Ep. 2160 - The Case For Derek Chauvin | Episode 1: The Background
52:10 Share

What if everything you were told about the trial of Derek Chauvin was a lie? Today, we're launching one of the most important multi-part series we've ever produced at this company. We're examining the terrible miscarriage of justice that took place in the case of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. This will be a comprehensive multi-episode breakdown of the case. All the facts, all the evidence, all the political context. We're going to tear this case apart piece by piece. By the end, I think you'll agree with me that President Trump should immediately pardon Derek Chauvin for his federal convictions.

New episodes of this series will be dropping every Tuesday and Thursday. Watch them, share them, join the discussion with Daily Wire members and Ben Shapiro Show producers inside the Daily Wire Plus app. The truth matters and justice matters, and you're not going to hear this anywhere else. This is The Case for Derek Chauvin, Episode 1, The Background.

Like everyone else in America, I first saw the tape of Derek Chauvin and George Floyd on May 25th, what appeared at the time to be nine minutes of a police officer's knee on George Floyd's neck. Given the tape alone, I drew the same conclusions most Americans drew. I tweeted that the police officer's behavior was abhorrent. I called for his prosecution. I stated that nobody is defending the actions we all witnessed. So it's not as though I was initially a believer in Derek Chauvin's innocence.

And then, over time, new evidence emerged. A lot of new evidence. And I realized I had done something absolutely wrong. I had rushed to judgment. As new information was released, the full body camera footage, the complete autopsy findings, the Minneapolis Police Department training materials, my viewpoint changed, and it changed dramatically. But for most Americans, their only opinion on the case was formed in the hours after the original tape broke. They didn't know about the new evidence, but they knew it was true.

or they didn't care. The legacy media were deeply complicit in this. They didn't cover the details of the autopsy, the details of the complete body camera footage, the defense presentation at trial. They let that original impression sit in the minds of the American people for years. And they did that for a reason. They had a predetermined narrative of the race-based guilt of Derek Chauvin. And according to the left,

of white people everywhere. Taking stock of these larger forces at play helps to make sense of the bias that continues to this day. The George Floyd narrative was set. A racist white police officer murdered a black man in cold blood. Case closed. Evidence to the contrary? Irrelevant. MPD, training protocols, dismissed. Toxicology report, ignored. Medical examiner's findings about contributing factors, conspiracy theories.

Consider, for example, ESPN's Stephen A. Smith, who last week dismissed my call to revisit the Chauvin trial by declaring on his show that he, quote, doesn't care about the autopsy, effectively admitting he doesn't care about the facts or the truth. This cavalier dismissal of medical evidence perfectly encapsulates how much of America approaches this case.

See, you're trying to go down the lane I wasn't trying to go down. I'm not going to let you take me there, which is why I turned down your invitation to appear on your show. We're not getting into all of the science and what the doctor said and autopsy report, even though I just read it to you to some degree. We don't have to go there.

A proper analysis of any case requires examining all the available evidence, not just the parts that confirm preexisting narratives based on the first available information. The media, the politicians, the prosecutors, they had no interest in presenting the complete picture, judging by their reaction to the announcement of this series. They still don't.

You're not going to hear it from CNN. You're not going to hear it from MSNBC. You certainly won't hear it from politicians who built their careers on the back of this case. But you'll hear it here because unlike those who rendered judgment and moved on, I believe truth emerges when we're willing to revise our positions in light of new information.

On March 4th, 2025, I launched a petition at PardonDerek.com calling on President Trump to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin from his federal convictions in the death of George Floyd. This isn't just about one man, though the unjust conviction of one man should be enough. This is also about restoring the rule of law after a disgraceful period of politically motivated race and identity obsessed weaponization of the justice system.

Since returning to office, President Trump has been taking historic action to dismantle the radical ideological framework infecting our institutions. In just six weeks, he signed nearly 100 executive orders and taken over 400 executive actions declaring that America will be woke no longer. He's systematically dismantling DEI programs across the federal government. He's targeting what he calls the tyranny of diversity and forced so-called inclusion in our institutions. He's banned men from women's sports, returned education to a merit-based system, declared there are only two genders in America. But all of this,

All of it will remain incomplete if we don't address the original sin that kickstarted the entire woke revolution. The match that lit the powder keg of woke insanity that then spread through every American institution like wildfire. President Trump's war on wokeness cannot be considered complete unless he addresses the fundamental injustice that started it all. Partnering Derek Chauvin is about making a definitive statement that the rule of law matters more than mob justice, that America is finally ready to correct the catastrophic error that sent our country spiraling into years of racial division and leftist cultural supremacy.

And of course, I understand that this is politically radioactive. I get it. I understand the entire American left will melt down completely if President Trump were to do this. I get that the media will lose their collective minds. And frankly, I don't care because justice should matter more than political expediency.

I think that it is sadly another example of blatant disrespect for the law, blatant disrespect for George Floyd and his family and people who remember those very, very ugly days. I hope that

Donald Trump has enough humanity to recognize that releasing Derek Chauvin would cause untold injury to George Floyd's family and the many, many people who feel vulnerable. This is to create dissension. This is to create animosity. This is to create protests in the streets. Just let it stand. Mm-hmm.

I mean, really, just let it, what, what, what, what crime can, can I? First the insurrectionist. Right. Now Derek Chauvin. Come on. Tell me what crime you're, you're just going to allow it to stand because it's a crime. The inciting event for the BLM riots that caused $2 billion in property damage and set race relations in America on their worst footing in my lifetime was the death of George Floyd, of course. The evidence demonstrates conclusively Officer Derek Chauvin did not commit murder.

There were no accusations, even at his state trial, that Chauvin had committed a hate crime against George Floyd or targeted him because of his race. Nonetheless, on the basis of extraordinarily scanty evidence with massive pressure on the jury, the mayor of Minneapolis spoke out in support of a $27 million settlement approved by the Minneapolis City Council to the Floyd family immediately before the trial. Joe Biden suggested Chauvin was guilty before the verdict. Jurors were being openly threatened. Derek Chauvin was convicted on state charges and then pled guilty to federal charges on unreasonable use of force.

Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail? They're a good family, and they're calling for peace and tranquility, no matter what that verdict is.

I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think it's overwhelming in my view. -I am very hopeful and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that is a guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away. -And not just manslaughter, right? I mean -- -Oh, no, not manslaughter. No, no, no. This is guilty for murder. -It became intentional and deliberate.

And justice must be intentional and deliberate in this courthouse. And so today's settlement reflects our shared commitment to advancing racial justice, our sustained push for progress, our commitment to Minneapolis, and our commitment and compassion to one another.

Now, critics will argue, and they have argued, what's the point? Even with a federal pardon, Chauvin would still serve his state sentence. After all, A.G. Ellison is still in charge over in Minnesota, and so is Tim Walz. This is technically true, of course, but it fundamentally misunderstands the critical differences between federal and state incarceration that would make a presidential pardon extremely significant.

Chauvin was arrested four days after Floyd's death. At first, he received a third-degree murder charge, which would have required proof of intent or premeditation. But public pressure kept increasing. The mob demanded retribution. A Change.org petition to raise the degree amassed nearly three million signatures online, and hashtag raise the degree trended number one on Twitter on the day of Chauvin's arrest. State prosecutors, knowing they could not successfully argue a first-degree charge, decided to simply add a charge instead.

Less than a week later, Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, which doesn't actually require intent. Coleman Hughes' meticulous 2024 analysis of the Chauvin case via the free press exposes precisely why a pardon is morally imperative. Simply put, the prosecution failed to meet the constitutionally required burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the absolute cornerstone of our criminal justice system. When two plausible explanations exist for Floyd's death, one implicating Chauvin and one pointing to Floyd's severe heart disease and fentanyl levels, the legal standard would be acquittal.

The case against Chauvin collapses under proper scrutiny of the evidence. To make matters worse, by May 2021, Merrick Garland's DOJ brought down civil rights charges against Chauvin for unreasonable force under the color of law. Having been found guilty on all counts in a state trial just a few weeks prior, Chauvin took a plea deal so he wouldn't have to face trial again.

When basic judicial standards aren't met, when reasonable doubt clearly exists, as Hughes and others have meticulously documented, it becomes not just appropriate, but essential for the president to exercise his constitutional power of clemency. The federal charges should never have been issued in the first place, which is exactly why the presidential pardon power exists, to correct fundamental miscarriages of justice that occur within the federal system.

Here's an additional and integral detail that aside from me, ironically, only CNN has mentioned. Derek Chauvin is currently serving concurrent sentences, 22 and a half years on state charges, 21 on federal charges. Under Minnesota's state sentencing structure, inmates typically serve only two thirds of their sentence behind bars. The remaining one third is under supervised release. That's codified in Minnesota Statute 244.101, which stipulates that for felony offenders sentenced to a fixed executed sentence, the executed sentence consists of two parts.

First, a specified minimum term of imprisonment that is equal to two-thirds of the executed sentence. And second, a specified maximum supervised release term that is equal to one-third of the executed sentence. That means Chauvin would serve approximately 15 years of his 22-and-a-half-year state sentence in actual confinement. But the federal system operates differently. Federal inmates earn good-time credit that reduces sentences at a much lower rate than state systems.

According to federal guidelines, prisoners can earn up to 54 days of good time credit per year for good behavior. On a 21-year federal sentence like Chauvin's, the maximum reduction would only be about 3.1 years, resulting in approximately 17.9 years of actual incarceration, three years longer than what he'd serve under Minnesota's more lenient system.

Additionally, Minnesota recently enacted the Minnesota Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act, which could potentially allow prisoners to be released after serving about half of their sentence rather than two-thirds if they demonstrate good behavior and participate in rehabilitative programs. While there are questions about Chauvin's eligibility under the specific exclusions of the MRRA, this could potentially reduce his incarceration time to 11.25 years if he qualified. So a federal pardon from President Trump wouldn't just be symbolic. It could potentially reduce Chauvin's actual incarceration by several years.

Aside from all of this, he should have, through the appellate process, been granted a new trial due to the prejudicial pretrial publicity, jury intimidation, the trial court's abuse of discretion and failing to change venue, which collectively violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.

Before we continue, it's now essential to understand who Derek Chauvin was before that fateful day, because the media has shown absolutely zero interest in presenting a fair portrait of the man they've demonized. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, you could be saving a fortune every month by switching on over to Pure Talk. That's right, Pure Talk, my cell phone company, is cutting the face of the man

from the wireless industry. For just $35 a month, you can get unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with Hotspot on America's most dependable 5G network. The average family of four saves over $1,000 a year when they switch on over to PeerTalk. That is real money back in your pocket. Plus, it's back.

When you switch to PeerTalk's super low $35 plan this month, you'll get one year of Daily Wire Plus for free. Access the library of DW Plus movies, series, and documentaries, including Lady Ballers, What is a Woman, Mr. Bertram, Run, Hide, Fight, and much, much more. Uncensored ad-free daily shows. One year free of DW Kids platform. Benkei plus a free Leftist Tears Tumblr. The only way you can get all that stuff is by going to PeerTalk.com slash Shapiro. Switch on over to PeerTalk at PeerTalk.com slash Shapiro. Get a year of Daily Wire Plus for free with a qualifying plan. PeerTalk.

Wireless by Americans for Americans. Also, Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and creates a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family,

Thank you.

Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. You know there are enough bad higher institutions of education out there in the country. GCU is not one of those. It's great. Go check them out right now. gcu.edu. That's Grand Canyon University. gcu.edu. Derek Chauvin was born and raised in the St. Paul area of Minnesota. He attended Park High School in Cottage Grove, a predominantly white suburb where he later lived as an adult.

Although he didn't initially complete high school, Chauvin persevered. He obtained his GED. He attended several community colleges, and ultimately he graduated from Minnesota's Metropolitan State University in 2006 with a bachelor's in law enforcement.

