Last Monday I wrote about Minneapolis Burning, and I need to add an additional qualifier to what I said there. The article got a lot of traction, and there was one section in it which was a frequently cited pull quote — which is where the qualification needs to be made. This is what I said.
In an attempt to display their tribal affinity with George Floyd, the rioters went on to display their actual spiritual solidarity with Derek Chauvin. The rioters set out to prove that they could be just as lawless as Chauvin had been, and just as contemptuous of the standards of basic decency. And in this they have succeeded.Minneapolis Burning
I believe that my commitment to biblical processes would have been better served if I had said “as Chauvin has been accused of being” instead of assuming the outcome of a trial in saying “as Chauvin had been.” The same goes for the assumption about contempt for standards of basic decency. The basic point made there remains.
It is true that I said the following later in the article, but because of how much later it came, it was less a qualification than an inconsistency.
That said, I would want my public comments to be of a sort that would not preclude me being able to serve on the jury at Chauvin’s trial. I am not a big fan of the common practice of pronouncing full sentence before all the facts are presented.Minneapolis Burning
I still have no problem with Chauvin being charged, and think that he should receive a fair and objective trial. And I believe that every juror should go into the trial prepared to convict and prepared to acquit. We should not believe the police department status quo, and we must not believe the lynch demands of public rioting. We must believe the evidence, and conduct ourselves in a way that invites all relevant evidence to be presented.