This one is a humdinger to be sure. It’s just not possible to comment on the Derek Chauvin trial and verdict without pointing out some realities that apparently make some people uncomfortable. The fact is, the entire Summer of Discontent, all the premeditated activities and the Black Lives Matter movement is a conspiracy wrapped inside of the Corona Virus conspiracy. It’s not ok on top of it’s not ok. Worldwide key-frame be damned. The deep state magnet system is unconstitutional and ultimately has caused delay to the advancement of constitutional parity. It serves no one other than aristocratic bosses.
That having been said, it’s important to understand all the players were acting out on some level. This reality in my opinion always calls for some temperance in meting out “justice.” But the fact is, Derek Chauvin did willfully act out, while he was cognizant and had enough time to evaluate his actions during his engagement with George Floyd. He did it. He killed him. Guilty.
Even still, I have misgivings about the first and most serious charge of second-degree unintentional murder. According to CNN: “The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd’s death ‘without intent’ while committing or attempting to commit felony-third degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.”
Derek Chauvin was indifferent, stupid, an idiot, arrogant and irresponsible but I don’t believe he intended to cause injury. He was a police officer and while that method may or may not be legitimate departmental protocol, police nevertheless do have the latitude and responsibility to, on justifiable occasion, restrain an individual and at times to even use deadly force that may result in death. And, I don’t see how the restraint can be with intent to cause bodily harm while not being with the intent to cause death. It also seems to me that the intent of the law is more like when a bank robber shoots someone on the way out the door.
The other charges appear to be appropriate and the guilty verdict accurate. Some commentaries have said there are aggravating circumstances that will actually play against Chauvin when it comes to sentencing and others point out that as a first time offender lighter sentences would prevail. My thinking is that it amounts to involuntary manslaughter with a twenty year sentence with some chance of parole. And actually, regardless of the exact charges, it seems possible that’s about where Chauvin’s sentencing will end up.
Has justice been served? Maybe, maybe not. It really does depend on how the judge sees the guilty verdicts and whether sentencing is appropriate in the final analysis.
©2021 – Jim Casey