Appeasing a Racist Mob Isn't Justice: Chauvin Verdict is A Travesty of Justice

By Rich Kozlovich

 

First, to prove murder you have to show means, motive and intent.   Although motive isn't an absolute requirement prosecutors show motive to show intent.  Intent defines the difference between a deliberate action or an accident.  As for means, we'll come to that.  Then there's "mens rea", which is Latin meaning "guilty mind".  'To be convicted of a crime, the law requires the defendant to be deserving of punishment based on culpability or blameworthiness."  Did Derek Chauvin have a "guilty mind"?

 

We have six questions that need to be asked and answered.  Here's my two part Q&A that needs addressing:

1. Was there malice of forethought in Officer Chauvin's actions? 
2. Did he intend to do harm to George Floyd?  
3. Did he know his actions would cause Floyd to die?  
4. Did he demonstrate reckless disregard?  
5. Did Officer Chauvin have a guilty mind? 

Answers: 

1. There was no malice, including any malice based on systemic racism.  
2. There was no evidence of a "guilty mind".   
3. He didn't go there to deliberately harm Floyd, and there was no reason to believe Floyd would die from Chauvin's actions.  
4. Did he show reckless disregard?  Reckless disregard is defined as being "grossly negligent without concern for danger to others", which given the circumstances, the answer must also be no.  

And we'll come back to that.

  

This bring us to part two:

1. Was there "actus reas" by Floyd?  In other words did Floyd just merely want to commit the crime, or did he actually did commit a crime that officers, including Chauvin, had to respond to? That's the core of the issue.  And the answer?
   

George Floyd did commit a crime, and it was a crime he clearly intended to commit.  And the police did come in response to a call to his criminal act, and thusly, had to respond to that criminal action by Floyd.  And then when confronted for his criminal activity, he fought with the police, so there was no criminal intent or motive by the police, and holding him down isn't "means"!  Chauvin's actions didn't cut off his air supply, and the man was found to have serious levels of illegal drugs in his body, and at a level many considered toxic.

 

Entirely too many have lost perspective on this issue.  

 

This all came about because of this thug was attempting to pass a counterfeit $20.00 bill.  The police came as a response to that because...... and here it comes, watch out now, watch out now, here it comes...... passing counterfeit currency is a crime.  Really, it really is a crime.  Not only is it a crime, it's a federal crime.  The actions thereafter, even if some procedure wasn't followed, does not constitute murder.

  

As for the guy's complaining how he can't breathe, which may have been true, but do we really believe the cops don't hear that kind of thing all the time?  Chauvin was the last to appear at the scene and the man was already complaining about not being able to breathe before he got there.

 

What if that's nothing but a ploy to continue to resist the cops, and potentially represent a hazard to the lives of the police.  It isn't like they don't hear this kind of stuff all the time, and remember, his alleged inability to breath didn't keep him from resisting the police in the first place.  So then, why would they believe him?  But they still apparently called the EMT's.  So, they clearly they were not guilty of reckless disregard or even depraved indifference.  They demonstrated good cop concern. 

 

Let's take a look at this case as an example of what police go through on a regular basis:

  

In Atlanta, a man named Rayshard Brooks is passed out in the drive-thru of a Wendy's. It took some time for the police to get him to wake up and move his car. They interacted with Brooks for about an hour before getting him situated so they could get him in the back of a police car.

When the police attempted that, Brooks became violent and fought the police. He shoved one to the ground so hard that he caused a concussion. He grabbed one of the officer's Tasers and bolted. The second officer gave chase, and Brooks attempted to turn and fire the Taser. The officer responded with deadly force.

And the public response from local political "leaders"?

Local politicians immediately painted the officer as the bad guy. Of course, had Brooks successfully incapacitated the officer, perhaps he could have gotten the officer's gun. Judging the officer in the split second and making him the bad guy to placate the mob is not really justice. It just feels like justice as some have internalized the narrative that the police are racist. 

Cops are in a no win situation because these leftist anti-American politicians have been giving tacit permission to resist arrest, ignore police instructions, and in point of fact, to fight the police, even killing them.  All without a peep of outrage from these race pandering politicians.  

 

Cops have to evaluate every situation, and in this case the situation Chauvin was put in made him face a hostile crowd while holding down a criminal who was drug impacted and resisted arrest.  Would he have reacted violently if let up?  Who wants to find out?  That alone justified holding him down, specifically since videos showed other officers had to hold back the hostile crowd who were shouting obscenities at them and rushing at them.  

 

And in face of that are they suppose to do a "check list" to make sure they did everything by the book?  Even the EMT's fled afraid to do their job, even inside the ambulance, and I don't blame them.  They have no desire to end up dead leaving their families with the consequences of their loss for the benefit of a thug and a mob of thugs.   And their loss is the kind of loss that diminishes society, unlike the loss of  George Floyd who was a drug addict, a criminal and a thug, and if he had lived, he'd have continued to be a parasite on society.

 

And this pattern of mob violence in support of thugs and criminals like George Floyd, by blacks, against police is an unending pattern, forcing police to act accordingly.  When you fight with the police someone is going to get hurt, and why should it be the cops?

 

Chauvin is not guilty of murder on any count, and has become nothing more than a sacrificial lamb on the alter of Political Correctness and Critical Race Theory, all scams, all cons, and a slow suicide for America.  

 

When this very thing, and worse, was done to a white guy, that cop wasn't prosecuted and no one rioted.  Imagine that!  As for the media, they said little to nothing about it, and apparently the political sewer trout must not have even known about it since they were silent.  Right?  Well, my guess is they didn't care since a cop killing a white has no traction with leftist rabble rousers and a corrupt media.

 

We need to get our heads on straight about what this really is all about. 

 

There was no crime by the cops, there was  no motive, there was no intent, there was no means, and holding down a thug resisting arrest in the face of a violent threatening mob isn't means.

 

Candace Owens said it best after this verdict was read: "we have a pandemic of cowardice going on in this country".   

 

One of my all time favorite books is To Kill a Mocking Bird, which was an absolutely anti-racist book if there ever was one, and now some from the Church of Wokeness crowd want to ban it.  Which is ironic because different racists wanted to ban it when it came out. 

 

But for those who've read and loved that book,  (The movie was great, the book was greater) there's a question that needs asked and answered. 

  

Where Have You Gone, Atticus Finch?