2023 ready or not, here we come…

Posted on by Pete Cross

Well we made it to another year. Congratulations. Making it to this point is a good thing.

In our last post we looked back, now we are being encouraged to look forward. We are of course relieved to hear that Justin is back from Jamaica; refreshed, no issues with baggage or told to lie down on the airport floor for a couple of days while the airline tries to figure things out. The fact that there was a state of emergency in that country did not impair him from strolling the beach taking the odd selfie, patently oblivious to most anything back in Canada.

The Governor General has “hope in her heart” for we Canadians. Is that relevant to anyone? Or are we more interested in Harry and Meaghan and the stress that life brings these poor unfortunates? One can only assume that the Governor General’s New Years resolution includes cutting back on flight meals to Europe.

Forgive me if I take a larger look, beyond the borders of the usual policing issues. What is on the horizon for “we the people”? Honestly, at first blush, it does not look to be that exciting of a year ahead of us;, although most of us might accept a certain level of dull, a year free from the drama of the past couple of years.

To listen to the Prime Minister and his cohorts, all is good in Canada and our future prosperity is guaranteed. Nothing is “broken” and we should all just be thankful to be heading into a banner year led by such a dynamic family of politicians on the Federal, Provincial and Municipal levels. Calling us “broken” is where Mr. Trudeau says he puts his foot down, that is where he says the Conservatives have crossed over the line. He is such a half full guy.

Locally, the RCMP Mounties and the officers of the Surrey police service should very shortly hear the decision of the Provincial government as to whether they carry-on with the transition to the Surrey Police Service, or return to the tried and true Mounties. It would seem completely illogical for them to dismantle the current Surrey Police Service at this stage of the game and the argument being put forward by Surrey Council simply does not hold water. The recent dramatic announcement and twisting of the figures by Mayor Brenda Locke is meant to raise fear and it is based on the belief that most Surrey taxpayers are not very bright. But this is politics and a decision to be made by new Premier Eby in British Columbia. He who has been on a massive drive to raise his profile with almost daily good deed announcements and promises to spend more. Any person in that position is only looking at the problem from one angle–whether the policing controversy will hurt him or help him politically? When a politician is in those circumstances, no one can accurately predict the outcome.

A burning question (well, maybe thats an exaggeration) is whether Commissioner Lucki will resign this year. It is truly remarkable that she has managed to keep her job for this long. Maybe she should run for the Chief’s job of the Ottawa City Police? One of her favoured Deputies, Superintendent Lesley Ahara, is in the running I am told. Ahara is apparently a fan and a favourite of Commissioner Lucki. It would be hard to believe that the Ottawa city police would be considering a Mountie for the job after all the fallout from the Emergencies Act and Portapique. But again, this is being decided in the whisperings of the diverse and inclusive back room’s of the illuminated Ottawa.

There is some interesting legislation which will come under scrutiny this year. Bill C-92 which will give Indigenous the rights to create their own child welfare system, their own family policies and in fact even their own laws pertaining to child welfare, is now being challenged. The Act is already implemented and underway, with five Indigenous bodies asserting their control over child and family services. However, it is now being challenged, and it is making its way to the Supreme Court of Canada because of Provincial opposition. So far, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have all joined in opposition to the legislation.

One needs to understand the enormity of this issue. Currently, as of 2021 –53. 8% of all children in the child welfare system were made up of Inuit, First Nations and Metis children. The logistical issues of the Indigenous taking over responsibility for these children is overwhelming, and in fact on a local level could prove dangerous to children, as they swap culture for safety. Of course, as always, it is part of a larger issue for the Indigenous. They are translating this and seeing this as a “watershed moment for Indigenous self-government in Canada”. The opposing Provinces are arguing, that the Indigenous simply do not have jurisdiction under the Constitution, that this is in fact under Provincial purview. Should the left leaning Supreme Court go along with the Indigenous broader self-government it will in effect re-shape the constitution of this country. Quebec went for independence and we fought them mightily. The Indigenous in a hazy, unspecific and disorganized way are trying to achieve the same level of independence, but this time with the aid of a Federal liberal government consumed with being on the side of the righteous and apparently willing to have the taxpayers of the country finance this independence. We should all be paying attention.