Chauvin's dedication to service extended beyond law enforcement. He served as a military police officer from 96 to 2000, stationed in Rochester, Minnesota and Hohenfels, Germany. His career included work as a security guard, as McDonald's cook, before he joined the Minneapolis PD as a community service officer in January 2001, eventually serving 19 years on the force. Throughout his career, Chauvin received recognition for his service. He was awarded two Medals of Valor, one in 2006, another

another in 2008, as well as two medals of commendation in 2008 and 2009. In 2006, Chauvin was specifically recommended for a medal of valor for his role in a shooting incident involving a man who aimed a shotgun at officers, the exact kind of courageous action the media conveniently ignored when they were crafting their narrative about the deeply evil cop.

The left wants you to believe that Derek Chauvin was a rogue officer with a history of brutality. They breathlessly reported that he had 18 complaints over his 19-year career, as if that's some sort of smoking gun proving he was a racist monster waiting to kill somebody. When you actually examine the complaints one by one, what you find is not a pattern of abuse, but rather the normal course of what tends to happen when you're policing high crime areas for nearly two decades.

The third precinct where Chauvin worked had dramatically higher complaint rates than other precincts in Minneapolis. It's critical to understand that increase was not due to worsening officer behavior, but rather to changes in the complaint filing process that made it significantly easier for citizens to report perceived misconduct.

Further context comes from understanding disciplinary outcomes. Only about 1.5% of complaints filed against Minneapolis police resulted in suspensions, terminations, or demotions between 2013 and 2019. When including letters of reprimand, that rate rises to just 2.6%. This means the overwhelming majority of complaints were found by the Minneapolis Police Department to be specious.

When we consider all these statistical factors, a department with a civilian review board with 80% more complaints, working in the highest complaint precincts in the city, with an exceptionally low rate of disciplinary findings, a statistically realistic benchmark for an officer in Chauvin's position over 19 years should probably be significantly higher than the national average of 1.8 complaints. Yet the media continues to utilize that last number to distort the national view of Derek Chauvin.

So let's go through the complaints chronologically so you can see exactly what we're dealing with here. In 2006, Chauvin was one of six officers who responded to a stabbing. A suspect named Wayne Reyes, who had allegedly stabbed his girlfriend and a friend, was shot dead when he pointed a shotgun at officers from his truck. This wasn't an...

unarmed suspect gunned down in cold blood. This was an armed, dangerous suspect who had already violently attacked two people and was threatening to kill police officers with a shotgun. All the officers, including Chauvin, were put on paid leave during the investigation, that's standard protocol. And of course, they were then cleared because they acted appropriately in the face of a deadly threat. In fact, Chauvin later got a Medal of Valor for his response in this incident.

The media conveniently admits that Chauvin was commended for this incident. They prefer to count it as a complaint without providing the context that would show that he was doing exactly what police officers are actually supposed to do, protect the public from violent criminals. That same year, in 2006, Chauvin and seven other officers were named in a federal lawsuit filed by an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility.

This is the type of frivolous lawsuit that gets filed against police officers all the time. How serious was it? The case was dismissed the following year. The media still counts that as a complaint against Chauvin. Now, the fact the lawsuit was dismissed tells you everything you need to know about its validity. That doesn't stop the media from including it in that running tally of complaints. In 2007, Chauvin received one of his only formal disciplinary actions for a traffic stop involving a female driver from Minneapolis who was allegedly going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit.

Despite Chauvin being accused of being too aggressive, this was a complaint about a traffic stop. No one was injured. The discipline was a letter of reprimand, not a suspension, not a demotion, not criminal charges, a letter.

In 2008, Chauvin responded to a 911 domestic assault call. When he arrived, he and his partner confronted Ira Latrell-Toles, who was hiding in a bathroom. According to the police report, when Toles tried to flee, he grabbed at Chauvin's gun, forcing Chauvin to fire twice, hitting Toles in the stomach. Toles survived. Chauvin was placed on paid leave during the investigation. Again, that's standard protocol. The subsequent investigation cleared Chauvin. His actions were deemed appropriate when confronting a domestic violence suspect who attempted to take his weapon. In fact, he got another Medal of Valor for that incident.

In 2011, Chauvin was part of a group of five officers who chased down a man named Leroy Martinez in a housing complex after they spotted him running with a pistol. One of the officers, Terry Nutter, shot Martinez in the torso. Martinez survived. All the officers were placed on leave. They were ultimately absolved of any wrongdoing. Police Chief Timothy Dolan explicitly stated the officers acted appropriately and courageously. Again, this counts as a complaint against Chauvin, according to the media, despite the fact he didn't fire his weapon and was officially commended for his actions.

In 2013, Chauvin and another officer witnessed a white male teenager shooting a Nerf dart out of a car window as part of a Nerf gun game among teenagers. When the teenagers arrived at the home of 17-year-old Christopher Berg, Chauvin and the other officer confronted them. According to Berg, at least one officer drew a gun. They allegedly forced him into their car, shouting obscenities and berating him. Clearly, the police officers were responding to what could have initially appeared to be a real weapon. When Chauvin observed...

what appeared to be something fired from a moving vehicle. He was operating in a context where unfortunately drive-by shootings were not abstract possibilities, but regular occurrences that did injure and kill Minneapolis residents, including kids. His initial threat assessment, while it was wrong in this specific case, reflected the dangerous reality of policing in an area where objects fired from vehicles frequently meant bullets rather than foam darts.

In November 2013, Minneapolis police pulled over LaShawn Braddock shortly after midnight based on a warrant. Braddock claims when he hesitated to get out of the car, an officer aggressively hit his window with a flashlight and then other officers tried to pull him from the car. Braddock admittedly hesitated to comply with police command, so it makes sense that after he hesitated to comply, officers used necessary force to subdue him. Noncompliance with police orders, even if you have a good reason, typically results in officers escalating their use of force. That is standard procedure nationwide.

Another complaint stems from February 15th, 2015, when Chauvin arrested Julian Hernandez at the El Nuevo Rodeo nightclub, where Chauvin worked as an off-duty security officer. According to Chauvin's report, Hernandez tried to leave the club through the wrong door and Chauvin escorted him down a stairwell. Hernandez, who admitted he had been drinking, claims Chauvin pushed him down the stairs. Outside, Chauvin reported that Hernandez tried to turn around as he was preparing to handcuff him, so he pushed him away by applying pressure toward his lingual artery.

