Six Takeaways from the Derek Chauvin Verdict

In this installment of the weekly conversation, PF Whalen and Parker Beauregard of The Blue State Conservative discuss conclusions we can draw from the Derek Chauvin trial and the verdict of guilty on all charges that was delivered by the jury. This was the most publicized and scrutinized trial of the past twenty-five years, so what does it mean? 

PF: Democrats and their media have decided due process is unnecessary. 

It’s not unreasonable for a juror to have concluded that Chauvin was guilty of manslaughter. There was contradictory testimony from police officials and experts on George Floyd’s cause of death, and while the standard requiring proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” wasn’t achieved in my opinion, I can at least understand why some might think it was. But for Chauvin to have been found guilty of both second- and third-degree murder seems ludicrous to me. The prosecution didn’t come close to proving their case here, and we can only assume that outside pressures on the jury affected their decision.

In the lead up to the trial, virtually everyone knew the tacit message being conveyed to jurors: The country burned last summer during the riots after Floyd’s death, there were twenty-five people who were killed and $2 billion worth of damage, and if you don’t find that cop guilty, it’s going to happen again. It was essentially extortion by Black Lives Matter/Antifa.

Elected public officials like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters should have been insisting on the protection of Chauvin’s right to due process, but instead they stoked the fires. They openly embraced the approach of instilling an implicit threat to jurors, and in Waters’ case she actively participated in it. Regardless of what one’s opinion may be regarding Chauvin’s innocence or guilt, I don’t see how anyone can contend Chauvin had a fair trial.

When Waters tried to fire up a Minneapolis crowd on the Saturday before the verdict by telling them they “need to be more confrontational,” the mask was off, and the message was clear. “If those jurors don’t return a guilty verdict, you need to be more violent than last year… and I hope you’re listening jurors.” That’s not due process, that’s mob rule.

Parker: There are two legal systems in America – one for leftist darlings and one for the rest of us. 

You mentioned in your Saturday column that the trial only occurred and that the verdict only came back a certain way because of skin color. This was absolutely the case. We are suffering through an era where immutable characteristics are valued over merit and standards, which inevitably leads to injustice and oppression. In this case, and as is playing out across the country, white skin, especially a cop’s white skin, now presumes guilt. We (as in whites) have to prove we are innocent, rather than have the public or legal system prove our guilt.

Of course, when there is no legal standard remaining there is essentially no standard remaining. How often do we see the system fail when situations are reversed? We don’t even have to look hard. Two black girls in the nation’s capital were directly responsible for the death of a Pakistani Uber driver after they attempted carjacking the poor man. In the ensuing grand theft auto, he died, but they were given a pass and his name is obscure. Can you imagine if two white teens ahd pulled this off? His Pakistani heritage would have been wrapped into the anti-Asian narrative, the kids would have been charged under every hate crime law, and Senator Hirono would have galvanized every Asian in America to demand accountability – which replaced the word “justice” in the Chauvin trial after the left realized legal justice is absolutely possible…but then they have nothing to scream about when it works.

The young black girls are higher on the intersectional hierarchy of oppression than an older white man of immigrant descent. Age, race, and sex all determined that the public opinion should be one of indifference and the court system agreed. The Chauvin case similarly reinforces the anarchy in the American justice system in light of new information coming out regarding the events of January 6th. Officer Brian Sicknick, a capitol police officer who died of causes completely unrelated to the siege, was memorialized with some of the highest honors in the country as a form of an intentional disinformation campaign. His death was used to justify a second impeachment of Trump. Why was this white male police officer lauded while the other was persecuted beyond reason? For the simple reason that Trump supporters are evil and blacks can never be wrong. This is how justice works now.

PF: Their strategy worked, and the left now has a blueprint on how to get what they want. 

This might be the most disturbing aspect of the Chauvin verdict. Chauvin being found guilty across the board by the jury validated the entire BLM movement. Their strategy worked, and if it worked once, they will determine, it will work again. They will therefore not only continue with the approach but accelerate it. This verdict will only embolden Democrats, the left, and the media.

Here’s their strategy, and we should expect it to intensify. 1) Lie about our country’s history and do everything possible to divide us by race. 2) Use cancel culture to pressure corporate America and normal citizens to bow to demands and buy-into the narrative; make them part of the coalition. 3) When a tragic incident happens, regardless of evidence, point to it as being racially-driven and use the event as an example to support your broader, fictional storyline. 4) In response to that event, support and promote riots while openly gaslighting the public by calling them “mostly peaceful protests.” 5) Once the target of your ire makes it into the criminal justice system, intimidate juries, prosecutors, and even judges if necessary, to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. And 6), implement this scheme while keeping your eye on the ball of your ultimate goal: socialism.

Systemic racism is a myth, but their solution to that myth is very real. The system is racist, and stacked against black folks, they tell us, and they cite disparate outcomes to make their case. Their new favorite word is “inequities,” as opposed to “inequalities.” The only way to fix inequities is to ensure all outcomes are the same or similar, and the only system that ensures similar outcomes is socialism. Or, better yet, communism. The Chauvin verdict helps fortify the narrative of systemic racism, and that fortification helps make the case that socialism is the answer.