In February this year we will hear from Judge Paul Rouleau and the Emergencies Act Inquiry or the Public Order Emergency Commission as they like to call it. We will as well get the results of the Commission of Inquiry, or what they like to call the Mass Casualty Commission into Portapique. Neither of these reports will be a good or positive thing for policing in general, especially for the Mounties in Portapique and the Ottawa City Police during the convoy protest. One should not get overly concerned however. There will be a lot of hoopla headings when they are released, but it is highly un-likely and improbable that anyone will be held to account. Both investigative groups seem more intent on comforting rather than elucidating. All the named groups will promise to carry on–with the usual accompanying promise to do better.

The Canada Revenue Agency will in the next year probably not collect any of the “suspicious” $24.7 billion paid out for Covid. The Auditor General has alerted them to it, they just don’t know how they are going to get it back. The evidence suggests that the political popularity of the Liberals overrode any fiscal responsibility at the time. When questioned– the first response is always how “quickly” they got the money out, the political equivalent of throwing out cash instead of candy in the Santa Claus parade.

Bill C-21 dealing with the firearms regulations, will continue to be discussed in this coming year, as the Liberals try to position themselves politically to “fine tune” the legislation. Their original legislation was poorly thought out, another knee-jerk reaction to a headline, and it was not long before someone pointed at some obvious flaws despite all their “consultations”. It would appear that this Liberal government who feels that they have the inside track when it comes to what is good for us, felt no need to approach and consult with groups like farmers and hunters. In Liberal progressive circles, those individuals are known as the “unenlightened”. Now they have a real mess, a detailed mess which most people would never understand if forced to read the actual legislation.

It is also a foregone conclusion for the coming year that every storm and every strong wind will be referred to in 2023 as “climate change related”. Whether they are right or not, is not for discussion, Greta Thunberg tell us it is so. Greta, now a learned 19 years of age, was the youngest Time Person of the Year in 2019. So how could this teenager be mistaken? Mind you they had also named Donald Trump as Person of the Year in 2016.

Will we have a Federal election in 2023? It seems unlikely. The economy is souring, Mr. Jagmeet Singh is still in danger politically and needs to buy as much time as he can. It was only a little over a year ago that Trudeau thought he would ride in to a majority as the saviour of Covid, the dispenser of funds, the provider of masks, the overseer of the greatest needle use in the country outside the Vancouver Downtown Eastside. But he only ended up with another minority government. It would not seem advisable to swing for the fences again. Singh is unlikely to develop a backbone over the next 12 months.

Of course an over-riding story of interest to mainstream Canada is the economy. Inflation appears to be still out of control and the Bank of Canada is now going to try and repress the worst inflation in the last 40 years. It seems highly likely that this squeezing will cause a recession, it is just a matter of how deep of one. Which for the workers at the lower echelon will not be a good thing. Government workers will be fine as will the high paid executive levels of this country, who never seem to take a hit, or can at least re-structure themselves around the problem. The number of government workers expanded during these last few years, and almost all have by now been given pay raises. The grocery chains, the banks, and the oil industry will continue into 2023 trying to put a spin on how they achieved record profits during this time of enforced austerity. The average person in this country will continue to not be able to buy a house, or travel, or eat beef. If you are lucky and have a house, the people, especially in the east of this country may not be able to heat that home, as the government pursues their carbon tax agenda.

I think we should expect some serious outrage in the months to come.

There will be three Provincial elections this year; in Alberta, P.E.I, and Manitoba. If anyone cares there will also be a gathering of the Green Party in Manitoba. Meanwhile the Sovereign Act in Alberta is driving the progressives wild. Therefore, Trudeau will be hoping that Danielle Smith loses in the Manitoba election– so that he will not have to go face-to-face with the U.C.P. Smith, for her part seems to be itching for a fight.

The biggest story in 2023 will remain the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Putin seems determined to re-build the former USSR and he has played to the weaknesses of the west, initially taking over Crimea without a whimper. Ukranians are putting up a determined and deadly fight to retain their relatively new found freedoms and to avoid once again coming under the oppressive regime of the Soviet Union. As people die in horrendous fashion, on both sides, we must always remember that first and foremost– this is a war like all wars. It is a political war and in this 21st century that war is also being fought on social media.

