Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 395 | Seeking Truth & Justice: The Derek Chauvin Trial

Episode Date: March 31, 2021

Today we're going over the Derek Chauvin trial and the tragic events that led up to it. We also look at some of the statistics that reveal the truth about police brutality in the United States. Remember, God commands us to be impartial when administering justice, but many on the Left will view Chauvin as guilty no matter what the facts show. --- Today's Sponsor: "ABC - Life in the Womb" is a fun & educational alphabet book for kids to learn how babies grow & develop in their mother's womb. Visit their website at LittleLifeStages.com to order your copy! --- Show Links: Fox News: "Derek Chauvin Trial: What to Know About George Floyd Autopsies, Criminal Complaint, Jurors and More" https://fxn.ws/3rFQGlC NBC News: "Here's What to Know About the Derek Chauvin Trial" https://nbcnews.to/3uebh22 Insider: "The Minneapolis Police Department Trained Its Officers to Use the Neck Restraint That Led to George Floyd's Killing, According to Court Documents" https://bit.ly/31BqFJW The Daily Wire: "These 5 Cities 'Defunded' the Police, Now Violent Crime Rates Are Soaring" https://bit.ly/3szXrH3 FBI: UCR 2018 Crime in the United States - Expanded Homicide, Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity https://bit.ly/2QV7IQd The New York Times: "Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings" https://nyti.ms/3szXZN7 Skeptic: "How Informed are Americans about Race and Policing?" https://bit.ly/39vGq9y --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. Today, we're going to talk about that uncomfortable topic that seems to kind of dominate our news cycle, our social media feeds, and that is the topic of race and racism. But we're specifically talking about these subjects in regards to the Derek Chauvin trial, which is now underway. You guys probably know. Derek Chauvin was the Minneapolis police officer who was shown on camera last year with his knee on the back of George Floyd's neck before George Floyd died. So we are going to talk about the charges against Derek, what the media are saying, what's likely to happen. What we should want to happen is people who both love truth and justice. We will talk about what the truth is in regards to not just this case,

but also in regards to claims of systemic racism in the police force in the United States and why clarity on all of that matters. So there are a lot of details about this case and well, about this trial that's going on right now that we're not going to be able to get into. This is ongoing. And so details are always emerging, different testimonies, the arguments from both sides are being aired. And so there's a lot of commentary on that. But because there's no possible way for us to be following along and have the most up-to-date details for you while we are recording this. And it takes a couple hours for this to come out. We're not going to get into everything that's happening moment by moment. I just want to give you kind of an overview

and analysis of what's going on and try to get a good understanding two of the context in which this is happening at least as much as we can. This is something that we've been talking about a lot for the past year, and it's going to continue to be talked about no matter how the trial ends up. And so we want to make sure that we are as informed as possible. So let us talk about what led to this, just remind us what happened and what's going on in this trial. So according to an article by Fox News, Derek Chauvin trial, what to know about George Floyd autopsies, criminal complaint jurors, and more. So as you know, George Floyd died 10 months ago in Minneapolis.

The article says a video recorded by a bystander showing the white officer with his knee pressed to the back of the black man's neck for nearly nine minutes, ignoring his pleas that he couldn't breathe, will likely serve as a focal point for prosecutors in this case. Chauvin, 45. I think that's how you pronounce his last name, by the way. I'm not sure.

45 is charged with second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter in connection to 46-year-old Floyd's death on May 25, 2020. And the video recorded in front of Cup Foods, Floyd could be heard pleading for his mother and saying he couldn't breathe. This Chauvin pressed his knee into the back of his neck. Onlookers repeatedly shouted at Chauvin to get off, asked him to check for a pulse, and warned that Floyd no longer seemed to be breathing. Three other officers involved Thomas Lane, J.A. Kung, and Tao Thao were each charged with two counts of aiding and abetting and second degree murder. They are expected to stand trial together later this year in August. So to give us a little bit more context about what went on, and maybe these are some details that you didn't know, sometimes it takes several weeks or several months for us to really understand what happened.

an incident like this. Here are some details from the criminal complaints. So two officers, the two officers of the three that I listed in addition to Chauvin responded to a 911 call around 808 p.m. about a man who allegedly bought merchandise from a corner market with a counterfeit $20 bill. Court paper show. Floyd was in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked around the corner when the officers arrive. Body camera footage shows Lane. That's one of the officers, pointing his gun at the open driver's side window and ordering Floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel before holstering his gun. Lane then orders Floyd out of the vehicle and ends up pulling him out of the car. The officer handcuffs Floyd, who actively resisted,

according to the criminal complaint, filed in the case. Once handcuffed Floyd became compliant, he walked with the officer laying to the sidewalk, sat on the ground, and then they did the normal police stuff asking for his name and asking for his identification and information. And then they stood Floyd up. They attempted to walk him to their squad car. But at 8.14 p.m. Floyd stiffened, he fell to the ground. He told the officers he was claustrophobic. Chauvin and Tao arrived in a separate police car.

So I guess they called for help. They felt like, okay, we can't get this guy. He's over six feet tall. he weighs more than 200 pounds. This report says we can't get him to get into the squad car. A report say that they also said, hey, we'll, you know, we'll lower the windows for you, but you've got to get in the squad car. And apparently George Floyd was saying, I'm claustrophobic.

