As near as I can tell, it's practically conventional wisdom that Black people nationwide will break out in an orgy of violence if Derek Chauvin isn't found guilty by a jury of his peers. This piece is typical, but you can find others like it in practically every city.
Am I the only one who finds this at least faintly racist and stereotyped all by itself? Would we make the same assumption if Chauvin's victim were Hispanic or white or Asian or Arab?
I dunno. Maybe I'm way off base here. But the automatic association of Black anger with Black violence seems like precisely the kind of thing that BLM and other anti-racist groups are trying to fight. Am I wrong about this?
I think the real issue is the belief that protests should be minstrel shows that have people dancing in the streets with colorful signs but not really respected. When confronted with clear videotaped evidence of police intentionally killing a Black man there needs to be some accountability. If there is no accountability for this murder it ipso facto authorizes further murders of Black people. Something more than a minstrel show in response is called for.
Yes!
BLM? You mean that violent gang of insurrectionist thugs, who were responsible -- along with "antifa" -- for the false-flag attack on the Capitol on 1/6?
Republicans (who don't have a single racist bone in their bodies!) and their media will work themselves into a lathered froth over the violence that Blacks will do after the trial -- no matter which way the verdict goes. Some of them will even commit unprovoked acts of violence themselves, because Black people give them no choice; it's just self-defense, you see.
"Faintly" racist and stereotyped? It is to laugh.
Umbrella Man will descend into Minneapolis like a Kluxer Mary Poppins.
Whatever happened to 'Umbrella Man' -- the supposed White supremacist agent provocateur? I've searched for follow up stories, and arrest or something. Nothing.
all hell will break loose if they let this asshole walk. rightly so.
Has there been any recent controversial court ruling where a police officer was acquitted of killing a black person that didn't result in violent protests? If cities didn't make any preparations for this possibility they would be criminally negligent.
I think Chauvin will definitely be found guilty of at least some of the three charges. The question is, if he's not convicted of the most serious charge(s) how much violence will there be? If the unthinkable happens and he's acquitted on all the charges cities will burn to the ground.
As Yogi Berra said, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. By any rational objective standard the only possible verdict consistent wit the evidence is guilty on all counts. On the other hand, the judge seems to have had his thumb on the scales of justice to a significant extent—beginning with jury selection.
I have no idea how he charged the jury so I don't know whether he left room for some kind of compromise semi-acquittal. It's possible that they'll go with the third-degree murder charge or even with some kind of misdemeanor (if they were given that instruction). It's hard to know.
It's also hard to gauge the reaction: All of the African Americans of my present acquaintance (a very small number indeed) are sure that Chauvin will be acquitted but they don't plan to protest because it would be pointless.
How did the judge have his thumb on the scales? I'm no arguing your assessment. That's just the first time I've heard that.
I think it was biased because people with an unfavorable opinion of the police or a favorable opinion of BLM were dismissed for cause, while potential jurors who thought “all lives mattered” or the “blue lives mattered” were not struck for cause.
The discussion in the article of the (defense’s preemptory) striking of juror no. 76 (“a Black man who was dismissed by Chauvin's defense attorneys after he shared his opinion that Black people such as himself don't receive equal treatment by Minneapolis police and in the justice system overall”) contrasts with the view that being “pro-police” is considered as a part of being “unbiased”.
https://www.startribune.com/dismissal-of-black-potential-juror-in-derek-chauvin-trial-prompts-discussion-on-race-and-bias-in-cou/600037386/
And this discussion of jury selection raises a similar question. It’s a theme running throughout the process—supporting the police is normative, the lived experience of black people or simply being influenced by hearing about that experience is indicative of bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/chauvin-trial-jurors.html
Right. In that same vein, maybe a commission could be formed to screen judges from time to time to see how far they've been biased. Surely, they've come to each trial with preconceived ideas, possibly even mistaken ideas.
My comment here is tangential, but it's something you touched on that I feel strongly about:
"while potential jurors who thought “all lives mattered” or the “blue lives mattered”... "
I think it is a perfectly natural response when hearing the phrase "black lives matter" to react with "all lives matter." That was my reaction when I first heard it. Call me a right-wing racist for that if you want, but I was a civil rights activist in the 60's and an anti-Vietnam war activist in the 70's. FWIW, it was also Bernie Sanders' initial reaction, and he got raked over the coals for it.
Yes, Blacks face a higher risk of being killed by police in the US than others do. That's a fact, and I don't think anyone seriously denies it. But in terms of what "matters," all lives do matter. You wouldn't want to fix this disparity by having the police kill more non-Blacks, would you? Killing is wrong, except when truly done to prevent another imminent killing. In the end, unless all lives matter, no lives matter.