Hernandez claimed Chauvin told him, you just need to leave, but wouldn't allow him to leave and then choked him. He said he tried to sue the department, but no lawyer would actually take the case, so he let it go. So here's the situation. An intoxicated patron at a nightclub trying to exit through the wrong door, escorted out by security, allegedly resisting being handcuffed. Chauvin applied a restraint technique to control the situation, which is typically what security personnel are supposed to do. The fact Hernandez couldn't even find a lawyer willing to take his case speaks volumes about the credibility of the accusations.

In April 2016, Chauvin was involved in an incident with a man named Jimmy Bostic at the Midtown Global Market. Private security guards had asked Bostic to leave after he was accused of panhandling. Bostic argued. Chauvin was called in. Chauvin escorted Bostic outside, writing in the arrest report that Bostic had threatened to spit on the owner. I closed distance with Bostic, Chauvin wrote, and secured his neck head area with my hand. Bostic claimed that as Chauvin and private security guards attempted to put him in cuffs, he yanked his arm back and then Chauvin wrapped his arms around his neck.

After being released from police custody, Bostic said emergency medical workers took him to the hospital where he stayed for over a day due to an asthma attack. The disorderly conduct charge against him was eventually dropped. Bostic admitted to pulling his arm away when officers were trying to handcuff him. That is called a resisting arrest, and it typically justifies the use of physical restraint techniques. He was treated and released at the scene, signing on his own to go to the hospital. This complaint, like all the others, resulted in no disciplinary action because Chauvin was following department protocols.

In June 2017, Chauvin responded to a call where a woman named Zoya Code had allegedly tried to strangle her mother with an extension cord. Code claimed that her mom was the one swinging the cord around and that she merely grabbed hold of it. According to prosecutors, based on Chauvin's report and body camera video, Chauvin told Code she was under arrest and grabbed her arm. When she resisted, the two officers placed her in handcuffs

then picked her up and carried her outside the house face down. Chauvin then knelt on the side of Code's neck for less than five minutes until backup arrived, as per Minneapolis police protocol. The misdemeanor domestic assault and disorderly conduct charges filed against Code were ultimately dropped, but no disciplinary action was taken against Chauvin because he was following department protocols for subduing a noncompliant suspect in a domestic violence situation, one of the most volatile and dangerous calls officers respond to.

In March 2019, Chauvin was involved in an incident with a man named Sir Riley Peet. According to the arrest report written by Chauvin, Peet was wandering around a gas station asking officers for a ride. After Peet refused to take his hands out of his pockets, an officer tried to grab him and they scuffled. Chauvin then sprayed Peet with pepper spray and restrained him, pinning him face down on the ground by kneeling on his lower back. Peet was arrested on charges of misdemeanor obstruction of the legal process and disorderly conduct, but court records are unclear about the outcome. Records show Peet has a history of court-ordered treatment for mental illness.

Again, this is a situation where a suspect refused to take his hands out of his pockets when ordered to do so by police, a major red flag that could indicate the presence of a weapon. Chauvin used appropriate force to subdue a non-compliant individual who could have posed a threat to officer safety. So that's it. He's supposedly damning 18 complaints against Derek Chauvin.

What do they actually show? What they actually show is an officer working in high crime areas for 19 years, dealing with noncompliant suspects, domestic violence situations, armed suspects, intoxicated individuals. In all but one or two minor cases, investigations cleared chauvin of wrongdoing. Most importantly, none of these complaints suggest racial bias. Of the incidents where the race of the individual is mentioned, we have complainants,

who are white, black, Latino, Native American. There is no pattern suggesting Chauvin targeted people of color. He was an equal opportunity enforcer of the law who operated in a diverse high crime area. The left would love you to believe these complaints prove Chauvin was sort of a ticking time bomb which should have been removed from the force years ago. When you actually examine the details, what emerges is a portrait of an officer doing a difficult job in challenging circumstances operating within departmental guidelines.

Now, the left would rather you not know these details because they contradict the narrative that Chauvin was a racist monster who deliberately murdered George Floyd out of some sort of racial animus. But facts don't care about their feelings. The facts show Chauvin's record was typical for a veteran officer working in a high crime urban environment.

Chauvin's then-wife, Kelly Chauvin, a Hmong American who won the Mrs. Minnesota pageant, described him in a 2018 profile as such a gentleman and just a softie beneath his uniform. Derek's marriage was further collateral damage in the wreckage following Floyd's death and his own conviction. After revealing she hasn't been able to find work or resume her career as a realtor because of threats and her own fear of exposure over the case,

experiencing vandalization of both the Chauvin's homes in Minnesota and Florida, and facing significant online harassment, receiving hateful online remarks, with some labeling her a self-hating Asian, making derogatory comments about her interracial marriage. She ultimately ended up filing for divorce just one day after Chauvin was arrested and charged with third-degree murder, also requesting to change her last name. Now let's discuss the other side of the coin, the alleged victim, George Floyd.

George Floyd was born on October 14, 1973 in Fayetteville, North Carolina to George Perry and Larsonia Sissy Jones Floyd. When Floyd was two years old, his mom moved with Floyd and his four siblings to Houston, Texas after his parents separated. The family settled in the historically black neighborhood of Houston's Third Ward in the CUNY Homes Public Housing Complex.

To understand George Floyd's background, you really need to understand the reality of CUNY Homes, the public housing complex where Floyd spent his formative years. This wasn't some idyllic community with a few challenges. This was Houston's oldest public housing development, a crime-ridden environment that residents themselves describe as horrible and like a hellhole. The statistics are staggering. Eight homicides in just the last 12 months, a four-year homicide rate of nearly 62 per 100,000 residents, and approximately 25 homicides in the vicinity over just four years.

Gang activity is so prevalent, residents report being approached by gang members, warning them to go inside because they're about to start shooting. Residents live in what they describe as rat-infested apartments, with one resident explaining she's too afraid to report the violence, fearing retaliation. This is the kind of environment that shaped George Floyd's early life. A place so troubled, it recently received a $50 million federal grant just to demolish and rebuild it entirely. Floyd was known as Perry as a child, later Big Floyd due to his height. At the time of his death, he was six feet four inches tall and weighed 223 pounds.