I don't want to get in the squad car. And so they called for backup. They continued to make attempts to get him in the backseat of the squad car. I tried to get him to comply. Chauvin went to the passenger side, tried to get, Floyd into the car from that side. And then when Floyd went to the ground face down while still handcuffed, that is when Floyd, or that is when Chauvin apparently put his knee on the back of Floyd's neck. And that is when Floyd was saying, I can't breathe and saying mama and saying

please. And that's when the onlookers were saying, hey, like, get your knee off of his neck. He obviously can't breathe. Stop, you know, treating him in this way. You're going to kill him. An ambulance arrives and medics placed Floyd on Agarney and take him to Hennepin County Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. Now, an EMT did testify in court. I think it was either this morning or it was yesterday. And she alleges that she wasn't able to get to Floyd as quickly as she wanted to and was able to. She says that the police officers actually inhibited her from giving Floyd the immediate help that he needed. So the full footage of the incident shows in congruence with the criminal complaint that there was a lot that went down before that viral video of Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck.

He was allegedly resisting arrest and from what we can see, the police officers were trying to convince him for a very long time to get in the car. He didn't want to. He dropped to the ground. And then that's where we have the viral footage. And that is not me justifying anything or trying to explain away anything. that's just what the context of the clip, of the full clip shows us. Now, I saw this clip on Twitter last year before this became a national moment, before it became a conversation, certainly before it became a movement.

And I have the same reaction that most people did that, oh my gosh, what is happening? This is not okay to see a guy with handcuffs behind his back and a police officer kneeling on his neck. It's just, it's unsettling. It's disturbing. There's just something about that image that sticks with you, that sears you, that breaks your heart. And just disregarding everything else for just a second, all the politics, everything that happened after all the details that came out before and after this incident, I think it is good for us

to pause and to just like let ourselves feel that. Rather than resisting feelings of sadness, we may have felt when seeing. being that video because maybe we didn't want to be too quick to criticize the police officer or we don't want to perpetuate a narrative about police brutality. I would say that it's okay and even preferable to just let ourselves feel sadness when we see a person seemingly desperate and obviously very uncomfortable being pinned to the cement. Now the left and the right both do this. People will immediately harden their hearts when it comes to, for example, the brutality of abortion, or when it comes to victims of crimes not committed by police officers and white people,

or for conservatives, we'll see conservatives kind of harden their hearts about the plight of migrants or the victims of unjustified police force, because we're afraid that feelings of sympathy may validate the argument of our opponent and in this polarized world, that is the last thing that we want. And I understand, I'm not justifying, but I understand that propensity toward callousness and I see how and why it happens on the right in particular, because I'm on the right. So I'm watching these kinds of stories unfold from that vantage point. What happens is something like the George Floyd incident occurs. And pretty much everyone agrees immediately, wow, that's bad. Like that doesn't look good. I don't think people should be treated like that.

Hard to understand how there may be a justification for that kind of behavior. So everyone's kind of on the same page. Everyone's kind of on board. And then immediately we see the media and left-wing activists go beyond. Yeah, wow, that's bad. And human beings should be treated better, too. In a matter of seconds, it seems, see, this is evidence of systemic racism in white supremacy and the police force and in society and George Floyd.

was a saint who we should dedicate murals and streets and protests and riots to as we seek to dismantle the unjust systems and defund the police that allow something like this to happen every single day. And then people on the right are like, whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't even have a chance, it seems like, to keep up. We feel like we've got to defend the nature of progressivism as a general rule. And I'm not saying all progressives, but as an ideology is that every tragic is an opportunity. So many times, leftist activists

and journalists will immediately go from centering the humanity of victims to centering their political cause or their political narrative. And the only people

who will push back against that narrative is conservatives. Now, I'm not saying that conservatives don't do the same thing when a crime is committed by an illegal immigrant

or something like that. But because all of the cultural and political megaphones are dominated by the leftist ideology. We see this in particular when it comes to progressivism, the decentering of what actually happened,

the decentering of the truth, the decentering of the victims and of the people involved and the recentering, or I guess just the centering, of some sort of political narrative. The tragedies are used in a very exploitative way, I would say, in order to try to push a particular point, And that is when people on the right get extremely defensive and say, hang on just a second. Like, we agree with you. This doesn't look good. We agree with you. This looks like injustice.

This looks like abuse. This looks like murder. But we're jumping to all these other conclusions. And we're just not ready to go there yet because we don't have the facts. And then when conservatives do push back, we're accused of not being compassionate. like we're accused of the one of being the ones who are not empathetic or nuanced or being too political when in these cases it's actually not conservatives who first politicized and racialized what happened to George Floyd or for another example their horrific shooting in Atlanta a couple weeks ago so apparently like the message that we get is that we just have to agree with whatever the progressive mainstream says is the cause of something in order to be regarded as empathetic And so speaking for the conservative side, what so often happens is that we feel like we have to skip the compassion and go straight into the defense or else there is nothing and no one to stop sometimes the sometimes false narratives that surround these tragic events because our media and our social media are dominated by one political and ideological side.

