Liberals in the media have been acting in bad faith since the death of George Floyd last May. So, there’s no reason to believe they’d have a change of heart now that the murder trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has started.
For months, they helped spin the lie that Floyd was just an innocent black man ruthlessly crushed under the knee of a racist white police officer, even after the evidence showed that the incident was more than likely a freak accident. Floyd did not die from a neck injury, but probably instead from a very weak heart giving out from stress and drugs.
Now, liberals such as Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post are eagerly sowing doubt about the entire legal system in anticipation of an acquittal.
“Remember — as if anyone could forget — that the U.S. criminal justice system is on trial as well,” Robinson wrote Monday. “And remember that, quite literally, the whole world is watching.”
The whole world is not “quite literally” watching. But in any event, let’s not pretend Robinson’s implication isn’t actually a threat. It is.
What does it mean that the criminal justice system is “on trial”? It doesn’t quite literally mean anything. But what Robinson is suggesting is that there is only one acceptable outcome in the trial of Chauvin — a conviction. Without a conviction, according to Robinson, the system will have failed.
Robinson cannot be this ignorant, although I must say that nothing surprises me anymore.
As imperfect as it is, our system’s effectiveness is not measured by whether it produces verdicts that liberals agree with. It’s demonstrated by the ability of a jury of the defendant’s peers to observe all relevant facts at hand and then deliver a conviction if and only if the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure, sometimes the outcome doesn’t seem right. But there’s no better way of doing things.
The Floyd case is admittedly messy. The initial video endlessly publicized by the media appears to show Chauvin using excessive force that caused an unnecessary death. But subsequent evidence painted a much different picture — a sequence of events and underlying factors that complicated the media’s initial narrative about policing and race.
Police engaged Floyd after he had apparently used a counterfeit bill to purchase cigarettes at a convenience store. The 911 callers had said Floyd was intoxicated and out of control.
When the police arrived, Floyd refused to comply with orders to show his hands. He began yelling erratically, and, as the state’s own complaint against Chauvin admits, he resisted arrest, forcing himself to fall to the ground and refusing to sit in the squad car.
The medical examiner found potent levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl in Floyd’s system and characterized Floyd’s heart disease as “severe.”
All of that is somewhat inconvenient for liberals such as Robinson because they want a conviction in order to reinforce their narrative that white police officers are on a rampage against black people (which is not true) and that white supremacy is raining down on every corner of the nation (also not true).
If there is no conviction, don’t expect Robinson to say it’s because the facts led the jurors to a different conclusion than the one he predetermined 10 months ago. He’ll say it’s because the system failed.
