guilty

Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, blamed for the death of George Floyd—an event that occurred almost one year ago—has been found guilty on all counts by a Minnesota jury.  According to this Epoch Times article, the conviction for second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.

It's impossible to know the inner workings of the jury (which reached a verdict in under 24 hours) and all the details of the trial, but I, along with many others, suspect that fear of rioting and death threats against jurors probably influenced the outcome.  With Maxine Waters's recent incitement being obvious grounds for a mistrial, yet not being acted upon, it's clear that no mitigating factors would have allowed for a different outcome.

My own opinion on Floyd's death has changed over time.  I initially saw Officer Chauvin as obviously guilty, but as more and more facts came out, including the news that the main video of Floyd's death had been highly misleading, I began to experience what you might call reasonable doubts about whether Chauvin had outright murdered Floyd.  Floyd was found with enough fentanyl in his bloodstream to kill a man three times his size; he was saying "I can't breathe" even before he was face-down on the ground; the video of the officer's posture atop Floyd failed to show that Chauvin had not, in fact, been pressing down on Floyd's neck.  (Besides, if Floyd had truly been unable to breathe in that prone position, he would never have been able to say he couldn't breathe.  His airway was clear, but the fentanyl was causing a pulmonary reaction.)  Was all of this evidence (and more) enough to exonerate Chauvin?  I'd say probably not, but it was certainly enough to cause reasonable doubt.  Chauvin should have been acquitted, then possibly retrained in submission techniques when dealing with people who are obviously high.  Does he deserve 40 years in prison for this incident?  I don't think so.