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.       

CONGRESSIONAL BAD ACTORS: CAN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH POLICE ITSELF?

As President Biden pursues his agenda, Congress finds itself distracted by the behavior of

some of its Republican members. Democrats fear some Republicans may incite violence or even threaten their personal safety. Resolutions that would expel or censure Republican members have been introduced in both houses. A bipartisan vote stripped one GOP representative of her committee assignments because of her outrageous statements. The situation grows tenser by the day. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that threats “from within” exist in the House of Representative. 

Some Republicans want to take guns onto the floor and have refused to go through metal detectors installed outside the House chamber.     Danger from outside forces remains. Capitol police propose making permanent the fencing installed around the Capitol grounds for

the presidential inauguration. Meantime, the investigation into the January 6 insurrection seemingly turns up new and disturbing evidence every day.

The Greene Case

Freshman Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia got elected after suggesting the

execution of Pelosi, making threats against other Democrats, claiming that September 11 never happened, and denying the truth of school shootings, including the Parkland, Florida carnage in which 17 people died and 17 others were injured. Greene, an adherent of the QAnon

conspiracy movement, made other outlandish statements, including that lasers controlled by a Jewish-run company started wild fires in California.

Democrats urged that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy strip Greene of her education and budget committee assignments, but he declined. Despite saying she regretted some of her statements, Greene lost her committee assignments on a vote of 230-199, with all Democrats and 11 Republicans voting in the affirmative.

“Disorderly Behaviour”

Article 1, section 5 of the United States 

Constitution gives each house of Congress power to regulate the conduct of its members. Both the House and the Senate can discipline members who engage in “disorderly Behaviour.” Punishment can include expulsion from Congress, though more often both houses have “censured” members for bad conduct. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a censure resolution needs only majority approval.

Fifteen senators have been expelled, the last in 

1862. Six were thrown out in 1797 for treason in connection with inciting participation of Native-American tribes in a British invasion of Florida. The other nine, kicked out in 1861 and 1862, supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Nine senators, most notably Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, have been censured

for conduct that brought the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. Expulsion and censure cases have been prosecuted for abuse of office, fighting in the senate chamber, financial irregularities, sexual misconduct, and other bad acts. Very often, especially in recent times, senators brought up for expulsion or censure have resigned before senate action. Three members facing such sanctions since 1980 all resigned first.

In the House, 23 members have been censured, five since 1966. The House has expelled five members, two in the modern era. Michael Meyers was kicked out in 1980 on a 376-30 vote after a bribery conviction. James Traficant got his walking papers in 2002 by a vote of 420-1 following

convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery, defrauding the United States, obstruction of justice, and filing false tax returns. Three previous expulsions from the House, all in 1861, involved disloyalty by fighting for the Confederacy.

What’s Enough?

While it’s clear Congress can regulate its membership, the history of expulsion and censure raises the question of whether Congress needs criminal convictions before taking action against misbehaving members. In the House, that appears to have been the case, at least recently. Both expulsions in the 20^th and 21^st centuries came after convictions for real law breaking. The constitution doesn’t say criminal convictions must precede expulsion or censure, but Congress, especially the House, seems to have needed that in recent years before acting.

The Senate history presents a different picture, but one relevant to today. The 15 senators thrown out participated in inciting violence against the United States or its interests.  Given the events of January 6, Congress now may have to decide if threatening a member rises to the necessary level for action. 

How Did We Get Here?

Former President Donald Trump and compliant,

cowering Republican leaders justifiably get much of the blame. While we’d guess the impeachment trial won’t result in a conviction, we also believe the likely surge of civil and criminal cases against Trump will reveal the depth of his seditious behavior. Those cases, probably not tried until 2022 and 2023, should reveal just how far he stooped and how close the United States came to becoming a dictatorship, not a democracy.

But blaming Trump and his enablers isn’t enough. His rise to the presidency indicates a fundamental sickness in our society it may take years to eradicate. Because much of his appeal rests on anger and white supremacy, which have been with us since the beginning of the republic, it’s possible we won’t rid ourselves of this problem in the lifetime of anyone alive today. 

The congressional response to the threat of violence from both inside and outside the Capitol could say a good deal about the resolve of the nation to eliminate the abhorrent behavior that plagues so much of our politics. Things we could have never imagined now seem normal. Congress

can throw out members who make violence and the threat of violence part of their portfolios. History, however, shows senators and representatives have only reluctantly used that power. Now, it appears, we live in different times – times that call for a more aggressive use of that authority.