What Is a Christian’s Duty to Unjust Government?

[dmyers]

JD Miller wrote:

T. Howard. I do not disagree with anything you said. As a former police chaplain, I did a lot of ride alongs too. Still this is an extreme example and I would not have asked the question if I had not watched the whole video. The guy was no longer resisting and had already passed out and the officer still would not remove his knee from the neck. If I were watching a slow murder, it would be hard for me not to take action. It is hard for me to imagine that the officers I used to work with would not have taken action either. I am confident most of them would have even if off duty. If I had acted, I would have done so knowing I would go to jail, but I don’t know if I could have not tried to help. There again who knows what I would have done in those few minutes.

I think I would have actually called 911 and reported that a cop had lost his mind and was killing someone who was no longer resisting and let the cop know the call had been made and I was ready to testify against him and he better stop. It is easy to come up with a course of action in hindsight, but who knows what I would have done then.

I still cannot understand why these cops were not immediately arrested and video footage of them being cuffed and processed with their photos and booking numbers in the background posted for all to see so that people could see that justice was swift and fair.

Um, in answer to your last statement, perhaps because their superiors weren’t there to see what happened as it happened? But I think you’re right: all 4 officers should have been executed as summarily as you think George Floyd was, with no investigation, right? Because that’s both the American and biblical approach to justice, as we all know.

Where did JD Miller advocate swift execution of all four officers? I don’t see where he specifically advocated swift execution of anyone. This seems like jumping to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is flat-out dangerous in matters of justice (we’d be writing about it here) and often unhelpful in discussions.

[JohnS]

Um, in answer to your last statement, perhaps because their superiors weren’t there to see what happened as it happened? But I think you’re right: all 4 officers should have been executed as summarily as you think George Floyd was, with no investigation, right? Because that’s both the American and biblical approach to justice, as we all know.

Where did JD Miller advocate swift execution of all four officers? I don’t see where he specifically advocated swift execution of anyone. This seems like jumping to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is flat-out dangerous in matters of justice (we’d be writing about it here) and often unhelpful in discussions.

It’s called hyperbole. But really, what’s the difference between a summary arrest by an officer who wasn’t there to see anything, with the maximum publicity JD wants, essentially communicating the police force’s pre-investigation finding of guilt, and moving directly to public execution without any due process? It’s the same jump-to-conclusions, we don’t need no investigation or trial attitude either way, isn’t it? Remember, if it’s ok to skip due process steps when you think someone else is obviously guilty, it’s ok to do the same thing to you when someone else thinks you’re obviously guilty of something. Pretty sure that’s not the way we want things to work. Remember also that the rules of our justice system were set up to deal with precisely the most public, emotion-laden types of cases where it’s easiest to go with mob rule and a rush to judgment.

Mr. Myers, I appreciate your call for a good look at the evidence, and I’ve shared it with none less than my own children, but if you had four civilians kneeling on a guy for eight minutes after he was cuffed, several minutes after he lost consciousness, and at least two minutes after he was deceased, and you had video and testimony from one of the civilians that he’d actually taken a pulse and found none, do you think the police would fail to arrest those civilians?

Do you think that the prosecutor would wait for very long before initiating charges? This isn’t about skipping due process steps, but rather about “are the police going to act on some pretty obvious evidence when it’s one (really four) of their own implicated?”

No doubt there are some questions here. Was the arrest delayed because those implicated are police, or because the deceased was black? Did George Floyd know he was passing counterfeit? What factors induced the police to treat him so harshly? I would hope that petty theft would not qualify!

But at the end of the day, all I need to see is “policemen subdued a guy for eight minutes after he was cuffed, minutes after he was unconscious, and at least two minutes after he was apparently deceased.” Brother, that warrants an immediate arrest.

It’s disappointing to read people pronounce on things they know little about. I’ve been in law enforcement and investigations my entire adult life - first as a military police officer and criminal investigator on active duty and now as a regulatory investigations manager for the State of WA. Due process is kind of important for the integrity of the system. When the rhetoric dies down, someone will be left holding the bag responsible to prove a criminal violation has occurred, which means proving the elements of a very specific offense. Emotion won’t do that for you.

I appreciated the Hennepin County Attorney’s comments about the necessity to take it slow in order to ensure they had sufficient evidence to charge the officer. Even so, they charged the man within (I believe) four days. That’s extraordinary. It’s also a bit troubling; I’m not certain the investigators really had time to get what they needed and to produce a report. I’m certain the police union recommended the officers not speak. The body cams were likely instrumental.

If I killed my neighbor and another neighbor caught it on video would the local PD take 4 days to arrest me?

