Shouldn’t The Ruling Be Evident?
No matter how they try to flip-it, former-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is guilty.
By Chardonnay Beaver
Influential Speaker, Storyteller, Creator of WOWbyChar, and University of Washington Student.
After witnessing Chauvin kneel on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds last May, a defensible uproar occurred. Some have even referred to Summer 2020 as the new civil rights movement. However, when the smoke cleared matters still had to be addressed. In the trial of Derek Chauvin, here are three notable moments.
The chief of the Minneapolis Police Department testified that Chauvin had “absolutely” violated department policy when he knelt on Floyd's neck for more than 9 minutes last May.
Floyd’s emergency room physician, Dr. Langenfeld testified that Floyd’s condition upon his arrival to the hospital was that of a cardiac arrest. In short, his heart stopped.
Chauvin’s former training director confirmed that he would have been taught to offer medical aid.
Regardless of how they rephrase it or clarify, the video that surfaced in May 2020 provides a thorough illustration of what transpired. The repetitive screening of Chauvin's actions invoke a shared trauma amongst the witnesses, apparent in their testimonies. Unfortunately, irrelevant matters―such as Floyd’s history of drug use― were put into question to distract the main concern at hand. Don't they have enough evidence to conclude this trial and release the verdict? Shouldn’t the ruling be evident? When a trial is conducted between the state and a
defendant, the prosecutor defends on behalf of the people within that state. It is in the name of Minnesotans justice is pursued. Justice must also be served on behalf of the family of George Floyd, with hopes that this case is a victory for Black lives as well.