became bitter, but he never forgot either.

Former President Barack Obama summed up the feelings of many when he said of Aaron, “He never missed an opportunity to lead.”  Yes, Henry Aaron did it all.    

THE 2020 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION: RENDERING JUDGMENT ON THE BAD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY OF DONALD J. TRUMP

If the August 24-27 Republican National Convention were a legal case and we sat as appellate judges deciding on the proceedings, our opinion might look like this:

Before Justices Jones, Walker, and Wiley. Justice Wiley delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justice Jones. Justice Walker, joined by Justice Jones, concurred and dissented in a separate opinion:  

As with Democrats the previous week, the coronavirus pandemic  dictated an event unlike traditional American political

conventions because it wasn’t held in a big hall before thousands. Republicans weren’t as careful as Democrats had been about social distancing or wearing masks. The GOP permitted live audiences for some speeches.    

We don’t know if President Trump will get the coveted “bounce” in the polls. Even if he does, history suggests that won’t last and the presidential race will settle into stability until the debates begin at the end of September.

A Matter of Location

Unable because of the pandemic to hold their convention in the original Charlotte, North Carolina location or at a substitute venue in Jacksonville, Florida, most speakers delivered their remarks from places around Washington. They spoke from The White House, Fort McHenry in Maryland, and the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium. The federal government owns Mellon Auditorium and it’s available for public use. Using The White House and Fort McHenry, however, raised legal and ethical questions about employing government property and workers for political purposes. 

Trump delivered his 71-minute acceptance speech from the White House rose garden before 1500 people, not socially distanced and mostly unmasked. Trump made clear the GOP’s strategy in the coming campaign –  falsely claim he has handled the pandemic well, attack Joe Biden on China-related trade issues, and go after Democrats over civil disturbances.

Trump delivering his speech before large crowd - mostly unmasked and not socially distanced.

Tuesday night Trump announced a pardon at the White House and participated in a naturalization ceremony there for new citizens. Critics thought using the “People’s House” in such a blatantly political way was unethical, perhaps illegal. His involvement in the naturalization ceremony seemed hypocritical in light of his immigration policies.

Convention planners paid the criticism no mind. They thumbed their noses at potential Hatch Act violations, secure in the knowledge Congress, with a Republican-controlled Senate, could do little about them. Some House members promised investigations, but probably nothing will come of them.

A Matter of Strategy

For Trump, trailing in the polls, the strategic question as putting on a show targeting the limited number of undecided voters versus one aimed at solidifying the base. For the most part, he chose the latter approach. Speakers and prepackaged segments served up red meat on abortion, guns, and the horror of black and brown hordes supposedly invading the suburbs. That decision made commentators like MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, a former GOP

operative herself, wonder out loud if the Trump campaign feared it didn’t have its base locked down. Others speculated he was simply trying to scare his base to the polls. Few speakers offered an inclusionary vision. The messages catered to those already on the Trump train or standing at the station for boarding. 

        

A Matter of Race

The convention occurred during an uproar, including postponements of NBA, WNBA, MLB,  and NHL games by protesting players,

over the shooting by a white policeman of an unarmed black man, Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Republicans barely mentioned him (Tuesday night’s invocation being an exception).  Vice

Mike Pence

President Mike Pence used the unrest generated by the shooting for a loud call in his Wednesday night acceptance speech for “law and order.” Pence didn’t mention that the teenager accused  of killing two people in the disturbances was photographed attending a Trump rally.

Most speakers made only passing references to calls for reform in the wake of the police shootings. Instead, they heaped praise on law enforcement and painted a dark picture of life under a Biden presidency, ignoring the fact recent civil unrest occurred on Trump’s watch.

Convention planners trotted out black male speakers who proclaimed Trump isn’t a racist and that blacks who think for themselves support him. The move likely came from the view, reflected in polling, that some black men find Trump’s aggressive style appealing, meaning Republicans could peel off ballots from a few black men while black women remain the Democratic party’s most loyal voting group.

A Matter of Truth

This convention didn’t establish a new standard for honesty in Trump world. One CNN fact-checker found over 20 inaccuracies in Trump’s acceptance speech. In fact, speaker after speaker misstated facts, offered blatant inconsistencies, or told outright lies about Democrats, Biden, and the world in general. Some of the insults were particularly

Lou Holtz speaking at RNC

troubling, like former football coach Lou Holtz’s Wednesday night assertion that Biden is a Catholic “in name only” because he supports abortion rights. One Catholic priest pointed out Trump and his supporters don’t agree with or follow many other Catholic teachings.

The convention’s portrayal of Trump also suffered from a truth-telling deficit. Much said conflicted with what we’ve seen the last three and a half years. The program presented Trump as compassionate, competent in handling the pandemic, and sensitive to ordinary Americans. It resembled a play put on for the purpose of supporting a man who embodies almost nothing he is. The party described a fictional character when someone just the opposite hovered off stage waiting to speak his lines. 

Trump’s convention marked another low point in his presidential tenure. He disregarded

norms, flaunted or openly violated the law, and engaged in massive deception. It was an additional item on the long exhibit list justifying a vote for his challenger.

Justice Walker, joined by Justice Jones, concurring and dissenting:

The Republican National Convention reminds me of the principle I learned from my mother: If you can’t say something good about something or somebody, don’t say anything.