He showed athletic promise in high school. He played basketball and football. His football team even advanced to the Texas State Championships in 1992. He graduated from Yates High School in 1993, and he received a basketball scholarship to South Florida Community College, making him the first of his siblings to pursue higher education. Later on, he was transferred to Texas A&M's University Kingsville campus in 1995. Eventually, he dropped out. He worked as a truck driver, a security guard for the Salvation Army shelter in Minneapolis, and as a bouncer at a bar.

At the time of his death, he had five children with different women, ranging from 22 to six years old.

As he entered adulthood, Floyd's life took a really troubled turn. By the time of the incident with Derek Chauvin, Floyd had accumulated a really lengthy criminal record. He had been incarcerated multiple times, 10 months in 1998 for theft with a firearm, eight months in 2002 for cocaine possession, 10 months in 2004 for cocaine again, from 2009 to 2013 for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. That last conviction stemmed from a home invasion in which Floyd pressed a gun to a woman's abdomen while his accomplices ransacked her home. Floyd had been arrested a total of nine times.

Let's examine each of those arrests and incarcerations chronologically. This is not about demonizing George Floyd. It's about understanding the full context of who he was, something the media has actively worked to prevent.

Floyd's documented criminal history begins August 1997 with his first drug arrest in Houston. He was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, specifically less than a gram of cocaine, that's still a felony in Texas. This wasn't just possession, it was distribution. He was released on a $4,000 bail bond. On October 20th, 1997, Floyd pled guilty to this charge. He received a sentence of 180 days, six months, in Harris County Jail. Records show he received 29 days of time-served credit. He still spent approximately five months behind bars for this first documented offense.

So let's pause here to note by age 24, Floyd was selling cocaine. This wasn't some youthful indiscretion or minor mistake. It was a serious felony. It involved distribution of narcotics.

Just one year later, Floyd was arrested again. This time he was arrested for aggravated robbery with a firearm. It's a pretty serious violent felony. This was released on a $30,000 bond, a substantial amount reflecting the seriousness of the charge. Floyd ultimately pled guilty to theft rather than armed robbery, likely as part of a plea bargain. On February 11th, 1999, he was sentenced to 10 months in state jail. Records show he received credit for 70 days of time served.

On October 22nd, 1998, while presumably still out on bond, Floyd was arrested yet again, this time for theft, classified as a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. He pled guilty to that charge on December 14th, 1998. He was sentenced to 10 days in Harris County Jail. Records indicated he served two days of that sentence.

On August 29, 2001, Floyd had another brush with the law when he was arrested for failing to identify himself to a police officer that's a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. He was released on $3,000 bond. Two days after his arrest on August 31, 2001, Floyd pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 days in Harris County Jail. Records show he served only three days of that sentence.

On April 23rd, 2002, Floyd was arrested for criminal trespassing and sentenced to 30 days in jail. On October 29th, 2002, he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, again, less than a gram of cocaine. He was initially released on a $5,000 bond that was later increased to $15,000, probably due to the violations of his release conditions.

Floyd was formally indicted December 10th, 2002. He pled guilty March 3rd, 2003. He was sentenced to eight months in state jail. Records show he received credit for 92 days of time served. It's noted he waived his right to appeal. The mention that no permission to appeal granted suggests there may have been some attempt to challenge aspects of the case. Floyd ultimately pled guilty. He received a 10-month state jail sentence.

Floyd was then arrested again in December 2005, charged with possessing less than one gram of cocaine. According to court records, prosecutors later increased the charge to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, alleging that Floyd actually had more than four grams of cocaine. It's a much more serious offense. The charge was eventually reverted back to simple possession of less than a gram. Despite that reduction in charges, Floyd received a 10-month sentence in state jail that marked his fourth drug conviction in less than a decade. Now we come to the most serious crime in Floyd's record, which the media has been particularly reluctant to discuss in detail.

In 2007, Floyd participated in a home invasion robbery that can only be described as terrifying for the victim involved. According to the court documents, Floyd was part of a group of six men who targeted a home for drugs and money. One of the men posed as a water department employee wearing a blue uniform to trick the female resident into opening the door. When she realized the deception and tried to close the door, a struggle ensued. At that point, a Ford Explorer pulled up. Five other men, including Floyd, exited the vehicle and approached the house.

Floyd, who is identified as the largest member of the group, forced his way inside the residence and forced her into the living room. The court report says that while Floyd held the gun on the victim, another armed suspect struck her in the head and sides with his pistol as she screamed for help. The group searched the home for drugs and money. When they didn't find what they were looking for, they took the woman's jewelry and cell phone before fleeing. Police later tracked down the vehicle based on a license plate number provided by a neighbor who witnessed the robbery. They found Floyd behind the wheel. The victim later positively identified Floyd as the large suspect who had held the gun to her abdomen. Floyd

Floyd was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony in Texas. He played guilty in 2009. He was sentenced to five years in prison. He served his time. He was paroled in 2013. In total, Floyd was arrested at least nine times. He was convicted of at least seven separate criminal offenses, including four drug crimes and a violent home invasion robbery where he held a gun to a woman's abdomen. This was obviously a persistent pattern of serious criminal behavior spanning for more than a decade. Floyd spent significant time incarcerated,

By this calculation, he served approximately 10 years in various jails and prisons. Between 1997 and 2013, Floyd actually spent more time incarcerated than he did as a free man. The media have engaged in a deliberate attempt to sanitize Floyd's background to present him as something other than what his record shows. They painted a picture of a gentle giant whose only crime was passing a counterfeit $20 bill. That portrayal is demonstrably false based on the extensive criminal record that we've just detailed.

