No, the Derek Chauvin Trial Isn’t a Referendum on American Racism

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wandbild_Portrait_George_Floyd_von_Eme_Street_Art_im_Mauerpark_(Berlin).jpg

 

Since the death of George Floyd, our esteemed media, as well as their Democratic allies, have suggested that Floyd’s alleged murder is representative of broader American white supremacy, that Floyd’s experience with law enforcement is indicative of how American police pose an existential threat to black Americans.

They have offered no evidence for this proposition. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that former police officer Derek Chauvin’s actions the day of Floyd’s death were motivated by race. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that black Americans live at threat of extermination from whites or police officers: As of 2013, according to Reuters, a black person’s chances of being murdered by a white person were 5 in 1 million, and according to The Washington Post database of police shootings, as of 2019, a black person’s chances of being shot by the police while unarmed were approximately 3 in 10 million.

But facts don’t matter when you’re pressing forward a narrative.
Now that Chauvin is on trial for Floyd’s murder, the facts will once again become secondary to the narrative. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said that police reform is dependent on Chauvin’s conviction: “If there was ever a case that you can just not argue, it is this one. This trial has got to come out the right way, and we have to deliver.” Floyd family lawyer Benjamin Crump stated, “Today starts a landmark trial that will be a referendum on how far America has come in its quest for equality and justice for all.”

That’s simply not true.

Bass, Crump and the rest of the establishment media assume that Chauvin’s case is clear-cut — that nobody could possibly vote to acquit. The fact pattern, however, presents serious issues for the prosecution. Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. All three charges are a challenge.

The prosecution first has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin’s actions. But the autopsy report shows that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and had a serious heart problem, and that Chauvin’s neck hold did not in fact cause damage to Floyd’s trachea.

That means that while Chauvin’s neck restraint may have contributed to Floyd’s death by ratcheting up his blood pressure, for example, it’s uncertain that it (SET ITAL) caused (END ITAL) Floyd’s death more than, say, the excited delirium from which Floyd may have already been suffering.

Second-degree murder requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin unintentionally killed Floyd while committing a felony -- in this case, felony assault. But felony assault requires "intentional" infliction of bodily harm -- that Chauvin wanted to hurt Floyd, not just use a suppression tactic already greenlit by the Minneapolis Police Department.

Third-degree murder -- depraved-heart murder -- doesn't actually seem to fit the crime here, since it requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted in a way "eminently dangerous to others." Others -- plural. Usually, depraved-heart murder applies to someone who fires a gun into a crowd, not a person who targets an individual.

Second-degree manslaughter requires that the prosecution prove that Chauvin acted with "gross negligence." But such gross negligence would have to show that Chauvin should have known that his behavior might cause Floyd's death -- an unlikely expectation, since the Minneapolis Police Department actively taught neck holds of the type Chauvin used, and which Chauvin applied only after Floyd resisted arrest and refused to be confined to the back seat of a police car.

The Chauvin case, then, is a legally complex one. But such complexities have been abandoned in favor of narrative. Should Chauvin be acquitted, we are likely to hear that America has proved its racism once again. The only thing that has already been proved, however, is that the "America as white supremacist" lie will remain the media's dominant narrative, no matter the data.

-- Ben Shapiro, 36, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com.

When you sign up to comment you'll also receive our regular newsletter. You can find more about how we use your information here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 thoughts on “No, the Derek Chauvin Trial Isn’t a Referendum on American Racism”

  1. It is amazingly sad to me that no data supports the the ‘black men being hunted down” narrative; yet seemingly intelligent , educated media continue to spew this hatred. These terrible lies about racism and white supremacy is what is dividing and destroying this country; not policemen doing their best to protect us all under very difficult circumstances. I wouldn’t be surprised if every policeman up and quits. Although President Trump said some socially awkward and bizarre statements; his actions protected and uplifted America.

  2. It’s sad that Floyd died, but right from the jump, I’ve been saying that if the jury rules in this case based on facts and merits instead of emotion and fear, that Chauvin will be acquitted.

    If that happens, our cities will burn again. What are the chances that big city mayors will grow a backbone and let the cops do their jobs to protect life and property? What are the chances that the powers that be go after the bad actors with as much blood-thirsty zeal as they did the January 6 rioters?

    Unfortunately, I think the more likely outcome will be that Chauvin gets offered up as a sacrifice to the woke mob, all with the blessings of the mainstream media activists.

    1. No win !! !! IF he is acquited cities will BURN !!!!!!!
      IF he is found guilty !!!!!!CRIMINALS will rule the streets
      and Racism will be the “get out of jail free card”

  3. Experienced American policemen with decades of training and experience simply and logically do Not “intentionally” beat, injure, hurt, mishandle, humiliate or kill anyone; because to do so would be far less effective as a general practice in a long desire career of law enforcement. Regardless of personal opinions and even very difficult consequences, most police officers will act respectfully and deferential to everyone, even the mentally and physically challenged.

    Individuals who intentionally take it upon themselves to indulge in recreational drug use – selfishly open themselves up to the misfortunes that such ignorance of themselves and their own body chemistry will prevail, that can cost them far more than their intended use.

  4. Blacks have every option, freedom and free will to choose to study or work and take care of themselves. Nobody is stopping them to do so. If 50% of them choose the life of crime it’s on them, they shouldn’t whine when they get arrested.

  5. The “great leaders” of the democratic party have turned black democrats into whiny, self-pity, irresponsible children who see racism in everything because that’s what dems wanted and have created. More votes

  6. The Floyd death isn’t about any prevalent racism; it is about one out-of-control police officer, who unfortunately was on the police force and moreover was a supervisor. Are liberal-supported civil service laws much to blame for this officer not being removed long before the incident, or were his supervisors just derelict in their duties to supervise?

  7. This whole sequence is a sad state of affairs and a very sad statement of the USA. I think that no matter what the verdict is, big cities will be traumatized.