There is a difference between enforcing the law and being the law. The world is now witnessing another in a long history of struggles for racial justice in which this distinction may be ignored.<\/p>\n
Derek Chauvin, a 45-year-old white former Minneapolis police officer,\u00a0is on trial<\/a> for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man.<\/p>\n There are three questions I find important to consider as the trial unfolds. These questions address the legal, moral and political legitimacy of any verdict in the trial. I offer them from my perspective as\u00a0an Afro-Jewish philosopher and political thinker<\/a>\u00a0who studies oppression, justice and freedom. They also speak to the divergence between how a trial is conducted, what rules govern it \u2013 and the larger issue of\u00a0racial justice raised by George Floyd\u2019s death<\/a> after Derek Chauvin pressed his knee on Floyd\u2019s neck for more than nine minutes. They are questions that need to be asked:<\/p>\n 1: Can Chauvin Be Judged as Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The presumption of innocence<\/a>\u00a0in criminal trials is a feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. And a prosecutor must\u00a0prove the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt<\/a>\u00a0to a jury of the defendant\u2019s peers.<\/p>\n The history of the United States reveals, however, that these two conditions apply primarily to white citizens. Black defendants tend to be treated as\u00a0guilty until proved innocent<\/a>.<\/p>\n Racism often leads to presumptions of reasonableness and good intentions when defendants and witnesses are white, and\u00a0irrationality and ill intent when defendants, witnesses and even victims are black<\/a>.<\/p>\n Additionally,\u00a0race affects jury selection<\/a>.\u00a0The history of all-white juries<\/a>\u00a0for black defendants and\u00a0rarely having black jurors for white ones<\/a>\u00a0is evidence of a presumption of white people\u2019s validity of judgment versus that of Black Americans. Doubt can be afforded to a white defendant in circumstances\u00a0where it would be denied a black one<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thus, Chauvin, as white, could be granted that exculpating doubt despite the evidence shared before millions of viewers in a live-streamed trial.<\/p>\n 2: What is the Difference Between Force and Violence?<\/strong><\/p>\n The customary questioning of police officers who harm people focuses on their use of what\u2019s called \u201cexcessive force<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0This presumes the legal legitimacy of using force in the first place<\/a>\u00a0in the specific situation.<\/p>\n Violence, however, is the use of illegitimate force. As a result of racism, Black people are often portrayed as\u00a0preemptively guilty and dangerous<\/a>. It follows that the perceived threat of danger makes \u201cforce\u201d the appropriate description when a police officer claims to be preventing violence.<\/p>\n This understanding makes it\u00a0difficult to find police officers guilty of violence<\/a>. To call the act \u201cviolence\u201d is to acknowledge that it is improper and thus falls, in the case of physical acts of violence, under the purview of criminal law.\u00a0Once their use of force is presumed legitimate<\/a>, the question of degree makes it\u00a0nearly impossible for jurors to find officers guilty<\/a>.<\/p>\n Floyd, who was suspected of purchasing items from a store\u00a0with a counterfeit $20 bill<\/a>, was handcuffed and complained of\u00a0not being able to breathe<\/a>\u00a0when Chauvin pulled him from the police vehicle and he fell face down on the ground.<\/p>\n Footage from the incident revealed that\u00a0Chauvin pressed his knee on Floyd\u2019s neck<\/a>\u00a0for nine minutes and 29 seconds. Floyd was motionless several minutes in, and\u00a0he had no pulse when Alexander Kueng, one of the officers, checked<\/a>. Chauvin didn\u2019t remove his knee until paramedics arrived and\u00a0asked him to get off of Floyd<\/a>\u00a0so they could examine the motionless patient.<\/p>\n If force under the circumstances is unwarranted, then its use would constitute violence in both legal and moral senses. Where force is legitimate (for example, to prevent violence) but things go wrong, the presumption is that a mistake, instead of intentional wrongdoing, occurred.<\/p>\n An important, related distinction is between justification and excuse. Violence, if the action is illegitimate, is not justified. Force, however, when justified, can become excessive. The question at that point is whether a reasonable person could understand the excess. That understanding makes the action morally excusable.<\/p>\n 3: Is There Ever Excusable Police Violence?<\/strong><\/p>\n Police are allowed to use force to prevent violence<\/a>. But at what point does the force become violence? When its use is illegitimate. In U.S. law, the force is illegitimate when done \u201cin the course of committing an offense<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Sgt. David Pleoger,\u00a0Chauvin\u2019s former supervisor, stated<\/a>\u00a0in the trial: \u201cWhen Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint.\u201d<\/p>\n Minneapolis\u00a0Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified<\/a>, \u201cTo continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy.\u201d He declared, \u201cI vehemently disagree that that was an appropriate use of force.\u201d<\/p>\n That an act was deemed by prosecutors to be violent, defined as an illegitimate use of force resulting in death, is a necessary conclusion for charges of murder and manslaughter<\/a>. Both require ill intent or, in legal terms, a mens rea (\u201cevil mind\u201d). The absence of a reasonable excuse affects the legal interpretation of the act. That the act was not preventing violence but was, instead, one of committing it, made the action inexcusable.<\/p>\n The Chauvin case, like so many others, leads to the question: What is the difference between enforcing the law and imagining being the law?\u00a0Enforcing the law means one is acting within the law<\/a>. That makes the action legitimate. Being the law forces others, even law-abiding people, below the enforcer, subject to their actions.<\/p>\n