This week's column is going to be shorter than normal (that background noise you just heard is the sigh of relief my editor just released) and will be a mixture of a couple of topics. Such is life. Just as I missed a column a couple of weeks ago for medical reasons, matters medical are popping up again. No, not me, but rather family members. Nothing dangerous or high risk, but one family member is finally getting some long awaited surgery as Covid panic releases its hold on hospitals. And we are coming into the zone where our first grandson may be arriving shortly from my youngest daughter and her husband. Add to that the impending return of my son, his wife, our first granddaughter who is just shy of 2, and the grandchild-to-be-coming-soon to Colorado; things are getting busy.
So bear with the jumping around.
For the last several weeks, we have been discussing the riots and attacks on police nationwide. They are taking place pretty much exclusively in generationally Democrat controlled urban areas. It cannot be denied. And it cannot be denied that the rioters and attackers are getting a pass on any charges. The worst that happens is that they are held overnight, regardless of what they are accused of doing (arson, looting, assault with or without deadly weapons, etc.) and then they are released without charges the next day. And not infrequently are arrested again for the same things again and again for the same things and released again within days.
If the police are involved, they get either assaulted, or are charged with crimes for doing their jobs. We talked last week about the trial (for some limited values of trial) of Derek Chauvin of the Minneapolis Police Department. Chauvin DID restrain known felon and drug dealer George Floyd. At the time of the restraint, Floyd was already several times fatally overdosed with both Fentanyl and Methamphetamines. As in no chance of survival. Miraculous happy endings happen on TV, not on the streets.
Now that the trial is over, we know the evidence presented. Despite claims that Chauvin was racist, the crack prosecutorial team at no time presented any evidence that Chauvin did or said anything that could be construed as racist. He did physically restrain Floyd, by the means that was required by his Department until the day after the arrest and which was the only lawful means of restraint in that situation. Despite an edited video that was widely shown repeatedly that claimed that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck. That was proved to be an artifact of the angle. The complete video showed that his knee was on the neck and shoulder and not interfering with either air or blood flow. The Fentanyl and Speed that Floyd voluntarily gulped, to avoid being caught with it, is what ended his life.
Chauvin was charged with multiple variants of charges of murder. And he was found guilty on every one, regardless of whether it applied. Two reasons. First and foremost, everyone involved from the judicial system was terrified by the prospect of BLM and ANTIFA locating them and their families and killing them. Second, inter-related, was official action to make sure of a conviction. The jury was NOT sequestered from the news until after being sent to deliberate. Which means that the news that suddenly the City of Minneapolis had paid Floyd's family $27,000,000 to be released from liability was known by the jurors. Which might have influenced their deliberations.
Then there was the matter of the makeup of the jury. Specifically one of the jurors, #52, Brandon Mitchell, both verbally and in the juror questionnaire answered Juror Question #7, “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?” As NO. And answered Juror Question #12, “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?” As NO. The problem with that is that he himself and his family have posted online pictures of them demonstrating with BLM against Chauvin both in Minneapolis and in Washington, DC. Both verbal and written responses are made under penalty of perjury. There may be others who did the same thing, but at least one juror legally should not have been there. And in the commentary afterwards, it is noted that if Mitchell had given the other jurors' names and addresses to BLM, they would have been in danger; which would have affected their votes.
The trial itself took from March 8-April 20. Granting that not every day was a day when the jury heard testimony as much of the trial was the judge hearing motions by the attorneys; but that was a long time that they had to hold that information. These are not people with eidetic memories. In most major criminal trials, the jury will ask the judge questions about the points of law that were made by each side. No questions, as if they feared asking them. And the total period of deliberation was 11 hours, covering 40+ total days of trial.
If you are a cop, you are not going to be tried by the rules of evidence, but rather the rules of the street.
Now, in comparison, take a look at those who were arrested Jan. 6 at the demonstration against the theft of the election, and the period afterwards to date. In the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 protests, 82 people were arrested and are still jailed on charges that are low-grade misdemeanors at worst, almost all on curfew violations. Sixty-eight by the DC Police and 14 by Capitol Police. And more have and are being hunted down for the same “crimes” since. The curfew involved was a 6 p.m. (1800 hours) curfew that nobody, including DC residents, knew about because it was suddenly imposed because there were going to be protests of the theft of the election. ESPECIALLY those from out of town exercising their First Amendment rights would not expect a 6 p.m. curfew to override their constitutional rights. Especially one that was only enforced on one political group.
The neat thing, from the point of view of the regime, is that those charged with these misdemeanors are not being formally arraigned, charged or given a chance to post bail. They are just being held.
Let me reference a couple of things that if we were a free republic would have bearing. The first one is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note the “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” That does not mean locking people up on bogus charges without due process.
The second thing is the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, both of which are part of what was referred to as the Bill of Rights in better days.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
All of which seem to be being denied to those exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech.
Politically correct criminals can expect to not be charged for their crimes, based not on law but political connections. Police who are doing their jobs, by the procedures they are ordered to and required to do by law find themselves being charged as criminals for enforcing the law, AND being fired or sued if they don't. And free citizens who dare to not submit to the ruling classes, who dare to speak out against what is supposed to be the government that is supposed to represent them, find themselves outside the Constitution.
The question is who is ruling whom.