For me, the most alarming thing to come out of the Chauvin trial was the defense. We touch on the themes of police culture speculatively, all the time — gesturing at what they must know and think and be like to tolerate the rate of police killings that they do. But to take that culture, and put it on the stand, and make it articulate its beliefs clearly for the jury — we don’t get that every day.
Chauvin’s defense did not simply focus on, oh, what a terrible mistake Chauvin committed, but please focus on the required intent to sustain a murder charge. Chauvin’s defense team invited an officer up to the stand to argue that, in full light of all the evidence, witnesses — in spite of nine minutes of a helpless man crying he couldn’t breathe and bystanders shouting that he was dying — that Chauvin’s actions were justified and within the scope of permissible force.
That is, that police are authorized to use lethal force in response to a situation in which no one is physically threatened. That is the belief.
If this officer were in my community, I would not call the police on anyone, for anything. I wouldn’t remain in the same place where there was a police presence. That is just a terror.
Now, consider that those kinds of officers probably are in your community. They just haven’t been asked to take the stand yet.