The dilemma of bystanders

George Floyd, face down and handcuffed on the street, died in Minneapolis May 25 when police officer Derek Chauvin held his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine long minutes. Three other officers helped Chauvin as the minutes dragged on.

Eighteen citizens, of varying ages and genders, stood watching the event. Some of them, growing increasingly concerned and/or angry, begged Chauvin to let Floyd breathe. Several of them videotaped the fatal arrest.

Millions of Americans are now asking themselves what they would have done had they been among the onlookers. I’m one of them.

I don’t know the answer, and that’s a problem for me.

Maybe you’re reflecting on the same question about yourself.

Chauvin was found guilty of murder last week by a Minneapolis jury comprising white, black and mixed-race men and women. The prosecution presented a strong case, repeatedly showing a bystander’s clear videotape of Floyd’s slow, excruciating death and also police officer body camera videos.  

The video evidence proved to be undeniable: the sidewalk onlookers were watching a murder.

Could some of the onlookers, had they physically engaged Chauvin and the other officers, have prevented Floyd’s death? Quite possibly. It would have required taking on armed uniformed police, a dangerous and possibly illegal decision.

What would you have done?

I doubt I would have done anything different from what the 18 onlookers did: watch the scene with growing disbelief, maybe plead with the police to let Floyd breathe. Maybe even try to go nose-to-nose with one of the assisting officers.

But wrestle Derek Chauvin off of Floyd? Highly unlikely. 

It would have required extreme courage to rush Chauvin in order to push him off Floyd’s neck. Injury, or worse, to whoever tried that would likely have resulted, as well as arrest. And at the time there was certainly no guarantee that anyone engaging Chauvin would have been found not guilty of interfering with police.

But getting Chauvin’s knee off Floyd’s neck in time could have saved Floyd’s life.

Everyone knows stories of extreme bravery against wrongdoers: the passengers who lost their lives in Pennsylvania overpowering 9/11 hijackers, Congressional Medal of Honor heroes for courageous acts against military enemies, law officers who face off against mass murderers. 

But in those cases, the violators and enemy combatants clearly needed to be challenged. Derek Chauvin was an on-duty officer of the law, acting as such in daytime on a Minneapolis street with other officers assisting him. 

One of the onlookers who testified at Chauvin’s trial described her guilt feelings, and shared that she apologizes in her mind every night to Floyd for not trying to prevent his murder. I understand her pangs of conscience and sympathize with her.

Had I been there, I would probably have failed to act, and would now feel the same way.

A side note about the event: smartphones can help bring justice.

The Minneapolis Police Department, soon after the deadly event, posted a news release that was headlined “Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction.” The release, posted by the public information director of the police department, described the “incident” in grossly misleading terms that ignored crucial facts.

For instance: “Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center where he died a short time later. At no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident.”

No mention of Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck.

No mention that Floyd had obviously died at the scene, and that emergency personnel were unable to revive him there.

And stating that Floyd was handcuffed and then appeared to suffer “medical distress” in the same sentence, ignoring what happened in the 20 minutes between those two facts, was unforgivable.

But then a 17-year-old onlooker posted her smartphone video to Facebook and it was shown to the Minneapolis police chief. The four officers involved were fired the next day.

The importance of videotaping in law enforcement, whether from officer body and vehicle cameras or from bystanders, is huge. Providing cameras for officers, and requiring their use during duty time, does not come without expense and training. 

But taping undeniably provides vital evidence of what actually happens during enforcement activity. It can show improper and illegal officer behavior, and it can also vindicate an officer who is wrongly accused.

Some police and sheriff’s departments now operate with body and vehicle cameras as a matter of course. Others do not. State law should catch up with the benefits of modern technology for local law enforcement, require camera use, and federal and state funding assistance should be forthcoming for that purpose. 

Bystanders with smartphones may not always be around when needed.