So, the matter is apparently over. You know what you felt: joy, relief or remorse. Or that amalgam of emotions that represents life in a conflicted society. When the jury in Minneapolis announced late yesterday that they had arrived at a verdict in the matter of George Floyd’s death there was a flurry of activity. Informed judicial commentators on the flat-screens suggested that the rapid resolution of the case would favor the prosecution’s position: Officer Derek Chauvin was guilty on the three major counts under deliberation. Those were: Murder in the second and third degree, and second-degree Manslaughter.

Once the jury had been placed in sequestration, the President saw something on his teleprompter and read it with accuracy. It generally was in line with the comments by California Representative Maxine Waters the other day in another part of the Twin Cities, Brooklyn Center. That is the one where a minority motorist was shot- some say by accident- after a traffic stop for expired tags on a car belonging to someone else while under a bench warrant for aggravated assault. In the Chauvin trial several blocks away, the Defense called for a mistrial after those remarks received broad distribution. The motion was denied by the judge in charge, with the comment that at least that part of the matter would be decided on appeal by some other court someplace else.

The media machine was prepared to depict a nation in flames in case a verdict was announced that was inconsistent with their sentiment on the matter. Considering the possibilities in preparation for the meeting, all I could find of note were a couple minor kinetic encounters that did not feature any good imagery. Considering the breathless anticipation late yesterday, this was a generally good thing for public order. Whether it was a good thing for justice was subject of another point. The Staff meeting was held early, since some younger members of the Editorial Review panel were still trickling in from late deliberations at a local watering hole. Older members, rising early after descending in the same manner, were alert but predicably grumpy.

The key item on which there was general agreement was that the verdict had declined in priority from first on the news tabulation to second, since there were no widespread mostly peaceful demonstrations. The younger cadre lives downtown, and they were pleased not to encounter first responder activity between bar and bed. The older cohort was pleased simply to have slept unbroken through the night.

That was about it. A re-run of the proceedings indicates a sentence will not be imposed for as many as eight weeks from the announcement, so the full effect is not yet known. From general agreement that the video display was damning and horrific, other opinions, protected by non-disclosure of attribution, was that the entire process should be considered tainted by prejudicial coverage and declared a mis-trial.

I would tell you who, but that would violate an internal prohibition on doxxing. We have pictures and notes, though, if later a symbolic someone needs to be hurled under an equally symbolic bus. There is no provision for results of the editorial board to be presented to the circuit court that will judge an appeal, so that comment from the back of the room that the whole thing should never have been conducted in Hennepin County was properly ignored. And that the jurors selected should have been placed in sequestration at the beginning of what trial judge Peter Cahill described as “heavy duty” deliberations.

Contributors to Socotra House publications were of at least three minds on the matter. A significant number of realists conceded that short term peace had been achieved, with the possibility that the whole thing could be reimagined, like policing, later and somewhere out of sight. Others were prepared to let the son-of-a-bitch get sentenced for his criminal acts and face his deserved fate in prison. A smaller number was adamant that process had been preserved while revealing areas of concern. As the discussion went on, they increasingly were curious about lunch. With increasingly vigor, unity began to emerge on the panel. Everyone eventually came to agree on the position that lunch was good. And should be preserved.

There was a last motion, though. In order to preserve equity in law enforcement, patrol officers should as a matter of decency review the mental and physical well-being of all citizens prior to commencement of their shifts. This would ensure standards are applied (or not applied) in a fair manner during the course of routine operations. In order to do so, a reimagined law enforcement regimen would be required. That evolutionary concept would include a priori knowledge of external factors that currently can only be accurately known from post-facto analysis. This may entail changes to basic physics, which would enable temporal transportation around extraordinary events to ensure all stakeholder concerns are protected, past and present.

Recent revelations of Unidentified Flying Objects captured by the Defense Department suggest the moment for that re-imagining may be in hand. But perhaps after lunch. For now, the Editorial Board believes things are well handled.

Copyright 2021 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com