Mercy Over Judgment: The Parable of Floyd and Chauvin

So, I was looking at the Chauvin trial and the political/racial media circus around it. I reviewed the known facts. I did this as a contingency in the event someone in the faith asks me about it as someone most certainly will. I reviewed medical reports, charges by the prosecution, defense, etc. The following is my unlearned legal observations and then my biblical/theological take which was my purpose for writing this.

We need to get past the political circus this is becoming and look at George Floyd and Officer Chauvin for the people that they were or are. It doesn’t matter where they moved the Chauvin trial to...they found this cop guilty the day the incident occurred in the court of public opinion. There is already a gathering mob online that is threatening to start riots if the verdict isn't guilty. If current patterns persist it is likely that Chauvin is 'dead man walking'. Once imprisoned he'll be a prime candidate for a shanking by the inmates if not put in protective custody. Prosecutors are setting the tone for the trial appealing to people's pathos as facts may not convict Chauvin of a murder charge. Negligence is what will condemn him. The defense will likely never be able to overcome the pathos with known medical facts though.

George Floyd took a massive overdose of Fentanyl just moments before he came into contact with Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin. Floyd was being arrested for passing a counterfeit bill (a felony). Security cameras show Floyd at least to some extent was resisting arrest. Floyd's autopsy report showed extremely high level of Fentanyl in his system at the time of death. The coroner's report was clear that there was no injury, including compression of the airway that could have inevitably been fatal.

Chauvin’s knee on the neck of Floyd likely wasn’t the cause of death. Negligence by Chauvin was though. It’s a fact that Chauvin showed (at least visually) what appeared to be a complete disregard for Floyd's pleas of not being able to breathe due to the overdose that killed Floyd. In other word, negligence. In order to establish negligence under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed.

Usually an officer’s sworn duty is to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency's jurisdiction. Additionally, officers also have the responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of life of the communities they serve. This includes the safety and quality of life of a suspect. Police officers as obligated by their duty are to ‘serve and protect’. That means to even protect the suspect from himself. Chauvin had a duty to Floyd as a police officer (or even as a human). All Chauvin needed to do was be more empathic and/or compassionate. Due to this lack of mercy and empathy harm came to Floyd in the form of death.

Chauvin isn’t guilty of 1st or even 2nd degree murder. He might be guilty of 3rd degree murder. Minnesota third-degree murder statute is defined as unintentional killing (involuntary manslaughter). He is unquestionably guilty of having zero empathy for the deceased and therefore guilty of criminal negligence.  Criminal negligence is defined as conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

Ordinary people would’ve been concerned for Floyds breathing and the fact he had become immobile after just having resisted. I mean I would have. My moral compass requires it. So does the Bible if one reads it close enough and embodies it. Chauvin based on actions did not live up to a minimal moral criterion or to his oath as an officer. For the sake of my post he didn't live up to the Biblical standard either. Yes, George Floyd was likely acting in a criminal manner. Regardless, by duty Officer Chauvin had a moral and legal obligation to Floyd (and society) that was not fulfilled. I see this as a microcosm of the larger moral issues nationwide. We as Americans are becoming increasingly ethically/morally debased. The farther we drift from God the more immoral we are becoming. We are becoming inhumane due to our immorality. The George Floyd issue was another American litmus test and we failed…again.

This was never about race or politics. It was made into that mostly by those looking to capitalize on Floyd's death either monetarily or politically. Our reaction as a society to this tragedy is ten times worse than the actions of the two people involved. It was about mercy and grace and nearly all of us missed that point. It was about treating our neighbor as ourselves. This is just another symptom of the metastasization of a cancer that is overtaking our nation. The actions taken and society's reaction to them is symptomatic of a much larger dilemma facing Americans. We're rotting at the core.

Let’s review the Parable of the Good Samaritan as point of contrast which was also about two types of people. It is extremely ironic that a scribe (lawyer) is asking Jesus the question about how to treat others that solicits Jesus’ parable. What duty are we obliged to human to human?

Luke 10:25-27 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarius and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Foremost, the parable amplifies the second great commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself.” Secondly, we need to realize that although this is a parable, the man in view may have been a real person and the incident Jesus described could have really happened. Jesus left the man's race and occupation unspecified, though His hearers would have assumed that he was a Jew. Truth is he could’ve been a Christian or even a non-believer. Regardless, he was overpowered by numbers or authority and suffered a near fatal defeat. What is of particular note is that the priest and Levite who were supposedly good men and morally obligated to help…did absolutely nothing. They decided to avoid the dying man completely.

The men morally obligated to act, failed to act in mercy and love even though common courtesy demanded that they stop and render aid. A priest (an authority figure like the police) of all people, should have shown compassion. He served the community in a "helping occupation," and he should’ve had frequent contact with the Law and/or the Scriptures and their demands. Just as a modern police officer should be versed in the law and ethical/moral behavior.

The third observer a Samaritan was the least likely of the three travelers to offer help, yet he did so. By placing "Samaritan" in the emphatic first position in the Greek sentence Jesus stressed the contrast between him and the other two travelers. The compassion that he felt overcame any racial prejudice against Jews that he might have had. Mercy and compassion ignored race. The Samaritan's compassion contrasts starkly with the callousness of the priest and the Levite (one of God's chosen). Treatment soothed the victim's wounds, and wine disinfected them. The Samaritan's love was obvious in his willingness to make generous and costly sacrifices for the other man's well-being. The genuineness of his love is clear from his provision of further care the next day.

Jesus thereby reversed the lawyer's original question and focused attention where it should have been, on the subject showing love rather than the object receiving and needing it. Exactly as we need to apply to the George Floyd / Officer Chauvin scenario. The answer to Jesus' question of who was the true ‘neighbor’ was simple and obvious. The true neighbor is the one who shows mercy, grace and love.

James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Showing mercy was the key issue, not the race or social status of the neighbor. Jesus wants us to look at the ‘who’ not the ‘what’ in this type of situation. Racial considerations were irrelevant. The same principle that applied in the Parable of The Good Samaritan also applies in the Parable of Floyd and Chauvin. Jesus ended the encounter by commanding the lawyer to begin to follow the Samaritan's example. So I will tell the same to you the reader. To not manifest these moral characteristics shows the fruit that resides within us all if we fail to do so. Those that do not afford basic moral actions to others in need of them are therefore morally bankrupt at best or condemned at worst.

The fact that aid does not get rendered where it is needed and instead contrary actions or callous indifference is shown speaks volumes to a man’s heart. Jesus showed that the real test of love is action, not inaction or just talk.

James 2:14-18 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

This parable is a powerful polemic against prejudice and an encouragement of mercy and compassion. Sadly, Officer Chauvin showed little of either. It also shows that those who watched Chauvin’s callous actions and did nothing are just as morally destitute. The fact that we are now making this about politics is even worse. It is a sad commentary for our times. Ambivalence and apathy are the gatekeepers of tragedy.