Ukraine could not win this war on its own, it needs others, and they need to win the social media wars as much as the war on the ground. They need to continue to convince the west that they are the vanguard in holding back Putin and his conspiratorial plans to overtake all of Eastern Europe. To do so, they want into NATO, because a clause in NATO would mandate that the NATO nations would thus have to join the war thereby forcing all the NATO nations to take up the military option. It is indeed scary to consider Putin winning, but it may be equally scary if Ukraine manages to pull all the others into the war. Meanwhile, other countries are now the economic and political hostages. At the controls, the ones who are able to pull the levers, there is the aging and often senseless Joe Biden, a former stand up comic in Zelensky and a former KGB officer in Putin.

The Western media has fully endorsed Ukraine and the countries of the West. Rightly so. The Russians were the ones that started it. But it should always raise concern and be suspicious when we are being exposed to the herd news mentality which is now pervading the West. There is no counter-narrative being suggested or sought out. Putin is evil, Zelensky is good. Russians are committing atrocities, Ukraine is not. But this conflict is more complicated and conflicted than one that can be boiled down to a single aphorism.

Their internal histories go back centuries, not just since Ukraine won their independence. This war like all wars is heavily layered and being fought over economic power, political power, oil interests and military ports. It is being fought to re-draw boundaries and the control of riches; boundaries which have been re-drawn over the centuries several times. Neither side is willing to compromise, although in the end you know someone will have to compromise.

The poor and the uneducated, who are the ones usually enlisted to fight all wars, will continue to fight. Both sides of political leaders will bring up images of patriotism to spur on their troops and try to gain an upper hand in public approbation. Those fighting will face dying a horrifying death, and their family units will continue to be dis-membered and crushed. Nothing good can ever come of this war, which now seems destined to go throughout 2023 — no one should be cheerleading this war.

The war serves only one good purpose and that is to diminish the scope of our problems in Canada.

As our hospitals struggle unable to cope with an influx of flu cases, as winter storms completely disintegrate our airline and transportation infrastructure for days at a time, as unwanted pieces of legislation get pushed forward, as our food bills increase and those on fixed incomes watch their savings diminish, I can not possibly forecast a good or great year.

Admittedly, I’m more of a glass half empty person.

Photo courtesy of Ron Frazier via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved

Conviction politics

Posted on by Pete Cross

This is a policing story, or more accurately a story about how the police should police. The resulting judicial action in this story should send a chill down the spine of all officers. It may even require you to re-assess your career choice.

This story originates in that bastion of polarized viewpoints and guileless political pandering that makes up those fifty states and one District to the south of us. The theory is that if you want to predict upcoming policing developments in Canada you usually don’t need to look much further than to our brother and sister officers in the U.S. of A.

At first blush it is easy to point out that the atmosphere in the United States and in Canada over the last couple of years would not be one that has conjured up positive attitudes to the police. With Trump gone (albeit astoundingly threatening to come back) Uncle Joe has now found his new left social conscious. We are watching as he and Justin, holding hands, run to the social democratic cliff like Thelma and Louise. Their audience and intended target for their attention and genuflection, and hopefully they assume their votes, is anyone who is in a minority– take your pick.

Racism in the United States is racism in Canada. Systemic racism in the U.S. crosses the border unencumbered to every level of government policy in Canada. The need for diversity in the U.S. is quickly mirrored with cries for diversity in Canada. Tearing down Confederate statues in the U.S. is met with the Indigenous and all those that consider themselves “woke” tearing down statues in Canada. We seem to copy the U.S. collective guilt with gleeful abandon.

We mimic their police in our garb and militarization, our stance indistinguishable from our Southern neighbours, so it is natural that we also suffer the consequences of policies designed to curtail the authoritative nature of policing or when things go wrong. We copy but then express surprise at the negative consequences.

The George Floyd incident in Minnesota left those already convinced of racism at every level spitting in rage and indignation. It sparked the de-funding police movement, and it sustained the belief that all police are systemically racist and ill-intentioned. The black community demanded justice at this the latest outrage, and rioting swept through the country. When the charges were laid against Derek Chauvin, there was a palatable fear of an acquittal by the government overseers of the police. The evidence as a result became secondary– a show trial was demanded, granted, and delivered.

Did George Floyd deserve to die? He did not. Was it intentional murder was then and remains the relevant question; the question that many are afraid to voice in this climate of angered throng justice.

Despite our differing histories, the after shocks in Minnesota and Portland Oregon were borne along by the allegedly shocked media, travelling unabated and unquestioned into this country.