I think that while your points might have a generalized validity (one with which I largely agree) by the time the jury was being selected the meanings of those terms (and the political/social affinity) of those terms was settled. The issue was that being pro police or conservative is seen as essentially unbiased in much the same way that that racial or political minorities are seen as interest groups while white Republicans are seen as regular Americans.
“... I was a civil rights activist in the 60's and an anti-Vietnam war activist in the 70's...”
How could you be so biased? Don’t all our rights matter? Don’t all wars matter? Shame on you for pick-and-choosing which rights and which wars you were going to focus your protests on!
Only children who haven’t learned how English grammar works and people who really insist on being obtuse fail to see the difference between a person saying “black lives matter” and another person saying “only black lives matter.” It’s like thinking the organizers of Breast Cancer Awareness Month don’t care at all about finding a cure for any other form of cancer (or any other form of death for that matter). Or a PTA fundraiser that asks you to donate for the children means the PTA hates adults or thinks adults shouldn’t have any money.
It’s really sick and how some people twist the words “black lives matter” to say something it doesn’t actually say... particularly in a society where virtually everything from healthcare to education to the justice system to segregated and underinvested neighborhoods says that - in fact - black lives really don’t matter at all to many people.
I'm not that familiar with the American court system, but don't those dismissals come from the defence and not the judge? AFAIK the prosecution has similar prerogatives.
Both sides have some of what are called “peremptory challenges” which allow the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason (although there are limitations on the prosecutors ability to do this).
The challenges I’m talking about are where the attorneys ask for a potential juror to be removed for cause, typically for some sort of arguable bias. The challenges are made in the form of a motion and the judge rules on the motion and decides whether it’s been established that the particular venireman cannot give a fair and impartial verdict according to the evidence.
My point was that there’s a subtle bias built into the system and accepted by this judge in favor of the police and against racial or political minorities. So stating that “blue lives matter” is regarded as unbiased while saying that “black lives matter” is indicative of bias.
Re: Has there been any recent controversial court ruling where a police officer was acquitted of killing a black person that didn't result in violent protests?
Yes: When the original act generated rioting. As an example, right here in Baltimore in 2015, where there were riots on the day of Freddie Gray's funeral-- and nothing at all when the cops standing trial got off.
Re: If the unthinkable happens and he's acquitted on all the charges cities will burn to the ground.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Hyperbolic indeed, and exactly the sort of thing KD's post describes, which speaks to the phenomenal lack of self-awareness of many of these folks.
Right before the 2020 election, we were warned that minority protesters would riot when the results were released. Businesses in cities from Atlanta to Houston to Indianapolis to Buffalo were warned to cover their store windows with plywood. None of that happened. The only substantial protests were MAGA-led, right up through January 6.
Mass political activity by minorities mainly involved crying for joy and singing. Scary!
Not today.
Minneapolis is 215 miles northwest of here, and right now I'm watching it snow.
Frankly, if Chauvin is found not guilty given the evidence that has been presented so far, it would be an active statement that police are never responsible for their actions, and I would not be surprised to see protests in reaction against that.
But of course the WSJ has a racist take on this. Nothing else expected of the fallen Murdoch rag. And not too surprising that the entire right-wing newspaper cadre is echoing it.
Some black people will surely be involved in reacting, but they won't be the only ones. Head on NPR's 1A today: "I'm an old white lady, and if they don't convict Chauvin, I'm going to break my own damn windows!" I'm with her. In this case, I'd argue it's more about the sheer obviousness of his guilt, and the injustice of a not-guilty verdict.
It won't be just blacks protesting, even if they will be the majority since they are the community more frequently affected by police abuse of power. The reason why so many cities expect protests is because I think everyone realizes how truly pissed off and tired people are about officers avoiding criminal consequences and the circumstances here are particularly outrageous.
Unlike the the recent killings of Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo, which were split second decisions (bad ones) on the part of the officers, and where immediately after you could see the officers in distress upon realizing what they did, here everything happened in slow motion. There was no rush of adrenaline, no sudden actions, everything was slow, well thought, and intentional, and yet Chauvin not once, not while he was snuffing the life out of George Floyd, nor afterwards when he realized he had killed him, did he show the faintest kind of remorse or human empathy for his victim. To make it worse, also unlike those other two killings, here there were plenty of witnesses, video recordings from multiple angles, and plenty of people who tried to plead for Floyd's life for minutes before it was taken. Police abuse couldn't be more avoidable than it was here.
It is already troublesome that the jury has taken this long to come up with a decision, because if a case with as much evidence as this one, and so clear cut like this one, doesn't end up with a conviction on all accounts, then you know the system is completely broken beyond repair, which leaves people few options beyond protesting to try and get things changed.
