All Eyes on Minneapolis
The trial of Derek Chauvin is a reminder that the tension over George Floyd's death remains alive and well.
It has been almost a year since George Floyd's death in what prosecutors now allege was an act of murder by the police. The case surrounding his death served as a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to address inequities in enforcement by the police. After the infamous video showed Derek Chauvin with his knee on George Floyd's neck, Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, while his fellow officers were charged with aiding and abetting said murder. With months of protests—both in the United States and globally—it is hard to understate the level of passion and pain poured into this story. Where one man died, and another became a pariah, but more than being a story about death and tragedy, the case of George Floyd has been a reckoning for many Americans. A reckoning that is sure to come to a difficult close in the following months.
Chauvin, a 19-year officer of the Minneapolis police department, was not without issues before his deadly meeting with Floyd. During four previous arrests that Chauvin was involved with, Chauvin was noted to use neck restraints "beyond the point when such force was needed under the circumstances." In one of those arrests, Chauvin allegedly pinned a young juvenile to the floor. In another instant, Chauvin was reported to have kneeled on a woman's neck as she laid on the ground underneath.
Said behavior had been the subject of scrutiny for many Americans, but federal investigators have also been examining the nature of Chauvin's previous conduct. Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury on civil rights to examine the aforementioned incident with the young boy. Chauvin allegedly grabbed the young man by the throat and struck him with his flashlight. The young boy briefly lost consciousness during the incident. All of this suggests a pattern of behavior.
Despite this, the grand jury's analysis has been considered inadmissible to the court's ruling in Chauvin's upcoming trial as ruled by Judge Peter Cahill, who oversees the trial.
Those in defense of Chauvin will note his history of commendations and awards for his service. Indeed, he received multiple medals for his responses to violent suspects, including his shooting of one suspect who attempted to draw a gun.
But none of those things change what happened to George Floyd or that Chauvin was consistently criticized for his conduct, both on duty and off duty. Nor does it change that former employers of Chauvin noted that, as a security guard, Chauvin was consistently more aggressive with Black patrons. In yet another incident, Chauvin and several other officers were recorded restraining another man they later determined was innocent, much like Chauvin would later restrain Floyd just three weeks later.
Chauvin is sure to be a lightning rod as a defendant, as his conduct and what he symbolizes has and will continue to pose a challenge for America as it struggles to address law enforcement's role in society.
Perhaps even more complicating is how best to proceed with the trial. Already, difficulties have arisen surrounding the selection of jurors, with only three jurors currently selected. Much of the problem comes from the jurors' impartiality, as 20 or so potential jurors were rejected. Chauvin is entitled to a jury of his peers, but finding those peers may prove difficult. As Robin Givhan of the Washington Post noted, the issue at hand is that:
"Chauvin is entitled to a jury of his peers, but it may well be that he has none, not because he is a rarefied creature, but because for so many people, law enforcement was never viewed as a corps of fallible humans and community servants and courageous protectors. They've always been warriors, overseers, and members of a closed-door club from which he has been banished."
At the core of the trial's configuration is America's greatest problem: How do we think of law enforcement? How do we hold them accountable when our society has traditionally shown them such a strong level of difference? And perhaps more importantly, how do we as a society ensure that this doesn't happen again?
Though the trial is only beginning, the consequences are already being felt. And as the trial continues, it will be forced to address many of these questions and more. Whether or not they will answer them successfully is another thing entirely.