Defunding the police, Black Lives Matter, “systemic” racism and uncontrolled cries of victimization, now resonant and rebound off the walls of government committee rooms on Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels. All allegations no matter how outlandish are now met by nodded knowing assurances from our politicians and their constant pledges of forthcoming change. Apologies have become an art form. To do otherwise, to even countenance the merits of an argument, is met by denunciation and ridicule.

So now the George Floyd case has produced another unjust and unreasonable outcome.

I am speaking of the conviction of the three officers who were also in attendance during the George Floyd arrest.

Two of the three officers were rookies, brand new to the topsy-turvy world of policing.

They were convicted of failing to intervene and prevent officer Chauvin, the senior officer at the scene, from kneeling on the neck of George Floyd on that dark day in May 2020. In essence they were convicted of failing to save the life of George Floyd. It was the proclaimed truth that Mr Floyd was in fact being “murdered” in front of them, and they did nothing to stop it.

Even the NY Times described it as an extraordinary “rare” example of the Justice Department prosecuting officers for their “inaction”. The Times also stated in typical rarefied righteous Liberal thinking, that this was a “signal” to the police– that “juries may become more willing to convict not just officers who kill people on the job, but also those that watch them do it”.

The officers, Tou Thao, age 36, J Alexander Keung, age 28, and Thomas Lane age 38 had apparently violated Mr Floyd’s constitutional rights by not providing “medical care” when he lost a pulse–two were guilty of not intervening to stop a fellow officer from planting a knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck. Even though there was evidence at the Chauvin trial that this was a police taught restraint technique.

Keung and Lane during the incident assisted in the arrest and had wrestled with the resisting Mr. Floyd on the ground when he was being handcuffed. If you watched the video and who hasn’t, Mr Thao was the one standing some distance away –trying to keep the crowd from interfering.

The officers could be sentenced to life in prison.

If that is not enough, they are also facing other charges of aiding and abetting a murder and have another trial scheduled for later this year. If you ever wanted to see a legal dog-piling of charges; this is it.

Of course, there is a huge problem with this verdict. It is illogical. It is naive and it defies common sense and observation. It comes from an ivory tower perspective and a viewpoint one where reality never dares to come into focus.

It is entirely hinged on the belief that the officers knew, or should have known that officer Chauvin was “murdering” George Floyd. Again, if one watched the video that was played across the nation every 15 minutes on the cable news networks, there was no evidence in the officers reactions that would support this theory.

One must also remember that an ambulance had already been called to attend to Mr Floyd. If you were witnessing, condoning, and sanctioning a “murder” would you be calling an ambulance? Would you intentionally kill someone In broad daylight with several onlookers– who were willing to film it and even though someone was getting “murdered” –did not think they should intervene?

It completely defies reason– except in a court system which in recent years in the United States has become distorted and warped by the winds of political expediency. Somewhere along the line the judiciary lost the ability for judicial reasoning.

Joe Biden has promised and is on the record as saying that he was going to be more aggressive in prosecuting civil rights violations. This Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Lyndon Johnson and was an act which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin”.

In this case, the jury had to be convinced that the officers actions or inactions was based on racism. It was because Mr. Floyd was black, not because they were responding to a complaint about Mr. Floyd. Yet, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that was introduced at the trial which gave rise to an allegation of racism. For the record, Mr. Keung is Chinese, Mr. Thao is Vietnamese.

But Biden and the Justice Department is playing to those that elected him as the Democrats struggle to keep the votes for the upcoming Senate and House Elections. If he was going to look forceful to the black vote to which the Democrats now desperately cling, George Floyd presented the first high profile case where he could flex his political muscles. It is this same desire which made him announce ahead of time that he was going to appoint a black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter the rightful logic, announcing it ahead of time was pure politics, he couldn’t help himself.

This is not to argue that there are no circumstances where officers should not intervene. There clearly are times when officers are in the wrong.

In the Rodney King incident in Los Angelas, four officers stood by while officers beat Rodney King into submission. They were never charged although they clearly should have been. The recurring question is whether or not that incident is comparable to the George Floyd incident.

Upon hearing this latest verdict in the George Floyd matter, the press predictably turned the cameras to the more than willing Floyd family and in a clearly staged and rehearsed moment, George Floyd’s brother said that he “can finally breathe again”.

This was an unjust death, but it has now been layered over with an unjust verdict. The public believe that in this case two wrongs do make a right.

