So Grieved A Cloud of Witnesses
There are few experiences in life so visceral as watching death.
Three days into the Derek Chauvin trial, that visceral reaction so many had to the initial video of the death of George Floyd is once again raw. We’ve all seen the excruciating 9 minutes and 29 seconds of video in which the body of George Floyd was between the pavement of 38th and Chicago outside Cup Foods and the knee of Derek Chauvin. The precise moment the spirit of George Floyd left that body, we will never know.
The scene has been relived over the course of the trial. The voices and shouts of the crowd that was there have moved from mere voices to faces and people as they sit to testify for the prosecution. Each has their own unique backgrounds and stories. Each has that one terrible, deadly moment that has linked their lives and brought them back to that scene of death again some 10 months later. Each is getting their moment on the stand, first for the prosecution’s carefully prepared line of questions, then the defense’s efforts to discredit them.
Through it all, there is a theme developing.
Charles McMillian, amid breaking down on the stand after having watched video of what he saw live that day, said “what I watched was wrong… I felt helpless.”
A minor who was there and recorded video, her identity being protected, testified “It’s been nights I’ve stayed up apologizing to George Floyd for not doing more and not physically interacting and not saving his life. But it’s not what I should have done, it’s what [Chauvin] should have done.”
Christopher Martin, the teenager who was working the counter at Cup Foods and was handed the counterfeit $20 by Floyd that started the whole incident, lamented “If I would have just not taken the bill, this could have been avoided.”
Genevieve Hansen, a firefighter who was also in the crowd, alternated between lamenting, like the other witnesses, and being combative with defense counsel. “I tried calm reasoning, I tried to be assertive, I pled and was desperate… I was desperate to give help.”
Donald Williams, an MMA fighter who’s voice is prominent in the George Floyd video, listened to himself on a 911 call he made that day. A call he made to the police about what the police was doing right in front of him: “Man, I’m sitting here, talking with another off duty firefighter (Hansen) that keeps saying they’re watching in front of us as well. She told him to check the man’s pulse, but they wouldn’t even check the pulse.” Then, fending off the defense’s cross that he was growing progressively angrier during the incident, Williams explained to the court “they grew more and more pleading — for life.”
Helplessness. Grief. Anger. Resentment. These are the common threads weaving through the testimony of the Derek Chauvin trial. These are the feelings of the witnesses who were there and watched it happen. These are the universal emotions of humans faced with mortality, of living beings watching death up close and personal and not being able to do a thing about it. These are emotions and events that have been with humans since the first of our species returned to the earth, however long ago.
The new modern twist is the video of death. Everything about the Derek Chauvin trial centers around videos of death. The images of last year, already seared in so many minds, start to burn and char around the edges of our memories again. The crowd. The police officers blocking the crowd. The police officer with the knee to the neck of George Floyd. And now in the Derek Chauvin trial, the witnesses and the rest of us are reliving it again.
Are the witnesses coming off combative? Sure. They’ve been through a trauma; they watched a man die right in front of them. They know on a visceral level a wrong was done here. Ten months of additional information, of back story, of toxicology, of additional video, of the social and civil unrest that followed, of nearly a year of trying to think of something, anything else, all brought to a head. The legal system requires all of us to hash it out again, as a jury of his peers is charged with determining the culpability of the man at the center of all those images. A man no longer in a Minneapolis police uniform with his knee on his neck as the crowd begs, pleads, threatens, and implores to let George Floyd up. Now it’s a suited and booted Derek Chauvin at the defense table while the crowd once again faces him down, saying what they saw, and felt, and experienced. Once again Chauvin doesn’t respond except for the occasional scribbling on his legal pad.
As he should. Derek Chauvin should sit quietly. He should let his counsel give him the best defense he can muster. We should not convict people in America based solely on emotion, just feelings, just video, just circumstances. We have to have some law, most people intrinsically feel. Most folks know in their head the complications of getting a vast concept like justice codified into written words that contain the power of life and death is complicated. Their hearts tell them those written words must mean something. Their experiences make them fear they won’t. Their eyes are telling them that it might all be insufficient to the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, to the ten months since, to the three days and counting of reliving it on the record.
They can feel it again, that helpless feeling, that feeling that something very wrong is going on here, that it is out of their control.
They are grieving.
They are angry.
Chauvin’s defense counsel Eric Nelson has made anger of the crowd an issue from his opening statement on. It’s as good a defense strategy as any. Nelson has to convince at least one of the jurors that the anger of the crowd, or the anger of George Floyd, or the toxicology report, or anything of any other reason possible excuses what everyone saw in those 9 minutes and 29 seconds of video. To create a reasonable doubt that Derek Chauvin is guilty of murdering the man who died between his knee and the pavements of 38th and Chicago. Chauvin is entitled to this defense, or any other his counsel sees fit to present within the confines of the law and the judge’s indulgences.