+1
I think the enormous elephant in the room, so to speak, is that there is, in fact, a history of violent race riots in America. There were hundreds of such riots in the 60s. Growing up in NJ decades later, I still heard people talking about the race riots that set Newark on fire. Were the black people responsible largely responding to discriminatory provocations? I think that’s a fair assessment of the situation. But does that mean it’s racist to point out the historical fact that there have been a lot of violent and destructive race riots involving black people? And to consider that maybe that history is coloring our perceptions to this day?
I said something like this to a younger colleague last year and my impression was that he was visibly shocked. I’m not sure he had ever heard of race riots in the 60s, and I suspect pretty strongly he may have developed the impression I was racist for pointing out that such riots really are a fact of history. I do not point out such things in a judgemental manner: my intention is to point out that they happened and that they may still influence the kind of news coverage that Kevin is talking about. How can we understand our present if we can’t even talk about our past without people thinking that we’re racist?
Nevertheless: logic only holds up so well against social media and social justice warriors. And pointing out that there may be actual historical precedent regarding fears of violent protests by black people is clearly enough to give someone a bad name these days.
I remember going to a pedestrian overpass on I-75 and seeing the smoke rising from downtown Detroit during those riots.
The rioting last year was in no sense a "race riot". The participants in those upheavals include both white and black people, and on the same side.
The 2020 BLM Protests are indeed an interesting example, as are the non-violent protests led by the likes of MLK junior;
However, I didn’t refer to any of those examples. In my post, I reference our history with actual race riots that caused actual damage and real fires that burned real buildings. Again, as in my initial post, my point here is not to cast blame, simply to acknowledge history. Especially since that history does seem to contribute to the news coverage that Kevin is talking about.
Apparently black people will never be able to escape their “history” of rioting, at least as long as the Leo’s of the world are alive to keep just “acknowledging” it as a valid reason that conveniently justifies continuing to mistrust them in the present.
My Grandma was trapped on a cross town bus in the Newark riots. The bus route took them into trouble and then the bus driver abandoned the bus and the passengers. Grandma was working class Irish American originally from Brooklyn but her family moved to New Jersey after her father passed away. She took a job with an insurance company after my grandfather dropped dead of a heart attack in the late 1940s I think. It wasn't too long after that she retired.
“How can we understand our present if we can’t even talk about our past without people thinking that we’re racist?”
Fair enough. But I’ll ask you a question in return: How can black people ever prove to everyone else that - despite what happened over a half century ago in the 1960-1970s - they don’t deserve to be treated with immediate mistrust and suspicion that they’ll riot at a moment’s notice? Or do they just need to wait until the entire generation that remembers widespread urban riots - riots that only erupted after 100+ years of the promise of equality being denied of course! - dies off and leaves behind later generations who aren’t always secretly waiting for them to begin rioting across the whole country again?
I think all of your points are entirely fair. I also think it's fair to point out that, as far as I can tell, bad impressions really do seem to stick around for a long time: whether we like it or not. And that's a strong argument in favor of non-violent protest.
This comment kind of blows my mind. If there is an elephant in the room, it is the long, varied, and vicious history of white violence against minority groups in this country. Heck, less than four months ago, thousands of white people rioted against the federal government in support of a white nativist president. And yet, before the verdict came down, where were the stories about cities gearing up to prevent white riots in case Chauvin were to be acquitted?
It's a curious thing. The actual numbers of people (black or white) killed by the police is not huge and, as Kevin has documented, is decreasing. On the other hand, thousands are dying from COVID-19, from pollution being more intense in black neighborhoods, from lack of healthcare, from low wages, yet the police killings get all the headlines.
Reminds me of 9/11. About 3,000 people died and we went to war. Drunk drivers kill this many people every 4 months, gun violence in general kills this many every month, but we don't go to war on account of these people.
There’s also, I think a legitimate question to ask regarding issues of Misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism (among other problems). Why are they not getting as much attention as racism directed at blacks, Asians, and others?
For example: fifty gay people were massacred in a nightclub in Florida just a few short years ago. My own impression was that the pulse nightclub shooting was a blip on the news. Of course there are too many mass shootings to process: but why didn’t the fact of 50 slaughtered homosexuals make more of an impression? Unless I have forgotten it, there was no congressional bill passed in response to that incident (as there is now in response to violence against Asians).
Likewise, feminists have been asking for centuries why we struggled against one form of enslavement (involving black slaves) and not another (involving woman, wives, etc.).