Could this happen in Canada? Of course, it could and likely will. Trudeau and the current administration see racism in every element of society and are thus determined to eradicate it. This is their truth as well. Commissioner Lucki has agreed, well at least after a gentle prodding.

In the United States Georgetown University has already enrolled 215 police departments on a course teaching how police officers should “intervene” if observing misbehaviour of other officers. It is also called “active bystander training”.

As a principle, this seems like a worthwhile course. As a practical exercise it is fraught with peril. By definition it runs head long into the paramilitary structure of policing. What no one seems to be currently considering is that this very same para-military structure is often paramount to street survival.

So on the one end of the pendulum, “snitching” on another officer is removed as an obstacle. At the other end of the action pendulum could be an officer failing to take control and command in a violent situation. The reality is that the instantaneous form of decision making which is prevalent in policing, is usually not conducive to open, long, or prolonged debate. That happens in those white towers.

When police officers get in trouble, it is normally because of an inability to control anger. The anger is often instantaneous and unpredictable. I am not so sure that this course will alter any outcomes despite the best intentions. Maybe time needs to be spent on an officers psychological make-up early in the recruitment process. Maybe trying to intervene with an angered officer, with the wrong disposition, maybe too little too late.

One can rest assured though, that if any police officer in Canada finds themselves in similar circumstances in this country, the politically enlightened will embrace the George Floyd verdicts regardless of borders or history. The staging and production of the George Floyd trial will become a touring company, soon to be coming to a theatre near you.

Photo courtesy of Renoir Geither via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved

The Corrupted Trial of Derek Chauvin

Posted on by Pete Cross

There is no such thing as the police being completely faultless, after all being human keeps us from being perfect. So when it comes to police being on trial, there should not be any particular viewpoint, each case a measure of a singular set of circumstances.   

However, the Derek Chauvin trial has badly shaken my confidence in the American judicial system where a visceral jury has been swayed by video and audio sound bites and rendered incapable of discerning fact from fiction.

This conclusion will not be popular with most segments of society, even some cops– for it goes against the grain, it goes against even the middle of the road liberal, it goes against what the mind is perceiving in a few seconds of videotape. This trial was originally framed as a measure of the level of racism in policing, about a white cop and a black innocent. None of that was true either as there was never any evidence ever produced of this case being about race. 

The circumstances in the death of George Floyd brought forward three charges against police officer Derek Chauvin; second degree unintentional murder which required proof of the “intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm”; third degree murder which alleged that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard to human life”;  and second degree manslaughter which alleged that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm”.

As most are aware, reasonable doubt is the prosecutorial hurdle which must be climbed and surmounted in all criminal trials both in the United States and Canada.  

Unfortunately, for the State and the masses demanding retribution, doubt was in evidence throughout this entire trial; doubt as to the cause of death, doubt as to the intent of Chauvin which was necessary to prove two of the three murder charges; doubt as to the lead up circumstances, and even doubt as to the political motivation of the State Attorneys. 

The third degree murder charge which was added at the last minute should have been thrown out with little fanfare, in fact both murder charges should not have been under consideration when one watched and allowed the evidence to unfold. The only charge which should have some examination was the second degree manslaughter. 

This case was televised and with the usual hyperbole some media outlets called in the trial of this century. Kindling to the fire of the reflexive cries of racism. Black lives concerned groups were quick off the mark, any confrontation between a white police officer and a black male should be a foregone conclusion.  With the aid of pressurized full throated liberal media and a captured television audience the protests began, followed by the rioting and looting. 

The activists of the black movement in Minneapolis from the outset, before the trial even started, proclaimed that if “they” do not get a guilty verdict the town will burn to the ground; they demanded not only a guilty verdict but a sentence worthy of murder charges. A life sentence was presumed to be the only way of satisfying this carnivorous crowd. 

The usual attention seeking personalities, celebrities and politicos filled the airwaves, before the trial, during the trial and after the trial. The message theme was that there was no need for a trial, the evidence so obviously clear of Chauvin’s guilt. No heed should be paid to the Constitution and the need for due process after all –we have video.

There is only one truth, their single unassailable truth.

The reporting so blatantly slanted that as one followed along, one began to question if you were in fact watching the same trial and the evidence that was being presented. The news photos they released were of Chauvin as he was being booked –dressed in an orange prisoner jump suit, staring straight faced and pale at the camera— Floyd is in civilian clothing, leaning nonchalantly against a brick wall. 