And a narrative just takes off like wildfire. And if conservatives don't slow it down, we feel like it's just going to wreck the conversation about the incident or about the event that happens. Now, all that to say, I think conservatives, while absolutely speaking truth and speaking against false narratives, must not neglect compassion and look past humanity for the sake of anxiously tearing down left-wing arguments and assertions. If the other side wants to do that, like if they want to immediately de-center humanity, if they want to forget about the victims, if they just want to push a political agenda immediately,

they can do that. But I think we need to have, especially as Christians, a little patience when it comes to our reaction, so we can kind of sit in the sadness and let ourselves feel what should be felt and pray what needs to be prayed before jumping. into the arena. I don't think that we have to avoid jumping into the arena because the truth absolutely matters, but I think we need a little bit more hesitance before forgetting about the bodies who aren't even cold yet when it comes to situations like this. The immediacy that it seems social media demands of us to make these statements, to offer hot takes, to give analysis,

has a way of hardening our hearts to the reality that what we're talking, about in these situations are people, like real people made in God's image with value who had plans and families and friends. Their lives matter beyond what we want them to represent or debunk when it comes to our political causes. Now, I am absolutely guilty of this. Lord, help me. It's something that I certainly see on the conservative side. I also see it on the other side of the aisle all the time as they turn a blind eye and to. the kinds of crime that don't fit into their narrative or the brutality of killing and dismembering babies in the womb. And I just pray that God would make all of our hearts, those of us who

identify as Christians, make all of our hearts soft to the things that demand our gentleness and care right away. And let us allow ourselves to sit in it before the news and social media hashtags and viral posts make us callous and uncaring. And also, made that love and sympathy and sadness that we feel for victims, for these people, these image bearers involved, for the people at the center of our political controversies, motivate us to seek out and understand that which is actually true. Not what the popular narrative is, not what the headlines say, not what we want to be true, but what is actually true? Because one thing I know for sure is that empathy plus deceit does not

equal love. It is not loving to lie. It is not loving or wise to latch on to political narratives because it's popular and comfortable to do so. And when it comes to something as disturbing, as the George Floyd incident, the heartache that we feel, and I believe we should feel when we watch that video, should not motivate us to respond publicly with sheer emotion and without truth, but rather should give us the desire to really know what happened. why did this happen? Is this a pattern? What's the context of this both there in that situation and in a larger sense in the country? We're seeing claims of white supremacy, anti-black racism in the police force. Is that true based on the information and the data that we have? And that's the

question that we're always dealing with and should be dealing with. Is this true? And what is true? And it's that question that must be dealt with when it comes to this Derek Chauvin trial. Justice being done in this case does not mean that Black Lives Matter activists get what they want necessarily. It's not about making a statement about systemic racism. It's not about writing historic wrongs. It's not about what we feel should happen or what we strongly believe the outcome should be. That's not justice. It's not about anything except what is true as far as what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. So the questions that will be asked and explored that have already been asked and explored in this trial will continue to be.

Or was it actually the weight of Chauvin's knee that killed George Floyd? Or do the autopsy reports point to something else? That's not to say whether or not what he did was right. I'm just saying that's the question that's going to have to be asked when you're talking about convicting a person of murder. Did Chauvin show intent or blatant disregard for Floyd's life? Was this a hold that the mini-eatting? Minneapolis police department had been trained or had been training their police officers to use, or was he using excessive force in order to inflict serious bodily harm or even kill him?

And I understand if you're on the left, maybe even hearing me asking those questions makes you angry. But these are the questions that will be explored in court and they should be. Like just because we believe something is wrong or just because something maybe objectively wrong doesn't mean that the person is guilty of the crime that he's being charged with. Chelsea Handler, the comedian, tweeted that we shouldn't even have a trial for him because we have a video. Oh, my gosh. This is what happens when someone has become successful in one area. And for that reason, they erroneously think that that gives him the authority to speak into other areas.

It's like an appeal to authority fallacy that they embody themselves. And it just goes to show how little education or critical thought is required to make it as comedian. I'm not saying that all comedians are dumb. I'm not even saying the Chelsea Handler is dumb. This is just a very dumb, short-sighted statement. We want non-politicized due process

for every single person that commits a crime in this country. If we allow politics or popular opinion or even video footage, gosh, in the day of deepfakes to take away someone's right to a fair trial, you are looking at fascism and or communism, at complete and total dictatorial control of the populace by those in charge. And you think that's not also going to negatively affect people of color, many of whom have ancestors who just a few generations back experienced the partial biased application of the law because of their skin color? What a terrible take. Due process is good. We do not have anything close to a perfect justice system in this country, but our bill of rights, specifically the due process clauses in the 5th and

the 14th Amendment afford us as Americans so much more than most of the world could ever dream up. Here's what the 5th Amendment says. No person shall be. held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when an actual service in time of war, public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now, well, I won't even get into that. There's a lot that people say,

and I think rightly and critique that that's actually not being applied truly and completely and fairly in this country. But that is a right that we are supposed to have recognized that is in the bill of rights. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. So we have a right as Americans. And while these rights are not always, like I said, recognize as thoroughly and fairly as they should be, we have to be able to recognize that even those that we see as guilty, maybe even especially those that we in the public at large sees guilty, even people we don't like are entitled to these rights, and that is a good thing. Listen to how much God cares about the truth, impartiality, and the fair process of justice as he

gives his commands to his people in Israel in Leviticus 19. Quote, you shall do no injustice in court, you shall not be partial to the poor, nor defer to the great. So he says, and this flies in the face of what so many social justice advocates say that they want, he said that we're not supposed to show preferential treatment in court to the poor, and we're not supposed to show preferential treatment in court to the great. Those that society sees as the oppressed or the oppressor. He says in court, you do not show partiality to either of these parties based on that or at all, but specifically based on their poverty or their wealth or their prominence or their insignificance. He says, you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to

the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall, a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently. And if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. So God hates slander. He hates a false witness.