The police officers who encountered him on that last day were not dealing with a citizen who just made a minor mistake one day. They were dealing with somebody who had a long history of criminal behavior, unfortunately, including violence and resistance to police. We've covered a lot of ground today in this first episode of our five-part series on the case for pardoning Derek Chauvin. We've examined the backgrounds of both Derek Chauvin and George Floyd. Not the filtered versions you've been fed by the legacy media, but the actual facts about who these men really were. We

We've looked at the serious problems with the narrative surrounding Chauvin's complaint record. We've looked at George Floyd's criminal record. In episode two, we're gonna dive deep into the powder keg that was Minneapolis in May, 2020. We'll examine the radical progressive politics that had taken hold of the city, the defund the police movement that was already gaining steam, the specific tensions in the third precinct where this fateful encounter occurred. Then we'll go moment by moment through the actual footage

not the selectively edited clips you saw on CNN, the complete unedited video that shows what really happened that day. You'll see for yourself how Floyd was saying he could not breathe while he was still in the police car before he was even removed and put on the ground, how he actively resisted being placed in the vehicle, how Chauvin was following MPD-approved restraint techniques throughout the encounter.

In episode three, we'll analyze the autopsy findings and medical evidence in excruciating detail. In episode four, we'll relitigate the jury and trial. And in our final episode, we'll bring you up to date on Derek's case. And I'll continue to beat this drum. This is about more than just Derek Chauvin. This is about whether we're going to be a nation of laws or a nation where mob justice prevails. President Trump has begun the critical work of reversing the evils inflicted on our country over the past several years. DEI is being dismantled. Merit is being restored. American values are returning to our institutions.

But this work can't be complete until we address the original catalyst that sent our country spiraling into woke madness in the first place, the railroading of Derek Chauvin. Stand up for the rule of law. Go to pardonderek.com today. Sign our petition. We'll also put up the website to donate to Derek Chauvin's legal defense fund in the description. Join us right here on The Ben Shapiro Show on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the next few weeks for future episodes.

in this series. You know what I love about our partnership with Helix Sleep? They understand that better sleep means better days. I've been sleeping on mine for months now and the difference is incredible. No more tossing, turning, just pure restorative sleep. Take advantage of their incredible March Madness sale. Right now you can get 20% off site-wide at Helix. Just visit helixsleep.com slash dailywire. Again, that's helixsleep.com slash dailywire for 20% off site-wide.

Okay, meanwhile, a lot happening in the news. The big controversy of the day is all about the Trump administration deporting members of Tren de Aragua over to El Salvador to be kept in a prison over there. And this apparently is the end of the republic. Now...

I understand that the Trump administration is certainly attempting to drive a narrative here and Democrats are falling right into it. The narrative the Democrats are trying to suggest is that President Trump is willy-nilly ignoring the law, that he's running roughshod over the lower court judges and that he's going to just

destroy the judiciary and all of this sort of thing. Well, the problem is, of course, that the precedent has already been set for ignoring the judiciary, considering the Biden administration did it with a high level of regularity with regards to, for example, student loans and not just lower court judges, but actually like the Supreme Court of the United States. Every time the Supreme Court would say you are not allowed to simply alleviate student loans,

The Biden administration say, but we are. And then they try to find a different way around the Supreme Court. They did the same thing with, for example, affirmative action. And so the precedent has been set there. But this particular case is the one that the left is focusing in on because they say it's all about the willingness to ignore law. President Trump is tyrannical demagogue and all the rest of this.

The argument by the Trump administration is we're not ignoring the law. We are actually fulfilling the law. We are doing what we are supposed to do. And no district court judge is going to orally tell us that we have to turn around an airplane in the middle of its flight and have it come back to the United States while it's over international waters. That's not how airplanes work. It's possible they didn't have the fuel to turn around and get back to the United States. The planes that were already on the ground, by the way, never left the United States. So the idea that the Trump administration is sort of

wholesale, defying federal courts. That is not particularly true.

The narrative that the right is attempting to drive, and it's a narrative that I think is going to have some teeth, is why are you guys defending so strongly Tren de Aragua members not being deported? These are members of a Venezuelan murderous gang. Do you want them in the United States? You guys seem to want an awful lot of bad people in the United States. You want Hamas supporters like Mahmoud Khalil in the United States. It now turns out that the left wants fans of Hezbollah in the United States. There's a big controversy that broke out yesterday because there was a Brown University professor who was deported

And the left claimed that this was yet another horrifying violation of First Amendment rights. The problem is that the reason this person was deported, her name is Rasha Alawia. The reason is because she had pictures on her phone from a visit to Lebanon where she went to the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah. If you go to the funeral of a terrorist, pretty sure we don't need you in our country. The left tried to jump to the defense of this person.

The suggestion was that she had done nothing wrong and that she followed his teachings, quote, from a religious perspective, but not a political one. He was the leader of a massive terrorist group responsible for murders of Americans.

And others. So, yeah, you should go. But the Democrats seem to be totally unable to dissociate from the worst kinds of immigrants to the country. So they're totally underscoring what President Trump has been arguing all along, which is they don't just want an open border. They want the worst people in the world coming to the United States, apparently.

So we'll get to the legal theory in a moment, but you can see the narrative fight that is building up. So Caroline Lovett has just been clubbing people about the ears with this narrative. She's very skilled at this. Here she was at the White House yesterday saying, you know why we are deporting members of Tren Daragua? In order to save people's lives.

Trend de Aragua is now a designated foreign terrorist organization. And as I said, there were nearly 200 Trend de Aragua members who were sent to El Salvador this weekend. Countless lives will be saved because of this action. And if you talk to the families, the Angel families, as I mentioned, Blake and Riley and Jocelyn Nungre, they understand the grave costs.

cost of life at the hands of these illegal terrorists. And the president is proud to deliver on that promise for them. As for the implication that there are going to be mass deportations and everybody's going to get deported, Caroline Levitt said, well, you know, I have another suggestion, which is if you're here illegally, maybe you should self-deport.

To your second question about the CBP Home app, I would have to check in with the Department of Homeland Security, but it's a great question and we're very proud to repurpose this app, which the Biden administration abused to facilitate the mass illegal entry of illegal immigrants into our country. It was like a fast pass at Disneyland. That's not happening under this administration. We are encouraging illegal immigrants to actively self-deport to maybe save themselves from being in one of these fun videos.

She, of course, was referencing the fact that yesterday the White House put out a video showing many of these Tren de Agua members being taken off the plane in Venezuela and basically celebrating that fact.

