>>> OVER THE PAST 26 HOURS,
AMERICANS HAVE BEEN TAKING IN A
RARE OCCURRENCE IN THIS NATION.
A POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF
MURDER ON THE JOB.
HOW RARE?
FROM 2005 TO ABOUT 2015, A
PERIOD INCLUDING THOUSANDS OF
POLICE KILLINGS, BELIEVE YOUR
EYES AS YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN.
THE NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS
CONVICTED OF MURDER FOR SHOOTING
A PERSON OVER ALL OF THOSE YEARS
ALTOGETHER WAS ZERO.
I CAN REPORT FOR YOU THAT FROM
2016 ON, THIS WERE ONE OR TWO
SUCH CONVICTIONS A YEAR FOR
POLICE SHOOTING DEATHS.
AND NOW THIS YEAR WE HAVE THE
FIRST SUCH MURDER CONVICTION OF
2021, WHICH IS CORRECTLY SEEN AS
A RARE DEVELOPMENT.
BIG FRONT PAGE NEWS, A POSSIBLE
TURNING POINT.
WHY WAS THIS CASE DIFFERENT THAN
SO MANY THAT CAME BEFORE IT?
WELL, THERE IS SEVERAL REASONS,
INCLUDING THE DAMNING VIDEO
EVIDENCE.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE TURN TO ONE
IMPORTANT FACTOR IN OUR SPECIAL
REPORT RIGHT NOW.
HOW POLICE TESTIMONY HELP LEAD
TO CHAUVIN’S CONVICTION.
PROSECUTORS CALLED EIGHT
WITNESSES FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHAUVIN’S
OWN BOSS FOR MOUNTING FACTUAL
DOCUMENTED INCRIMINATING
TESTIMONY AGAINST FELLOW FORMER
OFFICER CHAUVIN.
WITH POLICE EXPERTS FLATLY
STATING THE FORCE HE USED WAS
EXCESSIVE AND CHAUVIN SHOULD
HAVE ENDED THAT NECK RESTRAINT
LONG BEFORE KILLING GEORGE
FLOYD.
>> WHEN MR. FLOYD WAS NO LONGER
OFFERING UP ANY RESISTANCE TO
THE OFFICERS, THEY COULD HAVE
ENDED THEIR RESTRAINT.
>> AND THAT WAS AFTER HE WAS
HANDCUFFED AND ON THE GROUND AND
NO LONGER RESISTANT?
>> CORRECT.
>> >> THE JURY ALSO HEARD FROM
THE LONGEST SERVING MEMBER OF
THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
>> WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THAT USE
OF FORCE DURING THAT TIME
PERIOD?
>> TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, PULLING
HIM DOWN TO THE GROUND FACEDOWN
AND PUTTING YOUR KNEE ON A NECK
FOR THAT AMOUNT OF TIME IS JUST
UNCALLED FOR.
I SAW NO REASON WHY THE OFFICERS
FELT THEY WERE IN DANGER.
>> THAT WAS LEGALLY PIVOTAL
BECAUSE ANY JUROR MAY WONDER
WHAT SUPPORTS A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
WHAT IS THE REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
SECOND GUESSING WHETHER AN
OFFICER USED TOO MUCH FORCE IN
AN UNFOLDING INCIDENT OR
EMERGENCY.
IN THIS TRIAL THE ANSWER CAME
FROM MULTIPLE OFFICERS SAYING
UNDER OATH THIS WAS NOT A FORCE
CALL.
THE FORCE WAS TOTALLY
UNNECESSARY.
AND THE ANSWER ALSO CAME FROM
PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT
WITNESS, THE POLICE CHIEF WHO
FIRED CHAUVIN AND THE OTHER
THREE OFFICERS WITHIN A DAY OF
THE KILLING AND DEEMED IT A
MURDER LAST YEAR.
>> ONCE THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY
RESISTANCE AND CLEARLY WHEN MR.
FLOYD WAS NO LONGER RESPONSIVE
AND EVEN MOTIONLESS TO CONTINUE
TO APPLY THAT LEVEL OF FORCE
THAT IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IS
ANYTHING THAT IS BY POLICY.
IT IS NOT PART OF OUR TRAINING.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT PART OF
OUR ETHICS OR OUR VALUES.
>> THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT
PROSECUTORS INVOKED THAT VIEW IN
THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
THAT’S THE LAST THING THE JURY
HEARS BEFORE GOING TO DELIBERATE
AND HERE FINDING CHAUVIN A
MURDER.