He hates false narratives. He hates false accusations and he hates partiality. Exodus 23 1 through 3. You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. So God repeats, again, you can't be partial even. to the poor man, even to the weak man, even to the man that doesn't seem to have as much backing or significance as maybe the guy on the other side. You can't show partiality to him. God says this has to be an honest and a fair and a thorough, impartial process to meet what

his standard of justice actually is. The idea of due process was God's idea, who is the creator of justice. God gives rights to both the accused and the accuser. That's what we see in his law giving to Israel. And while we are not ancient Israel, I'm not saying that we are, I'm not trying to argue that we are or should pretend that we are. It is important for us to understand where do process comes from and why it is so important. So when Micah 6'8, as Christians, tells us to seek justice, to love mercy, that word justice is not translated to mean fighting for whatever social justice causes we want however we want and showing partiality in some groups in in exchange for, you know, a different kind of partiality against another group. It's about taking or it's

about God's righteous justice, which is always rooted scripture tells us in impartiality and in truth. There is a priest. I guess he's a priest. His name is David Ingzowski's on Twitter. He tweeted, Jesus Christ and Derek Chauvin are on trial this week. If the justice system lets Derek Chauvin walk free, then we will have chosen Barabbis over Christ once again. Now, I'm not even sure what the heck he means by this, but what he is saying is, you know, who cares about the presumption of innocence, which Americans are supposed to be able to enjoy, according to our bill of rights, who cares about due process, who cares about what the arguments are, what the evidence is,

who cares about the actual impartial justice that people should be entitled to and that God actually desires, as we see in scripture. And let us say that if Derek Chauvin walks free, we are once again, I guess, crucifying Jesus. there's just no theological or logical backing to a tweet like this. Like that is not the definition of God's impartial and righteous justice. The fact that Derek Chauvin has the right to a defense, just like everyone else, is good. That is a system that we very much want to keep in place in the United States if we don't

want to be like every other brutal dictatorship that's ever existed. This is important for people of every color, for every socioeconomic status, for every, for every kind of background, for every place of prominence. It is important that everyone is entitled to this fair process. According to NBC, here are the charges, the prosecution, led by state attorney general Keith Ellison, who, by the way, is every bit a left-wing political activist, are bringing forth. This is NBC. Quote, Chauvin faces second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second

degree manslaughter charges in Floyd's death. Second degree murder carries the happiest potential penalty. If convicted on that charge, he could face up to 40 years in prison. That requires the highest burden of proof, though. They're going to have to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense. The lesser charge of third degree murder carries a penalty of up to 25 years. The judge who is overseeing the trial granted prosecutors' request to reinstate the charge this month. He originally said that the circumstances just don't merit it, that this is not going to hold up because it requires proof that the person charged committed and act imminently dangerous to others,

meaning more than one person, but he actually allowed it to be reinstated. The final charge of him faces second-degree manslaughter has the last. lowest burden of proof carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. They would have to prove prosecutors would have to prove that Floyd's death was caused by Chauvin's negligence and creating an unreasonable risk and consciously taking chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. My amateur opinion is that this third one holds up the best, second degree manslaughter. But of course, like I said at the beginning, there's a lot that's going into this.

So it's hard to say what's going to happen. and no one can truly predict the outcome of it. According to Fox, the defense is expected to argue that Floyd was not killed on Memorial Day by Chauvin's knee, but rather by the drugs he ingested while resisting arrest and underlying health conditions, including high blood pressure and heart disease. According to K-A-R-E-11 news, handwritten note of a law enforcement interview with Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin-Pin County Medical Examiner, say Floyd had a lot of finessellivan. fentanyl in his system.

If we were, he said, if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of a lot less than this. That is the level of fentanyl that he had in his body, this medical examiner said, is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances. But he does go on to say, I am not saying that this killed him. So he's stating the facts of what was in his body, but he can't say that that's actually what killed him.

But that's what the defense attorneys are probably going to say. They've signaled that, that they're going to argue that Floyd died from the drugs and preexisting health conditions. Also, according to Fox, the autopsy conducted by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner actually did determine that Floyd's cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement, subdueal restraint, and neck compression. it was ruled a homicide. Floyd's family later hired private doctors to conduct an independent autopsy, which listed the cause of death as mechanical asphyxia and the manner of death as homicide.

So the defense is going to say, look, there's no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the neck compression is what killed him. He had fatal levels of fentanyl in his system. People have reportedly been killed by less. He also apparently, according to the medical, examiner has a very serious heart condition. Beyond that, the defense is probably going to say that there was no intent there. They're going to point to the fact that apparently, reportedly, this was a hold that the Minneapolis police force had been trained to use. And there's no way that he can actually be justly convicted of murder. According to Insider, the Minneapolis Police Department trained its officers to use the NACRA strain that led to George Floyd.

