Mark Simon

Nearly a year ago and 2,000 miles from Minneapolis, the largest crowd ever overflowed Courthouse Square in Redwood City to join the nationwide Black Lives Matter movement and the dialogue over police, the community and race relations.

The question then was whether this was a movement or a moment.

Tucker Carlson, the pompous jackass allowed to bloviate every night on TV, said, characteristically unencumbered by fact, that the jury in the Derek Chauvin case was intimidated into guilty verdicts by the threat of violent protests.

It does seem fair to say that the protests — the energized focus on police reform and the newly broadened understanding of widely varying realities when it comes to the American experience — changed the social dynamic in which the jury operated. It does seem fair to say the protests provided a new context in which the Chauvin verdict was possible.

Those of us who have spent an extended time around courthouses — I’m thinking, in particular of my old friend and colleague Duane Sandul — would have seen this as a slam-dunk conviction, or dead-bang in the parlance of the venue. That should have been the easy expectation, which, as we know, was colored by widespread apprehension.

But there were many critical things that occurred in this trial that we never would have seen the decades ago when Duane and I were working at the Redwood City courthouse.

There would have been no video — neither body cams nor bystander cellphones nor nearby security cameras. In other words, no objective evidence — just the word of the cops versus the word of witnesses and bystanders. Up to now, the public, in the form of jurors, were inclined to believe police in the absence of any other evidence. Does this mean that dynamic has changed? Probably not. At least, not quickly.

Perhaps more significantly, we never would have seen a parade of police officials testifying against another cop. If in some neighborhoods the principal code is no snitching, it is a standard long observed and honored, if not modeled, within police departments. Cover-ups may not have been common, but they were not outside our experience.

Many police officers would say, with some measure of fairness, that no one can fully understand the circumstances in which they operate. Let’s take that as a given. And, undoubtedly, some cops are feeling now that they have fallen unfairly out of favor. Consider, for example, how people felt about cops and firefighters after 9/11.

A longtime friend, John Francis Quinlan, a retired captain from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, posted on Facebook a series of U.S. Department of Justice statistics that demonstrate the almost minuscule likelihood of being shot by a police officer. Indeed, most of the cops I have known, go their entire careers without even drawing their sidearm.

“The numbers matter and show the real scope of the issue. Let’s start there when we are talking about reforming law enforcement or defunding the police,” his post concluded. But as we talked this over on the phone the other day, John, who rose in rank as the Sheriff’s Office, under the leadership of Don Horsley, evolved from a “cowboy” department to a high level of professionalism, demonstrated what many of us had known about him — that he was part of the new standard that would not tolerate old habits and biases.

At this moment in the flow of news, why write about how police might feel misunderstood, particularly in an environment in which we are only beginning to fully understand how some people are treated and mistreated consistently?

Well, as Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Put another way, this is not going to be easy. Or smooth. And it might require of us something we have yet to demonstrate we are prepared to deliver.

While we live in a time that cries out for more and deeper understanding, it is tempting to meet misunderstanding with misunderstanding, to argue against the other person’s reality. Clearly, a sustaining theme of the Black Lives Matter movement has been that we need to understand each other better and acknowledge someone else’s reality might not be mine and is likely to be beyond my own experience.

As broadly satisfying as the guilty verdicts were, the nation continues on a political spiral of disagreement and division and we seem to be sinking deeper into misunderstanding marked by certainty of what we think we know.

But a day of guilty verdicts invites hope. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at

Recommended for you

(10) comments


Thank you for this thoughtful and needed response to the trial and verdict. Having watched much of the trial I thought the case, as you said, was a slam dunk, despite the defense trying its best to find some inkling of reasonable doubt. As someone who has served on a jury, I know all too well the solemn task that it is to disregard as much of the noise of the world as possible and follow the instructions from the judge and follow the law. I believe this jury did that and I do look forward, if any of the jurors wish to do so, to learn more about what their deliberations were like.

Mark Simon

Thanks for your comments. I agree -- I am eager to hear what the jurors were thinking. It was such a swift verdict, I think we can predict their own process. I would not be surprised that they reached agreement in less than 10 hours, but stayed our a little longer out of a sense of obligation. I did see an interview this morning on CBS with the alternate juror, who said she heard nothing from the defense that impressed her.


The jury "was intimidated into guilty verdicts by the threat of violent protests." Must have played at least a part. We've been living under government by tantrum since the 60s when the aim of protests was to make "the whole world watch." Then TV was the game changer. Now it is video. Pardon the pun, but neither gives the whole picture.

Mark Simon

I guess we disagree about whether the jury was influenced by all the protests. I think it would be hard to get such a swift and unanimous verdict if the protests were a significant influence. It would seem more likely someone would hold out against that. I like your analysis of TV and video.

Tommy Tee

Thank you, Mr. Simon! Jackwagons like Tucker do nothing but perpetuate the problems. Thank God that young lady took the video. Otherwise, Chauvin the smirking murderer would have walked away scot free.

Mark Simon

Yes, I agree that the independents bystander video was a huge factor and things might have been quite different without it. I like the word jackwagon. I've always been fond of knucklehead myself.

Tommy Tee

"Nitwit" also fills the bill.

Terence Y

Mr. Simon – I’d like to hear your opinion on the hijinks Maxine Waters inciting riots, Al Sharpton, BLM threatening to burn the city down, and talking heads on the media already calling for a guilty verdict, or else there would be consequences. Now, imagine you’re a juror and you see and hear all of this hullaballoo, and you and your family live in the local area. What verdict would you agree to? Would you consider that justice? Technically, it is – mob justice. Some would say a modern day lynching. BTW, if you weren’t happy with Tucker Carlson, you might want to look up what Greg Gutfeld said. It may provide lecture material for your next column.

Mark Simon

As I said in response to another comment up above, I find it more likely that someone would hold out if he or she thought the jury was being stampeded into a decision because of public demonstrations outside the trial.

Mark Simon

I will look up Greg Gutfield. When I was in college and writing for the school newspaper, more than once I sat down and wrote a column with the express purpose of seeing how provocative I could be. Then I grew up. I am convinced Tucker Carlson would be an ultra-liberal if that was the way to gain notoriety, attention and fame.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!