I’ve been meaning to write about this issue for a while, as I covered the beginning of it (see all posts here).  And the longer I delayed, the more complicated the issue became, until I became unable to remember everything, much less synthesize it.

The story in short: two people made a documentary movie, “The Fall of Minneapolis” (watch it here) maintaining that George Floyd was not murdered by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, but died of his many ailments (including a big titer of fentanyl in his blood), not from having his neck compressed so that he was asphyxiated. (Nor, the movie maintained, was his neck really compressed: Chauvin was supposedly using procedures taught him by his department).  The movie convinced both John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, as well as me, that Chauvin was not guilty of murder—at least if you use the “reasonable doubt” standards mandated in such a case.

Then a former Washington Post reporter, Radley Balko, wrote a multipart attack on the movie on his webpage arguing that the thesis of “The Fall of Minneapolis” was wrong on several counts, including its claim that Floyd was not asphyxiated.  Balko’s analysis was enough to convince Loury (and, to some extent, McWhorter) that they were wrong—that perhaps Chauvin really did murder Floyd. Having read all this stuff, and intending to post on it, the sheer magnitude of the task defeated me. But I felt remiss in not calling attention to Balko’s attack. And I couldn’t come to my own conclusions, for essential material, like the training procedure for Minneapolis police, was missing.

In January, Coleman Hughes, now an essayist for The Free Press, wrote a piece arguing that Chauvin was not a murderer but a scapegoat for all those who wanted him convicted for supposedly killing a black man.  Hughes and Balko went back and forth about having a debate, and eventually had one, but one that, says Coleman, was stacked because the moderators were on Balko’s side.

Now we have the longest article yet published in the Free Press, a second piece by Coleman Hughes reiterating his claim that Chauvin should not have been found guilty of the murder of Floyd. His claim, as you’ll see below (click on the headline to read) is not that Chauvin was clearly innocent, but that the standards of evidence supposed to be applied by the jury, involving “reasonable doubt,” would have found such doubt in the prosecution’s evidence against Chauvin. Ergo, Chauvin should have been found not guilty.

The article is informative and, to me, convincing—Chauvin seems to have gotten a bad trial, including jurors biased against the prosecution, a prosecution that didn’t properly give the evidence, a defense that didn’t do its job, a judge who didn’t seem to know what was going on, and the venue (and the judge’s instructions) terrifying the jurors that if they didn’t find Chauvin guilty, there would be riots.

Read it; it has all the links that you need, including to Balko’s work and the debate.

Here’s Coleman’s main points in the essay:

The purpose of this essay is to set the record straight on Balko’s claims, which range from useful counterarguments to misleading assertions and outright errors. Our disagreements fall into two basic categories: the first is the question of how exactly Floyd died. And the second pertains to whether or not Chauvin was following his training.

One final, important note before I dive in: Balko’s series generally mischaracterizes my essay as arguing for the definite truth of various propositions—or doing a “just asking questions” routine—when in fact I was arguing for the existence of reasonable doubt.

In a typical debate, each side is trying to prove a claim by summoning more evidence than the other side—“guns are helpful” vs. “guns are harmful,” for instance. The burden assigned to each side is symmetric. If either side summons more evidence than the other, then that side wins.

Criminal trials are deliberately not like this. They are highly asymmetric—and that’s intentional.

It’s not enough for a majority of the evidence to indicate guilt. And it’s not enough if the defendant’s guilt is “highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.” That is the “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

Rather, “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that “there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial” other than the defendant having committed the crime in question. Keep that phrase—no other reasonable explanation—at the top of your mind. My Free Press piecewas written from the perspective of reasonable doubt. In the essay, I summed up my thesis like this: “In short, there are two major justifications to reasonably doubt Chauvin’s felony murder charge: whether he caused Floyd’s death and whether he committed a felony.”

There remains significant uncertainty about the death of George Floyd—uncertainty that was not settled at trial. My purpose in this essay, as in my original column, is not to settle that uncertainty for good by putting forward a definitive version of events—that is not the defense’s burden anyway. My purpose is to convey the existence of other reasonable explanations.