Chauvin’s trial began to take on the feel of a political and social lynching.

Chauvin throughout the trial sat erect, disciplined, robotic, attentively writing on a yellow pad of legal paper which never seemed to grow in size. Neatly attired with a mid-level suit and tie, the picture of a cop getting ready to testify. His eyes only visible above his Covid mask, his eyes the only measurable hint of humanity and the emotions laying deep within.

This case also raised some serious questions that should have been asked of the District Attorney’s office and their conduct in this case. They were proven to have withheld evidence, not allowed a witness in the car with Floyd to testify, and have tried to bury the defence with last minute loads of information. They argued against their own Pathologist who performed the autopsy and not satisfied with his findings, began a country wide search for “experts” —an opinion that could aid their public theory. 

The case and the circumstances were nuanced and understanding required an open mind to details.

The State attorneys constant mantra from beginning to the closing argument was “believe your eyes”.  They were counting on emotions to carry the day, their clear hope was that by playing incessantly a few seconds of Chauvin leaning on the neck of Floyd, that the emotion generated would carry the jurors to only those selected few minutes and away from some of the facts that were problematic. 

One must also remember that the City of Minneapolis before the trial started announced a $27 million settlement for the Floyd family. A historic amount. The timing of this was at the very least unethical and jeopardized finding an impartial jury. The defence rightly asked for a change of venue and the sequestering of the jury. All were denied despite the crescendo of media and public voices speaking for a guilty finding. 

The first State witnesses were representative of the prosecutor’s theme of emotion over fact. They were asked and allowed to testify as to their “feelings” in this case, how it had affected their daily lives in witnessing the death of Floyd. This should have been ruled completely irrelevant, but strangely was allowed to be admitted; setting up further grounds for an appeal. 

The cause of death, which was clearly central to all three charges was where the State’s case was the weakest. 

The State pathologist, Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, in the post mortem of  George Floyd said categorically that the cause of death was: “cardiopulmonary arrest during law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression”. Other contributing factors were “coronary disease” the use of fentanyl and methamphetamine. He further testified to the stress of Floyd’s arrest having “overwhelmed his already burdened heart”, that it “tipped him over the edge”.  So in your opinion Dr. Baker, the defence counsel Mr. Nelson asked: “both the heart disease as well as the history of hypertension and the drugs that were in his system played a role in Mr. Floyd’d death?” “In my opinion, yes” replied Dr. Baker. 

The State Attorneys wanted on the other hand to prove that Mr. Floyd died from “positional asphyxia “, resulting form the knee on the neck.  So here they were faced with their own pathologist testifying that the knee, according to Dr. Baker did not “did not anatomically cut off Mr. Floyd’s airway.” Dr. Baker pointed to the fact that there never was any physical evidence of asphyxia ever brought forward no bruising, no hyoid damage as would be expected in such a case. 

We learned that the State met with the Pathologist several times over a few months, and when the results of Dr. Baker went stubbornly unchanged, their only recourse was to seek an outside “expert” opinion. This is a tactic usually reserved for defence counsel in trials.

The case was investigated by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. There were fifty case agents assigned, twenty additional agents from the FBI, and fifty members of the Minnesota Police Department. They interviewed all the command and training staff and two hundred civilian witnesses. Twelve warrants were executed (mysteriously two alone on the vehicle Floyd was in). They then provided to the defence fifty thousand pages of evidentiary documents, the classical information dump trying to drown out resource limited opposition.  

The medical expert the State found was Dr. Tobin a pulmonologist from Ireland; who after watching hundreds of hours of videotape, over and over again, came to the conclusion that in his opinion, that Mr. Floyd being face down, was unable to breathe and therefore died of positional asphyxia. He testified that the weight of Chauvin, 23% of which was transferred on to the neck and back of Mr. Floyd was what killed the victim. Chauvin is 5’9” and 140 lbs, Mr. Floyd was 6’3” and 230 lbs. His evidence was that a maximum of  32 lbs could have been transferred on to the body of Floyd at any given times, the weight shifting from the back, the shoulders and the neck. 

Defence counsel produced other experts who confirmed the findings of the State pathologist Dr. Baker. In cross examination of Dr. Tobin, and in their witness Dr. Folwler the defence produced twenty-three studies showing that — being face down on the ground, even if “hog tied” or “hobbled” ( the more drastic methods of police condoned restraint)  in a normal healthy human being, would not cause death.  It turns out all the teachings of it being a lethal position to put someone in stems from a study in the 1980’s. All agreed that Mr. Floyd was not a healthy individual by any measure. 

