Monday, jury selection began in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the killing of George Floyd, and it’s a job that’s about as popular as being sheriff of Dodge City.
Floyd’s death already sparked rioting, arson and looting that caused over $2 billion in damage and 19 shootings (or as the Democrats call that, “mostly peaceful protests”), and potential jurors are understandably terrified of being targeted if they vote to acquit. The state has done everything it can to prevent that, bringing the full force of prosecutorial power against Chauvin; but courts are supposed to be run on evidence, not the wishes of violent mobs or what politicians want in order to prevent mob violence.
And if the jurors go solely by the evidence, there is a chance that Chauvin will be acquitted. Roger Kimbell at the Spectator lays out the case, including extenuating evidence that prosecutors kept hidden until well after the riots. You might be surprised at how much of it conflicts with the well-known media narrative. As horrifying as the “I can’t breathe” video of Floyd was, like many viral video clips, it didn’t tell the whole story, by a long shot.
However, even as Minneapolis businesses board up their windows in preparation for what they assume will be more post-trial riots, Kimbell argues that the trial should be moved elsewhere. He believes there's no way Minneapolis jurors won’t feel intimidated to vote guilty even if they don’t believe it, which will make this nothing more than leftwing political theater.
It is indeed ironic that the same “progressives” who claim they’re fighting racism and America’s racist history did it first by bringing back segregation and judging people by their skin color, and now by reviving jury intimidation and the lynch mob mentality. Sorry, but this doesn’t seem like “progress” to me.