Floyd's killing according to court documents. And so that might look bad for the police force, but that actually helps Derek Tovin's case. He could just say I was doing what I was trained to do. There was obviously no intent to murder. There was no malice behind it. Whatever. So that is probably what the defense is expected to say. I am not saying that. Some people are going to listen to this and think that I am, you know, saying that the defense is my argument too. I'm just saying that's probably what his defense is going to say. They've got a case. Wherever you land on this, both sides have their case to make. Here's what NBC tells us about the jury. The jury is made up of nine women and six men. Nine of the jurors identify as white, four is black, and two of mixed race.

They range in ages from 20s to the 60s. Having an impartial jury whose anonymity is protected is crucial to the fairness of these trials. And there was a push by some on the left to release the information, for example, of jurors in the Brianna-Taylor case after that did not go the direction that they wanted, including her family. They were pushing for this information. And they actually did, I think, get the transcripts. But they didn't get, thankfully, the names and the information of the people on the jury.

If that is the new precedent that we set, then again, we will no longer have fair trials for anyone of any race on either side of the aisle of any socioeconomic background, that spells trouble for everyone that is not something that we want. So when we say that we want justice to be served here, which I think that we all should, that means that we want a fair trial with an objective judge, an impartial jury where both sides bring their best arguments forward, the evidence is weighed and a decision is reached that is not influenced by the media by public opinion or politics. That's what it will mean for justice to be served. The fact is, we're in a tough situation with all of this. If Chauvin is not convicted of the highest charge, then we will be

hearing endlessly that it's because the system is racist. There will be riots. There will be looting. There will probably be murder. There will be property destruction. It will not matter. How objective or fair the process is. If BLM and Democrats and left-wing activists do not get what they want here, which I believe is the highest possible murder charge, no matter what can actually be proven in court. They will use this as a way to relaunch the anarchy that many of them have been waging for nearly a year now and redouble their efforts to convince the country that America is pervasively and systemically racist and that we need to defund the police. First of all, I know this is controversial to say, but it's just true. It needs to be said that we still have no evidence whatsoever

that what Derek Chauvin did, as awful as it may be, was motivated by race or had anything to do with race whatsoever. A black Minneapolis police officer a few years ago shot and killed a white woman who had just called 911. And as she was walking up to his car, totally unarmed, just this blonde lady in pink pajamas, he shot her point blank and killed her. He only got 12 and a half years in prison. And no one talks about systemic injustice or race when it comes to that case or in the case of Tony Tempa or Daniel Schaever, if you even know who their names, who they are, and if you even know those names, or any of the white people who are killed by the police, because it's called narrative. It's called what the media used or it's what the media used to determine whether or not

a victim is worth talking about and a crime is worth discussing. That's called partiality. And God is very clear that he hates it. So we as Christians should too. Now we need to look at the facts around police brutality because this is going to be a conversation like I said that is going to be had once again in the next few weeks. And it's a good conversation to have, but we need to know what the facts actually are. now. So let's refresh our memories on some of these statistics when it comes to police,

when it comes to police shootings and police brutality. This is not to take away from what happened to George Floyd, because obviously that's important, but I want us to be prepared and I want us to know what the truth is when this trial really goes one way or another. We have to make sure that we are knowledgeable about the facts. According to the Washington Post database on police shootings, 1,021 people were shot and killed by the police last year. Now, that doesn't include other types of killing of civilians. And we'll talk about that too. The Washington Post database is only about police shootings in particular. So 1,021 fatal police shootings of civilians, only a few more than 2019, actually, which is just interesting because there was a big uptick and violent crime in 2020. 415,000. of these were white, 241 were black. So about 45% white, about 27% black. Now, of those, most were armed. Most were armed. There were a total of only about 50 or not about. There were only 55 unarmed people shot and killed by the police last year. So 95% of fatal police shootings last year

involved civilians who were armed. That doesn't mean that the cases in which people were unarmed, don't matter, that their lives don't matter. We shouldn't look into those because we absolutely should. But these are just the facts. These are just the statistics about police shootings. But by the way, unarmed doesn't actually necessarily mean not dangerous. They could have been reaching for the officer's weapon and still be considered unarmed. They could have been a threat in some way to someone else.

Unarmed doesn't always mean that the officer is not justified in using fatal force. though, of course, sometimes it does mean exactly that. All of these cases have to be looked into. It depends entirely on the circumstance and what actually happened. So 55 unarmed people shot and killed by the police last year. We don't know all the circumstances and whether or not the action by the police was in any way justified. Of those who were unarmed, 24 were white, 18 were black. So 1.7% of fatal police shootings last year were of unarmed black men.

If you look at the database, which starts in 2015, year over a year, these numbers are comparable. They're about the same. Now, it is true that white people make up about 70% of the population. Black Americans make up about 12 to 13% of the population. So the fact that 27% of fatal police shootings involve a black person, unarmed or not, is disproportionate. So you will hear and you will read that black people are much more likely to be killed by the police than white people because there is a higher percentage of total black people killed or there's a higher percentage of black people killed by the police and the percentage of total white people killed by the police based on population size.

