Photos: YouTube
On Monday, closing arguments in the Derek Chauvin murder trial will begin after his defense rested Thursday with Chauvin’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Chauvin’s cowardly refusal to testify is more proof that he is nothing more than a cold-blooded murderer. He now hopes one juror will distort justice and help him obtain a hung jury.
Legal experts will opine that Chauvin’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right should not be seen as an admission of guilt. That view is the standard legal definition we have been taught about the Fifth Amendment.
However, Derek Chauvin is being tried for the crime of murder when he was a police officer. He was not a civilian when he murdered George Floyd as he is now.
Why should it matter whether he was a civilian of police officer?
Well, we should ask ourselves this question: should’ve we hold people who carry the title “law enforcement officer” to a higher standard than we do for civilians?
We often hear police apologists complain that Black America says nothing about so-called “Black-on-Black-crime.” For one thing, this red herring argument ignores the fact that all racial groups primarily victimize members of their own group at similar numbers.
But the other foolish thing about this faulty reasoning is it seeks to equate the conduct of civilians with that of cops. This is obviously silly since police are supposed to be defenders of the “rule of law.”
In that respect, we should have a negative inference toward a police officer who doesn’t want to testify after killing someone in broad daylight—after keeping his knee on the neck of the victim for 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
Chauvin’s invocation came after a weak defense presentation where he only called seven witnesses, to the 38 witnesses called by the prosecution.
We’ve all heard legal analysts say the prosecution has the highest bar to overcome to prove their case of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The truth is, because of the video, even before this case began, this prosecution was basically there already.
In this trail, from the beginning, it is the defense who was faced with an uphill battle to explain the murder of George Floyd.
When all is said and done, it is the videotape of Chauvin’s callous, cold-blooded, slow-motion murder of George Floyd which will make it impossible to justify his criminal conduct. It remains the strongest piece of evidence against Chauvin.
In fact, this reality is why defense attorney Eric Nelson was unable to find credible expert witnesses to testify. He was forced to produced two compromised “experts”: cop trainer Barry Brodd and retired Maryland medical examiner Dr. David Fowler.
Brodd, who has been training police for 30 years, made this ludicrous comment during his testimony “I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified, was acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement in his interactions with Mr. Floyd.”
Brodd’s testimony is an example of deceitful police authorities who always seek to excuse the most egregious criminal conduct of cops.
Brodd also showed his police bias when he testified in the trial of Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke. In that case, he said Van Dyke was justified in shooting Laquan McDonald down dead in a hail of 16 bullets—as McDonald was walking away from police, in 2014.
After many of these racial policing killings we often hear talk about the need for more training. Here we have a trainer testifying in two cases where it couldn’t be clearer the officers are guilty of murder. What should that tell us?
Here is another thing to remember: Derek Chauvin was the most senior officer present when George Floyd was murdered. As the veteran officer on the scene, why was his criminal behavior so much worse?
In the Daunte Wright case, officer Kim Potter was a 26-year veteran, and trainer, of police. If training was really the issue, why do we see veteran officers, who are also trainers, perpetrating these types of murderous crimes? If it’s a matter of training, why don’t we seen innocent white people being killed in the same way Black Americans are by police?
The other compromised “expert” witness who testified for Chauvin was Dr. David Fowler. He claimed Floyd’s death should’ve been classified as “undetermined.”
A man gets murdered after being oxygen-deprived for nearly ten minutes and this fraud tells us the death should be ruled “undetermined?” Fowler sought to sure up the Chauvin defense strategy that George Floyd’s drug use and health problems are what really killed him.
How dumb do these people think we really are?
Apparently, we’re supposed to be so impressed by Dr. Fowler’s Queen’s English that we will forget the murder we see with our eyes on the 9 minutes and 29 seconds snuff film that captures Chauvin’s crime. Fowler’s testimony was largely nothing more than fancy-sounding gobbledygook.
Moreover, Dr. Fowler is currently facing a federal lawsuit for ruling that the Maryland police killing of Anton Black was an accident. Anton Black died after he was held, face down, with three cops, and a white civilian, on top of him, for six minutes.
The fact that Fowler and Brodd are the best Chauvin could find does not bode well for him—especially, since the Blue Wall was not erected in his defense. In fact, all of the police officials who testified against Chauvin may be what ultimately convicts him along with the video.
Chauvin’s decision not to testify will also likely be taken into mental account by jurors, regardless of the judge’s instructions on the Fifth Amendment.
There are indeed scenarios where an invocation of the Fifth Amendment shouldn’t be taken as incriminating. But not for an officer accused in a crime like this as Chauvin is.
Why would an innocent police officer not step up and tell jurors why he did what he did? Chauvin knows if he testified his prior bad acts (including some 18 complaints) would be fully exposed.
Derek Chauvin is gambling that there is one holdout juror who will secure a hung jury for him.
We’re about to find out if he is right.
