BROKEN NEWS: Derek Chauvin was pronounced guilty of everything to the surprise of no one and delight of many. We can't say what the verdict should have been (not being as omniscient as TV's talking heads), but we personally would have had a huge problem saying that there wasn't at least reasonable doubt about Floyd's death being partially or primarily caused by his drug use and underlying health conditions. Not to mention his propensity for screwing around on the wrong side of the law and resisting arrest.
But apart from that, we have to ask this question: did Derek Chauvin actually get a fair trial and fair consideration by the jury? And the answer is certainly "no."
Jurors were aware of the explosive nature of this case and were not sequestered to keep them from knowing the mob sentiments. They had to be aware that they and their family members would be in physical peril if Chauvin was exonerated or even convicted of "too small" an offense.
But now let's imagine that these were 12 of the bravest jurors ever. People who could somehow put personal risk aside. They would still have to make this choice in the jury room: is it better to destroy one man who may or may not be guilty, or unleash fresh Hell on American cities? More billions in damage. More people injured and killed.
Even if they believed Chauvin to be completely blameless, they would themselves have been subsequently guilty of third-degree murder ("perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others without regard to human life") in the event anyone died in the entirely predictable furies unleashed by a "not guilty" verdict.
Whether you agree or disagree with the verdict, it's undeniable that Derek Chauvin did not and could not get a fair trial. Which should be an affront to all who claim to value actual justice.
=============
Readers- We'd already written the rest of today's blog before the verdict was announced, under the assumption that a jury would need more time if they were actually weighing evidence instead of emotion. Sometimes we're stupid that way.
But apart from that, we have to ask this question: did Derek Chauvin actually get a fair trial and fair consideration by the jury? And the answer is certainly "no."
Jurors were aware of the explosive nature of this case and were not sequestered to keep them from knowing the mob sentiments. They had to be aware that they and their family members would be in physical peril if Chauvin was exonerated or even convicted of "too small" an offense.
But now let's imagine that these were 12 of the bravest jurors ever. People who could somehow put personal risk aside. They would still have to make this choice in the jury room: is it better to destroy one man who may or may not be guilty, or unleash fresh Hell on American cities? More billions in damage. More people injured and killed.
Even if they believed Chauvin to be completely blameless, they would themselves have been subsequently guilty of third-degree murder ("perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others without regard to human life") in the event anyone died in the entirely predictable furies unleashed by a "not guilty" verdict.
Whether you agree or disagree with the verdict, it's undeniable that Derek Chauvin did not and could not get a fair trial. Which should be an affront to all who claim to value actual justice.
=============
Readers- We'd already written the rest of today's blog before the verdict was announced, under the assumption that a jury would need more time if they were actually weighing evidence instead of emotion. Sometimes we're stupid that way.
We're writing this post before any jury verdict has been handed down in the Derek Chauvin trial, so it may already be out of date by the time you read it. But that doesn't change the fact that Joe Biden really shouldn't be out there telling the world that he's praying for a guilty verdict, even if the jury is sequestered.
He further specified that he thinks the evidence for conviction is "overwhelming," which sets up an unfortunate dynamic: if the jury finds Chauvin "not guilty," then the president of the United States is already on record as opining that it wasn't a fair trial and the outcome was rigged. In other words, street violence and mayhem will be an entirely understandable (and perhaps laudable) response because Mister "No Malarkey" said so.
And as long as we're writing about things that haven't happened yet, let's think about an unintended consequence we'll see if there is a "guilty" verdict against Chauvin...
And for equal time, let's consider what we're likely to see if Chauvin is acquitted...
