Like everyone everywhere, I looked on in horror, even though it was a replay and I knew how it would come out. George Floyd was in the custody of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. He was handcuffed, pinned face-down on the street, and he repeatedly called out, “I can’t breathe.”
People from the sidewalk pleaded with the officers to let Floyd up but to no avail. When the ambulance arrived, the EMTs did not even take the time to check Floyd’s vital statistics or try to revive him. They loaded him in and headed off toward Hennepin County Medical Center. Within minutes, the ambulance called in, reporting that Floyd was entering cardiac arrest. He was pronounced dead in the emergency room, less than an hour after he had been released from under officer Chauvin’s knee.
Everyone who watches the video is emotionally impacted. You can’t help but be. It’s horrible. Adding the racial element to the event even makes it worse. Floyd was black; Chauvin is white. Most people believe that things would have transpired differently if their races were different. Thus, this tragedy became the centerpiece of a movement to protest both police brutality and racism in general.
Even at the beginning, many protests turned destructive in the evening. People were assaulted, cars were burned, and stores were looted. Cities responded by imposing curfews, but they were often ignored, and the violence got worse.
It’s only fair to observe that much of the mayhem was created by people who were doing more than protesting racism. A significant number seemed to be seeking anarchy, social revolution, and a fundamental restructuring of the American society. The two principal objectives relate to police policies and historical figures who can be tied to racism. Thus, defacing, toppling, and destroying statues and memorials became a part of many protests.
Some changes to society, including many that are being advocated by the protesters, can and should take place. To be legitimate, however, they need to be accomplished through the democratic process. The U.S. Constitution puts most policing authority at the local level for that precise reason: It’s easier to control matters at the local level. City hall may be hard to fight, but it’s much easier than Washington, D.C. If something is wrong with police policies, citizens can contact local officials to demand a change. If those officials cannot or will not make the necessary changes, the citizens can vote in new people who will.
The same goes for statues and monuments. Public art reflects history, but it also defines and speaks for the local community. People in that community (whatever its size might be) have the right to put it up or take it down, but the decision must be made through the democratic process. If the people want to remove a statue, they or their representatives will vote to do so. That is how democracy works.
Vandalism against statues, memorials, or government buildings is not justifiable. Essentially, it’s theft from the local community. It’s the work of bullies, and bullies should not be rewarded. They should not be allowed to make public decisions for the entire community. They should especially not be permitted to destroy statues. After all, these are pieces of art. Destroying them is somewhat akin to burning books.
The “Justice for Floyd” protesters have come to resemble the angry mobs found in William Faulkner’s “Intruder in the Dust” and Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Given their way, I do not think that they would wait for Chauvin’s criminal trial before executing the sentence. (One night I saw a protester vowing that the protests would not end until there were convictions; arrest and charges were not enough.)
No one wants to hear it, but the real question in this case is not justice for Floyd but justice for Chauvin. The United States promises all defendants a fair trial, benefit of counsel, the presumption of innocence, an impartial jury, and due process. How can the judicial system deliver on that promise to Chauvin? I challenged my criminal procedure students with that question last week. How would they represent him? Could they? How would the court ever find unbiased jurors? It’s very difficult.
A lawyer I used to work with in Chicago specialized in criminal cases. He used to say, “Everyone says no one is above the law, but they need to remember that no one is below the law.” The legal system must now provide a fair trial for Chauvin. That is how Floyd will receive his justice. A jury needs to consider all of the evidence and render a verdict. We all think we know what the result will be, but trials sometimes surprise us.
The protests have given good people many things to think about. Changes to the rules regarding restraining suspects and the execution of search warrants have already garnered fairly widespread support. Communities are also re-thinking some monuments and statutes. The bullies, however, have also forced their cause in some areas with brute force and intimidation. Those wins will be short-lived, and they will breed resistance. Following them is not the American way, and it’s not a good way.