THEY GAVE BASICALLY JURORS WHO
MIGHT BE SYMPATHETIC TO POLICE A
VERY CRITICAL LEGAL AND ETHICAL
FRAME WORK FOR THIS.
AND I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH
IT TONIGHT.
THESE PROSECUTORS HAD A
BLUEPRINT.
THEY PRESENTED THE JURY WITH A
WAY TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS,
THAT CHAUVIN WAS A CRIMINAL
HIDING OUT IN UNIFORM.
THAT HIS SENSELESS, AVOIDABLE
MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD IS THE
VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT POLICING
SHOULD BE AND URGING THE JURORS
TO VIEW THEIR POTENTIAL ACTION,
WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO
DELIBERATE ON, CONVICTING HIM AS
A MURDERER, THAT DOING THAT
ITSELF WOULD BE PRO POLICE.
>> THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE
MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
HE TESTIFIED AND TOOK THE STAND
AND HE TOLD YOU WHAT THAT BADGE
THAT HE WEARS OVER HIS HEART
MEANS.
IT’S A PUBLIC SERVICE.
THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-POLICE PROSECUTION.
IT IS A PRO POLICE PROSECUTION.
THE DEFENDANT ABANDONED HIS
VALUES, ABANDONED THE TRAINING
AND KILLED A MAN.
>> GET OFF THAT ONE.
NOW, THE JURY’S ANSWER ON THIS
WAS FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
THEY CONVICTED CHAUVIN AS A
MURDERER.
WHAT REFORMERS SEE AS ONE
POSITIVE SIGN BEFORE THIS TRIAL
BEGAN.
14 OFFICERS PUBLICALLY CONDEMNED
HIS ACTIONS BACK IN JUNE.
THAT SHOULD BE A LOW BAR.
POLICE SHOULD BE AGAINST MURDER
ON TAPE WHETHER DONE BY
CIVILIANS OR POLICE.
JUST LIKE DOCTORS SHOULD BE
AGAINST MALPRACTICE IN SURGERY
THAT HURTS A PATIENT EVEN IF
DONE BY A FELLOW DOCTOR.
BUT MANY POLICE DEPARTMENTS HAVE
STRICT CODES OF SILENCE FOR
OTHER OFFICERS, EVEN THOSE
ACCUSED OF EXTREME MISCONDUCT OR
SILENCE.
IT IS OFTEN CALLED THE BLUE WALL
OF SILENCE.
IT CAN BE A LEGAL BARRIER FOR
PROSECUTORS.
IT IS ALSO VERY HYPOCRITICAL
CONSIDERING THAT POLICE
ROUTINELY DEMAND AND PRESSURE
OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK AND TESTIFY
TO COURT AGAINST THE SUSPECT’S
THEY CATCH.
NOW, I MENTION TONIGHTED SEVERAL
FACTORS LED TO THIS CONVICTION.
BUT WE HAVE SEEN DAMNING VIDEO
FOOTAGE BEFORE.
LIKE AN OFFICER CAUGHT ON TAPE
SHOOTING AN UNARMED MAN IN THE
BLACK WHILE HE FLED.
WALTER SCOTT GUNNED DOWN.
CAUGHT TRYING TO FRAME THAT
CRIME SCENE.
NOW, THERE WAS POLICE TESTIMONY
IN THAT CASE, TOO.
FOUR OFFICERS TALKED.
BUT ALL ON FORMER OFFICER
SLATER’S BEHALF, TESTIFYING FOR
HIS DEFENSE TO MURDER.
AND THE JURY COULD NOT AGREE TO
THE CHARGES LEADING TO A
MISTRIAL.
THE POLICE OFFICERS ALSO MADE A
SHOW OF PUBLIC SUPPORT IN A
UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT ACQUITTED
FOR KILLING FERNANDO KAS TILL.
ANOTHER MINNESOTA OFFICER INDICT
ED BENEFITTED FROM THIS BLUE
WALL.
A REPORTED 20 DIFFERENT POLICE
OFFICERS REFUSE TO TALK TO
INVESTIGATORS AT ALL TO PROVIDE
FACTS, COOPERATION, EVIDENCE.
SO THAT CASE HAD A MUCH HIGHER
HURDLE.
ALTHOUGH, THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE
OF THOSE RARE CONVICTIONS I
MENTIONED.