The website mapping police violence says this. 36% of unarmed people killed by the police were black in 2015, despite black people making up only 13% of the population. That is true. But the reality is, according to FBI data, and I know this is a controversial thing to say, I'm not justifying, again, anything. But this is the context that we have to know when we're having these conversations. The reality is, according to FBI data, that black Americans, despite only making up 12 to 13 percent of the population, get a lot of police attention because there's a disproportionate number of violent crimes committed in these inner city communities. And to 2018, black Americans committed about 40% of all homicides while, again, making up only 12 to 13% of the population. 2012 to 2015 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that white Americans commit about 44% of all violent crime. Black Americans, about 23% of all violent crimes, again, making up about 12 to 13% of the population. So the likely reason, black Americans are more likely to have these kind of fatal encounters with the police is because they have more interactions with the police than other races than other kinds of demographics because reportedly of the crimes that are being committed in these communities. And I just want to say again, this is not a justification of anything. But if we're looking at, if we're asking the questions, honestly, which we should.

should be, you know, why is this happening? Why is there this disproportionate number? Why are we hearing about these stories? We have to look at the entire picture. There are absolutely incidents that we know of, like, in my opinion, the one of Elijah McLean in which a young black man was, again, in my opinion, clearly abused and killed completely unjustifiably. So I'm not saying that any of these statistics mean that there's never a case of a white police officer unjustly killing a black man. Of course that happens. Of course that happens. Or another race of a police officer killing another race of a civilian unjustifiably. Of course that happens. Again, just looking at the entire picture. And that was a case in Elijah McLean that didn't involve a gun. Mapping police

violence looks at all deaths of civilians by the hands of the police, not just using a gun. According to that website in 2019, 1098, people killed were killed in all ways. According to this site by the police 114 were unarmed of those, according to the site, 48, where white, 28, we're black. Again, we don't know anything about those killings, what the circumstance was. but let's put those numbers, those numbers into context. And mapping police violence, by the way, is an activist organization against what they call police violence.

And I'm not saying that their description of police violence is wrong, but that's just how they describe it. So according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were over 50 million interactions between the public and the police in 2015, the most recent year that there is data for that I could find. That number has ranged over the years, but every year, tens of millions of people interact with the police. So if we take the estimate of 50 million police interactions in 2020 and according to the

Washington Post, 1,021 fatal police shootings in 2020, you're looking at about 0.002% of all interactions between the police and the public ended a fatal shooting by a police officer. And if we're talking about killed by any fatal force and we go to mapping police violence data, that's 28 unarmed black people killed by the police in 2019, either justifiably or not, either by a white officer or not. That's 0.00056% of all police interactions. And every single one of those instances should be looked into. We can talk about every single one of them to see whether or not it was justified,

to see whether or not there was a racial bias there or racial motivation there. But we have to be able to look at the details of this and to look at, what is actually going on before we simply believe what the media tells us that this is happening on a daily basis or that this characterizes all police officers or that this justify is defunding the police or getting rid of the police as we see fit. I don't think the numbers support that kind of argument. The fact of the matter is when we're looking at what is victimizing black communities, it doesn't seem to be, according to the data, predominant.

police officers. The homicide rate among black people is completely disproportionate to their population size. There are murders, mass murders. Nearly every weekend in cities like Chicago that are never reported on because it doesn't perpetuate a narrative. These are conveniently categorized as local crime stories, but the tragedies that have what progressives consider a politically useful racial makeup, even though they're more rare, have to become national news. Roland Fryer, he is an economic professor at Harvard University. He conducted a thorough study in July 2016, looking at the existence of racial bias in the police force, specifically racial shootings. According to the New York Times, Mr. Friar is the youngest African American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first to join a

John to win a John Bates-Clark medal that is given to economists under the age of 40. He conducted this study thinking that he was going to find racism, proven racism in the police force when it comes to who police officers decide to, decide to shoot. But he actually, that's not what he found. He actually found that in such situations, officers in Houston in particular is one city that he looked at were about 20% less likely to shoot of suspects were black. The estimate was not precise and firmament would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different situations of different definitions of 10 situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites. The New York Times says a 2019 peer review study titled Officer Characteristics in Racial Disparities and Fatal Officer Involved shootings published a scientific journal aimed to examine racial bias and police shootings found that black cops are more likely to shoot black civilians and Hispanic cops are more likely to shoot his.

Hispanic civilians and so on. Here's what the study found. As the proportion of violent crime committed by black civilians increased, a person fatally shot was more likely to be black. As a proportion of violent crime committed by Hispanic civilians increased, a person fatally shot was more likely to be Hispanic. Conversely, as white crime rates increased, a person fatally shot was less likely to be a black or Hispanic.

We did not find evidence for anti-black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings. And if anything, found in. anti-white disparities when controlling for race-specific crime. Now, Roland Friar did find, according to his study, that he believes that the evidence shows that when it comes to non-fatal confrontations, like police officers just roughing up suspects or perpetrators, that the victims of that kind of brutality and abuse and harassment are more likely to be black and brown than they are white.