Your situation is not parallel, because you are not an officer of the law responding to an alleged criminal incident with a ubject in custody. Here are a very few of the things the MN BCA and the Hennepin County Attorney had to consider about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death:

1. Was Mr. Floyd being combative or otherwise non-compliant? The cellphone videos do not capture the entire police contact with Mr. Floyd.
2. Did the officers follow proper procedure to restrain Mr. Floyd? That depends, in large part, on the circumstances of #1.
3. If the officer didn’t follow procedure, how much did his actions contribute to Mr. Floyd’s death? Did they cause the death? Or, did the exacerbate pre-existing conditions? This is a critical consideration.
4. If you can show the officers were culpable, in some form or fashion, for Mr. Floyd’s death while following unapproved and unwarranted restraint procedures, you still have to determine what specific crime has been committed.
5. You use the word “kill” in your analagous situation, above. I assume you use it as a synonym for “murder.” However, generically, “murder” means premeditation and intent. You plan to kill someone, and you do it. It would be difficult to show the officer did that, here.
6. You do have the option of pursuing some version of manslaughter which, speaking in generic terms, indicates you cause someone’s death by gross negligence. This may fit the bill, which is likely why Hennepin County went with its 3d degree murder - which I believe does not carry the freight of demonstrating intent.

In the midst of all this, you must interview the officers - all of whom likely have private or police union-sponsored attorneys. They may not cooperate with the investigation; from a self-preservation standpoint they certainly should not cooperate! You have to identify and interview bystanders. You have to await reports from the medical examiner. You have to do a lot of things. Then, once you feel you have a coherent picture of the events that can withstand scrutiny, you have to convince the County Attorney to buy off on what you have. The attorney has to be confident your evidence supports the crime, and be comfy pursuing it.

Four days is pretty quick. Likely too quick. When the emotion dies down, someone is left holding the bag to prove evil was done. That isn’t sexy. It isn’t flashy. It’s detailed, meticulous, and it takes a host of professionals to do it right. People don’t want to hear about that. But, it’s how it works. The alternative is mob-rule. We are … innocent until proven guilty. That principle is one reason why John Adams acted as defense attorney for the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.

[TylerR] Due process is kind of important for the integrity of the system. When the rhetoric dies down, someone will be left holding the bag responsible to prove a criminal violation has occurred, which means proving the elements of a very specific offense. Emotion won’t do that for you.

Appeasing the mob mentality reminds me of a passage in Plutarch’s Lives:

The following message needs to be communicated to the masses: “You cannot have a man as a leader and a follower at the same time.” Otherwise the outcome is what happened to the snake in the fable, whose tail was fed up with always following its head. The tail picked a quarrel with the head and demanded its turn as leader, but when it was given a go, it not only got itself into trouble by losing its way, but the head, compelled to follow the lead taken by a part of the snake that was blind and deaf, and so hardly suited for the job, was constantly being scraped along the ground. This is exactly what we invariably see happening to people whose sole concern as politicians is popularity. Once they have made themselves dependent on the fickle whims of mobs, they can never undo the damage or restore order.

As you know, people get arrested ALL THE TIME before all the relevant issues are resolved or evaluated. In this case it’s simple, charge the cop with the lowest crime, manslaughter, and then hold him until further investigation can determine how to move.

Also, get those other guys who stood there like no big deal was happening and hold them for some minimal charge while you consider bigger charges.

The reason you do this is to show that the criminal justice system is moving.

that they can’t choke out people, and they have to learn that their person is not a castle that if anyone touches it they get to beat the tar out of them… that is harder, but it is reality. They have to learn to start to deescalate rather than attack and force compliance.

There’s a difference between arresting and charging. You also speak in vague abstractions about “reform” that sounds good but mean nothing in practical terms.Please see my explanation, above, for a discussion about some of the likely challenges in this investigation. Your suggestion that police, in effect, routinely arrest everybody and sort out the details later is inaccurate. This is not a Communist police state.

[TylerR]

Due process is kind of important for the integrity of the system. When the rhetoric dies down, someone will be left holding the bag responsible to prove a criminal violation has occurred, which means proving the elements of a very specific offense.

I’m no expert in policing or criminal law, but I suspect this is at least partly why the 6 officers in the Freddie Gray case (3 of whom were black) got off. Their arrests were a rush to judgment to satisfy a mob, and eventually the cases resulted in a mistrial, acquittals, and the remainder dropped. At least some of the officers if not all were charged with crimes which the prosecutor was unable to adequately prove (which might happen in the current case if the charge is upgraded to 1st or 2nd degree rather than 3rd degree). It might seem to take too long, but prosecutors should take their time in this case to get things right. If they try the officer for 1st degree and he gets off, rather than 3rd degree with a judgment of guilty, it will seem to any family or protestors as if the “system is broken,” rather than weak leaders giving in to their calls for extreme judgment being the cause of the acquittal.

These are the thoughts of a Christian attorney friend of mine who was previously a prosecutor and now specializes in the defense of police officers in use of force cases:

I understand the rush to judgment on the officers in Minneapolis. I do this on a daily basis and understand more than most that snap decisions are typically bad decisions.

