The closing arguments in Derek Chauvin’s trial for the murder of George Floyd were concluded on Monday, and after the jury was excused to start deliberating, Judge Peter Cahill had a few harsh words – for Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA).
While attending a rally in Minneapolis on Saturday, longtime congressman and chair of the House Financial Services Committee said she thought Chauvin should be convicted of murder and urged protesters to ‘become more confrontational’.
These comments have garnered enormous attention in conservative media – with critics distorting Waters’ comments, claiming that she encouraged protesters to riot if they did not like the verdict. (Waters’ actual remarks were far less than that, and she insisted in a subsequent interview that she was’ non-violent ‘.)
“I just do not know how this jury can really say that they are free from the scourge of this, and now that we have US representatives threatening violence in connection with this particular case, it is – it’s surprising to me, Judge,” he said. attorney Eric Nelson said when he asked for a wrong trial.
“I am aware that Congressman Waters spoke specifically about this trial, and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction, and spoke of being ‘confrontational,'” Judge Cahill said. “I wish elected officials will no longer speak on this matter, especially in a way that is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judiciary. ‘
Cahill dismissed the wrong request, saying the jury was told to avoid media coverage and he does not think jurors will be harmed over Waters’ comments. He also believes that “an opinion of a congresswoman really does not matter much.” But he thinks of Chauvin’s lawyers: “I will give you that Congresswoman Waters gave you on appeal something that could lead to this entire trial being overturned.”
Those on the right exaggerated, distorted, and opportunistically put Waters’ remarks in the spotlight. She did not tell anyone to riot. The larger context here, however, is that Waters, like many on the left, has long believed that comfortable, privileged Americans are too willing to turn a blind eye to violence against black people and other marginalized communities – and riots, if not justified . , at least an understandable response.
Moderates and conservatives, meanwhile, have long argued that some on the left were reluctant to fully condemn unrest or work to cause death, injury or financial ruin. This decades-old conversation has been revived amid the unrest that followed the Floyd assassination in May 2020, and because the Chauvin verdict pops up and cities fear new violent protests, it is now back on the agenda.
What Waters actually said
Waters attended a Black Lives Matter rally in Minneapolis on Saturday night, and Waters responded to questions about the unfolding trial. She has repeatedly said that protesters should “stay on the streets” and “fight for justice”. She said she’s looking for a conviction for Chauvin – and for murder, not just the lesser charge of manslaughter. And when she asked again what protesters should do, she said the following:
“Well, we have to stay on the streets. And we need to become more active. We need to become more confrontational. We need to make sure they know what we mean by business. ”
The video of her remarks went viral, especially among conservatives, who claimed Waters was urging protesters to riot if Chauvin was not convicted of murder. “Maxine Waters Encourages Violence in Minneapolis,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) tweeted.
The accusation of ‘incitement’ was overestimated. Waters did not address or lead a crowd in a speech; she talked about the cuff to the interrogators and her comments became just as viral because conservatives made them viral.
And although Waters has made it clear that she wants a conviction, it is not clear that her advice to protesters was intended to depend on an ‘innocent’ verdict. One questioner used the framework, but Waters said she could not hear him, and her ultimate answer was to the broader question, “what should protesters do?”
As for the accusation that Waters insisted on violence or riots, it depends on her use of the phrase ‘become more confrontational’. In a subsequent interview with TheGrio, Waters said he did not endorse violence at all, saying “I am non-violent.” When she used the word ‘confrontational’, she said, she was talking ‘about the confrontation with the justice system, the policing that is going on, I’m talking about it.’ And, asked by CNN’s Manu Raju when she stood by the word ‘confrontational’, Waters replied: ‘The whole civil rights movement is confrontational.’
All of this will sound familiar as a result of President Donald Trump’s second indictment, when Democrats accused Trump of inciting rebellion, in part because he delivered a speech with a confrontational language and urged his supporters to ‘fight’, just before they stormed the Capitol.
Trump’s defense attorneys have pointed to many Democrats, including Waters, and made similar comments, arguing that such language is common in politics. But Democrats have argued that Trump’s speech was just the culmination of a months-long, multiple attempt by Trump to block the election results illegally. They fully acknowledged that politicians use the word ‘fight’ in a rhetorical or metaphorical way.
The larger context
The larger context of this is that cities are ‘steel’ for major protests and possible violence as Chauvin is acquitted, in the line of the unrest that took place in different cities after George Floyd’s assassination last summer. About a dozen people died during the unrest. In a mix of situations, many more were injured, and according to one estimate, there was more than $ 1 billion in property damage.
Most politicians tended to speak out against such violence, and many Democrats take it for granted that they are politically counterproductive to the goals of protesters (or perhaps to their own political fortunes). “The protest against such brutality is right and necessary. This is a completely American response, ‘Joe Biden tweeted days after Floyd’s murder last May. ‘But communities are burning down and unnecessary destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. ”
However, many people with a further view from the left were at odds over how to react. Leftists thought that riots motivated by racial injustice were ‘the language of the unheard’, according to Martin Luther King jr. To quote – and that understanding and sympathy, rather than condemnation, are required. And Waters has long held this belief.
In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in 1992 – riots that took place after police officers beating a black man, Rodney King, were acquitted and in which more than 60 people were killed – then-first-year representative Waters specifically said that she is not going to tell people to ‘cool it down’, adding: ‘The fact is, whether we like it or not, rioting is the voice of the unheard.’ (Later that year, she called the unrest ‘not acceptable’ but ‘understandable’.)
Waters’ core view that many in the U.S. are too comfortably willing to apologize for injustice to marginalized people, and that consequently often need more aggressive protest tactics, resurfaced in 2018. endorses public (non-violent) confrontation of Trump cabinet officials, and a very similar cycle of controversy as the current one followed.
“When you see someone from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and push yourself back on it,” Waters said at a rally that year. ‘And you tell them they’re not welcome anywhere anymore. We need to connect the children with their parents. ”
The interest in 2018 – whether Trump officials could eat in DC restaurants without shouting – was pretty low. But people can and are killed and seriously injured in riots, and property damage that can shake off large businesses can wreak havoc on small business owners. (In Los Angeles in 1992, for example, Koreatown was hit hard.)
Conservatives argue that there has been a widespread tendency on the left to belittle or excuse this behavior, without considering its victims. Last summer, Trump’s team tried to link urban violence with Democrats, as part of a strategy to blame the party more generally for disorder (including attacks on activists’ support to “defend” the police). Biden won, but some moderate Democrats concluded that the attack underperformed the party in Congress. And Republicans will no doubt hope to use a similar playbook in 2022, as the narrowly democratic majority in both houses of Congress hangs in the balance.
Aside from the unrest, others have objected to Waters’ insistence that only one result in the trial – a conviction for Chauvin’s murder – is acceptable, saying government officials should acquit Chauvin until he is convicted. The video of Floyd’s death has been publicly available since last year, and the arguments over the trial have been well-broadcast, so Waters can say she expressed her opinion based on that.
But the criticism is that especially such statements by public officials jeopardize the right to a fair trial and can risk the trial – the latter is a criticism that Democrats have often voiced about Trump, while during his presidency over his associates’ hearings mean.
And as for Judge Cahill’s hope that politicians will “stop talking” about what the verdict should be? President Joe Biden said Tuesday that he ‘prayed’ for ‘the right verdict’ and that he felt the evidence was ‘overwhelming’.