Okay, so the French, there's a French MP, and count on the French to be as obnoxious as humanly possible. A French member of parliament suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be disassembled and taken back given the United States' lack of warmth toward illegal immigrants, poor members of gangs, as well as terror supporters. And she had some words for the French. And listen, I'm always here for dunking on the French. I mean, the French always deserve it. There's never a situation which the French do not deserve to be dunked upon.

Absolutely not. And my advice to that unnamed low level French politician would be to remind them that it's only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now. So they should be very grateful to our great country. Fact check. True. Absolutely. By the way, twice.

So, again, very enjoyable. This whole narrative, the Democrats seem, again, they keep to just stumble. They're stumbling headlong into it is the idea that they want the worst people in the world staying in the United States. And many of the angles that are being used in order to attack what the Trump administration is doing here are really stupid political angles. So, for example, Tom Homan, who I love Tom Homan. He's the border czar.

On a personal level, I find him just amusing and charming. He's wonderful. The president has invoked, in order to deport Trenadagua members, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. And so many people are saying, well, that's a really, really old act. You're calling it an invasion. Venezuela isn't really invading. How can you invoke an act this old? And Tom Holman's like, well, actually, we use old laws all the time. What do you say to those who claim you're using a 200-year-old law to circumvent due process? An old law?

Not as old as the Constitution. We still pay attention to that, don't we? But some would say this...

I think the thing I love the most about Tom Homan is he's absolutely out of central casting. He does not give any bleeps at all about how the media think of him. And so he just walks in right off the set of a 1957 Western and just starts applying the law. It's really funny. Homan was asked about these flights that are being sent from the United States to other countries containing illegal immigrants. And he's asked what his plans are. And his answer is pretty great.

You got 30 guys on the stack going on different busts every single day. You're going to run out of money. It doesn't look like you're getting support from the Democrats on this. You're going against the judges now. What's next?

Another flight. Another flight every day. Teams are going to be out there every day. Every day, the men and women of ICE are going to be in the neighborhoods of this nation arresting criminal, illegal, alien, public safety threats and national security threats. Lawrence, you're not going to stop us. We made a promise to the American people. President Trump has made a promise to the American people. We're going to make this country safe again.

Now, meanwhile, Stephen Miller, who's the architect of much of this immigration policy, and Stephen's a super smart guy. He's a deputy in terms of policy for the president. He's senior advisor to President Trump. He's on CNN with Casey Hunt. And Stephen Miller goes on cable shows and beats up hosts and chews gum, chews bubble gum. And he's all out of bubble gum today. So he was on CNN with Casey Hunt. And she was asking him about the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. And here was Stephen Miller taking her to school.

The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government. By a state or a government, right? Are they a state or a government? Yes, it is documented that TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here's an even more important point. Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander-in-chief of the army and navy?

The president and the president alone makes a decision of what triggers that determination in the statute. So do you then think we are actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela? You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. And he's right. What he is suggesting there is if there's an invasion by a foreign nation and if Trenada is being sent by the Venezuelan government and he suggests there's documents that show this,

to the United States in order to create havoc, in order to export them from Venezuela here, then that constitutes an invasion by definition of the president. This is the other point he's making. He's saying that authority for interpretation rests with the president, now with the district judge. Now, if it gets to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court interprets it differently, then maybe that changes the rules. That is the argument that is being made by the Trump administration. A lot of bother is being disseminated about this.

the sort of angle here by the Trump administration with regard to all of this. Andy McCarthy has a breakdown of this over at National Review. According to Andy McCarthy, he points out that the president ordered the deportation with no court process purportedly pursuant to that Alien Enemy Act, which is a late 18th century statute. It's been invoked three times in American history, 1812, World War I, World War II. He says that there may in fact be some legal problems with what the Trump administration is doing.

He said it's near certain the administration knowingly defied an order issued Saturday evening by Chief Judge James Boasberg to suspend the initiative to deport the Venezuelans, which included an admonition to turn around any deportation flights that had already departed and returned detainees to the United States. While a prosecutor temporized about whether he had information necessary to answer Judge Boasberg's questions about whether those deportation flights had taken off, the flights were already underway and continued on their path to El Salvador, it turned out.

The Justice Department then tried to end run further proceedings before Boasberg by filing an immediate appeal to the D.C. Circuit. That circuit issued an order on Sunday directing at the filing of a brief tomorrow by the ACLU and other lawyers for the Venezuelans. The Justice Department has been directed to respond the following day. Meanwhile, Boasberg ordered the administration to appear at a hearing he planned to hold at 5 p.m. on Monday in order to probe whether those Trump officials knowingly defied his order on Saturday.

And apparently the Justice Department has asked Boasberg to cancel the hearing because, quote, the government is not prepared to disclose any further national security or operational security details about the deportation flights to plaintiffs or the public. So, you know, they could theoretically say that they don't need to deal with Boasberg. They could deal with the upper court, the appellate court. They already appealed it.

Instead, the DOJ is basically saying that they are not going to tell this judge anything. We'll see how that works out for them on a legal level. And again, it's a bit of a complicated legal case because it's unclear exactly the interpretation of the Aliens Enemy Act. It is not clear exactly what level of jurisdiction is applied here to a district judge who's talking about, for example, national policy.

Whether that district court judge has the ability to halt a flight that is already in mid-progress over the Atlantic Ocean or anything like that.

Bottom line is the left is losing their mind over all of this. And again, I'm just not willing to hear it from people who spent all day every day defending the various illegalities of the Biden administration. It seems strange to me that many of the same people who are willing to defend every legal access to the Biden administration are now black letter law when it comes to the Alien Enemies Act. You found a weird a weird hook to hang your hat on.

Here, for example, is ex-prosecutor Andrew Weissman, who you'll remember from his non-stellar work in the intel community, clashing with the Trump administration. I'm more concerned by the statements coming from the, that you did the clip of, of the press secretary saying no judge can do this. I'm sorry, who on God's green earth is she to say that? That's what the courts are for.

Okay, well, I mean, she can say whatever she wants. She does have a right to free speech. Who is she to say that? The same kind of person that you are to say anything. I mean, that would be the actual answer. By the way, Weissman was the person who was second in command in the Mueller report, in the Mueller investigation. So stellar job there, sir. Meanwhile, CNN's Elliott Williams is also flabbergasted by the Trump DOJ.

