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.       

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.