‘America needed a guilty verdict ... but the law still needs to change too’

CONVICTING a police officer is rare because juries are hesitant to second-guess split-second decisions.

But the killing of George Floyd was unique. This case did not involve a split-second judgment call on whether or not to shoot. Instead, video evidence showed Derek Chauvin made a nineminute-and-29-second decision while Floyd and traumatised bystanders pleaded with Chauvin to stop. Moreover, the decision for the police chief and other officers to cross the blue line and speak out against Chauvin’s behavior was nothing short of historic.

Chauvin’s callous action of placing his weight on Floyd’s neck traumatised a nation. It was so horrific to watch and so blatant that it turned people from around the world into allies. Even police officers were seen taking a knee and joining protesters.

The country needed a guilty verdict. So did the family, the communities of colour and law enforcement. The verdict validated Floyd as a human being who deserved to be treated with dignity regardless of his past mistakes. For others, the verdict is overshadowed by the most recent victims of police violence, 13-year-old Adam Toledo and 20-year-old Daunte Wright. Despite calls for reform, the body count of unarmed children and adults killed by police continues to grow.

While policing is an honourable profession, it is clear that there is a problem. The real meaning and impact of the guilty verdict is complicated.

For practical purposes, a guilty verdict means accountability. The jury had the opportunity to consider three charges: seconddegree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The jury could have returned a verdict of guilty on any or all of the three charges. The jury chose to convict the defendant on all charges.

To convict the defendant of any charge, the jury had to determine whether Chauvin’s actions were justified by the use of reasonable force. The reasonable officer standard usually favours the accused police officer, but this case was different. In this case, several police officers took the stand to support the point that Chauvin’s actions were not reasonable and not in line with police policy. The jury had to also conclude that Chauvin’s actions were a substantial causal factor in Floyd’s death. The law did not require that Floyd had to be in perfect health.

Many legal experts expected Chauvin to be found guilty of something. The disturbing fact is 98.3 per cent of police killings failed to trigger criminal charges. One case in point was the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland. Although the city settled the civil lawsuit, the officer who killed Rice was never held accountable in a courtroom.

When charges are brought, officers are rarely convicted. According to the Police Integrity Research Group, only four out of the more than 100 non-federal officers charged in a person’s death were convicted of murder; 18 were convicted of manslaughter or reckless or negligent homicide.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Tuesday’s jury verdict was a signal to the country that it’s time for reform. True change cannot come from jury verdicts but through legislation. President Joe Biden has signalled his support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would include banning certain police practices like chokeholds and federal no-knock warrants.

The story of Floyd cannot merely end with a jury verdict. We must change policing by changing the law.