And I think that's important for us to know that brutality, where it does exist, is not always going to end in a fatal confrontation. It can also mean a police officer using his power in a way that is unjust that doesn't end in some kind of fatal conclusion. And we should absolutely care about that, especially if we see some kind of racial bias behind it. But the fact of the matter is is that most people do not know these facts. Like most people don't know these studies. Most people don't know these percentages. Most people just don't know the data. And there was a really interesting report by skeptic research asking how informed are Americans when it comes to race and policing. It was conducted among 980 adult Americans. That's a pretty small sample size. First asked

them to identify their political orientation, then ask them how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019 and what percentage of people killed by police in 2019 were black? And so that first question asking how many unarmed black men were killed by the police? In 2019, if you were very liberal, the highest percent, I have to hold my computer up close because I can't see. 31 percent, if you were very liberal, that's the highest percentage, believe that it's over, that it's about 1,000, that it's about 1,000 unarmed black men killed by the police in 2019. If you identify as liberal, you believed about 40 percent, believed that it's about 100 unarmed black men that were killed by the police. If you're moderate, about 40% believe that. If you identify

as conservative, you are most likely to say that it was about 10 unarmed black men killed by the police. And if you're very conservative, you are also most likely to say that it was 10 unarmed black men killed by the police. The reality is, is that it was 13 unarmed black men who were fatally shot by the police in 2019. And according to mapping police of violence, 27 unarmed black men were killed by police by any means in 2019. So when it comes to that, a large portion of conservatives are actually more informed on what the data actually is, whereas if you're a liberal, you are much more likely to overestimate

the number. And that is a direct product of what they're watching in the news. And it's interesting because we are constantly hearing. that conservatives are the ones who are misinformed on this subject, when in reality, at least according to this study, a lot of conservatives have a better handle on what the facts actually are when it comes to police brutality, in particular against black people, than liberals do. Now, the second question that was asked was what percentage of people killed by police in 2019 were black? If you're very liberal, you are likely to say,

about 60% if you were liberal or just yeah if you identify it as just liberal about 56%. If you were moderate, you believed that it was about 45%. If you're conservative, you believe that it was about 37%. If you're very conservative, interestingly, you actually believe that it was about 44%. The real number is about 26.7% of victims of police shootings between 2015 and 2020 were black. And so actually everyone overestimated in this study what the percentage was. But if you're very liberal or liberal, you're getting that wrong by 30 plus percentage points, probably based on what you are hearing and what you are reading. It's very unlikely for a liberal who wants to

confirm the narrative that they already have to actually go in and look at the details of this. And I'm sure that happens in other issues on the other side as well. But when it comes to this, it seems, at least according to the study, that conservatives have a little better grasp on what's going on. Jason Riley, who happens to also be black, he talks about these issues a lot of the Wall Street Journal. He writes about this in the Wall Street Journal. He says, and this is going to sound, going to sound harsh, he says, so as long as black Americans are committing more than half of all murders and robberies while making up only 13% of the population. And so long as almost all of their victims are their neighbors, these communities will draw the lion's share of police attention. Defunding the police are making it easier to prosecute officers will only result in more lives lost in those neighborhoods that need protecting.

He talks about how the narrative is being pushed without the facts, without context. It's actually going to hurt these minority communities. And we have examples of that. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd died, the city shifted $8 million away from the police force. last year. According to Fox News, the police department says it only has 638 officers available to work, roughly 200 fewer than usual. Three city council members have actually proposed replacing the entire police department with the public safety department that would include law enforcement and other services. Yes, for Minneapolis, a coalition of local community groups is collecting

signatures to try to push the replacement of the police department in Minneapolis. And Listen to this. The Star Tribune reported the yes for Minneapolis committee is being fueled by a half million dollar grant from the Washington DC based group Open Society Policy Center linked to billionaire George Soros. Of course, he is also behind all of the pro-crime, so-called social justice district attorneys, or many of them in the country. That's not the conspiracy theory. That's just true. You link it back to see who funded their campaigns, open society in many cases. The article goes on to say Minneapolis on Friday backtracked on its original push to defund the city's police department in the wake of George Floyd's police custody death after residents begged the city to hire more officers, citing longer response times and increased violent crime. 81 people have been killed year to date as of December 30th, 2020, an increase of 72% from the same time in 2019 police department statistics show. The city council on Friday voted unanimously to approve.

So this is a more recent change to approve $6.4 million in additional funding that police had requested. And part of these complaints are happening in Minneapolis because there is or there has been an autonomous zone, apparently in honor of George Floyd in Minneapolis, where people are being assaulted and murdered. People are saying the situation at the memorial. from what I understand is that it's kind of volatile. This is Kim Griffin and Minneapolis resident. People that want to go and support don't feel a sense of inclusion. There is more like a militant type atmosphere over there in a sense of fear. Her nephew, Imez Wright, was gunned down within the zone over the weekend.

An activist actually blocked the cops from responding. The people who are guarding the zone have refused to reopen the area unless the city meets their list of 24 demands. Last year alone, there were 19 non-fatal shootings in this George Floyd Autonomous Zone where police are apparently not allowed, 14 of which occurred between May 1st and August 31st. And so this is really not being reported on quite as much. This is supposed to be a part of the revolution pushing back against the police. But the fact of the matter is that people are dying.