With that throat-clearing out of the way, let’s move on to Balko’s substantive arguments.

The arguments turn on what really killed George Floyd (he had several medical conditions and was full of drugs), whether the restraint technique used by Floyd really involved asphyxiation, whether that technique was part of the regular training, verbal or written, by the Minneapolis police, what “homicide” means to a coroner versus a jury, whether the jury was tainted by people who were pro-Floyd to begin with, and what are the criteria for conviction.  And more.

Read it for yourself; I’ll simply give Hughes’s conclusions in brief:

I think there was clearly reasonable doubt on whether Chauvin caused Floyd’s death. There were two rival theories of his death: the positional asphyxia theory (put forth by Dr. Tobin and endorsed by the prosecution), and the adrenaline surge theory (put forth by Dr. Baker and rejected by the prosecution). Both were reasonable theories, but only the former implicated Chauvin. That alone should have introduced reasonable doubt on all three charges.

As for whether Chauvin assaulted Floyd—that is, whether he used unlawful force outside the scope of MPD training—reasonable people can disagree on whether there was reasonable doubt. Balko would emphasize that MPD [Minneapolis Police Department] officers were trained to worry about positional asphyxia, move people to the side-recovery position as soon as possible, and use the hobble.

. . . .What are the odds that Chauvin received a trial in accordance with these instructions? Given the jurors who spoke about their fears for their physical safety, given the juror who was found wearing a “GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” t-shirt before the trial, given that everyone knew the city would burn if he was acquitted yet the trial location wasn’t changed, and given that the jury wasn’t sequestered in one of the most talked-about trials in modern American history—I would submit that the odds are close to zero.

Ultimately, we’ll never know how a jury might have weighed the evidence under even halfway normal conditions. And it is probably too late for any of this to matter for Chauvin himself. What is clear, however, is that there were many reasons to doubt that Chauvin was guilty of the crimes he was charged with, and the American public should not be afraid to say so.

Once again, this is a complicated issue that you should judge for yourself, ideally after having watched the movie, read Balko’s ripostes, and having read at least Hughes’s second essay: the one quoted here.  Chauvin’s conviction for murdering Floyd spawned the “racial reckoning” that has persisted until today, and regardless of whether we need a reckoning or not, the conviction that started it all needs to be carefully examined. More important, the conviction of a man for a “crime” that carries reasonable doubt is a miscarriage of justice that needs to be rectified (Chauvin is serving 22 years in prison, and will be 60 when he’s released). In my view, they need to try Chauvin again, but bringing in all the evidence and with a jury that is not intimidated.

OMFG, as they say: the news just came down that Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in his New York hush-money trial. That’s 34 out of 34, and each conviction required unanimity among the jurors.  They deliberated for less than two days.

He will appeal, of course, but will he go to jail eventually?

He’s now a convicted felon. I can’t say I’m unhappy. Here are the details from yahoo! news:

Donald Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to influence the 2016 presidential campaign Thursday in a historic trial that saw a former U.S. president face criminal charges for the first time.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts, related to a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The prosecution had alleged Daniels was paid to keep secret a 2006 tryst she had with Trump in order to influence the results of the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

The trial lasted a month and a half and was plenty eventful. In addition to the fiery testimonies of Daniels and Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, Trump was held in contempt of court 10 times and fined $10,000 for violating a gag order against attacking people involved with the trial. Many Republican leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, traveled to New York to speak out in support of the 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

Trump, who did not testify in his defense, has yet to be sentenced in the case and is likely to appeal the verdict. The result may have an impact on Trump’s chances to reclaim the White House, however. Recent Yahoo News/YouGov polling suggested a conviction would hurt Trump in head-to-head polling against President Joe Biden.

Since it’s a state crime, he can’t pardon himself, either, even if he does get reelected.

Well, if conviction on 34 felony counts HELPS him win, then something is badly wrong with America.

And there are several more trials to go. .

