The joke going around these days is that halfway through 2020 we’ve already had 1919 (pandemic), 1929 (stock market crash), 1968 (civil unrest) and 1974 (impeachment).
The #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd protests, and associated rioting and police brutality, are conjuring up memories of this famous Nixon campaign ad from 1968:
Trump has modeled much of his political career on Nixon’s 1968 campaign, and some fear the unrest of 2020 will help his re-election campaign. I don’t know. Unlike Nixon, who could point to civil disorder festering during the Presidency of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, the current situation is happening on his watch.
Trump’s position is more like that of President George H.W. Bush during the L.A. riots in 1992, only he’s handling the situation much more ham-handedly. But David Frum thinks the best comparison is with 1920:
…Trump will not repeat Nixon’s success in 1968, because he does not understand that success. Nixon joined his vow of order to a promise of peace at home and abroad. Trump offers only conflict, and he offers no way out of conflict, because—unlike Nixon in 1968—Trump is himself the cause of so much conflict.
If Trump seeks historical parallels for his reelection campaign, here’s one that is much more apt. There was a campaign in which the party of the president presided over a deadly pandemic at the same time as a savage depression and a nationwide spasm of bloody urban racial violence. The year was 1920. The party in power through these troubles went on to suffer the worst defeat in U.S. presidential history, a loss by a margin of 26 points in the popular vote. The triumphant challenger, Warren Harding, was not some charismatic superhero of a candidate. He didn’t need to be. In 2020 as in 1920, the party of the president is running on the slogan Let us fix the mess we made. It didn’t work then. It’s unlikely to work now.
Hopefully Biden will be an improvement on the guy who won in 1920. He will almost certainly be better than the guy who won in 2016.
Trump’s opponent this fall, acting like an actual leader, met with demonstrators in person and talked to them.
But I want to go back even further, to another time when the United States of America was at war with himself. The President back then was loathed passionately by his political opponents. I’m sure death threats flooded into the White House every day. And then a shooting by authorities inflamed tensions even further.
But that President nevertheless went to the Lincoln Memorial one night, without a heavy security presence, and spent two hours talking to anti-government protesters and hearing their concerns.
Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has a good piece in National Review explaining why charging Officer Chauvin with Third Degree Murder and not a more serious charge was the right move – and why officials’ delay in arresting him was inexcusable:
Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman announced that Chauvin is being charged with third-degree murder — sometimes called “depraved heart” or “depraved indifference” homicide. Under Minnesota law, third-degree murder occurs when a person, without intent to effect the death of a person, nevertheless causes death by an act that is “eminently dangerous to others” and “evince[es] a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”
The penalty is imprisonment for up to 25 years.
This is probably the appropriate charge. It is always dicey to make assessments when we do not know what evidence investigators have, but second-degree murder, which provides for up to 40 years’ imprisonment, must have been considered. That is a “crime of passion” type of homicide — not premeditated, but nonetheless intentional, out of an intense emotional impulse. From what we know of the incident, this appears more elongated and depraved than instantaneous and impulsive. Obviously, I am assuming first-degree murder and its potential life sentence were not on the table because there is no apparent proof of premeditation. (Minnesota does not have capital punishment.)
We don’t have “third degree murder” in Canada. It strikes me as most similar to our offence of “criminal negligence causing death,” which involves “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.”
To be sure, police necessarily get a measure of consideration that the rest of us do not. When police get involved in an altercation, it is presumptively because they are doing their duty to keep the peace, not because they are causing the confrontation. Police use force under the color of law, so, other things being equal, a police use of force enjoys a presumption of legitimacy that a similar use of force by you or me would not.
All that said, it is well known that police may not use excessive force. It is obvious, and was in real time, that Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd was excessive. And this was not a situation in which, after excessive force, everyone dusted off and went on their way. Mr. Floyd died.
Investigators did not need to be sure that they could make a third-degree murder charge stick to know that some kind of prosecutable homicide happened in the killing of George Floyd. This was not a fleeting incident, or a situation in which Floyd was resisting — he was pleading for his life. At the very least, this was a negligent homicide; more likely, it was something worse. Obviously, it was a crime. When a violent crime has clearly happened, the person who committed it should be placed under arrest, immediately.
I doubt it will be fatal to the case, but the prosecution is going to take some hits over the delay. Chauvin’s lawyers will contend that he was not arrested because investigators recognized that there was insufficient evidence; they will add that he was only charged because Minneapolis was burning and the mob had to be satisfied. I do not believe that claim will overcome the evidence of guilt. But the claim would not be available if Chauvin had been arrested promptly, as he should have been.
As for Rod Dreher’s headline, are these riots “unintentionally pro-Trump”? I dunno. Rioting in the late sixties certainly helped Nixon get elected, but his whole message was that he could restore law and order to a country falling into civil unrest under a Democratic President. By contrast, the 1992 Los Angeles rioting certainly didn’t help George H.W. Bush’s re-election chances.