Not easy questions to answer. Why did a relatively small # of police killings (against black people) lead to such an explosion of attention? A year after George Floyd and I still can’t turn on an NPR station for more than 5 minutes without hearing about police brutality against blacks. Yes: it’s a legitimate issue. But there are so many other valid concerns to focus on. Why has this one dominated media attention, swamped social media for months, and seemingly crowded out other pressing issues?
Why nothing after the Pulse Nightclub shooting? Mitch McConnell. That's why. Also why Misogyny ignored, also why anti-semitism ignored.
To answer your question: history. Subjugation of black people is integral to the American story. Of course issues of the current day that tie into that story are going to get more attention.
Now, look, it is not rare for a non-black person in this country to be just not very impressed with the “black struggle” as it were and to think “hey, lots of people have struggles.” And that’s ok. But what’s with the attempt to shame people who are focused on that struggle? If, someone wants to work on lessening police violence against black people, we should applaud them for pursuing a worthy goal not hector them for failing to pay equal attention to X number of other societal problems.
Re “the verdict” we will likely be hearing soon : https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/chauvin-floyd-trial/?id=77149412
Speaking of which, how Biden weighed in. Note the last bit in particular:
I think he said that last bit in reference to what happened yesterday with Rep Waters comments and how that was brought at court. When the Judge denied the motion for mistrial from the defense he dismissed her comments by saying people don't listen to single Congress people. Pretty sure he would not have said the same about the President's comments.
"Would we make the same assumption if Chauvin's victim were Hispanic or white or Asian or Arab?"
Although the history of the treatments of Hispanics, Asians or Arabs in the past isn't exemplary, it does not come anywhere near what Blacks have endured. There is a lot of deep seated guilt coming to the surface here.
I think there will be protests, and some people will call them riots. I think they will most likely turn violent and destructive in some places, maybe because of police provocation, outside actors or the protesters themselves. And I think it will happen not because of black americans, but because a huge number of americans of all races will be righteously angry and sad and out to make a statement about the injustice of our legal system. I hope there isn't violence, because I don't want to see more injuries or deaths, but if he is found not guilty, I honestly can't bring myself to condemn those who feel that some form of violence in response is required.
As of 5:06 PM Eastern Time, it is officially a moot point.
Now, let's see if white people riot. And what the media calls it if they do.
I am sure the MAGA-in-chief will be apoplectic as will be the talking heads on Fox.
Just to make it easier on the moderators, "MAGA-in-chief" is ex-president Trump; "apoplectic" means extremely indignant.
I hear Brookfield Square Mall in the pivotal Waukesha County is engulfed in flames.
That verdict left me with a remarkable sense of relief.
me too.
> Would we make the same assumption if Chauvin's victim were Hispanic or white or Asian or Arab?
Uh, that's kinda the point. The victim *wasn't* any of those.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
Twenty-nine years ago, a mostly white jury in Simi Valley delivered not-guilty verdicts on LAPD officers who were caught on video beating Rodney King for 15 minutes. They were whacking him as hard as they could with their batons while he was lying on the ground.
A lot of people were genuinely caught off guard, apparently believing that such a verdict did not warrant riots.
If an officer in 2021 can get away with casually killing a man lying on the ground crying out for help, would you not *at least* expect riots?
Simi Valley: home of the Ronald Wilson Reagan Presidential Library.
Re: Rodney King, that's not quite the full story, and you know it. And despite the number of hits, King was out of the hospital in a week or two. Because those officers strikes were at joints, designed to cause pain but not severe and permanent damage. They did what they were trained to do.
In contrast, Kelly Thomas was beaten for, what, a half hour? He was threatened by a Latino cop. He was already searched and had no shirt on. And weighed about 150 pounds. He, like George Floyd, cried out for a parent as he was being attacked by cops. He did and his killers were acquitted. Yet cops didn't riot. I don't think Kevin Drum, in whose county this took place, even got out on the streets.
Here is my completely unscientific, opinion-based response, based on growing up and living my whole life in and around Chicago. The question is a little off-base because I believe that what gets reported as "rioting" is almost entirely carried out by a small number of people, street gangs who are exploiting the situation to do what they do. Burning and looting stores is not a result of community anger at injustice -- it's organized crime using a protest scenario as an opportunistic diversion to steal property. They set fires and create other chaos to keep law enforcement busy, knowing that the unrest will be blamed on the community at large. I live near a shopping mall. After the Floyd murder, the local gangs sent carloads of gangbangers to swarm the parking lot, smash windows and grab whatever they could, then race away with stolen merch. Some local kids got it on video and posted on FB. NOTHING to do with protesting the murder.
Organized crime gangs are by far the biggest problem in POC communities. They have destroyed neighborhoods and destroyed lives by the hundreds. And I believe they are responsible for most of the "unrest" that turns violent after these killings.