The death of George Floyd, and his presumed murder by Derek Chauvin with the complicity of several Minneapolis policemen, was an iconic moment in today’s race relations, the most important event leading to the “racial reckoning” of the last few years.  In late December of last year, I posted a movie, “The Fall of Minneapolis” (watch it here), and, after watching it and the included bodycam videos from cops that weren’t allowed into Chauvin’s trial, concluded that there was substantial doubt that Floyd had been murdered murdered, or that Chauvin had intended to do him in.

On December 28, after watching the film, I wrote this:

A few weeks ago I discussed the movie “The fall of Minneapolis”, which you can watch free here. The movie maintains that George Floyd was not murdered by racist cops, but died after he was arrested due to a combination of stress, use of dangerous drugs, and heart and lung problems. Here’s how I summarized the movie at the time:

1. Floyd was not murdered by the police: he had serious heart problems, hypertension, artherosclerosis, COVID, and was high on near-lethal doses of fentanyl and methamphetamine during his arrest. He was also complaining about not being able to breathe well before he was brought to the ground by the police. Difficulty in breathing could easily be explained by both his heath condition and ingestion of serious drugs.
2. The official autopsy found drugs in Floyd’s system, confirms the health problems mentioned above, and found no evidence from examining his neck that he died from asphyxiation.
3. The [police] bodycam videos were not allowed to be shown to jurors by the judge. They show that Floyd might have been restrained simply by having a knee on his shoulder, not on his neck. This method of restraint, called “MRT” (maximal restraint technique) is taught to all Minneapolis police recruits as a way to subdue resisting suspects. (There is no doubt from the bodycam videos that Floyd insistently resisted arrest and fought the officers.)
4. The judge did not allow mention or a photo of MRT in the Minneapolis police manual to be shown to the jury. Further, the police captain, lying, denied that MRT was taught to all police officers.
5. The police called for medical assistance within minutes of Floyd having a medical emergency when he was on the ground. They also tried to resuscitate him via CPR. This is inconsistent with the narrative that the officers were trying to kill Floyd.
6. The judge, mayor, city council and police hierarchy all “conspired” to convict Chauvin and the other officers, buttressing into an official narrative that was likely wrong.

Earlier I put up a discussion between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, both of whom had watched the film and were not only impressed with it but agreed with my take that the “Chauvin murdered Floyd” scenario was likely a distortion. (See also this post by Loury.) It was after this discussion that the movie went public and I watched it.

Now, in the video below, Loury backtracks in his opinion, and several readers have called this backtracking to my attention (including some uncivil ones who basically accused me of being credulous and daring me to post what’s below). But of course if I put out my opinion, and it’s shown to be subsantially weaker than I thought, of course I’m going to post the countervailing arguments.

First, excerpts from Loury’s new Substack post, “We were too quick to praise ‘The Fall of Minneapolis“.  It’s accompanied by a short video (below) which will later be posted in full. When that happens, and the critic, Radley Balko, publishes all of his three-part critique, I’ll weigh in myself. For the time being, let’s withhold any judgment that Floyd was or wasn’t murdered by Derek Chauvin with complicity of other cops. Let’s wait for the evidence. But do watch the film; the links is above.

From Loury:

John and I helped bring a lot of attention to the The Fall of Minneapolis, a documentary by Liz Collin and JC Chaix which argues that Derek Chauvin is not responsible for the death of George Floyd and that Chauvin’s trial was tainted by perjury and manipulation of evidence. We discussed the film on one episode and brought the filmmakers on for a second episode. John and I both came away convinced that Derek Chauvin hadn’t gotten a fair trial and that he may well be innocent. But a couple weeks ago, the journalist Radley Balko published part one of what he says will be a three-part series debunking The Fall of Minneapolis. It was an unsettling read, one that I found so convincing that it’s led me to question my own earlier support of the film.

It was not wrong to call attention to the documentary, nor was it wrong to talk to the filmmakers. But I do wish I had not been so eager to accept their conclusions. I’ve spent years decrying the outsized reaction to the death of George Floyd, the riots and the antiractist mania that followed, and the superficial moralism of progressives who claim to find white supremacy at the root of even the most minuscule social infractions. When I saw a documentary that claimed to locate real, empirical corruption at the heart of the George Floyd case itself, I was primed to believe it.