The State’s Attorney argued that the “speed ball “ of fentanyl and methamphetamine would not have played a role, since Floyd would have a life long “tolerance” to drugs. They did not prove this conclusion and glossed over the fact that Floyd had twice the fatal limit of fentanyl and was passed out in the vehicle prior to the police arrival after having consumed the drugs. 

In terms of the drugs Mr. Floyd had taken, the State, in a highly suspicious decision, refused to grant immunity to Morries Hall, who was believed to be Mr. Floyd’s drug dealer and in the vehicle with him at the time of the incident. By not granting immunity, which only the State could do, this forced Hall “plead the fifth” and not testify — therefore not incriminate himself.  In the American criminal system the defendant is entitled to a fulsome defence, it would be hard to argue that a key witness being excluded by the State, who may have provided a lethal dose of drugs to Floyd was not allowed to testify was highly unethical and manipulative. 

Hall, who had been basking in the limelight after the death of Floyd,had left the State, but was eventually arrested in Texas for other charges. He never testified. The Judge ruled that he could not review the State decision not to allow him immunity, as that was an executive decision and not subject to the review of the judiciary. 

The original call by the employees of the store came in at 8:02 pm on May 25th to the intersection of 38th and Chicago in Minneapolis, a high crime and largely black neighbourhood.  The store employee in calling in the complaint described Floyd as being “intoxicated” due to his erratic behaviour in the the store and described him as “a large man.” 

Dispatch requests that the first car respond Code 3 (lights and siren).  At 8:04 the police car with Officers Lane and King arrives at the scene and are directed to the Mercedes SUV across the street —where a passed out George Floyd sits in the driver seat. At 8:10 the dispatcher hears them struggling with Mr. Floyd and Chauvin now heads to the scene for backup, once again Code 3. 

At 8:11 Floyd is removed from the car, and an all clear signal is given at 8:12. 

Chauvin slows down, parks and walks up to the other two officers at 8:17 as the two other officers once again, begin to struggle to put Floyd in the car. 

Mr. Floyd is erratic, shouting inanities, and screaming he “can’t breathe”.  

At 8:18 Chauvin begins to wrestle with Mr. Floyd as well. 

At 8:19 the struggling stops and they are containing the handcuffed Floyd and Mr. Floyd is on the ground with two officers pinning his legs, and officer Chauvin on his back. 

At 8:21 the ambulance is called as the officers believe that this is a more medical emergency due to Floyd’s use of drugs. Paramedics arrive five or six minutes later and because of the hostility of the crowd, they do a “load and go”, wanting to remove him from the area before treating.  

The State alleged that Mr. Chauvin was shoving Mr. Floyd’s face into the “unyielding pavement”, “lacerated his knuckles” described the pavement “tearing into his skin” while the “horrified bystanders..watched it unfold”. Bystanders pointed to the blood coming from Mr. Floyd’s nose. This was when Floyd hit himself into the shield in the back of the police car. The bystanders pointed to the fluid on the ground near Floyd, believing that he had urinated. The fluid was actually from the nearby police vehicle. 

It was the State’s argument that Chauvin then began to “assault Mr. Floyd” by keeping him in the face down position and having a knee on his back, shoulder, and neck area. The defence argued that in fact, he was complying with his training, and using a taught restraining method and continued to hold him down due to the passive resistance by Floyd. 

The State argued that the Mr. Floyd was no danger to anyone, that this was an “assault”, a felony level of assault, that Chauvin was “doing it on purpose” and that he was “not following the rules”.  Not only, they argued, must you “trust your eyes”, they asked the jury to read the “body language”. They implored that it  showed that Chauvin was exhibiting an “ego based pride”. 

They argued further that Mr Floyd did not want to get into the squad car, because he was “claustrophobic” and that he was “experiencing a crisis”. Mr. Chauvin they opined should have recognized that as  the crowd grew and hissed around him, he should have offered aid, and maybe even done CPR. The police should have “re-assessed about putting him in the car”. 

The State grudgingly admitted that there were “other causes” contributed to Floyd’s death—but that did not relieve him from his “responsibility”. The State argued in their closing that Mr. Chauvin had “intentionally applied unlawful assault” and “intentionally inflicted bodily harm” all while wearing a body cam, was surrounded by other body cams, was being videotaped by onlookers and was at an intersection of city surveillance cameras. 