Like people are dying because of this violence is flourishing. there. And that's exactly what Jason Riley talks about in the article that I just quoted from, that actually when you take away the police, what you see is very often an uptick of crime that disproportionately affects black and brown communities. The Daily Wire reported on five different cities in the last year that have responded to the George Floyd incident by taking funding away from the police, Portland, New York City, Austin, Seattle, Los Angeles, and what they saw in what was reported in each of those cities that after they shifted funds away from the police bureau, they saw upticks in crime. For example, in Portland, though year-to-date shootings had risen 10.8% in May, the months of June, July, August, and September, witnessed 96.8%, 186.1%, 195.1% and 243.8% hikes, respect.

when you were talking about shootings in Portland, the same kind of story in New York City, the same kind of story in Austin, in Seattle, in Los Angeles. I've heard many other people from cities across the country where the police force has been weakened, either significantly or just in small ways that has seen a rise in violent crime. And there was already going to be a rise of violent crime because of the lockdowns and economic instability. So this only added insult to injury. And according to Newsweek, there is a Gallup poll that actually shows that 81% of black Americans do not want less police presence despite protests. Some actually want more cops. Now, the study does say, in quotes, black Americans saying that, look, we want fairness.

We still feel like they're not treating us fairly. We still feel like we're being over-policed, maybe in some cases, or we feel like this isn't really how we are being policed, isn't right? But we don't want less police because we don't want more crime. And so the activists that are pushing for defunding the police don't seem to actually be representing most black Americans who are not a part of this whole defund the police movement. There's an article by Stephen Malanga and City Journal that also talks about this. He talks about how when New York reformed their their policing under Rudy Giuliani, and I understand that's still controversial. But crime went down and the quality of life in the city went way up.

And then over the past 10 years, we've kind of seen through social justice activism, a lot of cities start to take a different approach in the hopes that crime will stay down even as they weaken their police forces. And that's unfortunately not what has happened. So we have no indication at all that deep. funding the police in allocating those resources to quote community measures will do anything to decrease the crime based on the data that we have it doesn't seem like that's the answer no matter what happens with the derrick chauvin trial there are some reforms that absolutely can be put in place

that we've talked about before no more public unions i think public unions being funded by our taxpayer dollars are totally unethical teachers unions police unions so often shield bad teachers and police officers from being fired. That's a problem. I think we can invest in better training, maybe higher qualifications in some cases for police officers. Maybe we can supplement police officers with social workers, not replace them. We can offer different kinds of trainings and programs to the youth in these areas that seem to be having a disproportionate number of interactions with the police. But it does not seem from what we know and from history that defunding the police or shrinking the police is actually going to do anything except for cause and exacerbate

current problems. Now, as a conservative, I don't want the police to have too much power. I don't want them to be above the law. I don't want them to be abusing civilians in any way. So I am all for reforms. I am all for having these conversations, but we have to have them rooted in truth. And the problem is, is that we can't actually have these honest conversations if we are racializing that which we do not know is actually racialized. That is the danger of viewing the world only through the lens of race. Seeing every instance in which a black person is involved as racialized in some way and not just racialized, but ultimately about white supremacy, it causes us to ignore problems and therefore look past solutions because we are, focused on the wrong narrative. So no one wants to talk about the problems with the teachers and the police unions. No one wants to talk about how Planned Parenthood sets up shop in every predominantly

black and brown community. And that in New York City year after year, according to the New York City Health Department, there are more black babies that are aborted than born. No one wants to talk about those things because that is outside of the myopic and concrete narrative that whiteness and white supremacy and white police officers are always the main problem. And the problem with that also is that there's never any concrete solution or viable solution given to that supposed problem. So when we get down to the nitty gritty and we look at what's actually plaguing these communities and we look at a lot of the problems and what the data shows, no one wants to

have those conversations because people are so much more loyal to their narrative than they are actually doing anything to help these people. So no one wants to talk about the kinds of murders that happen in the black community that victimize black children every day. No one wants to talk about black on Asian crime or black on Jewish crime that we know is prevalent. And why, unless someone can find a way to make it about whiteness and white supremacy, we just, we don't, we don't want to focus on it. I'm not saying no one's talking about those things, but we're not having these big national conversations about them. We're only having the national conversations about the instances in which police kill, an unarmed, an unarmed black person, which we can have a conversation about that.

But we don't have a national conversation when it's an unarmed white woman who gets killed. And the black police officer only gets 12 and a half years in prison. Because unless something is white, bad, black, brown, good. The media and many left-wing activists throw it out because it's just not useful. And therefore, we end up missing out on discussions that could actually help. And we should want to help. that is why the truth matters because we want to help because we care about people because we want to talk about actual solutions but when we're so wedded to a narrative and we are so unwilling

to actually examine any problems, any causes or any potential solutions that don't match that narrative, then we don't end up helping anyone but ourselves because we're just latching on to that which is popular rather than looking into that which is true. And I think that's a huge problem. All right. I think tomorrow we are going to take a break for. from the news unless something is absolutely pressing and we're going to talk about some theology. But I hope this kind of gave you a refresher, some numbers that we've talked about before and also gave you a lot of context for what's happening in this Derek Chauvin trial. I will keep you updated on that.

All right. See you guys tomorrow.