But the note of accusing everyone of anger rings hollow. When pressing Williams about his own anger, and his angry words, and his angry threats after, Williams sensed the bait. “I grew professional. I stayed in my body,” Williams said. “You can’t paint me out to be angry.” There is plenty of anger going around. Since Williams used the term “blood choke” the usual suspects who are utterly convinced a great wrong is being perpetrated upon not Floyd but Derek Chauvin are really upset online and debating choke holds. Debating “blood choke,” which does exactly what it sounds like it does in cutting off blood flow to the brain. How that didn’t happen here, and how even if it did that is fine.
George the addict died of a drug OD and Chauvin just happened to be there, they’ll explain if you get them talking enough. All the particulars must be examined in excruciating detail. Clinical detail. No emotion involved in it. That wouldn’t be fair, you see, to the officer of the law who was facing an angry crowd, like Nelson is selling to the court. Anger in the crowd is wrong, you see. Angry crowd excuses, he explained. Angry people made letting George Floyd get any medical attention even for a full minute after EMS arrived on scene impossible, they say.
God help anyone who thinks watching a human being die slowly, for any reason, for almost 10 minutes without anyone one being allowed to help him or intervene in his death shouldn’t arouse some sense of anger.
I don’t have the words for how angry all this makes me. Anger at the one-sided demand for understanding and empathy from the folks who had all the power and control over the life and death of George Floyd but wash their hands of any responsibility. Anger at folks online who absolutely think Chauvin was justified in anything and everything he did and how dare you question him at all. Anger at many of those same folks that think because he was uncooperative, or high, or whatever thinly veiled reason that is proffered that is really just “Floyd had it coming to him” with clever nomenclature. Anger that this whole thing could have been, should have been avoided. Anger at what came in the aftermath of what happened in front of Cup Foods that day: more anger, more destruction, more death, and not one bit of discernable change since that might prevent the next time. Anger at what it tells us about us as a people, country, and society.
But all we outside observers can do is take the example of Donald Williams. Stay professional, stay within our bodies. And hope that there is some justice coming for something that there probably isn’t any equal earthly justice for.
And pray against hope that whatever the outcome of this Derek Chauvin trial, we don’t end up with even more anger. More trials. More witnesses. More to grieve.
A visceral, angry, hopeless circle of life and death.
One thing that might help with reforming police is implementing a variation of CRM (Crew/Cockpit Resource Management). One of the big things about it is if the people around you are telling you that you are doing something wrong, you have a duty to listen to them and re-evaluate your current course of action.Report
Good luck breaking through that Thin Blue Line!Report
I remember a photographer- I think it must have been Nan Goldin- did a book of photos on domestic violence years ago. And the project actually began by chance: she was photographing a wealthy couple for a profile of their luxurious lifestyle when the wife angered the abusive husband, who started beating her up. What was striking was he’s beating his wife in front of a professional photographer- who’s photographing this crime- and he just thinks it’s his right and responsibility to punish his wife. I think that’s a common attitude with abusive people.
What I keep thinking with Chauvin is will he ever express remorse or sadness or any friggin emotion? Everyone else in the trial has, but I’ve never seen any indication of feeling on his part, aside from anger and annoyance in that video. It’s creepy.Report
He was following procedure.
Even if he made a mistake, cops have to be allowed to make mistakes.
And so on.Report
They will say 99% of the suspects put in one of these holds lives to see his or her day in court. It was a department approved technique and but for the drugs in Floyd’s system and delays caused by being surrounded by these vaguely threatening gawkers he would very likely be alive today.
Which is all kind of besides the point of the larger issues but those aren’t a basis for conviction.Report
It’s exactly like Covid denial; 98.5% live, so it’s not a problem.Report
Yeah, I think the witnesses are definitely going to be put on trial here, which I suppose we could call the “Look what you made me do!” defense.Report
I’d be surprised if, for example, 99% of people with Floyd’s health and drug issues would die if cuffed and left lying on their backs without a knee to the neck — or any significant percentage at all. You take your victim as you find him.Report
If we’re talking negligence then sure. I actually think charging most of these questionable police killings as murder is an error (not sure where we are on that with Chauvin). They’re more like manslaughter. But it’s always hard to convict when whatever happened was ‘by the book,’ even where the book is terrible.Report
Last year provided one heck of a utilitarian calculus.
Last year’s murder rates jumped over 2019’s.
NPR:
Fox News via The New York Post:
If you want to read long-form speculation on why it’s happening, who better than Vox? In the Vox article, there’s a section called “We know less about why there’s a spike, but there are some theories” that you should check out but here are the answers (without the paragraphs that go into explaining each answer):
1) The pandemic has really messed things up
2) Depolicing led to more violence
3) Lack of trust in police led to more violence
4) More guns led to more gun violence
5) Overwhelmed hospitals led to more deaths
6) Idle hands led to more violence
7) A bad economy led to more violence
It’s probably some combination of multiple ones of those, but if it’s mostly because of 1, 5, 6, and 7, then that’s pretty much good news. The Pandemic is thiiiiiis close to being over and by, oh, 2022, everything should be 100% back to normal with movie theaters and going out to Chili’s for fajitas and whatnot.
If it’s 3, then the cops have a lot of work to do.