NOW, TAKE IT ALTOGETHER TONIGHT.
I’M TALKING ABOUT THIS TONIGHT
AT THIS JUNCTURE BECAUSE IT’S SO
IMPORTANT.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
IS THIS BLUE WALL ERODING?
I CAN’T REPORT THE ANSWER ON
THAT FOR YOU TONIGHT.
I CAN’T.
THE REASON IS SIMPLE.
WE DON’T KNOW.
WE DON’T KNOW IF ONE EXTREMELY
GRUESOME CASE IS AN OUTLIER OR A
SIGN OF A NEW PATTERN ON THE
WAY.
AND IF POLICE DO START
COOPERATING WITH THESE
INVESTIGATIONS, DOES THAT MEAN
WE HAVE SOME BIG WIN FOR JUSTICE
OR CIVIL RIGHTS OR BLACK PEOPLE
IN AMERICA?
LET ME LEVEL WITH YOU TONIGHT.
NO.
BECAUSE THAT’S THE BARE MINIMUM
OF WHAT POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO
DO, WHAT THEY’RE PAID TO DO,
WHAT THEY SWORE ON OATH TO DO.
LET ME LEVEL WITH YOU TONIGHT.
IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT HOW ROUTINE
STATE VIOLENCE AND SYSTEMIC
RACISM IS IN AMERICA THAT ALL
THIS HAPPENS OUT IN THE OPEN, IN
OPEN COURT, ON TV AND THAT IN
2021 WE ARE COUNTING UP THESE
RARE, ISOLATED CASES THAT ALMOST
NEVER HAPPEN WHERE LAW
ENFORCEMENT COOPERATING WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO ENFORCE THE LAW
IN A MURDER CASE.
SO I WANT TO URGE EVERYONE IF
YOU ARE WITHIN THE SOUND OF MY
VOICE, WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR MINDS
ON THE FACTS.
WE NEED FACTS RIGHT NOW.
AND THE FACT IS IT IS A NATIONAL
SCAR AND OUTRAGE AND
EMBARRASSMENT THAT IT TAKES THIS
MUCH TO REACH A FACTUAL OUTCOME
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN CASES
THAT INVOLVE THE STATE TAKING OF
BLACK LIVES, THE KILLING OF
BLACK LIVES.
THE STATE SHOWING THE GORY
DETAIL WHY SO OFTEN TO THE STATE
BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER.
NOW, IN PAST YEARS, THAT
MOVEMENT WAS OFTEN DESCRIBED AS
SOMEHOW A VERY LIBERAL OR
MILITANT OR RADICAL MOVEMENT.
WELL, THAT’S MISLEADING.
THERE IS ALSO A TELL IF YOU HEAR
PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT THAT WAY.
LET’S DEAL IN FACTS.
THERE IS NOTHING AGAINST MURDER.
OF COURSE IT IS ABOUT MORE THAN
ONE THING, BUT IT FOCUSES ON AND
CONTINUES TO CATTIZE AROUND
SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL.
IF YOU LISTEN TO ITS NUMBERS IN
THIS MOVEMENT AND ITS LEADERS,
YOU WILL HEAR IT.
IT IS NOT COMPLICATED.
THEY ARE DEMANDING THE STATE
STOP MURDERING BLACK PEOPLE.
LET ME REPEAT.
THEY DEMAND THE STATE STOP
MURDERING BLACK PEOPLE AND OTHER
INNOCENT PEOPLE.
AND THAT MEANS THE ARM OF THE
STATE, THE POLICE, NEED TO STOP
DOING IT.
WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, IF IT DOES
HAPPEN, THAT MEANS OTHER POLICE
NEED TO DO THE BARE MINIMUM OF
THEIR JOBS, ENFORCE THE LAW AND
COOPERATE WITH THE LAW AND BE
AGAINST MURDER.
I’M PUTTING IT BLUNTLY BECAUSE
IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, ESPECIALLY
AT A MOMENT IN TIME LIKE THIS.
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, THIS TIME
IN THIS SINGLE CASE IS THAT MORE
POLICE THAN USUAL IN AMERICA DID
DO THAT, WHICH IS, OF COURSE,
ALL THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
>> THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED OUR
POLICY.
>> WOULD THIS BE AUTHORIZED?
>> I WOULD SAY NO.
>> THEY COULD HAVE ENDED THE
RESTRAINT.
>> WHAT IS YOUR -- YOU KNOW,