I’ve had to take stock of my reasons for going all-in on The Fall of Minneapolis without subjecting it to scrutiny befitting the magnitude of its claims. Certainly I was ready to accept those claims, but at some level, did I want to accept them as well? I cannot be certain that my desire to strengthen my argument against George Floyd’s canonization did not neutralize the skepticism that should kick in whenever a shocking claim is made, no matter its ideological implications. The documentary’s counter-narrative fit neatly with my own, which should have moved me to seek further verification rather than accepting it at face value.

As you’ll see in this week’s clip, John doesn’t think we erred all that egregiously. But I do. I pride myself on remaining open to evidence and reason, even if they disconfirm something I had formerly thought to be true. I think I’ve succeeded in that where Balko’s critique is concerned, but only to the end of correcting an earlier failure. I sometimes describe myself as “heterodox.” That means looking on all orthodoxies with a critical eye, including the personal orthodoxies we develop over time. Without self-reflection and introspection, heterodoxy risks becoming orthodoxy by another name, a shallow rebrand that betrays its own purpose. As John is fond of saying, that won’t do. I may have fallen short this time. But, as I’m fond of saying, God’s not finished with me yet.

And a bit from the first installment of Balko’s debunking of the film. I’ll read all three parts and weigh in then. But again, realize that the film might have been edited to buttress an ideologue position: Floyd wasn’t murdered. Here’s Balko’s main conclusion in part one:

The documentary makes a lot of outlandish claims, but I want to focus mostly on the two that I’ve seen most often. These are also the two claims that [Coleman] Hughes spends most of his piece promoting.

The first claim is that when Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s back and neck for nine minutes, it could not have been criminal assault because the Minneapolis Police Department has trained its officers — including Chauvin — to use that very technique.

The second claim is that Floyd’s official autopsy found that he died of a heart attack brought on by cardiovascular disease and drug use. Therefore, Chauvin could not have been responsible for Floyd’s death.

Both of these claims are false. The first claim is not only incorrect, the documentary engages in deceptive editing and convenient omissions to push it. In other words, the documentary is lying. The second claim is also incorrect, but the explanation is a bit more complicated.

The new (and truncated) 14-minute discussion between Loury and McWhorter is below.  Both agree that the filmmakers were “dishonest in their depiction” of how Chauvin restrained Floyd. McWhorter asseverates that he and Loury were nevertheless within their rights to call attention to the original documentary, for to ignore it simply because the filmmakers were conservatives would be a mistake. The question was whether these filmmaker/conservatives were not honest actors. McWhorter, while not as convinced as is Loury that the documentary was dishonest and misleading, welcomes the controversy and, like me, will wait until the to-and-fro is over before issuing a conclusion. (Loury seems more worried about being thought of as “too credulous” and for having confirmation bias because he was too woke to be objective.)  I suspect that the two filmmakers will themselves issue a critique of Balko’s critique.

To be fair, Balko is expert in investigating police issues, so I don’t feel as guilty as does Loury for taking the film’s assertions at face value.  But this is how the truth comes out: evidence is presented on both sides, even if one or both sides are ideologically motivated, and then one can try to adjudicate the evidence without being tained by one’s own ideology.

My stand is closer to McWhorter’s. I assumed the filmmakers were working in good faith, and I didn’t have the expertise to judge all the claims. If those claims are shown to be bogus, I’ll retract at least some of my conclusions I gave above. For now, it’s appropriate to withhold judgment on the conclusion that Chauvin, in doing a “neck restraint” of Floyd, was acting according to Minneapolis police instructions, in which case Floyd was the victim of either homicide or murder. I still think people need to watch the film to see what the officers were dealing with: an uncooperative, doped-up individual who resisted following police orders and was taken to the ground because of that. But what follows after Floyd was on the ground is the major issue.