As I mentioned, I broke my ankle and am a little fatigued for writing. However, a friend just introduced me to The Rude Pundit, and I at least have the energy to share something from them.
I just read “Would a Good Guy with a Gun Have Been Justified in Saving George Floyd?” from 1 APR. It’s an interesting thought exercise about exercise of first amendment rights to defend a citizen against police abuse, such as a cop kneeling on someone’s neck until they die. Below is an excerpt.
Gun “rights” supporters often talk about two things: that some mythical “good guy with a gun” will be able to stop a bad guy in a violent situation, and that people need to be able to own guns to stop the government from treading on their life, liberty, and property. No, I don’t believe these things justify mass gun ownership. But we do have a fuckton of guns. In Derek Chauvin, you have both situations bound together. The bad guy was a government official and he was depriving George Floyd of life and liberty.
So I can’t help thinking about what would have happened if someone or more than one someone had pulled guns on the cops and demanded that Chauvin get his goddamn leg off George Floyd’s neck. I wonder if a good guy with a gun should have or could have saved Floyd. Would that good guy or gal have been justified in trying? Sure, the obvious answer is that this isn’t a fucking game or movie and the cops would have pulled their guns and all hell might have broken loose, and that’s a possibility, especially if the civilians who pointed guns at the cops were Black. But let’s dare to go there for a moment or two.
It perhaps would not be a more stable society if we routinely pulled guns on police for what we perceive – correctly or not – as crimes against the citizenry. But don’t we have a right to self defense, after all? Don’t we have a right – even a moral obligation – to stop a homicide when we see it happening? Documenting what Chauvin et al did to George Floyd may ensure convictions (I hope), but it did not save Floyd’s life. Passing a fake $20 bill, taking fetanyl, and being claustrophobic are not capital offenses.
Since drawing down on police is unlikely to solve larger issues, we can only hope that this trial will lead to meaningful accountability (conviction for murder), and perhaps get us on the path to ending qualified immunity.
On the Chauvin trial, today the Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker made clear that George Floy’s death was indeed a homicide, and that fetanyl and Floyd’s heart condition were not the cause of death. I’m not really sure what the defense has left. They tried blaming the “crowd,” they’ve tried blaming drugs, but ultimately the video and medical records don’t support their arguments. There was no reason for these police to treat Floyd the way they did. Their refusal to render aid when Floyd become unresponsive is perhaps even more disturbingly cruel than their decision to kneel on him in the first place.
Let’s hope justice is served.
The View from the Armchair 