All admitted, including the State, that the arrest, attempts to put him in the police car, and then the putting him on the ground was “reasonable” for a police officer to do under these circumstances, putting him face down was ok, it was just the length of time that it was done which warranted two murder charges. One could argue that the charge of manslaughter was debatable, if you believed Chauvin should have been fully aware of Floyd’s medical stress throughout but the intent needed for the murder charges simply was not there. 

The circumstances and how the events unfolded is straightforward. The call for the police, the attendance by the police, the arrest of a struggling Mr. Floyd, the wrestling of Mr. Floyd to the ground plays out hundreds of times every day across North America. It should be pointed out that none of this was about Mr. Floyd being black, the police came because they were called and they performed a legitimate arrest of the alleged suspect. 

No officer should be smug in viewing this trial play out. No officer should assume that the intersecting of circumstances that transpired in this case is somehow unique. No officer should assume that the cloud of alleged racism could not darken and obscure any set of investigational facts. 

Due process and the right to a fair trial should no longer be assumed in any courtroom in the United States; nor in this country. 

This case is a bell wether and should give every police officer pause. Your very ability to function as a police officer now needs to be viewed through this prism of mob driven social justice which now demands perfection in all actions and deeds and starts with an assumption of presumed guilt. 

There is no officer who has worked the streets who has not handcuffed a subject and placed him on the ground and knelt on his back or neck. I know of no officer who has heard screams from the suspect that they were in pain or hurt, or demanding real or imagined medical attention. I know of no officer who has not had to arrest an intoxicated or high suspect who is combative. I know of no officer who has not been called derisive names or had insults hurled at them from a distance. I have never heard of an officer who has not been accused of being racist if that officer happens to be working in a racially diverse atmosphere, which includes those officers of colour or a different ethnicity. And in this day and age I know of no officer who has not been videotaped by an onlooker or a suspect. 

In other words, every street police officer could have been the one sitting in the seat of Derek Chauvin. 

Every officer could have their senior managers with their finger raised, testing the political winds, testify as to your contravention of the policy, your dereliction in not caring enough or showing enough empathy. Your fellow workers could come forward to second guess, to exclaim that they would never have left that knee on the neck to suppress a prisoner, well, maybe for a short time, but they would have had the good sense to not do it for as long as Officer Chauvin. They know better. Your life and your very freedom could come tumbling down around you for not paying strict attention to the instantaneous ebb and flow of those overly simplistic classroom “use of force” models. 

The jury verdict was reached after about eight hours of deliberation. “Guilty” on all three counts. This was not even enough time to analyze the three counts in any depth or review the evidence of thirty eight witnesses. Clearly the jury had made up their mind early, they had “trusted their eyes” as they had been directed by the State. Possibly they worried about their city being enveloped by violence, the place where they work and live.

President Biden clearly was not worried about interfering in the judicial system. He called the Floyd family prior to the verdict being rendered —saying that the evidence was “overwhelming”. Maxine Walters a black Representative in Washington, again before the verdict, urged the black community to offer resistance to the police if there was a not guilty verdict.  

Fast and predictable, Chauvin had no chance. Street festivals broke out, the mob now dancing around the flames, with the head of Chauvin on a stake. 

Biden and his Vice President Kamala within hours called a press conference. They thanked the jury and announced that they had proposed the “George Floyd Justice and Policing Act”, in honour of Mr. Floyd. Strange bed fellows for the Democrats, as this is the George Floyd who had multiple “brushes with the law”, including five years for armed robbery in 2007, where a pregnant woman was assaulted and robbed, a gun allegedly pointed at her pregnant stomach. 

Justin Trudeau welcomed the American verdict. 

These are indeed very dangerous times. The far left has now become indistinguishable from the far right. The Nation has officially divided.  

Black history in America has been troubled, fraught with slavery, discrimination and violence. The Mississippi and Louisiana of the 1960’s, segregation, and the impoverishment of the disadvantaged will forever be a blemish on the American being. However, an unjust verdict, a revenge seeking verdict, will never right the wrongs of the past. Even Dr. King would be embarrassed, as all Americans should be embarrassed.

Photo courtesy of Lorrie Shaull via Flickr Creative Commons – Some Rights Reserved.