We will not be able to fairly judge what happened until all of the information is gathered and that won’t be today or tomorrow, but weeks and months. A prosecutor who makes a charging decision without all of the information is an idiot. You charge criminal cases with proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not based upon “probable cause” or you will lose a ton of cases.

For those of you who think you can judge anything from an 8 minute video, please understand that you will get the poor results that flow from making decisions without all of the factual evidence.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has found “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” after conducting an autopsy on George Floyd on May 26. This is the type of evidence I want to see before I throw around “murder” or “killer”. Those words mean something whether you are a cop or not.

Again, the connection your eyes make between the knee and the death aren’t confirmed by the autopsy. I have watched years of police tapes in my career. What you see often does not square up with the proper conclusions. We gather information in multiple ways. You have to look at all of it.

In almost every circumstance the officers would have been placed on leave with pay and investigated. The terminations were political. And that should not be usable as evidence in a criminal trial.

I’ve also been a long time prosecutor. And I defend police officers in line of duty incidents. It has zero to do with color. When you charge and don’t know what the evidence is, that’s a poor move, whether it is a citizen or a cop.

I want the facts in every case, not just when a law enforcement officer is accused. I’ve spent plenty of time next to prosecutors who charged without the facts only to have to eat crow after destroying an accused.

[Bert Perry]

What factors induced the police to treat him so harshly? I would hope that petty theft would not qualify!

If by “harshly” you mean with excessive force, the jury is still out on that, and will be for quite a while. But please understand that officers’ use of force isn’t determined by the seriousness of the crime charged. They weren’t wrestling with Floyd because of the nature of the charge, they were wrestling with him because he was resisting. Resisting doesn’t have to be violent to justify the use of force, it just has to hinder the arrest. It appears from other videos that Floyd briefly resisted being cuffed as soon as he was out of his car; after he was allowed to sit on the sidewalk near his car, he briefly resisted again after he was helped to his feet; then when they got him to the police car and attempted to get him in the back seat, he actively resisted at length and refused to get in. I believe that’s when everyone ended up on the ground. Factors to consider are the previous instances of resistance, his large size (6’6” and over 200 pounds — he was a big, strong man), and his quite active resistance at the police car. The officers were fully justified in taking him to the ground and in using some amount of force to obtain his compliance. Whether they crossed the line is to be decided, and if they did, then they deserve appropriate consequences. But it’s wrong to simply say they weren’t entitled to use any force because it was only a $20 crime (and, depending on the source of the counterfeit bill, it may have been a much more serious crime for all the officers knew).

They fired all four four excessive force the very next day. We can investigate whether their actions actually killed him, and to what degree they were responsible, but the MPD revealed the next day that they felt that the officers’ conduct went beyond reasonable restraint and into the regime of assault/battery at the very least. Anyone not in the police who did that would be arrested on the spot.

Regarding his size, 6’6” and 200 lbs is not that physically imposing. It’s actually a BMI of about 23, fairly skinny by U.S. standards. And even if it were 6’6” and 300 lbs arranged like an All-Pro OT, would that excuse this? Knee on the neck of a guy who’s cuffed and unconscious? A couple of minutes after the officer have reason to believe he’s dead?

Seriously, guys? Not even a quick arrest for this? Really?

The MPD and the Hennepin Attorney acted this quickly because of the practical realities of external pressures. It’s way too fast. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is with high-profile incidents. This happens in every bureaucracy. It’s a fact that, the more the politicians or executive leadership get involved, the more screwed up the procedure is going to be.

This pattern repeats everywhere. In my own context, we recently had external pressure from a U.S. Congressman to investigate a major insurer for alleged discrimination in emergency transport coverage for residents living in an isolated county. The Congressman personally phoned the agency to request this “injustice” be fixed. That means our agency boss, an elected official, was shall we say … “very interested” in seeing this investigation fast-tracked. There was a meeting. I was there, because I run the investigations team. The division chiefs for a host of other programs were present. Guilt was assumed. Public Affairs was gearing up. The wheels were in motion. Due process = none. I intervened and said any action was irresponsible without an investigation. They agreed, and I had to promise to have it within 60 days. They weren’t happy, but I flatly told them it wasn’t possible in less time.

The clock began ticking.

Guess what? The investigation determined the insurer did nothing wrong, and the entire thing was the result of bad procedure by the county’s medical director. The agency was shocked we didn’t substantiate the case. There was enormous pressure to determine fault. Enormous. We had to meet with agency division chiefs and justify our findings. They weren’t happy.

Two months later, the county fired the medical director after it discovered he was receiving kickbacks from a private air ambulance company and had been ordering unnecessary emergency air transports.

If we’d rushed to judgment, we’d have looked like idiots during ensuing enforcement action. We didn’t. We did the right thing. We took our time. It wasn’t sexy. It wasn’t flashy. But, it got us the truth.