[Now that I have the correct WordPress book, I can get on with building this blog/website].

It has taken some time for me to digest the news concerning the Derek Chauvin verdict. There is not a lot of question that the officer’s conduct would produce a finding of ‘guilty’ on one or more of the counts, but only the details attending.

So what ‘aggravating circumstances’ caused my dismay about the possibility of a fair trial? The conduct of a congresswoman, a sitting president, and various pontificators were made common knowledge almost immediately as the words were spoken. Rep. Maxine Waters, far from her own Los Angeles district incited the crowd with a dictum to become even more confrontational if the desired verdict was not handed down, this after several consecutive nights of rioting. The President of the United States was praying for the ‘right verdict’, while others speculated that the outcome would reflect the ‘right side of history’. The disposition of those in the Leftist media and massing in the streets requires no additional comment. They were out for blood…

What of the future of justice when a desired outcome is bolstered by threats of even more violence? I do not care to listen to alternative interpretations of what was said, but instead wish to examine how justice may ever be attained when the threat of violence, more violence, is thick in the air? In spite of the verbiage of our leaders, the jury knew full well beforehand what the outcome would be if they handed down the ‘wrong’ verdict. Innocents would suffer, as they have for over a year at the hands of the mobs.

The George Floyd incident had already caused as many or more than 25 deaths (searches vary), some of them black persons evidenced by the murder of black police Lt. David Dorn in St. Louis. The damage to physical property alone is well over $1 billion. The damage to local economies and to persons affected is incalculable.

Derek Chauvin was not the only one on trial. That Jury was on trial! The jurors were on trial by the parties demanding a particular outcome with threats of even more violence if the decision was not reached.

The Chauvin jury is not a singular incidence of this effect, that is trial by mob. After this trial, judges can sequester from the beginnings of trials if they want. But when violence in the streets will still be known to future juries even before the selection process begins, a mere instruction from the judge insisting on impartiality will still be tainted by the reality of the trial already in process in the streets.

There is no future for justice if prejudicial political commentary and menacing threats of civic mayhem are to be tolerated. Every trial will occur under a shadow of civic duress where the innocent are likely to be victimized or even killed if the mob does not get its way.

A future for justice calls for leadership to demand that the people stand down, take a long breath, and inform the masses that their own liberties depend on appropriate conduct and regard for their neighbors inclusive of the larger community beyond their own. Yes, force may have to be met by force unless the agitators learn self-control. That is why we promulgate the ethic of Jesus of Nazareth become the supreme ethic of our culture, namely, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul and your mind. And the second part is like the first…

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.