I have never seen an argument like that made. If a judge says you're guilty, if it's a bench trial, you're guilty right then, regardless of whether the judge memorializes it in writing. If the judge says, I hold you in contempt of court, if the judge says, I sentence you to 10 years in prison, all of those things have weight on the judge's words. Now, of course, a written ruling has, you know, it explains things and so on, but I've never seen...

It appeared in front of dozens of judges, clerked for two of them. When they say something, it has the weight of a ruling in court full stop. So I'm curious to see what happens with this hearing and where they go with that point. OK, so one of the questions here is that the judge apparently issued an oral ruling before the flights took off for Venezuela. But the written ruling didn't come until after the flights had taken off for Venezuela. Boasberg says that the oral order should count as much as a written one.

A Justice Department lawyer told Boesberg no flights took off after the written order and said he couldn't share information in open court. He said, I'm not at liberty to provide any information about the flights.

The bottom line here is that there is the politics and the law. The law will be decided presumably by the Supreme Court here as to whether the Alien Enemies Act applies. The Supreme Court is going to have to speak at some point about what jurisdiction district court judges have to provide temporary injunctions over national policy. This is becoming more and more of an issue because more and more district court judges are signing into chat to basically bar action by the Trump administration. They never would have barred under the Biden administration. And being able to issue these temporary restraining orders sort of willy-nilly,

is going to hold up the business of government unless the Supreme Court rules that they actually have the ability to do so. The Supreme Court deferred action on that just a couple of weeks ago. So they need to reverse themselves. They actually need to start talking about this pretty openly. Meanwhile, President Trump has been upping his language with regard to Iran. President Trump said on Monday that he would hold Iran specifically responsible for any future attacks by the Houthis in Yemen.

He posted to social media, quote, every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of Iran. Iran will be held responsible and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire. This, by the way, is the correct approach. The Houthis are, in fact, a proxy terror group for Iran, and Iran has been hiding behind those proxy terror groups for literally decades, doing untold harm, chaos, chaos, damage, carnage to Americans, by the way.

And so threatening the Iranians directly, you better cut this out or your nuclear facilities are not going to exist tomorrow morning. That makes perfect sense.

Again, I'm going to say it for the thousandth time here. No one is looking for a boots on the ground war with Iran. Good news. That's not what it takes in order to actually damage Iran, both economically and militarily. Iran's skies are completely open right now. All it would take is one single B-2 sortie over Iran to finish its nuclear facilities. Finish them like into the ground. Finish them. That does not spur a broader regional war because Iran doesn't have the resources to pursue that war right now.

It certainly does not pursue a war with the United States in which the mullahs are all dead in the first 24 hours of the war. That is not a thing that is going to happen. And people who are telling you otherwise are lying to you full stop. That is not a thing the Trump administration wants. It's not anything anybody wants. A full scale war with Iran is certainly not something the Iranians want at this point. Meanwhile, senior Houthi politician Mohammed Ali al-Houthi in a public rally on Monday decried the U.S. strikes as terrorism. He says it's not terrorism when you when you fire drones at at random shipping companies.

It is terrorism when you kill the people who are firing drones at the ships that carry cargo. He said to Trump, we say, you have failed and you do not scare us. Do as you wish. We fear no one but God. Well, hopefully he can be united with God as soon as humanly possible. That seems like that would be a useful thing. Meanwhile, the ceasefire in Gaza is officially over.

It is over because Hamas continued to walk away from all efforts to extend the ceasefire. Hamas basically insisted that as a condition of the release of the remaining hostages that it is holding, including an American, Idan Alexander, that in exchange for that, Israel would have to end the war and leave Hamas in control of Gaza. And Israel said no. And the United States also said no. And then Hamas continued to maintain that. And they were dragging out the process so they could rearm. Late yesterday, there was news that broke.

that Hamas was planning, apparently, some sort of ground incursion into Israel again. They're going to try and break through the border between Gaza and Israel. And Israel responded with heavy fire in Gaza, specifically targeting terror leaders. These were highly targeted strikes. Immediately, Hamas released their usual false bevy of statistics. 300 people killed. We have no evidence of how many people actually were killed. That is unclear at this point.

The IDF took out some of the top leaders of Hamas. They took out some of the top leaders of Islamic Jihad as well. And they put out a statement saying that these will intensify. The strikes will intensify until you are back at the table talking about the release of these hostages. The IDF had issued evacuation orders for some areas of Gaza.

Naturally, the Europeans condemned all this because the Europeans have a very easy time condemning the Israelis for defending themselves and going after terrorists. And they have a very difficult time condemning actual terrorists. They are too busy standing for them.

The spokesperson for Palestinian Islamic Jihad was killed in the IDF strikes, apparently. So, too, was one of the top leaders of Hamas in those strikes. And, of course, it was going to have to go this way because Hamas was never going to give up the hostages, short of some unpalatable deal in which they remained in control of Gaza. And Israel was never going to allow that. As I said all along, when it came to these hostage negotiations brokered by the United States under President Trump,

all along, there was never going to be phase two. Phase two was not a possibility. Phase one was the release of certain hostages for a certain amount of time at a certain point that was going to hit the end of the road and Israel was going to have to go back in and finish off Hamas. And that appears to be what is happening right now, short of Hamas making some sort of major concessions by releasing more of the hostages. The media, by the way, are trash and continue to simply report whatever false numbers are put out by Hamas as soon as humanly possible. Well done to our legacy media who've been

eating up the propaganda like the like the latter end of the human centipede for decades now in this particular conflict. All right, coming up, we're going to jump into the Vaunted Ben Shapiro show mailbag. First, you have to become a member. We have so much great stuff. Pendragon is coming. And man, I've seen I've seen some of the cuts. Unbelievable. So good. Really like amazing, amazing stuff.

We've got everything. We've got Backstage Live. We've got Morning Wire. Am I racist? What is a woman? All of our other run, hide, fight. We've got all access with people like me. But the only way you can do any of that stuff and join us is to join Daily Wire Plus. If you're not a member, become a member. Use Coach Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.