Parker: Emotion mattered more than logic. 

If you listen to the closing remarks of the prosecution, there was an unmistakable plea to the jurors’ emotions. Essentially, the argument was “you saw the video” “and you know what you felt in your heart when you saw it.” I am not saying this is the wrong approach. Without a doubt, it’s very compelling, but let’s call it out for what it is. In the court of blind justice, we should aspire to be persuaded with facts and evidence. The defense made an appeal to this side of things, to no avail.

The same could be said of bringing Floyd’s brother, Philonise, as the “spark of life” witness. Under Minnesota statute, the prosecution was allowed to bring in, with no compelling testimony pertaining to the case, to remind the jury of Floyd’s specialness. This is an ostensible plea to emotions, as it matters not a whit to the incident involving Floyd’s final moments while in the custody of police officers.

The crux of the issue is that the facts were damning to the prosecution’s case. They literally had a single image and video with which to make their case that the police acted, not just inappropriately, but feloniously and murderously. As the prosecution’s own witnesses revealed under cross-examination, there were so many variables at play. Drug use. Crowd size. Underlying health conditions. Increased oxygen demand during arrest resistance. Medical examiner’s observations. Police protocols. EMT not rendering services immediately. The list goes on and on, with each factor deserving at least some level of scrutiny. Essentially, the jury’s verdict renders each of those considerations moot. Is that reasonable? Or is that emotional? 

This is to say nothing of the emotional state of the jurors in general. The anxiety that all jurors surely felt as they walked into a barricaded, empty, and National Guard-protected courthouse and the terror they would have endured if they returned a different verdict absolutely played a part. Did they return the proper verdict? It seems unlikely, but the one unavoidable certainty is that so many outside factors precluded any chance of a fair and honest trial. You touched on these specifics earlier.

PF: The death of George Floyd may have been a lot of things, but a racist killing isn’t one of them. 

The prosecution in the Chauvin case had dozens of hours to make their case that Chauvin was guilty, and in my opinion they failed. But what’s truly remarkable about the prosecution’s case is they didn’t even attempt to prove that Chauvin’s actions, criminal or otherwise, were in any way driven by Floyd’s race. I followed the case fairly closely, and I don’t remember the topic even coming up.

Here we are, almost a year after George Floyd’s death, and there isn’t a shred of evidence that suggests Derek Chauvin is or was a racist, or that his actions were motivated as such. There were no white supremacist social media posts from Chauvin’s past that were presented. There was no testimony from witnesses detailing some type of vicious bigotry in Chauvin’s past. Yet the messaging from the left and the media is so well coordinated, they don’t need to show evidence. Floyd was black, Chauvin is white, therefore the incident was racist… and millions of people nod their heads in agreement.

The reality of Floyd’s death seems clear at this point. Chauvin’s actions may have been inappropriate, and based on testimony from various law enforcement officials they may have been criminal; most likely, manslaughter. But it wasn’t about Floyd’s race. He had a criminal past, he was high on various drugs, and Chauvin may have overreacted. But ultimately it was a struggle between two men, one a cop and the other a suspect of the crime of counterfeiting. The cop happened to be white and the victim happened to be black. The idea that any of us can climb into Chauvin’s mind after the fact and deduce what motivated his actions is ridiculous; and dangerous. All we can go by is the evidence and facts, none of which support the idea there was racism involved.

Parker: The left never cared about the verdict.

 

I wrote an article in the immediate aftermath of the verdict in response to the abhorrent manipulation of facts and outcomes. It boiled down to this: For the past year, there were riots, marches, speeches, and hyperbole about white supremacy and a systemically racist legal system that fails black Americans. Everyone demanded justice. And, justice would be served if and only if Chauvin were convicted of all charges. We all agreed on this.

So what happened? This past week, a jury delivered a magnificently erroneous verdict, charging Derek Chauvin of two different counts of murder, requiring him to have intentionally committed a felony, and acting in a way that he knew he was killing Floyd. This was not proven at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. But, setting that aside, the mob and all of the other black terrorists got what they wanted: Guilty on all counts. We’re good then, right?

Wrong.

If you listened to the speeches by lead prosecutor (and Attorney General of Minnesota) Keith Ellison, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, AOC, and countless others, they all pivoted along the exact same lines at the exact same time. Read from a script much? The notion of justice for George, however inaccurate it was, was the benchmark that society agreed to this past year. As I laid out in the article, signs, chants, and donations all asked for justice by charging the officers involved. It doesn’t get more clear than that.

Instead, every slimy and manipulative politician said this was only one instance of accountability. True justice, they said, would occur when the entire system was burned down – and no black ever went to prison again and all whites were served up to Maoist reeducation camps. Ok, that last part was mine, but that’s what they basically said. Worst of all, if the mob got what it wanted this time, what’s from stopping them from doing it again?

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.