On May 25th, 2020, George Floyd lost his life due to irresponsible police officers that held him down due to suspicion that he used a counterfeit $20 bill. Even though Floyd stated that he couldn’t breathe, Derek Chauvin had held his knee on his neck and inevitably killed him.
Almost 2 years later, on February 24th, 2022, a verdict was determined for the three officers that were responsible for George Floyd’s death. While Chauvin was found guilty of murder and some other murder/manslaughter charges, there were three others that have been on trial since May 25th; Alexander Keung and Thomas Lane were responsible for helping Chauvin restrain Floyd while Tou Thao had prevented bystanders from interfering.
In an article by Daniella Silva from NBC news, she said that “severe punishment is unlikely” though the actual prison sentencing is still to be decided as of writing this. Silva, along with Rochelle Olson and Andy Mannix of the Star Tribute, comments about how the “federal sentencing guidelines recommend three to four years in prison” though they can face up to a lifetime sentence.
While Chauvin is currently serving a state sentence of over 22 years, it’s said to be harder to place a sentence on Keung, Lane, and Thao due to their circumstances being so unique; in the words of Christy Lopez, a law professor and former deputy chief, “[there’s no] case where they were prosecuting officers [for] failing to intervene against a superior officer.” The sentences are yet to be announced.
We’ve learned that the Supreme Court sets the precedents for how similar cases should be ruled, often using the ones that have gone through the court of appeals. I personally do not see this case going to the Supreme Court due to the officers seeming unlikely to appeal the decision. I believe that it’s unlikely that the three will receive sentences that are longer than Chauvin’s, though Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, mentions that their punishment “can never be justice,” and rather that it’s “just accountability.”
Questions:
Would you give Thao, Lane, and Keung life sentences? If not, why?
Many people disagree about what the actual job of the police is; I’ve heard some people say that it’s their job to prove someone of crimes, to uphold the law, and to protect citizens. What do you believe the inherent job of the police is? Is there a priority (ex. Protect the people before upholding the law)?
Chauvin’s sentence was announced on June 25th, 2021 (roughly a little over a year after the murder of Floyd) and another year has passed before the other three officers were found guilty. Should the 3 of them have been tried at the same time as Chauvin? Should their sentences also take into consideration what Chauvin’s was?
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/24/us/george-floyd-trial-verdict
4 comments:
While I am obviously biased in this case, Lane, Thao, and Keung deserve long sentences, if not life (though considering that Chauvin didn't get life, they won't either). They were there, and could have saved Floyd had they thought of getting Chauvin off of his neck; more than that, they were supposed to be specifically trained to make sure that they could de-escalate situations in a non-violent manner. It is also really bad that they hadn't been tried sooner, as there's been more than enough time to review the evidence and recordings taken on that day and pass a proper verdict.
The job of police is to protect people and to uphold law, but I don't think it is their job to prove someone of crimes; I believe that job should remain with lawyers as the law is what they know best. I think that Police are there to instill rules in more of a community level than a more widespread level. I think it becomes a problem when police believe that they are above the law because they are instilling it. They are there to make sure that people follow rules, and in doing so they must also keep themselves in check. Whether or not George Floyed had actually used a counterfeit $20 does not mean that Chauvin or the bystanders were able to kill someone. Even if George Floyed was a threat to the community (which he was not), it does not give police a right to take matters into their own hands, by taking the life of someone who they do not know is guilty or innocent. In fact, I don’t think anyone should receive capital punishment period.
I would not give Thao, Lane, and Keung life sentences, and any rational judge would agree with me. If I had to put each of them in order of sentence (longest to shortest), I would go Keung, Lane, and Thao. Although this is solely based on the NBC article provided, it seems that Thao was occupied with crowd control and not completely engaged with Chauvin and Floyd. Until Floyd actually died, is it believable that Thao was unaware that what Chauvin doing was lethal? Of course. Also, although I don't think this should change much in terms of sentencing, it makes sense that these three officers would be intimidated by the seniority of Chauvin and be nervous to say anything. Pleading ignorance is not a bad idea, because it seems exactly what happened. This is based on little evidence, but personally, I don't think these three officers wanted Floyd to die. However, Lane and Keung were involved in restraining Floyd, which is why I think their sentences should be harsher than Thao's. Lastly, Lane also gave a (lame, but genuine) effort to put Floyd on his side, to the immediate dismissal of Chauvin. He cared about his role in the process, but still succumbed to the pressures of an obnoxious higher up, and should be punished for being complicit in the situation.
I think the police force's role in the community is a mixture of upholding the law and protecting the citizens. This is because the law exists to protect citizens! Respectfully, I am very confused by Arissa's interpretation of the killing of George Floyd. She says, "Whether or not George Floyed had actually used a counterfeit $20 does not mean that Chauvin or the bystanders were able to kill someone." Which bystanders killed George Floyd? The answer is that no bystanders killed George Floyd... the literal definition of bystander is someone who does not take action. One must take action to kill someone. Of course, they can be convicted of other crimes, but the conflation of the "bystanders" and Derek Chauvin is an interesting assertion. Most of the bystanders wanted the police officers to stop restraining Floyd. Also, most people do not approve of murder, whether someone is a criminal or not. This is a relatively uncontroversial topic, but still a theme behind the argument for/against the death penalty and abortion.
I agree with Amogh that Lane, Thao, and Keung deserve long sentences, although they won’t get life, simply because Chauvin did not. However, I would like to respectfully disagree with some of Nicky’s points. For one, according to the NBC article, Assistant US Attorney Sertich said that “Thao argued with and belittled the crowd that was pleading with him to help Floyd, who was dying.” If there was a crowd of people pleading for Thao to help someone, I don’t think he could be “unaware that what Chauvin was doing was lethal.” Additionally, I don’t think being intimidated by Chauvin’s seniority and thus not doing anything makes sense when a man’s life is at stake. Although Lane did suggest for Floyd to be turned on his side and was rejected by Chauvin, this was a matter of saving someone’s life and he should have done more. Overall, I don’t think you can plead ignorance after you listen to a man saying “I can’t breathe” for eight minutes. And if Lane did care about his role in the process, he would have intervened more. Chauvin’s actions were not “obnoxious,” they were murderous. The bottom line is that if the officers truly did not want Floyd to die, they would have intervened.
I take Arissa’s line to mean that Floyd’s actions were in no way an excuse to let him die, which I completely agree with. But the question that arises here is, is letting someone die the same as killing them? Obviously, these three officers are not guilty of the same thing as Chauvin. However, I would argue that they did assist in Floyd’s murder by not doing anything, and the statement that “one must take action to kill someone” isn’t completely true. And it is true that “most people do not agree with murder” but I don’t see how this changes anything or helps the officers’ case.
Post a Comment