By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst rumors of a potential presidential pardon for Derek Chauvin, Minnesota officials, including Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Frey, are preparing for potential civil unrest. The Minnesota Department of Corrections stands ready to transfer Chauvin back to a Minnesota prison to serve his state sentence, regardless of a federal pardon. Attorney General Ellison has affirmed Chauvin will remain incarcerated, and Minneapolis officials emphasize that existing emergency plans are being reviewed, though no credible threats have been identified. The city also anticipates a Justice Department filing next week to end the consent decree on MPD reform, a move the city will likely challenge.
Read the original article here
Minneapolis and state leaders are currently preparing for the possibility of a presidential pardon for Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd. While no official statement from President Trump or the White House has been made regarding a pardon, rumors of such an action are circulating, prompting Governor Tim Walz, the Minnesota National Guard, Mayor Jacob Frey, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt to engage in contingency planning for potential civil unrest.
Governor Walz himself has acknowledged the lack of concrete information but stressed the importance of preparedness, citing the unpredictable nature of the current presidential administration. This proactive approach highlights the seriousness with which state and local officials are taking the possibility of a pardon, even though it’s currently just speculation.
The key aspect of this situation is that a presidential pardon would only apply to Chauvin’s federal conviction. He would still be obligated to serve his 22-year sentence for his state-level crimes. This legal nuance is crucial, as it means Chauvin’s release isn’t imminent even if a federal pardon is granted. The fear isn’t necessarily of Chauvin’s immediate freedom, but rather of the potential for widespread unrest triggered by the perceived injustice of a pardon, particularly given the highly charged emotional context surrounding the case.
There’s a growing concern that a pardon, even if legally limited, could be a deliberate attempt to incite civil disorder. Some believe that this could provide a pretext for a harsher crackdown on protesters, echoing historical patterns of using manufactured crises to justify increased state control. This perspective suggests the possibility that the pardon itself might be less important than its potential to destabilize the situation and allow for the escalation of conflict.
Conversely, some argue that a federal pardon, and the subsequent transfer to a Minnesota state prison, could be detrimental to Chauvin. State prisons, they contend, are generally considered more harsh than their federal counterparts, particularly for individuals with a high profile like Chauvin. It’s suggested that he might face significantly more danger and discomfort in a Minnesota state prison than in his current federal facility. This perspective casts the potential pardon not as a gesture of leniency, but potentially as a form of punishment in disguise.
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the anticipated public reaction. Some believe that while initial anger might be high, the understanding that Chauvin still faces a substantial state prison sentence could temper any widespread violence. Others remain deeply skeptical, anticipating that even the perceived injustice of a pardon, regardless of its actual impact on Chauvin’s incarceration, will be enough to spark significant protests and potential riots.
The underlying tension revolves around race relations and the deep-seated distrust of the justice system among many communities. There’s a very real concern that a pardon could be interpreted as a blatant disregard for the severity of Chauvin’s crimes and further erode public faith in institutions, potentially leading to widespread unrest. Furthermore, the fear of a response from the administration, potentially exceeding the bounds of appropriate law enforcement, is deeply rooted in many individuals’ minds.
In conclusion, while the legal realities surrounding Chauvin’s potential pardon are relatively clear-cut, the potential for significant social and political upheaval remains substantial. The situation is not simply a matter of legal technicalities; it’s a powder keg of deeply ingrained societal tensions that a presidential pardon could easily ignite. The preparations being made by Minneapolis and state leaders underscore the genuine concern about the potential consequences, regardless of whether the pardon ultimately happens. The focus is less on the legal implications and more on mitigating the potentially explosive social consequences.