'No Justice, No Peace' Is a Recipe for Neither
The trial of Kimberly Potter, the former police officer who mistook her gun for her taser and killed Duante Wright, is underway in Minneapolis, MN. Already, the familiar chants of 'No Justice, No peace' can be heard. This raises the question: should we be threatening violence if we don't get the verdicts we want?
The answer is, obviously, no. But we do not hear voices on the left condemning this all too popular refrain. As we saw in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, this slogan is not mere rhetoric. Property damage occasioned by those riots resulted in over $1billion of damage. Our country cannot afford to endure such chaos and destruction. Moreover, our justice system should not be held hostage with threats of violence.
There are genuine questions of fact that the jury in the Potter trial must dispassionately consider. For example, to what extent did Duante Wright, the person killed by Potter, resist arrest? At the time he was shot, Mr. Wright was struggling with Potter’s partner. Whenever a suspect struggles with an officer, that is a life and death situation because of the possibility that the suspect manages to get a hold of the officer's gun. Police officers must assume that if they lose that struggle they will die.
How reasonable is it for an officer to mistake their gun for their taser when their focus is on a suspect struggling with their armed partner? Potter's attention was divided between her utility belt and the situation unfolding in front of her. There is no obvious answer to this question, and anyone who claims otherwise is just not thinking about it sufficiently.
There is no question that Potter believed she was aiming her taser and not her gun. She repeatedly warned Wright that if he did not stop resisting she would tase him. The chorus of voices suggesting she intentionally fired a gun at him because it’s impossible to mistake a gun for a taser are conveniently ignoring this fact.
Given these considerations, the jury in the Potter trial has their work cut out for them, and they should not be subjected to public pressure to reach any particular verdict. Is it justice if they convict Potter so as not to inflame tensions?
Jurors should not have to worry about, and are not permitted to consider, the larger consequences of their verdict. But how can they meet this obligation when they hear that there will be no peace in the event of an acquittal? We on the left should come up with a better slogan when protesting these perceived injustices.
