Are multiple race-related investigations a problem in the George Floyd case?

Everyone knows the story by now.  A Minneapolis cop subdued an arrestee, George Floyd, and kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for an extended period of time, allegedly despite Floyd’s protestations that he couldn’t breathe.  Other cops stood by and watched.  Soon thereafter, Floyd died, presumably of suffocation.  Few people are surprised that the incident caused protests, which turned into riots and looting, which in turn caused many millions of dollars in property damage and at least one death.  While the riots and looting are nonsensical, such criminal behavior grew out of the protests which, it appears, were rooted in claims of racism.

Based on this, politicians and multiple levels of law enforcement were quick to jump into the mix, declare not only the cop’s guilt but also his racial motivation, and then kick-start their investigations.  There’s even a federal probe into this alleged homicide, which is normally a routine state matter.  But could all of the mayhem and millions of dollars in damage have been avoided if, instead of launching an investigation, the local Minneapolis prosecutors simply treated this case like a run-of-the-mill homicide? 

Admittedly, I only practice criminal defense in one state: Minnesota’s neighbor to the east, Wisconsin.  But here’s the way prosecutors work when presented with a mere accusation of strangulation, even without a death, without video evidence, and without supporting evidence of any kind: (1) the police arrest the suspect immediately based solely on an accusation; (2) the prosecutors file a complaint within 48 hours; and (3) prosecutors consider new evidence, if any, should it come to light before trial.  The reason law enforcement acts so quickly is that the test for an arrest and a criminal complaint is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather the incredibly low standard of probable cause. 

Why depart from this method of operation now?  Do we really need an investigation into whether the cop was a racist or just a bad cop in general?  Not at all, and certainly not before an arrest and filing of a complaint.  Race can be introduced as a motive at trial; there doesn’t have to be any pretrial investigation or finding.  And if race isn’t the motive, i.e., the cop was just a bad cop, then guess what?  The cop is still facing a homicide charge because the state doesn’t have to prove racial motive (or any motive) to win a conviction.  Nor would they even want to in a case like this where the entire incident was captured on video.

So just stop with the investigations and the “national conversations.”  There is more than enough probable cause to arrest and charge the cop.  Prosecutors should have done what prosecutors do: charge first, ask questions later.  The cop-defendant would then have the same rights as every other defendant charged with a crime, including the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a jury trial.

Sometimes, business as usual is better than grandstanding, race-based investigations, and so-called national conversations carried on by windbag politicians and talking heads in the media.  Any other person caught on video doing what this cop did would be arrested, charged, and then offered a plea deal or a trial.  There is more than enough for probable cause. 

The only question is whether a swift arrest and the filing of charges would have also prevented the riots and looting.  Given the irrationality of burning an Auto Zone and stealing televisions and other consumer goods from a Target store, I’m not sure.  But either way, had the local prosecutor acted routinely, the cop-defendant and his defense lawyer would currently be preparing for their first (or next) court appearance.