If it’s 4, then they have a lot of work to do and 3 is a pre-req.
If it’s 2? Well, 2 is unlikely to create a stable equilibrium. It’s eventually going to result in multiple shifts in public policy. Among those will be even more protections for the police.
Keep your fingers crossed for 1, 5, 6, and 7.Report
I wouldn’t expect to see expressions of remorse or sadness at this time. IANAL, but I suspect that Chauvin’s lawyer advised him against displays of emotion for the time being in favor of saving expressions of remorse for the sentencing phase if and when he’s convicted.
Apart from the advice of counsel, I would also be surprised by any shows of remorse because Chauvin’s emotional priority right now is surviving, what are for him, the terrifying unknowns of the future. Moreover, remorse would probably require reconciling a self-image as one of the good guys with the reality that he committed a heinous act.
These impediments to remorse are further backloaded with an internalized cop culture that doesn’t allow for uncertainty, regret, or guilt over the use of aggression. Cops must upset people and sometimes hurt people while doing their jobs, so they build up emotional armor against the normal psychic inhibitions and prohibitions against harming others. Assuming Chauvin has an underlying mature conscience, which is not always a safe assumption, it may take some time for him to get to a place where genuine remorse is even possible. In the meantime, he’ll be testing and tweaking messy internal narratives about the events that day, trying to make all of this okay against the backdrop of futility in the likely event that he’s convicted.
Caveat: These are hypotheses subject to revisions as more information becomes available.Report
I think this is all probably right. One of the things I find fascinating about policing today is how they seem to be required to perform contempt towards whoever it is they’re dealing with. It seems like it probably comes from their training, but I don’t remember the anger before. I’ve also talked to older, mostly retired cops, who say they’re frankly scared of younger cops, which I took as a comment on their new protocols, rather than as individuals.Report
There’s a saying that floated around the twitters for a while there:
Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes to mean “treating someone like an authority”
For some, “if you don’t respect me, I won’t respect you” means “if you don’t treat me like an authority, I won’t treat you like a person”Report
Blame the war on drugs. A cynical little political ploy took already bad, biased policing and made it worse.
Because it turned a giant swathe of people from “victims” to “criminals”.
A guy buying weed, or smoking weed, was not a threat to a cop. But suddenly anyone with enough pocket space for a joint was walking around committing a felony, and cops were suddenly surrounded by felons.
And of course, taking their already biased policing — the culture of “putting the wrong sorts in their place” that American has cultivated so long — and said “They don’t even have to be DOING anything now to be a felon. The felony could be in their pockets or even in their bloodstream RIGHT NOW.”.
And of course then we armed them and conflated every type of drug and drug related violence together, until some guy with a joint in his pocket was every bit as dangerous as a cartel soldier blasted out of his mind on a suicide run. We gave them military equipment and told them they NEEDED it.
So now you’ve got cops, armed to the teeth like they’re going to war, surrounded by people who could ALL be felons, could ALL be committing awful crimes right this second.
Oh, and then we gave everyone a camera in their pocket and suddenly that “keeping the wrong sorts in their place” bit started going national, when it was supposed to just happen in back rooms and alleys so the “right sorts” could pretend it never happened.Report
It seems like it might be a good time for another reading group selection:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16043524-rise-of-the-warrior-copReport
I’ve been following Radley since his Agitator days. I read this when it came out and it sits on my bookshelf. I would venture that speaking intelligently on this topic requires reading Balko. No one understands it better.
That said the book’s search for a larger narrative makes what should be great work into just a good one. He continually references the spirit of the 3rd Amendment in ways that may check a box for an editor telling him to ‘tie it all together’ but being a lawyer it came off to me as a really weird digression.Report
Great comment.
(For the record, this is why my immediate response to Gun Control Now! is to suspect that The War On Guns will becomes the new War On Drugs and all of the visions of Cletus having his front door kicked in, as sweet on the tongue as they are, will turn sour in the stomach when the footage of the cops shooting yet another Young Black Male on Black Lives Matter Boulevard because, hey, he went for his waistband. The object he was holding looked like it could have been a gun.)Report
From what I’ve seen, body cam footage tends to show the opposite, with officers tending toward calmness, trying to prevent a situation from escalating. Not all of them, of course. And body cams surely encourage better behaviour. But I’ve been impressed by how many claims of police misconduct have been debunked by unedited footage.Report
I think there is a bit of a selection bias involved with that, in that departments that have a culture that is respectful of the citizenry tend to see the value in body cams and encourage and accept their usage all the time, and make the footage readily available to the public.
And departments that know the body cam footage is going to be damning don’t adopt them, or turn them off all the time, or let batteries run out, or lock down the footage so the public almost never sees it.Report
I’m going by what I’ve seen in my own limited interactions with police and how I’ve watched them interact with the public more frequently. It’s all anecdotal I suppose, but here they seem to start with anger and escalate until the person knuckles under. I don’t know that it’s misconduct so much as some people are just a-holes, but I can’t imagine it encourages good responses or public enthusiasm for cops.Report