Amus de Wauchope

Anyone who has seen the evidence presented in Officer Chauvin’s trial would agree the events surrounding George Floyd’s tragic death were not as simple as the cell phone footage made them out to be.

In cross examinations the eyewitnesses have testified to a number of factors which should create a reasonable doubt of guilt. Genevieve Hansen, an off-duty Minneapolis firefighter who was at the scene, expressed extreme disbelief over the unusually long EMS response time. Members of the ambulance crew testified the scene looked “unwelcoming,” and they were forced to leave before proper medical care could be rendered.

These two testimonies do not boldly proclaim Officer Chauvin’s innocence, however, they cast light on the tragic situation and provide reasons to doubt that Officer Chauvin intentionally, or even negligently, killed George Floyd.

Mass media journalists and the blue checks on Twitter would disagree. They declared Officer Chauvin guilty before they knew who Officer Chauvin was. Ultimately, the jury will decide guilt or innocence based upon the available evidence. The more important issue at hand is the news media’s willingness to be a cheerleader in support of the state.

Journalists have called every prosecution witness compelling and every testimony damning. But so far the prosecution’s direct examination of the witnesses has not provided the jury with any additional facts. George Floyd died under tragic circumstances in March 2020. This fact is not disputed by the defense or any reasonable person. The multitude of teary eyed prosecution witnesses retelling the story of George Floyd’s death adds nothing to the body of available evidence.

Yet journalists would still have us believe each witness is an authoritative fountain of knowledge.

This is incredibly irresponsible. Journalists have a responsibility to report facts without bias and without editorialization. The facts are that the prosecution is building the foundation of its case, the prosecution’s witnesses have been argumentative in cross-examination, and witness testimony casts reasonable doubt on Officer Chauvin’s guilt.

When Officer Chauvin is acquitted, which appears to be likely, anyone who only received trial updates from the biased media and Twitter blue checks will be left confused and angered. The same biased reporters will decry the result as white supremacy. How else could a police officer so clearly guilty be found innocent of such a heinous crime?

Anyone who listened to witness testimony and expresses support of the verdict will be called racist, deplatformed, and depersoned. The media is splitting and destroying this country, and we must be willing to hold them accountable. The best (and, frankly, only) way to do this is to stop watching their TV shows and stop following them on Twitter.