Why Derek Chauvin Will Languish in Prison—Regardless of the Facts The George Floyd case shows how America traded the rule of law for the rule of narrative—leaving Derek Chauvin to serve the sentence the storyline demanded. By Roger Kimball
I missed Rachel K. Paulose’s column about George Floyd—sorry, Saint George Floyd—when it appeared in The Spectator World at the end of May. Knowing of my interest in the case, a public-spirited individual brought the column to my attention. I thought it was an appalling regurgitation of the established, but erroneous, narrative about the larcenous, drug-and-woman-abusing miscreant George Floyd and the former police officer primarily involved in his arrest.
Paulose is worried that President Trump might pardon Derek Chauvin, the former policeman who is now rotting away in prison for a long list of federal and state crimes, including multiple counts of murder, manslaughter, and “civil rights deprivation.”
Paulose pretends to be concerned about Donald Trump’s legacy among blacks. He has made such impressive inroads with black voters, she notes. Pity to throw it all away by pardoning someone like Derek Chauvin, a brute who all the world knows callously murdered the noble George Floyd in cold blood by kneeling on his neck and depriving him of oxygen. “President Trump,” she writes, “should respect the verdict of the people and protect his own legacy by rejecting the ignoble calls to absolve the fired officer of his guilt.”
Paulose notes with satisfaction that Trump’s pardon power extends only to federal crimes. To be released from prison, Chauvin would also need to secure a pardon or commutation from the governor of Minnesota. Yes, the governor’s office is overdue for a serious upgrade. Currently, however, the position is held by the great hunter and dispenser of feminine hygiene products in boys’ bathrooms, Tim “Nimrod” Walz. The contingency of Walz granting Chauvin a pardon is, as Jeeves might put it, remote.
I wonder whether Derek Chauvin ran over Paulose’s bicycle when she was a little girl? In her column, she hauls out gigantic hairballs of evidence from Chauvin’s trial to remind readers of what a despicable chap he is. Her most prized evidence comes from Dr. Martin J. Tobin, “an internationally renowned doctor, pulmonologist, and academic” (well then!) who testified that “the cause of Floyd’s death was the position in which Chauvin detained him.” “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to,” quotes Dr. Tobin, “would have died.”
Case closed? Not quite. As I noted in The Spectator in 2021,
Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway—Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had [and so his famous cries of “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe” would have been impossible]—and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.
And that’s not all. As I noted here at American Greatness in 2023, Amy Sweasy, a former prosecutor in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where Chauvin and his unfortunate colleagues were tried, threw a large wrench into the narrative Paulose attempted to salvage. You didn’t read about it in The New York Times or The Washington Post. Neither CNN nor MSNBC devoted airtime to the story. But other, less establishment outlets carried the story. Here, for example, is Alpha News, with the eyebrow-raising headline “Court docs reveal ‘extreme’ public pressure on prosecutors in George Floyd case.”
“New court documents,” the story begins, “expose the ‘extreme pressure’ prosecutors faced in Hennepin County to charge Derek Chauvin and three other former Minneapolis police officers in the death of George Floyd. Several attorneys opposed charging the ‘other three’ officers and withdrew from the case due to ‘professional and ethical rules.’”
I’d wager Derek Chauvin found that interesting. But not as interesting as what followed. During her deposition, Sweasy also discussed a revealing conversation she said she had the day after Floyd’s death, when she asked Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker about the autopsy.
“I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd,” she explained.
“He called me later in the day on that Tuesday, and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy said, according to the transcript.
“He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”
It is worth noting that when he was testifying in court, Andrew Baker told a different tale, opining that Floyd’s death was a homicide.
Which version is true? “No medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation” or “homicide?” There is a difference.
What happens if the whole George Floyd story was a lie and the truth gets out? Nothing. The truth will be ignored, swept under the rug, and discounted utterly. Derek Chauvin, meanwhile, will languish in jail. Floyd’s death required a scapegoat, and Derek Chauvin got the part.
Many people, myself included, like to prattle on about the importance of “the rule of law” and other such nostrums. The case of George Floyd’s demise reminds us that we have been living in a country governed by the rule of narrative, an entirely different dispensation. Rachel Paulose is herself a lawyer, a former U.S. Attorney, in fact. You might think that she would grasp that distinction. But that would be to discount the mesmerizing spell that The Narrative exerts over susceptible spirits.
Comments are closed.
