MARCH 31, 2021 – On cross-ex during day two of The Trial, the defense focused on the “unruly mob.” If I were Eric Nelson instead of Eric Nilsson, I wouldn’t have gone there. To establish “reasonable doubt”— Chauvin’s sine qua non—your assertions have to be reasonable. What’s not a reasonable assertion is that a few random bystanders distracted police presiding over the expiring body of an apprehended suspect.
Those bystanders included a (white) woman who identified herself as an EMT member of the Minneapolis Fire Department; a clerk from the Speedway across the street; a 17-year old and her nine-year-old cousin; and, okay, a vocal black guy. These weren’t angry street protesters or gun-wielding drug-dealers. The occasion wasn’t some large gathering that might erupt in unified numbers posing a threat to . . . four armed police trained for and in the business of dealing with threatening people.
The immediate “crowd” was a small group of ordinary people out for a walk, on their way to buy snacks at Cup Foods, or, in the case of the clerk, drawn by the sight of nearby commotion—on a clear evening, a half-hour before sundown.
These random witnesses stopped because something remarkable was unfolding. They didn’t stand passively while munching their snacks. They were normal human beings, upset by what they saw, and they did what most non-sociopathic people would do. They cried out, and when that proved ineffective, they raised their voices—frantically. The “angry black guy” actually called 9-1-1 after his shouts fell on deaf ears. The EMT woman begged to take the pulse of the man under restraint—not the sort of entreaty you’d extend in the case of a person who at such point was sufficiently alive to fight restraint.
The police behavior was disturbing enough to cause a bystander to record it. No one who sees the resulting video can reasonably detect a level of distraction that would justify the cops’ utter disregard for the life of George Floyd, Jr.
Did Donald Williams II, the “angry black guy,” yell “tough guy” and other “threatening epithets” at Chauvin . . . 13 times? Yes. (On cross-examination Williams handled this perfectly. When Nelson asked the leading question, “Did you [say] 13 times?” Williams responded calmly, “Is that what you counted in the video? Then yes, it was 13.”) Was Williams’s sense of urgency under the circumstances reasonably threatening to cops with guns and mace—and the authority to arrest him? If I were a juror, this empty grasp at “reasonable doubt” would convince me that there’s nothing at all reasonable about Chauvin’s actions—or defense.
The video disproves beyond a reasonable doubt the claim that the “unruly mob” was a distraction. The bystander pleas were a reasonable reaction to cops not giving a damn about the death of a wholly subdued human being.
Sorry, Nelson. Far from being a distraction, the “unruly mob” was laser-focused on a man’s dying moments. The cops consciously—and criminally—ignored his mortal distress.
Open and shut.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2021 by Eric Nilsson