Trump will use violent imagery from Minneapolis in his re-election campaign, with the clear message that he can protect Americans from these people, wink wink. But the fact is, this is happening on his watch. Joe Biden, second-in-command to the first Black President, might be able to do something about it. Trump has proven that he cannot.
Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired for their involvement in the death of a black man who was held down with a knee as he protested that he couldn’t breathe, officials said Tuesday.
The FBI is investigating the incident, which drew widespread condemnation of the officers after a video showing part of the encounter circulated on social media.
The death of George Floyd, 46, drew hundreds of people to the streets of Minneapolis on Tuesday.
Protesters — many wearing face masks — held “I can’t breathe” signs and chanted together near the site of Monday’s incident. Some motorists honked in support.
Mayor Jacob Frey has said the technique used to pin George Floyd’s head to the ground was against department regulations.
After several minutes of pleading with an officer pressing a knee to the back of his neck, the man appeared motionless, his eyes shut, his head against the pavement.
Frey, speaking during a town hall streamed on Facebook, said the officer had no reason to employ the hold on the man’s neck.
“The technique that was used is not permitted; is not a technique that our officers get trained in on,” he said. “And our chief has been very clear on that piece. There is no reason to apply that kind of pressure with a knee to someone’s neck.”
The video shows two officers by the man on the ground — one of them with his knee over the back of the man’s neck. The video did not capture what led up to the arrest or what police described as the man resisting arrest.
“Please, I can’t breathe,” the man said, screaming for several minutes before he became silent. Bystanders urged the officer to release the man from his hold.
When white police officers kill an African-American suspect, there’s really no way to remove racial issues from the case. As Snopes notes, African-Americans and other racial minorities are sadly overrepresented among people killed by American police officers.
And yet, as the same article concedes, a plurality of police shooting victims are not people of color:
Any “analysis” of police killings will of course show that in absolute numbers, more white people are killed in police shootings than black people, because (non-Hispanic) whites comprise a roughly five times greater share of the U.S. population (62% vs. 13%). So any “analysis” that is based on nothing more than absolute numbers and does not take demographics into account is inaccurate and misleading.
According to Fatal Encounters, the database created by former Reno News & Review editor and journalism instructor Burghart (which tracks all deaths resulting from interactions with police), a total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites.
The grim trend has carried over into 2016. …
If systemic racism were the only reason this keeps happening, I suspect these already disturbing numbers would be even more disproportionate than they already are. Not to mention the fact that sometimes – as in the heavily publicized Freddie Gray case in 2015 – some officers involved in the killing of African-American suspects are themselves Black.
(And then there’s this freaking lunatic, who represents everything wrong with American law enforcement, and who had a bad habit of letting people die of dehydration in his jails before he was finally forced out.)
I wonder if the increasing militarization of police forces, as documented in Radley Balko’s excellent, disturbing book Rise of the Warrior Cop, is a major factor. The recent Waco miniseries which aired on Netflix has some major problems – it is way too charitable toward cult leader David Koresh and his inner circle – but there is a very memorable scene in which Michael Shannon’s FBI negotiator character surveys the military equipment deployed by law enforcement and discusses the difference between the mission of police officers and that of the military. Police are supposed to defuse volatile situations; military personnel are trained to kill.
It’s now very common for surplus military equipment to end up in the hands of law enforcement – aided and abetted by the Trump Administration, because of course it would be – and it’s hardly a stretch to imagine a militaristic kill-everything-that-moves mindset trickling down even to the lowest ranking police officers.
When you see the public as potential enemies instead of citizens you’re trying to serve, you’re going to have more and more incidents like the killing of George Floyd. That’s why I say it’s always – always – your duty as a citizen to take out your phone and film whenever you see police arresting a suspect.
I don’t feel this way because I am opposed to the police. I feel this way because I respect police officers – who, like Cst. Heidi Stevenson, regularly put their lives on the line to protect us – and want them to do their jobs properly. A free society must be able to trust its police forces.
A B.C. woman who uses a walker for mobility has been awarded $55,000 in damages after a judge determined she was “falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and battered” by an RCMP officer in the province’s north.
Irene Joseph was 61 years old when Const. Darrin Meier forced her to the ground and tried to handcuff her outside a Mark’s Work Wearhouse in Smithers back in December 2014.
The officer suspected her of shoplifting, according to a court decision that was posted online this week, but let her go after a search of her purse failed to turn up any stolen merchandise.
Joseph, who is reported to be an elder from the Wet’suwet’en Nation, sued the Attorney General of Canada over the encounter, and a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled in her favour on Friday.
Ms. Joseph thankfully survived. Otherwise, the cases are remarkably similar. (As I’ve long said, we Canadians are not as similar to Americans as Americans think, but not as different from Americans as we like to think.)